/
19280914_reps_10_119.xml
2497 lines (2497 loc) · 226 KB
/
19280914_reps_10_119.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1928-09-14</date>
<parliament.no>10</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>3</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>6733</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House of Representatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1928-09-14</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom)</inline>took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>MARITIME TRANSPORT DISPUTE</title>
<page.no>6733</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Mr.WATSON- I have this morning received the following telegram from Western Australia: - </para>
<quote>
<para>Produce merchants Western Australia representing approximately £30,000 perishable cargo on <inline font-style="italic">Dimboola</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Mundalla</inline> at meeting resolved forward following resolution to steamship owners - " As both these ships were loaded under old conditions same conditions for unloading should apply and owners be requested to grant this concession to merchants who will otherwise be involved in heavy losses. " </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Has the Prime Minister received a similar communication, and does he know of any means of inducing the shipowners to grant the request? </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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>- No such communication, if received by my department, hae yet come under my notice, but I remind the honorable member that this is not a matter in which Parliament or members of Parliament should interfere. The Arbitration Court has made an award and it is the duty of this Parliament to support its observance. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KF9</name.id>
<electorate>KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GREEN, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr A GREEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the action proposed to be taken by the Government in regard to the recommendation of the Development and Migration Commission for assistance to the gold-mining industry? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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 report of the commission has been under the consideration of the cabinet and I hope to announce the Government's intentions in due course. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>H.M.A.S. BRISBANE</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Alleged Mutiny</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Sir ELLIOT JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the Minister for Defence whether there is any foundation for the disquieting newspaper report concerning an alleged mutiny on H.M.A.S. <inline font-style="italic">Brisbane</inline> during the recent trip to the Cook Centennary celebration at Honolulu? If so, will the circumstances of the outbreak be fully investigated ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMW</name.id>
<electorate>PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>NAT</party>
<role>Honorary Minister</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 matter has not been brought to my notice officially, but having read the newspaper statement I have called for a report from the Department of the Navy. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CANBERRA HOUSING</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEV</name.id>
<electorate>MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP; UAP from 1931</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>- A newspaper statement regarding housing accommodation for Commonwealth officers to be transferred to Canberra is headed - £1,000,000 - Costly Canberra Scheme - Service Transfer; 700 new houses wanted. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">I ask the Honorary Minister, who, I understand is dealing with this matter, whether the Government intends to embark on a housing scheme to cost £1,000,000 in view of the anticipated deficit of £2,628,743? Before such building operations are undertaken will they be referred to the Public Works Committee for investigation and report? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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>- Cabinet does not intend to embark on a huge scheme of house construction, and no suggestion to that effect has been made by the Minister concerned. The view of the Government is that transferred officers who desire to purchase homes in Canberra should avail themselves of the Commonwealth housing scheme. A decision as to the provision of office accommodation for the remaining departments to be transferred has not yet been made by cabinet. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>RURAL CREDITS</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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>asked the Treasurer. <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>What amount was advanced under the Rural Credits Department of the Commonwealth Bank in each of the years 1926-27 and 1927-28? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What primary products were assisted in each of the above-mentioned years, and what amount was advanced in respect of each product in each year? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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>- I have asked the Commonwealth Bank to supply the information desired by the honorable member, but I regret it is not yet available. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CANBERRA</title>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Mason's Contract - Supervisor of Building and Maintenance - Allowance to Colonel Thomas</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</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>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>What was the amount of the successful tender for cottages in the Federal Capital Territory known as the " Mason Hundred "? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What amount has been paid by the Federal Capital Commission to or on behalf of the contractor In respect ofhis contract? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>What amount has been expended by the Commission in repairs and alterations to the cottages included in the contract? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>What amount has been expended by the Commission in completing the cottages included in the contract? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6734</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KI7</name.id>
<electorate>CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>NAT</party>
<role>Minister for Health</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 regret that the information is not yet available, but I am taking steps to obtain it. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline>RILEY (through <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fenton)</inline> asked the Minister for Home and Territories, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
<para>Is it a fact that the Federal Capital Commission has appointed or is about to appoint a contractor, who has carried out and is at present carry ing out contracts for the Commission, to the position of supervisor and inspector of building and maintenance; if so, what is the name of the contractor? </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KI7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWSE, Neville</name>
<name role="display">Sir NEVILLE HOWSE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have been advised by the Federal Capital Commission that no such appointment is contemplated. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline>RILEY (through <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Fenton)</inline> asked the Minister for Home and Territories, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is it a fact that Colonel Thomas, a member of the Federal Capital Commission, has been receiving an allowance for being away from his home town while he has had his furniture stored in a residence in Canberra? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If so, for how long was this residence used as a store for Colonel Thomas' furniture, and was rent paid for the residence so occupied? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KI7</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWSE, Neville</name>
<name role="display">Sir NEVILLE HOWSE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have called for a report on the matter and shall advise the honorable member as soon as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PEANUTS</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6Q</name.id>
<electorate>WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>CP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CORSER, Bernard</name>
<name role="display">Mr BERNARD CORSER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister for Health, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>With regard to the application of the Queensland Peanut Board for permission to introduce peanuts into Australia for seed purposes - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a">
<para>) What action has been taken by the Common wealth Health Department? (b) Has any reply been received from the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock to the letter from his department of 1st August last, and, if so, what is the nature of such reply? </para>
</item>
</list>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</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 information desired by the honorable member is being obtained. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KVS</name.id>
<electorate>through Mr. Fen ton</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>asked the Prime Minister, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>When can a decision be expected regarding <inline font-style="italic">pro rata</inline> payments in lieu of furlough to those members of Cockatoo Island Dockyard staff, who had furlough rights at the 31st August, 1923 ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>As the majority of the members of the staff had, at that date, eight to nineteen years' service, and have not so far received recognition of their rights, will the Minister expedite the matter? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</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 whole question of furlough payment has again received the consideration of the Government, which has decidedto approve only of claims made by those employees who had the requisite service but whose service was not continuous by reason of the fact that they had been sent away from the dockyard to carry out work in the service of other departments. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WINE</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXR</name.id>
<electorate>ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PARSONS, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr PARSONS</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 amount of wine was exported from Australia for the three months ending 31st August, 1927? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What amount of wine was exported from Australia for the three months ending 31st August, 1928? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>What was the amount of the excise paid on fortifying spirit for wine from the time the rate was raised to 6s. in 1918 till 30th June, 1928? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>What amount was paid back in bounty on export of wine from the inception of the bounty until 30th June, 1928? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</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 information is being obtained. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Y ASS-CANBERRA RAILWAY</title>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMQ</name.id>
<electorate>through Mr. Gregory</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>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Whether the Government of New South Wales undertook (if the Federal Capital were established in New South Wales) to give direct railway communication between the Federal Capital and the main railway routes? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If so, have any steps been taken to get the New South Wales Government to honour that undertaking, and what is the present position in regard to the matter? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6735</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's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>In the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (No. 23), First Schedule, clause 9, it was provided: - " In the event of the Commonwealth constructing a railway within the Territory to its northern boundary, the State shall construct a railway from a point near Yass on the Great Southern Railway to join the said railway, and the Commonwealth and the State shall grant to each other such reciprocal running rights as may be agreed upon, or as, in default of agreement, may be determined by arbitration, over such portions of that railway as are owned by each." </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The question of the construction of that portion of the Canberra to Yass railway which would be within the Federal Capital Territory was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report. The report of that committee (Parliamentary Paper No. 70 of 1923-24) was not favorable to the proposal. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SEWING THREADS AND COTTONS</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Tariff Board's Report</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1J</name.id>
<electorate>CORIO, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LISTER, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr LISTER</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>Is it a fact that the report from the Tariff Board, dated the 11th July last, on the application of British Thread Mills (Australasia) Limited, manufacturers of sewing threads and sewing cottons in Australia, tabled in this House on the 12th instant, recommends a revision of tariff items affecting this industry? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is it a fact that the protection originally given to encourage the establishment and development of this industry caused no increases in the ruling prices of these goods? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Is it a fact that the protection originally given proved inadequate owing to the severe overseas competition, and is it a fact that unless immediate assistance as recommended by the Tariff Board is made available, this Australian company, which employs 100 hands and pays approximately £25,000 per annum in wages, will be compelled to discharge its employees and close down? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Is it a fact that the company has suffered considerably through the delays in having its applications heard, and the further delay in not having the Tariff Board's recommendations immediately acted upon ? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>Will he ask the Government as an urgent matter to pass legislation this session to give immediate effect to the Tariff Board's recommendations, to enable this industry to continue, and still further develop and make it possible for this company to readjust its financial position? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6736</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's questions are as follow : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Yes. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>According to the Tariff Board's report, prices of the locally-made threads were not generally increased, but the prices of imported threads were increased. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>The protection originally given to this industry has, according to the statements of the directors of the company, proved inadequate, but owing to what reason I am unable to say. As to whether the company will be compelled to discharge its employees depends upon what internal reorganization the company can make and what additional finance it can obtain. </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>No. The company originally asked for deferred duties to be provided in the tariff, but in view of the company being in production and the Government being under the impression that the industry was a potential user of Australian-grown cotton, rates of 25 per cent. British Preferential Tariff and 35 per cent. General Tariff requested by the company were imposed on 3rd September, 1925. The company's further request, made early in 1927, for duties to be increased to 45 per cent. British Preferential Tariff and 60 per cent. General Tariff was not immediately referred to the Tariff Board in view of the full investigations made into the industry by the Tariff Board in 1925, and the fact that there was a considerable number of other applications for increased duties for industries which had not previously been inquired into by the Tariff Board.. </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>No. This industry is not manufacturing sewing threads and sewing cottons. It imports threads in the grey free of duty and performs the finishing processes in Australia. The percentage cost of the labour done in Australia to the factory cost of the completed thread (without any addition for overhead) does not in any line amount to 25 per cent. Therefore, the industry is receiving a protection at present of 25 per cent. of the f.o.b. price plus 10 per cent, of the British competitive, line for performing work in Australia, which represents less than 25 per cent. of the factory cost. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">Moreover, this industry is not a likely user of Australian-grown cotton, the directors contending that no suitable cotton is grown in Australia. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>FEDERAL CAPITAL COMMISSION</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<type>miscellaneous</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Mr. Gregory and Chief Commissioner</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFE</name.id>
<electorate>SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</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 desire to make a personal explanation. Speaking on the budget two days ago I referred to a letter sent to me by the Chief Commissioner for the Federal Capital, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir J</inline> ohn Butters. The <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> this morning publishes a statement by that gentleman that I had made use of a private letter. The communication I received was typed on official paper and signed "J. H. Butters, Chief Commissioner." Moreover, a copy of it was sent to the honorable member for Fawkner <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Maxwell).</inline> . Honorable members will realize, therefore, that the letter was not private or confidential. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PATENTS BILL</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Bill received from the Senate and (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Latham)</inline> read a first time. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPERS</title>
<page.no>6736</page.no>
<type>papers</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>The following papers were presented : - </para>
<quote>
<para>War Service Homes Act - Report of the War Service Homes Commission, 1st July, 1927, to 30th June, 1928, together with </para>
<para>Statements and Balance-sheet. </para>
</quote>
<para>Ordered to be printed. </para>
<para>Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1928, Nos. 86, 93. </para>
<para>Naval Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1928, Nos.85, 87, 92. </para>
<para>New Guinea Act - Ordinance of 1928, No. 18 - Mining. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>TASMANIA SINKING FUND AGREEMENT BILL</title>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Earle</inline> Page) agreed to - </para>
<quote>
<para>That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to -approve an agreement made between His Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty's Government of the State of Tasmania. </para>
</quote>
<para>Bill presented and read a first time. </para>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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>. - <inline font-style="italic">(By leave.)</inline> - I move - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">The agreement which the bill proposes to ratify is really the outcome of the financial agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the whole of the States. That agreement provides that all moneys and securities standing to the credit of sinking funds on the 30th June, 1929, shall be transferred to the National Debt Commission, but that such a transfer shall in no way limit the power of a State to cancel any such securities before the 30th June, 1929. Under the financial agreement, the new sinking fund contributions are to be based upon net debts ; that is to say, upon the gross debts due to the public on the 30th June, 1927, less the amounts of the sinking funds held at that date. It was contemplated that the States would immediately apply their sinking funds towards the reduction of their debts and thus obtain the benefit of the consequential saving of interest. The majority of the States have already taken this action, their sinking funds having been invested in their own securities. Tasmania, however, occupies a different position, almost the whole of her sinking funds being invested in Commonwealth securities. Thus she could obtain the same immediate advantages as the other States only by the adoption of one of two courses; either she could sell the securities on the open market^- which obviously was most undesirable - or hand the bonds over to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has agreed that the amount of the bonds handed over -shall be offset against certain debts that the State owes to the Commonwealth. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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 will be the position if the financial agreement is not validated ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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 would make very little difference in it. The Tasmanian debt will be reduced to the extent of the bonds that are cancelled; but the interest which is now placed to the credit of her sinking fund will be no longer obtained from those securities. This is purely a domestic question, which Tasmania must decide for herself, and she is satisfied that the course proposed will not prove hurtful to her. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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 Commonwealth will cancel the debt and obtain the amount which now stands to the credit of the sinking fund? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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 so. From the point of view of the Commonwealth, the position will not be altered. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZT</name.id>
<electorate>WANNON, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RODGERS, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr RODGERS</name>
</talker>
<para>- What will be the position of the Tasmania bondholders, who are relying upon the sinking fund eventually to discharge the obligation of the State, when those securities are surrendered ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</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 not to be any surrender, but merely a cancellation of debt to the amount of the bonds held. The advantage of the transaction to Tasmania is that she will not in future need to make provision in her revenue account to meet the interest on the bonds. The benefit in that direction will be something like £63,000 a year. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
<para>Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate. </para>
<para>Report adopted and bill <inline font-style="italic">(by leave)</inline> read a third time. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL</title>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 11th September, <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 6569) on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Earle</inline> Page - </para>
<quote>
<para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6737</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSC</name.id>
<electorate>Batman</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRENNAN</name>
</talker>
<para>.- The entry of the Commonwealth into this domain of taxation, as with some other forms of taxation, was made in 1914, on account of conditions brought about by the war. Prior to that date the exploitation of this field was left to the Governments of the different States, who, it must be admitted, exploited it fairly fully. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Persons of a hopeful nature supposed that the activities of the Commonwealth in this direction would be only temporary; but, true to tradition, the tax having been imposed has continued to swell the revenues of the Commonwealth and to add to the general burden of taxation under which the people labour, and relief from which they expected the present Government to afford them. </para>
<para>The general principle of this measure, so far as I have been able to familiarize myself with its provisions, is not one to which any great exception can be taken. It probably represents an honest endeavour by the taxation officials to stop up those fissures through which there have been undesirable leakages of public revenue. When taxation weighs heavily there is naturally a disposition to avoid paying it wherever possible. It must be acknowledged that this particular form of taxation does weigh heavily, almost oppressively, upon certain sections of the community. I am not customarily regarded as a spirited defender of any phase of big business; but I am bound to admit that even in the case of fairly large estates, especially those that are in the nature of business undertakings, the imposition of this tax sometimes causes considerable embarrassment. When the death occurs of the person upon whose initiative and skill the success of a business entirely depends, the procuring of the ready money necessary to pay the estate duty is frequently a matter of real concern to the wife and other dependants of the testator or an intestate. Generally speaking, the amount of tax is considerable, more particularly under the laws of the States. In the case of small estates the position is even more serious. The testator may be the owner of a humble residence, worth not more than £1,200. For that sum nowadays, the average working man can secure little more than a cottage, and his widow frequently experiences great difficulty in finding the money' to pay federal and Stare estate duties, in addition to other fees, and in some cases the legal expenses connected with administration. This tax operates more harshly than almost any other form of taxation ; or at any rate it is felt more directly and more poignantly than any with which I am familiar. The Commonwealth duty, in principle, is levied upon the ; taxable value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death and passing to other persons under the terms of his will or by reason of an intestacy. That is a summary of . what constitute*" taxable property. </para>
<para>As I have said, and as the Treasurer said when introducing the bill, it has been found that in this general field of taxation the law leaves loopholes of escape for those who certainly should pay taxation. Gifts passing from a living person to another within a year of the testator or intestate's death may be charged with duty; but it has been found that apparently genuine transactions of transfers for value between relatives, which are really in essence not transfers for good consideration but gifts, have not come within the law. It happens therefore that instead of the parties making gifts from one to another which would come within the law both as to gifts and as to estate duty later on, they make these transfers for value; but the value instead of being the real value is merely a nominal value agreed upon simply to escape the provisions of the law in regard to duty. I have not the slightest, doubt that such transactions, which are clearly evasions of the law, frequently occur. Of course it would be contrary to justice that a second impost should be placed upon an estate merely because the consideration money in connexion with such a transfer was comparatively light. Even in the ordinary course of buying and selling it sometimes happens that property passes from a transferee to a transferor for a small consideration. In other words, the purchaser makes a good bargain. In such cases if the property were assessed by a competent authority it would often be valued at considerably more than the amount paid for it, but no further impost would be made for duty. I submit therefore that while this new provision is justifiable in certain cases it should not be used to levy a second duty unjustly, merely because the original consideration appeared upon the face of it to be low. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6738</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 provision will only apply to relatives by blood. Ordinary purchasers will not be affected. ' </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6739</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr BRENNAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is so; but even a purchaser who is a relative by blood may carry out such a transaction in good faith although the consideration may, in the opinion of some people and even of experts, be inadequate. There is no reason why every transaction should be regarded with suspicion. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Certain provisions in the bill apply to the collection of duties following the death of a joint tenant. In the case of joint tenancies the property passes to the survivor or survivors. The Treasurer, and apparently the Taxation Department, consider that it is unjust that no taxation should be collected in respect of property so passing. The first comment upon that is that every estate which is the subject-matter of a joint tenancy must sooner or later come into account for duty. The Treasurer has suggested that joint tenancies may be given continuity like certain trusts, and that there might he something in the nature of an endless chain which would prevent the property from ever coming into account for the purposes of this duty. That suggestion seems to me to be a little far fetched. Such a situation could be provided against by enacting that the number of changes in proprietorship should be limited. If, let us say, three persons constitute a joint tenancy it might be provided that the property could pass to two of the joint tenants in the event of the death of one of the three, and subsequently to the survivor in the event of the death of the other, and that it must then come into account for taxation purposes. However, the Treasurer proposes to take "a short cut and impose the duty when the first break occurs in the joint tenancy. That appears to me to be to some extent a new departure. </para>
<para>The Treasurer also referred to cases in which the whole of the property of a deceased person has been transferred during his lifetime. The axe of the taxgatherer cannot fall upon any one in those circumstances, for all the property having been alienated, no question of probate arises and no letters of administration need be taken out. That appears to me to be an anomalous position. There are, of course, provisions in the Administration and Probate Act to compel persons to bring estates into probate, and creditors may enforce the winding-up of a deceased estate; hut where there is no estate because of the alienation of it by the deceased prior to his death nothing can be done. It seems to me to be logical that duty should be collected in such circumstances on parallel lines to those employed in respect of other alienations within twelve months at least of a person's death. I realize that there is some danger in continuing an obligation upon a property after it has changed hands. It is always dangerous to attempt to follow property when it passes in good faith and for value from one person to another, but apparently the qualifications included in the bill will safeguard the position. </para>
<para>This measure may not excite much discussion and at the moment I do not take exception to it in principle. It appears to be justified by the experience of the Taxation Department. It will remove some anomalies and prevent certain evasions which have hitherto occurred. I can only hope that the tax will be gathered equitably and diligently by the Treasurer after the bill is passed. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6739</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JY7</name.id>
<electorate>Boothby</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 first Commonwealth Estate Duty Bill was passed in 1914, and it was understood that it would continue in operation only during the period of the war. But the introduction of this measure makes it clear that the tax is still to be imposed. Whenwe were considering possible readjustments of Commonwealth and State financial relations last year, there appeared to be a likelihood that the Commonwealth would withdraw from this field of taxation ; but what has occurred shows us clearly how difficult it is for a government to withdraw from any field of taxation which it has entered. I regret that a bill like this, which the Treasurer himself described as extremely technical, should have been introduced under circumstances which afford honorable members very little opportunity to examine it thoroughly; but I must acknowledge the kindness of the Treasurer in providing me with a copy of the speech which he made when introducing it. So far as one can judge, after such a brief consideration of the bill, it contains some commendable features. It is plainly desirable that when the whole of his property is disposed, of by one person to others within a year of his death there should be a provision by which returns can be obtained and duty collected from the persons who benefit. That is obviously a matter that ought to be put right. Trustees and administrators should have the power to recover any amount due by the donee of a gift <inline font-style="italic">inter vivos</inline> or a remainder under settlement. It would be plainly ridiculous that the administrator should be liable to the Government for certain amounts and yet unable to recover them from the persons who have benefited by those gifts. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>A point on which I wish to speak in rather more detail was referred to by the honorable member for Batman <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Brennan),</inline> and has reference to the subject of joint tenancy, as to which this bill appears to me to go some distance in making rather a radical, alteration regarding what has always been one of the features of English and of Australian law. As most honorable members know, joint tenancy has five characteristics - unity of title, time, interest and possession, and, perhaps most important of all, the right of survivorship. If honorable members will bear with me for a moment, I shall read a short quotation from Strahan's <inline font-style="italic">Law of Property,</inline> which, at page 130, refers in these words to the subject of the right of survivorship - </para>
<quote>
<para>The most important characteristic of joint tenancy is the right of survivorship or <inline font-style="italic">jus</inline><inline font-style="italic">accrescendi</inline> When an interest in land or goods is limited to two or more persons jointly, the joint tenants arc regarded as one proprietor, and <inline font-style="italic">us</inline> each tenant dies the whole estate survives to the surviving tenant or tenants until only one tenant remains, who then becomes owner of the interest in severalty. The surviving tenant or tenants are entitled to the whole joint interest on a fellow joint tenant's death, regardless of any devise or bequest of his share which he may have made by his will, or of any rent-charge upon the joint interest which he may have granted during his life, or of any claims of creditors for debts due by him. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That is sufficient to show how clearly and strongly it has always been held that the almost essential feature of joint tenancy is the right of survivorship, by which, of course, it is plainly distinguished from tenancy in common, where there is simply unity of possession, and no right of survivorship on the death of a tenant. On the death of a tenant in common his interest is subject to the provisions of his will, and in the case of an intestacy is shared among his next of kin. To turn from the law to the facts, I imagine that in most cases of joint tenancy in Australia it applies to houses and land, generally city property. A man as he gets up in years may buy a property in a suburb, and put it into the name of himself and his wife jointly. The effect of the unities being observed is that at common law there is a right in the survivor of those two to the interest in that property, and to its use for the rest of his or her life. In all probability this practice is mo3t frequently found among persons who are not particularly well off. Personally, I cannot say that I see anything reprehensible in it, and I think it is at least open to doubt whether it is quite a fair thing that the Taxation Department should within a brief period collect two estate duty taxes, that is on the deaths of the husband and the wife, who as a general rule are much of the same age, and may normally be expected to die within a comparatively short time of each other. The chances are that in the case of persons" with larger properties matters are provided for by a settlement, which may involve more money at the time, but which would create a life interest for each of the persons concerned in turn, and on the decease of the survivor of them provide for the remainder of the interest. The point I put to the House is that we have here, it seems to me, an interference with one of the oldest forms of English conveyance, and that it is not even a complete interference. Under the federal law no deceased estate which is under £1,000 in value is taxable at all, and, therefore, this wiping out of the rights of joint tenants by saying that the Commonwealth law does not regard them as such for the purposes of this duty, will not affect the very large number of persons whose estates are under £1,000 in value. It seems to me undesirable that the law should wipe out joint tenancy with regard to anybody who has property to the value of over £1,000, but should not wipe it out if the value of the property is under £1,000. Those whose properties are under £1,000 in value will still have their joint tenancies recognized, and their estates will not be taxable by the </para>
<para>Commonwealth.. Whether they would be taxed by a State or not is a matter for the State Parliaments to decide. </para>
<para>I do not wish to over-stress the matter, but I express regret that by this bill a type of holding which goes back to the early days of English law is, in effect, to be abrogated, though not directly abrogated as regards the whole public; it is simply to be put aside so far as those who own property over a certain value are concerned. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6741</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 what way will it be abrogated? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6741</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>- In the sense that if full estate duties can be collected from both of two joint tenants, the joint tenancy does not exist, because there is, so far as this measure goes, no survivorship. The essential feature of joint tenancy, if I may put the matter to honorable members again, is that there should be joint survivorships; that is, if one of the parties die, his or her interests lapse and the other party owns the whole property. Under the provisions of the bill that will not be the case. The measure, in effect, says that, for the purpose of' estate duty, a joint tenancy shall be regarded as a tenancy in common. That is the way in which I read the bill, and if I am wrong on the point I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will put me right. One may, perhaps, express a doubt as to whether it would not have been better if the Government, instead of doing this, had laid it down clearly that no joint tenancy should be regarded as such unless, in fact, the four unities - which I have already mentioned - title, time, interest, and possession - had been fully complied with. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>