19271128_reps_10_117.xml

<?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>1927-11-28</date>
    <parliament.no>10</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>3</period.no>
    <chamber>REPS</chamber>
    <page.no>2061</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <para class="block">House of Representatives. </para>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1927-11-28</day.start>
      <para>
        <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>
        <inline font-weight="bold">(Hon. Sir Littleton Groom)</inline>took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2061</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS</title>
          <page.no>2061</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXA</name.id>
              <electorate>HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the disposal of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers; but before doing so I wish to read the following extract from the <inline font-style="italic">Sun Pictorial</inline> of 26th November - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Lord Inchcape and Lord Kylsant are reported to be making keen inquiries regarding the Commonwealth Line of Steamers which has been offered for gale. Lord Kylsant controls 41 companies and Lord Inchape 32. The latter&#39;s interests are worldwide, whereas, apparently, Lord Kylsant has left a solitary gap, the freight service to Australia. Lord Kylsant recently negotiated the purchase of the White Star Line, making the Royal Mail Packet Coy. the largest owners of tonnage in the world. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In view of this statementI should like to know if any communication hasbeen received from Lord Kylsant or Lord Inchcape or any person representing their interests with regard to the disposal of the Line ? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate>FLINDERS, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- A cablegram was received from Lord Inchcape and also one either from Lord Kylsant direct or from some person representing him. The cablegram from Lord Inchcape was to the effect that he would be prepared to dispose of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers; that he had sold, I think, 600,000,000 tons of shipping for the British Government since the war, and would be prepared to act for the Commonwealth Government in this regard without remuneration. The cablegram from Lord Kylsant asked, in effect, if, in the event of any offer being made for the Line, the Commonwealth Government would undertake to indemnify the purchaser against loss should industrial troubles arise. To both cables I have replied that the Commonwealth Government proposes to offer the Line by public tender, and cannot in the meantime accept any other offer. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2082</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TARIFF BOARD</title>
          <page.no>2082</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Reports on Timber and Butter. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWT</name.id>
              <electorate>MORETON, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRANCIS, Josiah</name>
              <name role="display">Mr J FRANCIS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On Friday the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Prime Minister was good enough to indicate that the Government&#39;s tariff proposals would probably be debated this week. In these circumstances, I should like to know when it is proposed to table the Tariff Board&#39;s report on timber and butter? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The reports mentioned by the honorable member will be tabled to-day. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2082</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>ABRAHAMS TAXATION CASE</title>
          <page.no>2082</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate>YARRA, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I should like to know what action the Government proposes to take regarding the allegation that Emanuel Abrahams was permitted to breakthe law by being allowed to leave Australia before providing the bond demanded by the Taxation Department? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZO</name.id>
              <electorate>KOOYONG, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Attorney-General</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The officers of the Attorney-General&#39;s Department in Melbourne are, under my instructions, examining the judgment given by Judge Moule on Saturday, with a view to advising as to the proceedings proper in the circumstances. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2082</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>WATERSIDEWORKERS&#39; DISPUTE</title>
          <page.no>2082</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KJM</name.id>
              <electorate>BASS, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Mr JACKSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is reported in the press of Saturday that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lyons,</inline> the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Premier of Tasmania, suggests that the present shipping trouble may be overcome by convening a conf erence between representatives of the Commonwealth andof the State of Tasmania. I should like to know if the attention of the Prime Minister has been drawn to that statement, and whether it is proposed to hold such a conference; also whether the right honorable gentleman thinks that the holding of such a conference would be of any service at the present juncture? I should like to know, too, if, in the event of a strike occurring, the Government will take immediate action to take over the ships trading to Tasmania, and thus safeguard the tourist traffic for the coming season ? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have not seen any statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lyons</inline> suggesting a conference between the Commonwealth and the State, and I certainly do not wish to prejudice the position in any way by making a pronouncement before any suggestion is made. As to the maintenance of the service between Tasmania and the mainland in the event of serious industrial trouble resulting from the present dispute, I can only assure the honorable member that the Government will take whatever steps it may consider necessary. I remind him that on a previous occasion when communication between the mainland and Tasmania was disrupted the Commonwealth took very definite action. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVS</name.id>
              <electorate>DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I desire to ask the Prime Minister the following questions: - Has the Prime Mininster seen the telegraphed report from Hobart in the Sydney press to the effect that the Commonwealth Government was seeking to compel the Tasmanian Government to take action against the Waterside Workers&#39; Union in connexion with the existing dispute on the waterfront? Did the Prime Minister inform the Premier of Tasmania that he should use his influence with the Waterside Workers&#39; Union to end the dispute, and if such action proved ineffectual, the Tasmanian Government should prosecute the union. . Is not the dispute one which concerns an industry under the jurisdiction of the Federal Arbitration Court,and one, therefore, in which the Federal authorities should act without attempting to embroil a State Government? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2063</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have not seen the newspaper report referred to in the first and second portions of the honorable member&#39;s question, but it certainly does not give a fair representation of the action which the Commonwealth Government has taken in this matter. In response to a communication from the Premier of Tasmania I sent the following telegram :  - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Reply your telegram twenty-third, I ununderstand that court declines to deal with waterside workers&#39; dispute while union uses direct action and retains domestic rules inconsistent with awards. I am not prepared to take any steps in direction of suggesting to court that it should abandon an attitude so obviously right. According to my information complete responsibility for present position rests with union. I suggest that you should accordingly use your influence with the union. If for any reason you are not prepared to do this, or if it proves ineffective, the alternative of taking proceedings against the union or officers for offence under the Arbitration Act is open either to your Government or any interested person. My Government has not available precise detailed information upon which it could found a prosecution, but is quite prepared to prosecute under Arbitration Act or Crimes Act if legal evidence available. Would be glad if you would inform me on this. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In reply to the concluding portion of the honorable member&#39;s question, I may say that there are provisions in the Arbitration Act under which any person or government concerned can take proceedings if thought proper. The only action suggested by the Premier of Tasmania was that the Commonwealth Government should urge the Arbitration Court to deal with the claims made by the union, notwithstanding that the union or its memberswere doing what in the opinion of the court amounted to a deliberate flouting of the court. The Commonwealth Government has declined, and still declines, to take any action in this direction. Pull inquiries are being made into the matter, in order to see whether there is any action which the Commonwealth can usefully take. In the meantime, I suggest that if any members of this House have any influence with the union, whose apparently unjustifiable action threatens to bring about widespread unemployment and distress, they should use it to bring the union to a recognition of its responsibility. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GREAT BRITAIN AND EGYPT</title>
        <page.no>2063</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>2063</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JY7</name.id>
            <electorate>BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
            <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- Can the Prime Minister make any statement with regard to the recently reported conversations between the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of Egypt, and as to any results arising therefrom. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>2063</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>F4B</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter, except that the Commonwealth Government has been kept informed of the progress of those negotiations, which - I think I can quite properly say - have been of the most satisfactory character, and there is every prospect that they will result in a very definite and acceptable basis being arrived at for an agreement between Great Britain and Egypt. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2063</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CRYSTAL GLASS</title>
          <page.no>2063</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYV</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RILEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr E RILEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- When will the Minister for Trade and Customs table the Tariff Board&#39;s report on crystal glass? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Very shortly. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2063</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DEFERRED DUTIES</title>
          <page.no>2063</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JPV</name.id>
              <electorate>DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BLAKELEY, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BLAKELEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Minister for Trade and Customs had his attention drawn to the statements of manufacturers with regard to deferred duties in the tariff schedule which was laid on the table of the House last week, that probably twelve months&#39; supply of those articles which come under the deferred duties will be immediately imported into Australia, thus keeping back Australian industries for another year? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2063</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My attention has been drawn to those statements, but I have reason to believe that the position will not be so bad as is claimed. There is some misapprehension with regard to the duties that were recently tabled. Most of them come into immediate operation. Those which are deferred apply only to articles of which the manufacture has not, as yet, advanced very far in Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>INSPECTION OF OVERSEAS FOOD SHIPMENTS</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K4Y</name.id>
              <electorate>HERBERT, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NOTT, Lewis</name>
              <name role="display">Dr NOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Some three weeks ago I -directed a question to the Minister for Health seeking to ascertain the qualifications of the inspectors appointed to inspect overseas shipments of food. Is the honorable gentleman yet in a position to supply that information? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KI7</name.id>
              <electorate>CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Honorary Minister</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOWSE, Neville</name>
              <name role="display">Sir NEVILLE HOWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It has been a long, tedious inquiry, but I think the desired information will be available this week. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DISCUSSION OF ESTIMATES</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZK</name.id>
              <electorate>REID, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLEMAN, Percy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr COLEMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In view of the fact that the main function of Parliament is to control the finances, and that no explanation has been given by Ministers of the estimates of expenditure, which were rushed through the House on Friday last. - will the Prime Minister provide an opportunity for Ministers to reply to criticism on the following matters which, amongst others, were raised during the debate: The Public Service Board&#39;s attack on the Public Service Arbitrator, and on the political rights of public servants; the inadequacy of war service homes advances; repatriation grievances and anomalies; invalid and old-age pension anomalies, particularly those relating to the blind; and the extravagance and waste involved in the building and furnishing of residences at Canberra for the GovernorGeneral and the Prime Minister? Further, is it the intention of the Government, when carrying out the remainder of its legislative programme, to resort to the same unbusinesslike and somewhat discreditable procedure which characterized the passing of the Estimates? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order ! A question must not contain reflections of this nature. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Government does not propose to take any other than the customary action when putting Estimates through Parliament. Regarding the second part of the honorable member&#39;s question, I entirely dissent from his assumption that unbusinesslike methods were adopted. I assure honorable members that the Government will take what ever steps it deems necessary to ensure that its legislative programme is put through this Parliament. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>RULING BY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KJM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
              <name role="display">Mr JACKSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- At about 3 o&#39;clock on Friday morning last honorable members became involved in a tremendous argument regarding a certain ruling of the  Chairman  of Committees. In view of the fact that at least two of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees disagreed with that ruling, and subsequently voted with the minority on a motion to dissent from it, I ask you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> the following questions: - If, in committee, the question, &#34; That the first item of the Estimates be agreed to,&#34; were put from the Chair, and subsequently an amendment were moved thereto, what would be the position if the closure were applied? Would the question, &#34; That the question be now put,&#34; apply only to the amendment before the Chair, or to both the amendment and the original question ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is not usual to address questions to the  Speaker  with regard to the rulings of the  Chairman  of Committees. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CANBERRA</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Facilitating Answers to Questions</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYV</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RILEY, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr E RILEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Last week I asked a question about some administrative acts of the Department of Home and Territories. No reply has yet been given. As <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Butters and the other commissioners are on the spot, I ask the Minister for Home and Territories how long it will take to obtain a reply? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMW</name.id>
              <electorate>PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Minister of Home and Territories</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MARR, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MARR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I shall endeavour to have the answers to the honorable member&#39;s question expedited. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2064</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MENTAL DEFECTIVES</title>
          <page.no>2064</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2064</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K4Y</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NOTT, Lewis</name>
              <name role="display">Dr NOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Health, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What is the estimated number of mental defectives or sub-normals in (a) the Commonwealth, (b) each State, and (c) Federal Territory ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What is the number of such individuals recorded or registered in (a) each State, and (b) Federal Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What are the names and locations of any institutions, other than mental hospitals, where vocational and other training is offered to persons so afflicted and in connexion therewith, what is (a) thenumber now receiving institutional treatment,(b) the total number previously treated, and (c) the approximate cost of treatment for an individual? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What is the number of individuals in the Commonwealth convicted of penal offences who were classed as sub-normal? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Will he state the total number of persons in Australia now receiving treatment in registered mental hospitals and similar institutions, and will he further indicate what percentage of these inmates from infancy to adolescence gave a medical history of sub- normality or mental defectiveness? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>Will he, if such figures and records are not available, impress upon the various health authorities and other authorities concerned throughout the Commonwealth the urgent and important need of faithfully recording such important statistics? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KI7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOWSE, Neville</name>
              <name role="display">Sir NEVILLE HOWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I arn making inquiries to ascertain whether it is possible to obtain the information desired by the honorable member and shall give him whatever information is available as soon as possible. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2065</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>FEDERAL CAPITAL</title>
          <page.no>2065</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Schools - Research Farm - Leases Held By Chief Lands Officer</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXY</name.id>
              <electorate>EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PERKINS, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PERKINS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Home and Territories, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>How many public schools are there in the Federal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>How many public school teachers are employed in the Federal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>How many private schools are there in theFederal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>How many teachers are employed in the private schools ofthefederal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>How many pupils are enrolled at the various public schools in the Federal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>How many pupils ave enrolled at private schools in the Federal Capital Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>What facilities does the Territory provide for secondary education ? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MARR, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MARR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Fifteen. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Thirtv-three. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>One. 4.Eight. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>One thousand two hundred and sixtylive. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>Sixty-four. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>The public school a.t Telopea Park provides for free education up to the standard of school-leaving certificate, and the facilities providedare equal to those of the high schools established under the New South Wales system. Early next year the following facilities will be established at Telopea Park: - Junior technical school, domestic science school, trades school. An evening continuation school is already in operation&#39;. The only privately conducted school affording secondary education at present is the St. Gabriel&#39;s Church of England Girls&#39; Grammar School. Other bodies are in negotiation with the commission with the object of establishing privately conducted public schools for boys which would afford education up to the usual secondary standard. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLY</name.id>
              <electorate>BOURKE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Home and Territories, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>In connexion with the question of the honorable member for Bourke on the 15th instant (Hansard, page 1379), and the Minister&#39;s reply thereto in which he stated that seven blocks of land in Canberra are held by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. J.</inline> C. Bracken rug, the Chief Lands Officer of the Commission, and his wife, will the Minister state - </para>
            <list type="decimal-dotted">
              <item label="1.">
                <para>Were these seven blocks submitted to and obtained at public auction; if so, when? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="2.">
                <para>If not, how were they obtained? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="3.">
                <para>What price was paid for each block, and what is the present valuation? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="4.">
                <para>Were the conditions in regard to building within a specified time fulfilled in each intance? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="5.">
                <para>What other administrative officers of the commission are speculating with land under their control, and how many blocks are held in eacli instance? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="6.">
                <para>Is it intended to allow this practice to continue? </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2065</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MARR, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MARR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The information required by the honorable member is being obtained and will be made available as soonas possible. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2065</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>INSECT AND WEED PESTS</title>
          <page.no>2065</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZA</name.id>
              <electorate>EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">uponnotice -</inline> 1.Is it a fact that Dr.R. J. Tillyard, when interviewed in Auckland, said that the losses in Australia through insects and weeds were between &#163;.10,000,000 and&#163; 20,000,000; that the position was more serious than he had at first thought; that there were no co-ordinated efforts to combat either class of pest; and that he had suggested that the Commonwealth should embark on a comprehensive programme to deal with the problem? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="2.">
              <para>In view of the above statement, will he accept the notice of motion on the notice paper, standing in the name of the honorable member for East Sydney, to establish a. research farm and station in the Federal Capital Territory ? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2065</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>There is no information available regarding the alleged statements by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Tillyard</inline> in Auckland. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research is at present formulating plans for the establishment of laboratories at Canberra and local research stations elsewhere. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CELOTEX</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K4Y</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NOTT, Lewis</name>
              <name role="display">Dr NOTT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Whether ho will produce figures indicating, up to the present date, the quantity of celotex imported into Australia? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The information is not available as celotex is not recorded separately in the official import statistics. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>RADIUM</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZ6</name.id>
              <electorate>through Mr. Makin</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LACEY, Andrew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LACEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Health, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Will he give an understanding that, if any further supplies of radium are required by the Government, the Australian Radium Company will bc given an opportunity of supplying the requirements? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KI7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOWSE, Neville</name>
              <name role="display">Sir NEVILLE HOWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Government will carefully consider in all its aspects the purchase of any further supplies of radium. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN BORROWING</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that recently in the House of Commons, in reply to a question as to whether Great Britain can Continue to lend her resources to develop the enterprises of foreign countries, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Winston</inline> Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer) replied that he. had always been led to believe that such loans leave the country in the form of British goods ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>If so, will the Prime Minister state whether the reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in accordance with economic facts, and whether it would apply in the case of Australian loans? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>I have no information on the point. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>See answer to 1. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KEV</name.id>
              <electorate>through Mr. E. Riley</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FENTON, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FENTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Treasurer, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Whether he will inform the House of what rate of interest Australia is paying on the &#163;92,000,000 borrowed from Great Britain? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What rate of interest is the French Government paying to the British Government on money loaned to France? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What rate of interest is paid by the Italian Government to the British Government for money loaned to Italy? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Theanswers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Australia is paying Great Britain a total rate of6 per cent. per annum, of which &#163;418s. 4d. is on account of interest and&#163;1 ls. Sd. repayment of capital. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>and 3. France and Italy are to pay Great Britain certain annuities until 1987-88. These annuities are not based on the present debt plus interest, but are fixed sums which have been agreed upon by the parties. It is therefore not possible to say what rate of interest was allowed for in the computation of the annuities. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>EAST-WEST RAILWAY</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Hospital Accommodation forwomen. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
              <electorate>PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Works and Railways, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Hashe received requests from women&#39;s organizations for the provision, on the Great Western Railway, of hospital accommodation for women living on that line? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Have any steps been taken to comply with those requests, and, if so, what is the present position in the matter? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KHG</name.id>
              <electorate>ECHUCA, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works and Railways</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HILL, William</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HILL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>A medical fund, subsidized by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, is in operation which provides for medical attention and medicine free of charge to the men, women and children, and free hospital accommodaton when necessary at Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie, including special provision for women at those hospitals or at any approved maternity home. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2066</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>BUTTER BOUNTY</title>
          <page.no>2066</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Mr.FORDE (through <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline> Riley) asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>In view of the letters received by him from dairymen&#39;s associations in Queensland, asking him to support the decision of the Cooperative Butter and Cheese Factories Association of Victoria, at their recent conference, to approach the Federal Minister with a view to getting a bounty on all butter exported, and for a customs duty on imported butter and cheese, will he state whether a decision has been made by the Government, and, if not, when is it expected that the Government&#39;s intentions will be made known in regard to both of these matters ? </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2066</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The duty on butter and cheese was increased by the tariff resolutions submitted to the House on Thursday last. The question of a bounty on butter exported has not been considered. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ALLOWANCE POSTMASTERS</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remuneration</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JOS</name.id>
              <electorate>DARWIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the PostmasterGeneral, <inline font-style="italic">uponnotice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What are (a) the highest amounts, and </para>
              <list type="loweralpha">
                <item label="(b)">
                  <para>the lowest amounts, paid annually to postmasters or postmistresses in charge of allowance offices? </para>
                </item>
              </list>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>On what basis are the amounts paid determined? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAY</name.id>
              <electorate>CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Postmaster-General</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GIBSON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GIBSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The replies to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>There is no fixed minimum or maximum payment to an allowance postmaster. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Payment in each case is based on the amount of business transacted. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TIMBER</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4U</name.id>
              <electorate>through Mr. E. Riley</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FORDE, Francis Michael</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FORDE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice-</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What quantity of timber was imported to Australia in 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, 1925-20, 1926-27, and what was the value each year? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What was the class of timber imported each year ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Is it a fact that owing to the large importations oforegon pine there is a great depression in the Australian timber industry resulting in unemployment? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>If so, what action is being taken by his department to impose a higher tariff in order to protect adequately the local industry? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The information is being obtained. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Payments to Senator J. D. Millen</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRD</name.id>
              <electorate>through Mr. E. Riley</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCGRATH, David</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McGRATH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>What is the total amount paid by the Government to SenatorJ. D. Millen during the period he has been negotiating on behalf of the Government with the. Friendly Societies and the British Medical Association ? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The amount paid to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen</inline> was &#163;316. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH LINE OF STEAMERS</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Is it a fact, as stated in Sydney, that it is his intention to leave for England soon after the Estimates have been passed, and during his stay in England to endeavour to dispose of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PERTH OBSERVATORY</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Transfer to Commonwealth</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>With regard to the suggested transfer of the Perth Observatory to the Commonwealth Government - </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(1)">
                <para>Have any negotiations been entered into with the State Government? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(2)">
                <para>Can he make any statement as to the result of the negotiations, if any? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(3)">
                <para>As the State Government&#39;s decision to close the Observatory will take effect in about five weeks, will he endeavour to have the matter finalized before that periodhas elapsed ? </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The replies to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>No; but the Premier of Western Australia has been asked to advise on what conditions he would be prepared to transfer the Observatory grounds and apparatus in the event of such a transfer receiving the approval of the Commonwealth Government. No reply has yet been received from the Premier. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>See answer to No. 1. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>IMPORTS</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Will he furnish a. return showing the importations into Australia for the past five years of - </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>Wool tops ? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(b)">
                <para>Yarns - knitting and weaving. </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(c)">
                <para>Piece goods - woollen, worsted, and cotton tweeds ? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(d)">
                <para>Hosiery? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(e)">
                <para>Underwear, knitted? </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(f)">
                <para>Other knitted goods? </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The information is being obtained. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2067</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NATIONALITY ACT</title>
          <page.no>2067</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2067</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLM</name.id>
              <electorate>MELBOURNE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MALONEY, William</name>
              <name role="display">Dr MALONEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Attorney-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that Australian married women and minors ure associated with criminals and idiots in the definition clause of the <inline font-style="italic">Nationality Act</inline> 1920-1925? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Willhe provide Australian women, when married, and minors, with a separate definition sentence? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZO</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The replies to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>No. The definition of disability is as follows: - &#34;Disability&#39; meansthestatus of being a married woman, or a minor, lunatic, or idiot.&#34; This definition follows the wording of he British Act. There is no mention of &#34;criminals&#34; in the definition. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The matter will receive consideration. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2068</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>2068</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>CanberraAllowance. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>With regard to the present allowance paid to public servants at Canberra, will he give detailed information as to how this allowance was arrived at? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is it a fact that the allowance barely covers the increased rents payable in the Territory? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Will the Government have this matter reviewed with a view to considerably increasing the allowance so as to cover not only increased rents but also the high cost of living? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The replies to the honable member&#39;s questions are as follow :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The allowances were carefully determined from consideration of the relative cost of residences in Melbourne and Canberra, together with cost of living conditions. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>It is not known that this is a fact as a matter of general application, or in relation to houses of similar construction and accommodation. Moreover, the allowance is applicable to officers whopurchase houses as well as to those who rent them, and no distinction is made. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The Public Service Board, to whom the matter has been referred, advises that it is unable to recommend anyincrease in the amount of allowances payable under regulation97b. In the existing circumstances the Government does not propose to have the matter reviewed. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2068</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>IMPORTS</title>
          <page.no>2068</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the 26th October the honorable member for Henty <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Gullett)</inline> asked the following question :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>What proportion of the imports to the Commonwealth for the year1926-27 was admitted free? </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I amnow able to supply the honorable member with the following information :  - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The compilation of the information for 1926-27 will not be completed for some weeks. On completion I will supply this further information to the honorable member. </para>
            <para>The value and the proportion of the imports to the Commonwealth of goods admitted free during <inline font-style="italic">theyears</inline> . 1922-23 to 1925-26 were as follows :  - </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="117331192711283_7_0.jpg" />
          </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2068</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SALE OF HIDES</title>
          <page.no>2068</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the 3rd November the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. West)</inline> asked the following questions :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that buyers outside the local markets are paying high prices for hides for export, and that the local tanneries have to close down ? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is it a fact that the prices for sole leather have increased, with possible further increases? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Will he give consideration to preventing a shortage of hides for the local markets? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">I am now able to supply the honorable member with the following information :  - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Inquiry shows that high prices are being paid for hides for export which in some instances has reduced the volume of business of local tanneries, but it cannot be ascertained that any tanneries have had to close down. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The policy of the Government is not to place handicaps in the wayof our export trade. The manufacture of sole leather in Australia is protected by customs duties. The Australian market also has the benefit of the importation of large quantities of raw hides, which are admitted free of duty. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2068</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>EXPORTS OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS</title>
          <page.no>2068</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the loth November the honorable member for Capricorn ia <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Forde)</inline> asked the following questions :  - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>What is the quantity of exports, in tons, of (a) wool, (b) wheat, (c) sugar,(d) meat, (e) butter, (f) cotton, (g) cheese, (h) and all other primary products from Australia for the financial years ended 30thJune. 1926, and 30th June, 1927. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I <inline font-style="italic">urn</inline> now able to supply the honorable member with the following information :  - </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="117331192711283_8_0.jpg" />
          </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(h)">
              <para>(2) Remaining primary products for which the weight in tons is not available - </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="117331192711283_8_1.jpg" />
          </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2069</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DIAMOND LAND IN SOUTH AFRICA</title>
          <page.no>2069</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the 23rd November the honorable member for Melbourne <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Maloney)</inline> asked me the following questions, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a. fact that when diamonds are discovered in South Africa on public or state owned lands, the South African Government reserves one-half of the value and. apportions the other half to the discoverer? 2.Is it a fact that when such discovery is made upon privately-owned lands, the South African Government reserves one-half of the value and apportions one-quarter to the owner and discoverer respectively? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Is it a fact that the South African Government claims a large percentage of the gold produced in South Africa? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>If so, will the Commonwealth Government consider obtaining the statutory power to apply a similar principle in regard to the discovery of mineral oils in Australia? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">I now desire to inform the honorable member - 1, 2, and 3. Inquiry has been made, but there is no information in the department on these points. </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="4.">
              <para>See answer to questions 1, 2, and 3. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2069</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>POSTMASTER-GENERAL&#39;S DEPARTMENT</title>
          <page.no>2069</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Reclassification</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the 24th November the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> asked me the following questions, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Will the Public Service Board undertake to publish the reclassification of theelectrical section of the Engineer&#39;s Branch, PostmasterGeneral&#39;s Department, before the end of December 1927? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Immediately upon the publication of the reclassification, will the board make available before Christmas, the increment of &#163; 17 as from the 1st July, 1926, to all officers entitled to have their salaries advanced to &#163;300 per annum ? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">I am now in a position to furnish the information - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The board is issuing instructions, which, as far as is practicable, will achieve this result? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>EX-SENATOR DE LARGIE</title>
          <page.no>2070</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2070</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRUCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On the 17th November  the honorable member for Kalgoorlie <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. A. Green)</inline> asked the following questions, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Has ex-Senator de Largie been appointed by any board or commission under Government control in any official or semi-official position in Great Britain? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>If so- </para>
              <list type="loweralpha">
                <item label="(a)">
                  <para>By whom was he appointed? </para>
                </item>
                <item label="(b)">
                  <para>What was the nature of the appointment? </para>
                </item>
                <item label="(c)">
                  <para>For what period has he been appointed, and at what remuneration ? </para>
                </item>
              </list>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that in reply to a cablegram sent to the High Commissioner in London on the subject, I have received advice that ex-Senator de Largie has not been appointed to any position in the High Commissioner&#39;s Office, the offices of the Agents-General for the States, or the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers there. The High Commissioner adds that he is unaware that ex-Senator de Largie has been appointed to any other official or semi-official position in Great Britain, by any board or commission under government control. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TARIFF BOARD REPORTS: PAPERS</title>
          <page.no>2070</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2070</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1J</name.id>
              <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>Minister for Trade and Customs</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I lay on the table reports by the Tariff Board dealing with butter and cheese; domestic kitchen ware; timber; socks and stockings; pianos, player pianos, and keyboards; glucose; piece goods, knitted in tubular form or otherwise; plain linoleum; fur strips; and gramophone records (disc type only), and move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the reports be printed. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2070</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYV</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
                <party>ALP</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RILEY, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr E RILEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Other reports submitted to the Minister have not yet been laid on the table of the House. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2070</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1J</name.id>
                <electorate>MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRATTEN, Herbert</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PRATTEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They will be laid on the table to-morrow. I am purposely acting in this way in order not to overwhelm the staff of the Government Printing Office. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Government Printer and his staff at Canberra for having done so well with the work of printing of these reports. It is a big undertaking. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>The following papers were also presented :  - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Superannuation Act - Fifth Report of the Superannuation Fund Management Board. 1926-27. </para>
            <para>Tariff Board Act - Tariff Board Reports and Recommendations - </para>
            <para>Butter and Cheese. </para>
            <para>Domestic Kitchen ware. </para>
            <para>Fur Strips. </para>
            <para>Gramophone Records (Disc Type only). </para>
            <para>Glucose. </para>
            <para>Pianos, Player Pianos, and Keyboards. Piece Goods, Knitted, in Tubular Form, or Otherwise. Plain Linoleum. Socks and Stockings. Timber. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Ordered to be printed. </para>
          <para>Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Australia Act - </para>
          <para>Central Australia - Ordinances of 1927 - </para>
          <para>No. 12 - Supreme Court(No. 2). </para>
          <para>No. 13 - Slaughtering (No. 2). </para>
          <para>North Australia - Ordinances of 1927 - </para>
          <para>No. 12 - Supreme Court(No. 2). </para>
          <para>No. 13 - Slaughtering (No. 2). </para>
          <para>Public Service Act -List of Permanent Officers of the Commonwealth Service on 30th June, 1927. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LEAVE OF ABSENCE</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>leave of absence</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bruce),</inline><inline font-style="italic">by leave,</inline> agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That leave of absence for one month be given to the honorable member for Parramatta <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bowden ) , on the ground of urgent public business.</inline></para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL</title>
        <page.no>2070</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>2070</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 15th November <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 1400), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Earle</inline> Page - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2071</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate>Yarra</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- This is a bill to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act, which authorizes the collection of the tax. Therefore, a measure of this description opens up many genera&#93; considerations as to the method of collecting the tax, and the amount of tax required. In his second reading speech, as well as in the budget speech, the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Earle Page)</inline> announced a reduction of 10 per cent, iri the rate of income tax. In addition to that, this bill provides for many concessions regarding income tax, some of which I believe are desirable, and others in my judgment, are not. The whole of these concessions, together with the proposed. 10 per cent, reduction, are estimated to result in a loss of revenue for the ensuing -financial year of about &#163;1,300,000. This tax was really imposed as a war measure. It was passed in war time to help to meet the extraordinary cost of the war, but. mainly to provide the interest on the war debt then being incurred. We should ask ourselves whether the war obligation has ended, since it is proposed to make such severe cuts in the revenue derived from income taxation. We read statements by outside bodies - and it is also suggested in this House-*-that it is time the Commonwealth abandoned the field of income taxation. It is argued that this tax was imposed during the war for war purposes, and that now the war is over the tax should be abolished, and the Commonwealth should vacate the field. There might be some merit in that argument if our war obligations had ended with the war; but they did not. The Treasurer remarked recently that war expenditure from revenue was higher this year than in any previous period. Yet he proposes to reduce the revenue from income taxation by &#163;1,300,000. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I propose to consider the subject, of tax concessions and reductions in the light of a few comparative figures, and I intend to be brief, because I do not desire to traverse again what was said during the budget debate. In 1921-22 the income tax yielded &#163;16,790,000, and it is estimated that during the current financial year it will give only &#163;9,800,000, a reduction of about &#163;7,000,000. At the same time the interest on the war debt, which, in 1921-22, amounted to &#163;18,075,000, is estimated for the current year to amount to &#163;17,822,000- a reduction of only about &#163;250,000. It must be remembered that our total debt increased during the period under review because of the necessity for reducing certain war - debts. The total interest payable in 1921-22 was &#163;18,976,000, and for the current year it will be &#163;21,539,000, or an increase of about &#163;2,500,000, notwithstanding the fact that income taxation will have been reduced by &#163;7,000,000. Of course, the Treasurer may say that reduction of taxation is creditable to his administrative capacity; but he can take very little comfort from, that fact when he realizes that indirect taxation, which amounted to &#163;49,678,000 in 1921-22, is expected to amount, in the current financial year, to &#163;5S.550,000, an increase of approximately &#163;9,000,000. At the same time the total expenditure from revenue has increased from &#163;64,195,000 to &#163;75,812,000, an increase of &#163;11,617,000. Our public debt has grown. Indirect taxation has gone up; our war obligations are still with us: and yet it is proposed to relieve from taxation the very persons who should first be called upon to meet some of the obligations of the war. I direct attention to.an arresting statement of the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce),</inline> who, when speaking at Northam, Western Australia., according to a report in the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> of the 14th July last, said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Thu time would come when the customs revenues would drop, and drop heavily, and then the Commonwealth would get a rude shock, and require a re-orientation of ideas. &#171;1 thoroughly agree with the Prime Minister. He spoke on that occasion .in one of his lucid moments; but lids statement, does not, fit in with his policy. Many persons, both outside this House and within it - and I am one of them - believe in greater protection for Australian industries, and at the same time they demand that the Commonwealth shall retire from the field of direct taxation. Yet they know that if effective protection were brought about, less revenue would be derived through the customs. These persons, as the Prime </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Minister said, will require a reorientation of ideas; they will receive a rude shock when the revenue from customs does drop heavily. Australia has had a succession of excellent seasons for over a decade. Everywhere we have had signs of prosperity; but we are facing a period that does not look so prosperous as the immediate past has been.- The coming financial year does not promise to be so bright from any point of view, public or private. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2072</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYV</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
                <party>ALP</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RILEY, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr E RILEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The new tariff will provide increased revenue. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2072</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It will not be as effective as it ought to be. If it were, it would yield less revenue than in the past. Too great a desire has been shown to build up preferential trade with Great Britain rather than develop Australian industries. During recent years lavish expenditure has been indulged in both publicly and privately. In prosperous times tlie Government ought not to increase, even if it should fail to reduce, its indebtedness: because in lean years the burden of the interest bill will be more keenly felt. There should be a reversion to the policy of paying for certain works out of revenue, instead of from the Loan Fund, and direct taxation should be maintained at its present level instead of being reduced by &#163;1,300,000 in respect of income tax and by a further &#163;500,000 in respect of land tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I again urge, as I have done for some years, the need for a. fuller consideration of our taxation measures. Not for a number of years have those measures been the subject of a full and proper discussion. If honorable members will review the conditions that have obtained in the last five or six years when amendments of our taxation law have been brought forward, they will find that frequently the discussions have taken place during all-night sittings, when honorable members have been either altogether or half asleep. That is not a commendable method of dealing with legislation. The result has been that each succeeding year further amendments have been found essential, and the effect upon the revenue has been somewhat disastrous, because clever tax dodgers who are in a position to pay for the services of astute agents and to bear the financial burden of litigation have been able to relieve themselves of a large measure of their responsibility, whilst others who are not similarly well placed financially, have been compelled to contribute more than their fair proportion. I admit that taxation legislation is perhaps the most difficult to grasp, and it must, therefore, be the most difficult to draft; but it should not be beyond, the genius of our draughtsmen to prepare legislation that will express the intention of Parliament, instead of being open to successful attack whenever tested. During &#34;the last -five or six years there has been a continual patching up of holes that have been driven in the law. We are now asked to repair another Haw. The Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Earle Page)</inline> has referred to the case <inline font-style="italic">Weatherley</inline> v. <inline font-style="italic">Commissioner of Taxation.</inline> One of the learned judges who heard that case strongly favoured the department; but he had a majority of the court against him. If honorable members will read the arguments of counsel, and particularly the judgments of the Chief Justice, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice&#39;</inline> Isaacs and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins, they will realize how the vague phraseology of the law lends itself to the spinning of cobwebs of legal argument, and consequent escape from taxation, and that my contention&#34; that there should be a more ample discussion of these measures by Parliament is amply justified. I draw the attention of honorable members to what I consider a just criticism of our methods, uttered by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins in the course of his judgment. That learned judge said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Owing to the patchwork character of successive amendments of the act it is very dillicult, if not impossible, to discover one consistent, harmonious scheme throughout the act. The practice seems to be to stuff up every hole in the act as it appears. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I agree that that has been the practice. Before any attempt is made to reduce the amount of revenue obtained from the taxation of incomes, the Government should by every means try to devise, as far as practicable equitable methods of levying taxation. Although it is not possible to make the taxation law absolutely equitable, I am convinced that it can be made more equitable than it is to-day. Previous attempts to have that done have provoked the rejoinder that it would occasion a loss of revenue. When an agreement has been reached upon the policy to be adopted, and a decision has been arrived at ns to who should bear the burden, the rate for each class should bc the same for all who fall within that class. </para>
          <para>In this bill an attempt is being made to extend the averaging principle by permitting losses to be carried forward. The Treasurer indicated in his second-reading speech that in committee he would submit a number of averaging schemes that had been considered by the Taxation Department. Honorable members can visualize what is likely to happen. The numerous suggestions that the Treasurer has in his possession will be thrown on the table, perhaps in the midst of a warm and an animated discussion of principles, and no honorable member will have sufficient time to grasp their significance. Why cannot those that have been submitted to and examined by the department, and pronounced upon by experienced officers, be placed before honorable members in memorandum form so that they may have a week or so in which to consider them and arrive at an intelligent judgment of their relative merits? The clause will probably go through exactly as it has been drafted because the rule of party, and not that of common sense or of justice, will apply. No person willingly pays taxation, but I believe that the majority of people realize that it must be imposed to enable the government of the country to be carried on. The most prolific cause of irritation is the feeling that one is paying comparatively a greater tax than others who earn a similar income. Under the existing system, the income is averaged over a period of five years for the purpose of ascertaining not the amount upon which tax shall be paid, but the rate which shall be charged on the tax- able income in any particular year. It is really an averaging of rates, not of income. In addition to that, it is now proposed by the Treasurer to take a step further, and carry forward losses into the averaging period. This, I submit, does not more than touch the fringe of the problem. No relief will be given to men with practically no income, or a very small income, in one year, and with a large income in other years. Nothing less than a scheme of averaging incomes will bring about a measure of justice. It is true that an averaging for five years will not be perfect, but it will be nearer perfection than if each year were taken separately. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2073</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KJM</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Jackson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If aman has a large income one year and a small income another will not the tax he pays over a period of years average out nearly right?. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2073</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is a statement which is frequently made. It is said by those w-ho favour that view that over a period of years the taxpayer will receive at least a rough measure of justice. But I have made many tests myself, and I find that although on the surface that arrangement looks fair enough, actually it is not fair. Taking actual and supposititious cases, it will be found that under the present system men with irregular incomes, averaging over a period of five years, say, &#163;1,000, pay sometimes more and sometimes less than those with a regular income of &#163;1,000 a year. So far as I have been able to determine from the tests which I have made, I believe that the system of averaging to arrive at the rate of tax applicable, is further from justice than the old system. Under the existing system a man with a diminishing income will pay more than a man receiving regularly an income which is the same as the average of the diminishing income, and, on the other hand, a man with an increasing income pays less. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2073</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KJM</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Jackson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If his average income remains high, he will, at the end of the period, be paying equally heavily. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2073</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Let the honorable member take his ready reckoner and work out the income payable under the system of averaging to fix the rate of taxation as operating in the existing Income TaxAct, and he will find that the man with a diminishing income will pay more than the man with a regular income. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2073</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is it not a fact that all these suggestions were exhaustively examined by the royal commission, which eventually came to the conclusion that the averaging of incomes to determine the rate of tax was better than the system of charging tax on the average income. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is true that the commission was in favour of the averaging to determine the rate of tax, but its recommendation was not unanimous. A minority favored a different method. I believe that evidence could be secured to support the view that the averaging of incomes should be preferred. As the existing system does not work out fairly to the man on an irregular income, we should endeavour to substitute another which will provide as substantial a measure of justice as possible. I still maintain that a man on a diminishing income is placed at a disadvantage under the existing system. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There is a special provision to cover permanently diminishing incomes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so; but where no evidence can be produced of a permanentdimination of income, the special provision does not operate. However, we can argue that better when we come to the clause in committee. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I, too, reserved details for the committee stage. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do npt say that the Treasurer should have given us more details in his second-reading speech, but I say that the schemes which he has examined should have been made available to honorable members for consideration weeks before we were called on to discuss the measure. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I protest strongly against the amendment proposed in this bill relating to company taxation. The Treasurer, in his second- reading speech, said that it was proposed to refrain from compelling companies to pay indirectly the income tax payable by an absentee shareholder. This provision, he said, was a very wide one. I agree that it is. I consider that it is a pernicious discrimination against Australian shareholders. &#34;While the absentee shareholder will not be taxed, the Australian shareholder will be taxed. There is a reciprocal arrangement with the British Government which provides for certain rebates to avoid double taxation, but if this amendment is carried, that arrangement will be done away with, and the position will be this : that while the United Kingdom taxes Australian residents on profits made in Britain, British residents who derive in come from Australia will not be fully taxed. There is no reciprocity a.bout that, and it is absolutely unfair. If the United Kingdom taxes residents in Australia on profits made in Britain, Australia is entitled to do the same thing to residents in Britain who draw profits from Australia. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Britain does not tax Australian residents in respect of profits made in Britain. Britain taxes on the principle of the flag. A person residing in Britainpays on income derived from any part of the world; but a person not residing in Britain is not taxed on <inline font-style="italic">profits</inline> made there. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The British income tax is imposed on all profits of a company, and all profits are taxed before they are distributed, whether they are sent to British or Australian taxpayers. These profits are taxed in the hands of the company, and at full company rates. The British resident receives a rebate on the company tax, but there is no such rebate for the Australian resident. I think the British tax was 4s. 6d. in the&#163;1, but the rate may have been reduced since. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I suggest that the exact position in Great Britain should be shown in the statement. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2074</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think so. In the United Kingdom an Australian or any resident shareholder in a British company pays income tax. It is paid by the company, and is rebated only when a British shareholder can show that he has paid the tax. The United Kingdom collects tax at a high rate from. Australian residents on British profits; and from British residents on Australian profits; yet we are to receive only the ls. company tax on Australian profits. Great Britain is getting the tax both ways. The Treasurer put up a plea for the absentees. He said that the purpose of the bill is to attract outside capital to this country. The same argument is used to justify the Government&#39;s policy of overseas borrowing, but how far is it to go? We can have too much outside capital brought in to exploit the resources of this country. Certain countries are to-day preparing to take up arms because of outside capital exploiting their territories. Our laws are not like those of the </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Medes and Persians, and we cannot lay it down that at all costs we must obtain outside capital. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- By bringing in outside capital we may drive Australian capital outside. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And particularly so when discrimination is used against Australian capital in favour of outside capital, as is proposed tinder the bill. Why not tax absentee shareholders just as we tax Australian shareholders? If the absentees are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, as is argued by the Treasurer, I submit that the company is not. We should tax in such cases at the source as Britain does. Let me pursue that argument further. The Treasurer says that by treating absentees liberally, and exempting them from tax we shall attract capital here. What about the big land companies which have monopolies of large areas of Australian soil? Some of them have done good work in the development of this country; but others have done harm in blocking progress that has more than counterbalanced the good. On the same principle should not absentee land-owners be exempt from land tax? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Duncan-Hughes</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are not exempt at present. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And they should not be exempt. The Treasurer&#39;s argument is illogical. If land-owners are to evade income tax, they should, on his reasoning, evade land tax also. The Treasurer also suggested that in respect of a company registered and controlled outside Australia, all its money is taken out of the country, and, therefore, the company cannot ba compelled to pay absentee shareholders&#39; tax. I do not know that that supports the argument that the exemption favours bringing capital into this country. His next statement, relates to a company that is registered and controlled in Australia, and contains the most peculiar argument that I have ever heard submitted. He said - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The Government considers thoi, as the absentee is generally heavily taxed in his own country, and as there arc very few absentees who are shareholders in purely Australian companies, it is good policy to exempt the absentee shareholder from the Australian tax. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The Treasurer has given too many and too varied reasons. He has laboured the subject, and one argument has cancelled another. Some companies are outside the jurisdiction of Australia, and, therefore, he argues that that is a strong reason for not taxing them. Then others are within Australian jurisdiction, but because they are few in number, and, in any case, heavily taxed in Great Britain, they should be exempt from taxation. Further, he says that it is good policy to attract British capital to Australia. If the last reason is sound, and it is good policy to attract outside capital, why put forward the other reasons? He says that the &#39;companies not outside Australian jurisdiction are few. If they were many would he tax them, and would he then throw aside what he thinks the sound policy of encouraging outside capital? All these reasons are given simply to buttress a case that cannot be substantiated. In justice to this country, profits earned by every company operating in Australia should be taxed, whether the shareholders are resident here or elsewhere. It is an outrageous policy to exempt absentees and to increase the tax on Australians to make up the deficiency in revenue caused by that exemption. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is  not the slightest justification for that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is simply financial imperialism run mad, and this House should not stand for that class of legislation. I ask honorable members behind the Government are they prepared to come out boldly and declare that they stand for absentees as against our own people. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>That brings me to another consideration. I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Government to certain inequities in regard to income taxation.  and I shall continue to do so until they are remedied. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr West</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Until a change of Government takes place. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2075</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Exactly. Take, for instance, the company tax in Australia. In 1913 a flat rate of ls. in the &#163;1 was imposed, and every shareholder, of course, pays that by virtue of being interested in a company; hut some of them receive a rebate, and others do not. The shareholders who have a taxable income receive a rebate, but those who have no taxable income receive no rebate, and  pay ls. in the &#163;1. I claim that that procedure vitiates the whole principle of income tax graduation, and abolishes exemptions as far as the latter are concerned. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Any person who is able to invest in companies, even if the profit he receives is small, should contribute something to the revenue of the country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On what ground? Wealthy shareholders, who have incomes apart from that received from the company, receive the rebate, but the shareholder . with a small income receives no consideration at all. As an illustration I may cite the case of two persons, one with an income of &#163;1,000 a year, and another with an income of &#163;100 a year, derived entirely from dividends from the same source. The person recei ving &#163;1,000 a year pays a rate of ls. in &#163;1. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  He pays more. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is approximately 1s. The person in receipt of an income of &#163;100 a year from the same source also pays ls. in the &#163;1, which is most unfair. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I do not think the honorable member is stating the position quite correctly. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think I am. The person who draws &#163;1,000 a year from a company in the form of dividends - assuming the rate of ls. in the &#163;1 to be correct- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Receives a rebate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes- of ls. from his income taxation. The company pays ls. in the &#163;1 on the profits, and when the profits are distributed, the shareholder receives a. rebate of ls. in the &#163;1, and, therefore, pays no direct income tax at all, as he has paid that amount as a shareholder. Another person, who receives an income of &#163;100 a. year from dividends, receivesno rebate whatever, because he has not a taxable income. Therefore he pays tax although he should be exempt from taxation. No one can say that that, is right. The excuse put forward is that the taxation is paid not by the taxpayer, but by the company. Let us examine the fallacy of such an assertion. How can it be said that a shareholder in a company does not pay what the company pays? A shareholder is responsible for every charge made against the company to the extent to which he is interested. If we accepted the statement at its face value, that the individual does not pay the tax because it is paid by the company, why is the proportion of tax paid by the company rebated to the shareholder in receipt of a taxable income? If the shareholder does not pay the tax, why should he be allowed a rebate? A shareholder with an income of &#163;1,000 a year is given a rebate of ls. in the &#163;1, because the company has paid the tax; a shareholder who has not a taxable income receives no such rebate. Under the British law a. person in receipt of &#163;100 from dividends could, on the production of a warrant, on the basis of a. rate of ls. in the &#163;1, receive a refund of &#163;5. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In New South Wales3s in the &#163;1 is paid by companies, and there is no rebate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is wrong. I again protest against the application of examples of what others are doing. The Commonwealth Government should not be guided by what other governments are doing, but should place its own house in order. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KJM</name.id>
                <electorate>BASS, TASMANIA</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">JACKSON, David</name>
                <name role="display">Mr JACKSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The honorable member suggests that, as the company pays the tax, the rebate should not be given. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I maintain that the rebate should be given to every shareholder, large or small, who has received income in the form of dividends. I do not believe in double taxation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The small man should be able to obtain a. refund from the department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2076</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Government may remedy the injustice in whatever way itlikes. It can abolish the system of taxation at the source, and tax only the individual, which is the best method. There are, however, occasions when taxation at the source is necessary, as in the case of absentees. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I come now to another omission from the bill. No attempt has been made to readjust the wrong that has been done by the exemption of taxation upon income from bonus shares distributed from reserves, which I believe was put into operation in 1922. How long is the Government  going to continue to relieve a section from taxation, whilst taxing others because they are not drawing dividends in the form of bonus shares? There are, roughly, four classes of bonus shares that I know of, which include bonus shares issued from capital assets written up, and those issued from profits of sales of capital assets. These, I think, are properly exempt from taxation, because they represent au accretion of capital, and cannot be regarded as income. There are two other classes which consist of those issued from profits put to reserve, and those issued from current profit. On the profits of a company a flat rate of ls. in the fi is paid, and when these profits are distributed as dividends they are followed into the hand of the individual, and taxed at the individual rate, on which a rebate of ls.&#34; is allowed, as I have explained. That applies not only to cash distributions of dividends, but also to bonus shares issued out of current profits. It does not apply to bonus shares issued out of reserve. Surely there is no difference between bonus shares issued out of reserve profits - not out of accumulated capital assets - and cash dividends issued out of accumulated profits. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Such profits have paid the company tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have said that ; but they have not paid the tax they ought to pay in the hands of the individual. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are never in the shareholders&#39; hands. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are in his hands when the bonus shares are issued. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Such shareholders pay taxation on the returns from those shares. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But does that justify the exemption ? The Treasurer contends that because a person receives bonus shares out of reserve he is taxed upon the profits that the bonus shares earn. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They have already paid a company tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What of the bonus shares issued from current profits? Cannot they be regarded as in. the same category? Have not a company&#39;s profits paid ls. in the fi in the form of company tax? Do they not pay income tax upon the profits they earn as bonus shares? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>If they are issued out of this year&#39;s profits they are taxed; but that :&#39;j not the case if issued out of last- -- :ars profits. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANNING, Arthur</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Manning</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the profits <inline font-style="italic">Ave</inline> made and placed to reserve, are they not charged income tax on the year in which the profits are made? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Only at the company rate of ls. in the fi. That is the point I am making. The next year they are distributed, and a person may be liable to. 5s. in the fi, but pay nothing. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think the honorable member is basing his argument upon an act which has been amended. If he will refer to section 16 of the present act, he will find that the position has been varied. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- When was the act amended? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think iu 1924. The law concerning the distribution of the profits of a current year has since been amended. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2077</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not, think it has; but that is a point which I can discuss in committee. As a further illustration, I may take the case of two persons each receiving &#163;10,000 a year, one of whom is  an individual proprietor of a business, and the other a shareholder in a public company. The individual proprietor would pay &#163;2,400 in taxation, and the shareholder in a company, assuming that one-third of the profits were placed to reserve, would pay ls. in the &#163;1 on that portion of them, the balance being taxed at the individual rate. One person would thus pay &#163;2,400, and the other one, with the same income, &#163;1,500. Persons engaged in the same class of business may pay income taxation of different amounts. Can any one justify such  discrimination  ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I am in entire agreement with the provision for the valuing of sheep distinct from, the valuing of their wool. The value of the wool under the present proposal, will be included in the  pastoralists&#39;s  income. If it were taken into account on the sheep&#39;s back it would probably mean that the pastoralist would have to pay double  taxation.  I agree that such an exemption is reasonable and just, and removes an anomaly from the present act. </para>
          <para>I come now to another concession, which, although 1 agree with it, does notremove an anomaly. It violates a principle of income taxation, but it is nevertheless justified. I refer to deductions for expenditure on certain improvements such as clearing scrub, &#38;c. Undoubtedly such improvements as wire netting and wire fencing involve capital expenditure, and Parliament exempted such expenditure from taxation some time ago. Special argument can be adduced in favour of such policy, but not in favour of that which the Treasurer has submitted. He said that such improvements would lead to increased productivity, and that in consequence increased income taxation would be collected. If such an argument is reasonable, should not the same consideration be extended to a person who spends capital on the improvement of his factory, expenditure which also leads to increased productivity. Should not capital expenditure of that nature also be exempt? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOSTER, Richard</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Foster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In the first case mentioned by the honorable member, the land would probably be valueless without such improvements. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But in both cases capital expenditure would lead to increased productivity. We should do everything possible to encourage settlers to put their land to its best use, instead of allowing it to remain idle. As there are millions of acres of land in Australia not being put to any use at all, I would favour the land tax on unimproved land values being increased, and the amount of exemption under our Income Tax Act also being increased in proportion to the improvements effected. I believe in penalizing those who do not use the land to the best advantage, and encouraging those who are doing their utmost to increase the productivity of the soil. Those are the strong grounds, upon which these exemptions, can be made. The trouble with all these concessions is that they cannot be applied equitably The big man again gets the best of things. Suppose that a man with a lucrative business makes a side-line of farming, or the conduct of a pastoral property, and spends &#163;500 in clearing his Mock. If he had an income of &#163;5,000, he would be allowed to deduct that &#163;500 from his income, which would make a considerable reduction in histax. Another man might have an income of only &#163;500, from a little farm. He spends the whole, or nearly the whole, of that &#163;500 in clearing off scrub and rubbish. Such a man, of course, would not have to pay any income tax, or very little; but in any case his taxation would amount- only to &#163;7 or &#163;S. Therefore, for the same service, the big man secures an advantage of, perhaps, &#163;50 as against the &#163;7 or &#163;S of advantage secured by the little man. I admit that the problem is a difficult one, and that a similar difficulty applies to the concessions for children and wives. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  To overcome the difficulty it is necessary to have a graduated system. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Exactly; a system providing a pro. rata deduction. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Then there are the exemptions for gifts, Why should the exemption be limited to gifts &#174;f &#163;5 or more. The donor has cast on him the onus of proving that he made the donation on which he claims, and I certainly think that the concession should apply to amounts smaller than &#163;5. I do not contend for a <inline font-style="italic">reductio ad absurdum,</inline> but the Treasurer could make the exemption more generous by giving it to those donating small sums. Very often the person who gives &#163;1 or 10s. is more generous than the giver of &#163;5. 1 am glad that the minimum tax payable has been reduced from &#163;1 to 10s. I understand that the minimum in Victoria is 5s. - I do not know what it is in other States. As the States now collectboth taxes, why not make the minimum uniform? Certainly the &#163;1 minimum was oppressive in some cases, and the alteration to 10s. will be a relief. </para>
          <para>To sum up my argument in a few words, the bill removes some anomalies, but it does not touch greater anomalies, and injustices, to some of which I have referred. There are proposed amendments, which are necessary to safeguard the revenue. Of such we approve. Some of the concessions are reasonable. Some are not; in particular, the concession to absentee share-holders earning profits in Australia. A closer examination of the bill will have to be made in committee, and an endeavour made to close up  some of the holes that have been driven into the act. Even the very measure by which we are tightening up the law will have to be examined more closely in committee. I hope that, when the bill reaches that stage, we shall have ample time to thrash out every question, because the clauses of taxation bills are not only important, but are exceedingly involved. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2079</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYI</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Five years ago, or thereabouts, a consolidated income tax act was passed, by this House. It was then said that that would be about the last amendment of the income tax law that would be needed for a considerable time. The bill now before the House indicates that several amendments have been found to be necessary. The Treasurer has suggested the removal of a considerable number of anomalies in the bill. Before a reduction of taxation is granted to the taxpayers of Australia, the system </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Applied to its incidence should be put on a more equitable basis, which, I claim, is possible. I am not sure that there should bc a reduction, nor am I convinced that the reduction of the minimum from &#163;1 to 10s. is justified at such a time as the present. One very reasonable and proper alteration is proposed in the bill, the absence of which has caused much heartburning in the past. When a sheep is shorn it takes about twelve months for the wool to grow again on its back. If a person buys a sheep off the shears he buys merely the sheep, not the wool. If he buys the sheep twelve months later, just before it is shorn, he buys the sheep in the wool, so that the price paid is practically double that paid for the same sheep off the shears. Hitherto the Taxation Department has merely considered the amount paid for the sheep, and has not considered the sale of the wool on its back. This bill proposes to alter that. Now, under the amendment, if a person buys the wool on a sheep&#39;s back it is treated similarly to the wool bought in the bale, which I consider to be very proper. I am glad that the Treasurer recognizes that a sheep in the wool and one off the shears are in different categories. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- So are the store and fat bullocks. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The purchaser has to fatten that bullock. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And he has to feed the sheep. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is why he buys it more cheaply than when in the wool. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How does the honorable member discriminate between that and the buying of a store bullock? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2079</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If a man retains that store bullock and afterwards sells it as a fat bullock the transaction is similar to buying a sheep off the shears and selling in the wool. He  merely costs  it up at the low price paid, but the analogy of the bullock and the disposal of the wool is different. In the one case you may have a fat sheep with a full fleece of wool. It is the wool that counts. A nearer analogy would be the purchase of laud with timber on it. It may be the value of the timber that counts. As the landis depleted of timber the asset depreciates. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I do not agree with the Treasurer that the Income Tax Act at present provides for the minimum in administration costs except where the Federal and State departments have been brought practically under the one roof and administered by the same 3taff. Clause 13, which was referred to by the honorable member for yarra  (M1*-  Scullin), and which deals with the averaging system, would, if admitted, permit of great saving in administration being effected. I have prepared certain tables illustrating many cases in which  injustice  has been done, and demonstrating how my proposed amendment could work, and give equity within five years. I cannot understand the statement in the report of the royal commission referring to extreme injustice being caused by earmarking or  watertighting  the income of one year, apart from the preceding and succeeding years. The graduating of rates was agreed upon by this House, and no doubt injustices occurred where people received irregular incomes. In 1921, on a motion for  adjournment moved by the honorable member for Lilley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Mackay),</inline> this House considered the advisability of a five-years&#39; averaging of income, and agreed to the scheme. Subsequently it initiated a system of averaging, which was not on incomes and which still showed serious injustices. In a later year, thethen Treasurer, now the right honorable the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bruce)</inline> introduced a further amendment providing for certain other alterations in the averaging system. I predicted that that, also, would disclose faults, and would need amendment. The amendment now proposed leaves a tremendous lot to be desired. Disregarding the resolution by a royal commission, and what is done in other countries, this Government has decided upon the system of averaging incomes over a period of five years. That is a simple thing that could be understood by any school-boy. One man makes his income regularly, and another irregularly, but both receive the same amount over a five-years&#39; period. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They do not pay the same tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>  Mr.PROWSE. - Not under the present system. My suggestion is that, seeing that we have decided upon a graduated system - as the income increases so does the rate per &#163;1  -we  should evolve a taxation which will study the taxable capacity of every citizen. If the Trea surer and I each have an income of &#163;10,000 in five years, and he obtains his regularly and I irregularly, we have the same taxable capacity. If any method could be evolved, causing us to pay equally to the revenue, it would be fair and just, and I suggest that such a system&#39; could be evolved. When the present Prime Minister was Treasurer, in the Hughes Government, he produced a table showing that there was a fault in my proposed system. That occurred where an aggregated loss was assumed to have taken place over a. period of five years, the lossoutweighing the profits. Undoubtedly a system of watertighting for five years would cause that injustice to the taxpayer, but the right honorable gentleman was fair enough to admit that such a case was a rarity. It was merely a supposititious case showing a period of five years of drought, and another of five generous years. The taxpayers of Australia asked for a five-year instead of a one-year period, and when that five-year period was granted they should have been content. They asked for an average to be taken over that five-year period, and that they should be taxed according to a graduated rate. It is not unlikely that we shall meet with a case such as was propounded by the present Prime Minister; and I was conscious of such a possibility when I submitted my resolution. Prior to the right honorable gentleman making that statement, I had said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>My amendmentmmy have curtain minor defects, but it is sound in principle,and would place all citizens on the same footing, it may be contended thata man&#39;s losses may outweigh his income, but it should be recognized that my amendment quarantines the five-year period the same as income for one year isquaran- tined to-day. If there is no income, there is no tax; and if there is any income, it is taxed in the same way as if it were in the hands of a citizen who receives his income regularly. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I did not overlook that contingency. If the Government felt that the possibility of injustice was too great, it could carry that loss on after the expiry of the period of five years. I propose to deal in further detail with this matter in committee. If, in the meantime, honorable members will examine certain tables which I have prepared, and which, with the consent of the Treasurer, have been printed in convenient form for inclusion in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard,</inline> they will be in a position to deal with the amendment which I then propose to move. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOSTER, Richard</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Foster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Are the honorable member&#39;s proposals now the same as those ho suggested five years ago? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have repeated some of them, and added others. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does not the honorable member think that the present method of carrying forward losses over the five years&#39; period is sufficient? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the honorable member will study the tables I have prepared, he will see the possibility of injustice being done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANNING, Arthur</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Manning</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Are the figures in the tables based on real or supposititious cases ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2080</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The systems which have operated so far have not taken into consideration the years preceding that in which the losses occurred. If after, say, two years of profits on which income tax is paid, the third year&#39;s transactions represent a loss, that loss can only be wiped out by future profits. Honorable members will see that, compared with a man who receives the same salary in equal instalments, such a taxpayer is unjustly treated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I desire now te refer to the proposal, to disqualify certain partnerships in which husband and wife are associated. The definition of &#34;partnership&#34; should be more clearly set out in the bill itself, and not left to the interpretation of the commissioner. frequently a wife who has money in her own right invests it in her husband&#39;s business, and rightly claims partnership with him by reason of that investment. .1 understand the Treasurer to say that if a wife lends money to her husband she is entitled only to interest on that money and not partnership profits. That does not seem just. Husband and wife may have separate rights in landed properties, and such rights should not be disregarded in this legislation. 1 agree with the proposal to  allow  deductions in respect of improvements to property, such as clearing and vermin-proof fencing. J. do not imagine that these deductions will seriously affect the Treasury, because it takes some years for a settler to earn a taxable income. However, there are cases in which they will benefit settlers, and, therefore, I welcome the provision. Some time ago we amended the then existing legislation to provide that money spent in vermin-proofing a property would he an allowable deduction. Strangely enough, taxpayers were then already entitled to that deduction. In Western Australia, where the State legislation does not provide for such a deduction, one taxpayer, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lindsay,</inline> M.L.A., when submitting his returns, deducted expenditure in connexion with vermin-proof fencing. The deduction was disallowed by the  Deputy  Commissioner of Taxation in that State, but. when <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lindsay</inline> took the matter before the court the Chief Justice of Western Australia ruled that the commissioner was wrong in disallowing it. Notwithstanding that decision, the taxation authorities refused to allow me a similar deduction in respect of a partnership in which I was interested. It even went so far as to refuse <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lindsay</inline> a reassessment, of his income previous to the year in which he appealed. He, however, again applied to the court, and was successful in obtaining leave of the court, to test the case. Such actions on the part of a government department are not right; their effect is to cause people to attempt, to deceive the department whenever possible. A decision which ordinary citizens would recognize should be accepted by a government department. I give notice of my intention to move in committee that a new clause be inserted after clause 6. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2081</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXA</name.id>
              <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- It will be realized that this is largely a committee bill. I desire, in the first place, to express my appreciation of the thorough manner in which the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> has analysed the subject with which it deals. He has evidently given much consideration to it, and his speech has been of considerable assistance to honorable members. I endorse his remarks questioning the desirability of the proposed reduction of direct taxation. I have no objection to any reduction that is warranted ; but we cannot justify at the present time the reduction of those taxes that were specially imposed to meet war expenditure. The honorable member reminded the committee that,- although the war debt has been reduced, the interest bill has grown, and we are now paying &#163;2,500,000 more for interest than we did in 1923. We cannot justify the removal of taxes imposed to meet war expenditure, since we have increased the burden of indirect taxation on the great mass of the people. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The chief point to consider in the present bill is the proposed exemption of absentee taxpayers. One finds it difficult to understand why special provision is made to exempt company shareholders who happen to live outside Australia. If any persons should be held liable for the payment &#169;f income tax, they are those who take wealth from this country and yet do not live in it. Why should they be exempt from taxation in Australia, while our own citizens, who may be share.holder&#34;s in the same companies, are taxed? I do not think that the proposal can be justified from the point of view of equity. The honorable member for Yarra showed that it could not be urged on the ground that reciprocal legislation between Great Britain and the dominions was desirable. If we lay down the principle that persons taking wealth from this country and living abroad can escape payment of their share of the taxes, we shall be offering an inducement to capitalists, whose money is invested in Australia, to live elsewhere. That it should be proposed to exempt them from taxation seems to me to be inexplicable. I should like to hear the Treasurer further on the matter. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Yarra about the necessity for averaging incomes over a period of five years, in order to ascertain the rate of tax. That would be a much fairer arrangement than the present method. A taxpayer might have been receiving a fairly good income for a few years; but his earnings might suddenly decline, and he might be reduced to such a financial position in a particular year that no tax would be payable. If his income were averaged over a period of five years, no injustice would be done. </para>
          <para>Clause 14 of the bill deals with a situation that has arisen in connexion with the New Guinea gold-fields. I recently asked a question in this chamber on this matter, and the Treasurer said that he would have the act amended so as to prevent hardship being suffered by gold-seekers in New GuineaMany persons are engaged in searching for gold there, and, as on all new fields, the miners, generally speaking, work for themselves. Usually they have not a great deal of capital behind them, and they depend upon the proceeds from sales of their gold to pay their way. The men who trade in gold make greater profit, as a rule, than do the miners themselves. From my considerable experience of gold-fields, I should say that the conditions in New Guinea are not different from those in other fields that have come into prominence in the past. The buyers ascertain the value of the gold, and pay the miners a price much below it, in order to secure for themselves a substantial commission. They also take care that the price paid to the miners enables them to meet the tax that is charged on gold shipped to Australia. They have been paying the tax levied in accordance with the value of the gold, and it is said by the Treasurer that an adjustment must be made by returning to the persons who bring the gold into Australia the amount to which they are entitled. That will not get over the difficulty, because the present law permits the buyers to &#34; fleece &#34; the men supplying the gold. The buyers can tell the producers that they are paying, by way of tax, more than they are actually charged, and they can thereby obtain a double advantage at the expense of the miners. The matter is causing a good deal of discontent on the New Guinea fields, as the following press telegram indicates- </para>
          <para>Bulolo, Saturday. </para>
          <para>A public meeting, held at Salamoa yesterday, unanimously passed the following resolution :  - &#34; That we, the members of this meeting, all being interested in the production of gold&#39; in this territory, hereby advise all miners to hold their gold, and not ship same to Australia until Australia realizes the injustice of the imposed tax on gold shipped to Australia; and further we consider that such action by the Australian Government must force us to make arrangements to ship our gold to other countries than Australia.&#34; </para>
          <para>It was openly stated during the meeting that the proposed scheme of shipping gold to other countries can be financed. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Was that motion carried after the introduction of this bill ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. The telegram is dated Saturday last. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then the motion was passed in ignorance of the facts. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I intend to show that section 14 of the act, as proposed to be amended by clause 8 of this bill, would not meet the position. It would not assist the genuine miner, although it might help certain individuals who trade in gold. The section, as proposed to be amended, will provide - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <list type="decimal">
            <item label="(1)">
              <para>The following incomes, revenues and funds shall he exempt from income tax: - (1a) the income derived by a person from the working of a mining property in Australia or in the Territory of New Guinea principally for the purpose of obtaining gold, or gold and copper provided that in this case the output of gold shall not be less than forty per centum of the total value of the output of the mine - this exemption shall extend to dividends paid by a company out of such income; and </para>
              <list type="loweralpha">
                <item label="(m">
                  <para>) dividends, bonuses, or profits, or the face value of bonus shares distributed by a company among its members or shareholders, except as provided under section sixteen of this act; and </para>
                </item>
                <item label="(n)">
                  <para>the income derived by a resident of any territory or island in the Pacific Ocean which is governed controlled, or held under mandate by the Government of any part of the British Empire or by a condominimum in which any part of the British Empire is concerned, from the sale in Australia by or on behalf of that person of produce of the territory or island of which he is a resident, provided that the purchase of the produce in Australia is made for the purpose of export for sale outside Australia and that the Commissioner is satisfied that the produce has been exported without unnecessary delay. </para>
                </item>
              </list>
            </item>
          </list>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate>COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
                <party>FSU; CP from 1920</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  After the words &#34; the income derived by a person from the working of a mining property iu Australia &#34; it is proposed to add the words &#34; orin the territory of New Guinea.&#34; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does uot that meet the honorable member&#39;s objection. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. What is exercising my mind is the proviso at the end of the proposed new paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That has nothing to do with gold-mining. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the Treasurer can show me that it has nothing to do with the subject, although it appears in the same clause, I shall be satisfied. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I think that paragraph 1a meets tha honorable member&#39;s point- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the proviso applies to the whole section, it means that the men who mine the gold will receive no benefit from the bill. I have studied the tables that have been prepared by the honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse).</inline> As very important principles are involved, they ought to be circulated immediately among honorable members so that they may have an opportunity to give them the consideration required, before they are asked to decide whether it would be wise to have them incorporated in the bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I find no fault with the proposal to allow an owner of land to deduct from his taxable income expenditure on improvements. Frequently it is necessary to expend a large sum to make land productive. On the other hand, however, I uphold the contention of the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> that a great deal of first-class land in every part of Australia is not being put to its best use. Steps should be taken to compel the owners of that land to utilize it to the fullest possible extent, or pay a greater amount of taxation. The Prime Minister, of course, believes that it is a fallacy to argue that big estates ought to be subdivided into smaller areas. He has expressed the view that certain lands cannot be used for other than grazing purposes, and that if men were put on small areas they could not hope to work them successfully. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which we can reduce direct taxation, while indirect taxation continues on the up grade. A stocktaking will have to be held sooner or later. Whilst I take little exception generally to the proposals that are contained in the bill, I consider that this House ought not to allow absentees to be exempt from taxation. That provision is obnoxious, it is not based on equity, and it will do an injustice to many people whose incomes are derived from the same companies as the absentees, but reside in Australia. To obtain the benefit of the exemption, a number of persons may be induced to invest their money here and then to reside abroad for several years. I hope that when we are considering the bill in committee, the Government will agree to amend that provision. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2083</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
              <electorate>Perth</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I recognize that this measure can be better discussed in committee; but I wish, at this stage, to refer briefly to two matters, so that honorable members may have an opportunity to consider them carefully, and thus be in a position to give a decision upon them at a later stage. I trust that the proposals which have been advanced by the honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse),</inline> with respect to the averaging of incomes, will receive the most careful and sympathetic consideration of the Government. The honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> is recognized as a student of, and an expert in, taxation matters, and his remarks are always listened to with the greatest respect. I was pleased to hear him voice his agreement with this principle, which was first propounded by the honorable member for Forrest some years ago. Although it has been slow in gaining the approval of honorable members, it appears to be fair and just to the taxpayer, whose welfare is our main consideration. The other matter to which I wish to refer is the proposal in Clause <inline font-style="italic">i</inline> 20 to amend section 51 of the principal act, so as to alter the procedure before the Board of Review. As honorable members are aware, appeals by taxpayers against decisions of the commissioner, are now dealt with without cost to the taxpayer. Points of law occasionally arise upon the hearing of such appeals. It is alleged that legal decisions have been given which have knocked holes into our taxation law. We cannot, on that account, quarrel with those decisions. It is only by obtaining the legal interpretation of any law that we are able to secure sound legislation. If the decision of the court shows that a law is contrary to the wish and the intention of this House, it is necessary for us to amend that law. There have been before the Appeal Board several very important cases, one of the most recent being the Thorogood case, which has had a very wide bearing upon income tax payments. In four recent cases the interpretation of the law which was given by the board was upheld by the High Court upon a reference to it by the Commissioner of Taxation. That is an indication that, generally speaking, the legal judgment of the board is sound, and that taxpayers receive protection from it even on points of law without considerable and unnecessary expense. I feel sure that honorable members would like to see that object generally effected. If clause 20 is agreed to, the procedure will be entirely altered. It states - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Tin; &#39;  board  shall, upon the request of the  commissioner  or a. taxpayer, refer to the High  Court any  question of  law  arising before the ) ma rd. mid the decision of the High Court thereon shall be final and conclusive. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>If a point of law should be raised during the hearing of an appeal, it will be open to the commissioner to say, &#34; This matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the board,&#34; and to have it referred forthwith to the High Court. The subsequent legal proceedings will delay the hearing of the appeal, and involve the taxpayer in heavy expenses. In view of the successful manner in which the board has so far operated, it is unnecessary to make the proposed alteration. The Government, through the commissioner, will be given a distinctly unfair advantage. It should be our aim to relieve these proceedings of expense, as far as that is possible. The amendment proposed will enable the Government to involve the taxpayer iu the expense of an appeal to the  High  Court. If the board is competent to handle these matters, why should the present practice be departed from? Should the Government be dissatisfied with any of its decisions, it can appeal in the ordinary way to the High Court. Surely it is more just for the Government than for the taxpayer to be put to the expense of a reference to the High Court! I wish it to be understood that I have no desire to give a taxpayer an opportunity to escape from taxation. The Board of Review at present has the power to call upon a taxpayer to pay the expenses of an appeal if it considers that the appeal is frivolous or has been made on insufficient or unjustifiable grounds. I presume that the High Court, also, would award expenses against a taxpayer  in  the event of a decision being given against him. The existing procedure is smooth, expeditious, and in every way satisfactory to the taxpayer. Under this proposal the powers of the board will be emasculated, and it will be deprived of a very important part of its functions, which, up to the present, it has shown itself fully capable of performing. There are on the board gentlemen who have had legal training, and the support and approval of the High Court has been accorded to their interpretation of the law. In committee I shall ask honorable members to decide whether the present practice shall continue, and I hope that the Government will not persist with its proposal. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2084</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZA</name.id>
              <electorate>East Sydney</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I think the time has arrived when, instead of making reductions of &#163;9,000,000 or &#163;11,000,000 in the income taxation for the year, there should be a. substantial reduction in the indirect taxation. Income tax was first levied by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Peel, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and it was put on to meet expenditure  arising out of war. Even in Britain to-day it, has been retained only to meet war expenses. As illustrating the British point of view with regard to income tax, there was one period in English history when that tax was as low as <inline font-style="italic">id.</inline> in the &#163;1 on assessments that few bacl to pay. The need for a reduction in indirect taxation is obvious. It would lessen the cost of living. The man on the basic wage pays practically as much indirect taxation as a man with a fairly large income, because he must have such necessaries as food and clothing. Therefore, by reducing income tax a benefit is conferred on the man with a substantial income, but the man on the basic wage is taxed as highly as ever through the commodities which he has to buy. I cannot expect that the present Government will do anything to remedy this anomaly, because it would not be in accordance with the ideas of its supporters, but I cannot refrain from pointing out the injustice of what is now proposed. There is a large body of opinion in the  community which holds that indirect taxation should be reduced. It was admitted recently by the Minister for Trade and Customs that 49 per cent, of the indirect taxation collected was virtually revenue taxation. Therefore, a reduction could bc made in that section of indirect taxation without affecting the protection afforded to Australian industries. However, the people have put this Government in power, and they will have to put up with its policy in regard to taxation. This Parliament does not give sufficient consideration to taxation. Taxation legislation is left to the end of the session, and is put through with lightning speed, so that honorable members have no opportunity of discussing it or of evolving improvements in the system. We now know the cost of the war, and our other liabilities, and it should be possible to evolve a system of taxation which would be fair to every one. Some years ago there was formed in Sydney a body  known  as &#34; The No Tax League.&#34; As a young man I thought it a very fine thing, not that I believed we could ever manage without taxation, but I thought that a movement of this- kind might lead to a better system of taxation being thought out. There is nothing which creates greater dissatisfaction in the community than an inequitable system of taxation. I do not think that any benefit is derived from the five years&#39; averaging system. It is favoured by   honorable  members on the corner benches because they hold that it is fairer to the pastoralists, whose incomes vary as a result of droughts and fluctuating prices. It should be remembered, however, that other people besides pastoralists have to suffer the inconvenience of fluctuating incomes. There is the contractor, for instance, who might, in one particular year, be unsuccessful in getting his tenders accepted. Nevertheless, his overhead expenses, such as the maintenance of plant, go on just the same. A man pays taxation only on the income he receives. If there is a year when he has no income he pays no taxation. Sometimes men have very successful years in business, but they do not look ahead and make provision for the time when profits will be less. A man does not receive his assessment for income tax until the, year following that in which the income is earned. He may be having a bad time just when, he receives his assessment, bur, he should have made provision, when things were better, for the payment of the tax. The Commissioner of Taxation has the most uncomfortable job of any officer i n the Federal Service. Most of his customers, if I may call them so, are trying to dodge taxation, or to pay as little as they possibly can. Many of the suggested amendments of the Income Tax Act, are so involved, and open so many avenues for fraud and deception, that, were full advantage taken of them, it would be beyond the ingenuity of the Commissioner&#39;s department to administer the act successfully. Parliament should make the Income Tax Act as simple as possible so as to lighten the work of the Commissioner and his officers. Many difficulties arise in the application of the bonus system. Some time ago one of the largest companies in Sydney induced me to go into the matter of their taxation. They had erected buildings to the value of &#163;25,000 during the war, and they claimed that this sum should be deducted from their income as expenses.  The Commissioner maintained that it was profit, although &#171;the company pointed out that the putting of this money into new buildings created fresh opportunities for enlarging income. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">The Government is continually making rebates in respect of persons who are well able to pay taxation ; but no relief is given ro those who  suffer  heavily under our system of indirect taxation. During the war, income taxation was increased considerably, but reductions have taken place since. I contend, not that the income tax should be further reduced; but that more consideration should be given to the poorer classes. I suggest that even the exemption might be increased. In the proposed bill are one or two anomalies, one in particular being the proposal to exempt from income taxation absentee shareholders in companies operating in Australia. It is hopeless to expect the Government to alter its attitude, because in levying taxation it must show consideration for its wealthy supporters, and, in particular, for vested interests. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2086</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DQC</name.id>
              <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUGHES, William Morris</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN HUGHES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Although there will apparently be a long discussion on the bill in committee, &#39;I prefer to speak on the second reading. The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Charlton)</inline> referred to both large land-owners and small land-owners. 1 have heard in this House much criticism, most of it unjust, of the large land-owner. I know something about land, and I venture to say that in some of the States, at any rate, if, when motoring through the countryside, one comes across a well-kept place, adequately unproved, it will be found almost invariably that it is owned either by a-large land-owner or by someone who is becoming a large land-owner. For that he should not receive any great credit. It is perfectly natural that he should expend his money on his land, and that he should be able to improve to a larger degree than can the smaller land-owner. I am .not here to defend all large land-owners, or to criticize small land-owners; but at times I think that the large land-owner does not get anything like fair criticism, particularly from honorable members opposite. The large landowner, whatever his merits or demerits may be, has contributed very substantially to the development of the greatest industry of Australia, that in which we lead the world. Both the honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore),</inline> and the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> referred to a matter on which I myself have spoken previously. They drew attention to the desirability of simplicity, as far as it can be achieved, in our enactments, so that he who runs - and I suppose the taxpayer generally does run, if he can - may read. The bill contains provisions some of which should be useful and some which, although they may have no harmful effect, will nevertheless make our income tax assessment laws even more complicated than they are at present The difficulty with our taxation measures is that it is almost an impossibility for the the ordinary mau to understand them, and for that reason our Commonwealth taxation department has always been more unpopular with the taxpayer than the State department. This unpopularity is&#39; due, not so much to a desire to escape tax, as to the feeling of hopelessness that the taxpayer experiences when attempting to grapple with the provisions of taxation measures. Let lue give an instance. Under the bill there is to be appointed an assistant commissioner. That provision may be desirable, but the Treasurer has neither extolled nor explained it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2086</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Clause 3 of the bill provides for an alteration in the title of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Templeton,</inline> who is at present acting as assistant commissioner. It will really facilitate his work. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2086</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JY7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The proposed new sub-section reads - (2.) Where in this act the exercise of any power or function by the commissioner or the operation of any provision of this act is dependent upon the opinion, belief or state of mind of the commissioner in relation to any matter, that power or function may be exercised by the assistant commissioner or that provision may operate, (as the case may be) upon the opinion, belief or state of mind of the assistant commissioner in relation to that matter- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>That provision is understandable, but is not unduly intelligible; there is a good deal of circumlocution about it. Whether the assistant commissioner isalways to be of precisely the same opinion as the commissioner himself is not explained ; but one can easily imagine a condition of affairs arising in which the commissioner gives a ruling according to his. opinion, belief&#39; or state of mind on a point which is referred to him in one State, and the assistant commissioner gives <inline font-style="italic">at</inline> different ruling on a similar point raised in another State, yet according to the hill the opinion, belief or state of mind of the two of them is assumed to be identical. </para>
          <para>The provision relating to deductions for loss in any of the four years preceding that in which the income was derived may be beneficial, but it will throw more work on the department, which very often has my sympathy in carrying out its duties under our legislation. It will also increase the body of taxation experts, many of whom have been through the department itself, and to whom it is almost essential that the taxpayer should refer for advice and assistance. </para>
          <para>Under another provision wool and sheep are to be assessed as distinct from each other, and for that the Treasurer gave no explanation. The commissioner is to assess on the market value of &#34; similar sheepoff shears.&#34; It is not easy to find similar sheep. Few breeders will admit that their sheep are similar to other breeders&#39; sheep, and it is hard to ascertain exactly when the sheep were off shears, because shearing takes place at different periods. I suggest that these provisions will, cause the taxation office greater labour than it has at present, and the taxpayers will probably have to furnish&#39; more details. </para>
          <para>With reference to income tax deductions in respect of gifts, I agree with the Treasurer that a &#163;5 limitation is not too high. The honorable member for Yarra suggested a smaller amount. It is obvious that the poor man who gives 2s. 6d. may be paying relatively more than the wealthy man who gives &#163;10 ; but it is impracticable to keep count of small amounts. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A taxpayer who produces a receipt should be allowed a deduction. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is something to be said for that, but usually receipts are not given for small amounts. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A person paying &#163;1 to a hospital would receive a receipt for it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Larger amounts are contributed to such funds for which receipts are not obtained. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Mr.Scullin. - The onus is on the taxpayer to prove that he has contributed. He has only to produce a receipt. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The chief difficulty is that au immense volume of work would be involved which would uot be of great benefit to the department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But the taxpayer has also to do a lot of work in compiling his return. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That may be so. I have no desire to see small contributors embarrassed whilst those contributing larger sums benefit. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>It was my intention to deal with the subject of absentees, and I had in advance noted some of the points raised by the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin).</inline> I do not think it at all logical of the Treasurer to claim on one hand that the absentees should bring their money into Australia, because it needs additional capital to assist the effective and speedy development of the Commonwealth, and at the same time to sponsor a bill under which absentees are not allowed any concessions or exemptions in the matter of land tax. The honorable member for Yarra approaches this matter from a different direction ; but I am sure that we agree on the point that it is illogical to claim that it is desirable to encourage the investment of capital in Australia, and to discourage absentees who want to invest money in land here. It could be claimed that the absentee who invests his capital in land is likely to be of more use to; and take a greater interest in, Australia than one who invests his money in a company. </para>
          <para>I understand that there is a retrospective provision in the bill which I have been unable to locate. I understood the Treasurer to say, however, that owing to the Weatherley case, a clause to be retrospective to 1924 had been inserted. The Treasurer said that absolute equity in a taxation measure is not economically obtainable, and that we may all admit; but it is desirable that we should get as close as we can to equity. I have mentioned before the disadvantages of retrospective legislation, and have receivec support from other members inmy contention that it is most inequitable to establish retrospectively a state of affairs which it is claimed should have been established three years ago This is grossly unfair. There may be others apart from <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Weatherley</inline> who have put in notices of objection or appeals, and who under the present law should be relieved. lt is rather surprising that the Treasurer should say that the result of the Weatherley case is so contrary to the intention of Parliament, and &#34; has such far-reaching effects upon the revenue &#34; that the Government has taken the earliest opportunity to &#34; re-express &#34; the original intention of Parliament. The fact that the law was not effective shows that, it was not properly expressed, and unless one can use the word &#34; re-express &#34; as meaning to express differently, the word is quite inappropriate. Presumably, if it had not had such a far-reaching effect upon the revenue, such retrospective legislation would not have been introduced. I do not wish to weary honorable members on this point, because I have expressed my views upon it on previous occasions : but I maintain that the whole principle of retro-active legislation is most dangerous. With it, a taxpayer or citizen can never know to what extent he. may subsequently be made liable for an act which under the law at the time that he committed it was quite legal. When the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1924 was drafted, the Government had, I presume, the assistance of the Attorney-General and the Crown law officers, and what Parliament endeavoured to enact was, apparently, not enacted. The only fair thing is to amend the law now and not to make it retrospective. It is not right or reasonable for the Government to say that it meant to enact a certain law but failed to do so. The Commonwealth has been defeated in the courts, and now endeavours to override decisions of the court by retrospective legislation. I do not believe in the principle, and have spoken and voted against it on many occasions. It is seldom that an income tax measure is introduced into this chamber unless some method of defeating the law has been found. That is not right. If the taxpayers can legally defeat the department - I do not use the word &#34; defeat*&#39; in any unpleasant sense - by going to the courts they are entitled to do so. By overriding a decision of the High Court of Australia and Supreme Court of Victoria the Government is de- feating the law just as much as the taxpayer. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2088</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVS</name.id>
              <electorate>Queeusland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - At this juncture I wish to say only a few words concerning the bill. I agree with the  Deputy  Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> and the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Charlton),</inline> who spoke subsequently, that its provisions can be more effectively debated in committee. There are, however, one or two points raised by those speakers which are, I think, worthy of emphasis before the second reading is agreed to. The measure seems to be good in parts, particularly in  so  far as it provides for certain concessions to primary producers. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Can the honorable member fully understand its clauses? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- An income tax* bill in these modern times, when income taxation is based upon graduation and progression, must necessarily be complex and very difficult for laymen&#39; to understand. Any attempt to simplify an income tax measure is likely to reduce its equity or the possibility of its provisions  applying justly to everybody. The deductions to be allowed to primary producers are fully justified, as agriculturalists and other rural workers are entitled to all the consideration they can receive at the hands of any government, particularly to the extent of being allowed to make the&#39; deductions provided in the bill, as well as the application of a system under which they can really average their incomes for taxation purposes. The averaging proposals in the bill, however, are not so effective as those outlined by the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin),</inline> and elaborated by the honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse).</inline> If the proposals of the honorable member for  Forrest  are more satisfactory, they should be incorporated in the bill. There is also every justification why other . persons such as traders whose income is irregular should receive the same privilege. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It is not limited. That is done under the existing system. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The present arrangement does not embody a real averaging system, and is particularly hard upon the man on the land whose income is necessarily irregular. I favour  the, averaging principle, and shall do all I. can to support the honorable member for Forrest if his proposal is a practical one. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The bill makes more concessions and exemptions to a particular class of absentee income earners than are contained in the present law. These further concessions are undoubtedly a blot on it. I do not know how the Treasurer can hope to justify the clause relating to the exemption of absentee shareholders, which is u&#39; discrimination of a most pernicious character. It provides special treatment for person&#39;s who do not reside in the country, but draw their incomes from it. As this country protects the interests of investing absentees whose income tax is their only contribution towards the cost of government, there are no good grounds upon which the Government can justify such a provision as that embodied in the bill. I have read very carefully the Treasurer&#39;s explanation of this clause, and it strikes me that he either does not understand the principles of taxation, or that he has attempted to mislead the House. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2089</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFK</name.id>
              <electorate>DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GROOM, Littleton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall say that he has &#39; submitted information to the House that does not place the situation in its true light. I do not wish to do the Treasurer an injustice. He dealt with three cases. The first of these was that of a company established and registered and controlled outside Australia - a foreign company - and deriving income from Australian sources, but taking the income outside Australia and there declaring dividends. In that case the Treasurer contends the Commonwealth cannot cause the company to pay the shareholder&#39;s tax out of his dividends because the company does not hold any money in Australia on account of the absentee. It is puerile to say that the Government cannot compel a company to pay on behalf of an absentee shareholder because the income has been removed from Australia before a dividend was declared. Some, if not all, of the States collect taxation in similar circumstances, under a most effectual system. It is true that certain obligations are cast upon the representatives of the companies, who have to look to the absentee shareholder to be recouped. The second case was that of a company established and registered outside Australia, but controlled by directors in Australia arid deriving income from Australian sources, retaining the income of the shareholder, and declaring dividends here. Such shares as might be on the ex-Australian register of the company would not be taxable, because of a recent decision by an English court, under which, if the Common wealth forced the company to pay the shareholders&#39; tax, it could not recover from the shareholder. One can understand that position ; but the States have coped with a similar difficulty - and the Commonwealth could do likewise - by levying against the company and allowing the company to find its own remedy against the shareholder. Such companies might have to alter their articles or memorandum of association, and a shareholder would have to submit to the company making a deduction with respect to the portion of the profits earned in Australia payable as dividends to absentees. In the third class of cases are companies established, registered and controlled in Australia, and having absentee shareholders deriving incomes from Australian sources. In that case the Government considers that, as the absentee shareholder is generally fairly heavily taxed iu his own country in respect of his full dividend, and as there are very few absentees who are shareholders in purely Australian companies, it is good policy to exempt the absentee shareholders from the Australian tax. In none of those cases has the Treasurer justified the proposal to exempt absentee shareholders. In some cases, there is a possibility of inflicting hardship on a company, by causing it to pay a tax on behalf of. an absentee shareholder when it has no opportunity of reimbursing itself. I submit that such difficulties have been overcome in the past, where companies were so registered that they were subject to both State and Commonwealth taxation. The proposal of the Treasurer to exempt a class which is not negligible, as he would have it inferred, but a large one, will cause the loss of a considerable  amount of taxation to the Commonwealth, amounting to scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. It would also lead to further losses. If the Commonwealth makes these proposals law, a great many shareholders in AngloAustralian or purely Australian companies resident abroad, who are not at present entitled to the concessions offered by the amendment, will seek to enjoy its advantages, and, therefore, will insist on an alteration, either in the registration of their companies or in the method of paying dividends, to bring them within the ambit of the concessions, and so obtain income tax exemption. In committee this section should be examined very thoroughly. It proposes a pernicious system which discriminates in favour of absentee taxpayers. I shall defer my further remarks to the committee stage. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 6.15 to8p.m.</inline>
          </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2090</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFE</name.id>
              <electorate>Swan</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I do not propose to speak at length at this stage, since I consider that we may more effectively discuss this measure in committee; but I must say that I think it is high time that our income tax assessment legislation was framed with more simplicity. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I endorse that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I appreciate the difficulty which faces the Treasurer in this regard, but I contend that every Act of Parliament should be couched in such language that any ordinary man might read and understand it. I do not suppose that there is a member of this chamber who could strictly define the effect of a. single amendment that is before us. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The Commissioner of Taxation can do it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is all very well, but if a taxpayer disagrees with the interpretation of the commissioner it is necessary to go to the court for an authoritative decision. That is not as it should be. A. taxation expert of the highest standing in the community wrote to me to this effect - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The drafting of the Income Tax Assessment Bill is a work of art, and it is difficult to say what some of it means. Section 14, amending section6, is an amazing bit of work, and after several hours&#39; study I do not know what it means. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Can any honorable member explain to me the meaning of proposed new section 17. which appears on page 7 of the memorandum which has been placed before us? Enormous difficulty will arise in determining the value of sheep in the wool &#34;sold or otherwise disposed of by one person to another.&#34; It appears to me that the value of the wool will be the decisive factor, and, in the end, the commissioner will be the judge. The object of our legislation appears to be to enable the commissioner to delve into every detail of the commercial life of our taxpayers, and that should not be necessary for the purpose of assessing their income taxation. I have looked with some care also at the proposed new sub-section which deals with deductions for losses. I may be obtuse, but I cannot fully understand it, although perhaps it is quite simple to somepeople. So far as I can understand the amendments, they embody certain principles which should have been placed on our statute-book years ago. It is unfair that persons who are in receipt of a regular annual income should pay less income taxation than persons in receipt of the same income over a period of years. I support the amendment of the honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse).</inline> It might be desirable to appoint a committee of, say, the honorable member for Forrest, the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> and the Treasurer to consider these several schemes which have been propounded and advise us as to the beat method of dealing with this matter. It might be a good thing to fix a five-year period and strike off the  fir3t  year, year after year, but whatever may be the method adopted it should be made abundantly clear that full provision is allowable for losses, and that any man who is engaged in an industry in which heavy losses may be sustained in one year and big profits made in another, should not pay any more income taxation over a given period than a. person who is in receipt of a regular yearly income, which in that period reaches the same total. In the report of the Taxation Commission particulars are given of a pastoral company which ineven years paid in Commonwealth land tax, irrespective of any State taxation, more than  its total profits for the period. That shows that there is something radically wrong with our method. Such an imposition is grossly unfair. We should do our best to ensure that the taxation will fall equitably on all sections of the community. Primary producers deserve special consideration, for they may lose in one bacl year more than their total profits in a preceding good year. The returns of some ordinary business men fluctuate a good deal, but not so greatly as do those of primary producers.Iwish now to discuss a new phase of the subject. There has been a good deal of discussion in Australia lately as to whether shareholders in limited companies who live outside of the Commonwealth should be compelled to pay taxation on the incomes they derive from companies which operate in Australia. As a member of the Motion Picture Industry Royal Commission, I have been somewhat perturbed at the methods adopted by the American film-producing companies to escape taxation from the profits they make in Australia. They form subsidiarycompanies in Australia to which they allow an average of 35 per cent. of their gross proceeds to meet all expenses. The other 65 per cent. is sent to the United States of America as rent, which it undoubtedly is ; but it is also profits, and is not taxable here. The commission has been considering whether it could make a recommendation to Parliament to ensure that this money shall be taxed. But in my investigations I have come across something that needs far more urgent attention than this. If there is one thing that Australia needs more than another, it is capital to develop the country. Everything that we can do to encourage capital to come here should be done, and we should do nothing that will have the effect of driving capital away. I have been reading in the last report of the Melbourne Stock Exchange a good deal about the operations of various tin companies whose stocks are quoted on the exchange. The greater proportion of the capital invested in these companies is Australian. Huge profits have been made recently in various tin-mining ventures in the Malay States and elsewhere in the East. The Assam Kambu ng Company, with a paidup capital of &#163;100,000, has paid &#163;140.000 in dividends, most of which has come to Australia; but not a penny of income tax has been paidonit. The paid-up capital of the Kampang Kamuntung Company is &#163;140,000, and it has paid &#163;542,500 in dividends, none of which is taxable here. </para>
          <para>Dr.Nott. - Do the dividends come to Australia ? </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I understand that most of them come here. The dividends paid by such companies which have come under my notice have totalled more than &#163;1,000,000, but we have not received a penny of income tax on them, although they have nearly all come here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gullett</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is a direct encouragement to export money. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so; yet we have many mining shows in Australia in which the money could be invested. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If such dividends were taxed they might be invested abroad. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think they are much more likely to be invested in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They would have to come here some time as income. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2091</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so. I was rather anxious to do something to ensure that the film-producing companies should pay taxes on the money they earn in Australia, but it is far more important, I think, that the lucky persons here who profit from investments in these tin-mining companies - and the same thing may be said of many fortunate investors in rubber companies - should be obliged to pay reasonable taxation on the money they earn from their outside investments. It may be that they are already taxed on this money in the countries in which the profits are made, but I think we could provide for some allowance to be made in respect of such taxation. The present system is a direct encouragement to these people to invest their capital in mining propositions abroad. We have many mining shows here which could be developed if this money were kept in Australia, though the Government, by the imposition of high duties, is doing its best to destroy their chances of success. The Prime Minister has said that if we decided to tax income derived from these sources, we should have to alter our whole system. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Hehas told us that Great Britain&#39;s rule, in these matters, is to &#34;follow the flag.&#34; I do not know what that means - </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFP</name.id>
                <electorate>WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FOSTER, Richard</name>
                <name role="display">Mr FOSTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It means that they tax moneys earned within the Empire. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-It seems to me to be only reasonable that persons who enjoy all the privileges of living in Australia should be obliged to pay taxation on the profits they derive from their Australian money which they have invested abroad. The reports of these companies reveal that they do not spend very much of their money in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The British Government taxes the income which British citizens earn in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am convinced that we should do something to ensure that this money shall be taxed. Surely the honorable member for Yarra will agree with me that it is only a fair thing that, as we have to pay taxation on our income that we earn in Australia, our fellow citizens who have invested their money in these outside mines should be obliged to pay taxation on the money it earns for them? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I agree with the honorable member. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have asked the Crown Law Department to frame an amendment for me to meet the situation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JVZ</name.id>
                <electorate>BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Mr M CAMERON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does the honorable member intend to move an amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I certainly do if I can get the information from the department in time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K4Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NOTT, Lewis</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Nott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-Was the honorable member informed that it would be possible to frame the amendment to meet the situation? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2092</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I was. I do not know, of course, whether the proposed amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I join with the honorable member for Boothby <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. DuncanHughes)</inline> in urging the Government to discontinue the practice of malting legislation of this character retrospective. If we find that we have made a mistake in any particular year, let us correct it as soon as we get an opportunity to do so; but do not let us penalize people because of it. In conclusion, I again urge the Government to do its best to simplify the wording of our taxation legislation. It is notright that we should have taxation experts earning large incomes for simply preparing returns* for taxpayers. The law should be so clearly expressed that ordinary producers and business men could complete their returns without expert assistance. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2092</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFS</name.id>
              <electorate>Henty</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I cordially support the bill, in so far as it is designed to make income taxation more equitable than it has been in the past, and to remove anomalies and hardships; but I confess that I am lukewarm in my endorsement of the reduction of the income tax by 10 per cent. As I see it, it will eventually confer no benefit on income taxpayers - certainly none on industry - and, since it will be replaced by indirect taxation, it will inflict great economic injury. If this were a straightout reduction of income or any other taxation I should heartily approve of it; but it is merely shifting from direct to indirecttaxation. I do not know that I could illustrate more aptly the difference between these two forms qf taxation, where a heavy tax is to be raised, than by reference to the debate to-night, and to most of the clauses of the bill. I have listened to one honorable member after another endeavouring to suggest amendments to make income taxation more equitable, and, as far as possible, to remove the anomalies and hardships. One gathers from the debate and from the bill itself that direct taxation, and especially income taxation, has been reduced to a science; but, when one considers the great load of indirect taxation that is borrie by the people, one finds that science and system are impossible of application. Indirect taxation is flung without discrimination upon consumption goods. Direct taxation is scientific; it represents a sincere endeavour to tax according to ability to pay. This subject is of first class economic importance to Australia, and at the risk of wearying honorable members 1 shall summarize the various aspects of direct taxation. We may begin with the . principle of the exemption from taxation of those earning low wages. Exemption is not given as a political sop to voters, but as a recognition of the principle that it is uneconomic and hurtful to tax a subsistence wage, because either the tax is passed on, or moral  and physical hurt is done to those who are taxed. Then we have to differentiate between earned and unearned income. We have deductions for children, deductions for insurance premiums, and deductions of other kinds. Let us take the deductions for children, and consider what happens to the family man and to his children under a system &#39;of indirect taxation by means of revenue ditties. I am not speaking to-night of protective duties. We are told by the Minister for Trade and Customs that the bulk of our taxation through the tariff is revenue taxation. Under income taxation the taxpayer receives an allowance for his children ; but, under the infamous revenue tariff&#39; system which this Parliament is practising to a greater extent than any other Parliament in the world, the larger the family of the taxpayer the greater is the burden -to be borne by him. A man with a wife and five children literally pays under our main system of national taxation four or five times as much as a single man. While we have this hideous system in operation, we are at the same time flirting with childhood endowment. 1 should like to contrast Australia&#39;s position and economic conditions with those of Canada. In my opinion, one of the main reasons for Canada&#39;s easier economic and more prosperous manufacturing and general industrial position is that she does not, tax the necessaries of life as heavily as we do in Australia. Canada, with a population of 9,400,000, raises nearly &#163;37,000,000 per annum through customs and excise, while Australia, with a population of 6,000,000,1 raises&#39; &#163;44,800,000. In other words, Canada&#39;s <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> taxation through customs and excise is &#163;3 18s , while ours is &#163;7 3s. 9d. Australia&#39;s indirect tax on the necessaries of life at the bottom rung of the industrial ladder is 91 per cent, higher than that of Canada. 1 do not say that Canada&#39;s position in regard to manufactures is due entirely to that; but it is in the main, and so long as Australia, continues to tax the necessaries of life as heavily as it now does our industrial position will be bad. Australia is practically unable to export a single manufactured article. I think that our total exports include only 2 or 3 per cent, of manufactured goods, while Canada&#39;s exports in 1924 included 40 per cent, of manufactured goods. She does it, possibly, to some extent, by reason of higher efficiency on the part of employers, and, possibly, to some extent by longer working hours and more piece-work ; but she does it also largely because her taxation of the necessaries of life is substantially lower than ours. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2093</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JWQ</name.id>
                <electorate>KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">FRANCIS, Grosvenor</name>
                <name role="display">Mr G FRANCIS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- She has cheaper power. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2093</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I know that that is a factor in the cost of manufacture, but it is relatively a nominal percentage. Canada&#39;s position is worthy of the consideration of the Government and the House. Much has been said on the subject of our adverse trade balance. Honorable members may be interested to know that, during the four years ended 1926-27, Canada had an average annual balance of exports over imports to the value of &#163;44,000,000v In other words, her economic position is incomparably better than ours, and I largely put it down to the fact that she does not commit the fatal mistake of placing an excessive, and, as I see it, unnecessary tax upon the commodities necessary to life. I shall endeavour to -explain how this indirect taxation as compared with direct taxation falls. I shall take the position of the farmer, because, as I have said before, although I represent a city constituency, I regard the primary producer as the economic sheet anchor of the country. From the peak year in income tax - 1920-21 - up to and including 1926-27, a farmer on a net taxable  income of &#163;500 per annum was relieved, by successive reductions of income tax to the extent of &#163;5 2s. lOd. During that period, however, the indirect taxation through customs and excise has been increased by &#163;1 <inline font-style="italic">6$. per capita,</inline> so that a farmer with a wife and three or four children is paying more taxation to-day than when we commenced these reductions of income tax. He is paying on the average &#163;6 10s. more, by way of indirect taxation, than he had to pay in 1920-21. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2093</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is based only on tho actual increase in customs revenue. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2093</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes; but we know that the man on the basic wage, inasmuch as his wage is based on the cost of living,  escapes most of the indirect taxation, and the farmer therefore bears his own share of the load as well as the shares of others. If there is one class of taxpayer that does not escape, it is the primary producer. He has no means of passing on the increased cost of living. I have no hesitation in saying that although the average farmer, with a wife and family of four, who is in receipt of &#163;500 per annum, has had his income tax reduced by &#163;5 2s. lOd. since 3 920-21, he has had his total taxation increased during those years by not less than &#163;20. In this matter I am not concerned with either the rich or the poor taxpayer. I am considering only the economic life of Australia as a whole. I should like to indicate to the House how, under the system of incometax reduction, very wealthy people, who are surely entitled to no relief at all, are escaping from the payment of large amounts of taxation. I shall give an extreme illustration of that, and to me it is very interesting as well as most unsatisfactory. In 1920-21 - the peak period in income taxation - there were 23 individuals in Australia who paid tax on individual incomes of &#163;100,000 a year and upwards, and they paid in the aggregate &#163;626,000. Nobody will say that it was a hardship for them to pay a stiff income tax; but, owing to the successive reductions up to 1926-27, they have since been relieved of taxation to the extent of &#163;172,000 a year. That would be right enough, if that large sum had not been taken from the top and put in the form of indirect taxation into the cogs of the machinery at the bottom. As I said in emphasis of this point, in dealing with the budget, the persons receiving these nominal reductions of income taxation, are getting no relief at all in the long run, because, the increased cost of necessities, due to revenue duties, raises the cost of living, and, in turn, the basic wage. That puts up the manufacturing costs, and raises the price of commodities. That limits the turnover, and the profits to capital. Therefore, what looks like relief is not relief at all, even to the individual taxpayer, and does great economic hurt to the whole of industrial Australia. It is claimed that these revenue duties are not placed upon the necessaries of life, but more or less upon commodities that we . do not purchase unless we wish, and that may, therefore, be. regarded as luxuries. That is an exceedingly difficult proposition to establish. Let us consider the duties that are imposed on motor chassis. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2094</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Order 1 The honorable member must confine his remarks to the bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2094</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This reduction in income tax is made possible only by increasing indirect taxation. I am endeavouring to show that indirect, taxation is the greater evil of the two. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2094</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I suggest that the honorable member should not go too deeply into details. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2094</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have heard . itstated that motor cars are luxuries. My answer to that is that practically everything which is consumed in the average Australian household to-day is transported at some stage on chassis that are propelled by petrol. It is exceedingly difficult to prove that in other than a few lines .excessive revenue duties do not influence the cost of living and of production. I realize that I am speaking more or less to deaf ears on this question ; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that my opinions are supported by the greatest economists and practical financiers in the leading countries of the world. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the foremost financial and economic brains in every country are applying themselves to this question of taxation, and its increasing magnitude has raised it to a position of infinitely greater importance than it has ever previously held. If I am a pioneer in this matter in this House, I claim to be pioneering along the track of truth. There is no greater obstacle in the path of those industries, for the benefit of which we impose protective duties, there is not greater&#39; handicap to the great policy of protection to which we all subscribe, than the evil effect which excessive revenue duties have upon the cost of manufacture and production generally. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2094</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Order ! The honorable member is now distinctly out of order. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2094</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GULLETT, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GULLETT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have no more to say. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2095</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIO</name.id>
              <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Certain statements Lave been made during this debate which call for a reply, and I shall endeavour to perform that function. Every person knows that this Government has brought about a reduction in direct taxation. It is a, moral certainty that no man who has benefited from the reduction would care to see that taxation re-imposed. It must be beneficial; otherwise the people would not, clamour for it. If any honorable member wishes to be satisfied on that point let, him ask the graziers, particularly those who hold areas in the back country that I represent, whether they appreciate the reductions which have been made. At the present time direct taxation is only 8 per cent. greater than when it was first imposed. We have been told that there has been a. corresponding increase in indirect taxation. Honorable members opposite would do well not to stress that aspect, because those whom they claim to represent obtain from the Arbitration Court increases in wages that counterbalance anything additional they are called upon to pay by way of indirect taxation. Having consistently reduced direct taxation, the Government is not now collecting as much revenue as it was formerly from that source, because it does not require it. The  Deputy  Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> stated that the loss of revenue as a result of this amendment of the act would amount in the case of income tax to &#163;1,300,000. That is a. giving up of revenue; it certainly cannot be termed a loss. If we are collecting a greater revenue than we require, we shall commit a crime if we continue that practice. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2095</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  TheGovernment ought to reduce its indebtedness. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2095</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The war debt has been reduced to the extent of &#163;36,000,000. We have increased our indebtedness in other directions, but the total at 30th June last was only &#163;2,000,000 greater than it was four years ago, and is all accounted for by fixed assets such as telephone and other postal works. Honorable members opposite say we should not reduce the taxation but hold it for use, though money in the hands of the people is always put to better use than money in the hands of the Government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Let us consider what was the position when taxation was at its peak. The highest Commonwealth rate was then8s. 6d. in the &#163;1, and the highestState rate about 4s. 3d. in the &#163;1, a total of 12s. 9d. in the &#163;1. If the Commonwealth had set out to give effect to its financial arrangements with the States, and to make provision for increased oldage pensions payments out of direct taxation, the revenue from that source would have had to be increased by 50 per cent., bringing the total to 16s. 9d. in the &#163;1. If any person were to assert that industry could bear such a burden, he would not be believed. The Government reduced direct taxation because the people clamoured for it, and it was necessary that industry should be given that relief. During the regime of the Denham Government in Queensland, members of the Labour party argued that finance was the test of government, and that taxation should be reduced because the man who paid it passed it on. If that is so, it follows that any reduction in direct taxation must confer great benefit. Country people are not able to pass on taxation. </para>
          <para>Therefore, they are benefitted by any reduction, because they then have a greater amount to spend on developmental works. When taxation is high, less money is available for expenditure on those works, and consequently there are fewer opportunities for giving employment. If honorable members were to travel through the back country of Queensland at the present time, they would find that on account of high taxation the development is not as great as it should be, in regard to not only stock but also improvements. The people will not carry out improvements, for the simple reason that the Governments of both the Commonwealth and the State - and particularly the latter - take from them more than they should. That was particularly the case during the war, and has been continued by the States but reduced by the Commonwealth. When a man makes money, he does not dig a hole in his back yard and bury it. Every penny he receives he places again in circulation. I defy any honorable member to point to a means by which indirect taxation may be reduced. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>L1T</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">YATES, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Yates</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  By making the tariff effective. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That implies that it should be made absolutely prohibitive. In such a case the man who lives in the country would be asked to pay twice as much as he now pays for the goods that he buys. There is no way of reducing this so-called indirect taxation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It can be reduced easily enough. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable member for Perth <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Mann)</inline> would suggest the withdrawal of the duties. If they were only halved our imports would be doubled, and the revenue would be equally as great as it is to-day, and we would be faced with great unemployment and the only people to benefit would be the foreign importers. The real remedy lies deeper, as I suggested in my speech on the budget. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Prowse</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That has not been our experience. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Commonwealth has been collecting too much revenue. It now proposes to give a portion back to the people in the only feasible way, by a reduction of direct taxation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Duncan-Hughes</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Is the present system perfect? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- By no means. No taxation system, either State or federal, can be perfect; every one will contain some anomaly. I have some knowledge of taxation matters, and frequently I and the institute of whichI am a member disagree on certain points. It is not possible to obtain agreement among either a small or a large body of men in regard to the methods that should be adopted in the levying of direct and indirect taxation. All that the Government can do is to rely upon the advice of its experts in the Taxation Department. That department has officers who have grown up with the taxation systems of the Commonwealth and the States. There are also outside experts who are employed by practically every large employer. The Graziers&#39; Association in Queensland has a taxation committee, which has studied schemes and made recommendations. I have received from that association a letter stating that it is in entire agreement with these proposals of the Government. It is impossible for honorable members to understand thoroughly all the points that are involved in taxation legislation. Perhaps I am more favorably situated than others, because a careful study and knowledge of them happens to be necessary to me as a means of livelihood; but even I have not as thorough an acquaintance with the matter as I would desire. Therefore, we must accept the advice of the departmental experts. The system whereby people were taxed each year on their profits, without reference to any losses which might have been made, was quite unfair.I have a report here issued by the Land Settlement Advisory Board, a body which was appointed by the present Labour Government in Queensland. In this report instances are quoted in which small landholders have had to pay more in taxation in the last few years than they actually made during that period. I do not think any one can deny that a reduction in direct taxation will confer benefits upon the people affected. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Prowse</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The trouble lies with the system. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is necessary then to evolve a proper system. No system is perfect. I have worked out every system I have heard of, but have never yet found one that is perfect. It does not matter bow apparently good a system may be, it is possible to arrive at different conclusion&#39;s by working out different sets of figures. From one set it can be shownthat the taxpayer derives a benefit, while from another he is apparently subjected to a hardship. This is especially the case with any system if judged over a short period of years, but most systems, taken over a long period of years, work out fairly well. I commend the Government, on introducing this bill. I am sure everybody throughout the whole country will welcome it. for it is a long way ahead of anything wehave yet had. Taxation must be reduced, and this is the only way in which it can be done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2096</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>L1T</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">YATES, George</name>
              <name role="display">Mr YATES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- &#91;8.50&#93;.- When the subject of taxing wartime profits was being considered, at the initiation of this system of direct taxation by the Commonwealth, we were told by some honorable  members that there were no wartime profits. It took Parliament six weeks in Melbourne to decide whether there were any wartime profits, and whether there was anything that should be taxed. We heard a great deal at that time about those who were raking in illicit gains during the war, and from other sources we heard pitiful tales about those who were not able to make any profits at all owing to the uncertainty of trade consequent upon the war. Everything that could possibly be said was brought forward to protect those who were bleeding the Empire during the most crucial period of its history. It took Parliament six weeks to find out that there were any war profits to tax. Eventually Parliament did act, and the Commonwealth Government, in a munificent mood, said to the war-time profiteers, whom it was proposed to tax, &#34; Give up 75 per cent. of your war-time profits, and you can keep the other 25 per cent.&#34; Looking back over the war period it can now be seen how well these traders did out of the war. It was on that occasion that the present Postmaster-General said that you could put a cannon at the top of Flinders Lane, and shoot all the profiteers in Australia. During the war there came the income tax proposals. Prior to this the then honorable member for Oxley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Sharpe)</inline> had advocated seriously, as a measure of equity, that bachelors should be taxed. He was laughed out of court for having suggested anything of the kind. The peculiar thing was, however, that when the income tax proposals were put into force there actually was a bachelor tax embodied in them. There was a minimum tax of &#163;1 imposed, and in some cases that amounted to 100 per cent. of the taxable income of a single man. The honorable member who has just resumed his seat has used a number of specious arguments on the subject of taxation. Every argument that can be advanced is brought forward for the purpose of showing that customs taxation does not fall more heavily on working class families than on those of other classes. But everybody knows that indirect taxation falls most 1 heavily on the man with the largest family. That has always been true, and it is true to-day. The honorable member for Maranoa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Hunter)</inline> says that the working man does not pay the tax; he goes to the Arbitration Court and gets an increased wage. As a matter of fact, he goes to the Arbitration Court to maintain that standard of living to which he is entitled, which is based on the lowest amount that will fit him to continue as a unit in industry. Personally, I am not satisfied with the Arbitration Court, because, while it fixes the reward that the person on one side in industry receives - that is, the wages of the worker - it does not fix the profits which the employer may receive. It never asks how much profit the employer is making out of the minimum wage which the court fixes. The honorable member for Balaclava <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Watt)</inline> speaking in this House on 22nd July, 1915, said- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">There is an indiscernible process of filtration in taxation which eventually works down to bedrock, which is the working man; and the working man whether he be a primary producer, or in a secondary industry, earns the wherewithal for the taxpayer who pays the tax. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block" pgwide="yes">I hope the honorable member for Maranoa will keep that in mind when he says it is not the working man who pays the taxation. It has been said that the situation might be met by making the duties really protective, so that they will not be revenueproducing. That system has been challenged on the ground that we could get goods more cheaply from other coun- tries. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2097</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, The</name>
              <name role="display">The SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order ! The honorable member is getting beyond the subjectmatter of the debate. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2097</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>L1T</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">YATES, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr YATES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am merely trying to show that even the present form of indirect taxation is better than the old system of freetrade. I object emphatically to any reduction in the income tax, the succession duties- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2097</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And the land tax? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2097</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>L1T</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">YATES, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr YATES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, the land tax was not a war measure, and the right honorable gentleman knows that. But the income tax, the war-time profits tax, and the amusement tax were all war measures. The man who was responsible for imposing those taxes - which I consider were quite justified - had the audacity to say that they constituted the conscription of wealth. He said that while he was prepared in 1915 to conscript men, he was also prepared, if the need arose, to conscript wealth, and that those taxes were, framed with that purpose. No proposal for a reduction of this taxation will ever receive my support&#34; as long as any &#34; of the war liabilities, in respect of which it was imposed, .remain to be discharged. The honorable member for Henty <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Gullett)</inline> did not let the cat out pf the bag when he said that the war, in which so many of the flower of Australia&#39;s manhood died, was fought to protect the interests of the wealthy. Every one knew that already. To use a phrase which was applied during the war to those who opposed conscription, &#34; We are stabbing our soldiers in the back,&#34; for every penny taken off the wartime taxes. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> is reported in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> of 18th August, 1915, as saying </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>This bill, of course, is frankly a war measure designed to meet present circumstances  . . . our present circumstances are such as to justify, and more than justify, the tax. </para>
          <para class="block">When he was speaking thus, on the subject of income tax he was not with the party to which he now belongs, and he voiced his opinion of the then Opposition without restriction. He said : - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There are some who suggest that all war expenditure should be met out of loans. I have no doubt whatever that this is the ideal of those gentlemen who speak so loudly to-day of economy. What they mean is that there should be imposed on the poorer classes of the country an economy which would reduce them below a fair and reasonable subsistence level, and that all expenditure should be provided out of loans. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">To-night we have heard exactly the same sentiments as <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> then condemned. It ls proposed that the war should be paid for out of loans. Those to whom he referred would have escaped their liability then if it were possible for them to do so, and now when the war is a long while past, but the liability still remains, the Government proposes to relieve them of an obligation that is justly theirs, On the 19th August, 1915, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Joseph</inline> Cook,  then Leader of the Opposition, stated - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">I hope that nothing I have said to-day can be taken to express any dissent from the principle of direct taxation for war purposes. Indeed, I know of no other tax so appropriate for the expenditures on war as that drawn from the invested wealth and incomes of the community. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">On the same day, the right honorable member for Balaclava <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Watt)</inline> voiced this opinion - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>We know that it is hard to  draw  the teeth, by direct taxation, of the ordinary rich or middle-class man, and at the same time to avoid his squealing. I hope honorable members opposite do not think that this tax wilt achieve the end in view without that squealing. I represent, perhaps more by accident than design, one of the wealthiest communities in Australia, but I say, as the representative of the people in that constituency, that it is up to them to pay whatever this Parliament deliberately decides they should pay as fresh taxation. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I should like to hear the right honorable member for Balaclava speak on this subject to-day. It is just as well that we have some record, of these opinions of taxation imposed to meet war commitments, portion of which the Treasurer now proposes to abandon in order to give relief to the wealthy class. Honorable members supporting the Government know that this remission of taxation will be made without the squealing referred to by the honorable member for Balaclava. He did not hesitate to throw upon his constituents their portion of the burden of war commitments. Until the war debt has been met, we have no right to reduce direct taxation. On the 31st August, 1915, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. P.</inline> McMahon Glynn stated - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>As the Leader of the Opposition has properly said, it is perhaps, under existing conditions, apart from other forms of taxation, the best war tax we can adopt. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Poynton</inline>at that time said </para>
          <para>This is called a war tax. It is to cover the interest borrowed for war purposes and a sinking fund, and it is also to cover as far as possible the war pensions fund. We thussee that this will probably be a continuous tax for many years to come. I take no exception to this because I believe that an income tax is the fairest tax that can be imposed. </para>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Poynton</inline>was a member of the Government and Treasurer at that time, or subsequently. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2098</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- At that time the customs revenue was only ?16,000,000? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2098</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>L1T</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">YATES, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr YATES</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Quite so, but our expenditure has increased in proportion to the increase of customs revenue. Our profligacy since then is no reason why the wealthy class should be- relieved of a portion of its war commitments. &#34;We have expended &#163;8,000,000 on the Federal Capital City, and no adequate return from it will be received for perhaps the next 50 years. Who is to be burdened with the extra taxation required to meet not only that expenditure, but our loan and other commitments? Certainly not the wealthy class, since, to some extent, under this legislation, it is to be . relieved of direct taxation. Many honorable members now supporting the Government were among the Opposition in 1915. You, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> at that time said, in regard to income tax - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The House readily recognizes the necessity for raising money to prosecute the war to a successful end. This is one form of taxation best suited for raising money at the present juncture for that purpose. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">You, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> were in favour of the tax, although sitting among the Opposition. The late Lord Forrest was not so candid, and I presume that he was one of those to whom the honorable member for Balaclava referred when he said that there would be some squealing, because the late Lord Forrest was loud in his protests when any legislation was distasteful to him. At that time he said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>In conclusion, all that I have to say is that an income tax is not necessary this year, that it is unduly high, and that any Federal land tax. or income tax imposed without consultation with the States must be the prelude to the destruction of federation. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">He was the only member of that Parliament who did not approve of the imposition of income tax to meet war commitments. The honorable member for Lang <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Elliot Johnson)</inline> is a single-taxer, but cannot get any one in his party to support his creed. A land-tax is anathema to some, and yet as a means of meeting the cost of government and interest on loans for developmental purposes I consider it perhaps the most equitable form of taxation that can be evolved.  That honorable member said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>A temporary tax on  incomes  to meet a -special emergency may be excusable for war purposes; but generally I do not favour the imposition of a tax on incomes derived from productive enterprises. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Even that honorable gentleman approved of the imposition of income taxation to meet war commitments. The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Charlton)</inline> referred to our war indebtedness. At present we receive in direct taxation the following amounts:- &#163;11,126,278; income taxation, &#163;1,362,315 estate duties; and a further sum of &#163;366,159 from the entertainments tax, totalling &#163;12,854,752. According to the budget statement of receipts and expenditure, the expenditure for 1926-1927 wasWar pensions, &#163;7,477,096; expenses in connexion with payment of war gratuities, &#163;592; loan redemptions  and conversions, &#163;43,706; interest on loans for war purposes, &#163;13,503,956$ interest on Australia&#39;s war indebtedness to the Government of the United Kingdom, &#163;4,255,775; and War Gratuity Act, &#163;2,578; the total interest payments being &#163;17,762,309. That figure does not include expenditure on repatriation department and in other directions. To meet an interest payment of &#163;17,762,309 we collect only &#163;12,854,752 in direct taxation, and yet the Government is now proposing to reduce the income tax by 10 per cent. This will constitute one of the most diabolical acts ever committed against the interests of the general community. It is especially opposed to the interests of our returned soldiers who are now  assimulated  in the community, because their burden of the war debt will become heavier in consequence of increased revenue duties to counterbalance the reduction in direct taxation. If this House passes the bill I say shame to it. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2099</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLL</name.id>
              <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAKIN, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MAKIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I am fully conscious of my limitations as an authority upon taxation measures ; but I take this opportunity to give to the House the layman&#39;s opinion of this bill. I certainly protest against any remission of direct taxation while our war obligations remain unfulfilled. My main reason for speaking this evening is to reply to a statement of the honorable member for Maranoa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Hunter).</inline> He endeavoured to make it appear that as our war indebtedness had been reduced, direct taxation should also be reduced. I wish to place on record the position as I see it, and to again quote some figures submitted this afternoon by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr: Scullin). During the years 1921-27 our war expenditure was reduced, but the reduction is insignificant when compared with the increase in our total indebtedness. In 1921 the interest on war expenditure amounted to &#163;18,0-75,000, whereas in 1927 it was &#163;17,820^00, showing a slight decrease. Our total interest bill, however, has increased during the same period  v  by &#163;2,500,000, so that whilst we may have reduced one account, wc have increased another to an even greater extent. While that is so we have no right to reduce this tax. We should regard it as unbusinesslike for a commercial man to place money to his credit in the bank or offer gratuities while long-standing accounts were still owing, and we should also regard the same principle as unsound for a nation. The honorable member for Maranoa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Hunter)</inline> wishes us to believe that as there has been a reduction in the war debt the Government is justified in reducing taxation; but whilst our commitments in Australia have been reduced to the extent of &#163;27,000,000 our indebtedness overseas has increased by &#163;37,000*000. . As the result of remissions since 19.S1 to the present year, for which we have only an estimate, income or direct taxation has decreased by &#163;7,000,000, but our indirect taxation has increased by &#163;9,000,000. I am anxious to relieve my children, and those who will be concerned with the financial position of Australia in their day, of any obligations incurred whilst I have had an opportunity of assisting in the control of public affairs. Is it not most unfair to burden future generations with a financial obligation that should be met by the present generation? If the expenditure on which we are paying such heavy interest had been incurred on reproductive works to assist in the progress and development of Australia, posterity should perhaps bear its share; but when the interest is on war expenditure for which we have no tangible asset, the present generation should endeavour to meet the bill. The Treasurer should not remit direct taxation, as is now proposed, to the extent of &#163;1,300,000 in the interest of the wealthy section of the community, and&#39; place upon .men with small incomes., and heavy family obligations the responsibility of meeting liabilities which should be borne by those in receipt of large incomes. I was startled to find, as mentioned by the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> that absentees who derive income from interests in Australia are to ^ be further relieved of certain taxa-&#39; tion, whilst others who are assisting in this country&#39;s development have still to pay. The House should seriously consider the very unfair nature of the Government&#39;s taxation concessions, under which the wealthy section of the community will be relieved of their -proper share of taxation, which should be collected to assist in liquidating our war debt instead of leaving that debt to be paid by future generations. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2100</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  It is not my intention to deal with the points raised during . the debate on the second reading, as many matters of detail connected with the Government&#39;s taxation proposals can be more effectively considered in committee. I desire, however, to take this opportunity to reply to certain general observations made by honorable members. In the first place, I should like to say a few words concerning the reduction of taxation, and the position of our war indebtedness, which was mentioned by the honorable member for Hindmarsh <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Makin).</inline> Having regard to statements made during debates in this House during the last two or three weeks, it is refreshing to hear the unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the Opposition that the Government is saddled with a tremendous war expenditure, which, the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> declares, has increased and not decreased, and that consequently there is need for the high taxation which has been levied. The point I wish to make, in reply to the honorable member for Henty <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Gullett)</inline> and others is that, as compared with last year, there has been this year a reduction in taxation. If one compares the direct and indirect taxation figures, it will be seen that last year we raised &#163;63,368,000, and this year we estimate to raise &#163;62,725,000, or &#163;643,000 less, despite the fact that &#163;500,000 is being raised as a special roads tax. Allowing for that . amount raised for a special purpose^ there has really been a reduction of &#163;1,143,000. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">It appears from the opinion expressed by some honorable members who have spoken, that they have suddenly become protagonists of * direct taxation as opposed to indirect taxation. In these circumstances, I ask why they have taken upon themselves this role, particularly as during the last few years they have repeatedly put themselves forward as defenders of State rights? Throughout the length and breadth of Australia there is practically a unanimous demand by the States for the Commonwealth Government to vacate the field of direct taxation in every form, at the earliest possible moment. The honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore)</inline> will remember that in 1923 he submitted a proposal at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, in favour of the Commonwealth retiring from the field of income taxation. When the honorable member spoke on that occasion, he was very alarmed, and said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>We could discuss the matter all day, but if the Prime Minister stands by his &#39; principle that he cannot accept that proposition that the Commonwealth should retire entirely from the field of income taxation, we are only wasting time. ... I think the Commonwealth Government ought to consider the question of adopting the suggestions of the States that they should retire from the field of income taxation and enter into an agreement with the States for them to recoup, or partially recoup, the Commonwealth for the loss of revenue from that source. That would be the only possible and satisfactory way of removing the irritation and annoyance which now exists as a result of double taxation. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">When the Government introduces proposals in the direction of giving effect to a scheme of vacating the field of direct taxation, which the honorable member once so strongly advocated, we are told by him and others of his party that we should continue to re-impose direct taxation in order to meet our war commitments. What would have happened supposing this Government had adopted the suggestion made by honorable members opposite, that it should continue in the field of direct taxation, and without any increase in indirect taxation, it had attempted to carry on the Government of this Commonwealth and meet those expenditures which honorable members opposite have&#62; as loudly as any one else, asked for. They have demanded an in crease of the old-age pensions, which now cost some &#163;4,000,000 more than  in 1921-22, and they have also asked for better consideration to the States, in respect of which we are now paying over &#163;4,000,000 more than in 1921-22. In respect of those two items alone we have an increase of over &#163;8,000,000. Had this Government kept on as in 1921-22 with its customs revenue, it would have been necessary for it to increase the income tax, which was then &#163;17,000,000 per annum, by 50 per cent., to enable it to meet the additional commitments to which it is now involved. In that year the rate of income tax ran up to 8s. 6d. in the &#163;1. A 50 per cent, increase would have meant another 4s. 3d. in the &#163;1. Western Australia had a rate of 4s. 7d. ou incomes of &#163;4,000, and there was also a very high rate in Queensland, so that the heavily taxed individual would have had to find about 17s. in the &#163;1 as State and federal income tax if the Government had determined to raise from income tax sources the additional revenue that it required. No one knows better than the honorable member for Dalley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Theodore),</inline> the effect that that would have had on industry. No one knows better than the honorable member that this Government would have had to keep the exemption just where it was in 1921-22, which was &#163;100 for a single man. Since then that exemption has been twice raised, once in 1922, and again in 1924 - on the last occasion to &#163;300. To enable industry to stagger along under those impositions it would have been necessary to distribute the income tax, as is done&#34; in many of the States, very much more over the &#34;lower-paid wage.earners. It is absurd for anybody to think that the enormous amount required in connexion with our war expenditure can be raised in Australia without its being spread over the community at large, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Even if the Government raised the direct taxation to a higher level, we have the proof afforded by the action of the honorable member for Dalley, in Queensland, that  that would re-act on- the1 working man. The various attempts&#39; 6f this Government to alter the incidence of direct taxation were carried out always with the knowledge that indirect taxation presses heavily on the men earning small wages. When this Government raised the exemption to &#163;300 in 1924, it gave as a deliberate reason for so doing the fact that there was a very difficult position ahead of all those on low wages, because they had to stand a greater portion of indirect taxation than had those earning more money. The honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Scullin)</inline> said that the frequent introduction of amending income tax assessment bills was entirely d,ic to the manner in which these measures were rushed through this House. Actually, not only do these measures continue in force for many years, quite scathless  and without any one finding fault with the nian ner in which they were drafted, but even High Court judges and lawyers differ as to their meaning. In the circumstances it is no wonder that honorable, members are not always able to anticipate that the wording of the various taxation acts will not convey what it is intended to convey. An instance of that is in connexion  wtih  the very system of averaging, with which this House intends to deal. Five years after the clause, was put into the act it was found, as the result of departmental investigation, and legal examination, that it did not mean what was intended when it was inserted. There was not haste in dealing with that provision. The difficulty was due to the way in which it was drafted. It must also be remembered that the Parliament itself frequently changes the wording of provisions in an amending bill which has been framed as the result of careful collaboration between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Crown Law officers. Is it any wonder, then, that subsequently that wording is found to need amendment. </para>
          <para>Regarding the statements of the honorable member for Swan <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Gregory),</inline> which apparently evoked a certain amount of applause from honorable members opposite, that profits derived outside of Australia should be taxed within Australia, I would point out that our taxation legislation was originally introduced by a Labour Government, some ten years ago, and it was based on the definite idea that only profit&#39;s inside Australia should be taxed. If it is the general desire that that should be changed, the proposal must be very carefully examined, as it strikes at the very root of the whole structure of our income taxation. The honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse)</inline> raised a few matters in connexion with his system of averaging. We must all appreciate the immense amount of work performed by the honorable member in drafting and perfecting his scheme, and in placing examples before us. Later on, in committee, we shall be able to deal at some length with the scheme. The honorable member was kind enough to give me his amendment, which my department has been able to examine. My officers have prepared a memorandum placing on record the views of the Taxation Commissioner and the department on the proposal, which they have had printed, and are now ready for distribution. Copies will be made available to honorable members immediately, so that they may have the opportunity to read it at their leisure. I admit that the memorandum is a very complicated one, which needs to be discussed very thoroughly to be understood. The difficulties connected with the suggested scheme are practically insuperable. Instances are shown in which, the scheme does not work out as desired by the honorable member for Forrest. The honorable member seeks to establish a scheme in which the taxpayer who has an irregular income will always pay the same amount of tax as the man with a steady income. Examples are given which show that the man with an irregular income may pay many times the tax paid by the man on the regular income. An examination of the memorandum will disclose that insuperable difficulties are encountered with every change in the rate of taxation, and with every alteration of the exemption - difficulties which will add enormously to the work and expense of the department. The officers of the department state that if they had to administer such a scheme at least double the present staff would be needed. Again, it would be impossible to work it in conjunction with the existing sections of the act, which, are intended to eliminate double taxation as between the United Kingdom and the </para>
          <para class="block">Commonwealth. It would involve fundamental alterations of the Income Tas Assessment Act which would need to be remodelled. For these reasons I ask honorable members to preserve &#39;an open mind on. the subject until we go into committee, and to examine the proposition very searchingly. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir Littleton Groom</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I make the suggestion that the memorandum embodying the scheme of the honorable member for Forrest <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Prowse)</inline> be distributed with the memorandum of the right honorable the Treasurer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I shall arrange for that to be done immediately. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="italic">
            <inline font-style="italic">In committee:</inline>
          </para>
          <para>Clause 1 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 2 (Definition). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2103</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This deals with an amendment of the principal act, by inserting iu the definition, of &#34; absentee,&#34; after the word &#34; duty,&#34; the words &#34; or the wife of such officer absent- from Australia with him.&#34; Some of our officers who have been sent overseas have been accompanied by their wives who have incomes derived in Australia. The intention is not to penalize the wives of such officers on account of their absence from Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 3. (Powers of Assistant Commissioner). </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2103</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This is an alteration of the title of the assistant commissioner to that of second commissioner, and also, to some degree, of his functions. The amendment is drafted in order ro prevent litigants raising points before courts of law that the acts, decisions and determinations of the assistant commissioner arc invalid, for lack of proper authority. There is one such case under the Income Tax Assessment Act, in which the litigant is appealing against a decision of the assistant commissioner under section 21 of the act, on the ground that the assistant commissioner had no authority to make the determination in that case. It is undesirable that there should be any doubt, whatever regarding the powers and functions exercised by the assistant commissioner. The amendment will place this matter on a sound basis. Sub-section 2 of the clause deals with those operations of the law which depend upon certain precedent conditions existing, namely, that the commissioner is of the certain opinion, or belief, or has reason to believe certain things exist. If the commissioner forms such an opinion or belief, then the terms of the law authorize him to take the consequential action mentioned in the law, but that action cannot otherwise be taken. This sub-clause gives the assistant commissioner similar powers. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does he think the same as the commissioner ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is able to think for himself. The fact that he thinks such a thing is sufficient justification for him to proceed. Sub-clause 3 merely limits the field of the extended powers of the assistant commissioner. The powers and functions which are not vested in the assistant commissioner by the amendment are - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The general administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act, section 6 (1). </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The power to delegate his powers and functions to any other person (section 9). </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The duty of submitting an annual report to Parliament on the working of the act (section 10). </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>The commissioner will continue to have, as at present, the same powers of review and alteration of any act, decision, or determination of the assistant commissioner. It is not the practice of the commissioner to exercise that power unless the facts placed before him show that au alteration is necessary. Alterations of acts, decisions, or determinations of the assistant commissioner would, generally speaking, take place only upon an appeal by a taxpayer for a personal decision by the commissioner. </para>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 7. (Average years for income tax.) </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2103</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYI</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I have an amendment to move to this clause, which I have had circulated. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">CHAIRMAN (Mr.</inline> Bayley).I point out to the honorable member that his proposed amendment provides for the insertion of a new clause, and, therefore, it cannot be moved until all the clauses in the bill have been dealt with. If the honorable member obtained permission to alter his amendment, and submitted it in a form that would make it an amendment to clause 7, it could be dealt with. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I suggest that as the honorable member&#39;s amendment is important he should delay moving it until tomorrow in order to give the committee time to consider it in conjunction with the memorandum which he has issued, and that which has been placed before honorable members by myself. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYI</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- If the Treasurer is willing to agree to the postponement of clause 7 until to-morrow, and I am permitted in the meantime to redraft my amendment so that it may be considered as an amendment to the clause, I shall be willing to defer consideration of it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am willing to postpone consideration of the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>Clause postponed. </para>
          <para>Clause 8. (Exemptions.) </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The object of the amendment is to exempt from taxation income derived from gold-mining in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea. The definition of &#34; Australia &#34; in the principal act includes Papua, and this amendment has been introduced in order to place New Guinea on the same footing as Papua and the mainland in this respect. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXA</name.id>
              <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHARLTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The Treasurer has not relieved my mind. My difficulty is in regard to the proviso which appears at the foot of the paragraph (n), which reads- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Provided that the purchase of the produce  in  Australia is made for the purpose of export for sale outside Australia,  and  that the commissioner is satisfied that the produce has  been  exported without delay. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>It may be intended that the proviso should not apply to gold from New Guinea, but it does not say so. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFE</name.id>
              <electorate>Swan</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Are we to understand that gold which was won prior to the passing of this measure will be liable to taxation ? I understand that the mandate sets out that business carried on in the mandated territory shall be free from taxation in Australia; but it would appear that gold which was brought to Australia prior to the passing of this measure is likely to be taxed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JXA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHARLTON, Matthew</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Charlton</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am anxious to hear the Treasurer&#39;s explanation on that point. Will the gold that was won prior to the 30th June last bc taxed? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVS</name.id>
              <electorate>Dalley</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The purpose of exempting gold-mining from taxation in Australia was to assist our declining industry to re-establish itself. It is possible that the industry in the Mandated Territory and Papua may not be declining. The Bulolo and Edie Creek mining fields may become highly productive, and may not need this encouragement. I do not think they should be exempt from taxation in their own territory. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The administration there collects royalties on the gold extracted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I shall deal first with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I refer him to section 14 of the principal act, which gives a list of &#34; incomes, revenues and funds &#34; which are exempt from taxation. He will find that there are fourteen classes of exemption. For instance, &#34; the revenue of a municipal corporation or other local governing body or a public authority &#34; is exempt. The following also is exempt - <inline font-style="italic">(la)</inline> The income derived by a person from the working of a mining property in Australia principally for the purpose of obtaining gold, or gold and copper, provided that in this case the output of gold shall not be less than 40 per centum, of the total value of the output of the mine this exemption shall extend to dividends paid by a company out of such income. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">That exemption is complete in itself. The clause under notice adds another paragraph to the list of exemptions, and it also is complete in itself. The proviso to which the Leader of Opposition referred does not in any way deal with paragraphlawhich I have just quoted, but is confined to paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n.</inline> The exemption from taxation of gold won in New Guinea and brought to Australia is complete, because the words &#34; or in the Territory of New Guinea &#34; have been added to paragraph <inline font-style="italic">la</inline> of the principal act after the word &#34; Australia.&#34; It has not been the Government&#39;s policy to tax the winning of gold in New Guinea. The tax has been imposed upon the profits made by the selling or handling of the gold brought to Australia. The proviso in proposed new paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n</inline> has been inserted, not to enable gold to be taxed, but to try to ensure that the other produce of the island, such as copra, shall be handled through Australia. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate>Yarra</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Do I understand that residents in the Territory who cause gold to be brought to Australia and sold in Australia for export will have to pay income tax on it in Australia ? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  They will not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is not made clear in the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Paragraph <inline font-style="italic">la</inline> deals with &#34;gold or gold and copper,&#34; and we have made it clear that it will not be taxable, for we have added after the word &#34; Australia &#34; the words &#34; or in the Territory of New Guinea.&#34; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I understand that the Treasurer is now dealing with the profits ou the sale of gold. Will profits on the sale of gold in Australia be taxable whether the gold is exported or not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  They will not be axable. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is set out quite clearly in the proposed new paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n</inline> that &#34; the income derived by any resident of any territory or island in the Pacific ocean .... from the sale in Australia by or on behalf of that person of produce of the Territory or Island of which he is a resident,&#34; shall be exempt. Does that cover the sale of gold, or does it only deal with such produce as copra, &#38;c. ? I do not think that the words &#34; the working of a mine property &#34; would include the profits from the sale of the proceeds of mining. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  If a person is a dealer in gold he should pay tax on his profits. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes; but if he is an exporter he should also pay tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In this respect no income tax is to be paid by anybody handling New Guinea gold. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But I should like the meaning of the proviso at the end&#39; of the proposed new paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n</inline> made clear. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFE</name.id>
              <electorate>Swan</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GREGORY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Are we in a position to tax the income of any person resident in New Guinea? We are assuming, in this clause, that we can tax the profit on gold won in New Guinea, subject to certain conditions. If the gold is not won in accordance with the conditions imposed by section 14, is it taxable? It seems to me that it is. We should make it clear that income from operations in New Guinea is not taxable. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZO</name.id>
              <electorate>AttorneyGeneralKooyong</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  The alteration made in paragraph <inline font-style="italic">la</inline> of sub-section 1, section 14, is designed to exclude from the scope of Commonwealth income taxation  such  portions of the income derived by a person from the working of a mine in New Guinea as would otherwise have been taxable under the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act. Section 13 of the act provides that income tax shall be levied upon incomes derived from any source in Australia. Australia is defined in the act as including Papua, but not as including New Guinea, and the act does nottax income derived in New Guinea from any source at all. Under the Commonwealth legislation, whateverthe local legislation may be, no tax is payable or will be payable if this amendment is accepted, upon income derived in New Guinea, whether from the working of the mine or from any other source. But a difficult question arises where income is derived as the result of a number of operations. The leading case on the subject deals with the Broken Hill mines, where ore is mined in New South Wales, treated at Port Pirie, and sold and turned into money in Great Britain. That was so, at least, in 1900, I think, when the case arose, and the question had to be determined as to what proportion of income was derived in New South Wales, what was derived in South Australia, and what was derived in Great Britain. Honorable members will see that it is a rather complicated problem. In the case of the working of a mine, is the income derived when the gold is in a partially or fully refined state, or when the gold is turned into money? And from what operations is the income derivied? Is it derived from the mining processes, or from the process of sale? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is that a practical question, or only a legal one? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is a practical question, and it is one on which the present difficulty has arisen. Up to the present time, the proportion of the income attributable to operations in New Guinea has never been taxed in Australia, nor has an attempt been made to tax it ; but in so far as a proportion of the income is properly attributable to the merchandising of the product in Australia - and it is a very small proportion - that proportion is income derived in Australia, and it is very difficult to ascertain the exact proportion. The object of the amendment to paragraph <inline font-style="italic">la</inline> is to exclude from Australian income taxation any income derived from the working of a mining property, even though it be in the Territory of New Guinea, the process of obtaining income being regarded as a process beginning from the mining of the ore and extending to the realization of the proceeds. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then why provide that the output of gold shall not be less than 40 per cent. of the total value of the output of the mine ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The phrase has been used to restrict the exemption to genuine gold miners ; but I have not gone into that aspect of the matter. The particular point that I am endeavouring to make clear is that this section is intended to remove the only Australian taxation which now exists upon the realization of New Guinea gold in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the gold is consigned to Australia, and if the person to whom it is consigned sells it in Australia, will he pay tax on whatever profit he makes on the transaction ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, because he is in the position of an ordinary Australian merchant. If he buys the gold for &#163;100, and sells it for &#163;101, he makes a profit of &#163;1, which is part of the income derived from his business subject to the deduction of the cost of carrying on the business. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But an Australian or Papuan company registered in Rabaul may send, its gold to its agents in Sydney. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then the agents will pay income tax on the income of the agency business, whether it is derived from dealing in gold or any other commodity. As to paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n some</inline> mis understanding has perhaps arisen through its being printed out to the margin in the memorandum. It ought to have been printed immediately under paragraphs <inline font-style="italic">la</inline> and m. The proviso to paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n</inline> covers only the provisions of that paragraph; it does not apply to the others. The gold position is specially dealt with by paragraph <inline font-style="italic">(la).</inline> The only object of the Government is to make the intention clear. If it is not clear, I am confident that the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Earle Page)</inline> will consider any proposal to make it so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Did I understand the honorable gentleman to say he did not know why the limit of 40 per cent. was imposed ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I should suppose that it is the intention to limit the 40 per cent. exemption to what may properly be regarded as gold-mining. The gold position being covered by paragraph <inline font-style="italic">(la)</inline> it is not necessary to deal with it in paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n.</inline> That paragraph will not apply to New Guinea gold, but it will apply to the entrepot trade of Australia from the islands. In the case of such commodities as copra, that are produced in the islands and sent to Australia to be sold, a proportion of the income is derived in Australia. The earning of the income is a continuous operation from the beginning of the growth up to the point of sale. A proportion of the income is earned in the island and a proportion in Australia from the operation of sale. The latter is infinitesimal and not worth paying heed to; but if the copra is merely passed through Australia for the purpose of being exported to another market, income tax is not to be charged on it. If a merchant in Australia buys island produce and sells it in Australia, he will send in. his income tax return in the ordinary way and pay in accordance with the profits he makes in his business. That is the intention of paragraph <inline font-style="italic">n.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Would a copra-grower in the islands who sold his product to a manufacturer in Sydney, pay income tax on the profit derived from the transaction ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2106</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He would be in the same position in relation to Australia as an Australian grower who sells his wheat  in Great Britain is in relation to Great Britain. The mere fact of sale abroad, as a rule, has little effect on income tax, unless there are some special operations in connexion with the sale which make it an important part of the transaction as, sometimes, in the case of metals. In these articles, even if there were in Australia a sale from which income was derived, it would be very slight. I agree that a part of the income might be held to have been derived in Australia if the product were sent from the islands for sale in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2107</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
              <electorate>Perth</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I understand that quite a considerable quantity of copra which comes from the islands is used in Sydney. It is purchased by Lever Bros., aud used in the local manufacture of soap. It would be strange if the proceeds of those sales were to be regarded as income derived from Sydney by the man in the islands. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The man in the islands would not be taxed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That does not seem to be borne out by the clause. Income which is derived by a resident in the mandated territory, from a product which is brought to Australia and exported, is to be exempt from taxation. The implication is that there is no exemption in respect of income derived from a commodity which is sold and- used in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is so, if he derives the profits in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The practice to-day is not to levy tax in the mandated territory. Here it is proposed to levy taxation when the product is sold and used in Australia because the income is to be regarded as having been derived in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I agree with that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The tendency will be to discourage trade between the mandated territory and Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  No. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If a man finds that, by exporting his produce, he will .be exempt from taxation, he will prefer to send it abroad instead of selling it in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2107</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZO</name.id>
              <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>AttorneyGeneral</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  Many people who reside abroad send articles to Australia for. sale here. English merchants, for example, send articles on consignment to agents in Australia, to be sold by them. They are now taxed, and it is intended to continue taxing them, if their income is above the taxable limit. That is the ordinary rule, which operates also in respect of persons who make profits from the sale of island produce here. In this legislation a special exception is being made in the case of goods that are sent to Australia for the purpose of being reexported and sold. This is a distinct concession to those interested in the islands, and one for which they have asked. The general rule that is applied to everybody else will also apply in their case; that is, that when a person sends goods into a country and conducts the business of  selling and making profits thereby, in so far as those profits are attributable to the operation of sale, they are taxed. For example, an American firm selling motor cars in Australia is taxable on profits derived from the sale of its cars. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mann</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am referring to the copra grower in New Guinea, who at present is exempt from income tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is not exempt from the payment of income tax on income derived in Australia. Any person who derives income in Australia is liable to taxation, though occasionally there is difficulty in catching some of the absentees. Under this bill persons in Australia who have interests in the islands will be liable to pay income tax on the profit derived by them from the sale of &#187; their produce in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2107</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
              <electorate>Perth</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I am thinking of the copra grower of New Guinea, who exports his copra direct to Sydney, as many copra growers do. No income tax is levied in New Guinea. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Prowse</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  An export tax is levied in New Guinea. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is another thing. Presumably the export tax takes the place of an income tax, but I am speaking of the man who ships his copra to Sydney and sells it for use in. Sydney. I want to know if he will pay income tax on the profit derived by him from the sale of his copra here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Tes. The tax will be measured in a highly artificial way, not on the production of his copra, but on the proportion of the profit derived by him which is attributable to a sale in Sydney as distinct from a sale in New Guinea. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Surely the profit derived in Sydney is from the production of the copra in New Guinea? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  No. It is derived from the sale in Sydney. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The grower does not get a profit until he sells. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Allowance has to be made for the expenses of selling. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is why the profit has to be divided in a highly artificial manner. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KMQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MANN, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MANN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Do I understand that the grower pays income tax on the profit he makes in Sydney after allowing for the expense of growing, shipping and so forth? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Yes. The grower will pay income tax on only a small portion of the profit derived from the sale in Sydney of an article like copra. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYI</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Presumably a distinction is made between the profits derived by the middleman and those derived by the grower. If the grower sends his copra to Sydney and sells it direct, I presume his profit will be the difference between the amount he receives and the cost of production and delivery. A great deal of copra is sold to agents. These agents pay the grower from &#163;20 to &#163;30 a ton, and take the copra to Sydney, where possibly they sell it at a profit of &#163;2 a ton. I take it that the taxable profit referred to by the AttorneyGeneral is the &#163;2 made by the agents, less any costs involved in obtaining it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The proposal is to tax the proportion of the grower&#39;s profit dei&#39;ived from the sale of his produce in Sydney. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2108</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KYI</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I want to know the position of the New Guinea grower who sells at a profit to an agent, and does not care where his copra goes. Is he taxable in New Guinea on the profit he makes by selling to the middleman ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIO</name.id>
              <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- It seems to me that if a dealer buys from the grower and sells to Lever Bros., Sydney, there is a taxable profit, but that there is nothing taxable in the case of a grower who sells direct to Lever Bros. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZO</name.id>
              <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
              <party>NAT</party>
              <role>AttorneyGeneral</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LATHAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - If a planter makes a profit of &#163;2 a ton on the sale of his copra in Australia, that profit for income tax purposes has to be divided between the operation of production and the operation of selling. Perhaps 6d. may be attributable to the operation of selling, and the rest to the operation of production. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYI</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- How does the Income Tax Department propose to deal with the grower in Rabaul who sells to a local agent, who in turn sells in Sydney ? Is it proposed to tax the people of New Guinea on the profits they derive from selling their produce to firms operating in New Guinea? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - If the copra is sold in Rabaul that ends the matter, but if it is an Australian transaction, then, as the Attorney-General says, a proportion of the profit that is Australian is taxed ; the other is not. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clauses 9 to 11 postponed until after the consideration of clause 12. </para>
          <para>Clause 12- </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Section twenty-three of the principal act is amended - (a)by omitting paragraph <inline font-style="italic">(e)</inline> of subsection ( 1 ) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph :  - <inline font-style="italic">&#34;(e)</inline> (i) such sum as the Commis sioner thinks just and reasonable as representing the diminution in value per centum by wear and tear (not being wear and tear of a kind which may be made good by repairs) during the year in which the income was derived, of any property being plant, machinery, implements, utensils, rolling stock, beasts of burden, workingbeasts, and articles owned and used by the taxpayer for the purposes of producing income and, in the case of a person carrying on agricultural or pastoral pursuits, fences, dams, and other improvements on the land which is owned and used by him for the purposes of those pursuits, but not including improvements used for domestic or residential purposes or, at the option of the taxpayer, &#34;(ii) such sum as the Commissioner thinks just and reasonable as representing the diminution in value per centum, during the year in which the income was derived, of any property being plant, machinery, implements, utensils, rolling stock, beasts of burden, working beasts, and articles owned and used by the taxpayer for the purposes of producing income, and, in the case of a person carrying on agricultural or pastoral pursuits, fences, dams, and other improvements . . . . &#34; </para>
            <para class="italic">
              <inline font-style="italic">Section proposed to be amended.</inline>
            </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(1)">
                <para>
                  <inline font-style="italic">In calculating the taxable income of a taxpayer the total assessable income derived by the taxpayer from all sources in Australia shall be taken as a basis, and from it there shall be deducted -</inline>
                </para>
                <list type="lowerroman">
                  <item label="(e)">
                    <para>(i) <inline font-style="italic">such sum as the Commissioner thinks just and reasonable as representing the diminution in value per centum by wear and tear during the yearin which the income was derived of any machinery, implements, utensils, rolling-stock, and articles (including beasts of burden and working beasts) used by the taxpayer for the purpose of producing income; such wear and tear not being of a kind thatmay be made good by repairs; or at the option of the taxpayer,</inline></para>
                  </item>
                  <item label="(ii)">
                    <para>
                      <inline font-style="italic">such sum as the Commissioner thinks just and reasonable as representing the diminution in value during the year in which the income was derived of any machinery, implements, utensils, rolling-stock and articles used by the taxpayer for the purpose of producing income :</inline>
                    </para>
                  </item>
                </list>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2109</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>C7E</name.id>
              <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This clause contains the deductions proposed to he made. Its main objects are to extend the provisions of the present law which cover allowance for obsolescence, although not in those express words ; and to permit the commissioner to grant a deduction to agriculturists and pastoralists in respect of the depreciation of fences, dams and other improvements on the land owned by the taxpayer for the purpose of agricultural or pastoral pursuits, but. not including improvements used for domestic or residential purposes. To give effect to the first object, it has been necessary to re-arrange the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the existing provisions in the law. The rearrangement has involved some verbal alterations, but the former provisions of the law are retained without alteration of prin ciple. The principal verbal rearrangement is in the new sub-paragraph 3 on page 7 of the bill. The wording of that paragraph has been revised in consequence of consideration of the judgment of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins in the case of George Hudson and Company Limited <inline font-style="italic">v.</inline> The Commissioner of Taxation on the operation of condition 2 in paragraph ii of sub-section <inline font-style="italic">e</inline> of section 23 (1) of the principal act. That condition aimed at the same result as new subparagraph 3. The first sentence of new sub-paragraph 3 recites the intention of the present law in clearer terms. The second sentence states the intention of the last part of condition 2 in the principal act, and adequately provides for that intention in more precise terms than those&#34; contained in the principal act. The re-arrangement mentioned will now cause conditions 4 and 5 in the clause to be applicable in all cases irrespective of whether the annual deduction on account of depreciation is calculated on the diminishing value basis, oronthe prime cost basis. These conditions are designed to allow a deduction for obsolescence of plant, machinery, &#38;c, asfaras that course is practicable in an Income Tax Assessment Act. The allowanceon this account takes place in the year&#39; which an asset in respect of the depreciation reduction is allowable may be sold or otherwise disposed of. &#34; Otherwise disposed of &#34; includes &#34; thrown on the scrap heap.&#34; When an item of plant is scrapped its scrap value is brought to account as income under the terms of condition 5 in the clause. If the asset is sold, the provisions of condition 5 will apply to cause the sale price, or the specified part of the sale price, to be brought to account as income. The reason why in some cases a part only of the sale price is required to be brought to account is the necessity to exclude from income any profit which might be made in such a sale. Any profit made on the sale of a capital asset which was not acquired for purposes of re-sale is not income to which the act applies; it is an accretion to capital. Therefore, sucha profit must be excluded from assessable income if, and when, it is realized by the sale of an asset in respect of which depreciation has been allowed. This is the reason for the special  wording of condition 4. The remaining provisions of amendment <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> merely repeat the corresponding provisions of the principal act. I hope I have made it clear that this section makes provision for those cases in which the plant is actually scrapped. Under the diminishing value system of assessing depreciation, it is not possible for the entire value of an article ever to be written off. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Theodore</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am afraid the honorable gentleman&#39;s speech is not making it any clearer than it was before. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr EARLE PAGE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If I have made it clear that provision is being made here for cases where plant is scrapped, that is what I set out to do. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2110</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate>Yarra</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.-This is a clause of which we approve in general terms, but there are one or two matters to which I wish to refer. On page 6 of the bill it is stated that exemptions include fences, dams, and other improvements. The words &#34; and other improvements on land &#34; is a very wide term. Will they be read to mean the clearing of timber from land? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is dealt with elsewhere. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I know; but that refers to making exemptions for the entire cost of the work in the year in which it is done. Will this provision be read to mean that there is to be an annual allowance made in respect to the work also? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr EARLE Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There is a distinction between clearing timber and erecting fences. When timber is cleared off the cost is allowed for in the year that the work is done, and that is the end of it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I also refer to the bottom of &#39;page 9 of the bill, where it states that deductions are to be allowed in respect to the value of timber standing on land when it is bought. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KZO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LATHAM, John</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Latham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The clause uses the words &#34;wear and tear.&#34; Timber cannot be said to be subject to wear and tear. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Nevertheless it behoves us to be extremely careful in matters of this kind, otherwise a court of law may .place an interpretation upon a section which we never contemplated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Take for example the case in which the timber was cleared from laud twenty years ago. The clearing of that timber constituted an improvement at that time, but it may not be regarded as an improvement now. because the value of the timber cleared might be greater now than the cost of clearing. It might be successfully argued that land was not improved because the timber was cleared from it; in might, in fact, be &#39;held. that the land had depreciated iu value because the timber had been taken away. It does not follow that at all periods in the life of a block of land the clearing of timber would be regarded as an improvement. I wish it to be made clear that any exemption given on an improvement will not be continued annually. The bill later provides for a deduction on the value of the timber that is purchased with the land. But the cutting of that timber may subsequently be considered an improvement. I suggest that the words &#34; and other improvements on the land &#34; should be deleted, and the words &#34; and other similar improvements &#34; be substituted. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The inclusion of the word &#34; similar &#34; may limit the clause, because it would interfere with the dis1cretion of the commissioner. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2110</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIO</name.id>
              <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUNTER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The inclusion of the word &#34; similar &#34; would shut out buildings such as shearers&#39; huts, whereas the clause is meant to include them. I suggest that the words &#34; other improvements not elsewhere provided for&#34; be inserted in the clause. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2110</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVS</name.id>
              <electorate>Dalley</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I agree with the contention of the honorable member for Maranoa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Hunter).</inline> It would be unwise to unduly restrict this provision, which liberalizes the deductions allowed to agriculturists and primary producers. If, under a later clause, there is a likelihood of a taxpayer claiming more than one deduction for an improvement, we can deal with it when it comes up for discussion. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4B</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRUCE, Stanley</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bruce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I think that the clause is reasonably safe,, because, the commissioner has a discretion and would certainly not allow two deductions for one improvement. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">THEODORE, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Mr THEODORE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is so. At this stage I think it would be safer to allow the provision to remain as it is. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2111</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
              <electorate>Yarra</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- Would the commissioner have discretion to do more than merely give what in his opinion is a reasonable allowance for improvements regardless of what had been done before? If a man ploughs his land and sows lucerne, that would be a capital improvement, and would be exempt under a later clause, which provides for the ploughing and grassing of lands for grazing purposes. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HUNTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Hunter</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There would be a deduction for ploughing. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the case of sowing lucerne for grazing purposes, would the commissioner be bound to give a reasonable allowance for the disappearance of lucerne, which takes place after ten or twelve years? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GREGORY, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Gregory</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  If a man spends money in putting in a lucerne crop, a deduction for that should never be questioned </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>F4Q</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr SCULLIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable member misunderstands me. Under- this clause a man would get an exemption for putting in a lucerne crop which is a capital improvement. We must he careful not to make provision that such exemption shall be only allowed once. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>2111</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JOS</name.id>
              <electorate>Darwin</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The intention is to benefit the primary producer and in order to encourage him to improve his property, to give him a reasonable exemption. A person may purchase swamp land. There is an exemption allowed for the draining of swamp land; surely if a man drained his land in the first year of possession, that work would be a capital improvement. If be sold it in the next year he would be in a position similar to that of a man who bought a piece of land, built a house on it and then sold it. The intention of the clause is good, but there would be an anomaly in the case of a man who used his capital in that way and claimed an exemption. There is no difference between the position of a man who clears scrub or grubs trees in order to cultivate his land and that of a man who drains a swamp for cultivation. If an exemption is to be given to one&#34; surely it should be given to the other. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>C7E</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAGE, Earle</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Earle Page</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Exemptions will be given in both instances. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>2111</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JOS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BELL, George</name>
                <name role="display">Mr BELL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In that case I certainly have no objection to the clause. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Mr.PROWSE (Forrest) &#91;10.49&#93;.  -  A deduction for improvement on land would certainly he of assistance, and would encourage settlers to develop their land and thus provide additional revenue. The clause is necessary, and I think that the Government in inserting it in the bill is making no sacrifice and the Taxation Department will . suffer no loss in consequence. I submit that in most cases there are no taxable incomes in the first year of settlement. The provision will be an advantage to those who are bringing additional land into productivity. </para>
          <para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Earle</inline> Page) agreed to - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That after the word &#34; other &#34;, proposed new paragraph <inline font-style="italic">e,</inline> sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), the word &#34; structural &#34; be inserted. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Progress reported. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>HOUR OF MEETING</title>
        <page.no>2111</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Motion (by Mr.Bruce) agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That  the  House  at  &#39;its rising adjourn  until  11 o&#39;clock a.m. to-morrow. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <adjournment>
      <adjournmentinfo>
        <page.no>2111</page.no>
        <time.stamp>22:50:00</time.stamp>
      </adjournmentinfo>
      <para class="block">House adjourned at 10.50 p.m. </para>
    </adjournment>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>