House of Representatives
4 June 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- PER CAPITA PAYMENTS
QUESTION
- COTTON BOUNTY
QUESTION
- WOOL TRADE
TUESDAY SITTING
QUESTION
- POST OFFICE TRADERS’ DIRECTORY
QUESTION
- MIGRATION
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, CANBERRA: EMPLOYMENT
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE) BILL
OIL AGREEMENT BILL
SURPLUS REVENUE BILL
STATES GRANTS BILL
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2664

QUESTION

PER CAPITA PAYMENTS

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement published in the press this morning, that the Commonwealth Government intends to ask this Parliament to abolish the per capita payments to the States, will the Treasurer make available to honorable members a report of the proceedings at the recent conference between Federal and State Ministers?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I understand that the proofs of the report, which were sent to the State representatives for correction, have not yet been returned. As soon as the revised report is available for distribution, copies will be issued to honorable members.

Mr Charlton:

– In the meantime, the Treasurer will not proceed with his financial proposals?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– No.

page 2664

QUESTION

COTTON BOUNTY

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the report of the Tariff Board in regard to the proposed bounty for the cotton industry has been received? If so, will the Government expedite its decision in regard thereto, so that the growers may know at the earliest possible date under what conditions they will producecotton in the present season?

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The report of the

Tariff Board on the cotton industry has been received.It is now having the careful attention of the Government, and a decision will be announced at the earliest possible date.

page 2664

QUESTION

WOOL TRADE

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister seen the serious statement published in the last issue of Smith’s Weekly, wherein it is stated that, owing to what is known as sectional buying in the wool trade, Australian growers were deprived of £6,339,141 during the season 1925-26; the New South Wales growers alone losing over £2,500,000? The article says that the auction sales as now conducted are farcical, and that federal legislation on the subject is needed. Will the Prime Minister investigate these assertions, in order to decide whether steps can be taken to prevent a repetition of the serious lossesnow being sustained by the Australian wool trade?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– I have not seen the article to which the honorable member refers, but any representations made to me by the wool-growers will receive serious consideration.

page 2664

TUESDAY SITTING

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to-

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 2664

QUESTION

POST OFFICE TRADERS’ DIRECTORY

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that for some years aRed Book, containing a classified Traders’ Directory, was issued by the Postmaster-General’s Department?
What was the reason for discontinuing this publication?
Were negotiations entered into with a private firm for the printing of a similar publication, and, if so, with what result?
Will he favorably consider the publication of a Telephone Traders’ Directory?

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

TheRed Book was published by private enterprise, with the authority of the Department.
The publisher was unable to continue the publication.
The rights to publish a similar publication were disposed of by public tender in 1924, hut the contractor was unable to make satisfactory arrangements.
It is considered that the practice of pub lishing classified advertisements at the back of the official directories fully meets requirements.

page 2664

QUESTION

MIGRATION

Article bysir John Ross.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he read the article in the Empire Review of April, viz., “ Our Most Vital Problem,” by Sir John Boss?
If not, will he have it examined, with the view of the author’s valuable statements re migration being reprinted for the benefit of honorable members?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I have not read the article referred to, but will take an early opportunity of doing so. The suggestion of the honorable member will receive consideration.

page 2665

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, CANBERRA: EMPLOYMENT

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government give an opportunity foremployees of other States engaged in the printing industry to apply for employment in the Government Printing Office at Canberra?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– It is intended that, as a temporary arrangement pending the establishment of the permanent office, the staff to be employed at the Government Printing Office at Canberra will consist of Victorian Government Printing Office employees. If it be necessary to engage other employees, consideration will be given to the claims of applicants from other States.

page 2665

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE) BILL

Debate resumed from the 3rd June (vide page 2640), on motion by Mr. Bruce -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Charlton had moved by way of amendment -

That all the words after the word “That” be left out with a view to the insertion of the following words in lieu thereof : - “ the bill be withdrawn with a view to eliminating clause 2 and substituting therefor the following: -

Section fifty-one of the Constitutionis altered -

by omitting from paragraph (i) the words “ with other countries, and among the States.” (b)by omitting from paragraph (xxxv.) the words “ Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State ‘’ and inserting in their stead the words, - “ Labour and employment, and unemployment, including -

the terms and conditions of labour and employment in any trade, industry, occupation, or calling;

the rights and obligations of employers and employees;

the maintenance of industrial peace ; and

the settlement of industrial disputes; and”

by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph: - (x1) Trusts, corporations, combinations, monopolies and arrangements in relation to -

the production, manufacture,or supply of goods, or the supply of services; or

the ownership of the means of production, manufacture, or supply of goods, or supply of services.

– There is in no country more done to secure the elimination of waste than is done in America. I can assure the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) that if he will read this book he will find that it contains most valuable information. It is one of the latest publications. It attracted world-wide attention, and became a famous book in a few weeks. In order to show how the system adopted in America works out, as compared with the result obtained in England, I quote the following: -

Mr. Hoover, the United States of America Secretary of Commerce, in his annual report, made public on 29th November, 1925, the Department of Labour index of the movement of wages and prices from 1920 to 1925, using the 1913 levels as the unit of 100. The price percentages represent the average wholesale prices of all commodities.

– We should have plenary powers.

Mr PROWSE:

– The principal Parliament of Australia should undoubtedly have plenary powers but we are helpless, because of the limitations that have been set up, and we cannot secure the necessary amendments because of the shibboleths that have been raised, one being State rights. I believe that State rights could and should be clearly defined. We should increase the number of States in Australia, and thereby increase the status of the Federal Parliament. The opinion of the people, respecting their varying needs, would then have a greater field of expression in this Parliament. To-day half the people with a common need are centralized with a community of interest. The other half, with all the other needs, is widely distributed. Under our present system of States we cannot obtain the representation that is necessary to develop this great country. There is too much centralization. Every honorable member must have felt the truth of the remarks of the right honorable member for North Sydney, when he clearly depicted the weakness and inability of this House to carry out such legislation as the people wanted. The time is therefore ripe to alter the Constitution to allow the wishes of the people to be carried out.

We are their representatives. These proposals are not,’ as has been suggested, being placed before the people in a precipitate manner. Almost the same powers have been asked for previously. The subject was discussed at the elections, and many of us intimated that it was the intention of the Government to seek greater powers under the Constitution. The bill has been discussed in this House and the newspapers throughout Australia are publishing the debates. If this measure is passed, we shall place the position before the people, and it is probable that they, feeling the need for amending the Constitution, will approve of the proposals. It has been stated that this matter should be postponed until a constitutional session is held at Canberra next year, but, to my mind, it is too urgent to permit of delay. I agree with the honorable members for Wimmera (Mr. Stewart) and Swan (Mr. Gregory) that the farmer is hit every time, and all the time by the effect of arbitration court awards. I recognizethat unless this court is to be clothed with additional powers of investigation, the position will not be improved, except that the work will be carried out in a more efficient manner, thus lessening the opportunity for strikes. When any additional cost is placed on the community, 96 per cent, of it falls upon the primary producer, because it is by the export of primary produce that 96 per cent, of the wealth of the people is created. I hope that the pro. posed court will have power to give consideration to the effect of its recommendations. Two authorities cannot .function successfully in the same sphere, and thai is why I favour the creation of one authority with judicial powers not possessed by the existing court. I agree that combines are not necessarily injurious, and sometimes may be of benefit. In the United States of America there’ are big companies that have operated to the benefit of the people, not only of America, but also of the world. As examples, there are the Ford Motor Car Company and the Swift Meat Company. Mr. Swift sends me every year the annual report of the directors, in which emphasis is always laid on the amount by which they have been able to reduce the price of meat to the consumers. One of the reports stated that 750,000,000 lb. of meat had been handled that year, and that a- profit satis- factory to the company had been made. The’ profit actually amounted to oneeighth of a penny per lb. of the output. In other words, if the company had sold to the consumer at one-eighth of a penny per lb. less, it would have made no profit. I am quite satisfied that the company would purchase as economically as possible, and it has to sell in competition with, other firms.. In that concern the greatest reward is given to the employee who can show how to sell to the consumer at a lower price; but it appears to me that in this country the man is paid the most ~who can show a combine how to extract more from the public. That seems to be the fundamental difference between the methods of conducting business in the two countries. Mr. Henry Ford has expressed views similar to those held by the Swift Company. He pays his nien higher wages than the union rates, and he has made himself fabulously wealthy by rendering cheap service to the community. There are two large combines in Australia over which this Parliament and the people have no control - the combine of capital, particularly of manufacturers, and the combine of labour unions. Both of them may be of great value, but in any case this Parliament should have power to control them. I support the bill, not merely because a, Nationalist Government is in power, for .any power the people give to this Parliament, future governments, be they national or labour, will be able to exercise. It is a pity that constitutional questions should be discussed on party lines. The Government, in submitting these proposals, has not acted in a partisan way. Tt desires power over everything that may restrain the trade or hamper the progress of this country. Austrafia is a great prize, and we should not -allow combines to strangle it. We do not wish to so hobble industry as to retard legitimate progress. Legislation that will stop any combination of persons, whether unionists or capitalists, labourers or farmers, from operating detrimentally to the people is desirable. This is the people’s Parliament, and it should govern. That is the only logical conclusion a true democrat can reach. I am not much concerned as to whether wages -boards or arbitration courts are the means employed to settle industrial disputes. There seem to be many arguments in favour of wages boards, and some solid ones- against them.; but one fact that ap- peals to honorable members from other States is that representatives of Victorian constituencies favour them. That would seem to indicate that experience of wages boards in this State has been satisfactory. One example that made me think was the Hibble Commission, which is really a wagesboard in the coal industry. Mr. Hibble was appointed an impartial chairman to meet the coalowners and coal workers. Those two sections had a difference of opinion, and the coal owners said to the coal workers, “ We can pay you so much if we receive so much for our coal.” The reply was. That is easy,” and Mr. Hibble only had to say, “ I give that my blessing.” But what about the people ? Has that transaction been an economically sound one ? Not at all, for it has increased the cost of coal to the people, and has reduced their capacity to compete in the undertakings in which they use coal. That kind of wages board does not appeal very strongly to me. I hope that the new court will deal with industrial questions scientifically, so that all the people of Australia will benefit.

Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2.15 p.m.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Makin) adjourned until a later hour.

page 2677

OIL AGREEMENT BILL

Assent reported.

page 2677

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

Motion for leave to bring in a bill for an act to repeal the Surplus Revenue Act 1910, by leave, withdrawn.

page 2677

STATES GRANTS BILL

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of the Deputy of the Governor-General’s message):

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to-

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Surplus Revenue Act 1910, to grant and apply out of the Consoli dated Revenue Fundsums for the purpose of financial assistance to the States and for other purposes.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended : resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Dr. Earle Page and Sir Neville Howse do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Dr. Earle Page, and read a first time.

Secondreading

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Three years ago this Government was able to effect a great administrative reform by amalgamating . the Commonwealth and State income taxcollecting agencies. This resulted in a saving to the Commonwealth of about £200,000 annually, and rendered unnecessary the services of 600 officers who werepractically duplicating work that State officers were doing. The reform also involved the adoption of a uniform assessment form in practically all the States, and so was a great convenience to the general taxpayer.It is now proposed to effect another reform. Since the one collecting agency has been operating, we have had the burlesque of the Commonwealth Government levying taxes which the State Governments have solemnly collected, the State Governments paying themover to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth giving them back to the States. It is now proposed to end this burlesque. It is also proposed that the Commonwealth shall evacuate the field of land taxation, estate duties, and entertainments taxation. This also will result in a consider able saving in the administration, and will be of convenience to the taxpayer. At the same time, the Government will cease the capitation payments to the States, and make certain reductions in the rate of income tax on both companies and individuals. It is proposed to recoup the States for the loss of the capitation payments by making certain special grants to them. These proposals will ensure a saving to the taxpayers in each State of about £50,000, and more than that in some States.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Why could not the Treasurer convince the State Premiers that that would be so?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– The State authorities were afraid to discuss the matter, for they knew that the Commonwealth figures were incontrovertible. It was for that reason that they adopted the attitude they did, and that we witnessed such a farce at the conference held in Melbourne a few days ago. Under the provisions of this bill, special grants will be made to Western Australia and Tasmania, in accordance with the proposals that the Government has already submitted to the Premiers of those States. The discontinuance of payments of subsidies by the Commonwealth to the States has been regarded as inevitable ever since federation was first agreed upon, as is shown by the fact that the Constitution gave the Commonwealth Go>vernment complete control both of Customs and excise revenue, and of all forms of direct taxation. The only matter that, was left for determination was how and when payment should be discontinued. A careful reading of the discussions that took place at pre-federation conferences also indicates that it- was generally thought that the Commonwealth Government should some day take over the State debts, and manage them and pay the interest on them. Provision was actually made in the Constitution for that to be done, and it was set out that if the Commonwealth revenue was not sufficient to pay the interest bills, the States should be levied on to make up the deficiency. This plainly indicates that nothing would be returned to the States. Included in the Commonwealth Constitution was a section that is commonly known as the “ Braddon blot,” which provided that for a period of ten years after the consummation of federation, three-quarters of the Customs and excise revenue should be returned to the States. In 1910, when the Braddon section ceased to operate, there was substituted for the return to the States of three-fourths of the total Customs and excise revenue a per capita payment of 25s. per head of population, which has continued ever since. In the discussions which took place when the first capitation payment was being considered, it was stated that if at any time during the continuance of the agreement a state of war should arise, so that the whole of the revenues of the Commonwealth might be required for national purposes, making it necessary for the Commonwealth to levy direct taxation, the term of ten years fixed for the operation of the per capita agreement might be reconsidered, and it might even be suddenly brought to an end.

Mr McGrath:

– That is not correct.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It is absolutely correct. I can quote from a dozen places in Hansard to show that members of the honorable member’s party spoke on this question, and dealt with this matter when the Fisher Government introduced the bill to give effect to the agreement.

Mr McGrath:

– The honorable gentleman’s party wanted a referendum to make the payments permanent.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The position was made clear in this House by an honorable member of the party on this side who, I think, is now Chief Justice of Victoria, and others, as well as by members of the Labour party. It was pointed out .that if a war occurred, it might be necessary for the Commonwealth Government to invade the field of direct taxation, and there would then be a possibility of the per capita payment being reduced or abolished even before the ten years provided for in the agreement had expired. One member of the Parliament put the position in a few short words. He said that if it were found necessary for the Commonwealth to go into the field of direct taxation, that would be tantamount to taking the per capita payment back. The war spoken of, and possibly anticipated, in those days, did occur, and it left behind it a largely unproductive debt of nearly £400,000,000. The unproductive debt is practically twice as great as the whole of the debts of the States at federation. The Commonwealth has been forced into direct taxation because of that huge debt. It has actually raised in the field of direct taxation something, like £21,000,000 during some of the years of the past decade. On estimates based on the low rates of interest current before 1910 it was recognized that if the Commonwealth operated the constitutional section empowering it to take over State debts it would be possible for it to take over only £174,000,000 of those debts, and would have to depend upon the revenue of the States for interest on the balance. Now we have a debt which is more than twice the amount of the debts of the States prior to federation.

The States are unanimous in expressing their appreciation of the altered proposals now submitted by the Prime Minister in respect to the field of income taxation, and in view of the far-reaching effects of the proposals, suggest that the further consideration of those proposals be postponed until Saturday,9th June, 1923, to enable each State to give full consideration thereto.

Queensland was not represented at the postponed gathering on the 9th June, 1923, but its Government telegraphed that it was prepared to accept the arrangements proposed by the Commonwealth, subject to an adjustment on the basis of the actual figures. Tasmania was not represented, and New South Wales dissented from the resolution. We concluded that, if the final agreement were deferred until August or September, the preparation of State budgets would be unduly delayed; accordingly, the proposal was deferred for twelve months. Unfortunately, it has been postponed much longer than that. The fact that this readjustment has been delayed six years beyond the statutory period fixed for the continuance of the per capita payments does not justify its further postponement, and the Government considers that the vicious principle of one authority raising taxation for another authority to spend should be terminated at the earliest possible date. I repeat the statement that the States did not advance any moral claim in 1923, but, on the contrary, spontaneously submitted an offer which differs but slightly as regards the fields of taxation vacated from the scheme which the Government put forward this year. This moral right on the part of the States seems to be an intangible and indefinable thing. Originally the States received back from the Commonwealth threefourths of the Customs and excise revenue. Later, that was substituted for a per capita payment of 25s. per annum. In 1919 Sir William McPherson, the then Treasurer of Victoria, suggested that that payment might be reduced by1s. per annum. Apparently the payment could be reduced to a shilling or even a farthing per head, and the moral right of the States would be preserved! Honorable members will realize how slender are the grounds on which this moral right rests. At the recent conference, the State representatives refused to discuss the Commonwealth scheme, and confined themselves to a declaration of their moral right; but no man can talk long without disclosing something of his inner thoughts, and various speakers mentioned ways in which State finances would be embarrassed if the Commonwealth scheme were persisted in. The conference having failed to arrive at an agreement, the Commonwealth Government studied carefully the speeches of the State representatives, and now submits this amended scheme, which, I think, fairly meets all objections that can be reasonably offered to the previous proposal. The principle is essentially the same in both. The Commonwealth undertakes to evacuate a definite field of direct taxation.

Mr Scullin:

– Was this scheme put before the State Premiers as an alternative?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– No ; they denied the Commonwealth’s right to readjust these payments in any way. We asked them for an alternative to our proposals, and they replied, “ No ; we stand on our moral right.” We asked them to allow their officers to confer with the Federal officers in order to arrive at an equitable statistical basis for an arrangement. They declined to do that. The Commonwealth Government was, therefore, thrown back upon its own resources, and I think that the scheme that I am now proposing to the House meets adequately the difficulties which the State Premiers anticipate. Beyond the moral objection that was raised by the State Treasurers, they opposed the proposals mainly because the collection of tax from the various fields of taxation which we were evacuating would make them unpopular. They frankly said so. The following is the memorandum setting out the Government’s proposals: -

1.Land Tax. - The £2,111,000 represents the average collections in the three years ended 30th June, 1924, and does not include taxes on Crown leaseholds. This basis of estimating theamount of tax has been adopted as the collections for 1024-25 and 1925-26 include arrears of the tax on Crown leaseholds. The actual collections in 1924-25 were £2,519,711, and the estimated receipts in 1925-26 total £2,800,000. The distribution amongst States is on thebasis of the taxable lands in each State, as shown in the assessments for 1922-23, which amounted to £2,143.343. Since 1922-23 the valuations have materially increased. At the present time, land taxes are imposed in all States except New South Wales. The Commonwealth land tax wasfirst imposed in 1910-11. The rates were increased in 1914-15 by approximately 30 per cent. In 1918-19 a further increase of 20 per cent. was imposed. The rate of tax was reduced by 20per cent. in 1922-23.

Estate Duties. - The total of £1,300,000 is somewhat below the collections of the last three years. The collections were £1,320,911 in 1923-24, and £1,381,051 in 1924-25, whilst it is estimated that the receipts in 1925-26 will exceed £1,350,000. The distribution amongst States is based on the actual assessments in. respect to each State for 1923-24 and 1924-25. In the assessments, the amount attributed to each State represents the actual duty on the assets of estates in that State. All the States impose death duties, though the basis varies in the several States.
Entertainments Tax. - These figures represent the estimated receipts for a full year at the reduced rates, which came into operation on the loth October, 1925. The distribution amongst the States is on the basis of the actual collections in the ten months ended the 30th April, 1926, in respect of entertainments in the respective States. This tax is now levied only in cases where the charge for admission is 2s. 6d., or more. At one time the tax was levied where the charge for admission was fid., or more. The actual collections in recent years were:- 1921-22, £675,675; 1922-23, £629,802; 1923-24, £622,460; 1924-25, £680,586. 4 and 5. Income Taxes. - These figures represent 40 per cent. of the estimatedassessments for 1926-27 at the rates of tax now applying. The estimate is based on the actual assessments for 1924-25. Allowance has been made for the reduction of 12½ per cent. in the rate of tax effected this year, and for an average annual growth of 6 per cent. in the taxable incomes. The amounts have been apportioned amongst the States on the basis of the actual collections in each State during the last fire years, after allowing for the distribution of the Central Office collections of taxes on individuals on a population basis, and for the distribution of Central Office collections of taxes on companies on the basis, of the taxable incomes of companies under State’ laws. The rates of income tax on individuals were reduced by 10 per cent. in 1922-23, a further 10 per cent. in 1924-25, and a further 12½ per cent. in 1925-26. The amount of non-taxable income was raised to £300 in 1924-25. The actual collections in recent years’ were: - 1921-22, £16,790,682; 1922-23 , £12,304,518 ; 1923-24, £11,057,555; 1924-25, £11,136,344.
Per Capita Payments. - These figures represent 25s. per head of the estimated populationof the respective States at 3 1st December, 19.26, together with a special payment of £87,188 in the case of Western Australia. 9 and 10. Adjusting Grants and Special Assistance. - The object of the adjusting grants is to secure that each State is in a better position by approximately £50,000 than if the per capita payments were made as at present and taxes were not surrendered to the States. In the case of Western Australia, it was proposed to provide special relief totalling £450,000, subject, amongst other things, to the discontinuance of the special payment of £87,188,which that State would have been entitled to under the Surplus Revenue Act. The full amount of £450,000 is accordingly included in column 10, and the deduction of £87,188 has been allowed for in fixing the amount of the adjusting grant to Western Australia. The amounts of £450,000 for Western Australia and £378,000 for Tasmania represent assistance to be given to those Stateson special grounds independent of the general financial readijustment of Commonwealth and State finances.

The only departure from that is that both the Commonwealth and the States will impose income taxes; but this departure really favours the States. The commission pointed out that any scheme for harmonization or amalgamation which left the Commonwealth and State authorities both demanding revenue from the same people by the same mode of taxation could at best be only an imperfect remedy for the existing disabilities. It was practically the unanimous opinion among the witnessesthe commission examined that a delimitation of spheres of taxation was desirable. The members of the commission were of the. opinion that only by a delimitation of the spheres or an allocation of subjects of taxation between the Commonwealth and the States could an orderly and satisfactory system of taxation be brought into operation in Australia. The new arrangement will be economical, because three taxes which the Commonwealth itself at present collects independently of the States, will be discontinued. Taxation staffs will not be required by the Commonwealth for land tax, estate duties, or entertainments tax. Practically all the States are collecting taxes in these fields, and the collection of somewhat higher amounts of tax will not be proportionately more costly. When the Commonwealth and State income tax staffs were amalgamated, it was possible to dispense with the services of several hundred Commonwealth officers. As a large number of offices was abolished in a short periodbecause of a change in the Government’s policy regarding taxation collection, the Government provided for compensation to officers whose services were no longer required. This was done under the provisions of the Income Tax Collection Act 1923-24. The change that is now to be made will also render the services of many officers unnecessary. As this will follow a change of Government policy, the Government has decided to grant compensation to officers who now become surplus under these arrangements, on a basis similar to that provided in the Income Tax Collection Act.

Speaking in the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia on the9 th December, 1924, the Honorable P. Collier, Premier, said. -

The north-west requires special treatment. . . There is an obligation devolving upon the Commonwealth Government to assist Western Australia financially in the development of that portion of our territory. It is almost beyond the financial powers of this State to provide for the necessary developmental works in the north-west, and, at the same time, to find the money required for . . . the more closelysettled portions of the State. It was the duty of the Federal Government to assist us in the development of the north-west, just as they have been finding money for the development of the Northern Territory. . . . I do not see much hope of the State affording any considerable financial assistance to the north-west for some years to come.

Mr. Collier, according to the press report of a civic farewell, referred to suggestions that Mr. Theodore, when Premier of Queensland, had made for the development of Northern Australia. In the Daily News, he is reported to have said, mentioning the north-west -

Something should be done to develop the hidden wealth of that land. It could only be done by the Government - a national Government embarking upon a scheme of railway construction. . . . That was the work of a national Government; in other words, the Federal Government. It was just as much their obligation to look after the north-west as was the Northern Territory, and it had to be remembered that nations could not keep on growing unless they had additional territory where people might settle.

He is reported in the Western Australian to have said -

It is a national obligation for the Federal Government to attend to our north-west, just as much as it is for that Government to take the responsibility of governing and developing the Northern Territory.

The Government of Western Australia cannot develop the south-western portion of the State unless they are given adequate assistance. It is the duty of this Parliament to assume responsibility for the north-west. Consequently, this Government has offered to take over that territory. If that offer is accepted, the finances of Western Australia will be relieved to the extent of approximately £150,000 a year. We are awaiting an opportunity to discuss that proposal with the Government of Western Australia.

I shall now refer to the case of Tasmania. That State has encountered difficulties ever since the inauguration of federation. It did not benefit to the same extent as other States, on account of its isolated position. During the first period of ten years it believed that it suffered loss under the bookkeeping system then in operation, and during the second period of ten years it did not benefit to the same extent as other States from the per capita payments, because its population did not increase as rapidly, the percentage increase since 1911 being 14 compared with the Commonwealth percentage of 34. In 1912-13 the Commonwealth made a grant to Tasmania of £900,000, to be distributed over a period of ten years. In 1922-23, and again in 1923-24, further grants amounting to £85,000 were made. In 1924 additional assistance was given by the Commonwealth refraining from the taxation of lottery prizes. That involved a sum of £111,000 per annum. Provision was also made for a special grant of £85,000 per annum, to be diminished by an amount of £17,000 per annum. Yet this year the Tasmanian Government approached the Commonwealth with the plea that its position was desperate, and that it required assistance to the exent of £545,000 a year! Sir Nicholas Lockyer was appointed to investigate Tasmania’s financial position. He found that a great deal of her trouble was due to internal disorganization, and inefficiency in many ways, but he recommended the granting of a certain amount of financial assistance to enable Tasmania to regain its stability, On the condition that the Commonwealth should control that expenditure. This Government, however, regards seriously the responsibility of supervising the affairs of a sovereign State. Having examined Tasmania’s claim and investigated the whole position, we now put forward a provisional proposition to grant to Tasmania financial assistance to the extent of £378,000 annually during the next two years, after which the position can be reviewed. Tasmania’s railway system has never been a payable proposition. During the last ten years the deficits have increased until they now amount to approximately £250,000 per annum. The Commonwealth Government has offered to Tasmania for a period of two years a grant to relieve the State of the interest and sinking fund payments upon the railway debt. During the last ten or twelve years a tremendous sum of money has been Invested in hu extensive hydroelectric undertaking, which has been a drag on the State revenue. It is expected that within a period of two years this undertaking will be self-supporting. The Commonwealth Government proposes to assist the State in the meantime by allowing the grant of £68,000 to remain stable for two years instead of being diminished by £17,000 a year. We believe that the relief which we pro.pose, combined with development along right lines, will considerably improve the position of Tasmania in the next two years. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth is making available to Tasmania the whole of its scientific resources, to enable it to reach that stage of prosperity which everybody in Australia desires it to enjoy.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Soullin) adjourned.

page 2691

ADJOURNMENT

Constitution Referendum - Immigration: Speech by Sir Joseph Carruthers - Returned Soldiers’ Files.

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I move-

Thai the House do now adjourn.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Charlton) and I have conferred upon the legislation which the Government proposes to put to a referendum of the people. We are to have a further consultation, and I hope that we shall be able to arrive at an agreement which will ensure the acceptance of this very necessary measure of reform.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) to a speech which .Sir Joseph Carruthers delivered in Sydney last Wednesday, in which, according to the report iri the Sydney Morning Herald, he ascribed the failure of our immigration proposals to a lowering of the standard of morality in the Australian people. That statement will be published in every part of the world, perhaps with exaggerations. It is unfortunate that some of our public men are prepared to make statements derogatory to Australia and injurious to its people. I ask the Prime Minister to controvert this particular utterance.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I intend to deliver a lecture to returned soldiers and war widows, and I desire honorable members to thoroughly understand the nature of the address that I shall give. I propose to say that all criminals, even murderers, are entitled to a fair trial. They have a right to examine and cross-examine. But the returned soldier is not permitted to see the files relating to himself-, nor has his agent that privilege. The only concession which is granted to him is that an acquaintance among- the 75 members of the House- of Representatives or the 36 members of the Senate may peruse his file and have his case explained. Although he may produce the evidence of four eminent doctors to prove that his . injuries are due to war service, the ipse dixit of a medical man who is not so publicly known is preferred, and his request for a pension is refused. I maintain that a man who has offered his life for his country should have a fair trial. Let the files be produced and the evidence be given in open court, even though it be before only a stipendiary magistrate. I recognize the sense of justice that actuates the Minister for Defence (Sir Neville Howse). He is prepared to go to the limit which is allowed by the act and regulations. I have found also that the officers of the department are wholly sympathetic towards the returned soldiers. This should not he regarded as a party matter. I have never asked a member of the party on this side to so regard it. I would’ not sink to such a thing. I know that it will be said that the wives and families of soldier’s might not like to know the facts if these files were open to inspection, but I still say with the old Roman, “Let justice he done though the heavens fall.” Let these matters he investigated in open court. If that is done, I shall be content. I shall not accuse any honorable member on either side of being unsympathetic in this matter. The legal conception was placed before meetings of soldiers and -war widows, and resolutions on the subject were carried all over the State. I have not submitted those resolutions, because I believed that the

House would be ready to do something in the direction I have suggested. Many of the departmental officials are sympathetic to some of the resolutions that have been carried. But they have all been turned down. Though I do not like to say it, I think that the whip must have been cracked. I am satisfied that, while the present Minister for Defence is in office,he will see that the soldiers are given fair play. At the same time, I demand for every soldier the right, which is not denied to the vilest criminal, of seeing the charges made against him.

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence and Public Health · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) in and out of season never fails to bring up this subject. One must admit that it is of very great importance, but I express the hope that, in speaking on the subject during the week-end, the honorable member will be perfectly fair to the Minister in charge of repatriation, and will refer those whom he addresses to what I said on Thursday, 27th May, in reply to his motion. I then pointed out clearly and concisely that this question had been considered by a royal commissionin 1924, and that, after mature consideration, the commission came to the definite decision that it was inadvisable, and, indeed, most improper, and would be dishonorable, to allow the files of soldiers, which contain much private information, to be open for inspection. My own file contains a good deal of private information.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Where would be the disgrace if the file is inspected at the sot diet’s request?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable member’s file contains no such information, because we haveno right under any act to record a history of his life. I ask the honorable member to be perfectly fair, and to state what I said in answer to his repeated requests that these files should be made available to the individuals concerned.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The honorable gentleman does not say that he would not give a returned soldier the measure of justice given even to a murderer.

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:

– No, I do not.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– That is all I want.

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:

– I trust that in his week-end speeches the honorable member will be perfectly fair to the Minister in charge of the Repatriation Department, and will quote from Hansard the remarks I made on Thursday, 27th May.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1926/19260604_reps_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 June 1926

QUESTION

PER CAPITA PAYMENTS

Mr CHARLTON:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr Charlton:

Dr EARLE PAGE:

QUESTION

COTTON BOUNTY

Mr J FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PRATTEN:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

WOOL TRADE

Mr COLEMAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

TUESDAY SITTING

QUESTION

POST OFFICE TRADERS’ DIRECTORY

Mr BLAKELEY:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GIBSON:Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

MIGRATION

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, CANBERRA: EMPLOYMENT

Mr A GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:NAT

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE) BILL

Mr STEWART:Wimmera

Mr Mahony:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Scullin:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Lister:

Mr Watt:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Lazzarini:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Mahony:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Gregory:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Yates:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Foster:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Watt:

Mr STEWART:

Mr Prowse:

Mr STEWART:

Mr MANN:Perth

Mr Stewart:

Mr MANN:

Mr Scullin:

Mr MANN:

Mr Bruce:

Mr MANN:

Mr Gregory:

Mr MANN:

Mr Maxwell:

Mr MANN:

Mr Stewart:

Mr MANN:

Mr Stewart:

Mr MANN:

Mr Prowse:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr McGrath:

Mr MANN:

Mr Scullin:

Mr MANN:

House of Representatives
4 June 1926

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

Mr PRATTEN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr STEWART:
Wimmera

Mr MANN:
Perth

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936