Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 22 AUGUST 1928

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Appropriation Bill, No. 1. [22 AUGUST.] Qttestions. 315

WEDNESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 1928.

The SPEAKER (Hon. 1,V. Bertram, il!larec\ look th,, chair at 10.30 a.m.

APPROPRIATION BILL, No. 1.

AssE:::JT.

Trw SPE \KEH.: I hayc to report that this day 1 presented to Uis Excollenoy the CoYcrnor Appropriation Bill, I\'o. 1, of 1928-29, for th,, Hoyal "\ssont, r.nd that His Excdlcuc.v wa~ pleased, in my pre-,pnce, to :-;ubscribf' his m:._~cnt tht~reto in tho name and on behalf of His Majesty.

QUESTIONS.

CosT oF FcRKISHI:•m I\'Rw SEcTIOK, 'l'nEASURY BurLDIKG.

Mr. MAXWELL (To01rong) asked the Secretary for Public ·works-

" 'Vhat wlls the cost of furnishing the Howl.v completed section of the Treasury Block?''

Tho SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS !Hon. :Y1. J. Kirwan, Tlrisbane) replied-

" £7,235 16s."

FREIGHT AND PASSEXGEHS CARRIED ON RAIL· WAYS AND RAILWAY REVENUE, 1927-28.

Mr. CLAYTON (Wide Bay), for Mr. WALKl"R (Cooraora), asked the Secretary fDr Railways-

" 1. 'Vhat was the total tonnage of goods and livestock carried last financial year (exclusive of departmental)?

"2. The amount of revenue thercfrom? " 3. The total passenger journeys? " 4. The tDtal revenue therefrom? " 5. The dates respectively of the

latest b;daws dealing with-(a) fares; (b) freights?"

The SECHETARY FOR RAILWAYS (Hon. J. Larcombe, f{eppel) replied-

" 1. 4.670,44 7. " 2. £4,824,885. " 3. 24,800,934. ,, 4. £1,900,398.

316 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Tax Act Amendment Bill.

" 5. (a) Gazettcd 18th October, 1926; (b) gazettcd 26th August, 1926. In addi­tion, £655,749 was received in revenue from parcels trafl:ic and miscellaneous."

HosPITAL TAx PAYABLE BY LocAL AuTHORITIES.

:".1r. SWAYNE (llfirani) asked the Home Secretary-

,, lf, as indicated by him when replying to my qut"·;tion on 26th July, re amounts collected from local authorities for hospi­tal purposes, \Yill he state the sum legally payable by ihe local authorities, and what they are liable for in this connection 'l

The HOlllE SECRETARY (Hon. J. Stop­ford, Mount Moryan) replied-

" The precepts levied upon local authorities component m the several hospital districts in respect of the fman­cial year 1927-28 were as follow:-

£ s. cl. A therton 1, 447 0 1 Bundaberg ... ... 10.914 16 0 Brisbane and South Coast 24,369 0 0 Cairns 6,310 8 0 Central Burnett 3.298 3 10 Cook · 490 8 0 Gladstone 1,308 11 6 Goondiwindi 1,450 16 0 Gympic 1,773 12 0 Jericho 991 2 10 Mackay 4,679 15 5 Maryborough ... 4,419 16 8 Port Douglas 1,441 4 2 Rockhampton 7,077 10 9 Toowoomba 7,580 18 5 Townsville 6,272 · 5 6

£83,825 9 2 "The precepts for the current financial

year for all hospital districts are not yet kno\vn."

'WATERSIDE STRIKES AT NORTHERN PORTS AND CONDITIONS IN RE PRELDUNARY BALLOTS.

Mr. SWA YNE (Mirani) asked the Secre­tary for Labour and Industry-

" In connection with the strikes on the waterside at Northern ports during the past two or three weeks, have ballote been taken and the notice legally required by section 65 of the Industrial Arbitration Act been given to the Registrar of the Court and all the con­ditions laid down by section 65 been complied with?"

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. D. A. Gledson, Ipswich) replied-

" The alleged strike on the waterside at Northern ports has not been notified under section 65 to the Registrar, as the union executive at all times sup­ported the industrial magistrate in his endeavours to effect a settlement, and the waterside workers were willing to work and did work whenever the sea­men, who are not subject to any award of the Board of Trade and Arbitration were willing to supply steam. It may be again necessary to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the seamen are under Commonwealth juris­diction."

'TRANSFER OF RAILWAY PORTERS AND NIGHT OFFICERS TO JYIE:rROPOLl'l'AN AREA.

Mr. KEHR (Enoggera): I desire to ask the Secretary for Hailways if he can answer the following CJllestions which I addressed to him on the 2nd instant:-

" 1. Ho,; many rail way porters and night officers hav.c been transferred to the metropolitan area during the last six months?

" 2. Has thP effect of such transfers been that such permanent employees in the metropolitan area are not receiving: the award wage'!

"3. V'v'hat was the average wage paid to single porters for the fortnight ended 22nd July, 1S28, at Homa Street?

" 4. \Vhat overtime was worked by and the amount paid to married railway porters in the metropolitan area during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1928?

"5. What was the time lost by, and the amount concerned by, short time to single porters and cheek•,·s during the sa.rne period?"

The SECRETAHY FOH RAILWAYS (Hon. J. Larcombc, Keppcl) replied-

" 1. Three. " 2. All employees are paid in accord­

ance with the terms of the award. " 3. £6 14s. 9d. " 4. The overtime totalled 2.27 hours

for each employee, and the payment amounted to 6s. 8.13<:\. per employee.

" 5. \Vork was pooled amongst scventy­fiYe men, anJ the average time lost by each man was eight and a-quarter hours per week. The amount involved was £1,576 5s. 3d."

PAPERS. The following papers were laid on the

table:-Orders in Council under the Supreme

Court Act of 1921. Proclamation under the Rc<:iprocal

Enforcement of Judgments Act of 1927.

FARM PROD'GCE AGEKTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION.

The SECRETAHY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Mackay): I beg to tnove-

" That the House will, at its next sit­ting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the de,irablcness of introducing a Bill to amend the Farm Produce Agents Act of 1917 in cert<tin particulars."

Question put and passed.

LAND TAX ACT AMENDMEKT BILL. INITIATION IN COMMITTEE.

(Mr. Pollock, G·regory, in th." chair.)

Question stated-" That it is desirable that a Bill be

introduced to amend the Land Tax Act of 1915 by extending the operation of the super land tax until the close of the

Land Tax Act (22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 317

financial year ending the thirtieth day of June, 1929 "-

On which Mr. SIZER (Sandgate) had moved the following amendment :-

" Omit all the words after the word­' by,'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-' abolishing all taxation on land under this Act with the exception of a tax on undeveloped land.' "

:VIr. W. A. RUSSELL (Dalby): This is a most important-! might say vital-question, because it involves so much so far as the people on the land are concerned. I, first of all, desire to express my support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandgatc; secondly, to protest .against the reimposition of the super !and ta-x; and, thirdly, I shall endea-vour to show tho Govern­ment what a great deal of harm they are doing by the imposition of this tax. I con­sider that both the land tax and super land tax are unjust because they press so hardly on the primary producers and all those who earn their living from the land. Their enact­ment is unwarranted because they are adverse to the Government's policy of land settle­ment, as dcfinod by the Land Administration Board, as I shall show later, and because they destroy the equity value of the holder of the land and affect so seriously the position of the small man by the destruction of his value in the holding. When the land tax was first imposed it was thought that it would have the effect of breaking up many large estates. The reYerse, however, has been the result, because the latest report of the Commissioner of Taxes shows that there are fewer tax­payers who derive their income directly from primary production.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILwAYS: The exemp­tion has been increa5<-d, and that naturally reduces the number of taxpayers.

:Ylr. \Yi A. RCSSELL: Nevertheless, many small ho,dmgs have been absorbed in larger holdings.

Mr. RoBERTS: There has been an. aggrega­tion of holdings.

:Y1r. \V. A. RUSSELL: That is so. I am in favour of the abolit~on of land tax, with the exception of a. tax on undeveloped land that is held purely for speculative purposes. .I am opposed to any tax on land held and used for agricultural and pastOTal pur­poses. seeing that that land is producing the wealth of the State. Is there any more reason for not taxing the tools of tra-de of the indi­vidc.tll who earns his living by the use of tho--c tools? The hol-der of land which is being used for productive purposes is helping to produce the wealth of the country; and I feel quite sure that the Government do not r~alise the harmful effect of their action in

_seeking to reimpose this super land tax. Land tax generally restricts the flow of finance, retards development, and places a burden OJa men who are trying to make a living from :the land. Hon. members opposite have expressed the wish to find a solution of the problem now confronting the man on the land. Here is one way in which they may assist that man-and let me remind hon. members that land tax is one of tne greatest burdens of the man on the land. It has the effect of depreciating the security that ma-y ibe offered to financial institutions. As a

matter of fact, as soon as a property has been bought it is subject to revaluation, on which a higher tax is paid, which has the effect of destroying the value that may have been received by way of deposit. It is the small man who loses on .a transaction like that-not the wealthy man, because the latter can retain his land at the lower value more easily than the man not so fortunately situated as regards capital. After all, the members on the Government side, with pos­sibly one exception, have no practical experi­ence of land matters. Not one Minister on the front bench has had any practical know­ledge of land matters.

The PRE>HER: That is an extraordinary statement to make. You tell me that I have not as much intelligence as you.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: The hon. gentle­man may have equal intelligence-_-

The PREMIER: I have more.

Mr. W. A. Rl:SSELL: But the hon. gentleman hM not had that practical experi­ence in land matters that I have had.

The PREMIER : Buying sheep for 10s. and selling them for £1-that is your experience.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: No; the whole of my early life was spent on the land; and I can appreciate the difficulties of the man who earns his living from the land. With the exception of the hon. member for Gregory, I do not consider that any member on the Government side has had any practical know­lodge of land matters.

Mr. COLLIXS: That is what you said about us before we came here.

Mr. W. A. RFSSELI: The hon. member cannot claim any experience of land matters. He is not like the hon. member for Gregory, who has a gocd knowledge of conditions in the WPstcrn districts of Queensla-nd. No other nlC'mbcr on the Government side can g·ivc am· advice on these matters. (Govern­Jncnt dissent.)

The CH_\ TRM A 1\; : Order !

The TRi,ASURER: .According to your argu· mcnt, you can never !c'lrn anything a-bout :cny other subject except the land.

Mr. W. A. RCSE'-ELL: I can, because I have a dec;irc to learn and to assist in the solution of the difficulties facing the State. The Treasurer himself has said that it is for the Opposition to give him some practical illustration of how the difficulties confront­ing the Government may be solved. I tell the hon. gentkman that I can solve the difficultv of the man on the land. I can make h-is position better.

The TRE.\SDRER: You have no bPtter know­ledge of the land than many officers in the Lands Department.

::\h. W. A. R GE!SELL: Verv manv of the men thPn· do not know anything a,l~out the land. They rw,·er had a, chance of taking a job outside. The present chairman of the Land Administration Board, Mr. W. L. Payne, is a semi-practical man, and is looked upon as a superman because of this know­ledge.

The TREASURER: He is not a, superman.

Mr. W. A. Rl'SSELL: He is not, but he is a very abk man a-nd has had a lot of practical experience.

Mr. W. A. Russell.]

318 Land Tax Aet [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The TREASUilER: Ho has intelligence; and any man with intelligence can get a know­ledge of any industry.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: My only objec-t is to try to assist the Government in every way possible. I asked a question in the House the other dav, and the answer given through the Secret~ry for Agriculture was that I might me what influence I possessed to assist the Government to solve this diffi­culty; and I a!Jl prepared to give every assistance, and I can show reasons why the man on the land-the small man-needs some assisto.nce. I am not talking about tho grazier. as the Gover'>ment have already protected him. They have given equivalent' to thousands of pounds to the grazier and made his position absolutely safe. I am very pleased that they have; but, all the same, the small man wants protection, and is entitled to it.

The TRE \SURER : It is certainly wrong for ~ou to ··ay that, because a man has no practical fnrminv knowledge, he does not understand the industry.

Mr. \V. A. RT;SSELL: 'I'he cattlemen arc in a bad position, and I am pleased that the GoYernrnent appointed a commission to inqnire into that industry, and we are all hoping rhnt some good will come from th.J l'f'port of the con1rnission.

The TRE!,RT'RFR: If it depends on the r•ractical men in the industry, then God help them!

~Ir. W. "\. RCSSELL: If the Gov•crnment depend on the T)ractical men they will get some information. It is very hard for men who havP spent a lifelong experience in gaining practical knowledge to come into this Flousc and translatE> into words the practical experience that they have so that it can be assirnil<1ted by the Goverrunent who, I hope, arc willing to do something for those men. They know very well that they arc leaYing the la!id. Why arc they doing that? The land has depreciated so much now that th(y cannot even a.rrange finance. All through rny electorate tlH~re arc rnany srnall men, and, if they could only get money to carry on, th<'y would have no difficulty at all in producing the real wealth that will make for ttn i1nprovcn1cnt in our secondary industries.

The Tm· IST:RER: 1\ .. e have made an earnest on do a vour to find out what is the cause.

Mr. \V. A. RCSSELL: One of the causes is the land tax. You ask me fjuoctions, but you will not take any notice of what I say. 1 have had a lifclDng experience on the land, and I am prepared to give you all the infor­mation of which I am possessed-not with the idea of gaining any self-advancement or an'" kudos. I do not want anything. My one desire is to assist you.

The TRE.ISUBER : You are very modest.

l\fr. W. A. RL'SSELL: I am, and you know it.

The CHAIR:VIAN: Order l I hope the hon. member will address the Chair.

Mr. W. A. RL'8RELL: On Thursday last, while the hon. member for Sandgatc was speaking, the hon. member for Bowen inter­jected that the frrrmer does not pay the super land tax-that it was only paid by the big man.

Mr. CoLLINS: That is quite true.

[Mr. W. A. Russell.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: That shows how little the hon. member knows abDut the posi­tion. If a large landho!der has the value of his land depreciated as a result of the land tax, the small adjoining holder has his land' depreciated in value to the same extent. If I have land which, as a result of t.he tax, is depreciate-d in value from £3 to £2 an acre, then ihe adjoining land which is not subject to the tax at all is only worth £2 an acre the same as mine. 'I'he small man may have hought his farm at £3 per acre on a deposit of £1 per acre cash, leaving a balance owing of £2 per acre. His land depreciates in value to the extent of £1 per acre. The man who is losing is the farmer -not the man w.ho is lending the money.

The TREAST:RER: I think you are wrong.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: He cannot borrow now as the fin:1ncial companies and banks will not accept his land as security. 'l'hey will not take thu risk of financing small holders. If the small holders were financed. they would be prosperouB and ha.ppy, and would produce wealth for the State. There would be no question of over-production of wool Dr butter. '.V e should give these men all the assistance possible to produce those two items, whic.b would bring about th0 introduction of new money into the country. It is this land tax which is killing the man on the land. There are butter producers in my electorate and there are some adjoining my properties.

The TREASCREH: Jt is afl'ecting you-that is the trouble.

The SECRE'rAHY FOH RAILWAYS: \Ye ha Ye a record butter production in the State.

The CHAIR2\1AN: Order l The TnEASCRER: \Yhat butter farmers arc

paying the super _tax in your elector a tc? I defy you to ment1on one.

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: The hon. gcEtlennn said he could understand the subject, but he does not seem to do eo.

The TREAS CHEH: If they are not paying: the tax, then we know where we arc.

Mr. W. A. RGSSELL: I helicH the hon. gentlenHtn ca.n understand the rn~tt('l' but he does not want to do so-there 1s !ID one who c>tn sec quicker than tho hon. gent le man when he likes.

The TREASCRETI: Then they arc not payi11g the tax?

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: The hon. gentle­man shows that he does not understand the question. I have already told him that the small holder does not pay the super land tax but that. in consequence of the incidence of the ta.x on the large holder's land, the value of the small holder's land is also depreciated in value. For iustanc~ .. a man purchased a piece of land adJommg. ~y place at £3 per acre before the 1mpos1tiOn of the tax. Through the incidence of the tax my land is reduced in value to the extent of £1 per acre and the other man's land a utoma ticall v becomes only >vorth £2 per acre. The result is that wealthy people ~tre now buying back these lands and aggregating large estates because they ca.n buy them at a low figure. I will give an instance of hDw, through this taxation, the Govern­ment's action affects a man in rny electorate whom I induced to come up from Kcw South Wales and settle on the land. He bought

Land Tax Act (22 AUGUST.) Amendment Bill. 319

the land and had not sufficient money to pay a big deposit. The land valuer pounced down and took his case as an indication of the increase in value, not taking into cml­sideration that he had only paid a ~mall deposit. T.he conditions of the purchQsc required him to spend £1,000 on improve­ments on the land for a home. He did this, and his land was reva,lucd, and thE' tax levied. He pointed out that he had not the money and was waiting for his wool cheque. He arranged for a loan of £60 to pay t.hc shearers' wages; but the land commissio!ler came in and commandeered the money .,;ith. out notifying him, and the bank rang up and told him that he could not draw any cheques against the amount because the land commissioner had commandeered it.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: \Vhy do you not tell this story to your own Federal Party?

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: I do tell them, and I am telling the hon. gentleman, too. Hon. members opposite have the power to tax, and they a.rcl reimposing this war measure, which is ten or twelve years old, year after year.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: So is YOUr own party in the Federal Parliament. ·

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: Hon. members opposite ash'd me for some solution of the difficulty, and I am giYing it now. I cr.n pay the tax-it does not affect me so mu<;h­but it affects the small ma>n; it is killing him.

The TrucASFRER: You say he does not pay i~.

:\Ir. W. A. RCSSELL: I ha ye ah·eady explained that. In the case I ha Ye quoted, so soon as there is any move upward in value as a result of an increase or stabilisa­tion of prices, the Commissioner of Taxes eorncs along again and again raises the tax, and again depreciates the value, practically '''iping out the deposit the rnan has put in to buv the land. These are the men whom the tax affects-not the man who sells land on tenns, who gets the land back at a lower figure owing to the forfeiture of the dcpmit by the purchasc'r. Hon. mern­lwrs opposite muot know that. \Yhen this tax \'vas fLrst irnposcd ycm·s ago it was imposed so that the State might got wh<1t wa'' called the unearned increment; but the S!ate11 ncv:;,~ r:ceivcd any ~ncarned increme_nt a 1.! it11. ..tiJ(t v uiJearn<'U Increment v;,ras de­stroyed. without any benefit to the State and to the disach·ant<1go of the man who "anted ~o use the land and could not obta1n the finance to enable him to carrv 011.

Kow I will ckal with another aspect of the case as an illustration of how unfair the land tax can be. The Secretary for Public Lands publicly stated that the Government approYed of , the recommendations of the Land. Settlement Advisor:y Board, and explamed that the effect would be t0 establish a maximum rental of 6d. an acre for the best grazing lands in tho Central district.

The SECRETARY FOR RAIL"IYHS: You are dc·aling now with leasehold 1

Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: Yes, to show how unjust is the incidence of this taxation on fr<>ehold as compared with leasehold. If it is right to charge only 6d. an acre on the best leasehold land, how can. it be right to impose on freehold land a tax of 10d. an

acre 1 Following on the report of the Land Settlement Advisory Board, the Minister at once issued a statement establishing a maxi­mum of 6d. for the best land and 3~d. to 4d. for average land, according to value. It has also been established since the report of that board was submitted that an area which will carry from 5,000 to 7,000 sheep is a living area. In viPw of these facts, it is only reasonable to assume that freehold land should be treated in the same way. If leasPhold land is worth only 6d. per acre, whv is freehold land worth anv more? A 'settler can only pay on the productive value of his land, be it frePhold or leasehold.

The TRE.\SURER : Why did the Land Court fix a rental of ls. 6d. per acre in the case of the ::Vfount Abundance land?

:Mr. W. A. RUSSELL: Because that land was resumed land, and the Act which affects it says that where land is re~umed a certain amount must be charged.

The TREASURER: But whv were the values fixed as high as 1s. 6d. when we have fixed 6d. per acre?

Mr. W. A. RCSSELL: The Land Settle­ment Advisory Board's report was not in then. The tax actually collectc from free­hold property more than the Secretary for Lands regards as the maximum value of leasehold land. according to the recom­mendation of the Land Settlement Advisory Board.

'I'he TREASURER: In spite of their taxation, they resisted the resumption of their private lH·Opl'dy.

J\lr. \\". A. RUSSELL: Let me quote another insta11ce. .An area of considerably under 5,000 acres was pur~hased by two far­m<'r's sons in the Roma district, both boys born and bred there-absolutely the best type of settlers you could got for the land, The carrying- ·capacity of the area was from 2,500 to 3,000 sheep. Prior to the purchase of this laud it was assessed for taxation purposes at £1 per ucro unimproved value. These boys ga'. c a higher price because of the small deposit required, using practically the whole of their mone1· to work and d0Yelop land. Immediately following that Sii.le to those hoys the unir;,provcd value of the land was increased to £2 per acre, and the taxation ,an the land amounted to lOd.

per acre. At the same· timA lll a.m.] there was adjoining Crown land

open for selection requiring only ringbarking to bring it to the same state of development with equal carrying capacity, the rental of which was 3 1~,d. per acre and no reappraisement for thi~ty years. 'How can the statement of the Secretary for Publia Lmds b" reconciled wit.h those facts? Here 1hc Crown admit that the adjoining lease­hold is worth only 31' 11d. per acre, yet the purchasers of the freehold were asked to pay 10d. per acre. One or other must be wrong aud unjust. Th0re should be no penalty imposed on a person who wishes to own his own land. Tho freehold land was originally purchased from the Cr.own, but in estimatini; 1ho present unimproved value-including un­earned increment. if any-for taxation pur, poses, no dc'dLrction is allowed for the sum originally paid to the Crown. In some dis­tricts the purchase price ranges from 10s. to 20s. per acre. Even at a very conserva­tive rate of 5 per cent., it is plainly seen that the present owners of these freehold

Mr. W. A. Russell.]

320 Land 'l'ax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

lands have been paying to the Crown yearly interest equal to 6d. or h. per acre rent since acquiring the propertv. If the Govern­ment are convinced that tl1o present basis of taxation is sound, and no deduction should be allowed for the original sum paid for freehold, and if on appeal their contention is upheld how can it be maintained that the perpetualleasPhold policy is the best for the State ? When selling the freehold the Trea· surer would be in receipt of as much·-in many cases more-revenue in the shape of tax than to-dav is received in rent. He has in hand the hi>ge sums that would be paid as purchase money with which to develop the country.

The following statement made by Mr. vV. L. Payne, Chairman of the Land Settlem~nt Board, only last month, on the questwn seems thoroaghly sound:-

" MentioH should also be made of the principle laid down by the legislature many yearo ago, that rents should .be fixed according to the amount wh1ch experienced persons would be willing to pay for land of similar quality in the samo neighbourhood. This is sound enough in theory, but unless great care is exercised, can becom.e mischievous in its application. Experienced persons are found to pay very fancy prices for land, and thAreby establish rental values, which, if applied generally to the iudus­try, might be ruinous in effect. Even at the present time of stress, grazmg properties arc chauging hands at a very substantial figure. The prices paid for properties are not always influenced by business consideration only, but by a \·arietv of rca.suns and factors, varying· with the individual. Thev are therefore at times a very poor guide to correct values. vVe nre not empowered to dis­regard the maxim rcfmTcd to. but we apply it with qualillcations, and do noj; allow it to outweigh other economic considerations.''

If this taxation is permitted to stand un­challenged, it will be further increased and the injustice maintained. At the present time thPre is no appeal in these oases except to the Supreme Court, which is beyond the means of most settlers. V cry few farmers in the country will take the risk "nd expense of going to court to. pit their. bush knowledge against the consrdercd opm1ons of people who are well vcrFcd in valnations. I haw apnealed to this tribunal, and have found it most difficult to sustain any just valuation. I do not know \vhv it should b<' so, but such is the case. Taxa:tion is killing the settler on the ·land, and, if I had more time at my disposal, I could give a lot more informntion. I would like the Government seriously to consider the miti­gation of taxation. There is no doubt that it is preventing the flow of finance and retarding progress in every direction. Sur.ely it is the desire of the Government to brmg the land to prosperous use. It would be much b0tter to have settlers happy and con­tented remaining in the country rather than flocking to join an overcrowded population in the citJ•.

Mr. CLAYTON (Wide Bay): I intend to support the amendment. I regret very much that the Government find it necessary to re­introduce the Bill this session, but I suppose the unfortunate position of the finances ren­ders it imperative that the Treasurer should

fMr. W. A. Russell.

obtain all the available revenue. Land tax generally is undesirable, and, if this party i.; returned to power after the next elections, wo shall lak<:> full responsibility for our opposition l o the Bill.

There are aycnues where the Government can sa,·o considerably, and thereby exempt from taxation land that is producing. It is astonnding that the Government should seize upon a land ta" as a 11wans of obtaining rev<enue. As other hon. members who have q1okcn on this sir.le of the House have stated, it. is th0 intention of the Opposition, if returned to take charge of the Treasury benches at the next election, to relieve land from taxation. as thev believe that function to be one for local aathorities to assume.

It is only of late years that land tax has been imposed. In fact, it has only been imposed since the advent of Labour to power. Labour h"s Pot only imposed taxation on the land for rcvPnuc purposes. but has also taxed land fr>r the upkeep of hospitals. I cannot C'oncciYe 'vhv the Government have singl0d out land for· taxation in this manner. Tlwy do not tnx the tools of trade of any worknwn or !he books of barristers at law; but. became I as a farmer work the land, you subject me to special taxation on the verv land from which I am endeavouring to rnake a living. I admit that thL' small man is not c"l1ed upon to pay super land tax, and, thN••fore, he is not heavily hit by the pavment of land tax; but the big land· hold~r: to whom the super land tax applies, is in a position not only to pay it but to pa's its incidence on to the eonsumer and produc0r. That is what we arc endeavouring to prevent as far as we possibly can.

Take the case of the sugar-grow0r who is Pall0d upon to pay land tax. He invests his capital in the rurchase of land in order in make a living from it. He has to work his properly for twelve months before he can look for anv income at all. He is sub­ject to the problem of ever-production. He is al.so confronted with periodical droughts, noods, and pests. If a sugar-grower does no& receive any income from his land, he is still C" llecl upoi1 to prtv land tax, which is unjust. Th<> same remarks apply to dairymen and pastoralists.

On 1\Iondav last I was discussing the super land tax with a taxation agent in l\1ary· horourrh. In th'' cr>urse of conv~rsation he f!Uotcd th0 case of n p~stora list in my elec­torate who was paying taxation to the extent of £3 nPr head on <'very bullock that pas"ed out of his holding during the JHCvious twelve months. Hon. members must realise that it is outrageous for any producer to pay taxes to the extent of £3 for everv bullock sold by bim. That was not an isolated instance. He said he could quote man~· other instances where men were paying local a11thority nnd other te.xes to the extent of 30s. per h0ad of stock disposed of during the war. It is this abnormal taxation imposc·d by the Govern­ment that is retarding settlement and the progrOR5' of Qu0cnsiand; and before \Ve can look for any greater development of our lands we shall have to reduce the heavy taxation that the Government now impose, especially on the man on the land.

l\1r. FERRICKS (South Hrisbanr): I think the hon. member for Dalby assumes too much when he lays it down as an nxiom, as he did during the co11rse of his remarks this morning. that the opinion of the succe8'­ful man on the land should be taken as the

Land Tax Act (22 AUGUST.) Amendment Bill. 321

laet word on the land question. You know, :Mr. Po!lock. and we all know as a fact-a sad fact-l.hat mnny of thee men who pioneered the pastor,ll lands of Queensland and made it possible for men like the hon. member for Dalhy and othe,·s to come along afterwards and achic,.;e _ucccss ended their da·,·'1 in DnnwicL \Vill a.ny hon. member 0;1 the other side con'enc.i that those men diu not know anything about the lo :1c~ ,, Thcv wore real!,. lhe pioneers who set out \vithout railwar con11nunication. artc,)ian bores, rrwtor trttllsport, telcpho11io communication, and other conYenience' which present-day Bettlers on the land have.

The hon. member for Dalbv also said that the production of butt-er hO:s no rclevo.nce to the question of land--that people should p:o nhc 'cl P ne! produce butter "' ithout restric­tion. Surelv the hon. member must not ov.· rlook the' fact that the more butter thar is produced in this State and the more that has to b' c'<ported from the State me.HJS that the local <"onwmers of butter have to pay a higher price for the com!Ylodity to malw up the lo" on the surplus exported from the la.nd in the hon. member's elec­torate and ot.her elector a tcs.

1\-Ir. KELSO: That is not eo. You evid,3ntly do not knm'. the Paterson scheme.

Mr. FEIUUCKS: What is called a levy of 3d. or 4d. pei' lb. of butter cons,~med locally is made so that t.he dairy farm~r receives more for butter consumed in this State than for butter exported from the Commom,-c,alth. That is reallv a tax of 3d. or k. pc,· lb. which the consumer pa.ye.

Mr. ED\VARDF : What is 'nong about that?

JI.Ir. FERRICKS: Only that the hon. member for Dalbv said that it had 110

application. It should be remembered that the workers v;ho consume the butter 1ocallv are taxed 3d. or 4cl. per !h. to enable the dairy fanner to get a fair price for his butter.

The qucetion of the abolition of the super land tax h:ts been dilated over bv the hon. member for Sandgate, who cvic!e'ntl} spoke with the full concurrence of the .Opposition. judging by the way thev arc suppot·ting the amendment. Let us see ho1,V manv of these small farmers, for whom the Opposition members contend they stand and whom they claim to 1:epresent in this Chamber, are affected, nol only by the super land tax but also by the land tax a.t large. The thirteenth annual report of the Commissioner of Taxes on land tax contains an interesting table­Table D-showing the assessments made dur­ing 1927-28 on country land owned at 30th June, 1927, classified according to the purpose for which the land is used, etc., and we find that primary land tax and super land tax were paid by holders of less than 100 acres of land to the following extent:-

Fruitgrowers Dairy farmers Farmers

Total

1928-x

I Primary Tax. Super Tax.

l No. Tax. No. Tax.

I 91 1~1 5 2; 85 137 .. ..

1~-~-~ 102_ 677 £1,149 16 £123

Will hon. members oppostte contend that they renresent the small man when they advocat~ the abolttion of that super tax? The hon. m, mbrr for Dalbv mnst realise that, while success on the '!and does not ahvavs mean u.n increased kno,vledge, it vcr:, ofterl brings arrogance. 'rhere aro n1cn on this side of th~ Ch-cmber who can claim to have \vorked in practically ever,: prirnat·y industry of the State. That iJ more than the hOJ,l. member or any other member on that side can say. 'Will the hon. member or any of his suppori:"rs contend for a mom·ent that, when we on this side were working for wages in the primary iEdustrios, ·~.-vo did not learn somcthin[~ about them? Of course we did, and it i, part of our duty as members of Parliament to take an intclligeut and kceu interest in any industry appertaining to Queensland.

Mr. KELSO interjected.

).Ir. FERRICK8: The trouble with the hon. member is that he does not know; and he knows th~t I know that he does not know. (L.w'l'hter.) Let us proceed a s~ep further. Take a "mal1 man whose dairy farm is from 100 acres to 500 acre,. In the vear alrcadv rderred to 1.866 of these came i.mdcr the primary land t <X ancl 75 of th_om under the super land tax. Is a man farmmg 500 acres of land a ridiculous!' small land­holder? Is a man who farm~ an area of 100 acres a verv sma.ll holder' Hon. mem­bers opposite aJ:·e uot considering then1 when thrv adn1cale the abolition of the super ta':. It is the big man-the man with 5,000 acres and o.-ci·-who pays practically t,he whole of this super tax.

The· SECRET.\RY FOR AamcccLTcRE: The Queen-street property ovYnel"s.

::\Ir. FERRICKS : The amendment aims at an undeveloped land ta.x and the rcmo-:al of all other taxes on land values. If the prm­ciplc of the taxation of land values is unsound generally, it is unsound to rctam the tax on undeYelopcd land, and to. ha,·e been con­sistent the hon. member for Sandgate should have embre.ccd in his amendment the aboli­tion of all taxes ou land.

~1r. STZER: You can do that.

Mr. FERRICKS: I do not believe in doing that. I say the taxation of land values-a tax on unearned increment-is one of the fltire't taxes imaginable to get back for the public good and public welfare some of the increa.sed value that has been created Ill

that land hv virtue of the expenditure of public moncv. The community having created the voJue, surely that is a justifiable procedure on the part of any Government. Has the hon. member for Sandgate rcaF~e.d fuliy what would be the consequences o, ,us amendment. if it were carried? And he meant it to be carried otherwise he would not haye moved it. The total tax collected in respect of land amounts to a little over £421,000, while the taxation collected on undeveloped land amounts only to about £17 000, leaving about £404,000, of which the ' hon. member desires to deprive the Government. 'rhis amount is received by means of what we consider a verv fair and equitable tax on land, and returns to the State some of the value w.hich the State has been instrumental in creating. The hon. member for Sandgate and other members of the Opposition who have supported him so enthusiastically did not touch on the question

Mr. Fe1·ricks.]

322 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

of how that £404,000 would be made good to the Treasury in the event of the amendment being carried.

Mr. SrzEH: Re,1d my speech.

Mr. l<'EP,RICKS: 1 heard the hon. mem­ber, and after listening clo,seiy to his remarks I could no1 see that he nad advanced any tangible suggestion as to what should be done to replace this £404,000.

Mr. SrzcR: If vou cut out the losses on State enterprises," there \Vould be no need for this taxation.

'\lr. FERRICI\S: .-\!most every hon. mem­bm· opposite has said ''When we get ove1· there we will tell you. "When t.he doctor is called in we will pr<<scribe." Everyone knows that, pending the arrival of the doctor, some other n1easurcs are taken; and even the doctor does not wait till he gets there to give directions. Hon. members opposite want to deprive the 'l'reasurer of this £404,~00. ancl they have no chance of getting over here no>Y, and very little chance in the future. If they deprive the Treasury of that amount how will the Treasury recoup itself to that extent before 30th June next·: It is reasonable to assume that the Treasurer r-ractically bas thL' outline _of his Budget p_ro­posals ready, because the time ts approachmg when he \vill deliver it, and no provision for the substitution of £404,000 can by any ~irctch of itna.gination be considered possible, which would mean, therefore, in plain lan­gua .. ;c, that the TrPasurer's Budget -,vould show a deficit of £404,000 at 30th June next i!l that regarrl. ~\obody can gainsay that. Do hon. nwmb<'n opposite say that is desir­able·: What would become of that £404,000?

Hon. members opposite will remembe1· that last year wP passed an Act to ratify a finanical agreerncnt between the Common­wealth and the Stales, and that Ad, over which hon. members opposite waxed so enthusiastic, and which hon. members on this side supported as being sound and in the best interests of Australia, contains a section which placeo responsibility on the States as well as the Commonwealth. Hon. members opposite mnst not think that, when that agreement was ratified. they were in a position to adopt a. '\iicawber-like attitude and say, " Thank goodne", that is settled." "When the Commonwealth took over the State debts we pointed out that the States had responsibilities under that agreement, which was ratified without revision. One of the big responsibilities was that the obtaining of money for renewals of loans would be under the control of the Loan Council; but, with regard to a special kind of loan called in the agreement a deficit loan, the Loan Council assumed no responsibility; it was the duty of the State to raise those loans under d!fferent conditions.

If this amendment were carried, the Statn would have to float a deficit loan to cover the £404,000 in question, and would have to pay the current rate of interest of, say, 5 per cent., which would be £20,000 per annum. In addition to that, under the agreement the Loan Council would wash its hands of any sinking fund payments regard· ing that deficit loan, and the State Govern­ment would have to pay into a sinking fund annually 4 per cent. to redeem that loan of £404,000, which \'JOuld mean an additional £16,000 a year, or a total of £36,000 a year, which would be tacked on to the £5,000,000

[Mr. Ferricks.

interest bill which we now pay for money borrowed abroad

But that would not be the worst of it. It would be almost like a recurring decimal and go on for a number of years, because the land tax would be abolished altogether, aucl at le ·st another £404,000 would have to J,,, floated as a deficit loan from year to year.

:\fr. KELSO: You are saying that the State is goinr to stand still.

l\lr. FERRICKS: I am not; I am assuming that there will be a surplus of £4,000 on 30th June next; but hon. members opposite want to turn that 'urplus of £4,000 into a deficit of £400.000. Is there a member of the Opposition who would say that that would bo practicable, let alone desirable? To say nothing of the wisdom or otherwise of it, f'ould it be clone'! As hon. members know, w ben they are passengers to Sydney by boat, and they approach the Sy·dney Heads, the much-travelled man will, for the benefit of the uninformed, spread himself and point to the South Head and say, "That is where the 'Dun bar' was wrecked." It is sad to recol­lect that this week is the anniYcrsary of the wreck of tho "Dunbar," with its consequent lo~s of life and sorrow. I contend that, if this amendment. with all the financial reck­lessness which characterisee it-and Opposi­tion members in imagined, if not real, seriousnes' say thev support it-were passed and applied genenilly throughout the States, then financial wreckag-e would come upon this State and the other States in the Common­wealth and the Commonwealth itself to wch an extent that the loss of life through tho had conditions and suffering of humanity would bo such that the loss through the wreck of the "Dunbar'' would be but small in comparison. The Commonwealth Govern­ment applie-d such a principle. They relieved of taxation the wealthy men-the men on top. The other day they finish0d up the year with a deficit of nearly £2,500.000. And that in spite of the fact that they had the advan­r --rr: of nn enormous Customs revenue and other resources, and they could do what they liked. The States are not so fortunatelv situated as ·the Commonwealth in that regard. The Commonwealth, through the Tariff Board. will be able to open a few of the flood­gates in the tariff wall and again flood this country with importations of surplus goods from overseas, to the permanent injury of Australian industries; but, if the States con­tinue on the lines which the South Austra­lian anti-Labour Government have followed of relieving the big man at the top and endeavouring to bring into the area of taxa­tion the small man struggling for an existence with his family, they will not be able to cany on, and financial chaos will come, not only in the State of Queensland, but also throughout the Commonwealth.

I have endeavoured to point out in a pre­vious debate that, whilst hon. members oppo­site may oppose or criticise-and I contend that it is not always the function of an Opposition to criticise or oppose the Govern­ment-we do expect them to suggest some­thing in substitution for the thing they want removed.

Mr. SIZER: We are doing it.

Mr. FER RICKS: Bqt we do not get any­thing like that. The matter the hon. member

Land Tare Act [22 AuGUST.] Amendment Bill. 323

has mentioned w"ill not be a factor commen­surate with the grave factor they propose bv this amendment to remove. I say with due deference that thev do not understand how iand values have 'increased during the last ten or twelve years with the progress of Queensland. Land values have doubled everywhere. The Government have expended £60,000,000 of borrowed money, on which we arc paying interest at great cost, on the building of ra.ilways thYough that land to increa9e its value; and the values have kept on increasing, as is shown by one of those tables, because, while there has been no increase in number of taxpayers on unde­veloped land, there has been an increase in taxation of about £4,000 -and that not on account of any fresh assessments.

l\lr. S!ZER: The valuo of land is only what it will produce.

Mr. FERRICKS: The hon. member has struck the nail on the head. That is why we arc in favour of leasehold as against freehold.

Mr. SIZER: If you put a railway through it and it does not produce any more, where is the increased value?

Mr. FERRICKS: And where is the added value of freehold as compared with lease­hold? The hon. m<>mber for Dalby said that wa' the reason. How could there be a.ny commercial cornmnnication if there 'vere no railways? The Oppusition do not give any consideration to thr~ G-ovct'IJmf\nt for tho

burdens thov have shouldered in [11.30 a.m.] continuing; 'the development of

this )Ircut Stat~ with its huge ar0u. Hon. rn~:rniJe1·s opposite should endea­vour as far a- po--;ibie to tritversc this great State, and not blk from cne little corner in the south-e ... stern portion of Que err lancl. They may have taken a. hurried run to Kurancla and out to Longre11ch for a couple of clays, trav,.rsing reiatiYely a. very s1nall area, !Jut that is all. No one knows bett0r than you. Mr. l'ollock, the relatively small a.rea that w~ traversed during our three day'S' travel in the Longreach district. The hon. member for Dalby represents an e!<;c­torate with an area of 5,760 square miles. If the hon. member for Dalby ln1ows all about his area of 5,760 square miles and everything "bout every industry in that elec­toratfl-thcy !HO not very numerous--there is a lot that he does not know about the rest of Queensland, with its area of about 669,720 squa,re miles, and all its industries.

Mr. W. A. RcSSELL: I know Queensland better than you do.

Mr. FERRICKS : I ·do not think the hon. member does. However, that is not a fit su bjcct to debate on this Bill. If the prin­ciple of land taxation is wrong, then it is wrong in respect of undeveloped land, in l'espect of cultivated or used land, in fact in respect of all land; but, if the principle is right in connection with undeveloped land, then it is only just and equitable that the community should secure from this source a share-a very small share-of the added value that the community have placed upon that land.

Mr. DEACON (Gunning ham): It does not become the hon. member for South Brisba.ne or any other hon. member opposite to talk about financial wrecks. I advise them to indulge in some retrospect with regard to their own financial wrecks. The amount

collected by way o£ super land tax wo,ild not be sufficient to pay interest on the money that has been lost in State enterprises. Prior to the advent of this Government it was never necessa,rv to .i1nposo super LuH1 taxation, and undcf proper rnaJ1age1ncnt of the St"tc it would not now be necess3.l'J. The land tax is a tax on capital.

The SECRETARY FOR Pl.BLIC LAC\DS : J t is a tax on State improvements.

Mr. DEACON: If I pay £2,000 for a fum, is that not my carital? ls there not a tax impoccd on the value of that land?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WoRKS: Sup­posing the value is enhanced to the Pxtent of £5,000?

Mr. DEACON: It amounts to t.he WHJC thing. You have to find the money l':> pta·­chase the property.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBLTC .WORKS: At One time the " Courier " corner could hase been purchased for £400: but ;vhat is its value now? \Vho was re~ponsible for tha.t increase in value ?

Mr. DEACON: It does not matter; it. i> .a tax on the capital invested. There is no way of getting out of it. Suppo,::i:t:g bHy a farm for £2,000, part of the purchase money being for improvements and part for the unimproved value of the land. When the land is being assessed for land tax purpose', it is-taking- my district for example-valued at £5 and £10 an acre, which is thcc full value of tho land. The owner originally paid the full capital value of the land. yet, notwith­shnding this fact, the Government impose a tax on that capital, and then the members behind them mv that tax is not a tax on capital. •

The SECRETARY FOR PFBLIC LA::-iDS : \Vhat you want is to exempt freehold land from taxation and compel leasehold land .to pay the rent.

).Ir. DEACOX: You should not sell some­thing and then try and take it back by taxa­tion. If the Government rent land, they are entitled to its full rental Yaluc. The same argument applies to the capital value of the land. The Government are entitled, when they sell land, to its full capital value; but they are not entitled afterwards to impose a tax on that capital value. That is what they are doing at the present time. They sell a lease of land, the lessee paying so much a year rent for so many years; but, because the man alongside of this leasehold has invested his capital in the freehold of his land, the Government impose taxation, thereby taking more from him than his neighbour pays in rent. It is very difficult to understand the minds of hon. members opposite.

One contradicts the other, and then one is expected to reply to them all. However, I would like to hear some argument from them as to whether this tax is not a tax on oopital. Take the case of a bookmaker, spieler, or speculator. The Government do not tax whatever capital he possesses; but they single out the man on the land and tax the capital he invests in his land, Is that fair? We depend in this country more on the man working on the land than on any other class of the community. 'rhis tax was first imposed on land £or the purpose of destroying the

Mr. Deacon.]

324 Land Tax Act [ASSEJVIBL Y.] Amendment Bill.

Yalue some people have in it. It was a deliberate attempt to ruin them.

Mr. COLLIKS: The late Sir Samuel Griffith was the first man to impose a tax on land.

~Ir. DEACON: \Ve are now dealing with thinge as thev are; and I assert that this tax is imposed tor the purpose of destroying values. Mo.,t of the land in tho cities is free­hold, but there are not many freeholders in tho r·ountry.

Mr. O'K£FE: Thank God!

Mr. DEACOX: I hope that tho people who live in the country will remember what the hon. member for Ohillagoo just said­" Thank God not many people in tho country own land:'

Mr. O'KEEFE: Yes, and I say it again.

Mr. DEACON : If the hon. member had his ,·;av. he would hound them out. That has be .:n the policy of his party.

Mr. O'KEEFE: That is crying "slinking fish."

J\Ir. COLLJ:\S: Tell us how manJ people on the land iu vour electorate pay land tax and super land t:n:·.

:Mr. DEACO::\!: When I get to that point I will rlcal ·-. ith it. Meanwhile I will con­tinue with the point I am on.

:\Ir. BRrCE: You are evidently stuck on the poi11t at prEsent.

Mr. DEACO='i: I am not nea,rly so stuck as the hon. member wa~ on the wage reduc­tion qw~~tion.

lVIr. BRcr'E: You are a liar; it never happened.

The CILU£C.\1AX: Order ! I ask the hon. member to withdra\\ that remark.

Mr. l1RCCE: In deference to you, Mr. Pollocl,, l \Yithdraw; but every time the hon. m,•mbcr tel 1s that lie I will tell him hP is a liar.

'l'he CIL\.IR:\IAX: Order!

Mr. 1 lEA CON: I am sorry I have touched the hon. memb!'r on a sore spot.

Mr. HYKES: Th<) hon. member for Kennedy: was not present at that co-nvention.

Mr. BR treE: The lie is being told con­tinually by the hon. member for Cunning­ham. 1 was nevet· at any conference at which any wage reduction was mentioned.

The CIL\II{MAN: Order! I suggest that. hon. members refrain fronl crossfiring, which will only end in unpleasant scenes.

Mr. BRCCE (K ennedy) : I rise to a point of order. Ts the hon. member for Cunning­ham in order--

The CILURMAN: There is no point of order.

Mr. Bm:cE : lf the hon. member is going to continue telling that lie about me--

The C'HAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. DEACON: The hon. member for Bowen asked how many people were pa,ying the primary and the super land tax. The official return shows that 5,528 persons paid primary land tax, and of those 3, 729 were fruitgrowers, da.iry fa.rmers, and other farmers. It is quite true they did not pa,y

fl!Ir. Deacon.

the bulk of the tax collected; but it must be remembered that the few pounds that these primary producers pa,y a,re of more impor­tance to them than the la.rger amount paid by graziers and pastoralists. So far as super land bx is concNned, the official figure~ ~how that 931 persons paid, a,nd of that number 2~9 are in the category I have mentioned. It is quite lruo the· number is not Large; but it n1ust be borne in mind that, in addition to primary and super land tax, the· e people are also <ts,essed for income tax.

Mr. CoLLD!S: They are not complaining,

:\[r. DEACON: The fa.rmcr who ha,s to pay primary land tax and super land tax is complaiuing. As the hon. member for Dalby pointed out. these people are abo losing part of their capital~ because tho operation of tlw land tax has the efYect of depreciating !he value of la.nd subject to that tax.

One poim that shonlcl bo ccn·idered is in regard to ya]uation of land for tax purposes. ('ertainly, if a man considers th't the official valuation is excessive, he can appeal t-o the Commissioner of Taxes-and I must admit that that gentleman has always g·iven me a fair deal-but at the ,ame time there is a number of lanclmYners who do not know the

.procPduro to be adopted when rJs.:;Bssments are excessive, and, virha.t is 1norc important, !hey .• re Jlot in a position to judge of com­paratiYc ya ]nations. For example, they do not knrn· the figure at which neighbouring land has been as~cssod, and, quite unlike local authority ya]uations, which may be obta incd by anyone, the person asoessed for land lax has no ace>' s to official records of valuations, In my opinion it is only fair that a man should be a.blc to find out whether he is being taxed fa.irly in comparison with his neighbour,;. and it is quite time that something was done in that direction.

Mr. HYKES: What about asking the Trea­surer whether he agrees "ith you?

Mr. DEACON: I know verv well what th<· Treasurer will say to a thing. like that. He \vill say, " I am out to get money, and I am satisfied so long as the taxpayer is satisfi0d to pay." Some of them pay because it is not worth while contesting the matter. If a man has only a few pounds. he might as well pay it in taxes as in legal expenses. But, even if it is only a small amount, the Govern­ment should see that every taxpayer is taxed fairly. A great many of them are not.

Again, you have to pay not only on your own value but also on your mortgagee's value in the land. If a man has to borrow money on mortgage. he still has to pay tax on the full value, and in some cases the tax on the mortgagee's value is more than the tax on your own. It is absolutely unfair that a man should haYe to pav not onlv on his own capital but also on tl!e capital 'of some­body else from whom he has borrowed. It is impossible for the owner to get out of that, because in every agreement for sale or mort­gage there is a clause that the rates and taxes must be paid by the owner. Even if the law were amended to provide that such a clause should not be inserted in agreements, and if a mortgagee were lia.ble for the tax, he woul·d increase his rate of interest; and the only way to get over the difficulty is to tax a, man just on his own interest in the land. That is all he can fairly be taxed on.

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 325

At the present time we have an exemption of £1,500 in re,pect of land used for agri­cultural, dairying, and grazing purposes. The bulk of the farmers in this country are on freehold land. There are very few on perpetual leasehold who farm, because very few people are foolish enough to improve their land <~nd erect the buildings necessary to carry on farming on a piece of land held under a perpetual leasehold tenure. The perpetual leaseholder remembers that he has no permanent interest in the land, and that he is only paving rent from year to year.

Mr. COLLIXS: You are barrackin¥ for the landlord.

Mr. DEACON: I am not barracking for the landlord. The hon. member for Bowcn is a barracker for the landlord. who in this case is the State. He has be0n a barracker all along for this kind of tax, because he has a "dcrry" on the man on the land.

::\1r. CoLLINS : I have no " dern" on the man on the land. -

::\lr. DEACON: Whv should the hon. mem­ber put the farmers ii1 that position?

Mr. COLLINS: I represent more farmers than you do.

Mr. DEACON: Go amongst the farmers and see if they do not believe what I say. They may be rnisjn·dging the hon. member, but that is the point of view the farmers take.

Mr. CoLLIXS: I ha vc intelligence to know that thr•y are not payinr,- the tax.

:VIr. DEACON: I have already told the hon. member that the biggest pai·t of those who pay it are farrners.

The S,;CRETARY FOR PFBLJC vVORKS: How 1nanv farmers ln Queensland pa.y the E-uper tax f

:VIr. DEACON: There arc 299 who pay it. The or·dinary exemptiOn 1s £300; but although the super tax is imposed onlY on unimproved land to the value of £2 sob and OYtr, it may not all be one:s own, ~nd half of it may bclon~ to someone else. The Secretary for Public \\'orks can easilv find out the opinion about this tax if he ,;ill go m to the farming- disteicts; but he never goes there.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC 'WORKS: Yes, he does. He gets "~ very good reception, too.

The CHAIRMA'\f: Order!

Mr. DEACON: Unfortunateh- all tlw money that is collected Ly nH,ans 'of this tax is going to pay the loss"' the Government have made in State enterprises and other directions.

Mr. WINS'rA::'\LEY (Qneenton); I have listened with interest to the debate, and have noticed the very remarkable statements made by members of the Oprosition. The hon. member for Cunningham struggled very hard to try to prove that this tax is a tax on capital; but he did not succeed, and his merely saying so doe;; not carry conviction to the mind of anybody who knows anyt.hing about the subjed. The land tax is a tax on the unimproved value of land, and i.he Bill, when introduced. provided for a super tax on those mrning l:md to the extent of £2,500. The amer,Jment of the hon. member for Sandgat.e has altered the question. Ho 1s opposed to the land tax entirely, except

to the tax on undeveloped land; a.nd it ha.s already been pointed out that, if it is wrong in principle, it is ;,vrong so far as the tax on undeveloped land is concerned. One can quite understand that nobody likes to pa:-· taxes if he can possibly avoi-d it; but it is rendered nPcessary to meet the w·eds of Governments; consequently taxes are imposed bv Labour Governments on the people who are best able to pay them.

A plea has been put up for the poor farmer. Every time subjects of this kind are debated the conservative instincts of hon. members opposite immediately assert them­selves, showing that they are arguing in the interests of the rich man, and not of the poor man. The rich man can easily afford to pay this tax.

\Ye need to ask ourselves how land values are arrived at. The i10n. member for South Brisbane pointed out that every £1 of public money spent in Queensland has added to the wlue of the lands of the State-that that added value is not soleb the result of improvements that have been made upon ~the land by the efforts of individuals. It is the result of the efforts of the community. "·hich has spent £100,000,000 in a variety of directions, which have all contributed towards giving those lands their unimproved value at the present time.

The Leader of the Opposition said the tax wa.s an iniquitous tax, but I have no hesita­tion in saying that it is an1ongst the fairc~~t and most equitable taxes over raised.

An 0PPOSITTON Mn!BEH : It is ,, class tax.

Mr. \YIJ'\STAN'LEY: As a n,attor of fact, tlH' unimproved land value taxation in this countr,· as in other countries, although perha.p; not there to the san10 cxt.~nt, is a taxati0n on coinrnnnity-crcatcd Yalues; anti the community is simply taking in th,, form of this taxation a part of wh>tt reallv belong& to it. There ,;an be no doubt whatever about jts equity; and its chief c1airn to cquit:~ is that it cannot be passed on. The Leader of the Opposition conveyed the idea, or said, that the man 111 the country had 10 pay _1t, the inforc1Ke being that the man in the c1ty could pass it on.

Mr. MOitGAli": That is quite true.

Mr. WINSTAJ'\LEY: That is not true. Just as I would not take the mere say-so of a member of the Opposition on this ques­tion, so I do not exprct hon. members oppo­site to take my mere say-so either. I have heard more than one Queen-street landowner who have their business premise~ on their own land say that one of the objection• they have to the land tax is that they cannot pass it on-that it is an utter impossibihty for them to do so-the reasvn b~ing that, if they did add the taxation to the prices of their goods, the pl'iccs would be much higher than those of men who were sP!ling the same goods on less valuable properties. It must be quite plain to anybody who has given the m>ttter any thought that a man who has a place of business in a conspicuous situation and opportunities for <":ceptional trade cannot afford to do th>tt in competition with people who have les.,, conspicuous and therefore less expensive places.

From beginning to end land taxation is a, special class of taxation. It is a tax on a special cla.ss of owner, who gets something specific-something over and above what iec

Mr Winstanley.]

326 Ldnd Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

enjoyed by everybody else in the community -and the result is that he is called upon \o pa.y something for this special preference over all other people.

Sorne yr- ns ago, ":vhen- ~Ir. iYiacartne:· vvas the leader of the party opposite, he dis­tinctlv stated that the incirlence of this taxa­tion \vas such that it could not be passed on, and he quotc'd a case of a building for which his firn1 wore the ag-ents. It was a Queen-street property, r.nd he sL ted that the income from that r1ropcrty scarc•,iy paid the rates a.nd taxes lcyicd. it, inclnding the Federal land tax aJed ta.xation. \Yhcn somebody suggested, :: ,(:0 thPy not pass it on to the Mr. Macartnev said that it was sible. H~ said tlwv were rental value fm· the premi they increased the renh. tho Yer~r casil.v gci~. prernisc.c myncrs would lose them reason for that. was that the being put to its best OY fulles: us­tinH'. It hru-1 a two-storied ;oodcn building­'011 it not in a Yerv g(,ocl shttt: of -(·on..:;:cqucntly it wa,s Dof brinRing in rnoncy. Now there is an f'ight-story ing on it. aud I do not think '\lr. would sav to-clav that !he, income from building ~i::: insl{fficiPni io pay the taxation leYied on it.

Anothe1· remarkabk shtenwnt bf'cn madl' by hon. nll:~rrtbcr~ ruladv the hon. nwmi:wr fm land taxation tend:> to brinrr about gat.ion of large e~t<1tes. \~\' e say that i::: an old argu1ncnt. origin .L

which has

ag·gre­ctnr:ot

quite

Tlw fact i, that thP effect is jn"t the oppo-'ite. If it \Yerc a.< the hon. member I takP it that sinnc th0 hon. 1nau \Yho eonlcl \\ell :dFonJ to tion it \Vonld lJ, ri f{ht into eYerybody kn011' that ouch l<tnd t,0nds ln the dirurtion of breakinu; up 1-:rge estates. in virw of thP C'ffe<:t of tl:1f: prirna..t',V tax and the super tax. l-Ion. n1embers oppo­sit0 ~ay that the poot rnan is payin£{ Lhc ta.x: but the figun·-; show that) ]f a. man can be ctllc-d poor b-- a•1.v stretch of iruagillation. h<' is not pa.vint( the tax ut a.ll. 1-ie "ets off: but the man who <?an afford to pay does nor get off.

[12 noon.j

I was astounded to heitr the Leader of the Opposition complain that the tax cheapened land. If there is one thing mme than another that the farmer requires, it is to bo able to purchase cheap land; but, he is selling land. he wishes vnJues to hi.f"h. .l<'rom beginning to end the argument is not from the :-tandpoint of the farrner or the land user) but from the standpoint of the land specu­lator, who desires to buy land eh . .tply, and. when it is ncceso'1ry to sell or to borrow, to have the v2lues high. I have no hesitation in saying' that. if ~there is one thing more than another that is binclcring progres'3 in Queensland at the present time, it is the high value of land. It is over-capitalised all over the State. When the Leader of the Opposi­tion was speaking, the Secretary for Agri­culture interjecte-d that high land values hindered agricultural progress, to which the Leader of the Opposition replied that he did not wish to see land values bound beyond rhyme or rea·--on, but he did wish to see them higher than they were. Anyone who has any

[111r. Winstanley.

knowledge of what took place in 1893 knows that the financial crash throughout the Com­monwealth came about largely as the result of land speculation in the cities as well as in the country, and that there was nothing left but a financial crash. The high price of land is making it impoesible for people to secure land and progress when they get there.

The Leader of the Opposition wishes the farmer and other people to be able to borrow on their properties up to the very hilt of the Yalue. That is a remarkable statement to make. I do not know whether he has hear·d the old proverb, "Men who borrow know a '·urraw." If a farm is purchased for £5,000, and the holder borrowo up to the hilt, the amount paid by wa::· of interest on the mart­gage is an infinitely greatf>r burden than the land tax and suppr tax imposed. It is remarkable to find hon. members opposite desiring land values to be high and people to borrow to a greater extent than they other­wise would do. There is not the slightest doubt that high land values are causing diffi­cu !ties in some directions.

In a-ddition to my own statement about land taxation not being capable of being passed on, I wish to read one or twa extracts from opinions of people who will be recog­nised as accredited. authorities on this particular subject. John Stuart Mill, in his ''Principles of Political Economy," says-

" A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. There are no means by which he can shift the burden upon anyone else. . . . A tax on rent, therefore, has no effect other than its obvious one. It merelv takes so much from the landlard and t;:ansfers it to the State."

" A tax laid upon rent is borne solely by the owner of the ln.nd."-Bascom's Tr.

1\lrs. Fawcett says in her " Political Economy for Beginners"-

" Taxes which arc levied on land .. really fall on the owner of the land."

\Yalker's "Political Economy" says-

" A value tax levied in proportion to the rent of land, and Yarying with e~­variation of rent ... will fall wholly on the landlor-d."

Thorold Rogers says-'· The power of transferring a tax from

the person who actually yays it to s_ome other person vanes w1th the obJPcts attaohed. A tax on rents cannat be transferred. A tax ou commodities is always transferred to the consun1er."

Some hon. members opposite have ha-d to leave their native States because of the land monopoly. I Tefer to the State of Victoria.

Mr. MoRGAN : That is not true.

Mr. WINSTANLEY: They came to Queens­land, where land was cheaper, where better terms could be obtained, and where better opportunities preYailed for ma~ing a. comp~· tence and progress than obtame_d '': th~n native State. As a matter of fact, m V1ctona, where the land tax is not worth talking abo\l,t, there are fewer people now engaged in rm·al industries because of the fact of land mono· poly than there were thirty years ago. That goes to show that where there is no. tax. land monopoly take" place and opl?ortumty IS not provided for people who desne to settle on

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 327

the land. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I am confident that the man who is strugg\ing has not to pay this tax, and the man ~n Queeusland who has to pay it is well quahfied to do so. I am satisfied that it is the fairest, most equitable, and most reasonable tax that any Government has ever imposed.

Mr. WARRE]\: (Murrumba): I am quite convmced .that the. hon. member who just resumed his seat either dw not know what he was talking about or did not care about the statements he made. Ho quoted an old member of this Legislature, who I presume ,,-as, an agent ~n Qul'Jn street, to prove con­clusrvr ly to his own satisfaction-which is not worth ~uch-that . a certain property was not makmg a probtable return to the owner, and that he could not pass on mcreasod taxation. Notwithstanding ilia t, he. af~erwards deliberately stated that a new buddmlj was constructed .on this site as proof

·of the mference that taxation could not be passed on by the owner because of the ram­shackle building upon the land. If the hon. member has intelligence of the ordinary man in the street, he must know that the ocCI;pier" of. the br.t sites in Queen street or m any city can pass taxation on t<J the consumer .. ~t is q_uite clear that they can do so, the opmwn o£ John Stuart Mill or any ot)oer bygone individual to the contrarv not­withstandmg. That is because trade is ·centr.ed thC'l'e. If that were not so. then the le" Important com'!'ercial parts of the city would tl~ ~he tra.dmg centres. It is only because It IS fashiOnable to shop in certain places that the owners of the sites on which those buildings are erected can afford to pav land tax. "

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Then have not the public created the value?

Mr. WARRE"\: I do not sav that the public do not create the value. · I will go further, and say that the public do create It, .although the public do not go out of thmr way to do so. Those values are acculentallJ: created. and, a.s a result, I qmt_e rrdmit that the consumer indirectly pa.'' the tax. I also admit that there is ·over-~apitaiisation of land, particularlv fa~mmg. land; bnt the Leader of the Opp~­sition did not for ono moment ask that the value of land should be rais"d to a point that would mean m-er-capitalisation. He only aslwd that the commercial value of the land shoulrl be protected. That is all that any ,owner ?f la_nd asks f'.'r· The Loader of the Oppo"twn IS not desirous of sc<'ing the value of land reduced bv taxation to paddock value,. "

At 12.9 p.m.,

Mr. l\1AXWELL (Touwong), one of the panel of Temporary Chainnen relim·ed the Chairman in the chair. '

:\fr. \VARRE~: It has been assorted in this Chambl·r th"t lam! is the tool of trade of the producer. .There are men paying ta.xation 'On land which has been so decreased in value as not to be worth as much as a kit of ?a:penter's tools. Land taxation is most :mqmtous, and there can be no doubt that It affect; .the small man just as much in proportion as the big man. That was ma.de dear by the hon. member for Dalbv. In asking for the abolition of land ta:xation generally we are catering for the interests of

the fruitgrowcrs on thr I\"orth Coast line juet as much as for the interests of the pas­toralists in the Dalby and other electorates.

The hon. member for South Brisbane to whom I do not think anY other hon. me~ber can li~ten morp attentiv'cly than 1 do, must have had a nightmare last 'night. Ho brought up the wreck of the "Dunbar." Vi'hat a gloomy thing to talk about! He stated that. if the legislation impo ing this inil]uitous land tax were wiped off the statute-book, the wrcd< of the " Dunbar" and its heavy loss of hfe '"ould be nothing in comparison with tho tl'rrible disaster that would overtake Quecnslanc1; and not only Queensland, but tho effect following on the handing back to !he taxpayers of only £220,000 would be so calamitous that it would he reflected through­out the Commonwealth-and presumablY ltter on it >.vould c·xtend throughout the >"orieL I hope the amendment is not passed if such a condition of affairs as the hon. mC'mber forecasts is likelv to ensue. I main­tain that it is absolutely- essential to reduce, if not to abolish, the taxation of the people on the land, so that they may be inspired with that confidence which is so necessary to encourage widespread dm·elopment.

I ask hon. members on the other sidf' if they know what is happening as the result of their policy. It is perfectly well known that it is bc·coming unfr.' hionable to make a !i.-ing from the land-that it is far better to come to the city and secure employment in the tramway service or in the police force, ot· pC'rlwp~ in running a motor truck for hirP. \Ye hear hon. members on the other side occasionally saying that the problem facing Queensland is to stop the general ten­dency of people to leave the country districts and come to the city.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: What wonld you do with your tax-free freehold• You would make the purchaser pay through the nose for it.

:VIr. WARREK: The taxation of land is wrong in principle ; it is a class tax. I do not ca>·e -_yhether the land is freehold or lea.sehold: what I do contend is that a false position is created when freehold is taxell and leasehold is not taxed.

Mr. CARTER: Do you believe that the indi­vidual should be paid for what he creates?

l'dr. \Y ARREN: I am sure the farmer is not paid for what he crea tcs.

Mr. CARTER: Do you think he ought to be?

Mr. vY ARREN: I think that is where the whole system has gone wrong, because the primary producer has not been considered. It is all very well for the Secretary for Agriculturt' to give a wonderfully glowing account of what has been done for the farmer. I say that practically nothing has been done. V\"hy. a price has been fixed for payment to the dairyman of lld, per gallon of milk ! The Yory lives of the children of the cities are being preserYed at the expense of the people on the land. How can it be expected that a healthy article of diet will bo produced when such starvation prices are paid? The Secretary for Agriculture knows that what I am saying is quite true. Nothing has been done for the farmer. Somebodv may say that butter is increasingin value-_:::

Mr. FoLEY: There is a special exemption for pastoralists and graziers.

Mr. War1·en.]

328 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. WARREN: That special exemption is worth practically nothing, as the Commis­sioner of Taxes is very careful to see that nothing is given away in that respect. The combing indulged in dqring the past year proves conclusively that he has done his job very well indeed. I am dealing with the farmer because farmers are more numerous than graziers and pastoralists, and they are the biggest taxpayers directly and indirectly, in Queensland. Without the farmers the State would collapse at once, and we are bringing about this collapse as rapidly as we can, because we pay no attention to the needs of the farmers. Instead of making the land more attractive, and instead of assisting people to leave the cities and get out into the healthy country, where men are made big and whore men can see clearly. we are pursuing a policy that loads to overcrowding in the cities, where the outlook is circum­'cribed. The rca•.on the Government need the money received by way of this taxation is becanse of their extravagance. and, 1norc than that, because of the madness of the Government. The Government wont in for mad Stato entorprise., that no sane school­boy would ever have taken on. They have shown the least intcllig·ence of anybody. This beautiful State has been damned by the Yast stupidity of the Government. It is a State that cyerybody looks up to, and the people are proud to be here, whether they came from the old countn- or from the Southern Rtatcs. Some hon. 'i:ncmbers on the other side seem to think it a crime to come from the other States. One hon. member was ruffled because an hon. member came from Victoria, and said he " was starved out of Victoria." I want to tell him that people do not get starYed out of Victoria. In Victoria more attention is paid to the rural industries than to scoondary industries.

The SECRET.\RY FOR PUBLIC LA:-<DS : Queens­bncl gets more praise from visitors than from the Opposition.

Mr. \YARREl\: That is only a parrot cry, and the hon. gentleman is not justified in making that statement. I have just been looking up some of the remarks of previous Premiers. and I find that has been the parrot cry of all our Labour Premiers. They have not been big enough to see Queens­land's bigness, and all they could do was to try to make the people believe that members of the Opposition have been crying "stinking fish." I g1ve place to no member in this Chamber in advocating Queensland. I came here of my own choice. I could make a living witho~t my parliamentary allowancP, and I am domg so now. I could go back to ::\'ow South \Vales and start whcatgrowing without any inconvenience to myself.

Mr. O'KEEFE: \Voulcl you a·dvocate New South vVales as against Queensland?

Yl:r. vVARREN: The hon. member would put words into mv mouth-he is usNI to doing that sort of thing. Every honest man who thinks anything of his State will do his hest in its intere,-;ts, and I am here to do my best for Queensland. One of my duties is to see that the burdens of the men on the land are lightened as much as possible; but we have very little hope of improve­ments under the present political conditions.

Hon. members opposite have not the ability to manage secondary industries. They seem to have only one thought. The

[ Ji 1·. 1V arren.

Treasurer made a statement on one occasion at Beerburrum to this effect:-

" When we came into power ·xe thought there was one thing to do-to raise wcl.ges. After getting control of the Treasury benches, and learning the industria.! and FconomJc position, we find that that is the kast thing."

Had thP Government cor.siderecl the pro­ducer equally V!ith the worker, the Treasurer would not be in the sorry position of having to say that we are up against a brick wall. The hon. gentleman would not be asking the Opposition to help him to get the ship of State on an even keel. Who is responsible for the wreckage which hrts taken place? It is those noYiees-thoso amateur iinrtnciers­on the opposite side. Imagine those hon. mem­bPrs opposite accusing the Opposition-and thinking it is something wonderful-of crying " stinking fish " in regard to Queensland. I ren1ernbcr a newchum coming out and show­ing me an easy wav of keeping a tally of eggs laid. He s'1icl, " Eh. mon, that bird must have cackled that laid that egg." We know how hon. members opposite cJckle with regard to their absurd opinions. If the Go­vernment want to bring about a stable con­dition of affairs in Queensland, thev will ho,ve to get out of their old rut, and away from the things they have been holding up. Queensland may be heavily involved in debt, but would not be grovelling in the dust financially as she is to-clay a ud be"ging f01· money at this particnla.r juncture if loan money had been expended wisely in the past. One hon. member srtid right!,. that thi; L' the time loan money should be spent: but we are not in a position to spond jt,; because W(' have over-borrowed so much. Evr ry penny \rbif'h is spent from loan n1oney now on is only increasing the burdens of the future genera­tions of Queensland, and \VC h ~ \·~~ H 1rea.d."~ m or" burdens than we ca.n bear. It v;clllld certainly help the people very raucn if this tgx were cnt out, \Ve would lw gaiuiug a great deal by so doing, becau,,c w,' '"'mid start on a proper track, instead of keeping on in the wa:v we have been going. The first thing \\ e ·will do, if \\'e get on th'J Treasd~:T i'r·:!c.bcs. as sorne hon. membel' has shid. wiJ: br· to cut out those terrible burdens --th~' ~tatc· trterprises. The Governnh"!ut have not been able to run them. In fact, I am going to s·; .1· tha;, although the Gove,·tmH"H may he able to run a " pub " or a pawnshop, they certainly cannot run anything else.

Mr O'KEEFE: You would be a very uoor custornee

':lir. W~\.RREN: I would be a very poor cuetomer in a "pub.," and I do not think the hon. member would be much better. (Laughter.) I want to say in conclusion that I hope that even at this late stag~ the Government will wake up to the necessJt~' of doing something for the m&n on the land.

Mr. KERH (Bnoggurt) : After the debate this morning, I think ever"' one will agree that a ~ood case has been made out for the amenclu';'ent. One would have expected the Minister in charge of the motion to have something to say in regard to land tax generally. It has been the policy <:f ~he Government to' make every post a wmnmg post for propaganda purposes. vVhen intro­ducing a Bill they never neglect any oppor­tunity that presents itself; but on this

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.) Amendment Bill. 329

occasion it was very interesting to notice that the Bill was introduced with probablY lhe shortest speech on record for the simple reason that they are ashamed of their own legislation. That must be the reason~I do not know of any other.

One of the reasons advanced in favour of the land tax is that it catches the unearned increment. It will be said that it applies to city land more than to country land ; and I believe that to· be true. because the people increase the value of land in the cities bv settlement. But is there any reason why the principle of taxing unearned increment should be confined to land? With the increased cost of material, in the course of years a building is enhanced in value. A building which cost £9,000 ten years ago may be worth £15,000 to-day. Why not put a tax on that? 'I 'he parallel is there. If the Government are logical at all, let them tax anything which shows an increase in value. The truth is that there is no wund­ness in the argument as to unearned incre­ment. If you tax it, you take away the incentive of the people to do anything. A person who builds in a locality where land is cheap does it knowing that subsequently it will increase in value as facilities come along; so he faces hardship at the begin­:>ing. If you are a thrifty man you have mvested money at different times. When the interest rises, you are entitled to the benefit.. of your thrift. There is no reason why you should tax it at all.

I realise that, with the possible exception of New South \Vales, Queensland was prob­ably the !act State to impose land taxation. At any rate, it is nothing new in Australia. But a cause for serious consideration is the fact that, although it has only been on a graduated scale, the tax collected has oeen galloping ever since its inception· and we have to conoidcr this fact in the li~ht of the other fact that Queensland is paying more m taxatiOn than any other State in Aus­tralia. We have to remember that this tax alone has increased from £247,000 in the year when 1t was first imposed to £531 000 last year. ' -

[12.30 p.m.]

The_ TREASURER: Do you say that Queens­land 1s obtammg more land tax than any of the other States?

Mr. KERR : According to the latest figures, Queensland stands out above Vic­toria by about £11,000. Victoria has a larger population and a larger area of free­hold land, the latter being about 40 per cent. of the total area.

The TREASURER: Are you speaking of the State or the Federal land tax?

2\1r. KERR: The State tax. I am just as much opposed to Federal land taxation as I am to State land taxation. On the intro­duction in the Commonwealth Parliament of the last Bill amending the land tax law the Prime Minister intimated that it was only a question of time when the collection of land taxation would be purely a matter for the States. I entirely agree with that opinion. According to my figures, Queensland has collected a greater amount in land taxation than any of the other States, and that not-

withstanding that the area alienated in this State is very small.

I desire to quote those figures to give some idea of the magnitude of this burden in Queensland~

I Area Taxation. Alienated.

I Acres. £ New South Wales

.. I 42,000,000 2,667

Victoria .. 10,000,000 457,000 Western Australia 11,000,000 145,000 Queensland 7,000,000 468,000

Those figures indicate that a very heavy burden of taxation is imposed upon land in Queensland where the area alienated is very Hmall, and conclusively prove that the burden of land taxation in this State is ht·avier than in any other State in Aus­tralia. This calls for serious consideration,., and, if the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, they should take the first opportunity to reduce the incidence of land taxation at least to the level of the tax in the other StatP,;.

With our small alienation of land we should not be paying anything like the sum that is extracted in comparison with the other States. If there was imposed a uniform ta.x throughout the Commonwealth, the amount of land taxation in tho various States would be~

:l\:ew South Wales Victoria Queensland South "\ustralia vVestern Australia Tasmania

£ 1,079,414 1,074,265

46,138 198.630

78,778 44,685

If a nniform Federal tax was imposed, Qu<'ensland would be paying less than £50,000. whereas this State is actually paying more than any other State in Australia, proving that the Government are extracting from the land more money than is extracted b:c any other Shto in Australia. Surely there is something radically wrong in view of those facts which provide sufficient justification why thfl tax should be abolished.

At 12.35 p.m.,

'The CHAlR'.ITAN resumed the chair.

Mr. KERR: The Commissioner for TaxeB records in his report that the receipts from land tax are inereasing year by year. If we take the metropolitan area, how do we find the tax affecting the land of those who own their own homes? \Ve find that bundreds and hundreds of such people are called upon to pay land tax.

Mr. CoLLINS: They pay no tax at all.

Mr. KERR: When is the hon. member r;oing to learn? Take the Ashgrove dis­trict, which is in my electorate. Land there is becoming more valuable because of the fact that a better clas• of home is being erected on th" land. There are hundre.ds of people in the metropolitan area to-day owning- small blocks of land on. which they hav<' built home1 who are paying £2 a week for the right to live in those homes.

Mr. Kerr.]

330 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The land tax was nevee intended to apply to these people.

The TREASUREH: Whom are they paying £2 a week to 'I

1\lr. KE RR : They arc paying that amount partly in local authority taxation and partly in land taxation to the Government.

Mr. \V. COOl'E!l: They are paying for services rendered.

The 'l'REASUHER: Don't mislead yourself.

Mr. KERR: I am not misleading myself at all. It is neccssarv for us to drive these facts home, because there is no quP,tion of the necessity for adjusting this matter. injustice in land taxation i~ rife. Hon. men1bers opposito do not reahse the extent of the damage that land taxation is inflicting on large properties. They seem to labour under the delusion that, because the proper­ties are large, their ourcrs are well able to pay.

The burden of taxation, which must be taken into consideration in considering such a matter as this, is extrrmely high. Take an individual with a taxable income of £7,980. He has to pay in taxation £2,804, or 35 per cent. of his income. Now take another company or individual with a taxable income of £19,000. It may be said that is a big sum ; but let me point out that to-day the burden of taxation on wealth is such that £10,498, or 55 per cent., of that income is paid in taxation. That is one reason for our troubles; and there is no greater reason for unemployment than the infliction of such a burden on industry.

Wt} have to devise means to reduce taxa­tion as much as poseiblc, and the amendment is designed to work in that direction. It disclose- to the people the line of demarca­tion between th<> policies of the Gon,rnmcnt and the Opposition in this regard. The line is a very -distinct one. Mr. Anstey, a Labour member of lhe national Parliament, does not mix his words in regard to this tax. He is quite prepared to say where he sTands in relation to it. \Vhcn the question of the tax ''as before the Federal Parliament, he said-

,, It seems to me that, instead of the ia,, being- diminished, it should be enonnously increased.''

Me. \YEJR: Hear, hear! So do we.

Mr. KERR: The people want to know the difference lwh•·een tho policies of the Go­vernment and the Opposition in n1gard to land taxation. If this tax wore reduced on land that was brought under production, greater wealth would result in other direc­tions. The land should be used for that purpose without something- having- to be paid iCt the initial stages of occupation. It is not altogether the large landowners who are pay­ing this tax, because the official returns show that 847 companies pay an aggregate sum of £265,994 in land taxation, of which onlv £61,112 is in respect of super tax. These are not all large companies either, because of the number shown over 300 companies arc paying in respect of property valued at less than £2.000.

I can illustrate the point by referring- to a property in Queen street, which was sold the other day when put to public auction without reserve. The valuation of that pro­perty unimproved was £9,500.

[ .il1 r. J( e1·r.

Mr. W. COOPER: What is the area?

Mr. KERR: It is only a small Queen street property ; yet in respllct of that property over £200 was paid in land tax, whereas in any other State of the Commonwealth the taxation would have benn approximately £20. The property had been held by a distributing firm, and, as we know that the public must buy, it is cvi<hmt that in the long run the community nays for the hnd taxation. The fn·m eventually went into liquidation although retailing electrical goods, for \rhich there should have been a g-ood demand. The £200 paid in taxation was certainlv one of the factors reo,ponsible for that ~condition of affairs. althoug-h it must be admitted there were other factors operating.

lHt·. \Y. CooPER: What did the firm pay in rate~ Y

Mr. KERR: I clo not know that that has an:· relevance to the present discussion.

It is interesting to compare the land taxa­tion payable on the unimproved value of land in the various States of the Commonwealth:-

llnimproved Value of T.and.

--------~ ____ ,. £10,000J~£~0,000~-• I I

, £ I , New South Wales I Victoria . . 20 i 104 Queensland . . 202 ' 1.346 South Australia . 31 ' ·197 Western Australia I 20 104 Tasmania . , j 54 361

It will be spcn that a distributing- firm own­illg property in the State of an unjn1proved v<due of £50,000 has to pay over £1.000 in land taxtion. As a young State. can Queens­land afford to perpetuate such high taxa­tion Y 8ueely !he Go,·crnment are intelligent enough lo sec that there should be some reduc­tion in this taxation if the State is to prosper:

Let me mention what was done in the Federal Parliament in re•;ard to a reduction of taxation. Jn 1918 t'here was a super land tax. or a eurcharge on land taxation of 20 per cent. ln 1922 the Commonwealth Government removed that 20 per cent. sur­charge; and let me say that Queensland is the only State in AlJstralia that has a super !>1x. \Ylwt is there to prevent us from ,·cmedying the position? This super tax is not cutting up property. Let me read vdrat the late 2\h. Pratten, who was a :Mini,ter in the Federal Parliament, had to say, when spo'aking on the Land Tax Bill. in regard to whether it led to the cutting np of property or not, and also "hat ho had to sa v in reg-ard to the tax and its relation to l,{rge pa,toral businesses-

" A larrre estate is asking for the remission ~of taxation because of its losses owing to bad seasons, and tliat remission has been refused, notwith­standing that section 66 of the Act pro­vides for these circumstances being taken into consideration.

"Mr. Mathew~: 'fhe estate may have made good profits for years.

Land Tax Act [22 AuGusT.] Amendment Bill. 331

"J\1r. PRATTEX: It has made no profits. Because of the unfair incidence of taxa­tion on the accretions of stook and their being no allowance for losses by drought the land taxation. plus income taxation: Federal and State. plus local government taxation, and. other taxes, amount in the case of th1s ~state to more than the value of the wool shorn from the sheep which it carries. The land taxation of the company o.wmng the estate was nearly £7.000 for the year 1919-20 and about £6.500 for the year 1920-21. but the losses on the working of the estate for !hose two ·years amounted to £20,000. This company is staggering under a bank overdraft of £40.000. which will have to he increased to £50,000 if the Commis­sioner insists on the land tax being paid."

·That is a concreto ca•o given by a l\1inister in the Federal Parliament who had ·obtained first-hand information. He m<m­tioned >'everal cases when the Land Tax Bill was going through. There must be some influence at work which causes the Govern­ment to continue this tax.

I was g-lad to hPar the remarks of the l10n. member for Soath Brisbane. It shows ihat the Government have two very distinct reasons for the lantl tax. One is because it is in their policy, although hon. members opposite do not undeJ ,tand it; and the other IS to ensuru the surplus that they talk so much about.

The RECRETARY FOR PcBLIC WORKS: The late Sir Samuel Griffith favoured a land tax.

1\'h·. KERR : The hen. gentleman would do well to follow many other things favoured by the late Sir Samuel Griffith. This would be ~ much better State and we would not be m. our present position if the policy enunciated by the !ate Sir Samuel Griffith )lad b:en carried out. Sir Samuel Griffith J1ad lns own opinion with regard to a land tax, but our op~nion is that it is an invidious tax, and that It is unfair and unjust. No one .c;an say ~1()re than that. That is our consiaered .opnuon, and we are prepared to stand by It. Pounds shillings and pence should not be a guiding factor with the Governm;nt m a matter of principle. "\Vhen this Lall<:l Tax Bill Was going through I read a v;ry mteresbng article by Mr. Char! ton, the Iate Labour Leader in the Federal Parlia­ment. Like some hon. members opposite, he was not qmte sure where he stood.

In regard to the difference between lJrO· perty and land tax, he had this to say- •

" I maintain that the large landholder should be called upon to contribute some­thii•g substantial towards the cost of the recent "\\'ar.

" :\Ir. Bruce: Does the hon, member say that the landowner should pay more than the person holding an equivalent amount of property of another character?

" :\1r. CHARLTON: The question of whether property should pay for the war is another ma.tter. It has not yet been taxed by the Commonwealth to meet the cost of the war; but, if we were rnshing into another conflict, we would probably be compelled to impose a stiff property tox.

" Mr. Prowse: The land tax is a pro­perty tax.

"Mr. CHARLTON: It is a tax on one particular class of property."

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! 'I'he hon. mem­ber has exhausted the time allowed him under the Standing i.lrders.

Mr. BRAND (BuJ,um): It is quite interest­ing this morning to listen to one of the old members of the Labour Party extolling the Yirtues of the land tax. It recalls to most of us the days of the old brigade in the Labour movement when the pioneers of the movement went round the country telling the electors that they would get everything they desire>d whe>n the partv reached tlic Treasury benches and taxed the land. The hon. mem­ber for Queenton, like the hon. member for Bowen, is a well-bred Socialist and true to tvpe. They are both single-taxers, and claim that money w hi eh goes into the con­eolidat<•d revenue from taxation should be derived from land alone. I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with the late Senator Grant, who was then Leader of the Labour Party in the Federal Senate, when he told me that he was a single-taxer, ;~nd that the Labour Party, if true to their ideals, 1nust tax 1nen not on their industry but on thPir capital, and that they must tax through the land. We can quite understand why one of the members of the old brigade -the hon. member for Quecnton-was so anxious to tell the Committee that it was just and right to tax the unearned increment upon land.

Mr. FOLRY: You are not going to argue ctgainst that, are you?

Mr. BRAND: I am going to argue that we are taxing land on which there is no unearned increment. It is inequitable and unjust to tax land in the way the present Labour Part0 arc taxing it. When the Labour Party first came into power in 1914, one of their first acts was to place a Land Tax Act on the statute-book. Since then they have found it desirable to amend that legislation. The land tax legislation, when first introd,Jced, provided that land with an unimpro,·ed value of over £300 was taxable, and but for the debacle in 1920, which nearly put the Labour Government out of power, there possibly would not have bee:'- any amendment of the Land Tax Act 111 the direction of relieving the primary producers. The Government, hovvever, seem to think that, when votes are in jeopardy, they must scuttle their principles in regard to the taxation of land. and give relief to those who can keep them safe in office, and allow the land tax to remain on those who they know will not support them at election time. That is the principle of land tax administra­tion under the present Government-get in the money, provided it does not touch those from whom they hope to get support. I have to pay some of this tax-I do not sup­pose many hon. members opposite have to pay it-and I contend that, while it is on the statute-book, there is always a danger of every landowner in Queensland being broug-ht under it. We know perfectly well that many members sitting behind the Government would be only too willing to impose the tax on every landowner of .the State, no matter what the unimproved value of his land might be. They are single­taxers.

Mr. Brand.]

332 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Thic tax is a class tax. It falls only on those who own land or invest in land for a livelihood. A man who is prepared to go on the land and develop it and increase the wealth of this State from its natural resources is the man whom they single out for special taxation.

Mr. FOLEY: That is incorrect. None of them pays taxation.

Mr. BRAND: The hon. member should know that the Commissioner of Taxes receives quite a considerable amount of tax from owners of land in country districts. In my district, which is only a small farming dis­trict, quite a number are forced to pay land tax. It is one of those things that we have to pay whether our circumstances permit it or not. I say that it is a class tax, inequit­able and un.iust, and should be removed­at any rate that portion of it which is aimed at by the amendment. If the Government wish to tax land, let them confine their a tten­t!ons to undeveloped land held for no pro-duc­tive .purpose at all; but, when land is pro­ductive and employing people. when it is used to produce wealth, it should be free from taxation.

~ quite ~gree with the sentiment expressed this mormng that the Federal Government should withdraw from the.fielcl of taxation in Australia; and I believe that the Queensland Government should evacuate the field of land taxation. because economic conditions to-day are such that land taxation should be left to local authorities alone.

OPPOSITION ME>IBERS : Hear, hear !

:Mr .. BRAND: By reason of the legislation of this Government local authorities have been burdened with responsibilities as a result of which they have to tax the' people on the land more than previously. Quite recently the landowners in certain districts have been asked to meet the demands made for th!" upk~ep of our hospitals, which in Itself IS an me1·eased tax of the people on the land.

The Govern.ment should seriously consider the burcl~ns 1mposecl upon the land at the present tune. The farmer has to meet the hospital tax, main road tax, and many other taxes _dealing with health and with the con­structiOn of roads. in local authority an<ts.

These unpos1t1ons are causing a [2 p.m.] very severe drain upon the

rosourc~s of the producer. In my o(vn area the hospital tax alone amounts to 1~cl. m the £1_ on rateable values; "-ne! it is l4cl. m the £1 m the Bunclaberg hospital dis­triCt. The hospital tax amounts to 1s. 3d. per ac1:e on agnc;tltuml land. whilst the local authonty _general rate IS about 9s. 6cl. per acre, makmg 10s. 9cl. per acre, so that on an average farm of 160 acres the farmer has to pay so_n~ething like £86 a year to the local authonties.

. Further commitments will have to be met m the way of a main roads tax. The Government are throwing these additional responsibilities upon lanclholders, and they mean a very heavy burden-a matter that should be seriously considered by the Govern­ment when imposing taxes on land.

The hon. member for Sandgate has pointed o_ut that ne_w concl!tions operate to-day, neces­sitating this Parliament taking some action on the basis of those new conditions, which

[Mr. Brand.

are very apparent. The owner of freehold grazing land is entitled to greater considera­tion. The cattle industry has boon very sorely txied in an endeavour to keep the industry afloat during the past few years. The position became so acute that last year the Treasurer recognised the necessity for assisting the industry. and appointed a Beef Cattle Commission. Before appointing that commission he warned Australia that the industry required assistance, otherwise the people would be short of sufficient beef for their own requirements. There is only one way in w hi eh to assist the freeholcler in the cattle industry, and that is by relieving him of a portion of the land taxation. The com­mission dealt principally with Cro"·n lessees, and not very extensively with the freeholcler. The Treasurer has also informed the Prime Minister that it is necessary for all the States to co-operate in an endeavour to assist this industry, and in this instance at least we should do something to assist the freeholder,. who is endeavouring to keep the industry alive to-clay. In finalising their report the members of the commission state-d that Queensland was specifically concerned with financial considerations in Crown leases and income tax, and gave it as their opinion that there should be a reduction in Crown rents. E\urcly the Government also see the necessity for reducing land tax upon the freeholder to enable him to carry on ! nir. l'ollock, you know ver;· well that during the years 1925 and 1926 Queensland disclosed only 60 per cent. of the previous branclings in the cattle industry.

::Yiost of the ea ttle-owners on freehold land to-clay are finding it impossible to breed. The Government can assist this industry by a remission of this particular taxation, and the freeholcler in the inclustrv should be given every consideration. A fact that should not be lost sight of is that the payer of land tax has to pay income tax also, the same as other people, although in many instances he finds at the end of the year that his income is not sufficient to enable him to do so. K evertheless, in such cases. he still has to pay the land tax.

To show the inequity and injustice of ihe land tax, I will <1uote the instance of a man who invests, sa,y, £8,000 in grazing land. He will not secure a very big property for that amount. The investment of that monev would create work for ma,nv people in addi­tion to creating new wealth for the State. If that £8.000 were invested in Government stocks at 5~ per cent. intcrmt. he would be taking no financial risks and giYing no em­ployment to any person. Yet he would thereby draw a sure income of £440 a vear. Very few owners of grazing: land po"sessing properties of £8.000 are to-day assured of a, net income of £440 a year, yet they have to take all the risks arising from eng-aging in the industry. Taking all those facts into consideration, such a man is entitled ;o some ·consideration, as the rrlan who inYc-:>ts his money in Government stock does not duv••!op ihe country to the same extent a.s he coes. Hon. members opposite, by interjection, have stated that they arc out to try to catch the land speculator. They should know that the land speculator cannot evade taxation. \V c have a Commissioner of Taxes whom no speculator can possibly eva,de. Speculators in land pay income tax on the profits on thei1· investments, although it is quite possible

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 333

for them to evade paying land tax by pllr­dtasing lfmd in July and disposing of it again before tho following ,June.

The SECRI:T.\RY FOR PuBLIC 'WoRKS: You are a rnaE-;. of contradictions. One rnomont you say that land cannot be sold, and the next moment : ,JU say it can be sold and taxa­tion avoi-ded.

}\.([r. BHAND: I am not contradicting any­thing I have said, but it is a sad commentary on the administration of the Government and their de,ire to tax land to know that throng.h­-ont Lho Si :tte it is almo~,t impossible t·J sell farms or gracjng arras. If you walk into the cfficel- of the land agents in Queen street to-morrow, you will find at least SO ncr cc•nL of the farn's in Queensland on their books for ; -,]e. People are anxious to get off the land, but they cannot find anyone " mug " enough to take it on. The re ~ult is that the_y have to continue to occupy and >Yot·k the land or get out It should be our doc.ire to encourage productjon in order to cre.1ie employment. The first duty of anv Govern­ment is to create avenues of ernplo~·n1ent for the many people who are unable to find it. As a matter of fact, Labour members, when sitting in opposition a few years ago, 1nadc the same claim, and contended that it was the duty of the Government of the day to do GO.

\Ve believe that by the creation of a suit­able atmosphere pe·ople will be eucourao-ed to invest money for the devoloprnent of theb !an cL and that in this way emplo_ymont will };.; stimulated. That can only be brought about by restricting the imposts that have been unfairly placed upon landholders. I hope the amcndmcut will be carried, bec-cuse I am convinced that the Government can find many avenues in which to save the amount of monpy represented bv this taxation the abolition of which would be of conside~able assistance to the prim3.ry producers >tnd would pr'lve to be an incentive to the crea­tion of additional wealth.

Mr. FOLEY (Leichhardt) : Although the me·,1cure now heforo the Committee deals only with the proposed reimposition of the super land ta-x, through the tactics of the Opposition the debate has developed into a discussion on land taxation generally. It is amusing to listen to the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite, practically all of whom have endeavoured to convey to the people of Queensland, throug.h the columns of " Hansard "-and no doubt through the press also-that people owning small proper­ties in the city and "uburban areas are really paying the super land tax, and that every primary producer in the country is also pay­ing this tax. That such is not the case is proved by a reference to the report of the Commissioner of Taxes, which has not been quoted by hon. members opposite to give a correct impression as to who is reall_y paving this tax.

Before dealing with that aspect I propose to touch upon the principle underlying the Government's policy of land taxation. No hon. member opposite can argue logicall_y that the principle a.dopted by the Government is inequitable, nor can it be shown that the method of collecting the tax 1s harsl:t.

Further, it has not been prm id that the rate of taxation on unimproved land is unjust.

Mr. H. M. RcSSELI We hq.ve proved that.

Mr. FOLEY: Let me remind hon. members that right through historv a policy of fcn·ce has been used to deprive the people in the older countries of the world of their natural heritage in the land. resulting in the exploita­tion of the people who worked and developed the land by those who hold it now. On 1-he other hand, ,the policy in A uetralia has been t•) take by legal means from the people thac which is their natural heritage, o that we find land being given to

individuals by wa_y of grant in some cases and at very low prices in other cases. As population has increased in the various States of .1ustralia, there has boon an increase in the value of freehold lands.

i\fr. EDWARDS; Kat a]wa_ys.

Mr. FOLEY: Practicall_y in every State there has been an increase in the unimproved value of land. To give just one illustration, I shall quote from the " Standard " of 15th August. That is the official journal of_ the single tax in Australia, The " Standard" giws an illustration of a portion of land sold in Sydnev at the rate of £4,048 per foot. Ono could quote many instances in the city of Brisbane. The " Standard " sa_ys-

" There is a fair!;; good building upon the land, but it will be obsolete in a few years. Ten _years ago £1,000 a .foot wou!d have been regarded as an exag­gerated valuation for that piece of land."

Who gave that land its increased value? \Vao it the indivi·dL!al who owned that piece of land as a freehold, or was it the com­munity in that particular area? That is the point we have to consider. That is the principle adopted by this Government in their policy of land taxation. Seeing that the natural heritage of the people of this State has been taken from them by legal methods and handed to individuals, the Go­vernment are now seeing that those indivi­duals hand back to the people the value created by the people themselves. No one can argue that that is not a sound policy.

Mr. BRAND : How do you arrive at the unearned increment?

Mr. FOLEY: The hon. member has only to rea·d the Land Act to ascertain the method at arriving at the unimproved value of land for assessment both by the local authorities and by the Commissioner of Taxes.

Mr. BRAKD: That has nothing to do with the unearned increment.

Mr. FOLEY: I am speaking of the unim­proved value of land. The land tax is not paid on improvements. Members of the Opposition in every speech made to-day have attempted to show that the Commissioner of Taxes collects a tax on the thrift and indus­try of the individual who takes up a piece of freehold land. Such is not the case. No member of the Opposition has endeavoured to show who really pays the land tax, and it will be interesting to quote the summary given by the Commissioner as to who really pa_ys the land tax collected by him throughout

Mr. Foley.]

.......... ~ ;-'!

~ C>

~ «:::

~ -·&~ &5'r-a~,g £:~ ~~ ct>(Jq~ &'g ~ CP g:.::l ro :::::l g ~ P""'~.ro <let> OJ;:: :;:let>~

g:. ~: 8 ~tc:: ~ro m I= ~coo O"ij.>p;"Ol"' S CDl-'" ... cc .... J~ ~--'::l P...:::=::~ 0"'~ 0 E 0 CO p..ct-~ ........... ~·S :;:! p_.H;o~ k eo Ho

~ g ~ ~ s·s·~ ~ ~·~ ~~~~8-:~S:&O"'g Q\m ~P""':::.CD 00 00 ~.t-:: ~ct- CL S:: ~ t:3 _,.o .,...., ~"' O'O'Ooq., 1--'rt-::r"r+P'OCDro "<l

.. ::r"CD ~ tl'S ~ 1--1 rt- ::r'

b ~·1-1 ~ Q s ~>-'~ 0 ~~P' O"'o ...... ::;:l ~ ro o:+ ro s- roa ~.o...o...o...5 ~aq·a< ~§ tt~P ~ e..s=ro~><

p.:l ... o:+~ ct-'"1.... &!:'I S 0> Cl> ~·w 0-.:YP o;.><o~~~gro~ S:: Ill '""'~-t~ ..gj 8 en~" ~ ct- w ..... ~.o ~ ::;:l ~ g" a~P:ffl ;. .. ~~2-~~

toq< < s~p;-;:.g g-~ ro ....,.E.,E_.w f-1 ~d..-:~ () O"'s;:: ~ ():::! .,-+- <l w p.:l s= CD CO 0 ~ CD 0

~ c;- .. p_.~ ~ g '-< g ~ CD OPJI-i "ict- ro s·~j:,t:::S <:+&0 <:+art-~ 1--'?'~:;n~~kc.g-"~ ~ e-:s o:+e+-PJ G: o o-<1o r-t- ::r"n-. O:::l I «i:l""~""'Ots'O~ P' ::r" ct- (]1. 0 ::;:l s:: 'd t..:::l t::S!.<! ::r"o ~ ~·t::S ~ /:1:) o..,....roo ..... ::l w ~;:::+: ........... ~UJ ~ s-&.P...'d« o·~ (tl &:t~3: ~ ~j:j ~CD 0 ~~~&.8 g"~ 'dP=~,......ccPJ ..... ~s=::!~ ot<n-~·to'Ol~oqo.., UJ5 PJ:;:! O"Q~::r"p--...:: fr:s::xcrqo~-+> :::~ro g ~;;o·8 ~ ~ 6~~~ ::roo ~--~~ s·;.a.PJ~ ~ P' 0 P...<:+aq {tl j:j ::! ...... ~ _..: ~ ,_. .. '"1 oq ~ ~ s ::!OCP=I~ &0.,. CD a::a§g:Ol::a:Y _n-oS eT",.._, I Ill p._.ep Ill .. I

Grade of Taxable Value,

From- To-

£ £

1 499

500 999

1,000 1,999

2,000 2,499

2,500 2,999

3,000 3,999

4,000 4,909

5,000 9,999

10,000 19,999

20,000 29,999

30,000 49,999

50,000 59,999

60,000 74,999

75,000 and over

Mut.ual Life Assurance Companies

Primary Tax

Super Tax

Undeveloped Tax

Total•

I I I

I Absentees. ' Companies. I Residents. Rate I '

f I_ ---------- -------~ ----- -~-- --

Totals.

-- ~1---,-------,---

Tax. I No. Taxable Value. Tax. 1

T~x.) No I Taxable' Tax ' No I Taxable I Ta I No I Taxable , · Value. 1 · I · Value. x. · Value. '--~--1·------ I --------1---:---j----1--~--

, I i I I £ d. I £ £ I £ I £ I

114 25,649 107 116 I 31,259 130 7,982 1,622,116

H I -34 24,883 1561 95 I 68,620 429 2,682 1,746,035

1~

2,

2! I

2t I

2!

3

3! I 4 !

4;1 !

5 I

18125,652

4 9,113

1 2,500

15,819

38,854

19 (123,436 I

8 I 99,1oa

2 I 48,520

187 124 177,984

120,204

109,746

219,877

76 54

23 40

165 64

445 49 215,882

1,543 115 806,980

1,445 88 1,224,156

809 33 811,387

26 973,129

16 802,897

1,298 1,730

1,002 442

1,029 282

2,290 356

2,474

10,087

17,852

13,fi23

18,246

16,727

191 I 336

100

18

8

4

5! I . . . . 4 271,256 , 6,216

6 . . . . 19 1,936,296 I 48,407 I I .. : .. .. 5 I 143,483

1, 1,196 I .. 2

2,280,808

988,033

766,273

1,238,192

853,996

2,281,498

1,345,090

442,076

303,919

220,878

£

6,759

10,912

16,631

8,233

7,184

12,898

9,785

28,519

19,616

7,368

5,699

4,601

8,212

2,811

1,872

500

323

425

249

470

196

53

34

19

4

19

5

'-------------------------------------I I I I i I 1 214 ' 413,529 . . 847 I 7,913,156 i ]14,131 I 14,088,914 115,192

I .. ' .. 4,956 i .. I .. I 140,90611

• • • • 138,205

. 2,692 I . . : 61,112 • • • • 56,327

276 ' ' 3,976 I . . 13,130 I £7,924 i £205,994 ' £207,66z__ __ _

£

1,679,024

1,839,538

2,484,444

1,117,350

878,519

1,473,888

1,108,732

3,211,914

2,668,349

1,301,983

1,277,048

1,023,775

271,256

1,936,296

143,483

22,415,599

6,996

11,497

18.116

9,311

8,286

15,353

12,70!

40,1±9

38,913

21,700

23,945

21,328

6,215

48,407

1,196

284,067

120,131

17,382

£421.580

........... rl-= 0 :::>" aq ~ro

0 .....::am CD ..,.,rr l'OO!"' ~~ ~ """'. o:>.: 0 § '""'i-Li = 0!

"'"' "' "' o'-0'0

g S?n~ :;:! ~m· c+oop-'

m ro a row

~g ..... ~CO:;:! j:jact­o.."'~" 0 s g: ::1 0> CD 0! o..f... 8."' ,.... ~g.

~~CO

p;'\j (J.J W!-iD UJ ..... rl'

iE s P"

"' "' s:;:: '-< ~-- ~ ftml:l I .§ ·"'

ro ........ • CO

"" "'""' 0!' 0..

"'""' 0!:::>" o..~. eo en < ro -.... 0"' 'OQ" "'~ O,.CD

"'~· 0! 0! 0..8,.

I= n-o,. O>ep ~ t~

""' $:

t:-< §

""' ~ ~ ~

> (ll (ll tJ:j

~ to

E

~

t ~ b:l F3

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 335

given us credit for this-we amended the Act to provide that persons coming under the heading of primary producers and owning no other land than that worked by them were entitled to a larger exemption. Apart from that, the Act is being wisely administered by the Government and the Commissioner of Taxes. as we see in 'l'a,ble F, whicb shows that the exemptions that are being granted total something like £25,000. In Table G we discover that 136 farmers, graziers, dairymen, and others have rE>reived relief to a con­siderable amount as a result of action by the Commissioner under section 46 because of drought or other causes.

A good table, D, from which I intend to quote, shows the assessments made in 1927-28 on country land owned at 30th June, 1927. cla·,sified according to the purpose for which the land is used and arranged according to the areas held. Fruitgrowers, dairy farmers, and farmers generally, whom hon. members opposite claim they represent, do not con­tribute any considerable amount. Ninety-ono fruitgrowers owning land under 100 acres in area pay a very small amount of primary tax, and only fiye of them pay super tax, totalling £21. Fifty-five fruitgrowers owning between 100 and 500 acres pay primary tax, and only two of those pay super tax, amount­ing to £27. Seven fruitgrowers owning between 501 and 1,000 acres pa:,· primary tax, and none of them super tax. No fruitgrowers owning in excess of 1,000 acres pay any super tax whatever. The number of fruitgrowers who are pa,ying super tax in Queensland to­day totals only seven, who pay £48, or less than £7 a head on the ayerage. 'What mem­ber of the Opposition has been fair enough to point that out?

[2.30 p.m.]

Mr. EDWARDS: That is not the big ques­tion.

Mr. FOLEY: That is the question Hon. members opposite are endeavouring to convey to the primary producers that the super land tax has been designed primarily to tax them off their land. Thn Commissionm·'s report discloses that a total of fifty-four dairy farmers pay £1,473 in super land tax, or an average of £27 each. I should like to ask the Opposition if thu imposition of £27 in super land tax upon the fifty-four farmers who pay that tax is going to ruin the dairying industry of this State, and I ask them to comment on this matter when speaking at. a later stage. Farmers total 238, and contri­bute £5,645, or an average of £24 each, by way of super land taxation. 'l.'hat is another illustration that the imposition of this taxa­tion is not heavy upon the primary producer.

The total number of gra7.iers and pastoral­ists who pay this tax is 509, contributing £37,199, or an average of £73 each. I do not think many of them would complain, pro­vided wool and cattle values were maintained at a fair standard. There are 123 othars contributing £4,571, or an average of £37 each.

I think I have quoted sufficient from the report to convey to the people of this State that super land taxation is not an imposi­tion upon the industries of this State, but is really an imposition upon the unearned values that are now in the possession of indi­viduals-values created by the whole of the community of Queensland-and it is per medium of this tax that those people are compelled to hand back something to the

State to be us0d by the State on behalf of the people generally. That. in effect, is the principle underlying our policy of land taxa­tion. Either the Treasurer or the Deputy Leader of the Government intimated to the Opposition that, if they were ever returned to power-! feel sure that it will be many generations before they are successful-they would be fol'{~ed to continue the imposition of super land taxation.

The hon. member for Bowcm has brought under my notice "omething that I omitted from the report. By the Amending Act of 1922 the farmers were granted a special exemption, but we have not heard one word about that from the Opposition. By the 1922 Act a special exemption was granted to the farmers and graziers, details of which are s.hown in Table F of the Commissioner's report. This table shows that the tax was reduced to the extent of £25,548, a.nd that 10,224 farmers benefited by this special exemp­tion, of whom 8,200 were totally exempt from the taxation. That should convey to the farmers of Queensland that the remarks made by the Opposition are uttered purely for pur­poses of propaganda and amount to misre­presentation.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! ThP hon. gentleman hns exhausted the time allowed him under the Standing Orders.

Mr. PETERSON (Nm·manby): I have lis­tened to the lecture by the hon. member for Lcichhardt and the reasons he giyes as to why \\C should have land taxation in Queens­land.

l\lr. HYNES: It was an excellent co1ltribu­tion to the debate.

Mr. PETERSON: It may have been from the hon. member's standard. It was merely one of those speechec that might be listened to in a debating society; but we are called upon by this very legislation to deal with facts as they are. The hon. member for Leichhardt, in citing. certain quotations, om1tted to c1tc the quotation of the Hon. E. G. Theodore, an ex-Premier, when he si rtted-a basic_ truth wi~h which I agree­that all taxatwn IS pa1d by the primary producers and consumers. That is a basic truth laid down by the hon. member's own party. In or·dcr to suit their own argu­ment and build up their own case, hon. mem­bers opposite are now prepared, as an hon. member did the other day, to go to Japan, Chma, and any other country for compari­sons. There is a lot of fiction about the unea~ned increment, because, so far as my d1stnct 1s concerned, the man who goes out to take up a scrub farm, and with his own labour, aided by that of his wife and children clears that farm and develops an industry fo; this Statf', has himself created that value, and no one else.

OPPOSITION l'lfEMBERS: Hear, hear! l\Ir. COLLINS: You did not say that in 1915. Mr. PETERSON: I said that in 1915. My

speeches all along have indicated that I have always said that, and I have always believed it. There I differ from the hon. member. Is this tax, then, one of the contributing factors to unemployment? vV e say it is notwithstanding the efforts of hon. member~ opposite to prove the contrary. Their own leaders-even the present Premier-have sai·d that all taxation is paid by the primary producers and consumers. Therefore if tJ:!ese two sections are paying all the taxa­tion, 1t means that the Government by

Jir. Peterson.]

336 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

imposing this tax arc placing a crushing burden on all concerned, and arc respon­sible for one of the causes leadmg to the army of unemployed ;'Ye have. Those arc facts which wore retailed to us day after day not so many years ago.

Let us take an instance of how the super land tax affected reafforestation. Hon. men:­bers know that one of the best as>ets this State has is its timber n~sources, particularly its pine timber. This tax has _almost suc­ceeded in crushing the private pme mdustry of Queensland, and in doing so has thrown thousands of workers out of employment. Instead of talking tarradiddles about econo­n1ic factors and unrarnLd incrmnont, ~'O have to studv the factors that l>ave really Droug-ht about that result. The Land Tax Act pro­Yides that \Yheu private proJ:crti<'s used for the purpose of reafforestatl~u ar~ . be111g valued for land tax purposes, 111 ~rnvmg at the value consideration must be given to the value of the timbe1· standing upon il. The Government have no right to _impo_se a tax on people who hav.:: been gomg m for a policy of reafforestatwn. As a result of the imposition of that t~x and the super land tax, instead of that timber bemg allowed to reach :t state of maturity-and, goodne." knows, we m·e short of yine timber to-day­it is taxed wlu!e yet m the saplmg stage to conform to the Act in arriving at the Yalue of the land. Hon. 1ncrnbers can prove this statement at any time by goii;g in.to any timber vard in Brisbane and askmg If that is not c~nect. The owners of the land have cut the pine in it~ s'!pling stage and for­warded it to the mill m order to eocape the cruJhing effect of this tax. For example, the Collins EstCito down the South Coast was a huge pine area .. \Vhcn this super tax was imposed they simply cut down mo~t of their £nests and forwarded the timber t<> the mills. That much wealth has been lost to the State, from which a considerable amount of income tax could have b~en deri.-cd when those trees came to matunty. That is how the Government have failed to encourage and assist private .rcafforestati?n. I understand that compames are bemg: floated in Queensland for the purpose ol embarking on reafforestation projects. Little do they know that there is legislation in operation here under which pe~sons who take up land in those areas are liable for land tax on the value of every tree on the pro­perty. By that legislation the _Goverr;ment are doing a dire injury to the timber mdus­try, in spite of the fact that they know we have ,diminishing pine forests. I hop_e tJ:e Treasurer will see his way clear to remit this tax so far as it affects the matter I am deal­ing with. Hon members may ask : \Vhat bearing· has this on unemployment? It has this bearing-that, if the Government encour­aged people to g0 in for reafforestation, a large number of workers would J;le emJ?Ioyed. I shall have more to say on this subJect at another st:;ge ; but for the present I remind hon. members that, if the Government gave assistance by remitting the tax, hundreds of property-owners who have land suitable for the growth _of pi?e would immedi_ately set about plantmg pme trees, for whiCh ~ork a large amount of labour would be reqmred.

During the past eight or nine years a large quantitv of pine has reached the Brisbane market" which was absolutely useless for decent timber construction purposes inas­much as it was sappy and could not be used.

[lrlr. Peterson.

That was a loss to the State, and has been a contributing factor to the people ot Queensland having t? import pine from America, resulting m good Queensland moneY going into the pockets. of Am~ncan uniomsts and Amcncan capitalists, whilst at the came time our own workmen have been unemployed.

J\Ir. HA"'LON: Americrtn pine came to Bris· banc before there was a Labour Government.

:\1r. PE'I'Ell.SON: I happen to be a builder and contractor, and I dispute the contention of the hon. gentlPman. Not 10,000 superficial feet of Oregon pino ever reached Brisbane before the present Government assumed office. (Goyemmont dissent.)

The CHAIRJYL\N: Order!

1\lr. PETERSO:'f: I srty quite definitely that not 10,000 uporficial feet of timber wore imported in a year before this Government took oflic('. \Vhat cloPs it all represent? It rnc.1ns that "\VO haYf' a vast anny of unem­ployed who to-day might be profitably (;mploycd if the Government altered their policy.

Mr. HYXES: It means an unsympathetic tariff.

:\J:r. PETERSON: One way of assisting the tariff is to remove the obstacle of this tax and give to the people the right to reafforest. I a6roc ;;-ith the incidence of to'-ation to the extent that income should be L xc·d; but ne.· er tax that which is going !o create income: wait until the time arrives for the dispmal of the article produced, which can then bear its fair share of taxa­tion.

The hon. member for Leichhardt said that the policy of the GO\·ernment was to tax only on nnimnroved land and not on improve­ments. "As a matter of fact, in the reappraisement of perpetual leasehold lands, improvements are always taken into con­sideration, because if, for example, a farm were unimproved, where would the improved value come in? The position is that a settler v:ho improves his property will ultimately lay himself open to taxation and higher rent as the result of the improvements he has effected. 'I'he hon. gentleman forgets the fact that, when a mctn acquires a freehold property for graz­ing purposes, he may have had to pay £10,000 for it. That is capital invested in an in­dustry, which may be that of producing cattle or sheep. Immediately the man does that he comes within the ambit of this Act, and i3 liable for land taxation. The next thing is that he is taxed on his produce, because he pa vs income tax on his income. The Government forget that they are putting a double tax npon the person who owns land. If any hon. member invests £10,000 in a State loan. he is only taxed by the Com­missioner of Taxes upon the interest that he earns, and not on the capital lying to his credit in thP. loan; but the person who puts his money into land has not only to pay a tax on the capital Yalue of that land but has also to pay a tax on what the land earns. That is not a fair poBition, and, if we wish to develop this State, we have to adopt a different policy, realising that we should be ".atisfied with securing adequate taxation upon the product from the land.

.Let us look at another aspect of the ques­tion. Take the amount of taxation imposed bv the different States. Let me take, firJ>t of all, a factory area valued at £60,000. Hon.

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.l Amendment Bill. 337

members mrty say that that is a very large area and impo,.siblo in Queensland, but the Secretary for Agriculture the other night pointed out that this was the day of largo organisations and large combinations, and to have large organisations and large com­binations we must have large areas of land adjacent to the city where these people can develop industry. Therefore the figure~ I quote in this case will not be out of propor­tion. In a factory site valued at £60,000 the rate of land tax paid in the different States is-

s. rl. Queensland 2 6~ in the £1 ='Jew South \ValeL 0 10~ in the £1 Victoria 0 8~ in the £1

There is a vast difference between S~d. in Victoria or 10~d. in Kew South Wales and 2s. 6~d. in the £1 in Queensland. One of the factors that is helping to bring about unem­ployment is the high taxation levied on factory sites and on anybody who is propos­ing to develop this country; and it is a contributing factor which assists Southern manufacturers to compete against us on the Queensland markets. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not see that ; but. whether they see it or not, the fact remains that the unem­ployed men in Queensland can see it, and will show in no uncertain wa v at the next election that they see it. ·

Now take the tax in Queensland on pro­perty apart from factory sites-

Taxable Value. Land Tax Paid. £ £

10,000 1,000 20,0()0 2,200 60,000 7,600

'The<e figures show where the taxation comes in, and whether it hits the people or not. As I said at the outset the arguments adduced from the Treasury benches point to the fact that all taxation is ultimately passed on to the primary producers and workers. I cordially subscribe to that argument, and that is one of the factors in causing the present unsatisfactory condition.

According to the tables quoted by the hon. member for Leichhardt, the total tax received last vear from land tax was £404.488 and the amount received this year was £421,580. The undeveloped land tax this year amounted to £17.382, which shows that there is not very much undeveloped land in Queensland, if that is all the tax received from undeveloped land. This party has always stood for a tax on undeveloped land; but, according to the return published by the Commissioner of Taxes, there must be very little undeveloped land in Queensland. I cannot believe that. In my opinion there is a Yast area of unde­veloped land in this State, and, if that is so, how is it it is not paying its legitimate share of taxation compared with the amount paid by those who put their land to a proper use?

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Would you inc"'·"se the tax on undeveloped land-?

Mr. PETERSON: Land that is not being used in a proper way should bear its full share of land taxation. The amount received from super tax last year was £120,131. One would not object to the taxation were it not for the fact that it crushes the very people that the Government say they are out to benefit. It has been proved over and over again that high taxation on industries, quite apart from the land tax, is reflected in the large number of people out of work, and in

1928--Y

the low prices received for farms all over Queensland.

K ever before in the history of Queensland has it been possible to go round as it is now in anv arc a and se:cure farms almost at their origir!al cost prieD. I do not say that the land tax i, whollv the canse of that, but it. is part of the cr.usr. J u .t as the income tax has added its quota, so has thi land tax added its quota. Taking it by and large, they work towal'ds the one end.

The SECRETARY FOR PCBL1C L.ums: Do you say you can get a farm at its original cost price anywhere in Queensland?

Mr. PETERSON: Yes, all over the place­eyen farms that have been surrendered to the Agricultural Bank. which cannot sell them. They have hccn surrendered, and hundreds of pounds have boon lost on them because nobody will take them up.

These arc aspects which should be con­sidered. Taxation is necessary for the government of the country; but iniquitous taxation onlv reacts on those who intended to benefit the workers. Any action on our part which will make it possible for the workers to g-et into a better position should be welcomed by all hon. members. It is an unjust principle to tax capital, but it is a fair thing to tax what capital earns. In this case we reverse the position by taxing a man on the capital he puts into the land; but. when the speculator-the bloated capitalist­buys share;;, we allow him to pay tax only on the profit of his s.hares, and not on the investment.

The SECRETARY FOR .PUBLIC LANDS: The small farmer pays very little of this tax.

Mr. EDWARDS ('fananuo): Hon. members opposite do not seem to realise that the imposition of not only the super tax but also the land tax has a groat hearing on the development of the country. It seems clear that, notwithstanding the arguments which hon. members opposite ha.ve nsed for years and years about the necessity of cutting up land into small areas throughout the State, they have come to the conclusion since the report of the Land Settlement Advisory Doard that that policy is entirely wrong. If that is eo, the policy they are pursuing in regard to the imposition of this land tax must also be wrong. If we could put the amount of money derived from this tax into the development of the country, it would cause much more employment and be the moans of increasing the wealth of the com­munity, which would return 100 per cent. more in taxation than can be obtained through this tax.

The hon. member for South Brisbane seems to think that, if the Government took ofl' this land ta.x, the money would be lost, as the Government could not obtain t.be money in any other way. I cannot understand how any hon. member can come to that conclusion. We say that undeveloped land should still carry the tax ; but, if we can relieve the people of some of the burdens they are carry­ing at the present time, it will assist them to carry on development, as a result of which they will be able to pay taxes in many other ways.

Although the farming community may be few in number, thev nevertheless pay land tax. If the Government relieved them, the result would be immediate gain for the Government and for the country, and great assistance in the employment of men

Mr. Edwards.]

338 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

who so badly need it at present, because the more money that is left to develop indus­try the greater will be the assistance given to the people of the State generally. If we could only assist the small primary producers by relieving them of this burden, we would improve the position of the rail­way", and in many wa:ys bring wealth into our State. The argument of the hon. mem­ber for Normanby is quite correct-that this taxation not only hits the man who pays it; but also has an effect on the community generally; and I know that the Govern­ment are h<'ginning to realise it. If you impose taxation on the business community, the:y immediately look round for methods of passing it on, and gradually it falls upon the shoulders of the consumer or the producer.

A"otber great argument in favour of this amendment is that we need private capital in this State. .No State in the Common­wealth is crying out for the introduction of private capital more than Queensland; and no State requires money for development more than this great State of ours. We, consequently, ought to give every encourage­ment to have money freely spent in it. This tax is only one of the causes which prevent Jnoney irmn coining here and being spent a' freely in industry as it should be. I t!.i"k H•..tt ti1e Government would be well advised in tJ1e interest of their own sup~ porters, therefore, to remove the tax.

Mr. CARTER: \Yhy don't you talk to the Federal Government?

'\Ir. EDVL"\RIJS: Thev have removed income and other taxation" to the extent of £9.000,000. I believe that things of this description have a definite bearing on the confidence which people have in the country; and, if we are going to create that confidence which is nocessa.ry to develop our primary and seconJary industries, we rnust remove taxation of this kind from the shoulders of those concerned.

:Mr. CARTFR: You are too funny for words!

Mr. EDWARDS · The hon. member is funny, too. I know how he got his start in life.

'The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. EU\Y ARDS: The argument that we have heard from the Government benches dur.ing this debate indicates that they have one object in view-to keep before the people the idea that they are not taxing the land­owners of the State, so that they will be able to use that argument at election time. 'They know that that is not a fact. They know also that by using these arguments

and insisting on taxation of this [3 p.m.] description they are keeping the

workers unemployed in this great State. 'rhe hon. member for Bowen may laugh and think it a groat joke t<J see his own supporters walking the streets unable to obtain work or food. Ever since he entered this House he has claimed that he i< watchful of the intor<:'sts of the workers; but lw is not sincere, and is merely hum­bugging on the whole question, using these arguments over and over again in order to retain his seat in this Chamber and not with any ideot of assisting those whom he alleges he represents and who require assist­ance at the present timP 'The Government would be well advised to reconsider this taxation, which is increasing year by year.

[Mr. Edwards.

These figures sho\v the increase 1n land· t«xation-

1326-27 192'7-28

£ 30,927 50,002

'This burden is bearing heavily on develop­ment at a time when the secondary indus­tries of our State should be assisted at every turn in order that the country may be developed and employment p1;ovidod for our workers.

Mr. HA::-.JLON (lthaca): I desire to, address mvsclf to this subject, particnlarly ,,£ter hearing some hon. members opposite air their ignorance on tax&tion and indus­trjal n:alters in Queensland.

The lwn. member for Normanby displayed his lack of knowledge of what is taking place in Queensland in the Queensland timber industry yvhen he asserted with almost childish innocence that American pine has boon brought into Queensland as a result of the action of this Goyornment.

OPrOSJTIO;;; MEMBERS: He did not say that.

Mr. IIANLON: American pine was com­ing into Queensland in huge quantities long before• there yyas a Labour Government in pD\VeT.

Mr. H. :u. UtiSSELL: Ho did not say that.

}!r. IlA~~LO::-\: I can quite understand the hon. member for 'Toombui being a little 'ore on this matter, because in this Chamber he represents the importer who traffics in timber and other imported goods, conse­queml:y anyone who reflects upon importation or the juggling with the produce of someone Plse is taken as personal by the hon. member for Toombul.

l\fr. H. M. Rc:SSELL: I will reply to you.

Mr. HA:;LON: When the hon. member for vV,rmum was Secrotan for Public \Vorks the pr:escnt Circular Quay, then known as Kennedy Vi7harf, was the tying-up place for American timber ships.

Hon. \V. H. BARNJ:S: The increased taxa­tion imposed by your Government is respon­,ible for the timber coming in.

Mr. HANLON: I cannot understand that argument. Evidently the increased taxation inflicted bv this Government was responsible for the timber coming here before this Government existed. It is rather difficult to follow the reasoning of the hon. gentle­man.

Hon. W. H. BARKES: 'The tax was imposed on the owners of timber in this State, with the result that prices had to go up.

Mr. HANLON: When the hon. member for \Vynnum was Scct·etary for Public Works in a Gabinet absolutolv free from any control or influence bv a Labour Party, Circular Quay or KennedY \Yharf. was the tying-up place' of a continual line of American timber ships.

:\1r. H. :\1. RussELL: "'rong.

Mr. HANLON: If hon, members opposite would like to verifv that statement, they can inquire at the General Post Office as to the number of occasions the letter-box at the Kennedy wharf was knocked over by wagons hauling timber, and why it eventually had to be removed. Drivers have told me on many occasions that, whilst engaged in hauling timber from the Kennedy wharf, they knocked the letter-box over. Vast quantities of

Land Tax Act [22 AuGUST.] Amendment Bill. 339

American timber were carted from' that wharf and ha-ndled by the Railway Department. \Vhen I was stationed at Brunswick Street I remember receiving Drders almost daily for wagons to load American timber, and I remember the continual stream of lorries cart­ing timber from the ships in port to the wagons in the railway yard. It is no use hon. members opposite attempting to shield the hon. member for Normanb"· for his lamenta-ble display of ignorance o"n the sub­ject he was talking about, for the fact remains that American timber was freely imported into this State long before this Government came into e'Cistencc. If American timber is now being imported, it is a matter for which the Federal Government. who alone control the Customs of this country, are responsible.

A gDod deal of loose talk emana-tes from hon. members opposite as to the responsi­bility for the burdens of the primary pro­ducers. It is mere hypocrisy for them to pretend to shed tears for the suffering pri­mary producers. Ono has only to listen to their speeches to realise that their crescendo yells are at their highest when the interests of the man who is in the best position to pay taxation-that is, the big taxpayer-are being­threa.tened. vVe witnessed them last week with their tongues in their cheeks sympathis­ing with the unemployed and informing us how the unemployed sympathised with them: but, when they mentioned the amount of money that the Government were spending in unemployment insurance and relief, their t£'HS were no doubt genuine, because they realised that some of their friends were being taxed to make up that mone0·. Their sym­pathy for tho unemployed! Their whole object is to reliPve the largo taxpayet from the pavment of income ta"- a.nd super land tax, and. so long as they secure this end, they do not care how the unemployed or anyone else gets on.

J'.Ir. G. P. BARNES: \V ill you relieve the small taxpayer?

Mr. HANLO:i\': The Government have con­siderably relieved the small taxpayer; and, what is more, they ha.ve refrained from fol­lowing the examples of Tory Governments in other States by relieving the poundage paid by the wealthy people of the State. Tory Governments of other States have lowered the exemption on income tax, and, consequently, have compelled those least able to pay to make up their deficits.

Hon. members opposite suggeBt that we should reduce taxation by cutting OLlt the £421,000 which is received under this par­ticular tax, If the Government do so, it will be necessary for them to seck elsewhere for revenue to make up that deficit in their income.

Mr. W. A. RusSELL: Why not sell the State stations? ~

Mr. HANLON: Hon. members opposite will not suggest that this loss of revenue should be made up by increasing the incidence of taxation ou the large taxpayer, therefore the only possible way to make up t.he lee­way would be by lowering the income tax exemption, which would resnlt in the men and women of Queensland lea-st able to pay being compelled to do so.

Before I get off the responsibility of the Government to the primary producer--

Hon. \V. H. BARNES: You have been off it all the time.

Mr. HANLON: I have not. I have been dealing with the primary producer, who hon. members opposite say is heavily taxed. In proof of the contention that the primary pro­ducer is not heavily handicapped by taxation imposed by this Government-at all events not handicapped to the extent he is as a result of the administration of the Federal Government-! desire to quote a statement which appeared in this morning's " Daily Mail".

That relative of this Federal

statement, which deals with the credit which the primary producers State must give to the State and Governments, reads-

"Kingaroy, Tuesday. "Mr. C. F. Adermann, chairman of

the Peanut Board, stated to-day that though he sympathised sincerely with the cotton-growers, he was not surprised at the information contained in the state­ment of the crisis in the cotton industry issued by Mr. D. C. Pryce, chairman of the Queensland Cotton Board, and pub­lished in the 'Daily Mail.'

" 'Like 1\1r. Pryce,' said 1\Ir. Adermann, ' I, too, am a supporter of the Bruce­Pag·e Government. I am bound to say, however, that. like the cotton industry, the peanut industry has been badly " let down " by the Commonwealth Govern­nient.'

" In 1926. he recalled, peanut-gro,Yers made representations to the Common­wealth authorities for an embargo against black-grown peanuts, for a number of reasons. Arnong other points, attention was directed to a disea,,e which existed in certain countries. After careful examination an embargo was granted, and an undertaking was giYen to the then Minister for Trade and Customs (the late Mr. H. E. Pratten) that Queens­land growers would be able to provide Australian requirements if peanut­growers were encouraged to plant extended acreages. The result was that the industn' had been increased ham nothing five years ago to an annual value approximately of £100,000."

During the last five years there has been a Labour Government in this State.

Mr. KING: It is due to the action of the Federal Government.

Mr. HANLON: shows--

The statement also

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I hope the hon. member will connect his remarks with the amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. HANLO::'-I: Hon. members opposite have enlarged on the condition of the primary producers of this State and blamed the super land tax and primary land tax for the position. I wish to point out that, far from the super land tax having affected a very important primary industry-peanut­growing-the fault lies entirely at the door of the Bruce-Page Government, as I shall show-

. . . Unfortunately, Mr. Ader­mann observed, the Commonwealth pro­tection was short-lived after the growers had planted increased acreages. Within a few months the embargo was lifted-in October, 1927. As a result, for the year ended 30th June last 700 tons of peanuts

Mr. Hanlon.]

340 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

were brought into Austraiia from China and Java. Those nuts displaced a quan­tit:c of Australian-grown nuts, equivalent to 500 tons of kernels, which would have been sold at the ruling price of £74 a ton, whereas this quantity had to be ,acrifice-d at oil values, resulting in a complete lo'·S to the growers of £26,000 for the last financial year. This was clue wholly to the vacillation of an ill­advised Government.

" A very fine storage and treatment plant was now in course of construction at Kingaroy, for which the Peanut Board had borrowed, with the assistance of the State Government, £37,000. The loss mstained by the industry in the last financial year only, through the Fecleral Government's action, was sufficient to have enabled the board to pay for two­thirds of the board's inclebtedness in one year."

This is an example of the responsibility for the trouble in the peanut industry-one of our important and growing primary indus­tries. Hon. members will see that the chair­man of the Peanut Board is giving credit to the State Government, and plainly and openly laying at the door of the Bruce-Page Government-the Opposition's own party­the fault for the condition in which the pea­nut industry in Queensland finds itself to-day. T-here are no tears shed by hon. members opposite at the loss of £26,000 last financial year by peanut-growers as the result of the action of the Federal Government. What hypocrites they are to cry over a super land tax, wh1eh I venture to say is paid by no pea.nut-i;rower, unless, of courBe, he mav be growing peanuts for a hobby and would in any event be liable for the tax !

Another matter to which I dra.w attention is in reference to lancl tax. It explains why hon. members really are sincere in their objec­tions to the land tax, and they are sincere in their objections to the land tax, although they carefully disguise the reasons for their objections. Table E of the report of tlie Commissioner of Taxes shows that the lancl taxation from town lands last year amounted to £255,536, and the taxation from country lands amounted to £166,004, showing that th& town landholders are paying, roughly £90,000 more in land taxation than country lanclholclers. If we analyse it a bit further, it will be soon that 847 companies contributed £94,782 in taxation on city lands and £46,124 in land taxation on country lands whereas residents to the number of 14 133 contributed £72,985 on city lands, or ne~rly £22,000 less than the amount contributed by companies. Residents in the country con­tribntecl £65,220, which shows where the shoe pinches, as the hoMers of big parcels of undeveloped land in the cities are being made to pay. We have buildings going up in Queen street to-day providing a large amount of work for the people of Brisbane, and the~e _ builclings are going up simply because It IS unprofitable to keep land in the city undeveloped at the present time. We have a builcling going np at the top of George street for a banking company. Since I was a child there was nothing but a mere humpy on that block of land. It was quite big enough for the business of the banking company, but the taxation on that land because of the city rates and the inciclence of land taxation has grown to such an extent that it is necessary for these people to erect

[Mr. Hanlon.

a modern building in order to get a return commensurate with the rates payable.

Hon. members opposite have stated that the land t-axation is a factor in unemploy­ment. If the taxation has any effect what­ever on unemployment, the workers can thank the incidence of the land tax and super land tax for the large number of buildings erected in Brisbane and for the work the workers of Brisbane have obtained. I for one have no grievance with any Government which endeavours to finance the government of the country out of these two important sources of taxation-land tax ancl income tax. I believe the:: are the only two truly honest taxes which can be imposed. The people of Queensland in paying direct taxation through the land and income taxes for the cost of governing this country know exactly what they are paying. 1\othing is put on them indirectly that they do not unclerstancl. The tax has to be gathered every :·ear. They realise what we are doing, and the Govern­ment who have the courage and honesty to inflict the t11.x must show some return to the taxpayer for the money collected, otherwise it would not live. If the Commonwealth was financed by clirect taxation, we, perhaps, would have more honest government; further­more, moneys collected by indirect taxation on the importation of goods could then be used genuinely to encourage the secon~ary industries of this country. The duty raised on goods imvorted into this country could be t~sed to subsidise industries here. It is !! big problem to tackle, ancl somewhat beyond the scope of this debate. The only honest means for any Government to raise revenue to govPrn the country is by the taxation of large parcels of land and by means of an income tax.

Mr. H. M. RUSSELL (Too'!ltbul): There is no doubt ihat a little learning is a dangerous thing. The hon. member for Ithaca has displayed a lamentable ignorance of the matter referred to by him. I pass over his gibe that I personally am very interested in importations, which is not cor­rect. As a citizen of Australia, I am more interested in Australian, and particularly Queensland, production than the hon. mem­ber is.

I want to draw the hon. member's atten­tion to the fact that the importations of Oregon timber into this State are of a very recent date. I admit that there were importations in years gone by. From the " Year Book " it appears that the total Yalue of Oregon timber imported into Queens­land during the year ended 30th June, 1927, was £136,000, which is a mere bagatelle com­pared with the total timber trade of this State. Years ago Oregon timber was imported because people could not get the long lengths in Queensland pine, and Oregon timber was therefore imported for builcling purposes in long lengths. During the last two o" three years there has been an increasing importation of Oregon timber due to the fact that the Queensland Government, by their extortionate royalties on pine, have practically ruined the Queensland timber industry and forced the timber m8rchants into the arms of the American exporters. It is untrue to say that the Bruce-Page Go­vernment have been unsympathetic in regard b our timber resources. The duty on Oregon timber is no less than 100 per cent ad valorem, and nobody can gainsay that fact. The Bruce­Page Government have been sympathetic

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.] Amendment Bill. 34J

in a high degree towards the Australian timber mclustry. L'ntil the Queensland GoYernment reduce the present royalties on p!lle the l~ueensland timber business will materially languish. It is quite a common thmg for hon. members opposite to make these olupid charges against the Federal Government ; but any fair-minded man must admit that the duty on limber is quite high enough.

The CH.AIRMAN: Order! I think this shows the folly of allowing the debate to stray away even in the slightest degree. The hon. member must now deal with the land tax.

Mr. H. M. RGSSELL: I quite agree with you, Mr. Pollock, but I claim the privilege of replying to the hon. member for Ithaca.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not going to allow the privilege of replying. The debate has gone far enough in that direction.

_Mr. H. M. RT!SSELL: Probably you \nll allow me to reply to the hon. member's etrictures with regard to the peanut industry. The assertion<' of the hon. member for Ithaca are absolutely untrue.

The CHAIRMAN: Order l The hon. mem­ber may deal with the amendment and the motion.

Mr. H. M. RGSSELL: Very well, I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Pollock but it is unfair to allow the hen. member 'for Ithaca to make statements in the House which we are not allowed to controvert.

The CHAIRM.AN: Order! The hen. mem­ber must not accuse the Chair of unfairness.

:VIr. H. M. RUSSELL: I have been endea­vouring to ascertain exactly where the Go­vernment stand in regard to the land tax. If we analyse the statements made when the legislation was first :introduced the Treasurer of the day stated that this tax was i_ntroduccd not merely for the purpose of gammg extra revenue but chiefly to force the land monopolists to burst up large eotatce. The words used were-

" It is not really land taxation for the purpose of raising revenue-that is only a secondary consideration. The prirnary object is its oconornic value."

The .Trcnsurcl:' stated yesterday, as also on prenous occasiOns, that the great bulk of the la': is paid by t~e business people in the CJbes, clearly provmg that the alleged main object of the tax-the bursting up large estates--has not operated; but that the tax has rather roeulted in a large accretion of revenue tD the Government; so that when hon. membe>rs opposite ad vacate the' reten­tion of the land tax f01· the nurpose of bursting up large estates, they a;·e on very unsafe ground.

There is no doubt that the Treasurer has found the continuance of the primary and. super land ta.x a very useful adjunct to his principal revenues, and he is a'skino- us to continue them. ·while the Opposition"believe that some measure of land tax on unimnroved value of undeveloped lands is fair and. equit­able, wo believe that it should acpply only to undeveloped country, and that the existing taxation is unfeir in its incidence. Our friends on the other side to a. large extent are permeated by the doctrines of Henry ~ieorge, 11nd some of them are strong believers m a smgle tax, although I do not think the

l'reasurer is a convert to that belief. Hi< main object, of course, is to see that the revenue of nearly £500,000 continues to be obtained. from this tax. Naturally he is sup­portmg 1t to find means to pay his way; and, if it is not continued, instead of providing for greater efficiency in the departments he will probably increase the income tax or institute other taxes in its place. That, how­ever, should not deter the Opposition from stating their objections to the super land tax and to the land tax in its entirety.

W c have heard a great deal about the land exploiter and the land monopolist; and, if there is such a class in the community-men w,ho arc holding large blocks of land for the purpose of making enormous profits by specu­lation-they should not receive very much consideration from any one of us. I think any Government would be justified in impos­ing a land tax on them.

On the other hand, we have been t.old by the representatives of farming constituencies that the tax inflicts a great injustice on the primary producer, and, while I do not claim to be as au fait with the subject as oumc of my colleagues, I am quite content to accept their statenlCnts. If it is proved that this tax is acting hars,hly on primary pro­ducers, it behoves any Government to see that it is removed. The less taxuti.on put on production the bett.er. I think none of us is desirous of illflicting· unnecessary taxation on the producing community. Queensland's welfare is bound up with the prosperity of agriculturists and pastoralists; and any requests made by those sections for a rcduc· tion of tax.~tion should fall 011 very sym­pathetic ears.

I want to put in a plea on behalf of the city dweller, because the discussion lms shown that, while there are many adherents of the· man on the land, there are very few advocates for the town dweller. It cannot he alleged that the land tax as it falls on the city of Brisbane, for instance, is imposed for the pur­pose of bursting up large estates. The land tax is levied upon the land, and is paid by the ]andholder, who naturally attempts to pass it on to his tenants. Whether he does or does not is a moDt point. One hon. member this morning said that the tax was passed on to the tenant; but where the owner of the land

is a trader he might find it very [3.30 p.m.] difficult to pass the tax cm to

his customer. ·whilst this tax has not borne out the prophecy indulged in in earlier days that it would burst up la.rge estates, it has acted as a detriment to indus­try. In t.he city of Brisbane the manufac­turing concerns that are called upon to pay the land tax levied on landholders must attempt to pass it on to their customers; but in these days of stirring competition between State and State it is Y8ry difficult for a Queensland manufacturer to pass that cost on to his customers. If this taxation rcsoh·es itself into a tn.x on commodities, and not a tax on the profits of the manufacturer, ihen to that extent it is iniquitous and s.hould be abolished. Land taxation may not be unrea­sonable in relation to distributing agencies or retail busine•,es where the principal can pass on the cost of that taxation to his cus­tomers; but when it is a direct tax on pro­duction it is an unfair tax to apply to the manufa-cturer.

The TREABl'RER: It is not an unreasonable tax if you can pass it on? That is your policy all right.

Jllk H. M. Rttssell.]

342 Land Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Sydney. I Brisbane.

-~~~- __ <R_a_t_e_i_n_\, _(R~a-te_I_·n_ the £1.) .- the £1.)

"a· 3dL I s. d. , 0 lOt 0 lt

o 3t I o s

~ 1:: 1'-. -~-1

-:c_:-

General rate Sanitary rate .. Water and sewerage .. State and Federal land tax

l

The Brisbr<ne manufacturer is handicapped in comparison with the Sydney rnannfacturer in having to pay 2s. 6~d. in the £1 011 the unimproved value as against lObd. in the £1 in Sydney. As applied to manufacturing con­cerns in the cities and moot centres of pro­duction in Queensland, it is actually a tax on commodities, and not a tax on profits.

The TREAScRER: Is the land tax high on land that is nsed for manufacturing purposes 1

Mr. H. M. RUSSELL: Yes; there is no discrimination. If you have a manufacturing property in a suburb of Brisbane, you pay the same rate as is paid b:v land surrounding 1t. If It can be proved that the land tax is a tax on commodities and not a tax on profits, ihe Government should make some exemption; and that is why the Opposition arc striving to have certain amendments made in the land taxation law so that it sha 11 be levied on undeveloped land only. I have no sympathy for the land speculator. He certainly should be taxed, but this land taxation falls inequitably on the shoulders of the manufacturer of Queensland, who is called upon to pay it on his commodity and not on his r.rofits. That is iniquitous. It is preferable to levy ta&ation on profits. I do not contend for one moment that the owner ·Of a residence should not be called upon to pay taxation for local authority purposes.

The TREASURER: Why tax the home of the me.nufa.cturer, which returns him no profit, and not his business, which returns the profit?

Mr. H. 2\I. RUSSELL: I am putting in a plea for the manufacturer who cannot now compete with the Southern States. This tax is iniquitous, because it is applied to the co"t of his commodity, and does not come out of his profits. Therefore, when taxation is leYied on instruments of production, it becomes oppressive'. Taxation of that kind is an inequitable charge on manufacturing costs.

This particular taxation is in contradistinc· tion to income tax. Income tax is a tax on

[i11t'. H. JYf. R~1.sse!l.

the profits of a manufacturer, merchant, or. farmer, wherea.s in the majority of cases the land t.ax is a tax, not on his profits, but on the actual commodity produced by him. It is a first charge on his commodity, similar to wages and debenture interest. It is economically unsound to tax production and not profits.

This form of taxation is obsolete. I urge the Treasurer to make some distinction in this tax, and remove its incidence from all production-not only farming, grazing, and manufacturing interests, but all agri­cultural and pastoral land that is in full employment. That would leave the local authorities the sole taxing au­thorities with respect to land tax with the exception of undeveloped land. It might be said that, if that were done, the tendency would be to impose further functions on local authorities. \Ve have examples all over Queensland year by year of local authorities increasing their local taxation because of the extra obligations and duties placed on them by the GovPrmnent. It is only fair, therefore, that the taxation of land values should be left entirelv to the local authorities. vVe must all arlmit that, if land is being held for speculative purposes, i~ should be more highly taxed than land which IS bemg £~11:-­devcloped. That is one of ~he cardmal principles of the Government policy. I would like to see that principle further extended bv the Government exercising a further dis­crimination, and deleting from land subject to taxation all land that is in full profit.

The 'TREISrRER: If we did that, we would have to hand oyer to the local authorities certain commitments which would cause them to increase their taxation.

Mr. H. M. Rl'SSELL : The Government have not hnitated year by year to impos.a additional commitments on the local authorl­ties. 'fake the Rriebane City Council for example. They are called upon to c~Ilect an enormous amount of taxatiOn from tne rate-payel'S. .

The TREASURER: That is for pur~Jy City interPsts. The Government supervise the street tl'affic at a cost of thousands of pounds, v, hen that work is done in other cities by the civic authorities.

J\Tr. lYlAXWELL: Rut you get a fair amount of revenue from the traffic.

The TREASURER : \V e do not.

Mr. H. :VI. RUSSELL: There is on foot in EnC'land to-day a movement to remove pureh-' manuhcturing interests of part of the e~Iormous taxation which has for many vears been levied on them. As a matter ;f fact land tnation, although it has the support of economists, was instituted in the cl a vs of Queen Elizabeth: but it does not f~llow that, because of the passage of time. the system is good. \Ye are all desirous of freeing productive industry from heavy taxation; ancl I can do no better than Cite what is happening in the old country to prove the wisdom of !hat. In England to-day it ha.s been decidc>d to free the manufactur­ing industries in some of the large centres from a portion of the local taxation, amount­ing in the aggregate to, approximately, £5,000,000. :Writing in a recent review on the new ratmg system adopted there, Mr. Harold l\Iacmillan, a member of the House of Commons, said-

" One of the main defects of thE' rating system is its effects upon industry.

Land Tax Act [22 AUGUST.) Amendment Bill. 343

Productive industry is, after all, the necessary foundation of our national prosperity. However important the distri­butive trades may be, however valuable to us the whole vast business of exchange, banking, finance, shipping, and corn .. merce in all its forms, yet the prosperity of industrv is the actual as it is the historical root from which all our great tree of international and imperial trade has sprung. If the roots are allowed to decay, the whole will in its turn enevitably wither and rot.

" The producer is to be relieved of the burden on production, the local authority is to be helped in accordance with its needs. With one blow we have knocked the shackles off industry and destroyed lhe prison of deopair which has so long beset the necessitous areas."

I think those words can be applied to our situation in Queensland, although the unem­ampled depression in Queensland is but a mere fleabite in comparison with that in the old country.

At 3.43 p.m.,

Mr. F. A. COOPER (Brem.er), one of the panel of Temporary Chairmen, relieved the Chairman in the chair.

Mr. H. M. RUSSELL: I wish to-dav to enter a plea for some relief to be given to our producing and manufacturing indus­tries. That plea should have the support of all parties in this Committee, because, if we can increase the productiveness of our t:ountry by relieving the primary and secondarv industries of as much taxation a- possible, it will go a long way to solving the depression which exis!3 to-day, and may be the moans of removing a great deal of the unemployment in our midst.

Mr. G. P. BAR:"JES (IVancick): The hon. member for Ithaca, and indeed all hon. mem­bers on the Government si-de, seem to imagine that the main concern of hon. mem­bers on this side of the Committee is to relieve the big taxpayer of the burden of taxation and to be perfectly indifferent to the position of other taxpayers. The real business of the Opposition is just the reverse of that. Even looking at the matter from a mercenary point of view. the relief that will come to the busines·, man as a reward for his concnn for others will be almost inconceivabL~. 1-Iis main concern is to give the man " do,vn belo\v " everv assistance he possibly can so that he may h.i:ve elbow room for the extension of his activities. It comes with extraordinary ill-grace, therefore, when members on the Government side advance the arguments that they do regarding the imposition of taxation. It seems useless to tell these gentlemen that they arr• exacting from the people sums of money in taxation far in excess of what is obtained from this source in other States of the Commonwealth. It seems useless to tell them that, as a con­sequence, the number of our factories is declining, and that there is widespread unem­ployment. Hon. 111ernbC'rs opposite take no notice of that. They must belim·e it; but they ignore the ;olid facts in connrdion with it. Must it not b<> evident to everyone that in our advocacy in regard to ta~ation \ve arc concerned with the general prosperity of the country? When the Treasurer issued his balance-sheet for the year I said their first business-because it would be a diplo-

matic thing to do-would be to <JOme down with a proposal to reduce taxation. It might be infinitesimal, and might only represent £10,000; but it would be sufficient to justify confidence and warrant the Government in holding out the olive branch to the country, and saying that at the earlie,t possible moment they are going to reduce taxation.. If they had done that, they would have rehabilitated things in the country to an extent ono cannot concf·ive. It is what the people are hungering for. In order to inspire confidence, the first thing is to give some evidence that taxation will be reduced. Instead of that, the Government are impos­ing this war tax for another year. It is reimposed session after session, until we know it is a tax that will never be repealed.

The hon. member for Ithaca charged the Opposition with bc.ing concerned for the big man. and he gloried in saying that we were quite indifferent to the claims of the " man below." As a matter of fact, the Government have shown the highest concern for the capi­talist. The Commissioner for Taxes on page 23 of his report on income tax for last year shows that the gross incomes in Queensland amounted to £65,019,121, while the real tax­able income was £19.849,392. Yet we are told by the hon. member for Ithaca that the Government are showing concern for the small man, and that they are only taxing the big man. As pointed out by me yester-day, and by the returns issued to members, they arc a!lowing· the pm,,;cssorc of money to the extent of approxunatcly £40,000,000 to go unscathed. Is that fair 9 That is the absolute wrong which js really being done. In orde1· to carry on the affairs of the State they may have gathered in £4,034 067, while they hav" left this largo amount to go untouched. ·what is the use of the hon. member for It,haca charging this side of the Committee with having no concern for the small man and with paddling our own canoe for our mvn ends. when the Government definitely g~ther from the people OYer £4,000,000 and pPrmit to go ocot free those who are standing at ease all the day long-just re'-ting on their ea pital. ,,-ithout putting any \·iln or ginger 1nto life. rrhat consti­tutes the real charge that we make against the Government. lf yoq take £40,000,000 or the best part of it out of enterprise and put it into tax-free loans, what do you do to the follow that remains: \Yould it not be very much hotter if the Commissioner of Taxes were able to levy a tax, not on £19.849,392 but on the additional sum repre­sented in the £40,000,000 referred to? Would it not bring in something Yery much better if we redueed taxation all round? Anyone can 'ee that. Yet day after day one has to try to prove to hon. members opposite that two and two ma.ke four, and that, when wo do a thing like that, we are imposing upon the other fellow a tax >Yhich is a bur­don he is unable to bear.

The result of this taxation by the Govern­ment has hren to bring about unemployment, and those whom thev profess to serve have boon kicked bv them in consequence of their action. The:<' h:we treated those people badly -not perhaps intentionally, but on account of iheir ignorance of economics. They have said, "We will let the small man go, but get at the man at the top"; but, when they get at the man at the top, who is putting his money into production, they are injuring the very men whom they profess to serve.

Mr. G. P. Barnes.]

344 Land Ta.x Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

No one expected that the Government would accept our amendment in toto; but it would have been a decent thing for them to say, " We are not going to pay attention to the big man, but we will give attention to the small man. We will see that production is increased, and development carried on." If the Treasurer said now, " After all, it will not be a big loss to the country if we relieve the small taxpayer of what he is paying, if we meet the difficulties of the man on the land, and relieve him of the obligation to pay this tax," it would not have been a big thing to do. What would it amount to? Despite the statement made by the other side ye~.terday that the fruitgrower, for instance, was never in a better position than he is to-day, what is he earning? 'The summary of taxation is as follows:-Assessments made dur·ing 1927-28 on country

land owned at 30th June, classifi d accor1Zing to tlu purpose for zchich the land is used.

Primary Tax. I Super Tax. I Total Tax. --·· ~----~ --1

~~~~: __ _!~~ Tax.~~~ I £ I I £ £

FRUITGROWERS.

154 354 7 I 48 I 161 402

DAIRY FARMERS.

610 4,541 54 11,473 1 664 6,014

liiiXED FARMERS.

2,965 119,805 238 1 5,645 3,203 25,450

Total taxpayers (three classes) Total tax

. • 4,028 •• £31,866

What a wise policy it \<-ould be to wipe out that tax a.ltogether? The total is only £30,000, and it would help these >.1en who are doing eo much for the country. It would I;Ot be a very gr~at thing for the Stat" to tlo for them. That is the way in which the GoYcrnmcnt 1night have com­promised with the Opposition if they had been wise.

Now let us turn to following table shows income tt:tx: paid by fanners:-

Class. Ko.

I

income tax. particulars of Yarious classes

The the

of

Amount of Tax.

Percentage of

Total Tax. ,---~~--- -~~----~--

Cane farmers .. [ 1,616 I 83~37 I 8·916 Dairy farmers .. ; 178 1 2,407 1 ·258 Fruit farmers . . 64 I 1,538 ·164 2\1ixed fanners 301 7,915

1 ·848

From that table it will be seen that, omitting <:,ne farm~rs. 543 farmers paid £11,860, or 1.270 of the whole of our income tax. 'Vould it not be a \Yisc thing to wipe out the bulk of that taxation and give these men a free hand~ It would have a wonderful influence on our genera.! prosperity. One thing which is being overlooked is that every primary producer provides for four other· persons in the State; and it is amongst these four others that the men are to be found who are needing employment. It must be evident thnt taxation has had an extremely serious effect on the country.

[foir. G. P. Barnes.

I have heard it sa.id that the amount of taxation which people on the land pay is infinitesimal, and they do not care; but there are manv instances in which the regula­tions are causmg pinpricks which they mind very much. Not long ago a man named John \Valsh came to me and said, "How is it that I have an amended assosment of my land tax? It used to be 12s. 6d., but you will see that I was called upon to pay 13s. 9d, including 1s. 3d. fine. Here is an amended assessment, which shows that I have to pay £3 19s. 6d." I went to the office, and, although I understand that some fine is involved in that £3 19s. 6d., it has been multiplied enormously, and the explanation is this: John \V a!sh had a son who worked ihe farm with him, and the son said to his father, "I am going. I desire to get to Bri,banc." The father said, "Don't go. I cannot work the farm without you. You take the farm, and I will live in the town. You v·ork the farm, and give me what you can." The result is that this man, who is between seventy and seventy-one years of age, and who has done splendid develop­ment work for the country, because he leaves !lis farm in order that his boy may not come down here and join the unemployed, finds this 0xtra fine imposed upon him. These pinpricks are endured by the farmers, but they are working injury to the development of the country.

[4 p.m.]

'V e have to concern ourselves as to how we can induce prosperity and help things along. 'Vhcn I read papers from other parts of the world, I am amazed at what they are doing in order to encourage trade and help the manufacture;·. I quote from the " Pacific Coast Trade and Commerce," July, 1928-

,, The United States Government, to encourage domestic manufactures, and exportation, will grant to a manufacturer a refund of 99 per cent. of the import duties paid on the foreign material or ingredient appearing in his exported article. The imported material must go through a process of manufacture to entitle it to such drawbacks. Drawback of duties cannot be had on goods not changed by process of manufacture.

" Perhaps the widest known form of drawback on the Pacific Coast is on sugar used in canned fruits. All of the major fruitpackers use foreign sugar for their export pack, because the comparative prices of the two grades are usually in favour of the imparted sugar.

" Another excellent example of the utility of duty dra whack i, that of a linseed oil refiner and exporter who once stated that he could get business abroad if he could underbid foreign competition bv a few cents. 'I'he close margin on \\:hich he worked precluded the idea of cutting his price lower. He was told that he could secure a drawback of 3.3 cents per pound on his oil. A gallon weighed approximately 7~ lb., and the drawback thereon netted him 22 cents per gallon approximately. He went into the export field with a lower price, and also an additional profit, and to-day is doing a large business."

That illustrates that they put themselves out to encourage and develop trade. I know that we shall be told that this is a matter that conccms the Federal Government; but I am

Questions. [23 AUGUST.]

pointing it out to show what inducements arc offered in other places in order to help the manufacturer, and in so doing provide employment and develop the country. The publication further states-

" If we cannot land our goods in the foreign market at the correct figure, it is certain that manufacturers in other coun­tries, obtaining raw materials at prices not available to our manufacturers who continue to depend on domestic supplies, will occupy the foreign market. The Government sensed such a situation and so incorporated the drawback laws into our tariff."

That is a way of going about things in order to achieve a purpose ; and we ask this Government to do it in a simpler and more practical way than that, without infringing the rights of others, and that is by reducing taxation in the direction that has been indi­cated by the Opposition, bringing about deve:opment of industries and making for employment. for the people, thereby doing away with much of the trouble that exists to-day. I commend to the Governroent what is being done elsewhere in order to meet the contingencies that exist; in order to achieve the end which the people elsewhere had in view. It certainly would not be unwise if this Government aimed, within the limits of their powers, at those things which will make for development and help employment.

The House resumed. 'I'he TE~IPORARY CHAIRMAN reported progress. Resumption of Committee made an Order

of the Day for to-morrow. The House adjourned at 4.8 p.m.

Questions, 345