Senate
22 July 1915

6th Parliament · 1st Session



The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5172

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS

Central and State Committees

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the conflicting statements appearing in the press as to the existence of certain Munitions Committees, is the Minister of Defence disposed to make a statement to the Senate informing honorable senators of the personnel of the different Committees, the functions allotted to each, and the steps, if any, taken to co-ordinate their work?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think that a satisfactory answer to the honorable senator’s question renders a statement from me necessary, and I ask the leave of the Senate to make such a statement. Leave granted.

Senator PEARCE:

– First of all, the Commonwealth Government is charged with the duty of defence. It is also the channel of communication with the British Government in all matters affecting the war. I wish to make those two matters perfectly clear, because there seems to be some misconception outside on those points.

Senator Maughan:

– There is a good deal.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is the desire of the Commonwealth, and I speak now, not only of the Government, but of the whole people, to assist Great Britain and her Allies in the supply of munitions of war. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, all arrangements for the placing of contracts for munitions of war must be made, in the first place, by the Minister of Munitions of the Imperial Government. When the Commonwealth approached that Government on this matter, it was with a view to ascertaining whether the resources of this Government and of private enterprise throughout the Commonwealth could be utilized to supply munitions of war generally, and high explosive shell in particular, and whether they could in this way be of assistance to the Mother Country. After,, as honorable senators know, a very long delay, we received a final and definite reply that such assistance would be welcomed. The Minister of Munitions has further intimated that he is prepared to take an unlimited quantity of high explosive shells, not shrapnel, and has stated the price he is prepared to pay. He has further intimated that for this purpose the Commonwealth Government is his representative in Australia. We have six State Governments in Australia, all of whom possess well-equipped manufacturing works in the shape of their railway workshops. Many of these are, perhaps, the best manufacturing workshops in the iron trade in the different States. We have, in addition, many very highly developed manufacturing establishments controlled by private enterprise. The Commonwealth Government desire to utilize to the fullest extent the State Government agencies and the workshops controlled by private enterprise, so as to secure a maximum output of the shells required from Australia. In order that the necessary in- formation might be provided in a form in which it could be utilized by the State workshops and by those in charge of private establishments, I took occasion to establish what is known as the Central Munitions Committee associated with the Defence Department. That Committee has associated with it expert’s in various matters, and has been at work at this particular business.

Senator de Largie:

– What business?

Senator PEARCE:

– The supply to State Government workshops and those controlled by private enterprise of the information necessary to enable them to determine whether they can take any part in the work of turning out high explosive shells for the Minister of Munitions in the Old Country. In the various States, at the time this question was given prominence in the press, greater or less activity was displayed by manufacturers, and in some cases by State Governments, to ascertain whether they could do anything in this regard. In New South Wales, the State Government called together representatives of the manufacturing interest, and associated with them representatives of their own manufacturing shops, upon a Committee which they charged with the duty of determining whether New South Wales could do anything in the direction of supplying munitions. That action was taken after the action taken here to form the Central Munitions Committee. In Victoria, the lead in the matter was taken by the Chamber of Manufactures, but they also had associated with them in their inquiries persons not directly connected with that chamber. In other States similar action was taken. For instance, in Western Australia, the Chamber of Manufactures and the Chamber of Commerce held a conference at which representatives of Labour organizations were also present. They approached the Government of Western Australia, and, as a result, that Government sent a joint deputation to Melbourne to interview me, and also to attend any conference that might be called in this city. The deputation represented the Chamber of Manufactures and the State Government workshops. The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures took action to call together, in the first instance, representatives of the Chambers of Manufactures in each of the States, so that a conference might be held to discuss what they could do in this matter in the different States. When they learned that other bodies were taking action in the matter, they extended their invitation, and called a conference, not only of the Chambers of Manufactures in the different States, but of representatives of other bodies that were not associated with those chambers. At the time of the convening of that conference, the definite information I have referred to as to the requirements of the Minister of Munitions had not been received, but before the conference met it was received. I was then asked to attend the Conference and explain what part the Commonwealth Government thought the various bodies could play in carrying out the manufacture of munitions in Australia, and in what way their efforts might be best directed. I attended the Conference, which I may say was a thoroughly representative one. There vere present at it representatives of all the States with the exception of South Australia, the absence of whose representatives was due to an unfortunate and unavoidable accident. There were present representatives of the State Governments, Chambers of Manufactures, mining interests, and the employees in the engineering trades. The Iron. Trades Council and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were both represented. At that Conference I explained the steps which the Government were taking, and suggested that in each State there should be an amalgamation of the various bodies which had been making inquiries into this matter so that they might form a State Munitions Committee, the convening body connected with that amalgamation being the State Government. In other words, I suggested that the State Governments should call these various bodies together in their respective territories, and that their amalgamation should constitute a State Munitions Committee.

Senator Millen:

– The idea of the Minister was not that the States should start de novo to create other committees?

Senator PEARCE:

– No. The idea was that each State Committee should nominate a representative of that State to the Central Munitions Committee, which is associated’ with the Defence Department. The Central Munitions Committee is largely composed of experts. As it is the body which will have to place the orders for shells, which will have to arrange for the workers and for the delivery of the shells, and as it will require to be in close touch with the State Committees in order that it may know what quantity of shells each State can manufacture, and where orders can be placed, it is necessary to have on that Committee a direct representative of each State Munitions Committee. That proposal was unanimously adopted by the Conference; and, acting upon it, the Commonwealth Government have communicated with the Government of each State, asking them to take steps for such amalgamation, and to convene a State Munitions Committee. Some misapprehension appears to have cropped up in regard to this matter, but I think it is due to a lack of knowledge as to the exact part which these State Committees are to play. We believe that decentralization in the carrying out of the work is desirable. We think that State Munitions Committees, constituted in the way I have outlined, will have a better knowledge of the capacity of the workshops of their respective States than will a Committee of departmental officers with whom are associated certain experts. It will be for the Central Munitions Committee to obtain the desired information, and to then disburse the orders received from the Ministry of Munitions in England, according to the ability of the different States to manufacture the requisite number of shells. If the State Committees are constituted upon these lines, we shall have cohesion, and it will be a working arrangement which will link up the various interests concerned. The workers who are interested will have a representative on each State Munitions Committee, so also will the manufacturers, and each State Government. On the Central Munitions Committee we shall have a representative of each of the State Munitions Committees, as well as a number of experts, naval, military, chemical, &c, including university professors and others who possess special ability to sift information and decide about inspection, and all that sort of thing! I trust that these remarks will assist in clearing the atmosphere, and in removing any misapprehension which may exist outside as to what is really being aimed at.

Senator Long:

– Will the shells to be manufactured by the Broken Hill Pro prietary Company at Newcastle, be made under Commonwealth supervision, and will their export be regulated by the Government ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The whole business, from start to finish, will be under Commonwealth supervision. The proposal is that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company shall make the steel and forge the shells, but that the machining of the shell shall be carried out in other parts of the Commonwealth. Any other steel works which are capable of doing similar work will be called upon to do it.

Senator de Largie:

– Have the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s works at Newcastle notified the Government that they are able to do this work ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I believe that they have reached such a stage that they now say they can do it.

Senator de Largie:

– Has the Defence Department yet obtained the required formula for producing the special kind of steel that is needed ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Broken Hill Proprietary Company have obtained it, and I believe that the Department is also in possession of it.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Have the Lithgow Iron Works doneanything in regard to this matter?

Senator PEARCE:

– They have not intimated their ability to turn out thisspecial kind of steel.

Senator Stewart:

– Have the Imperial Government notified the Defence Department that they have sent out samples of shells?

Senator PEARCE:

– They have notified us of the despatch of sample shells, but so far those shells have not arrived.

Senator de Largie:

– The Ministerhas just stated that the Central Munitions Committee is largely composed of experts. Am I to understand from his statement that the gentlemen on that Committee are experts in the making of shells? Have they ever actually been engaged in shell-making?

Senator PEARCE:

– Captain Thring is an expert ordnance officer - that is to say, his whole training in the British Navy has been in connexion with ordnance, which includes, not shell manufacture, but the using of shells and a knowledgeof their composition. Colonel Dangarhas had a similar training on the artillery side in our land Forces. Mr. Marcus Bell is the chief chemical adviser of the Commonwealth. He has a knowledge of chemistry and a special knowledge of explosives. For many years he has been in charge of our cordite supplies inspection branch, and of all matters connected therewith. Professor Payne is the Professor of mechanical engineering at the Melbourne University. He is a specialist in that particular line. He, too, has not been primarily connected with the manufacture of shells, but the making of shells is one of those subjects which come within the range of his general knowledge. Professor Masson is professor of chemistry at the Melbourne University, and is an expert in that particular line. It was in that sense that I referred to these gentlemen as experts, and not in the narrower sense that they are experts in the making of shells.

page 5175

QUESTION

INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Tariff Reports

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs whether the reports now being received from the Inter-State Commission in regard to its Tariff investigations will be bound in one volume prior to the consideration of the Tariff in this Chamber?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– Rather than commit myself to a particular course of procedure in regard to those reports I would say that if any reasonable number of honorable senators desire them in a particular form, I shall be glad to arrange for their issue in that form. I will do anything to meet the convenience of honorable senators.

Senator TURLEY:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs if he will see that the report and the appendix are bound together. At present they are in two separate documents, and a member might get the report this week and receive the appendix to the report, containing the evidence and information, next week”, or perhaps later on.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I would like to say in connexion with this matter that if any honorable senators express a desire to have the reports prepared in that way I will be pleased at any time to do all that is possible to oblige them.

page 5175

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Alleged Treachery

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister of Defence whether it is correct that the Government have been inquiring into the truth or otherwise of the allegation published in the press some weeks ago that some soldier in our Expeditionary Forces had been guilty of sniping our own officers ? Is the honorable gentleman in the position to inform us of the result of the inquiry, or to assure us that the allegation is without foundation ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Immediately that statement appeared in the press, cables were despatched to the head-quarters in Egypt, and also to the War Office, drawing attention to this allegation, and asking to be furnished with any information available. So far no information has been received.

page 5175

QUESTION

WAR COMMITTEE

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to inform the Senate of the personnel of the War Committee appointed by the Government?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– As honorable senators know, it was decided that there should be a War Committee of members of the two political parties in Parliament. The parties have met and have chosen their representatives on the Committee, which will be constituted as follows: - Senator Millen, Sir John Forrest, Sir William Irvine, Messrs. Mcwilliams, M.P., Watt, M.P., and Glynn, M.P. (representing the Opposition), and Senators Long, Findley, and Messrs. Poynton, M.P., Webster, M.P., Page, M.P., and Sharpe, M.P. (representing the Ministerial side) . It is intended that the Committee shall deal with all such questions as are referred to it by the Government, and that the Minister whose Department may be affected by any particular question referred to it shall preside over the meeting dealing with that question. It has also been decided that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall be ex-officio members of it.

Senator Turley:

– Will any of the reports of that Committee be available for members of Parliament?

Senator PEARCE:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that Hansard should report their proceedings?

Senator Turley:

– No; but I presume that they will have reports to make.

Senator PEARCE:

– I take it that the reports of their recommendations will be made available, but I do not know whether it is proposed to report the debates of the Committee.

Senator Bakhap:

– Will not the Committee be really an. extension of the Cabinet ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

page 5176

QUESTION

WOUNDED SOLDIERS

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– I would like to know from the Minister of Defence if any definite scheme has been laid down in connexion with the return of wounded soldiers from the hospitals to Australia; whether soldiers who have been only slightly wounded are allowed to return to the Commonwealth in the hope that they will be sufficiently recovered in a few weeks to return to the front ? Is it the custom for the Minister of Defence, through his officers, to determine whether a wounded soldier may return to Australia or not?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– A soldier remains a soldier after he is wounded, and he is still under military orders. He has to go to the hospital to which he is sent, and he cannot return to Australia by his own choice. It is for the War Office to determine where he shall go and when he shall go; it is not a question for the individual soldier at all. If he is wounded, the General Officer Commanding determines to which hospital he shall be sent, and when he shall be sent; and the officer in charge of the hospital determines when a soldier is sufficiently recovered to return to the front, or whether he shall be sent back to Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In any case you have no control ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, we have control through our officers. For instance, all the Australian wounded in England are in Australian hospitals under Australian officers, who are under our control. Of course, they act as they think best, and decide whether a soldier shall be sent back to Australia or whether he shall return to the front.

page 5176

QUESTION

CROOKWELL MAIL SERVICE

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, u pon notice -

  1. is ita fact that the daily mail service to Crookwell, New South Wales, which has been in operation for the past thirty years, has been discontinued?
  2. If so, why?
  3. Is the Minister aware that the curtailment of the mail service to three times per week is causing much inconvenience to the residents of Crookwell and district, and will he favorably consider the restoration of the daily service as from 1st August next?
Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Inquiry is being made, and a reply will be furnished as early as possible.

page 5176

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK, QUEENSLAND : OVERTIME

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Are CommonwealthBank officers in Queensland who work overtime paid the usual Public Service overtime rates, and also provided with tea money?
  2. If not, will the Treasurer consult with the Governor of the Bank with a view to granting common justice to hard-worked and deserving officials?
Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– The answer is as follows : - 1 and 2. This matter is entirely in the hands of the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank.

page 5176

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs,upon notice -

  1. Are the plans of the Federal Parliament House, Canberra, yet prepared?
  2. If not, is it the intention of the Government to have them prepared, and the work of construction proceeded with?
Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– The answer is as follows : -

  1. No.
  2. The question of inviting designs is still under consideration.

page 5176

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA. RAILWAY

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Will the Minister inform the Senate, approximately, when the Transcontinental Railway (Port Augusta-Kalgoorlie) will be opened for traffic?

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– It is anticipated towards the end of 1916.

page 5176

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Depots for Reception of Books

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Minis ter of Defence, upon notice -

Will the Minister take into consideration the advisability of establishing depots in the various States to which citizens may forward papers, books, &c, with the view of having such literature forwarded by the Department to wounded, soldiers in hospitals, and troops nl the front V

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Arrangements have already been made with a view to the establishment of depots in each capital city to which citizens may forward papers for the use of the troops. It is also within my knowledge that the proprietors of newspapers are generously cooperating in the matter, and are daily supplying large quantities of newspapers, which are being carried freight free by the steam-ship companies and by Transport. The Commandant of the State concerned will give information as to location of depot if applied to.

page 5177

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Senator KEATING:

asked the Minister’ representing the Attorney-General, ti pan notice -

Relative to the promise made hist week by the Minister, in reply to Senator Keating, that consideration would be given to the matter of more effectually and satisfactorily distributing statutes and statutory regulations, lias any, and if so, what progress been made with such consideration?

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

– The Department is at present preparing a reprint of all regulations made under Commonwealth Acts from the establishment of the Commonwealth to the end of last year, and in force on 31st December last. In addition, the more important of the prerogative orders of the Commonwealth issued during that period will be included. The reprint will run into three volumes, two of which are expected to be ready within about a month, while the third volume will probably be available several months hence. The price of the reprint will be £3 18s. for half-calf copies of the work, and £3 3s. for cloth copies. In addition, the Department contemplates publishing each year a volume of the statutory rules issued during the year. This volume will be arranged on the same principle as the consolidated edition above referred to, and the price of it will be £1 10s. for half-calf copies of the work, and £1 5s. for cloth copies. It is also intended to issue the statutory rules, commencing with the present year, in monthly parts to subscribers to the annual volume. The cost of annual volumes and monthly parts for a year will be- half-calf £2 5s., cloth £2. AH of the above publications will be obtainable from Butterworth and Company (Australia) Limited, of 180 Philip-street, Sydney. The Government Printer supplies copies of any Statutes to all persons applying for the same, and sending money in payment. The Statutes are supplied until the amount forwarded has been exhausted. The Government Printer has agents in most of the States, from whom the copies of the Statutes are obtained.

page 5177

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report (No. 4) presented by Senator Barker.

page 5177

WAR CENSUS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 21st July vide page 5113) :

Clause 4 -

Upon which Senator Keating had moved by way of amendment: -

That the following words be added : “ but shall not include particulars with respect to lands exempt from taxation under section 13 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1010, subject to the limitations of such exemption provided for in section 34 of the said Act.”

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [3.36].- The VicePresident of the Executive Council would have done better to adhere to his first opinion that the amendment was one which the Government could accept. In this case first thoughts were better than second, for I failed to be convinced by the arguments he afterwards advanced against the proposal. We are taking stock of our available assets. There can be no question that it is for some ulterior purpose, and although no taxation proposals are before us now, the census may be the basis for some means of raising money later on. The Minister has given the Committee an assurance that churches, charities, friendly societies, &c, which would be exempt under the amendment, are not to he taxed. Why, then, encumber the return with information that gives us no intelligence regarding anything that will be an available asset in respect of any action that may be taken later on ? These individuals and institutions should not be put to the trouble of making returns that will be of no subsequent value to the Government. The amendment follows the precedent of the exemption under the Commonwealth Land Tax Act.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.These properties have no commercial value for our purposes.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.This is only a stocktaking of available assets for some future purpose.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The object of the amendment is, briefly, to leave out of account in connexion with the returns to be furnished under this Bill the charitable, educational, and religious establishments throughout the Commonwealth. Why should we lumber the proposed census with a mass of information that has no bearing whatever upon the purpose for which it is to be made? The . VicePresident of the Executive Council has said that it is not the intention of the Government to take action in the matter of the imposition of taxation as the result of the operation of this Bill. We may readily acquit the Government of any such intention. The Minister went on to say that it is necessary for present purposes that the Government should know exactly what is the material wealth of the country. If that be the object of the Bill, there is neither point nor utility in asking those who have control of religious, educational, and charitable insti tutions to furnish a return under the measure.

Senator Keating:

– They are not required to furnish a return under the Land Tax Assessment Act, and so the work of furnishing such returns will be entirely novel to them.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so; but I point out that if they do furnish returns the Government will still be. far from knowing, from the information to be obtained’ under this Bill, what is the material or negotiable wealth of the country. For instance, no provision is made for a return of the value of the institutions controlled by the Education Departments of the various States. They are not to be asked to supply any inventory of the value of the schools and other forms of wealth which they control. If we are not to get this information in respect of institutions controlled by the State Governments, what possible purpose can be served in estimating the wealth of the Commonwealth by compelling returns to be furnished in regard to teaching institutions managed by sections of the community? In this matter the Bill makes a half-hearted, slip-shod, and illconsidered attempt to arrive at the wealth represented by educational establishments in Australia. There are other forms of wealth controlled by agencies of the State Governments, such as benevolent institutions, of which no return is to be made.

Senator Senior:

– There is the wealth controlled by the State Railway Departments.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so. What attempt is there made under this Bill to enforce returns of the wealth represented by State railways? If the object of the measure be to secure information of the material wealth of the Commonwealth, that the Government may be able later to consider what form drafts upon that wealth should take, how can it be effected if, while private citizens are compelled to furnish returns, State Governments and their agencies are to be under no such obligation in respect to the institutions under their control ? I might mention many other forms of wealth under the control of State Governments. In some cases mines are worked by State Governments. No return of the value of these mines is to be furnished under this Bill.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Can one get at the cash value of a mine?

Senator LYNCH:

– I presume that every mine has some value, though the value of many mines is very low, as some of US know to our sorrow. When a Bill is submitted which will not accomplish the object of those who submit it, it cannot be supported upon solid ground. As to the means of arriving at a correct estimate of the value of some of the properties in connexion with which returns have to be made under the Bill as it stands. I take the case of a church in a remote part of the country. What value can be put upon it, and what system can be called into operation to assess the annual value of a church, charitable institution, or school ?

Senator Barker:

– What about churches that let property and receive considerable rent from it?

Senator Keating:

– Those properties will not be exempted by the amendment.

Senator LYNCH:

– There is no attempt made to exempt such properties. Senator Barker need be under no illusion on that score. I should not support, any more than would the honorable senator, the exemption from enumeration under this Bill of any form of educational institutions returning a profit to those controlling it. I am dealing only with the folly of passing a measure which will not serve the purpose in view. How will it help us to advance our position on the European continent, or to perfect our local defences, to know how much money is invested in churches, educational and benevolent institutions that return no profit to those controlling them ? Such information would not have the slightest bearing upon our capacity to defend this country here, at Gallipoli, in France, or anywhere else. To ask for returns as to the value of churches for this purpose is to make ourselves ridiculous. Take the case of a charitable institution such as the Refuge at Abbotsford. Who could furnish an estimate of the value of that institution ? We are calling upon the people controlling such institutions to furnish these returns without any necessity, and to no end. Those in charge of religious, educational, and charitable institutions can have no serious objection to the furnishing of such returns other than that it would give them a great deal of trouble and difficulty to arrive at a correct estimate of the value of the institutions they control, and they would not put their hands to an inaccurate estimate, whilst the return, when furnished, would be of no advantage whatever in promoting the object for which this Bill has been introduced.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I suppose that no section of this Parliament would desire to levy taxation upon the lands or properties which it is the intention of the amendment to exempt from the provisions of the Bill. But there seems to me to be a middle course between taxing these properties and asking for a return of their value. It is quite true that many institutions have, in addition to lands and properties which they use for special purposes, from which no profit is derived, other properties in relation to which they stand in the position of an ordinary landlord.

Senator Keating:

– Those properties would not be exempt under the amendment.

Senator MILLEN:

– I quite admit that, but it seems to me that it would be a much more business-like way to treat those who control these establishments in the same way in which people are treated in connexion with the levy of an income tax. Under this Bill it is proposed that every person, no matter what his income may be, must furnish a return of it, but no one supposes that- there will not be a line of exemption in the imposition of an income tax. What the exemption will be I do not know, but if there is to be a tax levied on wealth, we know there will be some line of exemption drawn. If we are to exempt the properties proposed to be exempted from the necessity for a return under the amendment, because they are not to be taxed, to be logical we should provide that only those persons) whose incomes are above the amount to be taxed should furnish a return of their income.

Senator Barker:

– Every person does not fill in a schedule in connexion with the income tax.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is proposed under this Bill that every person between the ages of eighteen and sixty years shall furnish a return of his income. If a man is in receipt of an income of only £1 per week, he will have to furnish a return, but to tax a man receiving an income of only £1 per week is unthinkable. Such a man is in the same position in regard to his income as the institutions which have been referred to are in with regard. to the properties from which they derive no profit. I am dealing with the argument of non-liability to taxation as a reason for not making a return. It seems to me that all should be liable to furnish these returns, and it should be left to the taxation officials to say what incomes and what properties should be exempt from taxation. They should be in a position t o say that the properties belonging to institutions of which a return had been furnished are not liable to taxation, just as it will be left to them, and not to the persons sending in a return, to say what incomes are not liable to income tax.

Senator Lynch:

– What is to be done in the case of property under the control of State Governments or municipal bodies ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Two difficulties arise in connexion with such properties. There is, first, the constitutional difficulty of taxing the instrumentalities of a State, or of the Commonwealth Government: and there is also the consideration that there is no sense in taxing institutions which the people themselves mainfain. It would be absurd to propose that the Commonwealth should tax State railways.

Senator Lynch:

– The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works would be exempt from the necessity to furnish a return under this Bill.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not familiar with their constitution, but a municipal undertaking is in the same position as a State utility in this respect; and for a Government to tax the people with one hand in order to relieve them with the other seems to me to be a roundabout way of doing nothing.

Senator Lynch:

– It is not a question of taxation, but of making a return of the value of property.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have no objection to municipal authorities being called upon to furnish returns of the value of properties and land under their control. But there is a difference between a board and a private individual. We can always trace the property of such an institution as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, for example. But sometimes a conflict arises as to who is the owner of a piece of land. There are quite a number of persons who. because of municipal rates, will- not disclose their ownership of l!ind. I have heard a member of this Chamber offer to give land away because his ownership of it was known and he was not able to divest himself of it. In such circumstances it is easy to understand that a conflict may. arise as to ownership. But if the ownership is disclosed in the returns sought under this Bill, no possible harm can result to the owner, because it is well understood that it is not intended to levy taxation on the owners of such property as is covered by the amendment.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– If this Bill has any purpose behind it - and I assume that it has a very valuable one - that purpose is to ultimately guide us in imposing taxation and in doing other things which fall quite within the range of possibility, and which, to my mind, are very close indeed.

Senator Senior:

– Such knowledge as the Government wish to obtain under this Bill will very much strengthen our credit.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Because that knowledge will provide us with a basis for equitable taxation. How are we going to draw upon our national resources ? We are going to draw upon them by means of taxation. At this juncture I do not pledge myself to exempt any form of income, no matter how small it mav be.

Senator Millen:

– I do.

Senator BAKHAP:

– As a matter of expediency it may be desirable to institute an exemption, but at this juncture I do not pledge myself to exempt any income whatever. I have been a member of a State Legislature which did not exempt any income.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator think that a mau with an income of £1 per week should be liable to an income tax ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– In Tasmania a man with a little more than £1 a week had to pay an income tax of 2s. 6d. per annum.

Senator Millen:

– It was ridiculous.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Even then Tasmania did not derive sufficient revenue, although the tax amounted to ls. 4d. in the £1.

Senator Ready:

– That was because the honorable senator’s party refused to tax wealth .

Senator BAKHAP:

– The Tasmanian Parliament imposed a higher income tax upon wealth than has ever been paid in Australia. It amounted to ls. 4d. in the £1. Having regard to national exigencies, I do not pledge myself to exempt any income, and consequently I desire a return of all incomes. Senator Millen has said that it is understood that institutions which are not of a profit-earning character will be exempted from taxation. Seeing that this is a measure to enable us to impose an income tax, or any other .form of revenue tax. -what is the use of information in respect of institutions which will be of no value? I am absolutely in accord with the spirit of the amendment, and will support it.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I rise chiefly to ask the Committee to consent to a division being taken on the amendment without further debate. Senator O’Loghlin and Senator Bakhap appear to think that there is a set purpose underlying the collection of i these statistics, and that that purpose is taxation. I begin to understand Senator Bakhap when he says that he was a member of a State “Legislature which taxed incomes of £1 a week.

Senator Bakhap:

– I was not a member or the Legislature at that time.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was under the impression that the honorable senator was. I say that the Parliament which would impose an income tax on incomes of £1 a week’ would be guilty of anything. Under this Bill we are asking every farmer to supply us with a return showing the number of horses and mules that he possesses. But does anybody imagine that we are going to tax him upon the possession of those animals ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Will they not be available for transport purposes ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

Senator Bakhap:

– That is one of the contingencies of the measure, I apprehend.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. But we do not desire to create the impression that the things in regard to which the people are going to be taxed are those which they are asked to include in these returns. The Bill is intended to secure useful information. Although church lands may be of no value for taxation purposes, if once we permit of exemptions, where shall we leave off? Why, at a time like this should we shirk trouble? Why should any section of the community exclaim in a crisis such as that with which we are now faced, “ This is too much for us to be asked to do “ ?

I say that nothing is too much to ask of them in view of what others have already done, and are still doing. Everybody must shoulder his share of responsibility, and all sections of the community must be placed on the same footing.

Senator WATSON:
New South Wales

– I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. I regard the information which is being sought under this Bill as of greater importance than that which is apparently attached to it in connexion with taxation which may be imposed upon property held by the people of the Commonwealth. If there is one thing which ought to be known it is the wealth of our churches and benevolent institutions. If that .information served no other purpose than that of disclosing to the world the extent to which our people are imbued with those higher qualities which make for nationhood, I think that it should be supplied.

Senator TURLEY:

– Does the Bill compel municipalities and trusts to supply returns?

Senator WATSON:

– Wealth of every description will be covered by this census. There will be no exemptions.

Senator Millen:

– Municipalities supply an annual return of their valuations.

Senator WATSON:

– Then it will not be necessary to obtain those valuations, though possibly they might be attached to the war census. I take it that the idea underlying this measure is that we should be furnished with complete knowledge of our possessions. To omit from these returns information as to our benevolent institutions would be to the lasting discredit of this Parliament. There is nothing in connexion with our religious and benevolent institutions of which we need feel ashamed. It will be no trouble to them to furnish the desired information. It would be a pity indeed if any false ideas prevented the supplying of that information which will stand to the credit of the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– We must not lose sight of the possibility that within a year or two we may be called upon to resort to the extreme of taxing all wealth without any exemptions whatever. Should that time unfortunately arrive, if we now exempt certain properties from the necessity to supply returns - as is proposed by Senator Keating - it may then be necessary to take another census. I do not think it is intended in the immediate future to tax charitable, religious, or educational institutions which are not being carried on for the sake of profit. But the fact remains that within a year or two we may be up against a stiffer financial proposition than that with which we are faced to-day, and it may then be quite impossible to exempt institutions in our midst which everybody acknowledges are doing splendid work.

Senator Lynch:

– If ever the time comes when we tax those institutions we ought to be shot.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– There might come a time when it will be necessary.. We must not forget that this taxation will be raised for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of defending all Australian property, and such properties will be included in that category, so that it is probable those who are responsible for the conduct of those institutions will, when the time comes, be quite satisfied to meet their share of the liability. I think ‘that Senator Lynch did not mean what he said just now, and that his interjection was made in a jocular manner. The time may come - we all hope it will not - when, if this war lasts longer than we hope it will, we shall be so financially embarrassed that Senator Lynch will be of the same opinion as I am now regarding taxation of property. The time may come when these institutions which are exempted to-day under our Land Tax Act will be included under special war taxation ; but if we accept Senator Keating’s amendment now, we shall not have the necessary information to guide us. I do not think any great harm can be done by allowing the information to be gathered in this census, especially while we are all of the opinion that such properties will not be included in any taxation measures proposed.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– The amendment submitted by Senator Keating is one which, I feel sure, will in itself meet with sympathetic consideration from members of this Chamber; but I ask honorable senators if these are normal times.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The times were normal when we instituted the land taxation which exempted those properties.

Senator FINDLEY:

– True ; and because these are not normal times, and because the Government and those sup porting the Government are extremely anxious that this return shall be as comprehensive as possible - that it shall be a historical return - I think it would be unwise to make any exemption such as has been suggested by Senator Keating. If we turn to section 13 of the Land Tax Assessment Act of 1910, we find that the following ‘are among the lands which are exempted from taxation -

All lands owned by a State, or by a municipal, local, or other public authority of a State.

Information concerning these properties, if it were obtained, will be highly informative.

Senator Keating:

– I do not think we will get it under this War Census Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I think we will. We know that in some of the States municipalities carry on various enterprises, employ labour, and enter into contracts for the performance of work in connexion with their respective undertakings. I read the other day a highly interesting interview in the MelbourneHerald with Mr. Ellery, a gentleman who, until lately, filled an important position as town clerk of Adelaide. In that interview, Mr. Ellery briefly but pithily stated what had been done by the City Council of Adelaide in certain directions. He stated that a considerable sum of money had been expended by the municipality in undertakings which would continue to be of material advantage to the citizens of the metropolitan area. Thousands of pounds had been expended in these works for the common good, and they were making substantial profits on those enterprises. That is typical of many municipalities in Australia ; and I, with other members of the Labour party, have for a long time been extremely anxious that we should have such information at our disposal as would enable those who favour the municipalization of such enterprises to place facts and figures before the people of Australia to convince them that enterprises carried on by municipalities are much better than private enterprises. In such circumstances, would not such a return as is contemplated under this schedule be invaluable to everybody?

Senator Senior:

– In England you get such information from the Year-Booh.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes ; and the same information is published in other countries, from whence we get first-hand knowledge with regard to municipal Socialism. I could, if I felt so disposed, tell the Committee what many municipalities in Victoria have done, and are doing. Here in Melbourne the City Council have their markets, and their lands-

Senator Senior:

– They ought to be ashamed of some of their markets.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Well, they have their markets, and they derive revenue from these municipal undertakings as well as from lands upon which substantial buildings have been erected. The Council also control largely the electric lighting, and are interested in other enterprises. Valuable information with regard to such undertakings will not be available to us if this amendment is carried. Like other members of the Labour party, I am connected with trade unions which own buildings and lands, and I think a return giving first-hand information of their value would be extremely useful.

Senator Keating:

– You do get that information from their returns.

Senator FINDLEY:

- Senator Keating suggests that we get that information from other sources, and my reply to his statement is that some members who have given their support to this Bill have said that it is unnecessary to introduce such a measure, because much, if not the whole, of the information sought under this schedule is already available in different statistical works. But I would point out that to find that information we have to fossick hour after hour, whereas if we had it in the form contemplated in this schedule it would be readily available.

Senator Senior:

– If it is going to cost so much, it ought to be as complete as possible.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes. In regard . to church lands, of my own knowledge there are certain religious organizations in Australia which had lands granted to them in the years gone by for religious purposes.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Very properly, too.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes ; and I know that some of those organizations are now utilizing the lands so granted by the Crown, not directly for religious purposes, but as business sites for warehouses and other purposes, from which they derive a considerable revenue.

Senator Keating:

– They would not come “within this amendment. You will get that information if this amendment is carried.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, if they are managed for pecuniary profit.; but I want to know what pecuniary profit means. I understand it to mean that some individuals who are engaged in a particular undertaking, make a profit, and thus derive a pecuniary profit from it for themselves. But in connexion with these religious enterprises to which I am referring, the profits are utilized afterwards for religious or educational purposes. No single person derives any pecuniary profit from their use, and the same applies to other kindred associations that are engaged in undertakings. Once you make an exemption, you on:n the door, and once the door is owen, as suggested by this amendment, the returns will not be so complete as is desired.

Senator Lynch:

– Take the Wonthaggi coal mine - will you get any information about that under this Bill?’

Senator FINDLEY:

– I hope so. My reason for supporting it is that we shall be : bie to get a return of such a comprehensive nature that it will give us the approximate value of all municipal, State, and Federal undertakings.

Senator Lynch:

– The State Government will tell you to mind your own business.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They might; but I do not think that, in times like this, any Government will tell us to do that. We have every reason to expect that we shall have the hearty co-operation of municipal, State, and Federal authorities in respect of this return. If I had any doubt in. my mind that the Government proposed to tax enterprises controlled by municipal, State, or charitable organizations, I should hesitate before I would cast my vote against this amendment; but because we have received an assurance from the Government that there is no intention to tax any of these institutions, I am going to vote against the amendment.

Senator Bakhap:

– Then curiosity will prompt the inquiry with regard to these institutions.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The argument that the Bill will probably lead to the taxation of charitable and religious institutions goes by the board, because the Government have no such intention. It is also objected that a good deal of trouble will be caused to certain persons in furnishing satisfactory replies. That argument applies to every one to whom the cards will be sent.

Senator Lynch:

– No, because every other person has the means of assessing his individual wealth, whereas these persons have not.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No doubt the difficulties will be many, but they will not be insuperable. The only real objection is that it will be difficult for those responsible for the conduct of charitable, religious, and educational institutions to answer the questions.

Senator Lynch:

– Is it not misleading to getan incorrect value?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have sufficient confidence in the people intrusted with the conduct of these institutions to believe that they can approximate their value just the same as the municipalities will be able to approximate the value of their enterprises.

SenatorO’Keefe. - If you take the land value and the cost of, the building you will surely be pretty near it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– You should get very close to it. If the Government found it imperative to resume, say, St. Paul’s Cathedral corner to safeguard the interests of the citizens, does Senator Lynch think that those responsible for the conduct of the church and grounds would not be able to approximate the value they desired to obtain from the Government? If they could not, they would not be business men. Not long ago the Government were anxious to purchase a municipal building and land, and the municipality was very quick to place on it the value . they thought they should obtain for it. I do not think the deal was ever effected. The main objection is that the Bill will cause trouble. No return asked for by the Government is considered by the average man easy to fill in. “We shall be asking the physically strong and the physically weak, the halt, the maim, and the blind to fill up schedules, and I do not expect that a number of people will find it a very easy matter.

Senator Guy:

– It will be no more difficult than filling up an old-age pension claim.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is not so very easy, because there are a number of questions on that claim which cause even the average public man to think before giving them a definite reply. If we ask all and sundry, literate and illiterate, to fill in the first schedule, it will be a mistake to exempt anybody in regard to either the first or the second schedule. I trust that the returns will be, as the Government desire, all-embracing, comprehensive, and invaluable to every member of the Committee in after years.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– The two previous speakers seem to have missed the object of the census. The purpose of the Bill is to ascertain the taxable value of property in the Commonwealth.

Senator Gardiner:

– Why the taxable value? Say the value.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If there is one thing that has surprised me in this discussion it has been the immaculate innocence of the Minister. It is of no use to blink the position before us. One of the main objects of the Bill is to ascertain the taxable value of wealth in Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– Is that why we are asking for the number of horses?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The Government are asking for the value of certain properties in order that Parliament may be able to impose certain taxation on them.

Senator Gardiner:

– I have said time after time that we do not intend anything of the kind.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Then the Minister is about the only member of the Senate who does not intend it. If the land on which St. Paul’s Cathedral stands was used for the same purpose as the building on the opposite corner, imagine the taxable value of the block then as against its present value! What taxation could the Government get out of St. Paul’s Cathedral to-day? Used for its present purpose, the block has no taxable value. The simpler the form in which we get the information aimed at by the Bill the better. In questions of taxation we ought to be able to discriminate between wealth and capital. Take the case of private hospitals or public charitable hospitals, and St. Vincent’s Hospital as a particular instance. How can any one value the land, building, or equipment of that institution for any purpose covered by this Bill ? I cannot believe that the day will ever come in this country when it will be proposed to tax charitable institutions such as that hospital.

Senator Ferricks:

– At the present time, surely the capital value of hospitals has some application.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We may apply to some of them to take our returned wounded, but that argument only emphasizes the absurdity of thinking of taxing institutions of the kind. All these things show the advantage of carrying the amendment. Notwithstanding the assertions of the Minister, one of the ultimate objects of the Bill is the taxation of wealth.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is not one of its objects.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Then I do not understand why it was introduced.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Do you not think the time may come when even the people who are getting the benefits from these institutions will come forward willingly with their share of taxation for the protection of that property?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I cannot foresee the possibility of anything of the kind. The amendment does not exempt church property leased to third parties for purposes of profit, arid that fact should be sufficient to show that, the interests of the community will be safeguarded. If I thought there was any probability of the Government losing taxation to which they are justly entitled. I would not advocate this proposal, but Senator Keating proposes to exclude from his amendment all information that is really required under the Bill to carry out what must be the ultimate object of the Government. That being so. if we do not exempt the institutions which Senator Keating wants to exempt, we shall be building up a most elaborate return that will be very difficult to fill in. It is our duty, seeing that we want the census taken as quickly aiiia ( cheaply as possible, to simplify the schedules as much as we can, and the amendment will certainly simplify the second schedule.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is a great pity that so much that is not referred to in the Bill has been imported into the discussion. The Bill nowhere mentions taxation. The Minister has a dozen times repeated that this Bill has no relation to any taxation proposals.

Senator de Largie:

– Does the honorable senator believe that statement?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do. The Government have no power to impose fresh taxation by this measure. If it is their intention to impose fresh taxation, they must introduce a separate Bill to give effect to it.

Senator de Largie:

– I grant that at once; but what is the object of this Bill?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator has said this afternoon that this is a taxation measure.

Senator de Largie:

– Taxation is its ulterior object.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Last night the honorable senator made no reference to taxation, but spoke as an alarmist, and invited the people to believe that the object of the Bill is conscription. According to the honorable senator, it is a wicked and dangerous Bill, and no one can tell what may follow if it is passed. He informed us that nine out of every ten members of the Senate know that the Bill has been introduced for the purpose of establishing conscription. I can see no connexion between this Bill and conscription or taxation.

Senator de Largie:

– Will the honorable senator tell the Committee what object this Bill lias in view ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not care about discussing things which I do not know, and when Senator de Largie says that nine out of every ten honorable members of the Senate know that this is a Bill to establish conscription, he is saying something that he does not know.

Senator de Largie:

– I ask the honorable senator what he knows about it.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am going to tell the honorable senator. The whole of the argument advanced this afternoon in support of the amendment amounts only to an objection to the Bill because of the trouble it will give the persons who> will be responsible for making returns in respect of the properties which have been referred to. No taxation is suggested, and conscription is not suggested. The Minister says that he wants to get a fair idea of the value of all property in the Commonwealth.

Senator de Largie:

– With what object ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

-So that he may know what the value is.

Senator de Largie:

– That, and that only ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator is a very innocent person.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I may be, but I base my opinion on the matter I find printed in the Bill, and on the repeated statement of the Minister, on behalf of the Government, that there is no suggestion of taxation in the measure, and that they want the Bill passed for a certain purpose.

Senator de Largie:

– What is the purpose?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If, afterwards, taxation is found to be necessary, the Government will know the value of the land and property in the Commonwealth from one end of it to the other. If a taxation measure is introduced later, as Senator de Largie seems to fear, honorable senators can deal with it when it is before them.

Senator de Largie:

– Will the honorable senator say that there will be no taxation measure introduced ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No! I have taken the word of the Minister, and my honorable friend is taking his own opinion.

Senator de Largie:

– I back my opinion against the word of the Minister that there will be no taxation measure introduced.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Minister said nothing of the kind, and I do not say anything of the kind. What we have both said is that this Bill has no relation to taxation.

Senator de Largie:

– That is a mere quibble.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator de Largie is merely beating the air, and that is what has been done by every honorable senator who has spoken in support of the amendment. Their whole objection to the inclusion of the properties to which reference has been made, amongst those for which returns must be furnished, is the trouble that it will give those who have control of such properties. If I have any fault to find with the Bill, it is that it does not make provision for sup plying all the information we require. It has been said that no return of the value of public utilities will have to be furnished under the Bill, and I remind those who have used that argument in support of the amendment that the best way to improve the Bill is not to exempt other properties, but to include public utilities amongst the forms of wealth for which returns must be furnished.

Senator Lynch:

– Persons employed in the Public Service will have to furnish returns.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Those are only personal returns. The Bill makes no provision for returns, of the value of State properties and public utilities. It should not be forgotten that information of the value of State and municipal utilities may be obtained from the balance-sheets which are issued in respect of them every year. No good case has been made out for the exemption of properties controlled by religious and charitable organizations. In my view the arguments which have been used in support of the amendment can only prejudice the measure beforehand in the minds of th,e people, with whom any proposal for the furnishing of inquisitorial returns is always sufficiently unpopular. I hope that the Committee will not agree to the amendment, as no good reason has been given for the exemption of the properties1 which have been referred to.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

– I can scarcely understand why the amendment has been submitted. Information as to the value of the lands and properties controlled by religious and charitable organizations will surely be very useful. If we make the exemption proposed, where should we stop ? If we proceeded far in the direction of the amendment, the returns provided for would be so whittled down as to make the census of no value at all. If church and charitable organizations and friendly societies were consulted on the subject, I am afraid that not one-third of them would object to furnish these returns. I have for a very long time been connected with friendly societies, and I say for such societies throughout Australia that nine to one of their members would agree to send in the returns asked for, that the resources of Australia might be known. I have always been closely connected with church life, and, speaking also for church people. I say that they would have no hesitation in furnishing returns of the value of their property. It has been said that it is a difficult matter to estimate the value of a church. I was reminded by that statement of the fact that in the little city where I live, the authorities of the denomination to which I belong were offered £10,000 for a church which the intending purchaser proposed to convert into a warehouse. The church authorities refused to sell the property for that amount, but if the sale had been made the purchaser would, under this Bill, have been obliged to furnish a return of the value of the property. If any of the properties which have been referred to changed hands, returns would have to be furnished of their value. I have in mind a place where the authorities of a certain church in the early days received a large grant of land, which is called Glebe Land. That land at one time was comparatively idle, and I have myself seen crops of oats grown on it; but to-day there are scores of beautiful buildings erected on that land. The area is considerable, and portions of the land were sold on a ninety-nine years’ building lease. The buildings which have been erected will eventually come into the hands of the church to which the land belongs. Senator Findley dealt with the question of the pecuniary profit derived from these properties, and I can say that the income from the property to which I have just referred, although very considerable, goes into the church funds, and makes it possible for larger stipends to be paid to the ministers of that church than perhaps could otherwise be paid to them. It might, in the circumstances, be contended that the church in question is deriving no pecuniary profit from the possession of this land, in a legal sense.

Senator Keating:

– If the amendment is carried, returns in respect of that land will have to be furnished.

Senator GUY:

– That may be so, and I hold that in every case returns should be furnished of the value of property. I cannot see why any objection is raised to the furnishing of such returns. Trades Hall properties and the properties of other similar institutions have been referred to, and if in all these cases it is unnecessary for returns to be furnished, we shall not obtain the information we require under this Bill. Speaking only for myself, and not for the Government or the Vice-President of the Executive

Council, I do not say that this Bill has absolutely no connexion with a tax. It seems to me that in future the returns furnished under this Bill will be used as the basis of some tax.

Senator Senior:

– That will be the time for exemptions to* be considered.

Senator GUY:

– Exactly. I am satisfied that the Government are sincere in the statement that they have no idea of taxing the institutions which have been specially referred to in connexion with the amendment, but when we get these returns we may discover something that ought to be taxed. I believe that some of these institutions that are in receipt of enormous incomes from lands which they use as private owners use their land, should be subject to taxation in respect of those lands.

Senator Keating:

– They are subject to taxation in respect of such lands now.

Senator GUY:

– We want all the information we can get in respect of the wealth of the Commonwealth, not only for ourselves, but for the benefit of those who come after us, and who may not be of the same mind as ourselves in connexion with some of these matters. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– In the discussion of the amendment, honorable senators are gettingaway from the purpose of the Bill, and! of this particular clause. The real object of the measure is to do in Australia what was done in England in the time of William the Conqueror, when the Doomsday Book was made up. Surely from such a measure as this we cannot exclude certain properties, and say in effect that they are outside of Australia. We have been told that the taking of this census will cost £150,000, and it does seem common sense therefore to make it as complete and minute as possible. Even if we do not want the information this year, we may require it next year. The objection which I have to the Bill is that which has already been urged by Senator Newland, namely, that it does not go far enough, and that we should not only secure information in regard to our individual activities, but that we should also obtain the fullest particulars in regard to our municipalities and our friendly societies - indeed, in relation to all the activities of the State. I venture to say that if we do come up against a really evil day, we shall find that our churches are not averse to making any sacrifice which may be required for the defence of the Empire. It would be of value to know exactly what the State is spending in its charitable enterprises, and also what assets it possesses under that heading. I can see rib good purpose to be served by obscuring any portion of our activities.

Senator Findley:

– Take the fire brigade system.

Senator SENIOR:

– Exactly . If we obtain information in regard to our fire brigade strength the Minister will be able to say at once, “ Here is a class of man that we want.” When the returns provided for under this Bill come to hand they will not only be dissected, but classified. We shall then be able to determine not only what is the engineering strength of the community, but what are the religious and charitable exercises of the people. I am in entire accord with the spirit of the Bill. Upon the motion for its second reading, I stated that my only objection to it. was that it did not go far enough. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. My view is that we should practically obtain information as to the capital account of Australia. It would be a good thing if we could ascertain what Australia is spending upon its amusements - upon its racecourses, its theatres, and” its picture shows - because undoubtedly if ever there was a time when we are faced with a serious position that time is now.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Several honorable senators who have opposed the amendment appear to believe that, under this Bill, it is intended to lake stock of every asset in the Commonwealth.

Senator Senior:

– We should do that.

Senator KEATING:

– Some honorable senators assume that that is what it is proposed to do. As a matter of fact, the Bill contemplates nothing of the kind. Its object is to secure the taking of stock so far as the war assets and the war capabilities of our people are concerned. The schedule providing for returns in regard to individuals is confined only to males.

Senator Grant:

– We have not passed the schedule yet.

Senator KEATING:

– So far as our properties are concerned it is only proposed that we shall take stock of the war assets of the Commonwealth. I moved the amendment which is now under con sideration because I do not think that the properties covered by it can be regarded as war assets.

Senator Findley:

– Why does the honorable senator say “ war “ assets?

Senator KEATING:

– Because this is a “ War Census Bill,” and this clause is entitled “Taking of war census.” I listened to Senator Findley urging how desirable it was that we should obtain information in regard to municipal activities. But, under cover of a “ war census,” are we going to gratify his laudable curiosity in that connexion ? Under cover of a “ war census ‘ ‘ are we to add to the historical archives of the Commonwealth? If we want that information, let us get it straightforwardly, and in the most complete manner. I agree with Senator Findley that it is most desirable that we should obtain information in regard to our municipal activities. But under cover of a “ war census,” do not let us attempt to get it. To my mind, it is essential that the information sought under this Bill should be secured as expeditiously as possible- Why are we asking for information as to the number of horses and motor vehicles in. the Commonwealth? Simply because they may be turned to a useful purpose in case of war. If the Bill be passed in its present form, will the building in which we are assembled be included in the census? Certainly not. Will every one of the post-offices of the Commonwealth, the Customs Houses, the land and property occupied as fortifications, the defence works of Australia, and the civil establishments of the Commonwealth, be included ? I venture to think not.

Senator Findley:

– It would not be very difficult to get the value of the transferred properties, seeing that the States have made a valuation of them.

Senator KEATING:

– Are we looking for those valuations? No. We are really seeking to assess the capabilities of the people for the prosecution of the war - their personal capabilities and their property assets. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has assured us that the Bill is not intended to be the precursor of taxation. But I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that he would be held responsible for the ultimate consequences which may flow from this measure. Developments may occur which may compel resort to very drastic taxation. Then, if the data supplied in these returns were used for the purpose of assessing taxation, I could not hold him responsible. I repeat that developments may occur which may necessitate resort to these returns, either by the present or a subsequent Government. Senator O’Keefe has already admitted that aspect of the matter. Under the Bill it is not proposed to take stock of every property in the Commonwealth. I am seeking to exempt only those properties which are already exempt from land tax under the Land Tax Assessment Act. Some honorable senators have urged that church organizations hold properties from which they derive considerable rent. I merely wish to say that such properties will not be exempted from the operation of the Bill under my amendment. If there is any pecuniary revenue derived from them-

Senator Findley:

– What does the honorable senator mean by ‘ ‘ pecuniary revenue “ 1

Senator KEATING:

– I mean money revenue. If land is being used for purely charitable or ecclesiastical purposes, and it is yielding no money revenue, it is exempt from taxation. But if it is yielding money revenue, it is subject to taxation. If the Bill passes in its present form, I doubt very much whether it will be possible to obtain the information sought by Senator Findley in regard to certain municipal activities, because I do not know that they will fall within the scope of the measure. In seeking information in regard to our charitable and religious organizations, we shall only be burdening the returns unnecessarily, and increasing the work which will have to be done in the taking of this census without serving any useful purpose.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I have listened carefully during the progress of this debate to the arguments of those who are in favour of the amendment, but I have to say they have not brought me round to their -way of thinking. Senator Keating, I think, disclosed the real object of the amendment. Senator O’Keefe in his remarks referred to the fact that in the future we may have to resort to drastic taxation, and said that if this information were available the Commonwealth might be induced to ask the owners ‘of those properties to pay something towards the national revenue. That, in my opinion, is the reason why this amendment has been proposed, because, if it is carried, the information will not be available, and those responsible, if asked to pay something, will have the excuse that there would not be time to furnish the information.

Senator Lynch:

– Do you propose to tax charities, then ?

Senator GRANT:

– I understand that the honorable senator is quite in favour of taxing a widow’s land, no matter how poor she may be. The alleged trouble of filling in these returns is not the real objection to the schedule. The real objection is to disclose the value of property. As soon as the income tax is proposed property owners everywhere immediately set up a universal .howl throughout the country, objecting to the inquisitorial character of the tax. But it is not the inquisitorial character of the tax that they are opposed to so much as the painful operation of paying the tax, and I venture to say that is the objective of this amendment. However, we have the assurance of the Minister, that these properties will not be taxed, and I for one am quite prepared to accept it.

Senator Lynch:

– That being the case, what is the purpose of this inquiry ?

Senator GRANT:

– The purpose is to obtain a valuation of these properties. It may so happen that the values will be found to be of so fabulous a character that we might even be disposed later on to favorably consider the idea of taxing them a little.

Senator de Largie:

– We are going to spend £150,000 for mere curiosity.

Senator GRANT:

– The extra trouble involved in getting a return of these properties will only represent a very small fraction of the £150,000 which it is estimated the census will cost. It will not increase the cost to any appreciable extent if -we extended the schedule and asked for a good deal more information than is now contemplated. I hope the Senate will not be misled by any arguments adduced by those in support of the amendment, and that they will support the measure as it stands, so that we will know exactly what our resources are if, later on, we have to consider the necessity of imposing drastic taxation. So far as I am concerned, I accept the assurance of the Vice-President of the Executive Council that there is no present intention to tax these properties.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Apparently my argument has not been properly understood. I did not wish to convey the idea that this Bill gives the Government of the day any direct taxation power. What I did argue was that its ultimate object was in connexion with taxation, and I should have thought that even the “Vice-President of the Executive Council would have understood me.

Senator Gardiner:

– I can assure the honorable senator that I do not understand him.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Well, that may be. so, and it might not be my fault. I argued that the ultimate object of the Bill was taxation.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is not so.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Well, suppose the necessity arose for- taxation later on, would not the statistics that we are about to collect be used to prove the necessity for an income tax, a land tax, or a property tax ? Does the Minister expect us to believe that there is no connexion between this War Census Bill and taxation?

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator will be lucky if he does not have a scheme of taxation upon him before’ even this war census is taken.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If this Bill is not intended for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable wealth of the community, so that later on we may be able to apply taxation to it, then I cannot understand the arguments of this afternoon. If we are going to obtain an idea of the property in the community, how will that property be connected with the war unless with the object of taxation?

Senator Keating:

– You can apply it to movable property, such as horses and motor cars.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Yes, it might be applied to portable property; but it is clear to me that the taxation possibilities of the land can only have application to the war, and no good purpose can be served by skating over thin ice by saying that the Bill has nothing to do with taxation. I did not argue that the measure gave the Government a power of taxation, but, as I have already said, I. maintained that its ultimate object was - first, to promote recruiting in connexion with the war; and, second, to obtain information for the purpose of raising the wherewithal, the sinews of war, from property. Now we are discussing the kind of property to which we may be able to apply such taxation. We propose, under this amendment, to exempt certain classes of property, and any attempt to make us believe that it has no connexion with the war is only an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the public.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– Even at the risk of continuing the debate, I must most emphatically deny that there is any ulterior motive behind this Bill. Everything is clear as regards taxation, and before ever one card is issued with reference to this census, Senator de Largie will know what taxation the Government intend to bring in. Everything will be done in a plain, straightforward, and open-handed manner.

Senator de Largie:

– Independent of this information?

Senator GARDINER:

– Absolutely independent of it. The cards will be on the- table, and the public will know, as well as the honorable senator, what the tax.at.ion will be. I want to be most emphatic on the point. If Senator de Largie’s argument held good, that we wanted a return of these properties for taxation purposes, every man with a few head of stock could take the same view, and say, “ Oh, the Government only want to. get a return of my stock in order to tax me.” It would create a most unfortunate impression if we allowed a suggestion to go out from this Senate that we are asking for a return of the wealth of the country for the purpose of taxing it. We are doing nothing of the kind, and I assure the honorable senator that I was in earnest when I said that, as far as this Government were concerned, we had no such taxation proposals upon the stocks.

Senator Lynch:

– Will you tell us if you have information about property under the control of State, Governments?

Senator GARDINER:

– We have that already. In connexion, with this matter, some honorable senators have endeavoured to put me in a wrong position. We are simply asking, for a return of the property in the schedule, and they ask that certain people shall be exempted. Because we ask for a return of that property, and they press for an exemption, they are trying to make out that we intend to tax that property, when, as a matter of fact, we have no such in- tention. When those who desire exemptions have people to speak’ in their interests, and claim exemption, it is about time the rest of us looked around to see who else can be exempted; but if we did that the whole thing would be a farce. I am in sympathy with the motives underlying the amendment, and I had hoped that I could accept it; but, after I had looked into the matter more carefully, I came to the conclusion that, if one section of the community claimed exemption, another would do likewise, and the census would not be worth taking. I am sorry that Senator de Largie will not accept my assurance, and will persist in thinking that some future taxation is behind this proposal for a wealth census. Taxation is imminent, and it will be upon the Parliament and the country at an early date. But it will come in one of those ordinary forms of taxation which the country has been expecting for months, and the surprise is that the Government have held their hands so long.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I desire to say just a final word before this matter goes to the vote. I want those who intend to vote against the amendment to conjure up for themselves what the position will be in the future. When they obtain the information as to the wealth represented in charitable, religious, and educational institutions, will they be able to say that it is a correct return? Certainly not. Senator Grant may scan the list as long as he likes, but he will not be able to obtain from it a correct estimate of the wealth in Australia under that heading?

Senator Ready:

– Why not?

Senator LYNCH:

– No1 official document issued by the Government of Victoria gives an accurate estimate of the value of the land on which the Yarra Bend Asylum stands. No Western Australian official return sets forth the value of the land upon which the Kalgoorlie Hospital stands. There is another hospital, not run by the Government, alongside that institution. Under this Bill, the Western Australian Government will not furnish a return regarding the one, but those conducting the other will have to furnish a return. As to Senator Grant’s remarks, there appears to be need to take an inventory of the schools in Australia to which some senators might well be sent, judging by the ignorance displayed in this debate. At

Croydon, in North Queensland, where I spent some time, there are schools, but the Queensland Government do not publish one line showing the value of the land on which their school stands, while those conducting other schools will be called on to furnish returns. Therefore, only partial information will be obtained; and when Senator Grant gets up to say that the value of the land on which schools are erected is so much, he will be speaking from misleading and incomplete information, because no State Government will have recorded the value of the land on which State teaching or benevolent institutions are erected. This effort will, therefore, be misleading and fruitless and place us in a most ignominious position. I would point out to Senator Grant, and all the others who are going to gloat over the information, or expect some comfort from it, that they will get only a partial account of the value of lands employed for benevolent and educational activities. By passing the clause as it stands we shall, therefore, be showing ourselves in a foolish, ridiculous, and impossible light.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I frankly and readily comply with the well-known practice of the Senate as regards accepting Senator Gardiner’s statements. All I can say is that there is a difference between min and Mr. Hughes, who introduced the measure in another place. It was argued there, originally, that if we were to have conscription of men we should also have conscription of property. Mr. Hughes said that in the past we had always proceeded with our taxation without having sufficiently reliable statistics to go upon. He complained that that was an unscientific way to proceed, and that this Bill was introduced to get the accurate data of taxation before proceeding to impose it. He said he was going to reverse the old order by securing the information first, and the taxation measures would come before us later on. We are now informed by Senator Gardiner of the possibility of the taxation Bills coming before us before the information is secured by this Bill. If the case is so urgent, and the Government cannot wait for the information, it does not alter my argument, nor change the nature of Mr. Hughes’ contention, that one of the objects of the Bill was to secure information regarding the taxable property of the Commonwealth, in order that taxation measures might be introduced later. Those arguments prove what I have been contending all through : that while the Bill isnot a measure by which taxation can be wrung out of the people of the Commonwealth, it is the first step in that direction, and has a direct connexion with the Bills that are coming later.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I should not have risen but for Senator Lynch’s speech. There is no man in the chamber for whom I have a greater admiration and respect; but I think he was unfair to Senator Grant, and even to myself and others who are going to vote against the amendment. His unfairness consisted in specifying certain institutions, and making it appear to the readers of Hansard that we were interested only in getting returns from our charitable and religious institutions, and against a proposal to protect them, which enlisted the sympathy of every other member of the Committee.

Senator de Largie:

– He did not argue that way.

Senator FINDLEY:

– He did. He said that Senator Grant wanted a return in respect of our educational institutions which it would be impossible to get.

Senator de Largie:

– So it would be.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not think so. The Government of Victoria know approximately the amount they havepaid for the land on which their schools have been erected.

Senator de Largie:

– This Bill does not affect the State Governments.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It will give us, I hope, the opportunity to get all the information which the Federal Government and their supporters desire.

Senator de Largie:

– It will not be complete. All Government institutions are left out.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not impossible to get such a return. Are honorable senators aware of the actual exemptions under the Land Tax Assessment Act of 1910? The first is-

All land owned by a State, or by a municipal, local, or other public authority of a State; All land owned by a Savings Bank regulated by any State Act;

Do those voting for the amendment desire those exemptions to be made? All land owned by any society registered under a State Act relating to friendly societies or trade unions;

The amendment covers that land. Are those supporting it anxious that we shall not know the value of the lands and buildings owned by friendly societies ? 1 an anxious to know approximately the value of the lands and buildings belonging to our trade unions.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Of what use is it for the purpose before us ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is useful to me as a public man, and it will be useful, I hope, to Senator O’Loghlin when we get it.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– We are not going to get it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the amendment is carried we shall not get it -

All land owned by any building society registered as a building society under any Act or State Act, not being land of which the society has become owner by foreclosure of a mortgage;

Do not honorable senators want that information?

All land owned by or in trust for a charitable or educational institution, if the institution, however formed or constituted, is carried on solely for charitable or educational purposes and not for pecuniary profit;

While I respect Senator Keating’s opinion, I still have my doubts as to the legal meaning of the words “ pecuniary profit “-

All land owned by or in trust for a religious society, the proceeds whereof are devoted solely to the support of the aged or infirm clergy or ministers of the society or their wives or widows or children, or to religious, charitable, or educational purposes;

It will be some trouble for those conducting these institutions to supply the information required under the Bill, but nobody when he knows the real purpose for which the Bill is introduced will have any objection to furnishing that information. It will be informative to all of us to know the number of charitable institutions, the value of their land and buildings, the extent to which they have been subsidized by municipal, State, or Federal authorities, the number of their inmates, and what they are costing the people of the Commonwealth in all -

All land owned by or in trust for any person or society and used or occupied by that person or society solely as a site for - a place of worship for a religious society, or a place of residence for any clergy or ministers or order of a religious society ;

I have great respect for every religious order in Australia, but there are many buildings in which ministers of religion reside to-day that may change hands tomorrow. What real objection can there be to furnishing a return giving the approximate value of the buildings in which those people reside ? -

A charitable or educational institution not carried on for pecuniary profit;

The amendment, if carried, will exempt all those institutions. There are dozens of clubs, societies, and associations not carried on for pecuniary profit.

Senator Russell:

– Take the Commercial Travellers Club, probably the best building of the sort in Melbourne.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It all depends on what pecuniary profit means.

Senator Russell:

– It is exempt under the Land Tax Assessment Act.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I was a member of the Government which made the exemption The commercial travellers’ clubs of Australia are not carried on for pecuniary profit. Profits are made, but they do not go into the pockets of individual members of the club. They are utilized in a very laudable manner.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The collective profits made by the club go to members in the shape of funeral benefits and other such benefits.

Senator Russell:

– The commercial travellers’ clubs are treated as friendly societies, which they really are.

Senator FINDLEY:

-I have said that their profits are utilized in a very laudable manner. They have a mortuary benefit fund, a sick and accident fund, and other funds for the benefit of their members. If the amendment be carried all the commercial travellers’ clubs in Australia will be exempt, and will not be required to furnish returns of the value of their property. I am a member of the Commercial Travellers’ Association, and I do not believe that they would have the slightest objection to supplying all the information asked for under this Bill. Then, we have the case of public libraries, institutes, and museums. They would be exempt trader the amendment. Are we not interested in knowing the number of public libraries and museums in Australia, and the value, approximately, of their buildings and other property?

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– We should not get that information under the

Bill. They are exempt already; the Bill does not cover them.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is true ; but if we desire that information we could obtain it from the State Governments.

Senator de Largie:

– Of what use is it to argue the matter from the point of view of Victorian State laws; we are dealing with a Federal matter?

Senator FINDLEY:

– We are dealing with the States of the Commonwealth. Are show grounds exempt under this Bill ? Senator Gardiner. - There are no exemptions under the Bill.

Senator Keating:

– A proclamation under it may contain exemptions.

Senator Gardiner:

– That is so.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There are show grounds covering very large areas in different parts of the Commonwealth, and it would be helpful to know the total area of those grounds and their approximate value.

Senator de Largie:

– For war purposes ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– For public purposes. I hope it will not happen, but it might be- necessary during this period, so very different from any other in the history of Australia, to utilize some of these show grounds for war purposes. The Flemington race-course covers a large area, and suggestions have been made in the columns of the press that the Defence Department might utilize that ground for the training and drilling of recruits. It might be found convenient also to use some of the show grounds in the same way. As a matter of fact, the Defence Department is to-day making use of the grounds of the Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria, adjacent to the Flemington racecourse. It has been suggested that the annual show of the society should not be held this year because of the war, and that on that account the Defence Department should pay a certain rental to the society for the use of the ground. It would be useful for us to know the area and value of the show grounds of Australia, so that if at any time it becomes necessary to rent them for public purposes we shall have some basis upon which to estimate the rent which should be paid for them. Then there are public gardens, recreation grounds, and reserves. We have been accustomed, in this State, to say, with a good deal of pride that, in proportion to its area Victoria has a greater number of recreation reserves than has any other State. Will it not be useful to know the area and approximate value of all our public reserves? Then, the different fire brigades throughout the Commonwealth control buildings of considerable value, especially in all the capital cities.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’Loghlin. - Shall we get information concerning their value under this Bill?

Senator FINDLEY:

– We shall not get it if the amendment is agreed to.

Senator Lt Colonal O’Loghlin:

– The Bill does not cover it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I hope that we shall get the information, because the Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that there will be no exemptions. Then, I may mention that that magnificent organization, the Australian Workers Union, possesses a number of buildings from which they do not derive pecuniary profit. If the amendment be carried, we shall get no information as to the value of the buildings and land owned by the Australian Workers Union. Information of the value of all the properties to which I have referred will be denied us if the amendment is carried. No injury will be done to any section of the community by insisting upon the furnishing of these returns. All that they will involve is a little labour and trouble. Let me repeat that if I had the least doubt about the object for which the Bill is being introduced, I should be found whole-heartedly supporting the amendment. It is because I have no doubt whatever that no attempt will be made to impose taxation upon the properties of religious, educational, and charitable institutions in this country that I am prepared to vote against the amendment.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator believes that those properties will not be taxed?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I believe so.

Senator Bakhap:

– Then the inquiry in respect to them would be futile.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not agree with the honorable senator. I join with the Vice-President of the Executive Council in saying that the object of the Bill is not conscription, and is not the taxation of the wealth of the country. I trust that the amendment will not be carried.

Question - That the words proposed to be added-(Senator Keating’s amendment) be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 - (].) It shall be the duty of the Statistician, subject to any proclamation and to the directions of the Minister, to prepare forms and instructions, and take all necessary steps, for the taking and collection of the census.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– This clause deals with the preparation and issue of the forms which are required to take the census. It authorizes the Statistician to put into operation all the necessary machinery for the purpose. Now, I understand that many offers of voluntary assistance have been made to the Government in connexion with the taking of this census. Many members of the Commonwealth and State Public Services have offered their aid. It might be very well to accept their offers, but we ought to recollect that there are quite a large number of men and women in our midst to-day who are unemployed, and who are sufficiently skilled to undertake this work. Consequently, I desire the Vice-President of the Executive Council to publicly state that all unemployed men and women who are fit to discharge the duties involved in the taking of this war census will be employed before any voluntary offers of assistance are accepted.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– The talcing of this census will entail a large expenditure of money and effort. In that effort much labour will be employed. As soon as it was announced, through the columns of the daily press, that the Government intended to take a war census, a number of well-meaning citizens offered their services without, I feel sure, any expectation of fee or reward. Many of these offers came from persons who are already in employment, and who are so circumstanced that they are in a position to keep the wolf from the door. They offered their services in their spare time to> the Government in connexion with the taking of this census. But there are quite a large number of persons in the Commonwealth who are not able to keep the wolf from the door. Whilst every sphere of industrial activity is affected by the drought and the war, I do not suppose that there is any section of the community which is feeling their disastrous consequences more than are the clerical workers. Whenever business is dull the clerical staffs are naturally reduced,, and the clerical employee cannot usually take on any other kind of work. When voluntary offers of assistance were made to the Government, a meeting of the clerical workers of this State was held, at which a resolution was adopted expressing the hope that their services would be availed of before any voluntary offers were accepted. I think that there is every justification for a resolution of that character. If, for example, a number of transports required to be fitted up, it would be unfair for carpenters in employment to come along and say that, in their spare time, they would fit up those vessels. Such an offer would be a generous one, but it ought not to be accepted if competent tradesmen were available to do the work and those tradesmen were unemployed. If voluntary offers of assistance are to be accepted, in the taking of this census, thus displacing clerical workers who would otherwise be employed, the same principle should be extended to every other branch of industry. I feel sure that the Government are sympathetic with these men who are unemployed, and that, whilst not unmindful of the generous offers made by patriotic citizens, they will not forget that there is quite an army of competent clerical workers idle in our midst.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I desire to nip this debate in the bud by saying that the Government have had offers, from the State Governments and from other places which they cannot overlook in carrying out such a huge work as the taking of this war census. Probably my statement will set at rest any anxiety on the part of Senators Needham and Findley when I say that this work is so urgent that it will require the services of a large body of officials working two shifts, a day. Voluntary labour cannot, supply, this need. Labour which can only give its services, during its. spare time is useless in the compilation of statistics which must be prepared expeditiously. If there is one thing noticeable throughout the community, it is the intense desire of all to do something, however little, to assist in the prosecution of this great war. Whilst recognising that desire, I am informed by the Attorney-General that the services of a thousand clerks, working two shifts, a day, will be necessary to expeditiously complete this war census. Let no honorable senator imagine for a moment that the employment which will be offered in this’ connexion will partake in any way of. charitable employment. The undertaking will be a business one from beginning to end. None but efficients are- needed, and none but efficients will be employed.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I am glad to learn that the Government view this matter in. the common-sense way that has been outlined by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. We know that the clerical workers of Australia have an equal claim to recognition with the members of other trade unions. I hope, too, that in. the talcing of the census, not merely male, but female clerks will be employed. There are quite a number of female clerical workers in our midst who ought not to be excluded from such an undertaking. I recognise that in the taking of this census we want to practise economy as far as possible. At the same time .1 hope that the Government will see that no cheap labour is engaged in the work until all unemployed clerical workers have been placed.

I am pleased to know that the Government intend following the ordinary lines by engaging the services of men and women for this undertaking.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– There can be no doubt that even now there are a large number of male and female clerks unemployed in the Commonwealth. Probably in the near future the number will be largely increased. The £20,000,000 loan which the Government are about to float for war purposes will withdraw a large amount of capital from industries. This will certainly result in the discharge of a considerable number of persons from all occupations. Then, again, we hear rumours of war taxation. Such taxation will interfere with the course of industry. So far as I can see, the outlook in the immediate future is not promising. The probability is that before we know where we are we shall have a huge army of unemployed on our hands. These people must be provided for. They cannot be allowed to starve. The Prime Minister stated some time ago that in fighting the Germans we were prepared to expend our last man and our last shilling. But I think that fighting poverty within our own borders is even more important than fighting the Germans. Seeing that we have this prospect before us, I trust that the Government will not encourage the engagement of voluntary helpers. These people are in employment now. We all admire the generosity which inspires their offers, but we have to consider the persons who are idle, many of whom have families to provide for, and are in a semistarving condition. Whilst such a state of things exists, and whilst we have a shilling to assist in keeping them supplied with food and shelter, no voluntary helper should be engaged in the taking of this census. I said before that it is proposed to squander £150,000 in collecting information which is already available to the Government. If that money must be expended, let it be spent in assisting to keep a number of our own people out of the ditch of poverty. So far as I am concerned I shall never countenance the employment of any voluntary labour, and I am sorry we did not take steps, when clause 3 was under observation, to eliminate this.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 -

The forms which may be required to bc filled up shall be in accordance with the forms of thu First and Second Schedules to this Act, with such modifications or additions as are prescribed.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– This is a clause which, I think, requires very careful consideration. Yesterday I heard Senator Millen condemning, and, to my mind, rightly, the practice of giving a blank cheque to a Government.

Senator Millen:

– I thought you were denouncing me then.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No, I was not.

Senator Millen:

– I did not know that there was such a strong combination on the eve of being formed over there.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– This clause practically presents a blank cheque to the Government, if we pass it in its present form. Attached to the Bill are two inquisitorial schedules, which, I think, Parliament should take the full responsibility of framing, so that we may know exactly what powers are to be given to the Government, and also that they will not be modified or added to. I am not prepared to give to this or to any other Government power to add to or to modify those schedules in any way; but, on the contrary, I would like to see the schedules, as they leave this Parliament, moulded in such a way .that they will accomplish the object of the Government. In legislation of this nature, which I recognise is necessary at this time, it would be unwise for Parliament to go into recess and leave the people practically at the mercy of the Government, with power to add further questions, and, as it were, to peer still more closely into the private affairs of their lives. I think the clause can very well stand with all the words after “ Act “ deleted. It will then he all the more imperative on the Committee to scrutinize carefully the schedules as they are going through, to see that they are sent to the people in a proper form, and without being too inquisitorial. In order to test the feeling of the Committee, I move -

That all the words after “Act” be left out.

I do that because I desire that this Parliament shall retain full and complete control of the questions that are to be submitted to the people in this War Census Bill. If the Government find that the schedules do not meet the object they have in view, let them appeal to Parliament to grant further power.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I ask Senator Needham not to press his amendment. I do not say that this or any other Government have a right to ask for a blank cheque, as T realize that Parliament should know the limit of the power it is handing over., I am not questioning Senator Needham’s desire to see that the powers of Parliament should remain in the hands of members elected to conduct the business of Parliament ;- but I want to point out that it might happen that when we are preparing a proclamation dealing with this matter, it might be found that some simple question, concerning which there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt Parliament would approve, has been omitted, and if the amendment is carried we would have to call Parliament together to get over the difficulty. Government is always a question of cheques and balances. In this particular clause we have practically a blank cheque, but a Committee has been appointed, and Mr. Hughes, when dealing with the matter in the other House, said that no questions other than those in the schedule would be put in, except with the approval of the Committee.

Senator Millen:

– Except with the approval of the Committee, or after reference to them?

Senator GARDINER:

-I can only say that the impression conveyed to me was that nothing would be added without the approval of that Committee, but that that would not give the Committee power to accept questions, because, after all, the Government would act as a check.

Senator Needham:

– The Committee could not suggest anything.

Senator GARDINER:

– At the present time we are living under a condition of things previously unheard of, and extraordinary powers can be exercised at any moment by the Government, almost without the check of Parliament, and if the Government cannot be trusted with this small matter it is for the Senate to say so. When introducing the Bill I said that had we been living in ordinary times a measure of such an inquisitorial character would have received my opposition. Now that we are exercising such extended powers, why should there be hesitation as to whether the Government should have the DOWer embodied in this clause? I will put it to honorable senators that, in their caution to prevent us from doing something that may involve quite a remote danger, they may prevent us from doing something which is very useful and necessary, and something which Parliament would certainly approve if the matter were submitted to members. However, the matter is for the Committee to decide. Personally. I hope the amendment will not be carried, for the simple reason that there is no intention on the part of the Government to transgress upon the privileges of Parliament; but, as I have said, when we are issuing the proclamation we might find that something which should have been included has been left out, and we should have the power to include it. I really think we can be intrusted with this power, because, so far as I can see, no other question will be submitted. The Government only want to be in the position of knowing that if there is any omission it can be rectified.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I am in favour of the amendment, because I strongly object to the handing over to an irresponsible Committee that is not even appointed by Parliament the power to undo work which the Parliament has done.

Senator Gardiner:

– Did I not make it quite clear that they have no power?

Senator MULLAN:

– No. And I might add that the Minister did not present all the facts of the case, because Mr. Hughes, in his statement to the other House, distinctly said that after the Bill had been passed the schedules would be submitted for the approval of a Committee which is not even appointed by this Parliament.

Senator Gardiner:

– Did I say that?

Senator MULLAN:

– No; but Mr. Hughes said it, and in the light of the statement made by the Minister who introduced the Bill in the other House, I want to know why we should give any power over these schedules to that Committee. We will do that if we do not accept the amendment moved by Senator Needham. It is very dangerous to hand such a power over to that Committee, because the power to add to them might just as effectively affect the schedules as the power to take from them anything that Parliament inserted.

Senator Gardiner:

– There is no power given in this Bill, nor has the promise been made that the Committee will insert any amendment, ‘or alter one letter of the schedule. There was a promise that if the Government proposed any further question it would be submitted to the Committee in the event of Parliament not sitting. We thought that was a fair compromise.

Senator MULLAN:

– Let me read to honorable senators just what Mr. Hughes said, on page 5057 of Ilansard -

As far as the wealth schedule is concerned, we shall do what we can, with the advice proffered to us by experts, to make it as perfect as possible.

Now here is the point -

It will then bc submitted for approval to the War Committee representing the whole Parliament, and will not bc issued until it has been made acceptable to that body.

Senator Findley:

– .What will not be issued ?

Senator MULLAN:

– These schedules. It is an extraordinary statement for a responsible Minister to make, and it is an extraordinary position for Mr. Hughes or any member of the Government to place Parliament in. It does not matter what promise the Minister here makes-

Senator Gardiner:

– Does it not? The Senate is the supreme body of this Parliament, you know.

Senator Turley:

– It seems that the War Committee will be supreme.

Senator Findley:

– Does that statement convey the impression that the War Committee will be supreme and above the Government ?

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes. Above everybody, so Mr. Hughes stated. In confirmation of that. I want to read a statement which the Attorney-General subsequently made, as reported on page 5060 of Hansard -

I am entirely in the hands of the Committee in this matter. Two suggestions have been made. There is no difference of opinion on the point that the Second Schedule shall not como into force until it has been approved either by the War Committee or by this House. In my view, the War Committee could best deal with the matter, but I do not press that. I propose to make a number of amendments in that Schedule now, because I do not desire that the Bill should go to another place until wc have done the best we can with it.

Senator Millen:

– From what is the honorable senator reading?

Senator MULLAN:

– From the remarks of Mr. Hughes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is entirely out of order.

Senator MULLAN:

– I thought I would give Mr. Hughes’ actual remarks for greater accuracy. Substantially what he said was that, whatever Parliament did, its work was to be disregarded, and that the War Lords appointed by the Government were to be supreme. That is a dangerous proposal, which no Parliament should tolerate, even in a crisis like the present. It would be better for Parliament to sit continuously than to hand over its powers to any Committee. I hope that, for the protection of Parliament, if for no other reason, we shall carry the amendment, which, to some extent, will clip the wings of the War Committee.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– As one of the War Lords referred to, I suddenly find myself on a pinnacle on which even my most exalted ambition never pictured me. Senator Mullan has entirely misapprehended the position, and quite misunderstands the functions allotted to the War Committee and the statement of the representative of the Government. No matter what that Committee does, Parliament can override and annul it. Its amendments of the schedule would have to come before Parliament as a regulation.

Senator Mullan:

– Parliament might not be sitting.

Senator MILLEN:

– By that interjection the honorable senator recognises that the Committee will be operative only when Parliament is not sitting. It is not an overriding of Parliament, but an additional safeguard to it. What Mr. Hughes said, repeated by his colleague here, is that if Parliament is in session the schedule, as amended, if it is amended, will naturally come before Parliament for approval; but if Parliament is not sitting we have the assurance that the Government will not amend the schedule unless the War Committee, which is equally representative of both sides, is in agreement with what they propose to do. If the Committee approve, and Parliament was in session, Parliament could still override the regulation. Parliament would be in no better position if the War Committee had no voice at all. The

Committee is given no extraordinary powers, because the position would be exactly the same if the Committee was not there. It cannot be said that the Committee will override Parliament.

Senator Mullan:

– Temporarily it will, but it should not be able to do so at all.

Senator MILLEN:

– It will not, because Parliament, if not in session, would not be able to do anything. If the Committee did not exist, the Government would alter the schedule as they liked, and Parliament would not be overridden, although impotent for the time being. To bring in the Committee does not impair the rights or powers of Parliament, but merely means that the Government will buttress themselves with the assurance that a body of men representative of both sides is in full approval of what they are doing. Senator Needham, when he said he agreed with me, reminded me of the possibility of a new and powerful alliance - between him and myself.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8 p.m.

Senator MILLEN:

– There is a distinct difference between the proposal now submitted and that which I discussed last night. I urged, in connexion with the matter discussed last night, that no more power than is absolutely necessary to enable them to administer affairs should be intrusted to the Government. In connexion with that matter, there was no possible advantage in giving the Government the power proposed, and therefore the argument as to the folly of giving the Government a blank cheque applied; but in this case I think it can be shown that it is not only useful, but necessary, that the Government should have this power. Already suggestions for additions to the schedules have been urged as desirable, and it is quite conceivable that before the printer is called upon to do his work in connexion with this measure, further valuable suggestions may be offered for the modification of the schedules in, perhaps, vital particulars. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, in introducing the Bill, said that the Government ought in ten days to have all the preliminary machinery for the war census ready for work. If that is so, and Parliament should be in session next week, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Government will be in a position to inform the Senate, and honorable members of another place, what is’ contained in the schedules as revised up to that time. I feel certain that Ministers will be prepared to give an undertaking to bring down regulations framed under the Bill as early as possible; and as the Government are under considerable pressure to hasten the operation of the Bill, it seems to me unthinkable that there will be any necessity to revise the schedules after next week. If that be so, the regulation may still be brought before Parliament in the ordinary way before the anticipated adjournment, and Parliament will then be able to exercise its power of control. I can remind older senators, and by that I mean those who have been longer members of this Chamber than others, of an almost historic debate which took place in. this Chamber, and was very fruitful in its results. I remember an occasion when certain regulations were tabled, and a schedule of questions was successfully challenged, and the Government of the day called upon to modify them. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council could give the Committee an assurance that the schedules to this Bill will be revised in the course of a few days, and the regulations presented to Parliament before the proposed adjournment, the minds of some honorable senators would be greatly relieved.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– Whilst I have no hesitation in giving the Committee the assurance that these matters will be pushed on with as quickly as possible, it is beyond my power to promise that the regulations will be tabled before the proposed adjournment. If Parliament continues to sit for three or four weeks longer, the regulations under this Bill will be presented ; but if the adjournment takes place next week, they will not. When the Bill is passed, the need will be very serious and urgent, indeed, that will induce the Government to modify or add to the schedules. They certainly will not alter the schedules wantonly. I know the work which the Crown Law Office has been called on to do within the last six months, and I cannot now make any promise that regulations will be drafted and submitted to Parliament without knowing how long it is likely to continue sitting. There is, apparently, a feeling of suspicion against the Government, though I do not say that it is entertained by the honorable senator who moved the amendment.

Senator Mullan:

– That feeling of suspicion applies to all Governments.

Senator GARDINER:

– I feel that the present Government should, at least, be free from the suspicion of their own friends.

Senator BARKER:

– They should be like Caesar’s wife - above suspicion.

Senator GARDINER:

– They are, of course, altogether above suspicion, and :f weighed in the balance would not be found wanting, unless it be in respect of confidence and support from quarters to which they have a right to look for such confidence and support. I do not care how critical of this measure honorable senators are. I am glad to find them as careful of the rights of the Senate as I should be myself if I were in their position.

Senator Barker:

– There is no doubt about that.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry to find honorable senators’ memories so good when I am trying to put a matter in the correct official way. If the amendment is carried the Government will be deprived of the power to make regulations which they are given by almost every Act that is passed. I remind honorable senators that Parliament has already given the Government powers in connexion with the conduct of the war which far exceed any powers they ask for in this Bill,’ and the powers which have already been given them might be used if they so desired to enable them to do all that they think it well to do under this Bill whether the amendment is carried or not. Why should honorable senators try to bind the Government in this way with a piece of string when Parliament has already given us sufficient power to break bands of steel ?

Senator Mullan:

– According to that argument the Government do not need this Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– We do need the Bill, because we desire to do everything that is necessary just as it should be done if we were living under normal conditions. We desire that all the power for which we ask shall be given the Government in a constitutional way. The Government have no desire to do in any underhand way what they are not prepared to openly ask Parliament to give them power to do. When honorable senators have agreed to the war powers which have already been intrusted to the Government, I can appeal to them to give us the small powers that are asked for under this Bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council is not justified in complaining that in this matter he is not receiving the support of members of the party to which he belongs. There is no party matter at stake in connexion with this Bill. The honorable senator should not have suggested either that there is some suspicion of the Government on the part of honorable senators on this side. I have no suspicion of the Government, but I should take the same stand as I am taking in connexion with this Bill no matter what Government introduced it. I attach no weight to the suggestion of Senator Millen to which the VicePresident of the Executive .Council has conditionally agreed, because the Government without the amendment will still have the power to modify or add to the schedules of this Bill, and that is what I object to. Senator Mullan referred to the statement made by the Attorney-General, and as he introduced the Bill, and is the legal adviser of the Crown, we are justified in attaching considerable importance to what he has had to say. He has said plainly that the schedules of this Bill will not become operative until they are agreed to by the War Committee. That is a strange statement for the honorable gentleman to make. This Parliament has been elected by the people to frame legislation for their protection. We have a Bill before us for consideration, and yet the AttorneyGeneral says that the schedules to that Bill will not be enforced until they are approved by the War Committee.

Senator Gardiner:

– Not these schedules.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes, the AttorneyGeneral referred specifically to the wealth schedule of the War Census Bill. When that statement is analyzed, what it means is that twelve members of this Parliament are to supersede the Government and Parliament. The statement is embalmed in the pages of Hansard, and we are compelled to take notice of it. The Government themselves propose to hand over to an irresponsible committee the powers for which they ask under this Bill. We have plenty of time in which to determine exactly the questions which we think should be submitted to the people in connexion with the proposed war census. While I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, and recognise its necessity, I want to safeguard the rights of Parliament, and by so doing protect the interests of the people. They have a right to complain if put to unnecessary inconvenience, and if there is too great an inquisition into their private affairs. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, because its object is only to enable Parliament to retain its authority. Honorable senators have to decide whether they will do that or will give the Government in this matter unlimited power. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has reminded the Committee that, even if the amendment is carried, the War Precautions Act will enable the Government to do all that they could do under this Bill without the amendment. Senator Mullan very properly wished to know where -is the necessity for the introduction of this Bill if that be the case. The logical deduction from the statement made by the Minister is that, no matter what amendments may be made in this Bill, the Government may use the powers with which they have already been invested for the conduct of the war to defeat the decision of this Parliament.

Senator Barker:

– They would be justified if the necessity arose.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– They would not “be justified in going behind the back of Parliament.

Senator Gardiner:

– They have no intention of doing so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator reminded the Committee that the powers with which they have been invested for the conduct of the war would enable the Government to do so.

Senator Bakhap:

– I think it is their intention to do things as regularly as possible, although we are in a state of war.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I reiterate my statement that I have no suspicion of the present Government. I am speaking in an entirely impersonal way. Other honorable senators agree with me that these unlimited powers should not be given to the Government. We should so frame the schedules to this Bill that they will not need modification or additions after the Senate has dealt -with it.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [8.15].- When speaking on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, I objected- to giving the Government the extensive power that would be conferred by this clause. I am, however, quite willing to vest them with a portion of that power. I would have no objection to the clause reading -

The forms which may be required to be filled up shall be in accordance with the forms in the First and Second Schedules to this Act, with such modifications as are prescribed.

That would preclude the possibility of the Government making any number of additions to those forms, of which we are entirely ignorant at the present time. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has assured us that it is necessary that the Bill should he passed as quickly as possible. But surely we are not going to have some new questions sprung upon us within the next few days, although that might easily be done under the clause in its present form. If the Government have no desire to do that, why do they insist upon the retention of the provision as it now stands? I join with other honorable senators in objecting to give the Government power to add to the questions to be put to the people, seeing that the questions already prescribed in the schedule are sufficiently numerous. It is true that questions may be framed under regulations, but it is equally true that the moment any such regulations are made, they have the force of law, and may be acted upon before Parliament has time to disagree with them.

Senator Gardiner:

– Let it go. I can assure the honorable senator that the regulations will be issued before Parliament adjourns. Q ‘

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Then where is the need to give the Government authority to make additions to the schedules? I am willing to consent to vesting Ministers with power to make modifications to the questions prescribed in the schedules, but not to make additions to them.

Senator Gardiner:

– Let us get to a division.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- I should like to know if Sanator Needham will consent to alter his amendment so as to provide for the elimination of the words “or additions,” which appear in the clause.

Senator Needham:

– I ask leave to temporarily withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not necessary for the honorable senator to adopt that course. I will put his amendment in two parts. The question is -

That the words “ with -such modifications,” proposed tobe left out, be left out.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 21

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the words “ or additions “ proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative-

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 -

For the purpose of making any inquiries or observations necessary for the proper carrying; out of this Act, all persons shall, when required; by the Statistician or by any officer authorized in that behalf in writing by the Statistician,, answer questions and produce documents witliin such time as the Statistician or the authorized officer thinks fit.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I would like to draw the attention of the Government to what I think is an error in the drafting of the clause which states that for the purpose of making any inquiries and observations necessary for the proper carrying out of this Act, all persons shall answer questions and produce documents. Clearly that is not sense, because for the purpose of making any inquiries a person does not answer questions. He asks them. The error has, I think, arisen through taking over the first two lines from another section of the Census Act. Those lines, I think, ought to be transferred in this Bill from clause 9 to clause 11. If honorable senators will look at clause 11, they will find that it reads -

Any officer authorized in writing by the Minister may, at any time, enter upon and search any premises.

That will give power to break open any safe; and, clearly, power to enter premises and to break open a safe ought to be a power under this Act. If honorable senators will turn to the Census Act, they will find a corresponding section 19, which states -

For the purpose of making any inquiries or observations necessary for the proper carrying out of this Act the Statistician or any officer authorized in writing by him may, at any time during working hours enter any factory - and so on. We have put in the covering words contained in the first two lines, and I would suggest that if they go in anywhere they should be in clause 11. Clearly, they are out of place in clause 9, because for the purpose of making any inquiry a person does not answer questions. The authority to demand an answer to questions is contained in section 18 of the Census Act, which states -

Every person shall, to the best of his knowledge and belief, answer all questions asked him by the Statistician or an officer authorized in writing by the Statistician, necessary to obtain any information required for the purposes of any statistics authorized by this Act to be collected.

It does appear that in the hurried drafting of this measure there has been a mixing of the two sections from the Census Act.

Senator Gardiner:

– There is such a thing as hurried reading, too.

Senator MILLEN:

– If that is my fault on the present occasion, the responsibility rests on the Government for trying to hurry this measure through; but I venture to say that my reading is the correct one.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I cannot find any fault with the drafting of the clause. Of course, it would read correctly with the elimination of the words to which Senator Millen takes exception. Let me read the clause again -

For the purpose of making any inquiries or observations necessary for the proper carrying out of this Act,

There is nothing ungrammatical about that- all persons shall, when required by the Statistician or by any officer authorized in that behalf in writing by the Statistician, answer questions and produce documents within such time as the Statistician or the authorized offi- cer thinks fit. 1 fail to see anything ungrammatical in the clause.

Senator Millen:

– Will you tell me why a person making inquiries is called upon to answer questions?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It does not say that.

Senator Millen:

– Yes; it says that for the purpose of making inquiries or observations, all persons shall answer questions.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Personally, I fail to see anything to which exception could be taken, though there may be a doubt as to the wisdom of inserting words which might be considered superfluous; but I prefer to leave the drafting of provisions in a Bill which is to become an Act of Parliament to those who are more competent than I am.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I appreciate the objection which Senator Millen has put forward; but to my mind the clause, as it stands, is all right. However, as there is a difference of opinion, and time is valuable, I will meet the honorable senator’s wishes, and I move -

That the word “making,” line1, be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The words “ or observations “ are now quite unnecessary and out of place. So far as making inquiries are concerned, the clause as it now stands is all right; but to say that, for the purpose of making observations a man shall answer questions is, to my mind, an absurdity which has arisen from the transposition of two sections from the Census Act.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I object to the clause passing as amended. However ungrammatical it was before, it is worse now. When we start tinkering with a clause in a Bill we do not know when we shall reach finality.

Senator Millen:

– The word “observation “ has no business there.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Having struck out the word “making,” which was said to be superfluous, the word “ observations “ appears to be unnecessary. The clause will be ridiculous unless it is further altered.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– The clause will be clearer if made to read : “ For the purpose of any inquiries necessary for the proper carrying out of this Act. . . . “ and so on. The word “ observations “ is not wanted. Any observations necessary are covered by succeeding clauses.

Senator Pearce:

– You do not ask questions in regard to a document. You observe a document.

Senator SENIOR:

– Power is not wanted to observe documents. What is required is power to produce them.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 -

  1. Any officer authorized in writing by the Minister may, at any time, enter upon and search any premises. . . .
Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Will the Minister agree to introduce, at the beginning of the clause, the words “ For the purpose of making any inquiries or observations necessary for the proper carrying out of this Act”? The clause gives drastic powers even to the breaking open of a safe, vault, or place. There can be no objection to the granting of any power necessary to the carrying out of the object of the Bill, but as the clause stands we are giving a power irrespective of the Bill.

Senator Pearce:

– The fact that it is included in the Bill shows that it is for the purposes of the measure.

Senator MILLEN:

– If that follows, there was no need to put the words in clause 9. The same words appear in section 19 of the Census Act. The power of entry should be exercised only when necessary for the discharge of duties thrown by the Act on the officer.

Senator Pearce:

– He cannot exercise the power of entry unless authorized in writing by the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am prepared to give the Minister power to send an officer to exercise the right of search only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.

Senator Pearce:

– Why not put it “For the purposes of this Act “ ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall be quite satisfied if the Minister will accept that amendment.

Senator Gardiner:

– I will accept it if you move it.

Senator MILLEN:

– I move -

That before the words “Any officer” the words “ For the purposes of this Act “ be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 -

  1. Any person who has furnished a form under this Act and who changes his postal address after the date upon which the form was furnished, shall, within three days after the date upon which his address was so changed, forward to the Statistician a statement in writing specifying -

    1. his full name;
    2. his postal address at the time at which the return was furnished; and (c) his new postal address.
  2. In the event of any such person again Changing his postal address, he shall, within three days after such change, forward to the Statistician a further statement specifying -

    1. his full name;
    2. his postal address at the time at which the return was furnished;
    3. his postal address contained in any statement subsequently forwarded to the Statistician ; and
    4. his new postal address.
Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– This is a proper provision, but the subsequent penalty clause provides that a breach of it may be punished by a fine of £50. That is extortionate, especially in a country with a large nomadic population.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– To meet the honorable senator’s views, and in order to limit the maximum penalty for an offence against, this provision, I move -

That the words “Penalty for any offence under this section, Five pounds “ be added.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Have honorable senators considered the consequences which this clause will entail on any man who, having filled up a form, has to travel the continent from end to end in search of employment? He may have no address for months, and be unable to comply with the clause, no matter whether the penalty is 5s., £5, or £50. That is true of thousands of men in this country.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– A man of that character would never be prosecuted.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– He might leave his address, and not be settled in another for several months afterwards.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is talking about change of residence.. The Bill says change of postal’ address. A man may have the same postal addressalthough away for some time in search of work.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What is the postal address of a man with no home? A great many of these men leave no address, and are lost to sight when they get into the interior. I want no undue penalty placed on a large section of our people. If the clause passes as it stands, it will be a very sore point to many workers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to..

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Punishment of offences).

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– With regard to penalties and the punishment of offences, honorable senators will see that the Bill is to remain in operation during the continuance of the present war and no longer. Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council say what will be the position with regard to offences which may be committed, and in respect of which prosecutions are not taken until some time after the Act has ceased to operate?

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I feel inclined to ask Senator Keating to give notice of that question. He is an authority on such matters, and he will excuse me if I do not try to answer a technical question of that kind. But it seems to me that it would not be possible to prosecute under an Act which is not in existence.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

First Schedule -

Commonwealth of Australia.

page 5205

QUESTION

WAR CENSUS

To be filled in by all Males aged 18 and under60.

  1. Name in Full. (Underline Surname.)
  2. Full usual Postal Address including State. (If away from usual residence when filling in card, the postal address to be given here is that of your usual residence.)
  3. Date of Birth____ Month____ Year____

State Age last Birthday…….. years.

  1. State whether Married (M), Widower (W), or Single (S).
  2. State Number and Relation of Dependent Relatives (if any).

    1. State whether your General Health is Good, Bad, or Indifferent.
  3. If suffering from Blindness, Deafness, or Loss of a Limb, give particulars.
  4. What is your present occupation? 8a. State Grade of Occupation. (If employing labour other than domestic, insert E; if working on own account, but not employing labour, insert O; if assisting but not receiving salary or wages, insert A; if in receipt of salary or wages, insert W; if out of work for more than a week immediately prior to 30th June, 1915, insert N.) 8b. If you are an Employee, what is the occupation of your Employer?
  5. What other Occupation (if any) could you undertake ?
  6. What Military Training (if any) have you had?
  7. State number and description of fire-arms and quantity of ammunition you possess.
  8. State Country of Birth of: -

    1. Yourself
    2. Your Father
    3. Your Mother
  9. If born in a Foreign Country of Foreign Parentage, are you a Naturalized British Subject?
  10. If so, When and Where was Naturalization Effected?

Date………… Signature

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– The Minister, in introducing this Bill, described it as a measure for national stocktaking. It is the idea of the Government to be in a position to organize our military and industrial resources. If that be the object in view, I do not see why questions concerning the national stocktaking should be confined exclusively to males, as is the case in this first schedule. If the Bill does not mean conscription, and I accept the assurance of the Minister on that point, why are these questions confined to males? If we want to take a census of the productivity of labour, we should surely recognise the great number of females employed in factories. The number is approximately 82,000. There are, in addition, males and females under eighteen years of age to the number of 13,000, and they are not taken into consideration in this schedule at all. These persons represent approximately one-third of the total factory productivity of the Commonwealth, and yet they are not to be taken into consideration in this national stocktaking. Then we have to consider the enormous number of women who are employed in many other important industries. We should have some estimate of the value of their efforts, if the intention of the Bill is that we may have a real knowledge of the resources of the country. We might want to know, for instance, how many nurses and how many women who have a knowledge of first aid there are in the Commonwealth. Why not take some cognisance of those women? The Minister, in objecting to the exemptions suggested by Senator Keating, said that even although the Government did not want certain information they ought to get it.

Senator Gardiner:

– I did not say that.

Senator MULLAN:

– Now, apparently, the honorable senator does not want information which the Government ought to get.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator propose to alter the ages?

Senator MULLAN:

– If the returns are for the purpose stated by the Minister - to secure some estimate of the resources of the country, its wage-producing power, the productivity of labour, and to make a scientific investigation of our industrial resources - we should ask for information from females as well as from males, and from both below the age of eighteen as well as above that age. There are persons above even the age of sixty years employed in different industries.

Senator Millen:

– There are some in Parliament.

Senator MULLAN:

– Some, as the honorable senator reminds me, are engaged in the work of legislation. If the object of the Government in introducing this Bill was to introduce conscription, I could understand these questions being confined to males between eighteen and sixty years of age. But that is not the object of the Government.

Senator de Largie:

– What did the Minister say the Bill was for?

Senator MULLAN:

– He said it was for a national stocktaking - that we might know the full resources of the Commonwealth.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– For the purposes of the Bill?

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– What are they?

Senator MULLAN:

– I can only say that if the Bill is intended for a national stocktaking, the first schedule needs modification.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– For military purposes we require to know the number of males between eighteen and sixty .years of a/rc. We require to know whether they are married or single, .and their fitness for service. Under the card system, when we get the information required, there will be a division on something like these lines. Those between eighteen and thirtyfive years of age will be first class fighting men, those between thirty-five and forty-five years of age will be second class, and those between forty-five and sixty year3 of age in the next class. We require to know exactly what our resources are in regard to men fit for service. I repeat that this is not for the purpose of compelling men to fight, because the Government believe that the services of every available man in the Commonwealth will be at their disposal. No doubt some honorable senators who believed that this Bill meant conscription have been disappointed. I have said that it does not mean conscription, and I now go further and say that if a Bill for conscription is introduced in the Senate, some Minister other than myself must introduce it.

Senator Millen:

– Do not say that.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do say it.That is one of those things about which one can bcf perfectly certain. I have had a strange experience to-night. I have heard Senators de Largie and Mullan deliberately say that this Bill has been introduced for some purpose other than that for which I have assured the Senate it has been introduced. I have gone OUt of my way to make myself understood om this point, and I shall always put matters before the Senate in a straightforward manner. Senator Mullan hast given the Committee the figures of those engaged in manufacturing industries. If the honorable senator has those figures,, what occasion is there to ask for the information again under this Bill ?

Senator Mullan:

– I could give the honorable senator some figures with regard to the men available for military service, but he would not accept them.

Senator GARDINER:

– Th6 alterations, of the schedule which Senator Mullan: suggests would lead to the gathering ire of so much chaff and so little grain that after the returns were received it would be difficult to find the grain. For military purposes we propose to have a census taken which will give us information as to the available fighting population. I believe that there are many men over sixty years of age who could and would, if the necessity arose, render excellent service in fighting in Australia.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Here is one.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator may yet render very good servicebefore the present war is over. The next- schedule will require some careful consideration, and I ask honorable senators to let the Committee get on to it.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council is mistaken when he says that I have not accepted his assurance that this Bill is not introduced for the purpose of conscription. The very amendments of the schedule which I have suggested should prove to the honorable senator that I have accepted his assurance. He has stated that such amendments of the schedule are unnecessary when I already have the information, but the figures 1 have given are only approximate. I could give further approximate figures. The approximate value of the product of manufacturing industries in the Commonwealth last year was £161,000,000; the wages paid, about £33,000,000; the value of the raw material used, about £96,000,000; the enhancement of value by manufacture, about £65,000,000. But these figures are only approximate. We should have accurate information, and the Government are disregarding the necessity for that information in the taking of the proposed census. I could give approximate answers to practically every question that appears in the schedule, but the Minister would not accept that information. If the honorable senator is in earnest about securing a national stocktaking, he should in these schedules submit questions which will give the Government all the information that is required.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I trust that the schedule will be maintained in its present form, because I do not wish anything to be done by this Parliament which will suggest that Australia has reached the stage when we have to consider the application of compulsion to our women folk in the undertaking of any work. At this juncture I decline to consider the possibility of our having to organize the women workers of this country.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule -

Commonwealth of Australia

page 5207

WAR CENSUS

To be filled in by all persons aged18 and upwards possessed of, or holding on trust, property or in receipt of income. War Census - *continued.* {:#subdebate-14-0} #### Date Signature {: #subdebate-14-0-s0 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I propose to submit a number of amendments to this schedule - amendments for which I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to **Mr. Prout** Webb, the Commissioner of Taxes in Victoria. I move - >That in question 4 the word " possess " be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word "own." Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-14-0-s1 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- I would suggest that after the word " cycles " in this question the words "or other motor vehicles" be inserted. It is needless to point out how very useful a census of motor lorries would be. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Would not the words "other vehicles" in this question cover what the honorable senator aims at ? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- No. " Other vehicles" would include horse-drawn vehicles. I move - >That in question 4 after the word " Cycles," the words " or other Motor Vehicles " be inserted. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** agreed to - That in question 4 the word "possessed" beleft out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " owned." Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** agreed to - That in question 5 the word " possess " be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " own." Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** agreed to - That in question 6, after the word " property," the words " owned or " be inserted. Amendments (by **Senator Gardiner)** agreed to - That at the head of the second column, question 6, the word "Trust" be left out, and that after the word "Account" the words "of Other Persons " be inserted. {: #subdebate-14-0-s2 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I desire to invite the attention of the Committee to an amendment which I feel certain will be readily accepted. It has relation to the tabulation of the value of leasehold properties. All that this schedule calls upon people to return is the capital value of land which they own, and, as honorable senators know, many people have a considerable value in land which is held under leasehold, the value of which is distinct, and apart altogether from the capital value. In Sydney, for instance, the City Council has leased land for a considerable period, and there is no provision under this schedule by which we can get a return of such values. Under the Land Tax Act provision is made, for leasehold interests are taxable under that Act, and what is wanted in this schedule is an additional paragraph providing for the return of leasehold value apart from the capital value. For instance, a man's leasehold value being worth £500, and the capital value £10,000, he would be called upon to return the capital value. This would be most misleading, because the owner would be required to make a similar return. That is not what the Government want. I suggest, therefore, that there should be a subdivision under question 6 to provide for a return of the leasehold value. {: #subdebate-14-0-s3 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales .- I move- >That question 6 be amended by leaving out sub-paragraph (i), and inserting in lieu thereof the following : - (i) *(a)* Unimproved Capital Value of Land; *(b)* Value of all Improvements, including Houses and Buildings thereon. This amendment will not in any way conflict with that suggested by **Senator Millen.** Its purpose is to make a sharp division between the value of the land and the value of the improvements thereon. I want to see the unimproved capital value in one line, and the value of the improvements in another. I recognise the value of the amendment suggested by **Senator Millen,** and I hope it will be inserted. {: #subdebate-14-0-s4 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I trust the Committee will accept the amendment, because it will give **Senator Grant** and others who are interested in this question, including myself, an idea of the capital value of all the lands in the Commonwealth, as well as the value of the improvements. If, however, the return is made out in the form of the schedule as presented by the Government, we shall have the capital value of the land and the value of all improvements bunched together, and that will not be very helpful to most of us. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The Government will accept the amendment. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I am very glad to know that the Government will accept the amendment, because at present there is no publication in circulation from which we can obtain the information which we will secure by this return if it is amended in the way suggested. {: #subdebate-14-0-s5 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928 .- The effect of **Senator Grant's** amendment will be to make the division clearer, and I want to say that the Government will also accept **Senator Millen's** amendment, which can be inserted in its proper place. {: #subdebate-14-0-s6 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I would point out that if we strike out any words from the question, and seek afterwards to insert them in another form, some honorable senator might raise the question whether we can do it at this sitting. I would suggest, therefore, that the Chairman should exercise the authority vested in him to make such verbal alterations as will enable the Committee to meet the difficulty with which we are confronted. We do not want so much to alter the question as to alter the form in which it is printed and I think the Chairman, having ascertained the wish of the Committee, has authority to do that. Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-14-0-s7 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I have an amendment to propose, which, I understand, the Minister will accept. I move - >That the following words be added to subparagraph (i.) of question 6 : - > >Unimproved capital value of leasehold land; *(d)* Value of all improvements, including houses and buildings thereon. These, with the previous amendments, will show the value of freehold land and improvements, and leasehold land and improvements. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I suggest to **Senator Grant** that the word " freehold " be inserted before "land" in *a,* to make the question clear. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- That may involve *a* danger. We want returns of conditional purchase leases and conditional leases. They are not called freeholduntil the last penny due on them *is* paid up, but they are a tangible asset, and the Grown will not make a return of them. {: #subdebate-14-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- As **Senator Grant's** amendment has been carried, the word "freehold" cannot be inserted in *a* at this stage. {: #subdebate-14-0-s9 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- The line c will apply to leaseholds held from private owners as well as leaseholds held from the Crown. This may cause a duplication in the returns, because owners will make a return of the same land under *a.* Is that desired or intended. {: #subdebate-14-0-s10 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- It may be a little more difficult to' separate some of the questions, but it is worth taking the risk, because so much will be missed if we do not include leaseholds. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Then the lessee should put in the name of the lessor. {: #subdebate-14-0-s11 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- Will the Minister agree to report progress until to-morrow? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- No part of this Bill will be postponed until to-morrow. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I want to avoid confusion. Are conditional purchase lands freehold or leasehold,. or both? To avoid confusion, the drafting of the amendments should be* put into the hands of one person after the feeling of the Committee is ascertained. {: .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator Turley: -- It is all going to be referred to the War Committee! {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- We have no right to delegate our business to any Committee. We should state freehold land clearly and explicitly, and clearly define leasehold lands. We should also mention conditional purchase land, which is both leasehold and freehold at one time. In Western Australia there is a good deal of land taken up under conditional purchase, which means payment on the instalment principle for a number of years, generally twenty. When the last instalment is paid the land becomes freehold. {: #subdebate-14-0-s12 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- Iam not anxious to stop the passage of the Bill, but am anxious that every question in the schedules shall be understandable by those to whom they are submitted. **Senator Keating** touched on a very im- portantpoint regarding the duplication of leaseholds. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- The best plan is to remit it to the draftsman. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- The questions must be so worded as to secure absolutely reliable information, which we may not have the chance to get again. {: #subdebate-14-0-s13 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- There is no real difficulty. There will be no conflict regarding Crown leases, and the lines *a, b, c,* and *d* will cover the information we want. As **Senator Turley** suggested, if there is any difficulty it can be referred to the War Committee, and, seriously, I promise that if there is any real doubt or confusion I will report the matter to the Senate. {: #subdebate-14-0-s14 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- Even under the amendment there will still be some difficulties in the way, but I do not expect perfection. The amendment represents a big step in advance, and I think the Committee will do well to accept it. I should like to see this sub-paragraph divided into a dozen sections, but I do not think the Committee would stand that. In view of the lucid explanation which has been given by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I hone the amendment will be accepted. {: #subdebate-14-0-s15 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- Only that I believe the Government and the Committee generally are in favour of what I propose, I should not now take the course of suggesting an adjournment of this matter, and that steps be taken for a further revision of it. **Senator Keating** has raised some doubt in my mind as to whether we shall achieve the full object sought by the amendment. The doubt is strengthened by a reference to the Land Tax Assessment Act. What is wanted is not merely the value of land which is held under lease. That will be returned by the owner of the freehold. What we want to get at is the lessee's interest in the land. There are many kinds of leases. Land is held under lease from a private owner, and under settlement leases with varying currencies up to twenty-eight years from the Crown; and there is also the perpetual lease, which, to all intents and purposes, is a freehold, though it is legally a leasehold. These varieties give rise to many complications. What I suggest, especially in view of the fact that the Government have other business to go on with, is that this matter might be adjourned now; or I should be satisfied if the Vice-President of the Executive Council would notify that the Government are willing, if the schedule is passed now, to have it further revised. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Let us pass it now, aud i will promise a revision if that is found necessary. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- This is a very technical matter, and it is impossible even for a lawyer to, offhand, draft an entirely satisfactory provision to deal with it. We should not leave the matter in doubt, so far as Parliament is concerned, or pass it in such a way that it may be a source of complexity to those who are asked to fill in the schedule. {: #subdebate-14-0-s16 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- I should like to hear from the Vice-President of the Executive Council exactly what he intends to do. **Senator Millen** has made a suggestion. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The honorable senator has moved an amendment, which I have accepted. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- What about the re-drafting of the schedule? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- If re-drafting is necessary, it will be done. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Then how are we to know what form it will take? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- It will be put in the form of a regulation, and can then be discussed when it comes before the Senate {: #subdebate-14-0-s17 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South. Wales -- I have to thank **Senator Keating** for having brought me the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-12. I find that a phrase is employed in that Act which seems to meet just what is desired. The phrase " leasehold estate " is used, and that, I think, is just what we want to get at, the estate possessed by the lessee, his interest in the land. I ask leave of the Committee to amend line c of my amendment so that it will read - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Unimproved value of Hie leasehold estate; That, in my judgment, will cover lands leased from private freeholders, and also lands leased from the Crown. **Senator Lynch.** - Will that prevent duplication ? ' {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Yes. Under the amendment as amended, the lessee will not return the capital value of the land, but only the value of his estate or interest in the land. The owner of the land will return the capital value in another form. In the Land Tax Assess ment 'Act, we recognised two distinct values - the value to the owner of the land and the value of the estate or interest held by the lessee. The Land Tax Assessment Act carries that through a process of refinement from one section to another, but that is not necessary in this case. Amendment, by leave, amended accordingly and agreed to. {: #subdebate-14-0-s18 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I have another amendment to submit in connexion with subparagraph (ii.) of question 6, which reads - >Machinery and Plant, including Implements, Vehicles, and Tools of all kinds. I move - >That the words " The market value of " be inserted before the word '"' machinery." The object is to enable the owner of machinery and plant to put what he considers their market value upon them. I think that will add to the clearness of the schedule. It is of no use for a man to give as the value of machinery what it cost several years ago. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- What about the value of live stock. Is the market value to be given there? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I shall propose to insert the same amendment in connexion with the sub-paragraph covering live stock. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Would not the words " actual value" be better than the words "market value"? How is a man to know the market value of his machinery or plant? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- That is the value it would bring if he tried to dispose of it. {: #subdebate-14-0-s19 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I suppose that the Government understand this matter better than do private members of the Committee, but, in my opinion, if we accept the amendment, all sorts of valuations will be placed upon machinery and plant. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- They have all sorts of values. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Jones may go to the market and get a great bargain. He may secure machinery at 50 per cent, lower than he would have to pay for it if he purchased it in the ordinary way. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- We might say " the fair market value." That is the phrase generally used. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Why say anything more than we have said ? I remind honorable senators that question 6 is preceded by the words - >What was the approximate value of real and personal property held by you in Australia at 31st December, 1914, comprising - What more do we want? {: #subdebate-14-0-s20 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I wish to meet honorable senators, and I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment, and allow the paragraph to stand as it is. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. {: #subdebate-14-0-s21 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- The road is now clear for me to offer a further suggestion. This subparagraph is intended to secure information as to the value of machinery and plant, including implements, vehicles, and tools of all kinds. I cannot conceive that information as to the value of machinery and plant used in carrying on the ordinary business of the country would be of half as much value to the Government as information giving the nature of the machinery. I feel sure that the Government do not contemplate a serious inroad upon the machinery employed on the farms or in the factories of the country but it is important that they should know the character of the machinery, if there is to be organization. It is of more importance that the Government should know what engineering plant there is which might be used for military purposes than that they should know that plant and machinery to the value of so many thousands of pounds is possessed by people throughout the Commonwealth when it may be made up by the valuation put upon a number of unimportant implements. It appears to me that there has been an important omission, and that the schedule should provide for a return of the character of machinery employed. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- We have that information. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Then, what is the object of knowing the value of it? If Ministers have information as to the character of machinery I am satisfied, but I doubt very much whether they have a return from the whole of Australia of engines and machinery of that kind. I have pointed out what appears to be an important omission from the schedule. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Does not what the honorable senator has said indicate a further use for the War Committee? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- That Committee threatens to be a very much overworked institution. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** proposed - >That the words "Partnership Interests" in sub-paragraph (iv.) of question 6 he left out. {: #subdebate-14-0-s22 .speaker-K8W} ##### Senator TURLEY:
Queensland -- I should like to know what is the definition of the term " live stock " ? Question 5, it will be noted, provides that a man must make a return of the horses, mules, working bullocks, camels, cattle, sheep, or pigs in his possession. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- That question requires the person making a return to inform the Government of the number of live "took that he owns, whereas paragraph 3 of this question relates to the value of such stock. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** proposed - >That the words " The Value of Share of Assets in Partnership, as per last BalanceSheet," be inserted in sub-paragraph (iv.) of question 6. {: #subdebate-14-0-s23 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- It seems to me that the insertion of these words will enable the partners in any firm to avoid returning those details which the Government desire to secure. I see no provision in the schedule which will compel partners to accept responsibility for making a return- {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- What about the covering words at the beginning of the question ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Let us assume that there are two or three partners in a business which employs machinery. Each may say, " My interest in this concern is £2,000," and he may not feel called upon to fill in the other details. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- Does not question 6 cover that position? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- No. The man may say that his property comprises a third interest in a partnership. I draw the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to the matter, because it is one that might well be put before the legal advisers of the Government. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** proposed - >That the words " Bank Deposits," in subparagraph (vii.) of question 6, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words Fixed or at Current Account." {: #subdebate-14-0-s24 .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania . - If we really require information in respect to current accounts, the only information that will be of any value is whether those accounts show a credit balance. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- A bank deposit might be held to be a fixed deposit, whereas a1 current account might show a credit balance. Amendment agreed to. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** proposed - >That the words " Money Lent," in subparagraph (viii.) of question 6 be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " Debts due to me." {: #subdebate-14-0-s25 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- Does the Vice-President of the Executive Council intend to ask for the estimated value of those debts? Some debts may have no value whatever. {: #subdebate-14-0-s26 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- **Senator Keating** has touched upon a very important matter. I need scarcely point out that in a trading concern the debts may be considerable, but their value may be much less than the amounts which appear in the ledger. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The information required is " the approximate value of debts due to me." Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-14-0-s27 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I desire to direct attention to sub-paragraph 10 of this question, which reads " Furniture and Personal and Household Effects." I desire to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council why any person should be required to render an account of his furniture and personal and household effects ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- This is a national stocktaking. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- But even when the national stocktaking has been completed, of what value will this information be? Of what use will it be for any person to inform the Government of how many chairs or tables he has in his house ? {: #subdebate-14-0-s28 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
ALP -- He will not be required to do that. He will only be asked to state the value of them. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Why should the approximate value be known? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Suppose that a man has a picture which is worth £2,000? {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Have every man and woman to disclose the value of the socks and stockings which they wear ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Oh! {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Whenever any honorable senator dares to challenge the utility of any of these questions the VicePresident of the Executive Council appears to resent it. We are here to enact wise legislation. Before the honorable gentleman gives utterance to such interjections I desire to know why there should be such an inquisitorial examination into a person's household property? Why should every man or woman tell the value of the chairs or tables or hurricane lamps which he or she possesses? If the VicePresident of the Executive Council will tell us of what use is sub-paragraph 10 I will listen to him patiently, and will not make offensive interjections such as he has been guilty of himself. {: #subdebate-14-0-s29 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I preface my remarks with an apology for the offensive way in which **Senator Needham** imagines that I referred to him. When the honorable senator spoke of socks and stockings I confess that I did feel that he was unnecessarily exaggerating the position. The paragraph seeks information as to the approximate value of the furniture and personal and household effects of every man in the community. I would point out that a man may have in his house personal property worth thousands of pounds, and it will not add much to the difficulty of any householder if he has to state approximately the value of that property. If some persons possess household and personal effects which are worth thousands of pounds, I think that we should have a record of them. I appeal to honorable senators not to unnecessarily delay the passing of the Bill. {: #subdebate-14-0-s30 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria -- I have no objection to this question, but I would like to know if, when it is submitted to the people, they will be expected to make an examination of their household furniture and personal effects. Let us have no misunderstanding about this matter. As the schedule stands, every householder will be called upon to make a minute examination of every article in his household. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- It is not as bad as that. . {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- There must be this minute examination if a person is to get at the value of his household and personal property, for it would be a very haphazard way of doing it if a man could just say, " Oh, this furniture is worth £100." {: .speaker-K1I} ##### Senator Barker: -- How is. it done for fire insurance purposes? In that case, would a person give a detailed value of all his personal effects? {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- No, but a man would take a mental note of all his effects, and would place his value upon every article. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- A man would look through a house in half an hour for insurance purposes. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Yes, that would be a man who is thoroughly familiar with his business; but the Minister of Defence will realize that the average person is unfamiliar with a stocktaking of this kind, and would take a Ions' time to understand what was required in respect of these schedules. {: #subdebate-14-0-s31 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- I thought **Senator Needham** would have moved to strike out the whole of the item. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- I intended to. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- If he had done so I would have supported the amendment. I understood the Minister of Defence to interject a few moments ago to the effect that if a man had valuable pictures, and did not give their approximate value, we would not get a fair estimate of the amount of wealth in the country. But what is the idea of getting an estimate of that value if it is not to arrive at its taxable value for the purposes of taxation? There is no question about that at all. Everybody knows that the main reason for submitting all these questions, and going to all this expense and trouble, is to find out where the wealth of the country is, what it is, and who owns it. The idea is to ascertain the realizable value of that wealth for taxation purposes, and it seems to me that the item under discussion will hardly serve any useful purpose. I am not particular how it goes, but I would point out that the approximate value of one man's furniture might be £37. if he bought it second hand, and £100 if he bought it new, and the approximate value of another man's furniture, £3,700. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Would not this return be an indication of a man's capacity to pay taxation ? {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- No. In numerouscases it would not, because there are instances in which people in their better days have got together expensive furniture, and before many years have passed have lost everything, except the furniture. Therefore, I do not think, the information obtained under this item will serve any useful purpose. To test the feeling of the Committee I move - >That sub-paragraph (x) of question 6, "Furniture and Personal and Household Effects," be left out. {: #subdebate-14-0-s32 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- In my opinion, we are not taking a very complete view of the purpose and aim of this measure. We want a little more order and system to be introduced into the lives of the people of this country, and by the operation of a measure like this, I believe we shall be taking the first step in that direction. We want to see a little more thoroughness in the habits of our people, and by taking stock of their position from year to year I believe we shall effect an improvement in this, respect. It has been said that we should not agree to the inclusion of this item, on the ground that it is of a petty or inquisitorial character. I would direct the attention of honorable senators who hold that opinion to the fact that in this country we have people of varied fortunes, and some who are not very much blessed with this world's wealth will be called upon by this Bill to furnish a return of everything they have. We can imagine that some people in remote parts of the country, who have not many horses or horned stock, but have half-a-dozen goats- {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- Goats are not included under this Bill. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -Well, we can imagine that some people who have donkeys or mules upon which they depend for a livelihood will be required to furnish a return. They may have only half-a-dozen or a dozen mules employed, and yet they will be obliged to furnish a return of those animals, whereas a person at Pott's Point or Toorak, having silverware and household furnishings worth thousands of pounds, will be allowed to escape if the amendment be agreed to. Such a proposal is inequitable, and I will support the schedule as it is printed. {: #subdebate-14-0-s33 .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania -- It may not be necessary to ascertain the value of furniture and pictures and articles of that description, for a knowledge of their assumed value will not greatly help us in utilizing the resources of the community; but does the Minister consider that articles of jewellery and items of uncoined gold, &c, come under the definition of personal effects? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Certainly. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- I think it would fee very much better to specify those articles, and I shall later on propose an amendment, which will require a return ofall uncoined gold or silver or articles of gold or silver in any form other than articles used in religious services.What will be particularly valuable to the nation will be a knowledge of the quantity of precious metals in an uncoined form in the possession of the people. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- You will not get at the quantity by asking for a return of the value. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -We ought, at any rate, to know the quantity. I have indicated that it may be essential for the Commonwealth to appeal to the patriotism of the people to hand over to the Commonwealth any articles of gold and silver, and receive Commonwealth notes in exchange, thereby furnishing a reserve of precious metals which would enable the Government to issue notes to the value of another £40,000,000. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Do you mean gold chains and articles of that description? {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- Certainly : I want the honorable senator's scarf-pin and sleeve-links. If it is deemed patriotic to appeal to people to give their services as soldiers, it is reasonable to appeal to their patriotism to render up articles of gold and silver which have no particular utilitarian value, and areused merely as articles of personal adornment or household furnishings. I have gone carefully into the matter, and I estimate that there is £10,000,000 'worth of gold in an uncoined form in the possession of the citizens of Australia. People, in filling in the schedule, may not understand that precious metals are particularly indicated, and I desire the fact to be made clear that we do require a return of the gold and silver in their possession. **Senator GARDINER** (New South Wales - Vice-President of the Executive cannot accept the suggestion of **Senator Bakhap.** I perused this schedule with others, before it was brought to the Senate, and I can assure the Committee that there are thousands of questions which we could reasonably ask, but what we sought to do was to get the information we required by the employment of as few questions as possible. If we were ever likely to be driven to such a position that the valuables of the community would be needed, the people of the country would give them. I believe. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- You require men and currency. You are talking about pictures and furnishings, and are neglecting to say that you want a return of gold and silver. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Although this information would be valuable, I can see no prospect of a detailed account of these things being rendered. There must be a compromise of ideas, and as I have had to compromise in regard to many questions which I would like to have inserted, other honorable senators will have to do the same. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Is it not better to know the value of uncoined gold and silver than the value of a few tools ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Another good reason for not making the amendment sngfrested is that a demand for a return of the value of jewellery would create a degree of alarm in the people that is not warranted by the present position. Therefore I ask honorable senators to allow the schedule to pass. {: #subdebate-14-0-s34 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- The schedule would be much better received by the people in the country if the amendment proposed by **Senator O'Keefe** were agreed to. The omission of the demand for a statement of furniture and personal effects would result in the schedule being filled in with less friction and annoyance to the community. But if we are to take a census of the value of the personal effects of the people, I wish to know why jewellery, which may have a considerable amount of value, is to be omitted? As to personal effects, I do not know that there is not quite a number of other things that could be included as well as jewellery, which, however, is most valuable. Some ridicule has been hurled at **Senator Needham** for his reference to stockings and clothing generally; but I think that jewellery ought to be under a separate heading, seeing that some people hold enormous wealth in this form. However, I prefer that this line of the schedule should be struck out, because I can see that it may lead to much trouble and confusion. {: #subdebate-14-0-s35 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I am rather struck by the fact that honorable senators opposite have consented to call upon a carpenter to make a return as to his tools of trade, and y: they enter a strong protest when it comes to people who may possess furniture of some considerable value. Of course, it will be inconvenient for people to make a return as to the value of their furniture, but similar or greater inconvenience will be experienced by the washerwoman whom honorable senators opposite are quite content to call upon to make a return as to her scanty income. There seems to he a vast difference between asking a woman like this to make a return, and asking a big furniture owner to show the value of his possessions. This is a most unusual schedule-; and we must get rid of the idea that it is to be used as the basis of any taxation. It is a national stocktaking, in order that we may know what the nation possesses; and we have lo right to leave out the item of furniture. {: #subdebate-14-0-s36 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales .- This is the first time the Commonwealth has attempted legislation of this kind; and I can quite understand honorable senators having some objection to citizens being called upon to disclose their real financial position. But we _ must get rid of ideas of that kind. I venture to say that some of the European nations supply returns in almost every conceivable direction; and I do not see why a man who owns £2,000 worth, or, it may be, £10,000 worth, of furniture, should be afraid or " ashamed to disclose the fact, for we must suppose that he has come into possession of it honestly and legitimately. I trust that the schedule will be adopted. **Senator MULLAN** (Queensland! [10.55]. - I rise really to draw attention to the inconsistency of **Senator Millen.** When I proposed a national stocktaking, including an estimate of the wages of females as well as of males, **Senator Millen** held up his hand in holy horror, and implored us not to let the world know that we were so disorganized and in such straits that we had to make a call upon our women. Now we find **Senator Millen** supporting the Government in asking the poorest of our women to send in a return, not only in regard to little bits of furniture, but also their personal effects. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- The poor woman is to be asked to send in a return of income. {: #subdebate-14-0-s37 .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- Personally, I think there ought to be a minimum of, say, £50. In the bush people live under conditions which call for little furniture or personal effects; and it might prove humiliating and unnecessarily harassing to have to give a return as to furniture. **Senator NEEDHAM** (Western Australia) T10.57]. - It had been my intention to move the omission of this subparagraph, but, as it is, I can only support **Senator O'Keefe.** It is all very well for **Senator Millen** to say that we have decided that the poor woman shall send in a return as to her income; but that I regard as an entirely different matter. The washerwoman to whom **Senator Millen** has referred will, under this schedule, have to account for the mangle she uses; and if the return stopped at that it would not be so bad ; but it goes further, and includes personal and household effects. In my opinion, it is wrong to ask such a woman for a return of the kind. **Senator Millen** has laid stress on the fact that a carpenter is asked to make a return as to his tools of trade; but to that I have no objection. The objection I have is to the poor washerwoman and the carpenter being asked to reveal the innermost secrets of their home. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- All the information supplied is to be treated as confidential, subject to a penalty. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- We know all about that ; I know that it has to be secret. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Surely you do not call the furniture the innermost secrets of the home? {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: **- Senator Millen** is going on in his usual way; hu* the fact remains that, under this schedule, personal and household effects, to the smallest degree, have to be returned. **Senator Guy** says that a similar return has to be furnished by applicants for old-age pensions. {: .speaker-KNN} ##### Senator Guy: -- That is so. I havefilled in scores of them for applicants. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Then the honorable senator has not understood the matter, because his statement that the question put to applicants for old-age pensions is the same as that in subparagraph 10 of question 6 of this schedule is absolutely wrong. {: .speaker-KTP} ##### Senator McKissock: -- Old-age pensioners have to state the approximate value of their furniture. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The honorable senator is taking cover under the words " approximate value." But subparagraph 10 demands full particulars of household and personal effects. If not, there is no need to make any inquiry in this regard. What will be the value of the information? Why should our citizens be called upon to give it? {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- Why not? {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I suppose the honorable senator has in his mind persons possessed of furniture valued at £2,000 or £3,000, but even if the Government receive the information that some citizen has furniture valued at £12,000, there may be a bill of sale over the whole lot; so what will be the value of the return "for the purpose intended to be served by the Bill? I am in favour of the Government having a fair inventory of the wealth of the community, but I maintain that it is absolutely wrong to ask every man and woman in Australia to supply this information. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- Let us make a minimum of £50. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I would rather see sub-paragraph 10 struck out altogether. Its omission would not interfere with the operation of the Bill. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Then let us have a vote on the matter. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I have no ob jection to a vote being taken. While I admit the necessity for the speedy passage of the measure, I refuse to be silenced. I do not think that any Minister has yet been born who will make me sit down when I desire to voice my opinion. I am not speaking with any desire to waste time, but I feel this matter keenly. The information asked for is not needed, and the deletion of the subparagraph will not interfere with the object of the Bill or the object which the Government have in view. {: #subdebate-14-0-s38 .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland .- I trust that **Senator O'Keefe** will press the amendment to a division. I am sorry that honorable senators did not receive with greater seriousness the sentiments expressed by **Senator Bakhap.** It is not very often that I have the pleasure of agreeing with that honorable senator, but there was more in his remarks than honorable senators, judging by their demeanour, were prepared to admit. It is rather anomalous that we should ask for returns as to the value of a person's furniture while superfluities such as jewellery are left unnoticed. Perhaps they may be accounted for under the heading of " personal effects," but, in my opinion, they should be itemized. I am sanguine as to the standing and credit of the Australian note issue, but I realize that an increase in our gold reserve would give a great impetus to the note issue, and if, in the name of patriotism, we can transform gold jewellery and ornaments into coin of the realm, it will lead to an increase in the value of the note issue and be true nationalism. Apparently Australia could have unlimited credit in that regard. We have just agreed to one question which asks citizens to enumerate the debts owing to them. I would not care to enumerate the amount or the number of the debts owing to me; and even were I in a position to do so, I certainly could not claim them all as assets. I do not think that the misplacement referred to by **Senator Millen** has been rectified by the amendments agreed to, but, having regard to the questions adopted by the Committee, it seems a pity that we should now descend to the enumeration of such a comparatively small matter as the value of a householder's furniture or effects. I hope that **Senator O'Keefe** will go further in regard to his amendment. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- If the amendment is lost, I intend to move an addition to question 6, exempting furniture and effects the value of which is less than £100. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator FERRICKS: -- The honorable senator has anticipated me. I hope that he will press his amendment to a division, and I am glad to know that if it is defeated he will move the further amendment of which he speaks. Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 6 NOES: 21 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Amendment (by **Senator O'Keefe)** proposed - That the following words be added to subparagraph (x) of question 6-'' where such approximate value exceeds £100." {: #subdebate-14-0-s39 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I appeal to the honorable senator not to press the amendment. We have made no such exemption as he proposes in regard to machinery, stock, and other things. Why, then, should we make it in regard to furniture? {: #subdebate-14-0-s40 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- There is no analogy between the information referred to by the Minister and that required by this sub-paragraph. What we desire is to ascertain the realizable wealth of the community in order that it may be taxed. What will be gained by ascertaining the wealth of the tens of thousands of householders who have none of them £100 worth of furniture and effects? There is something in the contention of the Minister of Defence that an idea of a man's wealth may be obtained by knowing the value of his pictures or of his furniture when that is very costly, but nothing will be gained, by going below a valuation of £100. {: #subdebate-14-0-s41 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- It seems to me that the end which **Senator O'Keefe** has in view can be gained by excluding, when the proclamation is issued, certain classes of persons from the duty of having to make returns. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- Under the Bill every one must make returns. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- No; only those on whom the duty may be imposed by proclamation. I do not think that the Government will wish to be burdened with information regarding the furniture and effects of persons whose possessions are worth less than £20 or £30. {: #subdebate-14-0-s42 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- I see nothing in the Bill to exempt certain persons from the duty of making returns. As I read the measure, all persons of the age of eighteen years and upwards must make a return, no matter how much they may possess. Now, there are thousands of houses in this country, especially in the bush and on new gold-fields, where the furniture consists chiefly of grocery boxes, serving its purpose well enough, but perhaps not worth £1 in any particular case. Would it not be ridiculous to ask these householders to state the value of their belongings? In my opinion, we should fix a minimum, though it should be lower than that suggested. I know of mining townships where there is not £100 worth of furniture altogether. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP -- Is £100 worth of. furniture and effects too much for a small family ? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- No, but the honorable senator's minimum is too high. If there is £100 worth of furniture or personal effects in a house, that should be a very fair house. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- But that does not give any indication of that householder's wealth. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Honorable senators know what sort of houses are often met with in farming districts - small buildings built of bush timber, with the furniture more or less of the same kind, while the personal effects are limited, in many cases, to a pair of dungarees, a shirt, and a pair of boots. What is the use of asking for information as to such furniture? If we do not intend to make this return absolutely ridiculous, we should introduce a minimum, but one lower than that suggested by **Senator O'Keefe.** I would appeal to the Minister to introduce such a minimum, and so prevent the Bill from becoming a laughingstock throughout the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- That can be done by proclamation. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- But we have not yet heard from the Minister that there will be a proclamation. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The Bill provides that there shall be, and in that proclamation a minimum could be stated. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- My objection will be removed if we receive some intimation that such a course will be taken. We know what is in the Bill, but we do not know what the Government is going to do. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- We have not considered that point. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Is there no prospect of the Government doing this ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Yes, there is a good prospect. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- If it is the Government's intention to remove what appears to me to be an absurdity, I am prepared to accept the assurance; but, as the Bill now stands, while it will be a simple matter for the person who has a house full of furniture to make a return, it will be another matter for the person who lias only a few shillings' worth. {: .speaker-K1I} ##### Senator Barker: -- There should be no difficulty about that. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- There may be no difficulty, but it will make the thing ridiculous. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- Supposing that there are 500 homes, each possessing less than £10 worth of furniture, would it not be good business for the country to know it? The country ought to know the worst possible as to its people, so that the position may be remedied. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I want that information, just as the honorable senator does; but I do not want to make this schedule ridiculous. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- A minimum would destroy the value of the information. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I do notthink so. The fact that a person does not possess £.10 worth of furniture should be quite sufficient information for any one. A matter of some importance referred to by **Senator Bakhap** has reference to the amount of gold or silver that may be in the possession of various individuals. Provision should be made for that in the schedule. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- It is far more important than furniture. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Amongst mining people, such as those of whom I have been speaking, there may be a great deal of bullion where there is little or no furniture. I have seen many people in Australia possessing gold who did not look as though they possessed anything at all. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- I saw a man on the Manly boat the other day wearing a double cable chain that I would wager weighed 5 oz. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- The honorable senator is now referring to jewellery. I have already said that we ought to have a separate item dealing with jewellery. What I have in mind is gold, either alluvial or otherwise, that has been won. We have no means of getting information on the point. {: #subdebate-14-0-s43 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I cannot agree with the suggestion that the minimum should be stated by proclamation. I believe, with **Senator O'Keefe,** that if we cannot have the item struck out altogether, a minimum should be established. **Senator Barnes** suggested that if there were many homes' in Australia posssessing only £10 worth of furniture, that we should have information on the point. I am quite in opposition to **Senator Barnes** in that respect. If there are so many homes in Australia where the value of the furniture, together with their personal effects, is less than £10, it is not our business to expose the poverty of these people to the world. It is our duty, as a Parliament, to so improve the position of these people that they may have more than £10 worth of value in their homes. 'As members of the Labour party it is our duty to see that there are in Australia fewer homes the furniture in which is worth only £10. The publication of the poverty of these people would not be a means of increasing the value of their personal property. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- But before we can do our duty in that respect, must we not know whether these homes exist?1 {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- No one knows better than does **Senator Millen** the value of the personal effects in many of the homes in the back-blocks of Australia. He will agree with me that it is not our duty to expose to the world the poverty of homes such as those to which I have referred. It is rather the work of this Parliament, and especially of the party to which **Senator Barnes** and I belong, to remove such poverty, and we certainly shall not do so by exposing it through the medium of this Bill. It is for these reasons that I have advocated the striking out of this sub-paragraph, or failing that, the amendment moved by **Senator O'Keefe.** {: #subdebate-14-0-s44 .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES:
Victoria -- It was not my intention to speak, but so much loquacity has been exhibited tonight, that I feel constrained to offer a few observations. Ihave had as varied an experience as has any honorable senator, and I do not hesitate to say that the people of Australia will not feel at all humiliated by being called upon to fill in a form which will make it known that in some cases they have only £5 or £10 worth of furniture in their homes.If there are such homes, I can only say it is time that this country heard something of them. The workers of this or any other country - and I have made this statement from many a platform - have nothing whatever to fear from investigation or publicity of any kind. It is because the workers of many countries have seen fit to smother up many of the disabilities under which they labour that they have not had them remedied. Those people who have made the most row have generally secured the best results. It has been said that the filling in of this schedule will be a difficult matter for many people. I venture to say that I could fill it in with my eyes shut, and that the same may be said of all who will be called upon to furnish this return. I am sure that no humiliation will attach to it. The common sense of the people will lead them to recognise that there is a purpose behind this action on thepart of the Government, and that that purpose is to ascertain what are the capabilities and the capacity of Australia. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- We want to know what is its taxable value. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- Quite so. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- Would the honorable senator tax the £10 worth of furniture in a home? {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- No, and no one proposes to do anything of the kind. If any such proposition were made, **Senator Needham** would be one of the first to oppose it. During the consideration of this measure there have been many references to conscription, but I venture to assert that no member of the Labour party would tolerate conscription in any shape or form. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -The honorablesenator is not in order in referring at this stage to the question of conscription. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- Then I shall content myself with the statement that the people of Australia will have no difficulty in filling up this form in an intelligent and capable manner, and through the information so obtained we shall be in a much better position than we are at present. It says something for the common sense of the Government that they have at last realized the necessity for gathering together facts that will enable them to organize the capacities of the people of Australia. I am satisfied that the people of Australia - to use a colloquialism - are well able to keep up their end of the stick. They have demonstrated this again and again, and the passing of this Bill will enable them to do a little more in that direction. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-14-0-s45 .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania -- I wish to have from the Minister a clear declaration that it is the intention of the Administration to include jewellery under the heading of " personal effects," and to ascertain the quantity of uncoined precious metals in the possession of the people. Unless such a declaration is forthcoming, I shall have to move the insertion of the following words 'at the end of question 6 of the second schedule - including uncoined gold or silver, or articles of gold or silver in any form, or of any alloy of gold or silver, unless such articles are used in religious services. {: #subdebate-14-0-s46 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I will bring the matter under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral, and, if necessary, the question of dealing with it by proclamation will be considered. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Very well; but I hope the Minister recognises how vitally important it is to know the amount of uncoined precious metal in the possession of the people. {: #subdebate-14-0-s47 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- Will the schedule ascertain the amount of silver, lead, zinc, &c, on hand in the Broken Hill and other mines, or the bullion on hand in gold-mining companies? I do not think those amounts will be ascertained unless a company schedule is issued. **Senator GARDINER** (New South Wales - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.44]. - Sub-paragraph 11 of question 6 refers to "other property," which, I think, will include the information the honorable senator wants. I will bring the question under the notice of **Mr. Hughes.** {: #subdebate-14-0-s48 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- It is proposed to exempt life assurance policies. That is all right if they are policies on the life of the person making the return, but some policies are transferred as value received as a commercial transaction. Is it intended to exempt them? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I will bring the question under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral. {: #subdebate-14-0-s49 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- Provision should be made for fire insurance policies. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- They are mentioned in the deductions. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- "Other property" should include only very small things, and life assurance policies should be under a separate heading. Amendment (by **Senator Gardiner)** proposed - >That the words "30th June, 1915," in question 7, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "31st December, 1914." {: #subdebate-14-0-s50 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- The schedule is defective, in that it makes no reference to property held in the Territories belonging to the Commonwealth. Investments there or in Fiji and the South Sea Islands should be included, when the money was originally earned in the Commonwealth. Amendment agreed to. Amendments (by **Senator Gardiner)** agreed to - >That the word "Trust" in the second column, question 7, be left out. > >That the words "Of Other Persons" be inserted after the word "Account" in the second column, question 7. {: #subdebate-14-0-s51 .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN:
Queensland -- I direct attention to the fact that, while it is proposed that deductions may be made in respect of many payments, there is no provision made for the deduction of contributions to friendly societies. The average yearly contribution paid by a member of a friendly society is £4, and there is an enormous number of members of such societies in the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-14-0-s52 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- Before **Senator Mullan** raises that question, I wish to propose an amendment in sub-paragraph 4 of question 7. I think that incomes received in the way of old-age pensions and invalid pensions should not be included. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Why? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Because we already have returns of those pensions. I move - >That after the word " Pension " in subparagraph (iv.) of question 7 the words " (not being Commonwealth old-age or invalid pension)" be inserted. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I have no objection to the amendment. Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-14-0-s53 .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania -- I must support the proposal which has been made by **Senator Mullan.** {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- What is the advantage of deducting contributions to friendly societies when there is no question of taxing them? {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator BAKHAP: -- If life assurance premiums may be deducted, I certainly think that contributions to friendly societies, which come from a by no means wealthy class in the community, should also be deducted. This is not a question of furnishing a return to supply information, but of permitting deductions to be made in estimating the amount of a person's income. The Government propose to permit deductions for life, fire, or other insurance premiums, and believing it to be fair and equitable, I cordially support **Senator Mullan's** suggestion that provision should be made in the schedule for the deduction of contributions to friendly societies. {: #subdebate-14-0-s54 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia .- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that there is no reason for the amendment suggested by **Senator Mullan,** because it is not intended that contributions to friendly societies shall be taxed. That was the argument which was used when the Minister opposed the exemption suggested by **Senator Keating.** I do not see, in the circumstances, how it can be applied to the proposal made by **Senator Mullan.** {: #subdebate-14-0-s55 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- If it was a question of making matters easier for the members of friendly societies, I should be prepared at once to accept the suggestion made by **Senator Mullan.** But to accept it would be to give the members of friendly societies more trouble by asking them to make deductions from their estimate of income, whilst it would not be of the slightest advantage to them to do so. {: #subdebate-14-0-s56 .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN:
Queensland -- "When deductions are permitted in respect of life, fire, and other insurance premiums, and contributions to pension or superannuation funds, we ought to permit deductions in the case of contributions to friendly societies. It is absurd of the Minister to say that members of friendly societies will be no worse off if this deduction is not permitted, because the same argument would apply to those who are given permission to make the other deductions provided for. If this were the only amendment made in the Bill, and it alone would necessitate the further consideration of the Bill in another place, I should not think of moving it. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- It will throw a lot of work upon friendly societies that the honorable senator has no right to throw upon them. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- At present every man who sends in an income tax return is allowed to set out certain deductions, such as insurance premiums and contributions to friendly societies. I cannot understand the refusal of the VicePresident of the Executive Council to agree to my reasonable request. Evidently he has made up his mind that, as the Senate has sat so late, it might as well continue sitting throughout the night. I think that we ought to know what money is represented by deductions. If the information supplied in these returns is to be the basis of taxation proposals- {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- It is not to be the basis of taxation proposals. The honorable senator and **Senator de** Largie have misunderstood the measure from the beginning, and have discussed it without understanding it. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- Under the Bill a man is to be allowed to set off as deductions the premiums which he pays on life assurance policies. Why, then, should he not be permitted to deduct his contributions to friendly societies? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- There will be no advantage gained by the deduction. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- Then why insist upon it being stated in the case of lite assurance premiums? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The next Bill will give the honorable senator greater scope for his remarks. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- I have ample scope under this measure to express my views in regard to the proposal which I have outlined. Under the schedule a man is required to state the amount of rent? he has to pay. Is there any stronger reason why he should supply information of that kind than there is why he should set out his payments to friendly societies? He is also obliged to state the amount which he pays in water rates and gas rates. Yet important information affecting a quarter of our population is not to be supplied in connexion with this census. It is estimated that onefourth of the people of the Commonwealth are directly connected with friendly societies. But the VicePresident of the Executive Council is prepared to ignore . this large proportion of our citizens. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- For their own benefit. I desire to save them trouble. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- If the VicePresident of the Executive Council will only recall the arguments which he used in opposing the exemption of charitable institutions from the operation of this Bill, he will scarcely say that. It is difficult to understand what has prompted him to turn down one of the most reasonable amendments that have been proposed. {: #subdebate-14-0-s57 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- I join in the appeal which has been addressed to the Vice-President of the Executive Council by **Senator Mullan.** But I put my appeal upon quite a different footing. **Senator Mullan** has pointed out that it is unfair that people who contribute to friendly societies should not be allowed to deduct such contributions from the amount of their incomes. He is evidently under the impression that if they were allowed to do so, a benefit would be conferred upon them. The position reminds me of an argument which I heard in the New South Wales Parliament many years ago, upon the question of capital punishment. In lieu of the capital penalty, it was suggested that there should be imprisonment for life. Somebody thereupon urged that that would be a harsher form of punishment than would be the execution of a man . I recollect that the late **Sir Henry** Parkes then inquired what the author of that statement would think if he had been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and somebody came along and intimated that, in order to be merciful to him, he was to be taken out and executed. That is the sort of mercy which **Senator Gardiner** is meting out to these people. But I want to ignore the interests of the individual altogether, and I say that the return will be incomplete unless we adopt the amendment moved by **Senator Mullan,** for the reason that a man filling in a return will show his gross income, and then will take away a portion, leaving, as the result, his net income, which is the only factor which can interest this country to any great extent. If we are going to allow a man to deduct the £20 or £30 he pays upon an Australian Mutual Provident Society policy, and refuse to allow him to strike off the £4 or £5 he might pay to a friendly society for exactly similar benefits the return will be quite misleading. I hope the Minister will see that if it is good to reduce the schedule so far as life insurance societies are concerned, to make it complete it will be necessary to make a similar exemption with regard to the contributions to friendly societies. I thought at once that when this matter was brought forward **Senator Gardiner** would readily accept it. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Your insurance, policy is not included. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- If **Senator Gardiner** is not familiar with this portion of the Bill I will read it. The schedule sets out that particulars are to be given of the income received during twelve months from - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. Stipend, salary, or wages; (ii) Profession, trade, business, or industry carried on by you ; (iii) Fees, commission, or bonus ; (iv) Pension, superannuation, retiring allowance. I believe we have made a slight modification in sub-paragraph 4. {: type="a" start="v"} 0. Quarters, board, &c, allowed by employer; (vi) Kent; (vii) interest and dividends; (viii) Annuities, royalties, tributes, licences, &c. ; (ix) Income as beneficiary from trust estate; (x) All other sources; (xi) Add 5 per cent, on capital value of your own land and improvements used by yourself for purpose of residence or enjoyment. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Do you not think there is some connexion between paragraph 4, "Pension, superannuation, retiring allowance," and 5 of the other section, which states less " contribution to pension or superannuation fund"? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- The amendment has no reference to contributions made to superannuation funds. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Do you not see that to be logical, if the amendment were accepted, a man would have to include in his income receipts money received as sick pay from a friendly society? {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator Mullan: -- Not necessarily. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- It is extraordinary to say that a man's income consists of a contribution that he may receive from that source. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- It is an income in a sense, and very often it is the only income. *Sitting suspended from 12.15 to 12.45 a.m. (Friday).* {: #subdebate-14-0-s58 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia . The Vice-President of the Executive Council does not seem to have clearly grasped the meaning of **Senator Mullan's** suggestion. He is fearful that if that suggestion be adopted it will entail considerable trouble on members of friendly societies; but quite the opposite will be the effect. In paragraph 4 of the deductions, a request is made for a return of the life, fire, and other insurance premiums paid. If a citizen is called upon to mention the amount he pays for life insurance, I see no reason why he should not be required to mention the amount paid to a friendly society. The Minister was emphatic in saying that there was no need to exempt the friendly societies, because there was no intention to tax them. Now he appears to be of quite the opposite mind. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I desire the schedule to be as nearly perfect as possible. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- And we are trying to assist the Minister to make the schedule perfect. I think he ought to accept **Senator Mullan's** suggestion to include payments to friendly societies. {: #subdebate-14-0-s59 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- **Senator Pearce** advanced an argument, which he seemed to regard as conclusive, that as we did not include any income which a man might receive by way of pay from friendly societies, we ought not, therefore, to put on the other side of the statement the amount he has paid to such societies. If a man does receive any payment from a friendly society, he has to mention it in his return under the heading of income from "all other sources," but he is now allowed to offset the amount he pays into the society. As the reason advanced by **Senator Pearce** is no longer tenable, I hope he will see the advisability of urging his colleague to accept the amendment. The Minister can urge no strong reason against including payments to friendly societies. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- If I were left to my own resources, I would strike out the whole of the deductions. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- That statement indicates that the Minister would have returned as the income of the people of Australia their gross income. That would be au absolutely unfair and false basis to proceed upon. The amount a man has for his own use is not the gross amount he collects, but that amount, less the expense incurred in carrying on his operations. It is clear that the Government had decided that there should be some exemptions, and, in order to determine what is a man's income, certain deductions from his gross income may be made. **Senator Gardiner,** halving yielded to pressure which compels him to do something he does not wish to do, has provided that if an individual obtains sick pay or other benefits from the society to which he contributes, he shall enter such amount as income. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- He is asked to give a return of his approximate income. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- Then a man who receives £6 from a friendly society states in his schedule that he has received approximately £5 19s. 6d. Below that, he certifies that he has paid to the society £4. Surely, it would be only fair to allow a man to include such a payment in the return. **Senator Needham** has informed us that he pays £14 or £15 a year to one of the recognised lifo institutions of Australia; and yet, because another man happens to pay into a friendly society, that man is not to enjoy the same benefit as does the honorable senator! I think we ought to treat all citizens with an approach to equality and fairness; and T must express my amazement that the Government should reject an amendment which is in conformity with the spirit or the schedule, and should have been accepted long ago. **Senator SENIOR** (South Australia) friendly society for over forty years, and during that time 1 have been fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to draw sick pay for only one fortnight. The point is that, according to this schedule, I should have to return the sick allowance in income from other sources, though I am not allowed to put in, as a set-off. the amount of money I have paid in during the whole of the forty years. No business man would regard a stocktaking as complete unless the debit as well as the credit were shown. As the Bill stands, I can deduct payments on account of fire insurance, but I may not deduct my contributions to any friendly society, though these may be double or three times that of the insurance society liability. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- You are not penalized by not deducting them. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The Minister says that there is no penalty; but I am objecting on the ground of common justice. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- A man will be penalized if he does not make out a complete return. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- I am not allowed to make that deduction; and I think the Minister is wrong. I venture to say that, where there is one guarantee paid as contemplated under the fidelity and guarantee return, there are 500 payments to friendly societies; and yet one may be deducted while the other may not. I do not see on what ground the Minister can defend his position. Then again, I am allowed to deduct interest on borrowed money; but if I am not allowed to deduct all my actual payments, I cannot give a complete and true return. These payments to friendly societies are quite as necessary as any payments to provide shelter for my family; and I must draw attention to the insincerity and inconsistency of the Minister in this connexion. I fancy that what is in the honorable gentleman's mind is that the friendly societies will have to give these returns; but I take it that that is not so. Each individual himself must give particulars as to his position, as under the various State Acts; and it certainly is necessary in order to arrive at the net income. Whatever the purpose of the Bill may be, the immediate object is to secure a correct return of the net income of the people of Australia, showing such deductions as are necessary. The Minister appears to have taken up the position that, rather than allow this one ex- emotion. he would wipe out all the others. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I think that many things in the schedule could have been left out; but my business is to get the schedule through. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Then the honorable senator's position is that because the schedule is printed it must be adhered to, while what is not printed he does not feel inclined to insert. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Not without good reason. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- There is just as good reason as in the case of the fire insurance payment* {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I quite agree with you. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Everything else is there; and the Minister can give no solid reason why the contributions to friendly -societies should not be included. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Will any person be benefited by adding to the schedule what tlie honorable senator desires? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- There will be just as much benefit to the individual as is given by any of the other deductions that are allowed. Our object should be to arrive at a correct return of a citizen's income, and if we do not allow a deduction in regard to payments to friendly societies, we shall not get a correct return. The attitude taken up by Ministers is a small one. I cannot see why the Vice-President of the Executive Council cannot concede the request put forward by **Senator Mullan,** who has done a wise thing in calling attention to this omission from the schedule. It is a reflection on Ministers that they cannot see their way clear to make this concession to persons who choose, by their thrift, to save the Commonwealth a vast amount of money {: #subdebate-14-0-s60 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP -- I regret that so much ability and skill in argument should not have been put to better use, and that **Senator Mullan** and **Senator Senior** -should have so seriously misunderstood the Bill as to imagine that, by not permitting members of friendly societies to deduct the payments they make to their societies, these people will be penalized. As a matter of fact, their non-inclusion will save them trouble in making up their schedules. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- What is the object of the Bill? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- It has been best put by **Senator Lynch,** who describes the purpose of the Bill as a national stock-taking, and that is a matter which has no connexion with taxation. If the omission of the deductions suggested by **Senator Mullan** would mean that the members of friendly societies would be taxed on the amounts they were not allowed to deduct, I would be with the honorable senator, but that will not be so. Why, then, should the honorable senator insist on putting thousands of people to the trouble of computing the exact amounts they pay to friendly societies? Why should we not also allow the amounts paid to unions to be deducted? If a man pays £3 into a friendly society, £1 10s. of this amount usually goes towards medical attendance, yet it is not proposed to allow persons not in friendly societies to deduct the amount they pay annually for medical attendance. My attitude is to stand by the schedule as printed, and if deductions for life and fire insurance had not been in the schedule, I would have opposed their inclusion, because I do not desire to alter the Bill. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator Mullan: -- What harm will there be in altering the Bill? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I do not propose to alter the Bill unless good reasons are advanced for doing so. I hope that honorable senators will come to a vote on the amendment. To agree to it would confer no additional benefit upon members of friendly societies; otherwise, I would accept it. As **Senator Russell** has to introduce another Bill, of wider scope, which will keep us fully occupied until 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon with a continuous sitting, I ask honorable senators to allow this matter to go through. {: #subdebate-14-0-s61 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- I do not know whether the closing remarks of the Minister are to be taken as a threat, but such remarks will not help him to get business through. I consider this Bill, not from the amount of time that we have at our disposal, but the strength of the reasons that are brought forward in urging alterations. The object of the Bill has not been fully explained. A perusal of the measure helps us to understand it, but the explanations given by the Minister as to its object have given rise to confusion and differences of opinion. T dare say that discussion would be materially curtailed if we could only discover what its real purpose is. A perusal of the schedules leads one to the conclusion that these statistics are "required for some particular reason, but we cannot ascertain what that reason is. One honorable senator has described this as a national stock-taking, and that is the latest explanation advanced by the Minister. Why, then, should we not have as complete a stock-taking as we can possibly get? If the object of the Bill is to ascertain what amount of money the various institutions of the country control, we should have some record of the financial position and activities of the friendly societies. Certainly, if the purpose is to collect information on which taxation may be based, the funds of friendly societies should be exempted. These institutions are even more valuable than the insurance societies. They do more charitable and social work, and their ramifications are greater, providing as they do assistance for the sick and funeral expenses for the relatives of deceased members. I do not know whether it is intended to require returns from trade unions, but that, to my mind, is necessary if full social statistics are to be obtained. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator Mullan: -- That should be the subject of another amendment. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Perhaps so. There is no more obvious need in a country whose population desires advanced social and democratic legislation than the most complete statistics bearing on all its industries and activities. It is proposed to spend £150,000 in employing a host of collectors and an army of clerks to gather from every household, and from almost every person in the community, elaborate statements regarding health, age, possessions, and many other things, and yet no regard is being paid to the work done by the friendly societies. If we adopt a national scheme for insurance against sickness and accident, statistics relating to friendly societies will be absolutely necessary for its intelligent discussion. If we are to know the exact position of affairs after this Bill has become law,, the schedules should be made more complete than they are. Either we are asking for too much detail, or for net enough; but the request for such trifling information as that regarding personal effects strikes me as carrying legislationto the height of absurdity. When theschedule arrives at the average workingman's home, we shall see John Brown, asking his neighbour, "What is the meaning of this item?" or, " What have I to pub down as my personal effects?" Unless an elaborate explanation goes out with this schedule, it will be impossible for any one to know exactly what is required, just as it will be impossible for any one to know, after he has filled in the schedule, whether he has complied, with the terms of the Act. Yet all the time a fine will be hanging over his head. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- The Bill is all right; what I cannot understand is the Government's reticence about its object. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- It is all very well for **Senator Bakhap** to say the Bill is all right, but 'we do not know what it is about. I have been a member of this Chamber for fourteen years, and I must confess that this is the first 'time a Bill has been presented that no one could understand. It is an enigma to the gentleman who introduced it; it is more than an enigma to everybody else. I have tried to understand the Bill, but the more I have listened to the explanations that have been given by the Minister the more befogged I have become. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- That is not my fault. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I must take some responsibility for it myself, but as tile honorable gentleman is the parent of the Bill so far as this Chamber is concerned, he cannot run away from his responsibility, and it is his duty to get the Senate out of the mix it is in to-night. Reverting to the friendly society aspect of the question, it cannot be argued that these societies are not just as much entitled to the opportunity of placing before the country the importance of their work as other institutions - fire insurance companies, for instance. What is fire insurance or life insurance in comparison to the work of friendly societies ? One might talk for a month without exhausting the subject of friendly society work, and the honorable gentleman must see the wisdom of accepting the amendment moved by **Senator Mullan.** He pointed out the importance of the matter, and honorable senators who have spoken since have furnished further reasons for the acceptance of the amendment. I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer, but the Minister must see that, unless some amendments on the lines that have been suggested are made to the schedule, the large expenditure that will be incurred by the passage of this Bill will give the Government no more information than we have at the present time, and the operation of the Bill will have been little less than a wilful waste of public money. In another place it was stated that hitherto we had proceeded on wrong lines by legislating when complete statistics were not available, and of subsequently seeking reasons for that legislation. Now, it was also stated, we are going to reverse that order of things, and get the statistics first, and when the statistics are complete, certain measures are to be presented to Parliament. {: #subdebate-14-0-s62 .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN:
Queensland -- I thank the Minister for his valuable contribution to this debate ; but before we proceed to consider some of the more important aspects of this question I desire to move the amendment which, so far. has only been suggested. I move - >That after the word " Fund," in second subparagraph (v.) of question 7, the words " or Friendly Societies" be inserted. The line will then read " Contributions to Pension or Superannuation Fund or Friendly Societies." The Minister, prior to **Senator de** Largie engaging the attention of the Committee, delivered a very able speech in that he proved conclusively the soundness of the contentions that we have been advancing to-night in support of our proposal. He said that he, personally, was prepared to strike out all the proposed deductions. This is to be a national stocktaking - a national balancesheet. Imagine a business man setting out all his assets on one side of the ledger and omitting all his liabilities. If we are to have a national balance-sheet let it be accurate. Does the Minister desire that a bogus balance-sheet shall be submitted to the community ? He asks us to agree to an expenditure of £150,000 in securing what, after all, will be a useless return, unless he is prepared to accept the reasonable suggestions that are coming from this side of the Committee. The honorable senator said he feared that we misunderstood him. We have been charitable enough to believe that his only reason for opposing this amendment was that he misunderstood the object we had in view. Apparently we misunderstood each other. Does he not think it time. that we arrived at an honorable understanding ? He is prepared to allow citizens to state by way of deductions the amount which they pay in respect of insurance. Why should he not permit a deduction in respect of payments to friendly societies ? According to *Knibbs,* the friendly societies of Australia, in 1914, had a membership of 450,000. Assuming that every member has dependent upon or associated with him three other persons, that gives us 1,800,000 persons who would be affected by this amendment. The revenue derived last year by friendly societies was £1,801,289 in respect of initiation fees, interest, dividends, rents, and all other income. The main source of this revenue would be the contributions of members. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator Ferricks: -- The honorable senator has had a somewhat lengthy experience of friendly societies. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- -I have, and that is one reason why I arn anxious that they should be recognised in this schedule. If we are to have a national balance-sheet, why should the Minister ignore in connexion with it the receipt of £1,801,000 by the friendly societies of Australia? **Senator Pearce,** replying to **Senator Millen's** argument in favour of this amendment, said, " If a man were allowed to make a deduction in respect of his contributions to a friendly society he would be called upon on the other hand to include all that he received from a friendly society in respect of sick pay." Why should he not do so ? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- He will do so. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator MULLAN: -- And so he ought to do. This return will be incomplete unless such items appear. I find that the expenditure of the friendly societies of Australia last year amounted to £1,456,000, and a very large proportion of this would relate to sick pay. All these items are to be eliminated from this national balance-sheet. A stock-taking is of no use unless complete. The Minister's unyielding attitude is like that of a man who tells a lie and regards the fact as the strongest reason why he should stick to it. {: #subdebate-14-0-s63 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- The more I look at the schedule the more I am amazed at the attitude of Ministers. As mature judgment is vouchsafed to them, they will look back with feelings of sincere gratitude to those of us who tried to save them from the awful blunder with which they are confronted. They are going to exempt what a man pays as fidelity guarantee to insure his moral health, and refuse to exempt what he pays as a sort of guarantee for his physical health. They allow him to deduct the bill for repairs and maintenance of his property, but not the bill for the maintenance and repair of his own person. The sum of £1,600,000 paid, according to **Senator Mullan,** in sick Benefits to members of friendly societies will, unless struck out of the schedule, appear as an inflation of the income of the people. The statistics, if they are to be worth the money they will cost to collect, ought at least to be accurate. The premiums paid on life policies to insurance societies are to be exempt; those paid to friendly societies are not. The only difference is that the first are generally paid by the wealthier men, and the second by the poorer. Why do the Government propose to distinguish between them, to the disadvantage of the latter? Apparently the real reason for holding up the business to-night is that **Senator Gardiner,** having pronounced against the amendment yesterday, feels that he cannot accept it today without endangering his reputation as a strong man. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I am prepared to accept it conditionally. If that will end the discussion on the schedule I am strong enough to accept it. {: .speaker-KVH} ##### Senator Mullan: -- I thank the Minister for agreeing to accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 5228 {:#debate-15} ### WAR LOAN BILL (No. 1) Suspension of Standing Orders. Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives. Motion (by **Senator Pearce)** proposed - >That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the War Loan Bill (No. 1) being passed through all its stages without delay. {: #debate-15-s0 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- We have reached a very advanced hour, and have had a lengthy sitting. The measure with which we are now invited to deal is an exceed ingly important one, proposing the raising of, perhaps, the biggest loan known in the history of Australia. I do not rise to delay business, but I feel sure that if the consideration of this important measure is postponed until we meet at the usual hour in the morning, honorable senators will be in a better frame of mind to deal with it than they can be expected to be at nearly 2 o'clock in the morning. I do not know how far the Government propose to go with the Bill before adjourning. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Only to the moving of the second reading, after which any honorable senator may move the adjournment of the debate. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Then I shall raise no further objection. Question resolved in the affirmative. {:#subdebate-15-0} #### First Reading Motion (by **Senator Russell)** proposed - >That this Bill be now read a first time. >The Treasurer may, from time to time, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15, or the provisions of any Act authorizing the issue of Treasury-bills, borrow moneys not exceeding in the whole the amount of Twenty million pounds. This Bill is to be subject to an Act which is not now in existence, and theBill for which, I understand, has only reached the initial stages in another place. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Inscribed Stock Bill of 1915 never becomes law, what will be the position of the Bill now before the Senate? Last year we had a rather important discussion, in connexion with which you gave a ruling upon a Bill introduced to amend a measure which had not at the time received the Royal assent. Act in existence as the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15, that fact in itself is sufficient to show that the Bill cannot be properly introduced. That is a sufficient reason for ruling it out of order. It is not a question of whether the Bill is *ultra vires* of our Constitution, but of whether it accords with fact. If there is not in existence a Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15, I submit that the measure cannot be introduced. {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- In deciding this point, perhaps a little explanation may be necessary for the guidance of honorable senators with regard to future cases of this kind. In the first place, I would point out to **Senator Mullan** that the point which he has raised is not analogous to that raised by **Senator Keating** as regards a certain Bill over twelve months ago. At that time a Bill was brought in to amend an Act which was not an Act, but which was really a Bill, .and on that occasion I ruled that as that Bill could be amended in the way prescribed by the Constitution itself, it was obvious that any other method of amending it must be out of order. In this Bill no such contingency arises, and I want to direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the only thing I have to guide me as to whether or not a Bill is in order is, first, the Constitution, and, second, the Standing Orders. If both the Constitution and Standing Orders are silent on the point, I must refer to the practice of the House of Commons. I was informed some time ago that **Senator Mullan** intended to raise this point, and, therefore, I looked up the authorities, with the re- suit that I can find no precedent to guide me in ruling this Bill OUt of order. As was pointed out by the Minister of Defence, the provision to which **Senator Mullan** takes exception might be eliminated from the Bill altogether before it passes its third reading. There is also the further point that there might be a Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15 before this Bill becomes an Act. It all depends on which receives the Royal assent first, or they both might receive the assent at the same time. I would point out, further, that if I had to look through all the provisions of a Bill to see if there were any legal points upon which I should rule whether they were in order or otherwise, I would be saddled with a burden that I should not be called upon to bear. It is no part of my duty to decide technical legalities of interpretation in any Bill. Therefore, I nile against **Senator Mullan's** point of order. {: .speaker-JZC} ##### Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin: -- I wish to raise a further point of order that the Bill which has been placed in honorable senators' hands has no indorsement to show that it has passed another place. Attached to it there is no certificate of any sort, except an intimation that it passed its first reading in the House of Representatives over a week ago. It has come up to us by message from another place, and there is nothing to indicate that the Bill which has been placed in our hands is the Bill referred to in the message. I would point out, also, that the War Census Bill, when it was placed in our hands, had the following indorsement on the title page: - >This Bill originated in the House of Representatives, and, having this day passed, is now ready for presentation to the Senate for its concurrence. > >Gavan Duffy, > >Clerk of the House of Representatives. House of Representatives, Melbourne, 16th July, 1915. {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I do not think that it is necessary to have a debate on this point of order. I would like to point out, however, that the fact that this Bill is properly before us is attested by the message which has been received from the House of Representatives. That message states that the House of Representatives passed the Bill which has been transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence. {: .speaker-JZC} ##### Senator Lt Colonel O'Loghlin: -- We do not know that this is the Bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The Bill has come to us by message, and the certificate is attached to the original copy that was sent from the House of Representatives. I have seen the original copy with the certificate on it signed by the proper authorities. I have it here, and, furthermore, I would point out to **Senator O'Loghlin** that for the purpose of the passage of this Bill the Standing Orders have been suspended, because there is not time to gat the Bill through under the ordinary procedure, and, therefore, there has not been time to get the usual new print for the Senate. The Standing Orders having been suspended, I rule that the Bill is properly before the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. {:#subdebate-15-1} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-15-1-s0 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
Hon orary Minister · Victoria · ALP -- I move - >That this Bill be now read a second time. As this Bill is rather of an unusual character, I purpose following the example set by the Prime Minister in another place by placing the Bill itself within the records of *Hansard.* It is a very brief measure, consisting practically of only one principal clause, and I ask the patience of honorable senators for a mo ment while I read the Bill, which is as follows : - {: .page-start } page 5231 {:#debate-16} ### A BILL for {: .page-start } page 5231 {:#debate-17} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-17-0} #### AN ACT To authorize the Raising and Expending of the sum of Twenty million pounds for War Purposes. BE it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. This Act maybe cited as the War Loan Act (No. 1) 1915. 1. The Treasurer may from time to time, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1915, or under the provisions of any Act authorizing the issue of Treasury-bills, borrow moneys not exceeding in the whole the amount of Twenty million pounds. 2. The amount borrowed shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing, and for War purposes. I need hardly call the attention of honorable senators to the seriousness of the present position, and to the extraordinary occasion forthe introduction of a measure of this kind. As most honorable senators are aware, the raising of this sum of £20,000,000 is rendered necessary by the unfortunate war now in progress in Europe. I need not go back to the origin of that war. Australia, as a Dominion of the Empire, is engaged in this great conflict, which was deemed by the Imperial Government and Parliament to be necessary in the interests of the liberty and freedom of peoples other than their own. We in this part of the Empire had no hesitation in joining forces, and in unanimously indorsing the decision of the Imperial Government that the war was inevitable for a country professing to represent free institutions and the liberties of peoples of all nations, creeds, and colours. Australia did not hesitate to declare her readiness to face theposition up to the last man and the last shilling. I believe' that the Australian people, knowing that they were engaging in this war side by side with the Old Country and the rest of the British Dominions, did not consider the financial liability for a single moment, but were prepared to stake their all upon maintaining what they believed to be the rights of free institutions and the liberties of all peoples. It is hardly necessary to say that the war has developed into the greatest the world has ever known, and certainly the greatest that the people of Australia have ever been engaged in. Consequently our obligations have grown tremendously, for the Commonwealth accepts' the whole of the financial responsibility for the raising and maintenance of the Australian Army in the field, as well as of the Australian Navy. Up to the 10th July, 74,576 nien had left Australian shores fully armed and equipped in a fashion second to no other army in the world. On that date we had in training 16,921 men, making a total army of 91 j497 men. As a result of the recruiting since that date we are able to point to the fact that over 100,000 of the young men of Australia have expressed themselves willing and ready to risk life and limb in what they believe to be a just and holy cause. To the 30th June last we had expended on the Navy £3,399,368. That sum relates, of course, only to the actual expense of equipping and maintaining our Naval Forces to participate with the Imperial Navy in this contest, and does not cover construction. On the Military Forces we have expended £9,469,367. Other war forces - which I understand to refer to the mobilizing of the Defence Forces in Australia - cost £135,100, making a total expenditure to the 30th June of £13,003,825. The average cost of every man landed in Egypt fully equipped and ready for action was £85. It was an entirely new position in which Australia found itself at the outbreak of this war, but I believe that the people of this Commonwealth entered into the contest knowing that they were tackling a big job and ready to shoulder the responsibility, whatever it might be. In the early stages of our war preparations, hardly any question of finance was involved at all, because we had always, as a Dominion, been able to raise in the Old Country the money we required. No sooner had the war broken out than negotiations were entered into with the Imperial Government, and they expressed their willingness to help us in financing our share in the war, and in meeting other difficulties. The Government felt that they were in a position to finance the war, so far as could be seen ahead at that time, without being altogether dependent on the Motherland; but there was a difficulty in the fact that the States, with the exception of Queensland, had, from time to time, borrowed money for public works and other purposes, and there was an increasing, difficulty on their part in borrowing on the London market as they had previously been able to do. The Government recognised that it would be of no use for the Commonwealth to be in a sound financial position if the States, in a year of drought and war combined, were not able to maintain their activities as in other years. Therefore, the Government made an offer to them, which was readily accepted, that we would help them to maintain their public works expenditure at the average rate of previous years. {: #subdebate-17-0-s0 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
ALP -- For one year. We asked the States to give to us a statement of their average expenditure on public works, and promised to endeavour to finance their requirements. This we have done, and the amount so advanced will have reached £18,000,000 in November. It will be recognised that this would have been an impossible task to have undertaken from the ordinary sources of revenue open to the Commonwealth. But, as a result of negotiations, the British Government offered to lend the Commonwealth £18,000,000 foi- war purposes only. This arrangement meant that, despite the big drain on the Commonwealth finances by the undertaking given to the States - an undertaking of a purely co-operative character - the Commonwealth was placed in exactly the same position as it would have occupied had no war loan taken effect. On the other hand, the war expenditure was increasing, but this expenditure, to a large extent, had been met by raising, with the aid of the Australian note issue, an amount equivalent to that which we received from the Imperial authorities. Therefore, we could claim that, with the exception of the increased liability on account of the note issue, the Commonwealth was nol: in a worse financial position than it had occupied in previous years. A little later the British Government inquired if ' the Commonwealth would require further moneys for the conduct of the war; and, although the Government were not pressed for money at the time, they recognised that there might be difficulty in approaching the money market at a later date, and gladly accepted from the British Government a further loan of £6,500,000, making the total advanced from that source £24,500,000. Of that amount we have received to date - Thus at the end of the last financial year the Commonwealth was due to receive a further sum of £8,900,000 on account of the arrangement with the Imperial Government. Out of the original loan we have received only £12,000,000 from Great Britain, but we have lent £12,125,000 to the States, or £125,000 more than we originally contracted to lend. We have received £15,600,000; but, at the time we entered into the contract with the States, we had only £18,000,000 in view, and there was a mutual understanding in regard to that loan. The £6,500,000 is simply for war purposes, and with this the States, of course, have nothing whatever to do. The balance that we have committed ourselves to lend to the States is £5,875,000, making a total of £18,000,000 in all. Practically, up to November last, both the Commonwealth and the States were in a sound financial position. No particular difficulty had arisen, nor was there any particular money pressure beyond the ordinary troubles of Government; so long as the market is open to the States, and money is available, there are no difficulties. But on 6th July this year, we received an intimation from the British Government. It could by no means be described as a command, nor as a refusal of assistance; indeed, it was very far from either, because the Home authorities were still prepared to help us. Nevertheless it was a clear intimation such as, I believe, any country with any regard for itself would take, that it was desirable, at the present stage, that Australia, if it did not finance itself as a whole, should at least take its share of the responsibility. The Commonwealth Government interpreted that message to mean that, while we did take our share of the responsibility, we would still have the hearty co-operation of the Home Government. We recognised that Australia could not always be regarded as a child, or as one who had to go cap in hand to the Home Government. We recognised that Australia had felt the touch of nationhood, and that the men at Galli- poli had shown distinctly the spirit of the Australian people, proving that they were excelled by none, and equal to any soldiery in the world. If our young men were prepared to give their lives for the benefit of the Empire, and in defence of our free institutions, we believe there was as great, it was not possible tobe a greater, spirit at Home amongst those who could not go to the front, but were prepared to take their share of the financial responsibility. This loan is not put forward by any means as a begging appeal to the people of Australia, because such an appeal we regard as totally unnecessary. The loan is put forward in order to afford an opportunity to those who have to remain at home to participate with, we believe, the same spirit as actuated our brave boys who have laid down their lives at Gallipoli. We believe that the same patriotic spirit inspires both those at home and those at the front; and we ask those at home to make some sacrifice - to dip their hands into their pockets as one most useful way of assisting in the maintenance of the Empire. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator Ferricks: -- I do not agree with the Minister when he suggests that people are making a sacrifice in subscribing to this loan. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I am now speaking in a broader spirit than that suggested by the interjection of the honorable senator, and making an appeal to the citizens of Australia to do their utmost in assisting in the defence of the Empire. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- The investors will get a better return than did the men at Gallipoli ! {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Admittedly: but everybody cannot be fighting at Gallipoli, though everybody can help in maintaining the men who are fighting there and in supporting the institutions under which are produced such men as have fought there. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator Ferricks: -- Those who could have not given all the help they might have done to those at Gallipoli. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I do not believe that either Parliament or people are lacking in appreciation of the services of our men, and I would not like to say that the people at Home are lacking in the spirit displayed by their sons abroad. This is not a time of peace, when we have nothing to consider but public works; but a time when we are faced with an extraordinary task which will require the best efforts of both Parliament and people. That the people will rise to the occasion I, as an optimist, have every confidence. I believe we have the co-operation of the whole of the people, though, of course, there may be differences in regard to the best method of raising the money in Australia. The Government, whilst accepting the responsibility for leading in this matter, have not been so foolish as to believe that they possess all the financial knowledge. They have not been too proud, despite many differences of opinion, to take advantage of the wisdom of other people; and I am not drawing on my imagination when I say that the principle underlying the loan has the indorsement of the best financial authority in Australia to-day. The Bill provides for the raising of sums, by bonds, as low as £10, or any multiple of £10, and inscribed stock, to the amount of £20,000,000. The object of the Government is to practically have four divisions, and raise four distinct loans of £5,000,000. We are setting out on a new sea, so to speak, and if the people of Australia rise to their responsibilities and apply for more than the £5,000,000, we shall be prepared to accept all that they are willing to subscribe. But we require at least £5,000,000. Some people have said, " Why not get £20,000,000 at once?" but we desire to raise the money as the necessity to spend it arises. Whatever steps we take to build up public institutions, or carry out public works, we should never do anything that will injure existing institutions, unless we are prepared to provide sounder and better ones. Private enterprise is dominant in Australia today. It carries on the business and trade and commerce of the Commonwealth, and, though I am anxious to see more collective and State enterprise, I have no hesitation in saying that commerce, with all its ramifications, only exists by consent of the people of the country. How long that condition of affairs will last I do not know ; but, at any rate, the Commonwealth Government have no desire to go into the money market and take £20,000,000 of the coin of the people at one stroke. We will not require the full amount for some months, and, as bountiful nature has been so kind to us during this season, we hope that the money mar- ket will be so replenished as to enable* us to turn over the first £5,000,000 during its currency ; and thus we may be enabled at all times to receive the full amountthat we require, while at the same timewe shall be doing no injury to any existing institution. The banks have met the Commonwealth Government readily, nob only in this matter, but also in regard tothe advance of gold made some months ago. The banks recognise that this is no time for party sections, that we are all in the war, and that injury to one must mean injury to another. The recognition of this spirit has enabled the banks and private financial institutions to cooperatereadily with the Commonwealth Government in helping to develop the country and maintain our Forces at the front,, while at the same time their own financial position has been preserved. The bankshave met us to the extent that they will not charge any commission or any exchange. In fact, they are practically toact as voluntary agents for the Government in the matter of this loan. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Is any brokerage to> be allowed to brokers? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Yes, we shall, pay 5s. brokerage to stockbrokers, but even they have met us in a reasonableway, because, though most of them depend on brokerage for a living, they havecut their charge from 10s. to 5s. The only commission that we shall pay in regard to this loan will be 5s. per £100, or £ of 1 per cent., upon applications received through recognised stockbrokers. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- Why not hand*, over the whole of the work to the Commonwealth Bank, and save that £ per cent. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The Government have recognised the fact that we need tohave the loan spread over as wide a field as possible, and have no objection tostockbrokers bringing in their friends after the banks have exhausted all their customers and all whom they can influence. We will gladly pay them the 5s. per £100. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator Ferricks: -- We might reasonably have expected them to do the work at per cent. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- We like giving our services to the country as members of Parliament; but, unfortunately, we have to earn bread and butter for ourselves and those dependent on us, and probablymany of these stockbrokers" are in the -same position. At any rate, their charge is half of what has been previously paid, and if they bring in a good sum I do not think we will grudge them their fees. My hope is that the stockbrokers of Australian will earn big fees out of this loan. {: .speaker-JYT} ##### Senator Ferricks: -- I would rather see the banks do the work. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Eve-ry post-office and branch of the Commonwealth Bank will be engaged in this work without fee, and will give interim receipts. The inscribed stock will be inscribed at the Treasury. The Commonwealth Bank, through its central branch and agencies, will practically have the management of the loan, but the real management in regard to the inscription of stock and its original issue will not be removed from the Treasury. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- What will be the lowest unit of subscription *1* {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- A bond for £10, or any multiple of £10. Bonds, like bank notes, can be passed from hand to hand, and one of the difficulties that country people may have is to find places of security in which to keep them; and as the Government believe that, for patriotic reasons, many country people will be inclined to purchase one or more of these bonds, special arrangements are being made through the Commonwealth Bank to take care of bonds at very small fee, if any fee at all is charged. The loan will not be underwritten. Subscriptions will close on the 31st August. A provision in the recent British loan arrested a good deal of attention, and honorable' senators might be inclined to ask why it is not adopted in Australia. Tha British Government guaranteed that, in the event of a new loan being issued at a higher rate of interest those who hold stock in the earlier loan will have the Tight to convert it to the higher priced stock. The best advice we can get In Australia, and the information we can glean in regard to the money market, show that it is not desirable for the Commonwealth Government to make such a provision" in regard to this loan, because we believe that all our requirements will be met, and that there will be no gain hy giving additional guarantees for what is practically the first Commonwealth loan issued in Australia. The bonds and inscribed stock will be free of stamp duty and State income tax, and, as the Prime Minister has already announced the intention to impose one, also the Federal income tax. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Is that by arrangement with the States ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The Commonwealth Attorney-General has given the opinion to the Government that we have power to free it from the State income tax. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Does the Minister mean that we have that power under the Constitution, or that the Government will pay the tax itself *1* {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The AttorneyGeneral has expressed the opinion that under the Constitution we can make the stock free of State income tax and State stamp duties, and it will also be free of Federal income tax and stamp duty. Unfortunately, we cannot make it a trust stock, but five of the States have agreed to do so, and that, of course, will give ib a wider market. {: .speaker-JZC} ##### Senator O'LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -Colonel O'Loghlin. - Will it be necessary for them to pass legislation to that effect? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I think so. Tha State of South Australia has the matter still under consideration. In the meantime we shall issue the prospectus, and proceed to raise the loan. It is believed that the coming season will be so prosperous that the borrowing of this money will in no way affect the industrial interests of Australia. Three-fourths of the money spent on war purposes by the Commonwealth remains in Australia. Even our soldiers who are serving abroad have left the bulk of their pay behind for the benefit of their wives and families. The stock will be issued in accordance with the Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15, and bonds will be convertible at the Treasury into inscribed stock, and inscribed stock into bonds. Ten per cent, of the amount applied for must be paid on application, 15 per cent, more will become payable on the 15th September, another 20 per cent, on the 15th October, another 25 per cent, on the 15th November, and the final instalment of 30 per cent, on the 30th November. Whilst we all regret the circumstances which make this loan necessary, and would prefer that the money, instead of being used for purposes of destruction, could be used for the construction of necessary public works, we must bow to the inevitable. It is for u», the people, of a young nation, to show that we accept full responsibility for the management of our affairs, and are ready to finance the equipment and maintenance of an army to defend what we believe to be the best institutions in the world. The flotation of the loan is a test of the spirit of our people, and I feel sure that all efforts will be bent towards making it a success, with a view to securing victory for the British Empire and its Allies in the present struggle. Debate (on motion by **Senator Millen)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 5236 {:#debate-18} ### PAPER The following paper was presented : - >Arbitration Act (Public Service) 1005-1914. - Variation of Award by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration dated the 24th June, 1915, on a plaint submitted by the Small Arms Factory Employees' Association; Statement of the Laws and Regulations of the Commonwealth which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court, may be affected by the Order; Copy of the "Reasons for the variation of the Award," by the Deputy President; and Opinion of the AttorneyGeneral. {: .page-start } page 5236 {:#debate-19} ### WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2), UNITED KINGDOM Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill (on motion by **Senator Russell)** read a first time. {: .page-start } page 5236 {:#debate-20} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Recruiting Motion (by **Senator Pearce)** proposed - >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales -- The Minister of Defence, in reply to a question asked by **Senator Maughan,** has furnished figures showing the percentage which the recruits raised in each State bear to the population of that State. I ask the Minister whether the percentages were not arrived at by comparing the enlistments for each military division with the population of the State after which it is named. If so, they are misleading. The whole population of New South Wales is not contained within the New South Wales military district. A large part of the Northern River district of the State, though its population is credited to the State, forms part of the Queensland military district, and similarly the population of Broken Hill is part of the population of New South Wales, but the town is in a South Australian military district. I should like the Minister of Defence to have those figures checked in order to ascertain whether that error has occurred or not. {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
ALP -- It is quite true, as stated by the honorable senator, that the military districts do not arbitrarily follow the State divisions; and it is therefore possible that the deductions he has made are also correct. I will have the figures looked into. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.6 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 July 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150722_senate_6_78/>.