Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 1907

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1350 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Income Tax, Etc., Bill.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

\VEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER, 1907.

The SPEAKER (Hon. John Leahy, Bnlloo) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

QUESTIONS. BROAD·ARROW STAMP AT DUNWICH.

J.\Ir. LESIN A ( Clermont) ~aid : I desire to give notice that to-morrow I will ask the Home Secretary the following question:-

Refel·ring to t.he question asked on Tuesday concern­the use of a broad-arrow stamp in Dunwich for what purpose is such lt stamp used in a benevolent 'asylum?

The HOME SECRETARY (Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn, Enoggera) said-

I can answer the question now if the bon. member likes. The broad-arrow, which is put on with a rubber stamp, is merely used for the purpose of stamping the books in the library to identify them, so that if they are lost they can be picked up again.

::\fr. LESIN A: I would like to ask the Premier, without notice-

Whether he will consider the advisability of imprint­ing the broad-arrow on the books in the Parliamentary Library too?

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Kidston, Rock­hampton) : It might not be a bad thing if the broad-arrow was put on some hon. members. (Laughter.)

MooDEWARRA GROUP SETTLE}IENT. Mr. HARDACRE (Leichhardt) asked the

Secretary for Public Lands-L When was the M:oodewarra Group Settlement

opened for selection ?

[Hon . .A. H. Barlow.

2. In what form of selection were the areas opened? 3. How many blocks on the group have been selected? 4. How many (if any) of the applicants or the persons

in whose name the applications were made are resident in Great Britain?

5. What total amount of first year's deposit has been made?

6. How much commission has been paid on the areas applied for r

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. J. T. Bell, Dalby) replied-

I think this information should have been sought for through the medi"um of a return. However-

1. 29th }lay, 1907. 2. Prickl.v pear frontage selections. 3. Nineteen. 4. Three. 5. £69 3s. 6. Xone.

INCOME TAX ACT AMEND:YIENT BILL. PROPOSED INSTRUCTION TO Oo;umTTEE.

Hox. R. PHILP (Townsville), in moving­'rhat it be an instruction to the Committee that they

have power to insert :provisions for the deduction from taxable incomes of a reasonable amount per head for the support and maintenance of the lawful chl1dren of taxpayers, and of a reasonable amount in respect of the value of the labour of children or relatives employed by taxpayers in the production of income in the absence of any express contr:wt for the payment of wages or the supply of board as a consideration for such labour, and for the exemption of the revenues of mutual life in· surance companies-

said: I think that the amount the Treasurer hopes to get from the income tax is much too large. He expects to get £200,000 out of the people of Queensland. If we go to the other States, we find that in New South \Vales this year the Treasurer proposes to remit one-half the income tax.

Mr. GRANT: That is not so.

HoN. R. PHILP: The income tax and land tax together only yield 7s. per bead of the popu­lation, as against 12s. per head in Queensland from our income tax. In Victoria the Premier has proposed a reduction of £50,000 this year in the incoma tax, a.nd he does not expect to get more than £200,000 altogether. The population of Victoria is 1,250,000, and, if they only expect to get £200,000 from that population, it is too much to expect a similar amount from a little over i'iOO,OOO people in Queensland. It is equiva­lent to taxing the peop:e of Queensland two and a-half times as heavily as th0 people of Victoria are taxed.

Mr. RYLAND: They have a land tax, too.

HoN. R. PHILP: The land tax brings in nothing worth speaking about. Besides, they give it away as endowment to local authorities. \Vby should we pay two anrl a-half times as much per head as they do in VicLoria? That is not calculated to make Queensland a desirable State for people in Victoria. to come to. I cer­tainly think that a married man with a family should be allowed for his childran under the age

· of sixteen years. A married man gets no more for hi" services than a single man doing the same class of work, while it costs the married man a much larger amount to maintain ancl educate his family th~tn it does to keep the single man.

Mr. CREAGH: The married man is t~xed on everything his family wears.

HoN. R. PHILP: Yes. He ought to be allowed a certain deduction. lf I had my way, I would allow him £20 for each child under sixteen years of age. Then, if a farmer has his

Income Tax Act [23 OCTOBER.] .tl.mendment Bill. 1351

own family working for him, he gets no rebate ; while if he has a son or daughter of a neighbour working for him, he is allowed a rebate for what he pays them. I certainly think we ought to make an allowance on account of the members of his own family who work on the farm. Then, again, mutual life assurance companiea ought to be exempt from income tax. A man who joins a life company does not do it for his own benefit unless he becomes a very old man, when he may get an annuity. But, if he does that, he does not come on the State for an old age pension. A man who provides for his family is also doing something to keep his family from coming on the Government afterwards. A mutual life company is not a trading concern. A man who invests in one makes no 1noney. He is simply paying in money to make provision for himself in his old age or for his family after he has gone. The mutual life companies of Australia are doing splendid work. They are encouraging people to save for their old age and for their families. They make no profit; they are n0t engaged in business. The average value of life policies in Australia is only £300, so that it is not an enormous amount th<tt pBople are insured for. People who make such pro· vision for the future should not be taxed for doing so hy the Government. Only yesterday a Bill was brought in to give people 10s. a week if they have nothing when they are sixty.five years of age. The man who provides for his own annuity is taxed to the extent of 25 per cent. on the premiums he pays, or equal to 3d. in the £1 on his premiums. That is the amount the companies have to pay. Section 35 provides for the deduction and payment to the Treasurer of income tax on sums paid to members of insurance companies for cash values of bonuses, surrender values of policies, and the proceeds of matured policie&. It is not a large amount, but the largest life company paid last year £255 in this wa.y. It is very irritating to a company to have to collect this money, and they get nothing for it. I cer· tainly think we should do all we can to encour­age people to insure their lives, and we should not tax them for doing it. If people are not pro· vident, and do not make provision for their old age, the State will later on ha,ve to find old age pensions for them. It seems illogical that the State should provide old ag-e pensions for impro­vident people, and at the same time tax those who are provident. I hope the good sense of the House will assist me in reducing the burden of taxation on a class of people who arc as deserv­ing as any other class in the community.

The TREASURER (Hon. W. Kidston, Rock· hmnpton): Apart from the subject· matter of this motion- apart from the avowed purpose for which the hon. member moves it at the present time---I submit that this haR a shocking resem· blance to wasting time. It has a shocking re­semblance to a deliberate intention to waste time. This is the second time this session that notice has been given of a motion of this kind, and we have had, to all intents and purposes, simply a repetition of the second reading discussion. The debate which the hon. member has inaugurated is, to all intents and purpo3es, simply a rehash of the discussion on the second reading of the Bill. This could have been done on the second reading, and we could have taken the whole matter then, and economised time.

Mr. MAOARTNEY: How could it have been done on the second reading?

The TREASURER : It could have been dis­cussed then quite well.

Mr. MACARTNEY: vVe could not have come to an issue then.

The TREASURER: The second reading of this Bill passed without a division, and now, when we are ready to go into Committee to consider the Bill in detail, another second read· ing discussion is started. There might be occa­sions when this might be the only course open to hon. membe"', but on the present occasion I can see no other purpose than a desire to waste time. As to the general purpose, or rather the avowed or expressed purpose of the motion, reading that, not so much from the speech which the hon. gentleman has delivered as from the list of amendments of which he has given notice, ancl which are printed, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman's intention is simply to whittle down further the proposals in the Bill-to be more liberal than the proposals in the Bill.

Hon. R. PHILP : Y on tried that once your· self, you know.

The TREASURER: I did try 1t once myself, and I regret to say that at that time I was not successful. The hon. gentlem<tn then wanted £100,000, and I told him he could get £100,000 and still be as liberal as we wished him to be. He would not listen to me, but I submit that the result justified the contention of myself and others at that tJime-that the Government could have struck off the poll tax and have given a reason· able exemption, and still have got the amount the hon. gentleman said they wanted to get from the tax.

Mr. CREAGH : You got more than your esti­mate.

The 'rREASURER : I got more than my m.timate?

Jl.fr. CREAGH: Yes. Hon. R. PHILP: You are exceedingly vir­

tuous. The TREASURER: It is not a virtue in mfl.

The fact is that when I and others over there tried to get a reasonable exemption in the income tax, we did not succeed, and the event proved that if we had got a reasonable exemption the amount collected from the tax would still have been as large as the hon. gentleman said he wanted to collect. The conclu•ion I wish to deduct from that is that it would be unwise to go ''monkeying" with the income tax in the way suggested by the leader of the Opposition. The income tax is a v<tluable tax, because it is capable of being raised or lowered as OUt' circumstances require, and I do not think it would be wise, with the Estimates we have !JUt before ns, to try to play tricks with that tax, or to interfere with it t'J any greater extent any more than the Govern· ment, with the fullest information before them as to the probabilities in regard to the income tax, think it is desirable to attempt this year. I think it will be admitted that the present Go­vernment have shown a very fair desire to treat with generous consideration those whom the income tax affects most harshlv. Just let me tell the House what we h"'ve done :'Theyear before we came into office-that is, the year ending the 30th June, 1903-the number of persons who actually paid income tax in Queensland was 90,419. Hon. members will fine! these figures at page 3 of the first annual report of the Commissioner of In­come Tax. The last e,mendment we made in the income tax freed those taxpayers who paid £1. Every person at that time was liable to pay income tax; whether he had an income or not he had to pay a minimum charge of 10s.

Hon. R. PHILP: No; 5,000 were exempt one year.

The TREASURER: There was no exemption at all.

Hon. R. PHILP: There were 5,000 exemptions the first year.

Hon. W. Kidsto<~?,.)

1352 Income 1'ax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The TREASURER: There '"as no exemption at all, except at the di~cretion of the Commis­sioner, who cou1d exempt anyone whn pleaded poverty, and proved it. In that yenr, as I have shown from the Commissioner's figure,, 90,419 }Jersons paid incotne tax.

Mr. DEXHAci: How much did they pay?

The TREASuRER: They t;aid £14H,OOO; !15,899 l"'r"ons paid the poll tax of 10s., and 19,482 persons paid the tax of £1. The latter comprised persons who had incomes of from £100 to £150. Hon. members know quite well that both of thos~ classts have been exempt from the inc01ne tax Uy this Government.

1\Ir. JEXKI~SON: You have made it up out of other people.

The TREAS1JREH: I want hon. members to follow the argument. \Ye have exempted 55,899 taxpayers and 19,482 taxpayers, that is a total of 75,381 persons who were not liable, mind you-there were a large number of other people who were liable but did not pay-but who actually paid the income tax in the year ending the 30th June, 1903. In addition to what the Government have already done towards remedy­ing the more oppressive features of the Act, we now propose, in the Bill before the House, according to fairly accurate calculations, to exempt. 10,989 persons more. That is what the Government propose to do. Of the !!0,419 per­sons who paid the tax in 1903 we have already exempted 75,381, and we propose to exempt another 10,98() in this Bill. Hon. members must not forget that at that time there were many more than 90,419 persons in Queensland. There were a large number of persons in Queensland at that time, who, as hon. members know quite well, had a great deal of property, who had a great deal of financial responsibility, but who had not any which could be assessed, as their losses more than counterbalanced the income they made, and those people make the number much larger than 90,419. If there had been no exemption, a number of those who paid the tax in 1903--

Mr. JENKINSON : Have you exempted all those you say you have?

The TREASURER : If the hon. member had paid attention to my remarks he would know that I said that the Commissioner's estimate of the number of persons who are now liable to taxation, and whom this Bill will free from taxation, is 10,989.

Mr. JENKINSON: In other words, you exempt them from paying 10s., and make them pay £15s. or £110s. That is your reckoning. (Laughter.)

The TREASURER: To put the thing in a nutshell, the position is tbis : Of the 90,419 per­sons whom the Commissioner returns as having paid the income tax in 1903, 75,000 would not have paid income tax under the present law as it has been amended. In addition to what we have already done we propose to exempt 10,989 more, and that is not all.

Hon. R. PHILP: 'Why not exempt the lot? Mr. LESINA : Why not suspend the Act

altogether for twelve months, and give that a trial?

The TREASURER: I say that is not all. This Bill proposes to do something more-it not only proposes to exempt altogether a large num­ber' of taxpayere, but it also proposes to give partial exemption to all the other taxpayers, ranging from £2 10s. up to £5 per head. The great bulk of those taxpayers who are not exempt will have an exemption of £5 per head. Now I ask hon. members whether, making every allow­ance for the prosperous financial condition of the

[Hon. W. Kid~on.

State, that is not a fairly liberal way in which to deal with the income tax. I a~k hon. members to recognise that the Government are not un­willing to giYe exemption, or to make a reduction in taxation, where the needs of the public service will permit it. But the Government are not willing to play tricks with the income tax, or with any other tax that may simplv lead to in­conveniences. I believe that the Estimates as submitted to the House are very fair l~stimates for hon. members to consider.

Hon. R. PHILP: You will never spend the money.

The TREASURER: \Vel!, some of it I would rather spend than not spend, but if we have no legitimate occasion to spend any large sum that is now down <'ll the Estimates, we shall not do

so. I think hon. members know [4 p.m.] quite well that we can spel!d all that

money and a great deal more in Queensland to the advantage of the State. I could spend a great deal more distmctly to the ad vantage of Queenshtnd if it was convenient to raise it. According to the best judgment of the Govern­ment, we have tried to strike a fe.ir medium in this matter, and I ask hon. members not to be drawn away by this, a resurrection of the baby vote in another form. It appeals to a man to get a reductit>n of his income tax if he has a family, but it does not make any difference in the end. The more exemptions you make, the higher the tax will have to Le on those who pay it, not, per­haps, this year, but next year-whP-never the need arises. It is wiser to he satisfied with what I consider a fairly liberal provision under the cir­uumstances. I may eay at once that I have no intE>ntion of accepting such an amendment as this, or of going on with the Bill if such an amendment were considered. It would not be a fair thing to ask the Government to allow the leader of the Opposition to settle what taxes they shall raise or receive.

Mr. JENKINSON : Let the House do it.

The TREASURER: No, nor the House. Hon. R. PHILP interjected.

The TREASURER : I was, probably just by anticipation, following the bad example of the leader of the Opposition. He corrupted me in advance.

Hon. R. PHILP: You are easily corrupted.

The TREASURER: Hon. member• know quite well that no Government could accept an amendment of this kind or of tllis "cope, "nd I hope that the House will reject the motion of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. i\IACARTNEY (Toowong): It sounds strange to hear the Premier condemning· the leader of the Opposition for a practice which the hon. gentleman himself, when on this side of the House, followed, but that appears to be quite a usual ~ondition of thin15s no'Y· I take it that the subject-matter of th1s motwn would be quit.e in order if moved in· Committe·e, but there appears to be .an impre·ssion abroad t~at some of the items m1ght be regarded .!J,S outs1de the scope of the Bill, and that it woul? not be a fair thing to ask the Chairman to demde these matters when your decision, Mr. Speaker, as a higher authority, could be obtai_n:'d. I take it that the Premier's proper pos1bon wa.s to allow the motion to go, in ord-er th:>t these matters might be proposed formally m Com­mittee, and discussed and rejected or affirmed on their merits. That would have bren a reasonable. position to take up. But, appar­ently. not only doos the Premier take up the position that we are not to have am~:r:dments on any Bill, hut he takes up the pos1tlon ~hat we shall not discuss the matter. That brmgs

Income Taa· Art [2:3 OcToBER.] Amendment Bill. 1353

me to the point of the hon. gentleman. His principal objection to the prmision is that we are introducing, so to speak, a second reading dec>ate over again. As a matter of fact, the leader of the Opposition, in a fe" minutes, merely confined himsdf to stating very shortly what the proposed amendment'• were, and I venture to say that he would not ha1 e got the support of hem. members in this Chamber if he had not ··iven tho informatio•l which he did. The hon. g0ntleman, however, although he objected to it as introducing or reintroducing a second I• s.dir~g speech, proceeded immedi~ ate!y not to deal with th€· matter on the lines of the motion, but went into a speech about the val'iou-; conc€ssion•· which he had granted, and made a political spe·ech e·xtending over twenty minutes. I think the subject-matter of this motion is a reasonalJle one; and. if the Committe-e are to have any poweT at all in connection ···ith Bills, the motion should be agreed to. A Bill is introduced to amend an Act in a certain particular, and hon. members are tied dm"ll by the title time after tirn€. \Ve discussed the matt-er in connection with the Local Authorities Bill wh-en the hon. memb€r for Gympi€ had an am-endment in connection with mining rates. He was prepared tD take the word of the Home Secretary that the Bill was wid-e enough to allow am€ndm€nts to be admitted. but wh€n we got into Committee we found that the am€ndm<mt was not within the scope of the Bill, and the hands of the Corn· mitt€e were tied.

1:\lr. RYLA};D: No.

illr. :\IACARTNEY: We are fighting for a principle, the right of the Committee to deal with Bills in a T€asonabl€ way instead of hav­ing them put in front of u~ by a Cabinet, which say~, "Here is th€ Bill, and you can have the Bill and nothing but the Bill." We want to have a voice in th€ matt€r, and I think that every m€mb€r in Committ€€ will only be doing justice to their own rights and their own poc,itions by insisting on having a r€asonable amount of lib€rtv to insert am€ndments in con· nection with the Income Tax Bill. I do not m€an to say that if the amendments are un· reasonable the Committe€ should enlarg€ th€ scope of the Bill, so as to allow a general dis­cussion and waste of time. Th€ object of these amendments is very simple; they have nothing to do with th€ baby vot~. or anything like it, a.s the hon. gentleman said. \Ve have asked for an allowance of £20 per annum for any child supported by a taxpayer. The hon. rn€m­ber is pleased to refer to that as the baby vote, but I s€e no comparisrm in it. But that is not the only part of the motion. \Y€ are asking here for some conc€s"ion in favour of the farmer-the producer-who employs his own children, in th€ production of his crops, but sqr€Jy tnat has no comparison to the baby vote. One farmer, who employs another man's son and pa.ys him wages, and gives him board, is allowecl to deduct it under the Act, and we say that the iarm€r who employs his own chil­dren without any express contract for wages should have just the sarn€ privilf'g€s. The matter in ~onnection with the mutual !if€ insurance companies is a provision which found a plac€ in the original Bill, and the hon. gentleman will haYe learnt a good deal in the light of recE>nt experi€nce. Hon. members SE'ern to think that thev can induce the Pr€mier to S€€ the wisdom of reinstating that provision, I venture to say that if this motion is agr€€d to the amendments nec€ssary will not involve a discussion of half an hour. I am not going to labour the matt<?r in any wav: I think a few minutes might have done the 'whole business,

aed a f~\Y n1inutes in Con1mittee vvould have dealt fairly with all these questions on their merits. I do not propo:c·e to follow the hon. gentleman in connectiDn v.rith the total amount collected from incom€ tax, and the various con­oessi:cns he has made from time to time. I appeal to hon. memb€rs of both sides of the House to protect hon. m€mlcr, cf the House in getting rea~onable amendn1Pnts in the Bill, which are introduced, and vvhich every m.-"lll· b€1' of this House, whateyer corner h€ sits m. ought to have. * l\lr. P~l..l'LL (Charters Tou·,n:: TLe hou. gentleman at the head of the Government just now told us very rightly and fairly that he made a very considerable number of reductions and exemptions in the tax since the first year it was imposed, but I do not think he took quite fairly into consideration one point, and that is this: Are those that are left fairly taxed in comparison to those who have been exempted? On looking up the return of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the past year, I find there will be 5,179 taxpayers and 535 companies left. The question I wish to draw attention to is this: Is the tax bearing unduly on any section of the community, or on any industry, and so hindering that in~ustry from prospering? I propose before I s1t down, to move an amendment to the motion by omitting the word " and " in the second last line, and inserting " and moneys reserved by mining companies for future developments and erec· tion of machinery and other expenses." This tax bears very heavily indeed on many com­panies in the State. All the English companies call up their capital before they can commence their work. The returns fra!m mining com­panies-as those who have had anything to do with mining companies know-are very erratic; they do not pay anything at all, ex~ cept a few large companies. Take a party of six or eight men joined together to work a small claim. They put in their savings to the extent of two or three thousand pounds, and work for twelve or eighteen months, and just at the end of the last year they take a crush· ing-that is they develop their mine up to a certain exte~t, and all the while pay money out of their own pockets, and then take out a crushing. They want to carry forward that money very likely for development work in the succeeding year, and under the Act as it now stands, they are bound to pay income tax on that, and then spend it again in the following year. The same thing applies to larger com­panies. The larger companies, which have no funds at their disposal, reserve a considerabl€ sum of money to carry out development work in connection with the erection of machinet·y and so on. Now, the income tax as it is now, is based on the one year alone, and as a result they divide the money up, becaus€ they have to pay income tax. In a very short time they have no money to carry out their work, and they have to reconstruct. In England, as I think the Premier knows, an average of three years' income is taken, and that does not bear anything like so hardly. On Monday I read an account of a mine meeting in England, where they accumulated £60,000 of a reserve fund, the whole of which was going to be utilised in the continuation of a shaft which was partly sunk some six or eight years ago, and which they ceased sinking for want of funds. It would cost more than that amount for the whole of the shaft, but they were continuing the shaft to get down into deeper ground. That would be impossible in the Bill as it stands here. \V e should either take an averange for thre-e years, to give the opportunity I have referred to. or else the re-..erve,s of mining companies

Mr.Paull.]

1354 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment hill.

deYoted to development, wark and the erection of machinery should be free from the payment of income> tax.

The TREASURER: Profits reinvested in busi­ness only pay half income tax.

:Mr. PAULL: That may be so, but there is a Yast amount of work done in a mine which is not profitable work. £100,000 may be sunk in a shaft, aml, aftBr the, me is taken out of that shaft, the levels and winzes are not worth 6d., and yet if the money earned is spent in de­velopment work it has to pay income tax. I would like the hon. gentleman to consider the matter from that point of view, and I therefore beg to move the amendment that I have indi­cated.

The SPEAKER: An amendment to an in­struction to the Committee can only be moved after formal notice has been given, That not having been given, the amendment is out of order.

~Ir. DENHA1I (O:c/ey): The leader of the Government was not fair in some of his state­ments. He charged the leader of the Opposi­tion with deliberately wasting time and ob­structing business. "'ow, it will be remem­bered that when the second reading of the Bill was under discussion the idea of giving the relief now proposed by the leader of the Op­position was mooted. It was foreshadowed that such amendments would be moYed in Committee, but so as to be quite on safe grounds the leader of the Opposition has taken the course of getting an instruction to the Committee. No one can say that during this session there has been anything in the nature of waste of time or obstruction by the Opposi-tion. ·

:\fr. PAGET: Or any other session.

:\fr. DE~HA:\I: The hon. sentleman made use of various expressions which. to my mind, convey-ed no m£a.ning. I-Ie spoke of '\vhittling­down" the incon1e tax and •• monkeying" with the income tax. I und<>rstand the expression " whittlin~· down," but I confess I do not know what he means by "monkeying." But this is not a proposal to whittle down. It is merely a c!e,ire to help the deserving taxpayer. \Ye know quite •Nell that the farmer who pays £1 or £1 5s. a week to a labourer is allowed to make a d<>duction, and also a deduction for the labourer's board. Vl~hy, then, should a man not be allm,-ed the same deduction when he pa,ys wages to his family? Y\e know the young lads in the country seek the tovvns oft8n becau5e they wish to haYe a littl-e cash to handle. Xo'w, it is hig"hly desirable, in order tha.t they may l" kept in the country, that the parents should giYe them a little cash, and that they should be allov eel to, makH a deduc· tion therefor. Th8 Treasurer gaye us these fi'jures as the re-ult of the operation of the inc<nne tax--

£ Hi0?-3 222.150 1903-4· 222.34:l 1Pf1~-5 253,918 HlO!i-6 :?64,_956 1906-7 281,476

So that. while the number of taxnaveTs has been reduced,, the amount of thE. 'tax has steadily !!One up. \Yhat we want is a, fair thing- to those who pay taxes. No one can a1·gue against a conce8"'ion being g·iYen to a man with a family all under the age, of sixteen years.

The TREASL'RER: He does gBt a concession. Hon. R. PHILP: How? :\fr. T1ENHA:\I: In what sense?

[Mr.Paull.

The THEASl"RER: The Commi"ioner makes a reasonable allowance for children working on the farm up to the amount of half the total produce of the farm.

Mr. DENIIA:\I: I have pass<>d that phase of the question. I am talking- about an ex­Bmntion in favour of children who haYe to be maintaint>d by parents. The family man i~ at much he a vier cost than the bachelor. .the other phase of the motion is in rcga:·d to life in;urance. and I thmk we should g!Wl' every encouran·ement to the 1nan V\.rho desires to make p;:ovision for his family, I object very much to the method which the Treasurer em­ploys in dealing _with the moti?n when he says either that he w1ll drop the B1ll or th':'t ~erne­one else will have to take charge of 1t 1f the motion is carried. There- is nothing s_inist€r in the motion. It merely asks that a fmr deal oo meted out to the honest, taxpayers of the State, and mrcly the Treasurer 1_1eed not resort to extreme infiuencBs when a £a,,r and honour­able proposition of this kind is mad<>_. Th~ hon. oentleman ncc'cl •not fear a fau andl reason~ble discussion of this matt 0 r.

:\Ir. KEN~ A (Boll'm): The. ~hief object. of this n1otion is to amend the. ~I~l ~o a~ to giYe exemption to those with fam1he' .. :'\ow, _the object of an income tax IS· to equalhe ~axatr~n1, and to put it on the should,ers of those D€st af?le to b€ar it. thc1s doin?; away w1th the anomalies of indil'ect taxation. L"nder the· proposal of the leader of the Opposition the· rich ma1; would have his family exempt. Bqually w1th the poorest man, and that seems to mf' to be distinctly \Hong. He proposes to put the man ,~·ith £201 a y.ear on the sam-e _footing as :--e~ g1>rds exemption as t~e famlly man w1~h £1.000 a year. There m1ght l::e >o;ne sen_se m proposing a gra_duated scale, a.na provtding that the man w1th £1.000 a, year snoulc! not have the same amount of <>xemption as the n::an with £201 a year. It is said that the_ man w:th a familv pavs a larg-er amount or ta;xatwn through' the· Customs than the man w1th no familY. That appli<>o C]ually t{J the man who smoke, and drinks. \Vhy not f'xempt the smoker and drinkt>r?

1Ir. DE~HA:.\I: Those are luxurie~. Mr. KENNA: Yet. if you did that, the

whole thing would be absurd. :\Ir. DENH.U!: Your position is absurd.

Mr. KENNA: If you exempt tlw m":n with a family, then you certainly should g~ve ex­emption to the lEan 'vho SJl!okes and drinks as against the man who nmther smokes nor drinks. .

:Yir. DENHA1I: iYe want to encourage fami­lies, but we do not want to encourage smok­ing and drinking.

The SPEAKEH.. Order! I have to request hon. members to keep order. 'l'hcre is a. r;g':'­lar hum of converoation going on, whwn !S cmite out of order. - HoNOURABLE MEliiRERS: Hear, hear!

2\fr. KENKA: In introducing the income tax the leader of th<c Opposition. who was Premier at the time, had an excellent oppor­tunity of providing these exemptions which he speaks of-exemptions up to £300 a year.

Hon. R. PHILP: That is not under discussion now.

Mr. KENNA: The hon. gentleman now wants a bigger exemption than £200.

Mr. JENKIXSOX: Do you not realise the dif­ferent financial conditions?

Income Tax Act [23 OCTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1355

::Y~r. KENNA: The hon. gentleman was not so hberal when he introduced the income tax.

Hon. R. PHILP: Different times altogether.

. Mr. KENNA: \Vhat was the reason he gave m those days for not permitting any exemp­tion? On page 407 of H ansard for 1902 he said-

The Government would withdraw the Bill if the ex­emption of £200 was carried, because it would not be worth while for this or any other Government to pass an income tax with that exemption. It would not be worth while collecting.

:\Ir. JE:-iKINSON: Quite different financial con­ditions.

Mr. KENNA: He would not exempt up to £200, because the tax would not be worth col­lecting under those conditions. I have a very

vivid recollection of the way in (4.30 p.m.] which we opposed the Bill when

sitting on the other side. We fought it at every stage, from the tax of 10s. !JP to the proposed exemption of £200. Here I • another argument used in 1902 by the pre­sent leader of the Opposition in fa.vour of there being no exemption at all, let alone an exemp­tion of £300. Mr. Shiels was then Treasurer of Victoria, and the hon. gentleman said-

He thought all should pay llleir ~hare, and he acrreerl witl: the 'l're.lS~tree or \·ieloriu. tllat, "rheu the 1Jt7rdeu of dtrect taxatwn fell ou t.he cummunEy, it would be much better for tl~e co~ons, bc~,,·a,useth~:::re wunld. lJe lcs& extraYagance.

In no other country in the world is there a special exemption for the man with a family.

:\ir. DEN HAM: Yes; in France.

::Ylr. KENNA: It is a pity that, when the hon. member was speaking he did not give the facts in connection with the case

.:\lr. DEN HAM: I referred to it on the second rEading. . :C,lr. KENNA: The obj.ect of an exemption IS to exempt what IS considered to be a man's livelihood. In our case that is fixed at £200 which, in this country, is a fair livelihood. '

.:\Ir. JENKINSON: Equally for a single man and for a married man with a family?

:\lr. ~EN.NA: P"!ssi~ly. not, though I have heard 1t said that 1t IS JUSt as cheap for a marned man to hve as for a single man. . :\lr. DENHAM: \Vhat is your experience?

(Laughter.)

.:\Ir. KENNA: Never mind what my experi­ence is. That has nothing to do with it. I know that a single man generally lives up to h1s mcome, and spends every penny he makes, and sometimes more, whereas if a man marries a thrifty wife, he either beco~es economical :>r else his wife econ"!mises for him. The principle of an mcome tax Is to leave untouched a man's !latural.livelihood. irrespective of whether he 1s marned or smgle. I do not think the leader of. the Opposition is ve~y serious in asking for th1s exemption. If h.e 1s, then he has changed 15reatly s1~ce he first mtroduced the income tax m 1902. i:3o far as the exemption for the mem­bers of a farmer's family who work for him is co_nc:'rned, that is already done by the Com­misswner.

:\'fr. PAGET: On the representation of the farmers' representatives.

:C,fr. KENNA: Possibly so. I was one of those who made those representations to him. He now allows an exemption up to one-half of the value of the produce of the farm.

Mr. JENKINSON: Not half of them know about it.

:Mr. DENHAM: It is done as an act of grace.

Mr. KENNA: It might appear from the arguments in support of the instruction that an exemption is not allowed, but that is not so.

Hon. R. PHILP: We want to make it the law, and then everybody will be entitled to the benefit of it.

Mr. KENNA: I do not suppose there is any objection to making it the law, seeing it is the present practice. There has been some feeling among farmers in regard to this exemption, I know. I cannot see how we will benefit our­selves by accepting the motion. In connection with this Bill the poor man with a family is taking the place of the poor widow of whom we have heard so much in connection with almost every other Bill which has been introduced this session. Why should we not exempt the poor widow with a family?

Mr. DENHAM: She will be exempted. Mr. KENNA: '!'his is a purely business

matter. The TREASURER: They forgot about that. Mr. DENHAM: Not at a11-the widow will

get the benefit. Mr. KENNA: If we are going to introduce

sentimental considerations, we shall make the thin[$ unworkable. If we are going to make provision for the man with a family. then let us have a sentimental Bill; but in a Bill dealing with a purely business matter let us leave senti­ment out of consideration.

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lockyu·): I will not detain the House for five minutes, but I do not wish to give a silent vote on the question. The hon. member for Bowen has stated that he represents as many farmers as any other member. Now, if there is one proposal which will touch the farming community more than another, it is the acceptance of this instruction. I recognise just as clearly as the Treasurer that it is a financial question. The hon. gentleman takes the ground that the man who adminis­ters the finances of the country should know what he can afford to do. Probablv that is very sound ground from the point of view of the hon. gentleman. But we haYe sound ground on this side of the House for believing that there is no necessity this year for an in­come tax at all. I would whittle down the income tax until it disappeared a.Jtogether if I saw the slightest chance of doing so.

~!(r. CowAP: You did not say that in 1902. ).fr. ATI:\IS'l'RO::\G: The financial condition

of the countrv is such now that we can afford to do withoUt th€ inco1ne tax altogether. There is no question which has ber,n brought before this Hou.·c which more directly con­cerns the fanning cornmunity. They are cry­ing out for a, remission of taxation. As those who had e.tudied the question know. there are Yerv few who will co1no entireh- within the exe;.:nption of £200. ·

The TREAST:HEB: \Yhat are the rnem.bers of Parlian1ent cloing who are f<J 1nurh interested in their welfare'!

Mr. ARMSTROl\/G: We are doing the busi­ness we are sent here to do. I pledged myself on the hustings to vote for a re,luction of taxa­tion whenever the opportunity presented itself, and I am going to do so. I shall support the motion. Hon. memhers may quibble at the procedure, but we all know what has happened in the past: and it is better that this question should be raised in the House while the highest authority, in the person of you, Sir. is in the chair to decide it. 1 think the leader of the Opposition is perfectly correct in introducing it in this vmy, and I shall certainiy vote fQr it.

Mr. Armstrong.]

1356 Income Ta;r Ad [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment liilf.

Mr. LESI:'\"\.: During the recent election campaign. hN·ever I went, and particularly i1~ my 0'\-n district,· I strongly advocated the principle comained in this motion. I not only ach·ocated it on the pul.Jlic platform, but I went furthol'. aml in my printed address to the electors I se· the matter fo,·th as clearly as I could. In The Peak Dou·ns Telegram of Satur· day, 18th ~lay, I spoke on the income tax in these words-

He 1he inc•)me tax, my position i-< this: ::\Ir. Kidston proposes to a1 .end the Income Tax Act by raising the exemvtion to £~ .J. I p~OlJOSe to support the proposal mnde by ~~c. :Ph Up an cl the L:.tbour party to exempt £2oq on ~d ln(·· nws, ancl, pm sonally, I f:->~vom· an ex<>mpt:on ·· of;2:) in rCI'l-lJf'Ct to each chilfl under six­te~:n yenrs of' g :'. The following- scale will show the paymcu1s wl1>b would be 1nacte 1JJ the pm:env ... of children, col.1ln;ning the sliding- scH.le exemptions under the pt·esc11t l\:.j 1::-ton ~\et, anll the amended Act sug­gested by 3Ir. i.'~dlp :-

Kidston. Philp. £ c £ 8. d.

£20.S a ;·c •r 2 14 o X1l £2":11 a ·n .n· 3 13 0 Xil £300 ~ 'v~al' 5 0 0 1 0 0 £850n}·rnt· ,., 8 lfi 0 2 5 0 £400 a year . 10 0 0 3 10 0

Kiclston's proposition, lJeing nahedly unjust, I sh::~.ll vote against it if elected, and in favour oE }Ir. Philp's proposal as being fairer in it!3 incidence.

:r'her': is 110 possi_ble doubt about my position m tins matter. 1 looked at the matter very carefully. In fact, I added as an addendum that I should like to see the income tax abolished for the next twelve months because I do not believe in an income tax. 'I do not believe an income tax is economically sound. I belieye it i.s one of the worst forms of taxation you could possibly a?opt. although I regretted very much. on readmg the speeches delivered on the second reading the other night, to find many nwmbers of the Labour party appeared to regard it as a fair tax.

The TREAS1:RER: Do not vou believe in the Labour platform? '

:\lr. LESIXA: I believe in the Labour plat­fDrm, but I ,ay that this thing cannot be justi­fi. 1 on econo:mic grounds.

The TREAS1:RER: Is there not an income tax in the Labour platform?

1\Ir. LESI::\' .i.: I know there is but I have always striven, whenever I have hdd the, oppor­tunity, by my pen and my voice, to discou~age the belief in the income tax. I believe that the existence of the income tax is r-esponsible for the absence c.i a land ta,x.

Tho SPEAKER: Ordm! The. hon. mem­ber will not l::e in order in the discussion of a matteT of thi.; kind in speaking of the merits or dernBrits of .the. income tax. fion. me.mbers must now c ;nfine themselvBs to the proposal n1ack in the instruction, which is that the· Coln­mittee haY<' leave to consider the several 1natters scat€d in the n1otion.

J\Ir. LE::; IX A: I do not propos0 to enter into a discus~iou c•ll the tnerits or demerits of the. income tax. I am sorry I was not here on the second rea(_:i::.1g-) or I might have rnad~ a more lengthy rderence to it. In accordance with my pledge to the electors, I am in duty bound to support that pledge by my vote. If ~;he thing had n,Jt beed moved by the leader of the Oppositi::m, l might not ha,ve been false to my promise; but, as the hon. gentleman ha~ moved this in>truction, I am compelled to ob­serve my pledge. If I voted against the motion I should be false to that pledge. As the Hon. the Treasurer has said, there may be no sincerity behind the proposition, but our Standmg Orders preclude hon. members

[Mr. Lesina.

fi·om attributing mctives to each other. \Ye often do that, I know, and the leacleT of thr· Uoyernn1ent has done so to-clay in con­nection \Yith this instructim1. I an1 not concernod as to whether the leader of th€' Oppo ition is sinc-ere or nnt. hut I know that during the election carnpaign he advocat-ed what he is now proposing on a score of plat~ forme, and nearly every one of his supporters is pledged to it, It appears tD me that the plain duty of the leader of the Opposition wa,, to move this instruction, and that he CDuld not very well avoid it in view of pledging himself to support it. I should like to see it ca.rried. The hon. member for Bowen ha.s argued that, if carried in its present form, it means that the family of a rich man will receive the same exemption as the family of a poor n1an. No\Y, tlw family of a poor man is already exempted. The Treasurer has demonstrated that there '\Ver·e 90.000 persons v.rho cam€ under the op-e~·a~ tion of th,., incon1e tax when it was origin­ally intrcduc od in 1902, and that when this Bill is pass~d there will be only somethin ~ like 7,000 persons subject tD its operations~. From 90,000 tD 7,000 is an immense drop. If 83.000 persons who paid the tax in 1902 are now exempt from the operation of the. Income Tax Act. and we are still getting a. large amount of revenue from that source, that shows that those who are still paying the. tax are making up for those who are e-xempt. I want to make further exemptions right to disappear· ing point, bec!).use it appears to me that the only way in which the Labour party will be able to drive home the wedge of direct taxa· tion in Que-ensland, and to concentrate public attention upon the necessity for a tax un land value', is to discourage all other forms of taxa· tion. Gnder the leadership of the present Premier. when he was in Opposition, we took up that attitude and fought. strongly for an exemption, first of £52, then of £100, then of £150, and then of £200; and I take up the same stand to-day as I did in 1902. If I was wrong in 1902 I am wrong to-day, and so is every member of the party which is led by the hon. gentleman. The whirligig of time, has brought its revenge, and we find that the very clause which we, in common with the hon. gentleman, then opposed, is still in the Act. But to come back to the motion before the, House, I ask, is it a fair thing that the father of a family, who is in receipt. of over £200 per annum. and is trying to fit his children for a career or nrofession in life, should lee taxed? It should be possible to devise a sliding scale which would exempt such persons from taxa· tion. There are a number of rich men who would prol ably not trouble about the excmp· tion. (Laughter.) Of course, nobody likes paying taxation. The majority of people ob· ject to pay taxes, because they are not getting a prop('r mturn for the money. That is the real reason for their objection. Therf are nlunhers of men in receipt of incolDB''· of oyer £2110 per annum who are fathers of large families. Some· of them support poor relations, and I <•1ntend that thos-e people should be e:"<.­empt from the incon::e. tax. If it is a good thing- to exempt a rnan irom taxation because he has an income of less than £200. it appears to me that it is a good thing to exempt men who haw• to support poor or crippled relatives.

The TREASl!RER: Do not they g·ei exemption novv?

i\Ir. LESIKA: Yes; to a certain extent. But the exemption of heads of families as pro· posNl in the motion before the House wiil also be a eood thing·. \Ye are proposing to spend £50,000 in bringin§t immigranb to QueeEsla!'d. If it is good enongh to spend £50,000 to brmg

Income 'l'a:r .Act [:23 0CTOllEH.] Amendment J,i/l. 1357

people from abroad, it ou~ht to b£ gnod enough to exempt our own people from taxation to the e';tent of £50,000 in order to encourage the popL!lation we already ha1•e in the State. Hon. members do not, I hope, object to the, en· couragflment of large families.

The TREASURER: That does not want any en. couragement.

Mr. LE SIN A: It does want a good deal of encouragement. There has been a howl throughout Queensland about the decrease in the birth rate. If you give concessions to fathers of families, the chances are that we should have larger families reared in the State. It costs a considerable amount to bring up a family of six or seven children, whether they are boys or girls. They have to be provided with food, boots, clothes, school requisites, and insurance has to be paid, as well as a variety of other charges, and a man with an income of £200 a year finds it difficult to meet all those obligations-and to compel him to pay a tax on his income is cruel. Some exemption for such persons should be devised in accordance with the instruction which it is proposed should be given to the Committee. The mass of the people in my district will be exempt under the proposals of the Bill, but there will be still more exempt if the proposition of the leader of the Opposition is carried. I had thought that the Income Tax Act would be suspended altogether this year because of the dissatis­faction which has been manifested with regard to the administration of the Income Tax De­partrrH~nt. Several grievancBs in connection with the administration have been ventilated at meetings of local authorities and of farmers' associations, and I think the Act should have been suspended for twelve months, and a com­mittee appoinbed to inquire into what is the best form in which the income tax can be levied. But the Government propose to con­tinue collecting the tax, despite the fact that the revenue is good. Therefore, the only course open to me is to carry out the pledge I gave to my electors and to vote for the motion.

* ~Ir. MANN !Cairns): I intend to support the Government in their proposals, believing that the exemptions contained in this Bill are as far

.as they can go at the present juncture. They go further than most hon. members expected they would go. I thought there would be an exemption up to £2:00, but I did not anticipate an exemption of £200 in all incomfls, and I am very pleased that the Bill goes as far as it does in this respect. I r,";se, simply to point out to the House thfl attitude which was takfln up by the hon. mflmber for Cler­mont. Evidently the desire of that hon. mem­ber is to penalise the small settlers. While he is willing to grant exemption to a professional man or a civil servant who is drawing a large income, he seems desirous of penalising in every shape and form the man who is unfor­tunate enough to own a piece of land, but I am pleased to say that in that desire he has not the support of the bulk of the Labour party. The hon. member stated that he desired to exempt from income tax all those persons who had families. Vi' ould the hon. member exempt from a land tax any settler who had a family? If it is fair to exempt from income tax a man w )10 has a family, it is equally fair to exempt from a iand tax a settler who has a family. The hon. member does not support the motion with the intention of having it brought into operation, because in his address to the electors of Clermont he dilated upon the hardships of pioneers, and spoke about what they suffe1·ed from droughts, fires, floods, and pests.

The SPEAKER: The hon. member will not be in order in discussing that point on the motion before the House. Of course, the hon. member will be in order in making reference to the speech of the hon. member for Clermont on the subject now under consideration, but not to the matter that he was discussing.

Mr. ::viA?\l'\: The hon. member for Clermont argued in fa.-our of doing away with the in­come tax and of substituting thcrefor a land tax. His aim and object is to penalise the settlers as far as possible-to take a way taxa­tion from every other individual in the State and to pile the whole load of taxation on the settlers, the men who suffE)r from droughts, and fires, and the low prices of produce. The only conclusion I can draw from his action is that he wishes to alienate the farming com­munity from the Labour party-that he wishes to drive the wedge of destruction between the Labour party and the men who are settled on the land. I cannot see the force of exempting from income tax a man recei.-ing £200 a year and at the same t!ine penalising the settler who may not draw from the produce of his land £100 in the year; but, of course, that does not trouble the hon. member for Clcrmont. The hon. member evidently doe·,, not beli.c1·e in the platform of the party, but he doe; believe in venting his spite against one of the n1ost industrious clu&:,c~ we have in rhe State-that is, the small settlers. The hc1. member believes in penalising i hem in every shape and form, and -,,ith that- objed in vie,;- he \vould wipe out the income tax, with the idea of putting on a land tax, so as to clri Ye as 1nany people as possible off the land on to the labour market, and thus create discontent in Queens­land, and further his plan f,,,. clriving the people into the ranks of the socialists. I have been a Labour man pretty well all my life. I am a Labour man still, and I believe that the inco1ne tax is the fairest tax 'Ye can have in a State like Queensland, because it only puts the burden on the hacks of those who are best able to bear it.

The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. member cannot make a second reading speech on the income tax on the motion which is now under discussion. The House having already affirmed the principle of the income tax, that principle cannot be rediscussed, except so far as it relates to the proposal to ihstruct the Ccnnmittee that they have power to consider the matters speci­fied in the motion of the leader of the Opposi­tion.

Mr. J\IANN: I will not transgress any further, but will simply reitflrat€ that I intend to support the Government in this matter be­cause I believfl they have done a fair thing by the people of the State. I beliew• that the in­come tax should.be collectfld in the years when we are prosperous. A larger amount should be collected in times of prosperity. \Ye shoLJid not follow the policy of the leader of the Oppo· sition. which is that in good years we should allow the income tax to lapse, and then, when people are hard up and are deriving no income from thflir land or from their business, clap on a poll-tax, and practically drive those people to the wall. That has been the policy of the hon. gentleman in the past, and I do not want to see it followed now. The TrPasurer might

in a good year build up a surplus [5 p.m.] against a bad year, and then,

when times are hard and work is scarce and people are deriving no income from their farms, he might drop the income tax from 6d. down to 4d. or 3d. If that was done,

Mr.Mann.]

1358 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

it would give more satisfaction than by exemptmg people. who have made no claim to be exe:r:'pted. at the present time, when things are farrly prosperous. I think the farmer should g-et exemption for his children for the work they do on the farm. He does c;et exemption if it is clearly shown that he has expended the money.

Hon. E. B. FORREST: Half the amount.

:\Ir. :\L.\J\"1\i: But if a man has got six or seven of his family living awav from the farm and working for other people: and he claims exemption fo~ them, although they are not workmg for hrm, then I sav the commissioner i? justified in wiping ont the claim for exemp· bon.

:\Ir. D·::-:HA~I: We do not ask that he should admit it.

l\lr. :\L1NX: They havp put in claims ior some "'.Yh·) are not v;,rorking for them.

Hon. E. B. FORREST: That is only in your cli>trict.

:\Ir. :\[A='\X: I hasc a 1::.3tt<er opinion of the Bri·banc· pecple than the hon. member has.

Hon. E. B. FonnJ:qT: I an1 referring to vour district. •

~- ~ r. -~, L\::\X : It is the first tirt1e I ever heard a La boar 111nn saying the incon1e tax was not a. fair tr '-·

:\lr. LESIXA: It is not a fa.ir tax· it gives 1ise to corruption and bribery. '

* ~tr. JEXI\:,II'\SOK (FrL:sifern): One might tlnnk, frorn tnE hon. rnenL er for Can·11s that such a ptoposal has eman,_1".tcd fron1 this side of the Ho-1.-C'. but that is not the truth. He evi­dently does not understand the subject, or he would not talk that way.

l\[r .. \Lnx: I do not understand your atti­tude, anyhow.

~.Ir . .JEXKI~SOJ'\: It is quit-e certain he does not understand our attitude, or else he would net Lave expres.-·,c] t]v; opinion that be­cavse ;ye ha \~e a surplu~ this year it j:s O'oino· to tide us ov·~ r next year if it happens to t"'be bad. This s~r~1lus is confined to this particular year. ThBre ,, a particubr Act which decides where the suqJln·" should go, and it cannot l~e carried forward to meet a deficit next year.

l\Ir. LESil\A: It goes into the public debt rf'· l.uction fund.

1\Ir. JEXKINSON: Exactly, and if the hon. member understood his duty he would not say so. The Premier made the remark that there is no sincerity in this motion. As you Sir and the majority of the members of this Rous~ know, the hon. member for Townsville has btBn consistent in his advocacv of this proposal for some considerable time. ' -

~Jr. R.YLAND: How long'?

:i1r. JENKINSON: They were embodied in his platform at the last election and the elec­tion before .. and they have bBen advocated con· sistently and insist<:mtly every time we have had an Income Tax Bill before us, so tha.t I fail to see how the Premier can say there is no sincerity at the back of it. How a man can show his sincerity more than the hon. member for Townsville has clone is more than I can see. He has taken every opportunity of moving his resolution, and no one could hear him without believing that he was sincere. Apart from

[Mr.Mann.

that, every member .who is attached to the party is pled!!ed to two of tho propo,al>, and onlv as late as Iast session, as well as the session before, a portion of this proposed in;trnction to the Committee \Vas included in an amendinent which I moved myself in the Income Tax Bill vvhen it vvas under di'3cus.sicn. The hon. lll€m~ ber for Bowen said that v.e must look at this matter from a business point of view. The first proposal is for the relief of the father or mother of a family, who, it is acknowlodged on every ha1lcl. are tho be,t citizens, and if that is not one of the best busine"ses that any State can attond to I do not know much about business.

The SECRETARY ron RAIL WAYS: K o; you do not.

Mr. JE:i'KINSON: The Minister knows very well that unless a countrv can contrive to gut population it is on the down grade. If you tak0 any ContineDtal country where popu­lation is stagnant you will find that they are retrograding.

JI.Ir. KEXN .. \: Is Fr 'nee on the clown grade?

Mr. JE:i\'KIKSOJ'\: According to birth stat­istics people say so. I am not going into that question. I am dealing- now with the question of population. It is asserted on eYerv side of this I-Iouse, and in everv Parliament~ of Aus­tralia, that it is absol~tcly in1perative that there should be population to people the large area of tcn·itory which we haYe got. It is also admitted that the best population we can haYe is a nati,-e population. \Ve find a singu­lar position in u young country like Queensland when we look at our statistics. \Vo find that. in the last year of the history of Queens­land, the Yital statistics are lower, with the exception of four year.;, than they have been for the last twelve years. That is an important mattc•r. and if any encouragement is to be be giYen I maintain that it should be directed in that particular way. \Vh<"ther it is by a grant or by a reduction of ·Gaxati~n) as proposed in this resolution, it is essential that something should be done. \V c arc told on every hand to fill up our cradles, and this I believe will be an inducement in that wa:y. Members of the Labour party and members on the opposite side of the House haYe howled themselves . hoarse during the last few hours in advocating the payment of £120,000 a year to keep alive old people. If it is essential to keep our old people alive, it is equally essential that we should keep our young ones alive All that is indicated in this propo.~nl is that when the children arc born the pal·ents shall have a lessened obligation in order that they may' better the opportunities of the children. How hon. members c.ur conscientiously vote against this proposal I cannot for the life of me under­stand. They are not asked to look at it from a financial point of view. The aspect which they have to jud;;e· it from is, Is it just or is it not? and the only argument that the Hon. the Treasurer has adduced is that he prob­ably cannot spare the money. I think he framed his Estimates on altogether too high a basis for this year, and the money that we are likely to get in will not be needed. We are asking the people of this State to pay money that there is no necessity for. Why should we ask the people through the income tax to contribute to the consolidated revenue for immigration and other things which ought to come out of loan money? Why should we be asked to bear the burden which posterity should share with us? If the money is pro­perly allocated for immigration and other pur­poses, and taken from the loan fund instead of

Income Tax Act [23 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1359

revenue, less money would be required from income tax and other taxes. To that extent, therefore the Treasurer's argument that, by givino- the reduction under this motion, it re­ducesb the amount which would be received, is absolutely baseless. Now to go into the merits of this re-solntion. The first is that there shall be a deduction for the lawful childen of tax­payers. The hon. member has raised a point that a man may ha>·e a family, and they may not be worinng for him. I am qmte sure that, if they are over a certain age, and working for someono else, the Commissioner would not aliow that amount to be deducted. I agree with him that it would not be a fair thing. If the children are no burden to the parents, it is not right that they should claim exemption for them; but that could easily be altered when we get into Committee. Then, the second pomt of the resolution is that children employed by their parents should be allowed a certain amount unJcr the tax. \Ve are told that an aliowance is made of one-half of the produce raif!ed on the farm for which the children are working. but that is not very generally known. I venture to assert that there ts not 25 per cent. of the farmers in Queensland who know that is so, and who claim that deduc­tion. If the Commissioner now allows it as an act of grace. and realises the justness of it, why not include it in the Bill, so that everybody will know that they are entitled to claim the ex­emption. What can possibly be the objection to that being done when it is stated by hon. members on the other side tl-se~t it is already allo•w·d. Then the third point is that there shall be an e:X:emption in the case of the revenue of mutual life insurance companies. I do not think it would be fair to exempt all in­surance companies, but where the profits are divided among the shareholders I think it is onlv right that they should be exempt from the' payment of income tax. There ar<; some that are not mutual, but I think that prmmple should be recognised at all events•. Now that American companies have departed from our shores to a large extent, incomes are mutual, but that only adds strength to my argument, because a greater number of people would benefit if thev were so. The hon. member for Bowen state~] that it would not be fair to exempt people who "ere alleged to be rich-I use the word "alleged" because ofttimes the allegedly rich man is much poorer than the man who has not got any money at all. (Laughter.) Hon. members know what I mean by that. The man who is reputed wealthy often bears greater burdens than the man who works eight- hours a day and goes home and has no responsibility. Then another thing, the people in the large towns, as a rule, live up to their ·salaries, and do not have such a margin of profit as those that are drawing less. I would ask the hon. member for Bowen if he is in a better position to-day, after having drawn £300 a year for five or six years, than when he was in the Electric Telegraph Office, and draw­ing half the salary?

Mr. KENl\A: No.

l\Ir. JE"'KINSON: It is the same argument t11at '\V{'. as •nen1bers of Parlian1ent, can draw, that we are in a.n infinitely 'verse position, a!thoull:h our salaries are larger. The same aroument can be applied to the ordinary man who is allf'e;ed to be rich. The man who is in rf'ceint of a larger income spends it in pro­vidin.IT lahonr for others. There are very few men in Queensland whu have hoardnd suffi­cient money to be pointed out as imm~nsely rich men. The immensely wealthy man 1s not known in Queensland. There. are very fe.w men of that class am on e-st U>.

J\Ir. MANX: They mostly g·o home when they make a pile.

:i\Ir. JENKIXSON: The hon. gentleman is quit-e at sea when he says that, as he is in many other maJtN·s. I do not thmk he can pomt to hH•nty men who have made a pile and gone home to spend it. The majority of them mak<> short trips to other places, but there arc very fe\v of them who are not of a speculative di,, · position, and 1.vho do not circulate their n1oney amongst us. It does not matter what ,,, alk ui life a ma.n is in, he spends his money; and if h'l has a numl.:er of children to maintain he should be entitlf'd to some exemption on the1r behalf. I think. s·eeimr that these thref' in­strnctione to tlie C{))nmittee are eminentlv reasonal·lc, they should l;e incorporated in the Bill. and I hope the good sense of the House will, at all eyonts, allow them to be discussed in Committee.

i',]r. BOW:\lA); (Fortiturle "Valley): I am going to oppose the proposaJ of the leader of the Opposi,tion. beeause very good reasons have beei1 given by the, Treasurer against- the proposal. and in favour of leavinr;- the Bill in its presf'nl form. Tho-2 who have taken any part in the dis:.. >J.b.:;iou of Incon1€ Tax BiUs fron1 tim'' to time---at all even b. the Lal our party­have recognised that- our aim has been to get an exemptioll up to £200. \Ye haye that in this Bill. ~,Jy idea cf all income tax is that it should not l~o i1npo~ecl upon anything that is not a EYing '("age. Of course, £20(} is a le:~der c·1(PrnrJtion than is in force in :Xe"'.v Zealand. but still I think it is \'Cl'Y rea.sonable. The hon. rnember for Clermont has stat€d his reaw sons for snpportin3' the proposal of the leader of the Oppcdition. He said that during his camiJai~·n he pledged him,el£ to such a pro­posal. I ha,:e no objection to the hon. gentle­mall kcepin, hi3 pl<"dge, but I think the hon. gentlEman misled the house in referf'nce to the figures he &·ave, and wlwn he compared the figures of the 'l\·easure1· with thos\3 of the leader of thB Opposition. Tho,e were the figures used durin~; 'th-e e.Iection ca1npai'-- n, but ;;;ince then the Treasurf'r has said that he proposed to m1ke a general exemption of £200. I have heard the hoD. member for Clennont on many platforrns advocating the very taxation he is now conden1ning, and dilati11g upon it in n1ost eloquent terms. (Hear, hear!) I have attended many conYentions ·with the, ho.1. gentlelnan. and his votn wcut ,every time in favonr of an income tax. l agree with hirn when he says that an income tax is not as economicall;r sound as a land tax, hut -··e have adopted an mcome tax as a rJlank in our platfor•n in opposition to a 11u1n~::e~· of indi1\ect taxe:,, ar!d until vve can rret a more economical form of taxation in the ~hape of a land tax I am prepared to support an income tax rather thau i11flict heavy burdens on the masses of the people indirectly through the Customs. I am anxious to deal with the hon. member for Clermont as one of my col­leagues, because I consider that any man who pledg-es himself to a platform should abide by it. If I did not believe in a platform l should not sic:n it and I try, as far as possible, to be loyal to it ;low that 1 haYe signed it.. Th_e hon. memher say, he has giYen a pledge to h1s con­stitu.c·nts, but I think the written pledg-e he has given in rega,rd to the platform should carry rrreater weio-ht with him. I think the exemp­tion propos~d by the leader of the OppositiC!n will simply meet the cases of those who are m sufficiently good circumstances t-o pay the in­come tax.

The TREASURER: Only those will be affected by it.

Mr. Bowman.l

1:360 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bdl.

:ur. BO\Yi\lA~: Yes; that is so. I for one -and I think I can 'peak for my party-can only say that I will not hamper the Govern­ment by assi,;ting to pass a resolution which will interfere with their proposals and with the Estimates which the Treasurer has placed before us.

l\lr. HARD ACRE (Lcichhat·dt): I have always supported an incomH tax for one reason only, and that is that it is better than a number of other taxes. It is a bad tax in itself. but there are numbers of worse taxes. I believe with the leader of the Opposition that it is a good thing to have populat:on, and that it is a bad thing to ta,x population; but there are a number of worse taxes in existence than this, and I am even prepared to support this crude tax until we can get some of the worse taxes abolished. \Vhy not exempt a man who builds a house? It is a good thing to build a house. \Vhy not exempt a man who starts a factory? It is a good thing to start a factory. \Vhy not exempt a man who takes up a farm? It i,, a good thing to take up a farm. Per­sonally, I do not think there is any economic foundation for an income tax. It is a tax on industry, and is passed on to the people. The Treasurer gave the number of exemptions, and the small number of persons who would pay this ta_x. He said that 7,500 taxpayers would pay as much as the whole :10.000 did in the first in­stance, and tho '" 1,500 taxpayers will pass the tax on to the rest of the community. I think the Treasurer has given a fair and reasonable exemption of £200, and I do not propose to vote for any further cxcn1ption.

* :\Jr. BOUCHARD (Brisbane South): If I understand the object of the motion, it is to afford the CommitteA an opportunity of con­sidering certain amendments. Now, the leader of the Labour party has made an an­nouncement on behalf of h1s party-! presume that he does nob intend to allow the Commit­tee to consid0r the matters mentioned in the motion of the leader of the Opposition-and in his speech the only matt<;)r to which he referred was the cxNnption in favour of the man with a family. But, apart from that, there are two other matters dealt with by the motion, one of which relates to the labour of the man on the land. I would ask what the farming representatives are going to do in connection with that matter. Will they refuse to allow the Committee to take it into con­sideration?

:\Ir. :\IAXWELL: You must have been reading the C ouricr.

:\Ir. BOUCHARD: I ask the farming repre­sentatives if they are going to sit by and not allow this matter to be discussed? It is all verv well for the Treasurer and other members to ~ay that at the present time an allowance is made to farmers in respect to this matter. but that fact i, not known to the ffreat bulk of farmers. and, as already pointed out, surely there can be no objection to placing on the statute-book a provision which is already the law.

The TRE.\SUHER: The best remedy is to tell them.

:\Ir. BOUCHARD: I cannot understand why members of the I-Iouoe should refuse to allow the motion to pass in order that the various matters doalt with by it may be thoroughly discus,ed in Committee. It does not follow that those members who support the motion

[Mr. Bowman.

are going to support the insertion of theEe a,mendments in the Bill. So far as I am con­cerned, I intend to support the motion, and with regard to the allowance "·i th respect to children, I said at the late election that it is only a fair thing that parents should have an allowance in respect to the maintenance, cloth­ing, and education of their childnm. Every­one knows that a person in rec€'ipt of a large income is very frequently not l 'Iter off. by reason of thB calls on his positicn. tha.n a~ n1an with a smaller income.

l\Ir. RYLAND (Gyrnpie): I intend to oppose this motion as a piece of class le;islation. It is a propDsal that every persm1 rec,?iving an income of over £200 a vear shocild receive a, bonus for every child he has, and, inferenti­ally, that a man with less than £:200 a year is not to be considered a.t all. If W<' wa.nt to deal fairly with those people who are going to popu­la.te the country, then they should be given a bonus. Let everyone come under that provi­sion. The poor man should get his bonus as well as the man with £400 or ~500 a, year. The queo;tion can only be met l:y giving a, bonus, and not by such a proro<al as that ot the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. WOODS (IV aothakata): I intend to op­pose this motion, not for the reawns given by the leader of the Labour part,v. although I

am prepared to a<lmit that he [5.30 p.m.] ga.-e excellent reasons. He pointed

out that an exemption of £200 is one of the planks in the Labour platform. Every Labour man, not only in Queensland, but throughout the Commonwealth, heartily agrees with that particular plank of the Labour platform. But we have something else to consider. \Ve have to considel' the Old Age Pensions Bill which is now be­fore the House. \Ve are pro.-iding in that Bill to pay pensions. to the aged and infirm poor of the State. The Government must be congratulated on proposing to exempt, not only the man who receives £200 a year, but for making a further proposition to exempt £200 in the income of a man receiving £2,000 a year. They have gone a great deal further than any other Government that has ever occupied the Treasury benches, It has been pointed out by several hon. mNnbers that in 1902 the Labour party pressed for an exemption of £1 a week, and what was the attitude taken up then by hon. members now sitting on the op­posite side of the House. We were told dis­tinctly that if an exemption of £1 a week was granted the Bill would be withdrawn. We find those very people coming forward and proposing to exempt people who are still ;:tble to provide for their children, notwithstanding the fact that on the Estimates provision is made for paying £120,000 to the aged and infirm of this State. It is my intention to oppose the proposition for the reasons I have given. The latter portion of the motion proposes to exempt the incomes of mutual life insurance societies. 'I'hat is another reason why I am opposing the motion. I sincerely hope that in the very near future the monopoly that insurance companies have in Queensland will be wiped out. and that during this session the Government will come down with another plank in the Labour platform and add to our \V m· leers Compensa­tion Act a State Insurance Bill. Then, if the leader of the Opposition proposes to exempt the State insura,nce compa1iy from income tax I shall be perfectly willing to support him ; but, under present conditions, it is my inten-tion to oppose the motion. -

Income Tax Act [23 OcroBER.l Amendment Biil. 1361

Question put (M1·. Philp's motion); and the House divided :-

J.ir. Ar.mstrong , Barnes , Blocksidge , Bonchard ,, Creagh , Cribb " Denham

Forrest Fox Ham·an Jenkinson

,. Keogh Lesina

AYt:s, 25. 1Ir. }1acartney

)lc}faster 11oore

, Paget Paul! J!etrie

, Philp Somerset

, Stephens Stodart

, Swayne Walker

Tellers: ~Ir. Armstrong and )Ir. Crib b.

ilir. Adamson Barber Dell Blair Bowman

, Brennan Cowap Grant Gray son Gunn Hamilton Harclacre Hawthorn

, Herbertson Hunter Jackson Jones Kenna Kerr

Na>:s, 38. Mr. Kidston

Lennou , , l\Iacintosh

:IIclntyre ,, l\iann , 1-Iaughan

:\lax well ,, J\:Iay ,. :IIitchell ,. 31ulcahy , ?'\evitt

O'Sullivan n Payne , Plunkett ,, Redwood , Roberts

Ryland Sumner

, "\Voods 'l'ellet·s: ::\'lr. Ilardacre and 3-fr. Kenna.

Resolved in the negative

COMMITTEE.

On clause 1-" Short title and construction of Act"-

Mr. MACARTNEY drew the attention of the Treasurer to the absence of any reference to the Income 'rax Act of 1006 in the clause.

The TREASURER: I think the phrase "herein called the principal Act" covers that.

Mr. MACARTNEY: Y on are quite right. Clause put and passed.

Clause 2 - " Commencement of period of assessment "-put and passed.

On clause 3, as follows:-Subsection (ii.) of section seven of the principal Act

as enacted by section four of the Income Tax Act Amendment Act or 1906 is repealed, and the following subsection, na.mely:-

(ii.) On all income derived from}9d. in each and the produce of property .. . every £

is inserted in lieu thereof. In paragraph (a) of subsection (iii.) of section seven

of the principal Act as enacted by section four of the Income Tax Act Amendment Act or 1906, the words and figures" did not amount to £160" are repealed, and the words and figures "did not exceed £200" are in~ serted in liell thereof.

In paragraph ib) of the said subsection (iii.), the words and figures following, namely-" amounted to £160 or upwards and did not exceed £200, £120 of such income shall be exempt from tax, and in deducting such £120 the income from personal exertion, if any, shall be first resorted to; and where such total assessable in­come did exceed £200 and did not exceed £300, £100 o! such income shaU be exempt from tax, and in deduct­ing such £100 the income from personal exertion, if any, shall be first resorted to," are hereby repealed; and the words and figures following, namely-" amounted to more than £2UO then £200 of such income shall not be deemed to be part of the total income subject to tax, and accordingly shall be exempt from tax; and in de~ ducting such £200 the income from personal exertion, if any, shall be first resorted to," are inserted in lieu thereof.

HoN. R. PHILP moved the omission of the figure "9" in line 5, with a view of inserting the

1907-4P

figure "6." That would make the income de­rived from the produce of property Gd. in the £1, the same as on an income derived from personal exertion. There were very few persons with incomes derived from property who had not had to work hard in the early days to acquire that property. As a matter of fact, ia a young coun­try like Queensland there was no difference between incomes derived from personal exertion and incomes derived from property. In an old country like England a great deal of property passed from generation to generation; hut in Queensland ali propert.y had been sold by the Government, and most of the people had in­vested their hard-earned little savings in pro­perty, so that the income del'ived from property was just as much the result of pPrsonal exertion as any other form of income. ·when the Speaker was in the chair the 'rrea­surer told hon. members that he had brought this tax down as low as he pos,ibly could, and that he could not carry on the affairs of the country unless he got £200,000 from the income tax. If the £50,000 which the hon. gentleman proposed to take out of revenue for immigration, and the £50,000 for public buildinl's which is charged to revenue, were taken out of loan, and the £52,000 for adjustment of loss on loan were not made a charge on the cnrrent year's revenue, he would be able to greatly reduce the income tax. In the other States the income tax is very much less than it WM in Queensland. In Victoria they only expected to get something like £200,000 this year from a population of 1,250,000, and yet the Treasurer proposed to raise £200,000 from a little over 500,000 people in queensland. New South \Vales received about 7s. per head of the population from income tax and land tax c~.:n1bined, "''bile in Queensland the amonnt received was 10s. or lls., which was altogeth€1' too much to expect the people to pay. At the time the income tax was first introduced in Queensland the hon. gentle­man proposed to exempt incomes up to £200. If they could afford to exempt incomes of £200 in those days, they were better able to exempt incomes of £400 at the present time-in fact. there was no occasion to impose tbe income tax at all to-day,

The TREASURER : As he said on the second reading of the Bill, it was quite true that there was a distinction between income from property in an old settled country like England, where large properties had been inherited for generations, and income from property in a young country like Queensland. Still, he thought there was some difference in Queens­land between the assured income which a man had from property and the income which he derived from personal exertion. A man who was earning a salary of £300 or £400 per annum might lose his situation. Of course, a man who possessed property might also, from some cause over which he had no control, lose his property; but they looked upon the income from property as being of a more permanent nature than income from an occupation. They all recognised that there was some difference between the income from property and the income fron1 per­sonal E'xertion, and if anyone had to pay more than another it should be the man who derived his income from property. The income which he derived from that property came from the per­sonal exertion of someone else. His capital of itself would not bring him in an income; it was the industry of someone else which made that capital profitable.

Mr. BoucHARD: That capital is enabling that person by his personal exertion to earn money.

The TREASURER: That was quito true; it was a mutual benefit. But the capital by itself

Hon. W. Eidston.]

1362 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment BiU.

would not earn anything unless it was supple· mented by the labour of someone, who had, per. haps, also to pay on his income from personal exertion in enabling that capital to earn money. So that while it was true that a tax on property was not quite the same thing here as it was in an old country like England, it was, nevertheless, true that if there was any difference in the taxa­tion, then, even in Queensland, the heavier rate should fall on income from property. But there was another view of the matter, and that was that the Government were doing a very fair thing in regard to the tax on property. They were proposing to reduce tlmt tax by 25 per cent., and, at the same time, to make an exemption of £200 in all incomes from pro­perty. \Vhen the leader of the Opposition intro­duced the original Act, he thought it was a fair thing to make incomes from property pay a higher rate than incomes from personal exertion, and the Government· now proposed to reduce that rate by 25 per cent. This was not a me,tter involving a very large sum of money. They only got a few thousand pounds from the tax on incomes from property, but still he thought it was a fair thing that 'ome difference should be made in the tax on the two different kinds of incomes. If the leader of the Opposition were consistent in his action, he would also propose that the tax on im,cnnes from personal exertion should be reduced from 6d. to 4~d., which would be equivalent to the rdnction of 25 per cent. which he propc,sed in the tax on incomes from property.

Mr. MACAR"rKEY : IV ould you accept such an atnendrnent?

The TREASURER: No, he would not accept such an amNJdment, becau,;e that would be a serious inroad on the tax. He thought the vro­posal in the Bili was not only fair but most generous to th,se taxpayers who derived income from property.

Hor-;. E. B. FORREST: While tho proposals of th• Bill might be fair in some respects, yet they were unfair in other respects. If the £50,000 for immigration and the £50,000 for public building> were t:!ken out of loan inetcoad of out of rev,c.;nue, as had been the practice from time immemorial, they would be e,ble to still further reduce the tax.

The TREASI'RER: That is a bad practice. HoN. E. R FORREST: The hon. gentleman

might think so, but other people thought it was a very good practice, and the money had been taken cut of loan until this year. \Yben the Premier published his manifesto in the first instance the people were de~pondent with regard to the exemption of £200.

The TREASURER: I saw the money. HoN. E. B. FORREST: The hon. gent!emaon

saw the election. The TREASURER : If I had not seen the money

I would not have made the promise.

HoN. E. B. FORREST : He did not know so much about that. It was pointed out at some outside place that there was some doubt on the subject, and the Treasurer, in order probably to help some candidate along, gave way on the matter. However, the proposal of the Bill in that respect was a very fair one, but it was not a fair thing to take the money he had referred to out of revenue. Let the Government take that money out of loan, and they would then be able to make this a better and a fairer Bill. He intended to support the amendment.

The TREASURER: The leader of the Opposi­tion and the hon. memlJer for North Brisbane both otated that if he would take the £50,000 for immigration and the £50,000 for public

[Hon. W. Kidston.

buildings out of loan money, he would not need this revenue from the income tax. \Vhat the Government were trying to do was to run a financial policy that would not be subject to great bursts and great collapses. They were trying to run Queensland in the good times in such a way that when bad t.izuel::) ca1ne they would not have to resort to special taxation when people could ill afford it. That was the idea they had in view. Whether they succeeded in carrying it out or not the future would tell. But if their idea was correct, then he ventured to· say that there was nobody who knew ,my­thing about our past circumstances but would admit that if we could go through without present burdens, and face bad times without having to cut down public expenditure, and without having to put on new taxation, that would be a good thing for Queensland.

Hox. R. PHILP could not follow thP- argu­ment of the Premier in saying that in good

times we ought to get money from [7 p.m.] taxation so that it would not be

felt as much in bad times. Now that the Premier did not want money be ought to rerr1it taxation, and let the people have the amcunt to spend thernsel ves. He thought the people could spend the £200,000 better than the Treasurer could.

The TRllAScRBH : And borrow money to do the spending?

HoN. R. PHILP : \Vhen the late Government brought the Incnn1D Tax Bill in there was a shortege of £400,000. The Treasurer had now a surplus of £400,000, and still he went on.

Mr. GRAXT: No; he is reducing it.

Hox. R. PHILP: Re was taking it off one and I utting more on the other. ln 1903 the Treasurer received £222,000 from income tax, and he made a remiscion that :vear of £53,000. He took £23,000 off one side and put £40,000 on the other. The following year he received £204,000. Last year he got £284,000-very much more than his predece,·mrs. They ought to remit it altugether; but, as the 'l'reasnrer would not do that, he thought they might bring the tax on incmnes from property down to the same as that from perscnal exertion. It would be bet.ter if the taxnavers keDt this monev in their ·pockets, t.o exte'"ncf their ~business, than for the Treasurer to spend it in payin:o off some fancy debt of five or six years ago. He ought to have paid it out of the surplus last year; but he took £400,000 more than he wanted fr,,m the tax­payers of Queensland last year. The reductions in the railway fares and freights were not wurth talking of, and it would have been better for the State if we had taken off the income tax altogether, and left the railways as they were before. He knew tb" Committee would not remove the taxation altogether, but he thonght they were justified in making the tax on property the same as on per.sona.l exertion. If the TreH' urer would make thE one 4·~d., as he (Mr. Philp) had suggested, he would be agreeable to do that, but the Treasurer would do nothing. He had got all his party whipped up, and had threatened to resign if they did not accept this. They would vote for anything he proposed. They would vote £50,000 for immigration.

Mr. RYLAND: No.

Mr. GRANT thought the leader of the Oppo­sition was labouring under a fallacy in regard to the increased amount the Government had been getting. If the State had such a big surplus, the people themselves had been in a position to pay more income tax.

Hon. R. PHILP: \Vas not the rate increased?

Income Ta:r Act [2:3 OCTOBER.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. GRANT: But the people were in a better position to pay it now than they were when the hon. member enforced it. It wtts a common report in his district that one of the wealthiest squatters t~ere got off the first year for 10s. on accountofhlS losses. That appl1ed also to the other industries. The people, like the finances, were much richer now than when the tax was imposed years ago. The Treasurer was reducing the rate now, bnt when he increased the rate it did not satisfy the leader of the Opposition, audnow he was reducing it it did not satisfy the bon. gentle­man. The hon. gentleman's speech on the first Income Tax Bill would make intere•ting reading. All the things he advocated this afternoon he totally oppos d. at that time. He made a boast thie afternoon that it was only imposed for two years. \Vas it not one of the hon. member's own followers who brought that proYision in by a side wind to "ave the facee of the hon. gentleman's own followers, so that the Act would terminate just before a general election. That was trans­parent to everyone. The hon. gentleman sv,id th:1t Mr. C,<rt·nthers was going to abolish the income tax altogether, but his successor was only going to make some slight deduction in it. No country in the world wonld do away with the income tax, which was one of the most just taxes that could be levied. No countrv that had once proposed it had ever done away \vith it. It was a fair tax, and those wbo were in a position to pay had to pay it. The greatest portion of the com­munity were getting- reductions, and it came with a bad grace from the hon. gentleman, who would not allow any exemptions in his first Income Tax Bill, to try and do away with it altc.gether.

Mr. MACARTNEY : There is a difference in the times.

Hon. R. PHILP: \Vhen they imposed the in­come tax it was only for two years, and the times were very different from what they were now.

The CHA 1Ri\IAN : Order! I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is an amendment before the Com­mittee, and I think hon. members should confine themselves to that.

* Mr. BOUCHARD was rather disappointed that the Treasurer had not seen fit to accept the amendment. Anyone who listened to the Treasurer when he moved the second reading must have come to the conclusion that he was satisfied that it was hardly a fair thing to make any distinction between income derived from personal exertion and that derived from pro­perty, and in listening to him this afternoon anyone would come to the same conclusion. The arguments he used in favour of doing away with the distinction were much more weighty than the arguments he used why there should be a dis­tinction. He held it was not a fair thing to impose a higher rate in respect of income de­rived from property than from personal exertion. One must take into consideration the fact that a young person might be able to earn a much larger income from personal exertion than one who had attained to mature years, and had put aside his savings in order that he might provide himself and his wife with a competence in their old age ; but simply because they had been pro­vident they were to be taxed at e. higher rate than if they were young and able to earn a higher income by their own personal exertions. He really could not understand the Treasurer, and felt satisfied that in his own mind he did not think it fair, He believed the hon. gentleman desired to gratify, or satisfy, the members of the Labour party, who for some reason always had a grudge against anybody who was in possession of properGy, or had an income derived from pro­perty. They were apt to view those people as if they were capitalists, and to term them

"boodiers." He noticed that those same mem­bers, although they had such an objection to capital, were always otriving in the same direction.

The TREASUREH : They are almost as humun as others.

Hon. K B. J<'oHREST: ::\I ore so. Mr. BOUCHARD : He hoped the TrPasurer

would reconsider his decision, and do "'hat he considered a fair and just thing-that "a~, nmke no distinction in the two classes of taxpayers.

Question-That the figure "9," proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause-put and passed.

HoN. R. PHILP b"d another arr,endment to proy,ose in line 12. He llloved the omission of "£200," with a view of inserting "£300." The Treasurer himself was in favour of ex­empting £200 four years ago, and if it was a fair thing to exempt £200 then it would he a fair thing to exempt £400 now. Tn New Zealand they exempted £300, and in New South \Vales £240. In Victoria it was not so much. Still, he thought £300 a fair comprowise, and he hoped the Treasurer would accept it.

The TREASURER was afraid he could not accept the amendment, and, indeed, he doubted whether the hon. gentlemon was not trying to perJJetrate a joke. It UPed to be considered a very extreme thing on the part of the Labour party if they propossd a £200 exemption in the income tax. Five years ago, when the tax was first proposed, it was considered that no one buc a Labour n1a.n would be so unreasonable as to ask for an exemption of £200, bnt the leader of the Opposition really appeared to want to out­Herod Herod.· He did not know whether it was anything on the Opposition benches which affected him, bnt he was becoming- more extreme than the most extreme. Surely the hon. g-entle­man was not serious.

Mr. JENKINSON: Drop that gag now. It is played out.

The TREASURER did not think for one moment that if the hon. gentleman w><~ in his position he would propose a Bill with a £300 exemption.

Hon. R. PHILP: vVhy not? I would abolish it.

The TREASURER thought in this country £200 was a fair and reasonable exemption.

Hon. R. PHILP: What about New Zealand?

The TREASURER: The exemption in New Zealand was, he thought, rather high. A man with a clear income of £300 might fairly be asked to contribute some small part of direct taxation. Under the Bill, they provided that a man with £300 would only pay income tax on £100. A man with £400 would only pay income tax on £200. No one could say that that was unreasonable or unfair. He thought lhe Committee ought to be satisfied with the proposal in the Bill.

Mr. MACARTNEY considered the amend· ment a perfectly reasonable one. If a £300 exemption was provided for in the platform of the Labour party, he took it that the amend­ment should have the support of that party. It was perfectly true that the exemption of £300 in that platform did not apply to the income tax. It was the exemption they pro­posed under a land tax, but the analogy stood perfectly good. Perhaps the hon. members of that party wonld be able to give a reason for that exemption, but he had always understood that it was a sop to the small farmers who had land of not very great value.

The TREASURER: You bring in a land tax with a £300 exemption, and you will get support for it.

Mr. Macartn.ey.]

1364 Income Tax .LLct [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. MACARTNEY: He did not follow the hon. gentleman. He never re:1ily could under­stand the reason for the difference in the two exemptions provided for in the Labour party's platform unless the .£300 land tax exemption was a purely vote-catching appliance.

The TREASURER: And yet you said you did not understand it?

Mr. MACAHTNEY: That was the only explanation he could give of the difference between the two exemptions, He wc,uld be very much surprised, in view of the express t<>rms of the Labour platform, if the amendment did nob receive the support of that party.

The '.PREASURER : I do not think you under­stand the Labour party any more than you understand their platform.

Mr. MACARTNEY : The hon. gentleman was quite right. That was exactly how he looked at the Labour party. He did not under­stand them, for the very simple reaEOn that their practice did not coincide with their principles.

The TREASURER: Perhaps they understand you.

Mr. MAOARTNEY : The hon. gentleman might he right there, too, hut he was inclined to doubt him all the same. There ought not to be very much di~cully _in understanding him, because everyth10g be d1d was fairly transparent and aboveboard. (Government laughter.) The members of the Labour party came down with their very broad and very nice principles, which they advocated strongly, but when the hon. gentleman cracked the whip of dissolution over their heads they swallowed their priuciples.

The CHAIRMAN: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that I do not think it in order to attack the Labour party. It is very natural that Labour members will want to reply, and the debate will then drift away from the amendment. I will ask the hon. gentle­man to confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. 1IACARTNEY had no wish to atta.ck the Labour party, and he would draw the Chair­man's attention to the fact that he was speaking strictly in reply to the Treasurer's interjections which, of course, would not be out of orde; under any circumstances. However, he thought it fair to point out that the amendment was really in accord with the principles advocated by a certain section of the House, and it was only reasonable to ask their support of it,

Mr. KENNA: When the leader of the Op­position introduced the Income Tax Act lH• gave as his reasons why he would not consent to exemptions that if everyone had to bear the burden of taxation it would be a good check on extravagance, and that even families should contribute the £1 poll tax because the children received free education. Furthermore, it was contended by him that a £200 exemption would leave nothing to collect. Now the hon. gentle­man wanted to exempt up to £300, and it would be justifiable for the Treasurer to tell him that a £300 exemption would leave nothing to collect. He did not blame the Opposition for their action which was simply according to the party system' but he could not help contrasting their actio~ now with that of five years ago. In regard to the £300 exemption in New Zealand, it must be remembered that the cost of living was con­siderably higher there, and that might justify a higher exemption. An exemption of £200 was in accord with practice everywhere else. It was a fair margin, which would exempt a large number of people, and leave them a reasonable living wage.

Hon. R. PHILP : Do not you believe in that? Mr. KENNA: He was supporting that prin·

ciple.

[Mr. M acartney.

Mr. DENHAM: There was not the least in­tention of seeking to embarra•s the exchequer. Every hon. member w:J.s loyal enough to his

couutry to see it financed safely. [7.30 p.m.] The amendment sought to relieve

the taxpayers, and to obviate a wild rush of extravagance. They believed that the amount tho,t would he received with the exemp­tion of £300 would be amtoly sufficient to finance the affairs of the State. The debate went to prove how much better it would be if, iustead of having to bring down an amending Bill every year, there was a provision in the Act for raising or reducing the amount to be collectPd. As the Bill provided for a tax of 6d. in the £1, and us the Treasurer was not disposed to reduce the amount, members of the Opposition sought to get relief by raising the exemption from £200 to !'300.

Mr. KEOGH was rather astnnished at the Treasurer not accepting the amendment, particu­larly as it would placate his friends of the Labour party, who were keeping him in power. Urider the amendment thp £300 a year which they received would be exempt from taxation. (Laughter.) In supporting the amendment, ban. members would not be foilowing the example set by members of the Commonwealth P:uliament, who increased their own screws by £200 each ; and it would be only fair if they exemnted their salaries from income' tax. The amount would not be required, as a large surplus was anticipated. The Bill was only introduced originally for two years, and, had the leader of the Opposition remained in power, he had not the slightest doubt the tax would not have be'm reimposed unless it was rrquir€d. Seeing they did not require the money, it was only right that the exemption should he increased to £300.

Mr. BARNES: The hon. member for Oxley was perfectly right. In the old country the tax was fixed on a sliding scale, accnrding to the re­quirements of the Treasury. He could readily understand an hon. member voting for an exemption of £300, and finding that the needs of the country necessitated next year or the follow­ing year the reduction of the exemption.

The TREASURER: \Ve might have to abolish exemptions altogether.

Mr. BARNES : Tha.t was very likely. One could never tell what would happen in a country like this.

Mr. RYLAND: You cannot tell what a change of Government would do.

Mr. BARNES : One thing was certain, and that was that there never would be a Govern ment with the hon. member in it. He was going to vote for the amendment, because the finances of the country were such as to permit of an exemption of £300.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: You voted against an exemption of £52 in 1902.

Mr. BARNES was quite prepared to stand by anything he had done. Circumstances in the past were very different ; :J.nd they now war­ranted an exemption of £300. He was sorry the Treasurer could not see his way to further lighten the burden of taxatiOn. If the hon. gentleman had met the Committee on that point he would not have hurt anybody, and would have been doing what was the original intention when the tax was imposed in 1902.

Mr. \VOODS intended to oppose the amend­ment. The hon. member.s who were now advo­cating an Ec'xemption of £300 refused to exempt from taxation the man receiving less than £1 a week in 1902.

Mr. MACARTNEY : Your own leader put the bailiff in.

Inrome Ta:r Act [23 OcToBER.] Amendment Bill. 1365

Mr. WOODS: The leader of the Govtrn­ment put the hon. memlwr and his colleagues into their proper ),lace; but, if they were on the Treasury benche"" to-morrow, tlwy would do exactly as they did in 1B02.

Mr. Kl<JOGH: \Vho puL the bailiff in in Charters Towers?

Mr. WOODS: The hon. member put the bailiff into mar>Y a man's house. Either hon. members on the. other side were not sincere in 1902, or they were nvt sincere now.

Mr. MACA!\TX>;Y : Is there no difference in the times?

Mr. \VOODS: ·whatever difference there might be iu the timP~, the revenue received by hon. gentlemen O)Jposite in 1902 was as large as the revenue received by the present Govern­ment during any year.

OPPOSITIOX }lE}IBERS: No. Mr. \VOODS : The difference was that hon.

members now sat on the other side. If the pre­sent Government had carried on in the same way as the late Government-if they had allowed Lindon Bates to get £170,000 in one snap after a fifty-five minutes' trial; if they had allowed Nisbet to build twenty useles.; tank engines--

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. \VOODS : The division lists in Hansard

were rather unfortunate for hon. member~ opposite.

Mr. MACA!\TNEY : Read them. Mr. WOODS: The hon. member raised a

quibble because he knew that when the Bill was passing through Committee he was in the chair ; but what about the hon. member's attitude on the third reading of the Bill? 'Vas the leader of the Opposition moving the amendment to exempt the salaries of hon. members?

Hon. R. PHILP: No. Mr. \VOODS: It appeared very much like it.

A few weeks ago the hon. gentleman addressed a public meeting in Brisbane, called at his own instigation, and condemned the Labour party in the J:<'ederal Parliament for increasing their own salaries.

Hon. R. PHILP : That is not true. Mr. \VOODS: Yet he proposed now to in­

crease hon .. members' salaries by exempting them from mcome tax. In 1902, when the people required an exemption more than they did to-day, the hon. member refused to allow any exemption. Either he was not sincere then or he was not sincere now.

Mr. KEOG H rose to make a personal explana· tion. He defied the hon. member or any other hon. member to say that during the forty years he had been in business he had ever put in a bailiff.

HoN. R. PHILP did not wish to reply to the hon. member for \Voothakata, because he made statements which were never borne out by facts. The hon. member stated that he (Mr. Philp) received as much revenue in 1902 as had been received during any year since the present Go­vernment took c•ffice.

Mr. WooDs : I did not refer to this year. HoN. R. PHILP : The hon. member said "in

any year." The Treasurer's tables showed that in l902 the late Government received £3,556,000. In 1903-4 the present Government received £3,595,439; in 1904-5, £3,595,399; in 1905-6, £3,853,523; and in 1906-7, .£4,307,912. What value could be attached to any statement made in the House by the hon. member for Woo­thakata in the face of those facts?

Mr. WooDs: Figures can prove anything. You know that. (Loud laughter.)

Mi'. PETRIE (Tvomlml) intended to support the amendment, because the finances of the State were in such a condition now that they were justified in raising the exemption to £300. The f\Xemption in New Sonth \Vales was £240 and in New Zealand £300, and he saw no reason why, when the country wc<s prospering, the~· should not increase the exemption in Queensland to £300, and so relieve the general public of a por­tion of the burden of taxation. He should have liked to have seen the operation of the Act sus­pended for a year or two, and provision made to the effect ·that this tax should only be collected when it was actually necessary. The tax should be arranged on a sliding scale, so that it would not be necessary to collect a tax of Sd. or 9d. in the £1 when od. would be sufficient to meet their requirement.c. \Vhen the continuous Govern· ment were in power no o,ttempt was made to force men to pay the tax when, by reason of straitened circumstances, they were not in a position to pay it, but he knew of cases where, under the administration of the present Govern­ment, men who had been out of work for a long time, and had then earned a little at relief works, were made to pay the tax from the start. When the election was in progress the Treasurer at first only intended to make the exemption £160, but afterwards, when he found that public opinion was against him, he raised it to .£200.

The THEASURER: \Vhere did the Treasurer say that?

Mr. PETRIE: The Treasurer said a good many things dnring the election.

The TREASURER: He did not say that. Mr. PETRIE: He apologised if he was wrong,

but he had bean under the impression that the hon. gentleman said that. He hoped the amend­ment would be carried.

Mr. ARMSTRONG: This proposal to increase the exemption was a business matter, and the question was whether the country could afford it. Could the Treasurer give the Committee infor.­mation which would show what amount of revenue would be lost to the country by raising the exemption from .£200 to £300? If he could give hon. members that information, it was possible that it might influence some votes.

The TREASURER: He had no accurate in­formation on the subject, but hon. members would see for themselves that the proposed increase in the exemption would take .£2 10s. off the tax of each person who had an income of .£300 a year, and £2 10s. off the tax of every person whose income was more than £300. 'l'he amendment meant that every taxpayer which this Bill pro­posed to leave would be exempt from taxation to the extent of £2 10s. more than it was pro· posed to exempt them under the Bill. If there were 10,000 or 11,000 taxpayers, that would amount to a considerable sum. He did not think the amount would be less than £20,000 per annum.

Mr. DENHAM: There are only 7,000 taxpayers. The TREASURER: There were more than

7,000 taxpayers. As he had previously shown, the number of taxpayers in 1903 was 90,419 ; but it must be remembered that the dividend duty was not collected that year under the In­come Tax Act, consequently the companies were not included in that 90,419. All the companies which were now paying income tax would have to be added to the figures he had given, and there would be a great many more than 7,000 taxpayers under this Bill.

Hon. R. PHILl' : How many companies are there?

The TREASURER: He could not say how many there were ; he could not pretend to give

Hon. W. Kidston.]

1366 Income Tax Art [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

such details. But the adoption of the amend­ment would mean the throwing away of a very large amount of taxation. The people of the State were better able to afford to pay this tax now than they were five years ago.

:\fr. COW AP (Fitz1·oy) believed that £200 was a fair exemption. It exempted nearly all the working people, and the man who had an income over £200 could afford to pay the tax. 'When what was called the irreducible minimum exemp­tion -that was, £52-was proposed in 1902, the following members now sitting in opposition voted against that proposal, namely :-Messrs. ArmRtrong, Barnes, Oampbell, J. C. Cribb, Denham, Forrest, }'ox, Hanran, P. J. Leahy, Macartney, Moore, Paget, Petrie, Philp, and Stodart. "While he thought that the Govern­ment were justified in proposing the present exemption, and while he would snpport them in that proposal, believing that the Treasurer needed the money which was derived from the income tax, he hoped that if at some future time the country was in a pmition to allow it to be done the exemption would be increased to £300 or £400. He would vote af!ainst the amendment.

:Yir. CAMPBELL (.Moreton): The income tax was first imposed in 1902, in consequence of the difficulties resulting from the great drought, and the alteration which was made in the tariff by the Federal Government. According to the Labour P~>rty, the t~>xation on certain necessaries of life wa,s reduced by that tariff to the extent of 18s. 2d. per head of the population, and that was one of the reasons why the late Government pro­posed a minimum income tax of 10s. It would be seen that in the ca<e of a family of six, if they had to pay an income tax of 10-<. per annum, that would be a great Raving as compared with what they had to pay in taxes under the previous tariff. Now, they had a new tariff, and they did not !<now how much th~y would have to pay, bub rt was pretty cert:~un that a great deal more was w be extracteri from the pockets of the people than was taken from them five years ago. The probabilites were that the new Common­wealth tariff _wou_ld stand as it had been proposed. \Ye were takmg It out of the people in that way,

and the Treasurer wanted to take it [R p.m.] out of them for the income tax.

He considered that the Treasurer CJuld, without any trouble, grant the extra £100 exemption. He submitted that the people co:rld m~ke better use of the money than the Treasurer could! and suggested that it would be good busi­ness If the Government would allow their fol­lowers to support the amendment. If it took too much out nf the people it was not good government. The hon. gentleman wanted to grab all tbe money that was available, but he would do a gre~t deal of good to the people if he would let the!Jl use thei-r--own money. 'l'lle taxa­tion we 1rnd to submit to under the Federal con­dit~ons was in.tolerable in many ways, and, seemg that thB community had to suffer in common wit.h the other Sta,tes, it was the duty of the Premier to reheve the taxation as far as he could.

* Mr. IIIAJ'i'N pointed out that if the tariff had made things de>trer to the people we had exempted them under the Bill. In the past, the Government which the hon. member for Moreton supported gave no exemption at all but theyresent Government were giving them a~ exemptwn of £200, which more than made up for the >tdded amount they had to pav under the tar!ff. The p~rty the ho~. gentleman belon15ed to a.t that trme not only put on a poll tttx, but des:red also to tax tea and kerosene by an inland rev0nue tax after the Com­monwealth Parliament let it in free. They

[Hon. W. K idston.

said that as this tea and kerosene were coming in free they mmt get level with the poor people and put a poll tax on.

l\fr. CA~!PBELL: It was 10s., as against £5. Mr. MANN: They desired to make it £1, and

when they could not do that they came down to 10s. Now that the hon. member was in Opposi­tion, he wanted an exemption up to £300 to exempt his own salary. He believed the hon. member was like the hon. member for Clermont -he desired to exempt all incomes, and pile the tax on to the man on the land. He did not trouble about anyone as long as timber was pro­tected and plenty of immigrants were coming in to work for lower wages. The hon. member for Toombul stated that the Premier had made different proposals with regard t•> the income tax when he found £160 was not agreeable, .but did the hon. member not know that the two Sia!IJese twins, the dual leaders sitting over there, issued a manifesto at Toowoomba at midnight, and wired it all over the country?

Hon. R. PHILP : That is not a fact. Mr. lVIAl'i'N: It was correct, and the hon.

gentleman knew it. HoN. R. PHILP said the statement of the

hon. member for Cairns was quite untrue, and he gave it an unqualified denial.

Mr. MA::\'N : Did the hon. gentleman-­The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem­

ber must accept the denial of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MANN : According to the ruleR of the House--

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I mu't ask the hon. member not to make personal reflections, and I must ask other hon. members not to inter­ject while member; are speaking. Members· must confine themselves to the question before the Committee.

Mr. MANN was glad the Chairman had made that ruling. There were interjections all over the House, especially from the hon. member for--

The CHAIRC\fAN : Order! The hon. member is not speaking to the question.

Mr. MANN: Very well, he would speak to the question.

HONOGBABLE MEMBERS: \Vithdraw ? Mr. MANN did not wish to wiihdraw any­

thing be said, but out of deference to the House he would accept the hem. gentleman's denial.

Mr. BARNES ro>e to a point of order. He understood the Chairman to soy that the hon. n1ember was out of order in n1aking certain re­flections UJ;on another hon. member, b'lt the hon. member refused to withdraw what be said.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not ask the hon. member fur Cairns to withdraw his statement. I simply asked him to accept the statement of the leader of the Opposition, and I think the hon. member accepted the statement.

Mr. PAGET (11facka11): ThP Tteasurer, this afternoon, from figures which he ga ,.e, led the Committee to understand that there would be about 4, 000 taxpayers nnder the A cr.

The TREASURER : I did not say that. Mr. PAGET: Taking· the 86,000 people ex­

empted from the 90,000 who pair! in 1902. Then he gave some amended figures to the effect that there would be 7,000 if the Act were amended in the way he proposed, but in speaking on the present amendment tn make the exemption £300, he s"id it would be quite impossible for him to say what the loss wuuld be to the Treasury. He further said that the loss would be £2 103. per taxpayer, but that he was unable

Income Tax Act [23 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1367

to say how many companies were paying income tax which were formerly taxed by way of a dividend tax. The number of companies which paid income tax last year, according to the Con1missioner's report, was 535, so that even supposing there were 535 companies, what sum did it amount to? It made just about £18,000 for the remission asked for. The question re­solved itself into whether the Treasurer could afford to remit a further £1R,OOO. They on this side of the House thought that in view of the expanding revenue the 'l'reasurer could afford to remit this sum in addition to what he proposed.

Mr. NEVITT (Carpentctria): As a young member he had been trying to find out the motive for this amendment.

Mr. PAGET: The motive is the remission of taxation.

Mr. NEVITT: Considering that the same gentlemen who now wanted to relieve a man in receipt of .£6 a week from any direct taxa­tion were not preparPd to relieve a man in receipt of £1 a week five years ago.

Mr. P AGET: That is very ancient. Mr. NEVITT : It was quite true, and they

were not so well able to p:1y taxation then <ts they were to-day. Hon. members on this side of the Chamber had been saying the whole of this session that conditions were more pros­perous, and yet they turned round and s.:1id we were not in as good a position to-day to pay taxation as we were five years ago. In looking over the Treasurer's tables during the four years gentlemen on this side of the Chamber were in office, they received from direct taxation an average amount of £39s. 5~d. perannum per head. During the four years of the present Govern­ment they had only taken from the pockets of the people .£3 3s. 3~d. per head.

~Ir. AR~ISTRONG: Has not the population in­creased?

Mr. l'<EVIT'r: What difference did that make? (Laughter.) That as per capita. They had taken from the pockets of the people fis. 2d. per head less than what the Philp Administration took during the time they occupied the Treasury benches, whichmadeadifference in a family of five oL£11G.9. lOd. Yet hon. members turned round and said they were not relieved sufficiently. He could not understand such an attitude. He would not support the amendment, as he con­sidered £200 a year was a very fair exemption. The hon. member for Toowong, who should have known better, twitted the Labour party with having an exemption of £300.

Mr. MACARTXEY : I said a land tax. Mr. NEVITT: The hon. member said an

income tax first.

Mr. MAUKI:l\TOSH (Cambooya) intended to vote against the amendment. At the last elec­tions he had expressed himself to the effect that the Premier intended to leave the exemption at £200, >tnd that he believed that the increase in stock would be exempted until they were sold or realised. Also, produce which had remained unsold or unrealised upon had been exempt from taxation. Under those circumstances, he could not support the amendment. He was one of the five who voted against the orig-inal Income Tax Rill, but he had come to the conclusion since that the income tax was a fair and reasonable tax, and that if they did not resort to it they would have to resort to the iniquitous land tax. If be did not oppose the amendment he would be breaking faith with his party, and would be l)elping to embarrass the Treasurer in his finan­ci~l calc':llations. He considered that people wrth an mcome of £300 a year could afford to contribute £2 10s. a year to the revenue.

:Mr. GRAYSON: As a member representing a farming constituency, he would like to state that during the election campaign he promised the electors of Cunningham that he would try and induce the Treasurer to raise the exen1ption to £200. The hon. gent,Jeman had fixed the exemption at .£200, and had also provided that stockowners were not to be called upon to make any return for the natural increase in stock until it was reaiised upon. Further, the farmers were not to be forced to include in their returns the produce which they had on hand at the time the returns were made out. Practically everything he promised to the electors of Cunningham had been conceded by the Trea9urer, and under those circumstances he could not see his way clear to support the amendment, which no doubt was intended to catch votes on the Government side. He might tell the leader of the Opposition that he wa; not going to catch him.

Hon. R. PHILP : You are too slippery to catch. Mr. GRA YSON: A £200 exemption was

quite as much as the Treasurer could afford. The hon. member for Clermont and the leader of the Labour party had spoken very strongly about the necessity for imposing a land tax. He might say emphatically that every effort would be used by him to oppose the imposition of such a tax. He considered that the income tax was a far fairer tax, under which professional men and others who earned larg-e incomes could. be compelled to contribute towards the upkeep of the State. He was not surprised to hear members representing metropolitan and suburban districts ad vacating that the income tax should be abolished. The greater number of their con­stituents were civil servants who were drawing large salaries, and if the tax was abolished tbose people would have no taxation to pay at all.

Mr. HARDACRE : If there was a land tax the biggest revenue would come from the metro­politan constituencies.

Mr. GRAYSON: He did not think so. The CHAIRMAN : I am sorry to interrupt

the hon. gentleman, but the question before the Committee is whether the exemption shall be raised from £200 to £300. I hope the hon. gentleman will not initiate a debate on the land tax.

Mr. GRAYSON: Quite so. He knew he was treading on dangerous ground ; but he would emphasise the fact that he personally would prefer an income tax to a land tax. He was well aware that if the financial exigencies of the State warranted it, it would be much more popular for members supp.1rting the Government to support the amendment of the leader of the Oppo"ition ; but the Treasurer had said em­phatically that the financial position of the State did not warrant the exemption b.eing raised to £300.

Mr. JENKINSON: He did not say that. Mr. GRAYSON: He practically mid so. He

said he wanted the money, and he considered that raising the exemption to £200 should ;;atiofy every reasonable man in the House.

HoN. R PHILP had not moved the amend­ment with the idea of catching votes on the other side, and he had not asked any member on the other side to vote for the amendment. He po,rticularly rose to answer the member for Car­pentaria, who was a young member, and who, no doubt, was sincere in his remarks. That hon. gentleman had said that the Philp Government imposed more direct taxation than the present Government. It was quite true that they col­lected more money from stamp duty, but that was not taken from the people of Queensland, but from two large estates-the Tyson and

Hon.R. Philp.]

1368 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] .Anwndment Bill.

Walker estates. In 1899-1900 they collected £245,000, the following year £241,000, and it came down to £H6,000. The present Govern­ment had collected far more )'er head from the general taxpayer than the previous Government. The pravious Government only collected the minirrnun income tax for one year, but; the pre~ sent Govenunent collected it for eighteen months; and, as a, matter of facG, the present Treasurer had been the big;;est tax gatherer that Queensland had ever kno\vn.

The 'l'REAScRER : One year's poll tax was a bigger infliction on the people of Queensland than any taxation ever imposed.

HoN. H. PHILP : If the Treasurer felt so very badly about it, why did he collect it? With his big majority, why did he not bring in a Bill to stop its collection? The late Government never issued a summons against any man on account of that tax, but the present Government had i'sued any number of writs. The late Go­vernment, as a matter of het, relievEd 5,000 people of the payment of income tax on the ground that they could not afford to pay.

Mr. JEXKINSON rose particularly to give the Committee a few figures with reference t,) the amount that had been raised by this and the previous Government, and he did so chiefly on account of the statements by the member for Carpentaria. He did not know where that hon. gentleman got hi" figures from, but he was going- to quote from the Treasurer's own figures, In 1901-2 the taxation per head was £3 ls. Sd.; the following year, 1902-3, it was £3 5s. ld.; and the next year, when the present Government came in with a wave of sympathy, declaring that they were not going to increase taxation, it was, as a matter of fact, increased to £3 7s. lld. per head, despite the fact that the population had increased from 510,000 to 536,000, which made the argument much stronger. Had the population remained stationary at 510,000, the taxation instead of being .£3 7s. lld. would have been £4 2s. 6d per head, or an increase over the the taxation of the previous Government of £1 7s. lOd. per head.

Mr. MACKINTOSH rose to a point of order. '\Vas the hon. gentleman speaking to the amend­ment?

The CHAIRMAN: The ban. member for· Fassifern is referring to arguments that have been used during the debate, and is referring to them at very considerable length. I have already drawn the attention of members to the fact that they are wandering from the amendment. Hon. gentlemen on both sides seem to be bringing forward matters of past history instead of con­fining themselves to the qu~stion before the Committee. I hope the hon. gentleman will not go mto this question at any length.

Mr. JE::"fKINSON: No; it was not his inten­tion to do so, and he would have finished long ago but for the disorderly interjections of the Pre· mier and his satellites.

GovERNMENT MEMBERS: Order, order ! '\Vith­draw!

The CHAIRMAN : I do not think the hon. gentlemen should refer to hon. members as "satellites."

GovERNMENT MEMBERS: '\Vithdraw! Mr. JENKINSON: The expression was a

perfectly parliamentary one. It was allowed in the Huuse of Commons, and in every Parlia­ment in the British dominions. There was nothing offensive about it.

The CHAIRMAN : I think the expression is offensive.

The TREASURER : '\Vithdraw !

[Hon. R. Philp.

Mr. JENKINSON : To proceed with the argument. The hon. member for Ounningham said he did not want a land tax, and said he would rrefer an income tax. He found the present Government had been squeezing more ont of the landho!dcrs of the State than the previous Government, and that despite the fact that the population had increased. The total taxation imposed by the present alleged non· taxation Government had increased from £8 2s. 6d. per head to £9 9s. Sd. per head. Seeing the amount had been squeezed out of the people, and seeing also that the Commonwealth Government were getting more out of the people

through the new tariff, it was a fair [8.30 p.m.] thing that the amendment should be

accepted so as to relieve the people from this excessive taxation. However hon. membere might have qualified the promise, there was not a single member who did not pledge himself on the hustings to reduce taxation. They were getting more money in other direc­tione, and they did not need it. '\Vhat was the use of piling up the revenue as the Treasurer was doing? \Vas it any fun for the hon. gentleman to squeeze out last year £400,000 more than he could U3e?

The TREASURER : It was given to me gladly. Mr. JENKINSON differed with the hon.

gentleman, It was not given gladly by anyone. He did not believe the Treasurer paid his own income tax or anything else with any amount of glee. The whole system of taxation turned on the point-how much was actually required to carry on the government? It had been proved conclusively that there was no need for exacting income tax on incomes between £200 n,nd £300.

'The amount exacted last year was £19,300, and he did not believe they would exempt the whole of that. Despite exemption after exemption, it was significant that, in the aggregate, there was always a larger amount of money taken from ~he taxpayers. If the Treasurer expected to receiVe £250,000 by certain methods, and he made a reduction which was the means of bringing in £280,000, as happened last year, what was the difference?

The TREASURER : People gladly pay it when they have a good Government.

Mr. JENKINSON : People did not gladly pay it. Speaking on behalf of himself and his constituents, he said they did not pay the income tax gladly.

Mr. ARMSTRONG: You can speak for my con­stituents too.

Mr. ,JENKINSON : And for every other ban. member's constituents. The weight of evidence was entirely in favour of the amendment, and he hoped the wisdom of the Committee would be exercised in that direction.

Mr. MITCHJ£LL: In politics they generally expected a little consistency. They had been told by the leader of the Opposition that the in­tention, when the income tax was first imposed, was only to continue it for two years.

Hon. R. PHILP : The Bill said two years. Mr. MITCHELL : The hon. member for

Bulimba stated, as an argument in favour of the amendment, that the intention of the Govern­ment when the income tax was first introduced was to exempt np to £300. Before they came to a division, it was only right that the leader <;>f the Opposition should make it clear whether It was intended to abolish theAot after two years, or whether the hon. member for Bulimba was right when he said it was the intention of the Govern­ment to exempt up to £300; because, if it was the intention of the Government to exempt up to £300, it could not have been their intention to

Income Taa: Act [23 OcToBER.] Amendment Dill. l3G9

do away with the income tax altogether. In 1902 the leader of the Opposition took the stand that his Government were the be't jndges of what money wrrs reCJuired to carry on the affairs of the State. The present Tres,surer took exactly the same stand. He was willing to m:1ke an exemption of £200 on all incomes, and he was certain he would meet with the approval not only of the Committee, but r:lso with the ap­proval of the country. He sinc,•rely h<,ped there was no intention of giving way. He did not wish to impute motives, but it was hardly pos­sible to come to the conclusion that the leader of the Opposition had any serious hope that his amendment would be accepted.

Mr. DEXHA::Y1: It was quite immaterial whether it wao the intention of the Government in H02 that the income tax should be permanent or otherwise. The question before the Committee was whether the exemption should be £200 or £300. The argument used hy the hon. member for Cambooya for opposing the amendmenb was the most curious he had ever heard. The hon. member argued that because people with incomes of between £200 and £300 could afford to pay a tax, it should be exactecl. The only justification for exacting taxation was the requirements of

· the Treasury, and it had not been shown that the finances woulcl be at all embarrassed by this further exemption. He understood that last year about £20,000 was the amount paid on incomes of between £200 and £300. Taking the Treasurer's own statement that there were 7,000 taxpayer,, at £2 10,;. per bead it would amount to £17,500. The present condition of the State justified a further exemption. The co~t of living wuuld be greatly increased by the new tariff. The Treasurer anticipated receiving a great deal more money this year from the Commonwealth. The whole question hinged on whether it was possible to grant this further exemption.

The TREASURER : That is not the question at all. The question is whether it is expedient.

Mr. DENHAM: It was in the highest degree expedient that the exemption should be granted. The dry weather throughout the Commonwealth was responsible for an increase in the price of breadstuffs, and the cost of living would be largely increased. There was no need for the Treasurer 1 to further oppress the taxpayers by resisting the a1nendment.

Mr. LBSINA was pledged to vote for a £200 exemption. The leader of the Opposition and other hon. members had pointed out that the question was whether the Treasurer could afford to raise the exemption to £300. He thought he could not.

The TREASCRER : Do you consider it prudent to do it?

Mr. LESI::'\fA: The Treasurer proposed to spend £50,000 a year in bringing unemployed Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen to Queensland, to compete for a living wit!, the people already here. That money must come out of the pockets of the people, and it there­fore appeared to him that it would be imprudent to raise the exemption to £300.

The 'rnEASCRER : Rather cleverly done.

Mr. LESINA: An exemption of £300 would perhaps put the Treasurer in the position of having no money to bring immigrants here, and, being pledged t<> support the Gove,·nment policy, he could not support such an exemption. It was either "irnmigrants" or "no immigrants." Hon. members would now see the necessity for sup­porting the £200 exemption.

Tbe TREASCRER : That will still leave us £25,000 or £30,000 to the good, so you mm still have a few immigrants and vote against the £300 exemption.

Mr . .LESIN A: La et night they were consider· ing a Bill providing for the payment of £120,000 a year in pensions for the aged poor of Queens­land. Tbat n1one-y had to come out of revenue, and if they rai.,ed tti" exemption to £300 there would be so -::nnch less rrtOHP:v n vailable to pay pensions, so that those who believed in old age pensions must vote "gainst the amendment. The £200 exemption wa'" a f(!,irly :.:;o1id one, and it was the exemption which fignred in the Government programme at the election. Jt w~s very cheer­ing to find that the peculiar little combination colloquially termed the "Black Soil Bunch," had seen fit to support the £200 exemption, Tha,t was about the only pbnk of the L~bour platform which they bad shown an entlnBiastic desire to support. It must be cheering to the Govern­ment to know that they had such control over t.fud:: rPf"'~.l,-.itrAnt. horlv. H$ it. Wf!R Ptated thev had. in an inspired article which appeared in last Sunday's Sun, the Government organ, and he was glad t·) know that the solid support of that party was behind the Government this w:ening. He intmded to support the Government in this matter.

Mr. \VOODS: \Vhen he stated earlier in the evening that during the time the leader of the Opposition occupied the Treasury benches the hon. gentleman had a better revenue than the present Government bad enjoyed during their term of oflice, the hon, gentleman denied that statement and quoted some figures in snpport of his denial. It was just as well that the figures on the other side should be given, and he would now quote some from Table C3, page 12, in the tables relating to the Treasurer's Financial Statement. In 1899-1900 the revenue received by the leader nf the Opposition was £4,588,206 14s. 8d.; in 1900-1901 it was £4,096,290 1<. 10d., and his deficit that year was £528,186 16s. 1d.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I hardly think the hon. member is in order in reading those figures. They do not appear to me to be rele­vant to the question before the Committee or to the remarks of the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. WOODS : The hon. gentleman used those very fignres-(langbter)-or figures similar to them, and said his memory of the matter was incorrect. He was now giving the figures from the Financial Statement.

Hon. R. PHILP: Quite wrong; you do not understand the tigures.

Mr. \VOODS: The country understood the hon. gentleman distinctly when he was dealing with figures.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I hope the hon. member will deal with this matt8r very briefly.

Mr. \VOODS: Very well, he would do so· In 1901-2 the revenue the hon. gentleman re­ceived was £3,535,061 lik 1d., and his deficit that year was £431,939 15s. 9d. In 1902-3 he received £3,526,,165. In 1903-4 the present Go­vernment received £3,595,439 13s. i:ld., and they had a deficit of £12,423 18s. 1d. In 1904-5 they received £3,595,398 lls. 3d. ; in 1905·6, £3,853,522 14s. 10d; and that year they had a surplus of £127,810 lls. 5d. Those figures proved conclusively the statement he had made, that while the bon. gentleman occupied the Treasury benches during the three years pre­vious to the present Government coming into office he had a bigger revenue than the present Government ever had.

Mr. Woods·]

1370 Income Tax Act CASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. member for \Voothakata said distinctly that the re,·enue for 1902-3 wa.s greater than any revenue that the Treasurer had received. The figures the hon. member had quoted referred to the revenue before the inception of fedemtion. The figures he (Mr. Philp) had quoted were from page 6 of the Treasurer's Statement, and he would not repeat them because the hon. member for \Voo­thakata knew nothing whatever a bout figuree.

Mr. HARDACRB: This was not a qms­tion of the remissiOn of taxation, or of pru­dence, but a question of the incidence of taxation-of retaining a form of taxation which was better than some other taxation­and he would not vote for the higher ex­emption in this particular form of taxation while a number of other taxes continued to be imposEd which pressed more heavily on the people than the income tax. If the leader of the Opposition wanted to do business in this matter, he should have coupled with his amendment a proposal to remit some other form of taxation­as, for instance, the rail way freights.

Hon. R. PHlLP: You could not do that.

~Ir. HARDACRE: Well, if they got the revenne from the income tax, they would be able to remit taxation. He believed that the Treasurer would have ample revenue this year­an overwhelmit1g revenue-the coffers would be overflowing, there would be a thundering revenue. (Laughter.)

1\1:r. JENKINSOX: \Vbat is the good of squeez­ing taxatinn out of the people when it is not necess·uy?

:\Ir. HARDACRE: He was not in favour of that, and wbile be had been in Pdrliament be had never voted for a single form of taxation except I hat of the income tax. The amendment would only henefi t the well-to-do classe> in the community, and the Ja.rge mass of people would have to br·-•r the burden uf oppressive taxes in another form.

Hon. R. PHI LP : \Vhat are they?

1\Ir. HARD ACRE: There was the cow tax and the rabbit tax.

Hon. R. PHILP·: Did not you vote for them? 1\Ir. HARl>ACRE : No; he voted against

them. He "greed with the proposal in the manifesto nf the leader of the Opposition to remit the rabbit tax, the dairy tax, the marsupial tax, and a number c,f other bxes. He quite believed that the pre,ent Government had put on more taxes than bad existed before thev came into office, but a higher revenue from taxation did not necessarily r_nean that the imposts bad been increased. A higher revenue from taxation might result from tbe increased r,rosperity of the penp~e, which euab],,d tbem to pay larger snn" in that way than they had done previously. \Vhile be believed in the remission of taxation, be did not eelieve in the remission of this par­ticular form of htxation by way of granting a higher exemption.

Hon. R. PHILP: You always vote with the Government.

Mr. HARDACRB : The bon. gentleman was incorrEct, becau'e be bad voted with the hon.

f'entleman on the question of en­[!l p.m.] dowment to local authorities, and,

as a matter of fact, this seseion he had voted oftener with the Opposition than be had with the Governmeflt.

[Hon. R. Philp.

Question-That the "£200" proposed to be omitted (2Vh. Philp s amendment) stand part of the clause-put; and the Committee divided:-

Yr. Adamson ., Barb3r

Blatr Bowman Brennan Cowap Douglas

, Gral!t Gray son Gnnn Hamilton

, Hardacre , Hawthorn ,. Hnnter ,. Jones , Kenna .. Kerr

Kidston

.-\.YES, 36. ~ir. Lennon

r.esina 3fackintosh

,. :\1cintyre ~I ann

, ~iaughan )I ay

" l\iitcbeJl , ~Iulcahy

Nevitt O'Snllivan

, Payne , Plunkett

Redwood Roberts

, Ryland Snmner Woods

Tellers: )fr. Grant and 1Ir. Kenna.

:.\fr. Armstrong ., Barnes , Blocksidge

Bonchard , Campbell:

Cribb , Denham

.Forrcst Fox

:. Hanran , Jenkinson , Keogh

XoEs, 23. Mr. }facartney

}Id! aster , Paget

Petrie Philp Somerset Step hens Stmlart Swayne \Valker White

Telle>·s: 1fr. )facartney and }1r. Camp belL

PAIR.

Aye-:Y!r. Re!!. Xo-:>Ir. )loore. Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 3 put and passed.

The TREASURER had an amendment to move, of which be had not given notice. The necessity for the amendment bad only beep pointed out by the Parliamentary Draftsman,~~ts afternoon. He moved the insertion, after 111-

serted" on line 32, of the following words:-And secti1m twenty·eight of the principal Act as

enacted by section six of the Inc0me Tax Act Amend· ment Act of 1896 shall accordingly be numbered 20 IC).

It was rnerely a technicttl point, and if ~nyone had a prior amen<j1.1ent, they could 11:~e rt first.

Mr. RYLAND proposed the insertion of the following new clause after chuse 3 :-

In the case of income from land alienated from the Crown the taxable income shaH be deemed to be ten per centum of the unimproved value of such lahtl: Provided that in computing Ruch income the taxpa:yer shall be exempt to the amount of the first three hundred pounds of unimproved value. The amendment would do away with the neces­sity for the vexatious returns in conuection with farming and other industries. lt wa' necessary to have a more simple method.

An Ho:NOURABLE MEllBER: It is a land tax in disguise.

Mr. RYLAND: They could call it what they liked.

Mr. SOMERSET rose to a point of order. \Vas the hon. member for Gympie in order in proposing a land tax when they were considering an Income Tax Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not yet got a copy of the new clause, and it is impossible for me to say whether it is in order or not. I shall be very glad if the hon. member will let me have a copy at once.

* Mr. RYLAND said if the unimproved value was .£300 it would be exempt. If it was .£400 the taxable income would be £10 at 9d. in the

Income Tax Act [23 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1371

£1. If it was £600 the taxable income would be £30 a,t 9d. in the £1, and so on. There would be no makmg out of schedules. If a farm was valued at £1,000 the taxable income would be £70; if at £10,000 the taxable income would be £970. ·

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! I understood the hon. member for Stanley to rise to a point of order, asking me whether the proposed new clans~ was in order.

:Mr. SO::\lERSET : His point of order was ~vhether the hon. member was in order in propos­mg a land tax when they were discussing an Income Tax Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Now that I baYe seen the hon. member's new clause, although there has not been mnch time to consider it, I am of opinion that it is not relevant to the Bill.

The TREASURER again moved the amend­ment which he had previously moved.

Amendment agreed to.

:Mr. PAULL (Charter., T01cers), in moving the insertion, after line 3·1, of-

In the c~-;e of mining companies, reserve funds kept for future developments, or for erection of machinery or for equalising dividends, shall not be deemed. to b~ income, nor be subject to the tax-

said he was not going to add a great deal to what he had said on a similar amendment this afternoon. The gold mines of the State were not i": a very flourishing condition at the pre­sent tu:ne. It. was perfectly true that, owing to the )2l"!Ce of mdustna! metal such as copper and tm, there had apparently been considerable progression, ~ll-';t pr\ces had fallen back very much, and mmmg: tnroughout the State, with the exceptiOn of JYlount Morgan and one or two ot)le_r plac<;s, :vas in a bad way. In most of the mmmg dtstrwts there was a considerable amount of reconstruction going on, in conse­qu!"nce of reserve funds mp:mt for development bemg taxed. The result was that those funds were being distrib!Jted. 'l'o use a farming term, the. fund~ w hwh wer_e kept for the pur­poses of plong·hmg- and sowmg after the harvest were rendered absolutely unprofitable to keep on account of the heavy taxation imposed upon them, and they were con-;equentlv di,tributed amonijst shareholders. The lea'der of the 9ppos_Itwn _the other night quoted an instance m whwh his (Mr. Paul! 's) colleague had gone up to Charters Towers to distribute a reserve fund rather than that income tax should be paid upon it, although that fund would have been of considerable _ser_vice if used in develop­ment work. The prmCiple of the amendment was good, and if the Treasurer could see his way to accept it it would help the mining in­dustry to a very great extent

The 'l'REAS1.'RER: It was not altogether fair to sprmg an amendment of that kind on the Committee.. The hon. gentleman thought lu~ amendment a reannable one. He did not thmk It reasonable at all as far as he under­stood it from heaTing- it reacl. 'l'he House had alr<cady settl<>d in 1;evard to realised profits that where tlwy were invested in the business, 1.Vhether it l--e a fm~mer's a 2rncer's or a miner's business, only holi the .. usual income tax should be paid-6d. instead of ls. in the £_1. :.\lining con1panies had 1nore conce~'.sions gin•n to them than any otlwr companies. Not ~:nJy dtd th€y get conces~tons for their prelim­l!iary work up to the tim<e of declaring a clivi­dBnd, bnt they got a concession of thre<J-fourths oJ the cost of erecting th€ir ma8hinery as w~ll. Le would not say that It would. not J::.e a Wise thing to abolish any particular part of the in­Col!lB tax.

Hon. E. B. FORREST: Abolish the. lot; that is the best.

The TREASURER: Just so. Every one wanted his particular part abolished, hut com­paring mining companies with other taxpayers, he did not think they had any special cause· to complain.

~Ir. PA"CLL: That is a mistake.

The TREASURER: He though it was a litt.le unreasonable to seek to get still further ex-emptions for mining companies.

Em;. R. PHILP thought the amendment a very fair one. The· Treasurer forgot that mining companies paid double the tax of other conlpanie'~-

The TREASrRER: J\'o; they pa~ the. same as other companies.

HoN. R. PHILP: All mining Y<'ntures were worked by companies, whereas for one pastoral property worked by a company there were fifty worked by individuals. It was the same almost with all businesse>. The great majority, with the exception of n1ining venture'3, \Vere worked by individuals. Hence mining companies de­served special consideration, especially when it was considered that at the present time they were doing very badly aJl over Queensland. Gvmpie and Charters Towers esp<:>8ially were in' a very bad way, and if the companies re­served a little l1h!ney for d-ev-el'Yi111H:'nt work thos'' fund" shonlcl not be taxeJ. He was astonished that anyone who had the interests of n1lning at heart should thigk of Yotlng against the amendment.

:vir. PAULL: The Treasarer had said that mining companies did not d-c.serYe ~:t1ecial con­sideration.

The TREASJ:RER: I do not think I '<aid t)lat.

;y1r. P A ULL: There was no business except mining w hi eh was carried on year after yeo;tr with a loss, with only an occasional year. 111 which a profit was made. He had been paying regularly inLo one mine on Charters Towers for twenty-Jive years, and he had only had one dividend, and vet the very year a little profit came the share-holders were taxed upon it. In mining business there was always a hope that the venture might prove successful ultimately, and it sep,med to him most unrair not only to tax reseryes intended for development, but that the first dividend after twenty-five or thirty years' unprofitable work should be taxed.

Mr. CREAGH had not risen immediately ·after the meml::er for Cha.rter,; Tower,. because

he hoped that older mining members would have said something in support of the amend­ment. He quite recognised that anything he had to say would have no effect on the Trea­surer, wlio had at once said that he did not intend to accept the amendment. The hon. gentleman also said that it was unfair that such an amendment should be moved at that juncture. Perhaps there was something to be said in favour of such a view, but. nevertheless, the amendment deserved sympathetic con­sideration. Since the introductio11 of the Bill he had been trying to find out what the effect of it would be on mining companies since the Yerdict had been given in connection with a certain case that had been before the court, and his intention had been to move an amendment somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Charters Towers: but, in answer to certain questions put to the Treasurer, he came to the conclu,ion that it would be useless to do so. They had 'heard a great deal from all sides of the House in support of giving relief to the farmer, and the Treasurer, in introducing the Bill, had laid stress on the fact that the

Mr. Creagh.]

1;372 InMme Ta:1· Act [ASSE:\IBLY.] Amendment Bill.

farrning indtJ,..;try \vas getting relief, while at the :::.1.n1e ti1n · he l1acl practically ignored the nlLnng· inJ., ·try.

The TREASuRER: The farmers are not getting any concession in the matter of tax. It is a question of returns.

Mr. CREAGH: Then he could not under­stand why the Treasurer had taken such a long time in explaining the relief which was being given to the farmers. During the last severe drought, when all industries were at a very low ebb, ;t, vas the mining industry which came to the rescue of the State and gave it a lift towards prosperity. The miner was the most heavily taxed man in the State, and surely he should be given some consideration. He had not snpported the motion of the leader of the Opposition in regard to the instruction to the Committee, because he thought it would be of no avail; but it was a surprise to him to find that mining members generally did not raise their voices in support of an amendment which they knew to be deserving of support. He regrei:tt>d that the Treasurer had not seen his way to accept the amendment, because it ~vould have been a great relief to the mining I':dustry, and would have fostered it to a con­siderable extent. Take the case of ten or twelve men who for years had been trying to find something payable. Thev shifted from place to place, and eventually they came upon a show which paid them wages. They got together a little- reserve of £300 or £400 and put it by with the intention of using 'it in development work, and it seemed to him that the purpose of the Act was to make those men distribute their reserve in order that income tax might be collected. That surely was no ~ncour~gement to the mining industry. Other mdustnes had been given relief and he very much regretted that the Trea;urer had not seen his way to give relief to the small mining man.

Amendnwnt put and neo;atived.

The TFEAS"CRER moved the insertion of thn worrh "a.nd produce" after the word " stock," in line 36.

)\Ir. PAGET: The amendment fully met the wishes of those making their living on the land.

A1nench11ent ag-reed to.

HoN. R. PHILP: The Treasurer now saw the justice of the contention

[9.30 p.m.] nf hon. members on that side. The original intention of the Bill

was th~t peqJle would have to pay income tax on capital.

The TRL~SeRER: That was not the intention of the Bill at all. I do not think those words wel·e nece"ary, but I put them in to make it clear what the intention of the clause is.

HoN. R. PHILP: Since speaking on the second rea.din:c· he had seen 2\Ir. Hughes, who corroborated t.he view he took. A; the Bill stood befo_re. if a man bought a place for £1.000 and sold 1t the~ following· vear for £800 that £800 would be considered a part of his in~ome a_nd that, was the view taken by the Commis: swner aloo. He was glad the Treasurer had ~en. his mi,take. and was proposing to rec­tify It.

The TEE\ SURER: I did not make any mis· take.

HoN. R. PHILP: Then whv did the hon. gentleman bring· in those amendments? If the hon. gentleman would state that it was only intended to charge income tax on the dif­ference between the cost of a place and the selling price, he was quite satisfied. That was

[Mr. CrMgh.

all his amendments covered. and he would be quite willing to withdra\·: them and allow the Tr.easurer to move his amendn1ents.

The TREASFRER: \Yhen it was pointed out that the Bill did not make it clear-in spite of },is a:-sertion 'that that was the inten· tion of the Bill-that a farmer storing fodder need not pa.y income tax on the value of that fodder, he said that he would take care to make it clear, and he had done so by his amendment. It was also pointed out that a man who had paid income tax on the increase of his stock and afterwards sold that stock would have to pay income tax twice-that was, he would have to pay a tax on what was already his capital at the beginning of the year. He said that he would make it clear that no one would have to pay a tax upon that part of his property which had been recognised as his capital at the beginning of the year, but that ho would only have to pay on income, whether lllaJe that year or in any previous year. If a man elected to take the option given under the Bill, when he came to sell his stDck, and perhaps sell his whole place, if would only be his increase that would be' taken into account, and upon which he would have to pay. His amendments would make it clear that no man would have to pay on his capital, but only on his increase. It was stated, on the second reading, that a man would have to pay income tax on the, whole of the stock that he might sell two years hence, although at the beginning of this year his return to the C<Jmmissioner showed that £20,000 worth of cattle consti­tuted capital invested in his business. Tbe amendment he had to propose would make it clear in that Tespect, just as the amendment already agreed to made it clear with regard to produce. Under no circumstances would a man be charged on the capital he had invested in his business. Although he did not want to enter into a general discussion, because he would like to finish the second reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill to-night--

Mr. JENKINSON: What! An HONOURABLE MEMBER: It will take you a

week. The TREASURER: The man who took the

option and bought stock would not have that payment admitted as a deduction. If he sold stock, it would then go -into his income, but not before. If a pastoralist took the option, and in each of three successive years he had an increase of 20,000 sheep, he would not pay anything on that increase until he sold his whole property.

Hon. E. B. FoRREST: Or a portion of it.

The TREASURER: No; if he sold a portion of it the security for getting the tax from him would still be there. It would continue in the ordinary way of business, and his in­come and expem.liture would measure his in­come for the yea,r. But if he sold out his whole property and cleared away to England or America, the Commissioner could not get the tax from him on those 60,000 sheep.

Mr. GRANT: But if he only sells 20,000 sheep?

The TREASURER: 'rhat would only be or­dinary business. The profit or loss on his busi· ness would determine the income on which he would have to pay. It was only intended to prevent the evasion of the tax, because the liabilitv would rest on the stock until the tax was paid, no matter who owned them. That would make the buyer take care, just as in buying a property he took care to see that the rates were paid. The buyer of those sheep

Inf'ome Tax Act [23 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1:373

would see that the income tax was paid and placed to an account, so that the Commissioner would be able to get it at the end of the year.

1\:Ir. JENKINSOK: In other words, you make the buyer your collector. That is a scandalous piece of work. ~

The 'TREAS 0 RER : They made the buyer their agent. If the hon. member were buy­ing scrip he would take care to see that the calls were paid. If he bought a cottage, he would take care to see that the rates were paid. So in future would the buyer of sheep, where the owner of the station was clearing out altogether, take care to see that the income tax was paid. The Commissioner could be asked to make an assessment, and the matter could be settled at once. That would prevent evasions, which might be a very serious matter. At the same time, they were providing safe­guards that the man selling out would not be charged on his capital but only on his increase.

Mr. ARMSTRONG understood the explana­tion of the Treasurer as far as it applied to the seller who cleared out. But with regard to the man who elected to come under the Bill on the 1st January next, and who had already paid income ta,x upon animals four years old, at the one end he was sellin{; his old stock, at the other end his young stock were coming on to maturity. He would have to pay income tax upon the high price he received for his four-year-old stock, although he had already paid incomo tax, probably for three years, under the old Act. \V as that so?

The TREASURER: There was in the Com­missioner's ofrice a statement showing what the stock of every owner in Queensland was worth at the beginning of last year. At the end of the year, when making a return for the new year, they would say what their stock was worth, and the difference would show what the income from the increase of stock had been. Suppose a man sold out-. Mr. ARMSTROKG: I understa'!-d the position 1f a man sells out. What I w1sh to know is what will happen in the case where a man con­tinues in business and only sells a portion of his stock on which he has already paid the tax?

The 'rREASURER: That would be allowed for. Under no circumstances would the man have to pay on his capital.

Hon. E. B. l!'ORREST: Until he sells his stook.

The TREASURER: He would not have to pay on his capital when he sold out, but only on the increase which had taken place in his stock.

HoN. R. PI-IILP thought the Treasurer wished to make this matter quite clear. He would put another cas(l to the hon. gentleman. Supposing a man bought 1,000 head of cattle to-day, and three years hence he had 1,500 head, but they were not worth as much as the 1,000, how would he be taxed in that case?

The TREASURER: He would pay on the value, not on the number of the stock.

HoN. R. PHILP: A dairyman might have bought 300 or 400 head of cattle last year when prices were very high, and in the course of three or four years he might increase his herd by 300 or 400 more, and he might then sell out but might not get as much for the whole of tho;e cattle as lie paid for half the numbBr originally. In such a case he ought not to have to pay any tax.

The TREASURER: He would not have to pay in that case. He is rated on the value, not the number of his stock.

HoN. R. PHILP: The hon. gentleman said the "number" of the stock.

The TREASURER: Oh, no!

i\1r KENNA wished t.o know what would be the position of a man who bo1wht. a freehold propBrty with a certain numter of cattle or sheep on it, and then sold that property in three or four years' time, the value of the sheep or cattle not having improved in the meantime, while the value of the property had improved. \Vould that man be taxed on the difference between what he paid fer the pro­perty and what hE> realised on it'

The TREASCRER: Yes; he woald be taxed on his income•.

Mr. KENNA: He would be bcxecl on the un­earned increment in the value. of the land?

The T'REASuRER: Just so.

1\fr. KENNA: \Yhat would be the position of a man who purchased an ordinary business for, say, £500, and in three y<ears' time, with­out having increased the value of the stock, sold the business for £800. \Yould he pay in­come tax on the £800 or £300?

The TREASCRER: He will pay on the £300. He will pay income tax on his profits.

?.fr. KENNA: Supposing hi> profits at the end of the. year wer;e £300, and t11at instead of realising that £300 in cash, he used the profits to increase his stock, would he luYe to pay in­come tax on that £300?

The TREASCRER: He has made a profit v. hich has now heco1ne capital, but be~'.Jre he, added it to his capital it was income, and he pays the tax on his income.

?IIr. KE'\f="A: It s0en><·d h him an unfair thing that a man should han: to pay the tax on the £300 which he us·ed to edarge his business, as it was really making him pay a tax for improving his business.

The TREAsumm: ·whether he, U'E'S that in­con1e in giving his wife a trip to ~Jelbourne, or in adding to his capital or stock. and develop­ing his business, has nothing at. all to do with the Commissioner for Income Tax. It is in­corne, and the tax must be paid on inco1ne.

l\Ir. KENNA: If a, ma,n spends the money on a trip he Tealises his profits. but if he uses those profits to increase his stock by adding more salmon or sardines or other groceries, he is developing his business in a way which must ultimately produce more income, and on that income he would he taxed. \Vhy. then, should he pa,y the tax on the profits used in enlarging his business? He contended that the increase of stock, the reserves in mining cJmpanies, a,nd the profits used in increa,sing a man's stock­in-trade were analogous cases. and that they should all he treated on the same basis.

The TREASURER: This was a very difficult matter for the Commissioner, when they came to details, but there should not be any difficulty with hon. members with regard to two points. The first was that, in imposing an income tax, they should be careful not to tax capital, but only income; and. in the next place, they should take care to tax a,]] income, whetheT a, man was going to use his income afterwards as capital or whether he was going to eat it. The boy who ate his cake paid income tax, and the boy who kept his cake in order to make more. cakes also paid income tax. In order to prevent wholesale evasions, they must be care­ful to impose a tax on a,ll income, while at the same time. they were careful not to impose a tax on capital.

* Mr. MANN: To make the matter clear, he would put before the Committee a case which

Mr.Mann.]

137-:L Incume Ta:r Act [ASSEMBLY.J Amendment Bill.

cropped up in a town in North Queensland. A hotel-k<eeper sold the lease, furniture, and goodv. ill of his hotel for £2,000. Out of that £2,000 he spent £1,800 in improving the hotel, by putting shops to it and adding more bed­rooms. The Commissioner charged that hotel­keeper incon1e tax on the 1.vhole arnount he re~ ceived for the gooawill and the lease, claiming that the n1oney so received was rent in advance. The Comuissioner told him that the person who had paid the £2,000 in the shape of ad­<·ance rent would be allowed deduction to that arr1ouut when paying incon1e tax in future. The man who sold the hotel had a grievance, because h--· had to pay a large amount on what he clain1cd IYas canital and not income. If he had nndenctood th~t the tax would be collected on the wh0le amount of the purchase money he wouln lwYc obtained a certain amount from the purchaser in order to recoup him for that loss, anr! the buyer would no doubt have had no objecrion to paying that extra amount if h;e knew that it v.:ould be deducted from the income tax payable by him in future. He \Yould like the TreasureT to explain whether in the case <1ere a man sold the lease and good­will of a" hotel which mig-ht originally co~t a.;; 1nuch a.~ \\hat he was getting for it, the an1ount r-ee:eiyed was capital aud should be allowed to r;·o free, or was it income and should be taxed? -

The 'l'HEASDRER: As he understood it, a man under the pres,ont Act gave a statement of his assets at the beginning of the year, and

then he told the Commissioner [10 p.m.J what his assets were at the end of

the year, and from that the Com­missioner deduc,"d what the income was. It was quite clear that if his assets were £1,800 at the b ginning of the year and £1,900 at the end of the year, in addition to his living, the man had nude a net profit of £100. It did not matter in what form his as"ets were at the beginning or at the end of the year. That was why the Commissioner asked for these deduc­tions, so that he could see what the amount of the income had been

Mr. :Hx:-;;x: lf a man paid £2,000 for the lease and goodwill of the hotel, and sold it for £3,000, he should not be taxed on the £3,000.

'The TREASURER: The Commissioner had nothing to do with what a man· paid for an hotel fh-e years ago. He had only to do with what a man's property was worth at the begin­ning of the year, and what it was worth at the end of the year.

Mr. P AGET moved the addition, after "seven," on line 43, of "or such later date as the Commi,;oioner may allow." He would ask the 'l'reasurer to accept the amendment, for the reason that there was a very short time between now and the 31st December. Some pastoralists might not have time to give notice, and those who made purchases in December would cert;Iinly not have time. The amend­ment left it in the Commissioner's hand en­tirely as to what he would give them.

Mr. S1JMNER: Notwithstanding all the out­cry made with regard to the increase in stock, he was of opinion that most of the stockowners were prepared to go under the old schedule. He understood from the Treasurer's statement that if a man bought a station property worth £10,000, and sold in a few years for £20,000, he paid a tax on £10,000 only.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. member that there is an amendment before the Committee, and he must discuss

[M-r.Mann.

the point in regard to the amendment. Later o~, the clause will be submitted to the Com­mittee.

l\lr. HARDACRE would like to see an amendment altering the date altogether, and making it fixed, for the reason that the period between now and the end of the year was very short. It would be wholly inadequate after the Bill passed both Houses of Parliament; pro­bably there would be about six weeks to send in a return. Queensland was a very large area, and it took at least a month to -get the returns down. Seeing that the returns would not have to be in until the 31st }larch, he thought that in this case, it being the first year, they should allow them until they sent in their returns, and he did not see that any injurious effect would result to the Treasury. It seemed to him that many of the stockowners would never think about it until the time came for them to make the re­turn. They knew that a Bill did not become public property through all the State.

Mr. ARMS1'RONG: They will watch that.

::1 Ir. IJ ~'tHDACRE: The hon. member knew that they had a Land Bill pa·,;ed which was a far more important one than this Incotne Tax Bill, and there was a date fixed a long way ahead.

The TREASGRER: A;; far as he could find Olit. the probabilities were that if they left it at 31st December. as in the Bill. it would not lead to any material incotwenience, because stockowners knew that all they had to do was to write a simple letter to the Commissioner; bnt. to prevent any inconvenience, he \Vas will~ inq to accept the an1endn1ent.

l\Ir_ HARD".\.CRE would like to place in the hands oE the Commis;ioner the power to pro­claim a certain date, if he thought necessary, later than this particular date.

The TREASURER: He had spoken to the CommissioneT, who said that in the first three months of the year they were very busy in getting the assesoments out, and it was really dhirable not to extend the date beyond the ::J1st D€cember, although, in the, event of incon­venience or hard,hip resulting, it was weil to give the Commissioner the option to extend it -..vhere necessary.

Mr. PAC::ET: H<· was only asking the Com­mittee to give the Commissioner the option in cases where he thouQ,'ht good reasons had been shov.-n, and he certa1nly did not agree with the hon. member for Leichhardt that the Commis­sioner should have the power to proclaim a later date.

Mr. HARD ACRE: He could see that as the Con1mi3sioner, i1aving to send out returns, had first of all to know what kind of return to send out it was necessarv to have the intimation wh~t choice they were going to make. In view of the Treasurer's intimation. he wouJd not press his suggestion.

Amendment agreed to. J\Ir. PAGET moved, as a consequential

amendment. the addition on line 46, after the subclause. of "or such later date as the Com­missioner. may allow."

Amendment agreed to.

:VIr. PAGET moved, as a further consequen­ti-al amendment, on line 52, before " which," the insertion of "respect of."

Amendment agre-ed to.

The TREASURER moved on line 55, after " live stock," the insertion of "or produce."

Amendment agreed to.

Income Ta::c Act [23 OcTOBER.] .Amendment Bill. 1375

Mr. PAGET moved the addition of the following proviso after line 56 :-·

Provided also that the Commissioner may take into account by way of deduction any losses of live stock caused by drought, flood, or disease, and may distri~ bute such deductions eq aa1Iy over the year in which the los" oc 'tuTed and any subsequent year or years, not excer:>cling four years in all.

His rea>:Jn for the amendment was that it was possible that stockowners might suffer such extreme lo,,es in any one year that they might fairly expect no income from their operations. Farmers and graziers tl1onght it a fair thing to extend those losses over a period of years. He did not think there was any danger in accept­ing the ~U11€ndm«:~nt, as it was only permissive, and there vcas no fear of It being abused.

The TREASURER: The hon. g-entleman knew that he could not well acc-ept the amend­ment. It had be~n suggested by the pasto­ra!ists, and meant that, although increase of stock was not to be taken into account, the Commisoioner was to take account of decre<tse. He was quit-e sure the hon. member for 1Iackay did not think that. a fair proposition.

Amendment put and negatived.

On the motion of the TREASURER, the clause was further amended by inserting before line 1, pagz- 3j the "\vords-" Save as hereinafter provid€'c1.''

The TREASURER moved the following addition to the subclause, after line 6 :-

Providecl that, in computing the incc.me 8.ubject to tax of such taxpayer for any year, there sllall be allowed as a. d! dnction from tlle proceeds of any live stock di.-.pt,.,;ed of in that ycn.r, and in rtspect of which tax was tlweetofore paid, the value of snch live stock ; and such value shall be taken at the Talue upon which the tax wa'i paid.

Amendment agreed to.

The TREASURER moved the insertion of the folluwing provision after line 24 :-

In com}Jntin; the income of the seller under this section, there ;.;halt be allowed as a de1uction there­from-

(a) 'l'h : \'alue of live stock on the said propert7 at tlle end of the year one thousand nine hundred aud six. at~ shown in his return to the Commis­R:.oner for the year one thousand nine hundred anri. six; Cl'

(Ul ·wherL the property has been purchased since the first. day of Janna1y one thousand nine hundred and seven, and subsequently sold, the value of live stock thereon at the time of such pn:rchaRe as expressed in thP said contract of sale or assessed by the Commissioner as afore­said, less any portion of such yglue 1vhich has been already allowed to him as a :purchase of stock.

Mr. SL":MNER wanted to refer again to a point he hac! mentioned previously. He had said that people would be better off under the old Act than under the Bill. His point was this: Say a person bought a property for £10,000. He got increase of stock, on which he paid no income tax, but at the end of three years he sold for £20,000, and he paid income tax on the £10,000. The buyer sold the £10,000 worth of increase the next year, and he paid over again.

The TREASURER : Income tax is only paid on the increase.

Mr. SUMNER: Income tax had been paid on the £10,000. If the stock was sold next year the tax would be paid over again.

The TREASURER : He would not pay anything that year.

Mr. SU:MNER thought there was something in the point raised by the member for Bowen. He knew of a case in which a man made £500

a year for fh-e years, only using £100 in per­sonal expenses, and putting £400 into capital with which to buy new machinery. He had paid income tax on that; at the end of five years he sold his business, and had to pay in­come tax on the money he had already paid income tax on. ·

Mr. HUNTER: The members for Bowen and Nundah, he thought, did not quite under­-st~nc! the position. Suppose a man started a business in Ipswich, and at the end of the year mac!o £500. He decided on an expansion, and proceeded to Toowoomba, and finally decided to start a large wholesale businescl in Brisbane. In the course of vears his a.cz:;umulated business was v,orth £so:ooo, and he had not paid a shilling income tax during the whole of that time because he had decided on expansion. He was building up a large couoern to hand over to his heirs. The State was asked to join in the venture with him and not ask for income tax. That appeared to be the logical con­clusion of the suggestions of the hon. members for Bowen and i'Jundah.

Mr. SLCJ\!::<IER: There is no analogy.

Mr. HUNTEH: That was the case of the member for Bowen. The hon. member for Nundah gave a case in which a man decided to sell his business. The idea of the hon. mem­ber for Bowen was, that if a man made a profit of £400 and decided to draw £100 of that, he would then have £300 to add to his capital. Well, his capital, instead of being £500, would then be increased to £800. The difference between £800 and the total assets for the year would bo his income, and not the difference between £~00 and the sum he had at the end of the year.

Hox R. PHILP rose to a point, of order. \Vas the hon. me1nhe.r di,·cussing the question before the CommiHee?

The CHAIR:\lAK: I would remind the Con1n1itte.e that the question is the ins2rtion of certain '" ords on line 24. The discussion should he confined to tica{, am·cnd1n.c.nt.

i\lr. I:lTNTER hacl risen to reply to the re­marks of members who prec<'ded him, and was only endeayourinb to elucidate the qw:;_~tion.

Illr. PAGET: He had an amendment drafted to omit lines 19 to 24, while the amendment

proposed by the Treasurer came in 110.30 p.m.j at the end of line 24. In view of · what the Treasurer had said during

the discussion on clause 4, it was not his inten~ tion to move his amendm8Jlt; but he v'ould like the Treasurer to inform the Committee why a purchaser was only to be liable in re­sp-ect of transactions in stock, and not in re­spect of transactions in land or other property.

The TREASURER: It was not pos,,ible for the Commissioner to keep his eye on every sale of property in the State, and the clause provided a simple way for preventing evaswns. It was not to the interest of taxpayers that other people who ought to pay income t~x should escape without payment. It was desir­able that everybody who was liable should pay the tax.

HoN. R. PHILP: Why should they impose this restriction on the unfortunate buyer of stock alone? The man in business might sell out and leave the State without paying his income tax. The Commissioner could not fix him.

The TREASURER: H" is fixed now by the law of agency.

Mr. PAGET: If you fix the one, you ought to fix the lot.

Hon.R. Philp.]

1:376 Income Taa: Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The TREASURER: It had been held in the High Court that the realisation of ordinary property was a realisation of capital, and was not ta-xable under the Act.

HoN. R. PHILP: That was no answer at alJ. There were fifty different classes of people who were· subject to the payment of income t!i.x. A member of Parliament was liable lo pay, and, if he cleared out altogether, how could the Commissioner get at him? A business man might carry on until the end of the year, and' then sell out and leave the State, and the Com­missioner could not get at him. It was only the unfortunate buyer of stock who was to be held liable. The Government ought to take the risk, like anybody else. Of course, it was in the interects of taxpayers to see that evervbody paid who was liable to pay income tax, "but he did not see why this should only apply to the buyer of stock. He supposed that stock and station agents would see that in future the income tax was paid. In some cases it would be hard to follow the buyer of stock.

The TREASURER was afraid that he had misunderstood the hon. gentleman previously. The member of Parliament or the grocer had to pay his income tax every year, but the man who was dealing in stock had an option given him under the Bill which was given to no other class in the community~of holding over the payment of income tax until he actually realised on his stock. It was proper under such circumstances that they should take care that at the end of three. four, or five years, when he realised, he paid income tax on his accumu­lated profits.

HoN. R. PHILP: The owner of stock also paid income tax every year. The sheepowner paid income tax on the profit on his wool.

The TREASURER: But he does not pay on the other part of his income.

Ho:N. R. PHILP: Those who were wise sold their surplus stock every year, too. If they did not, they might lose everything in a drought.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Do not you see that the calls are paid if you buy scrip?

HoN. R. PHILP: That was a different thing altogether. The man who bought a place might not know of the existence of such a provision. It was an unheard-of thing. The Commissioner should look after the sellers of stock the same as he had to look after other people. The man who made the profit was the man who ought to pay the tax, but in this case it was the buyer who would have to pay.

The 'rREASURER: He is liable for his neglect in not seeing that the seller pays.

HoN. R. PHILP: It was only in regard to live stock that he was liable.

Mr. P A ULL contended that there was no protection to the purchaser in the amendment. With regard to the argument that in the case of the purchase of a property the purchaser would see whether the rates were paid, he would point out that the rates were already made and ascertainable. The same remark anP..li<:!d to the calls on scrip. But that was not the .. ,,o<' \'. :~h ·· ~~·;1,rrl to the income on stock, and the purchaser should be empowered by this Bill to retain some portion of the purchase money until he had ascertained that the in­come tax had been paid; otherwise he would have no protection.

Mr. HARDACRE was of opinion that there was going to be trouble over this matter. Transactions in stock were going on every day.

[Hon. W. Kidston.

The TREASURER : This provision does not apply to transactions in stock. It only applies where the whole place is sold out.

Mr. HARD ACHE: Occupation licenses were sold with the stock on them every day.

The TREASURER: So is land sold every day, and the buyer sees whether the rates are paid.

:}Ir. HARD ACRE: In that caee the, pur­chaser could easily find out whether the rat-es were paid, as the office of the local authority was handy, but in buying a. station the pur­chaser could not easily find out whether the income tax was paid, as many stations which were sold were far up in the country. There should be some prov1sion requiring the regis­tration of such sales, and then the Commis· sioner should look after the income ta.x.

The CHAIRMAN: I would like to point out to hon. members that for a considerable time the discussion has not been on the amend­ment before the Committee. I ask hon. mem­bers to confine themselve·s to debating the amendment before the Committee, or decide whether the amendment shall be inserted, and then the whole clause will be open for discus­sion.

J\Ir. MACARTNEY said he would like to say a word or two on the subject which had been under discussion for the last hour or so.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member that the discussion has not been going on for an hour or so, though it has been going on for a considerable time. If hon. members wish to move an amendment on lines 30 to 34 they should ask the Treasurer to withdraw the amendment before the Committee. The. hon. member for Mackay said he did not wish to move his amendment in that part. of the clau'-e, and I allowed the discussion to ;m. but I must now ask hon. members to confine thomselves to the amendment before the Committee.

:\fr. MACARTNEY: He would ask the Treasurer to withdraw his amendment, in order to allow a short amendment to be moved-and negatived, if necessary~.so that hon. ~embe~s might have an opportumty of expressmg theu vie;vs on this subject.

The TREASURER: And we have been dis­cussing this for over an hour!

Mr. MACARTNEY: He did not think it was a fair thing to allow a number of hon. members to discuss the question, and then the moment another member proposed to express his opinions on the matter to close down on him. That was not a fair thing. That wa3 not the way to do business.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! I allowed the discussion to take place in order that hon. members might have. an opportunity of mov­ing an amendment; and, following my usual practice in protecting the right of members to move amendments, I allowed the hon. member for 1\Iackay to refer to the matter, thinking tha.t he or some other hon. member might propose an amendment, but no hon. member offered to do so.

Mr. MACARTNEY: He would offer to move an amendment to put himself in order. The amendment now before the Committee raised a very important question, as it im­posed a charge upon property sold. As had been pointed out, a prop,crty might be sold in the month of January, and, as the income tax would not be levied until the £ollowing January, it would be impossible for the pur­chaser to protect himself. In addition to that objection to the proposal, there was the un­certainty as to the amount of the tax. 'I'he purchaser of property subject to this provision

Income Tax Act [23 OCTOBER.] Amendment lJilt. 1377

would not oo able to say exactly what was the amount of the tax to be paid, because the tax­paye,r had to pay, not on the proceeds of the sale, but on the income he derived from the whole transaction.

Question-That the words proposed b be inserted (i1Ir. Eidston's amendment) be so in-serted-put and passed. ,

Clause, as amended, put and passed. HoN, R. PHILP moved that the following

new clause be inserted after clause 5 :-After subsec~,ion (ii.)of section twelve of the principal

.d.ct. the followm~ subsection h inserted:-(ii.) The income of mutu:.tl life insurance cmn-

panifs.

He was not going to discuss the matter, as it had already been debated; but he certainly thought that the income of mutual life insur­a_nce companies should be exempt from taxa­twn.

The TREASURER: He thought the House had already decided to refuse permission to the Committee to consider this matter. They had had a division on it.

The CHAIRMAN : If the Treasurer asks my ?P!nion as to whether the proposed new clause Is m order, I must say that I do not think it is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.

HoN. R. PHILP said he accepted the ruling of the Chairman that the clause was not rele­vant to the subject-matter of the Bill but did not agree with the view taken by the T'reasurer. He now moved that the following new clause be inserted :-

A.fter snlBection (viii .) of section t.Urteen of the princi1_.ml Acr,, tile tollowmg snb-<eN.ion is inserted:-

(viti.) Tne sum of twenty pounds in respect of the maintewwce and support of each elrild of a.ny raxpa,yer under the age of sixteen maintained and supported by him, and for which no deduc­tion b allowe~i under tl;e provisivns of the next following subsection;

{viiLL} A sum equal to the .., alue of the labour of any child or other rehttivu employed by any taxpa.\ er in the production of incon.c, jucltvl­ing the lJoard of such child or other relative; S1.lCh ndue, in the case or dispute, to be ass~ssect by the Commissioner at snch amount as he deems just and reasonable, uccordmg to the eircnmstances oE each t·ase; but no tax­p·tyer who tal\es advantage of subsection (i) hereof in respect or ~uch employment shall also t3ke advantage of this subsection.

Though the House had refused to give an in­struction to the Committee to consider three things, yet he thought the Committee might, in their wi~dom, approve of the last clause pro­viding that an allowance should be made in respect of children under sixteen years of age, and for the labour of a child employed by his parents.

The CHAIRMAN : I am sorry to say that I must give the same ruling on this clause as I gave on the last one proposed by the hon. gentleman.

Hon. R. PHILP : 'What is your ruling?

'rhe CHAIRMAN : My ruling was that the last clause was not relevant to the subject­matter of the Bill, and I think the same objec­tion applies to this clause.

HoN. R. PHILP: He did not wish at that late hour to move that the Chairman's ruling be disagreed with, but he was of opinion that the clause he now proposed was relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, inasmuch as it pro­posed a further exemption. The Treasurer had proposed to raise the exemption from £160 to £200, and on that he had moved an amend­ment to raise it to £300, and that amendment was considered to be in order. The new clause which he now submitted contained the same

1907-4Q

principle----a reduction of taxation-and he hoped the Chairman, on reconsideration, would see that it was in order.

The CHAIRMAN: The leader of the Oppo­sition has asked me to reconsider the matter but on reconsideration I am still of the sam~ opinion. I would point out to the hon. gen­tleman that the Bill now before the Committee deals with practically two principles. The first i& the altei·ation of the ratP5. The hon. gentleman's amendment which ic now offered does not deal with the alteration of the rates of the tax; it may deal with the deductions or exemptions. The second principle of this Bill deals >yith the option with regard to Ii:'ve stock. The Bill really deals with these two principles. The hon. gentleman is introducing· a new prin­ciple. The amendment has also no reference to the live stock. For these reasons I think the amendment is out of order.

HoN. R. PHILP: He certainlv did not in­c~ude live stock, but the questio;; of a deduc­tiOn <:f £20 was just ~he same in principle as in­creasmg· the exemption from £160 to £200.

The PREMIER rose to a point of order. What was the question before the Committee? . The CHAIRMAN: The leader of the Oppo­

sitiOn offered a new clause, which I ruled out of order, and there is really no question before the Committee at the present moment. The next question is that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. PAGET would like to move a new clause to follow clause 4. This certainly dealt wrth a deductiOn. He had not had time to rret the. amendment printed, but it >vas a matter which had b<een spoken of in the House. He moved the insertion of the following new c:Jause:-

Such sum a~ may he expended in any one year by any tax.Payer for the purchase of agricultural imple­ments or harness for his own use, and. ~uch t-:urns as may be expended by any taxpayer in cleariug laud used or to be used by him for the purpose of cultiYation. :fl.e would like to point out that agricultural Implements and harness were the farmer's tools of trade. Artisans and others were allowed a deduction for tools of trade.

The TnEASURER: They are tools of trade like a car]JBnter's chisel.

iVIr. P AG ET: That was so; they were used ~y the farmer for the purpose• of obtaining his mcome. He submitted the desirability of this amendment, and also the one in connection with a deduction for the clearing of land. If a farmer chose to put £100 in 20 acres of land in the way of manure, he was allowed a deduction; but if instead of renewing his old land he put £100 into 20 !lcres of new land and let it go out m to grass It was not ai!owed as a deduction. He should be allowed in that case. Speaking sincerely, as a man who had been on the land for many years, he thought farmers' imple­ments should be looked upon as tools of trade and when he purchased impleme.nts they should oo treated as a deduction. Hitherto the Com­missioner had only allo"ed 5 per cent for de­preciation on such implements, which was ab­surd on the face of it. He asked the Trea­surer to favouraL•Iy consider the ttmendment.

The TREASURER: He would like to ask if this amendment was not as nmch out of order as the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. It was extending the scope of the Bill.

T!1e CHAIRi\IAN: In answer to the point of order which had been raised bv the Trea­surer, he. thought this proposal ,,;·as also not relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.

Clause 5 put and passed.

Mr. J ackson.]

1378 Income Tax Act [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN re­ported the Bill with amendments. -

The TREASURER: I move that the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideration.

HoN. R. PHILP: I give notice of my in­tention to move the following new clause:­

After subsection (vii.) of section thirteen of the principal Act, the following subsection is inserted:-

rviii.) The sum of twenty pounds in respect or the maintenance and support or each child of any taxpayer under the age of sixteen maintained and supported by him, and for which no deduc~ tion is allowed under the provisions of the next following subsection;

(viiiA.) A sum el(ual to the value of the labour of any child or other relative employed by any taxpayer in the production of income, inclnd~ ing the board of such child or other relative ; such value, in the case of dispute, to be assessed 1Jy the Commissioner at such amount as he deems just and reasonable, according to the circumstance-s of each case; but no tax­payer who takes advantage of sub5.ection li.) hereof in respect .or such employment shall also take advantage of this subs· ction.

The TREASURER: Mr. Speaker,-! would ask your ruling on this matter. The hon. gentle­man this afternoon, in virtue of having given notice yesterday, asked the Houoe to say that it be an instruction to the Committee to insert this provision in the Bill, anri the HouBe re· fused permission to have it inserted in the Bill.

Mr. MACARTNEY: No, they did not. Hon. R. PHILP: Not that clause at all.

The TREASURER : And now the hon. gentleman f{ives notice to move the same thing to-morrow. Is that in order?

Hall. R. PHILP : I asked the House this afternoon tn give instructions to tbe Committee on three subjec", but not in detail, and the House refused ; hut not because they were not relevant to the f\ill. The House refused--

The TREASURER: The fact remains that the House refused.

HoN. R. PHILP: I am speaking to the Speaker. \Vhen I have finished you can start again. Y on are too f,md of correcting. I say distinctly th<Lt the Huuse refused, not because the amendments were not relevant to the Bill. That was not brought up at all. I have not asked for the inclusion nf life insurance companies because there is some doubt about that, hut there is no doubt about the other matters. We have discussed the raising of the limit from £160 to £200, and we also had a debate and a division on the raising of the limit to £300. This ha ques­tion of granting a fmther exemption of £20 for each child of a taxpayer. If one was relevant, this is relevant too. I maintain that if the Treasurer was relevant in raising the exemption from £160 to £200, I am quite in order in moving this new clause.

The SPEAKER: Under our SGanding Order 270 I find that at the report stage a new clause or schedule cannot be moved without notice.

Hon. R. PHILP : I have given notice of it now.

The SPEAKER: I did not quite understand the hou. gentleman. I thought he was moving it now.

Hon. R. PHILP: No, I g<we notice of it for to~ morrow.

The SPEAKER : Then what is the point of the Chief Secretary? Will he be good enough to state his point of order?

The TREASURER : I aok, Has the matter not been settled this r.fternoon already? The Honse refused permission to insert this in the Bill.

[Hon. W. Iiidston.

Hon. R. PHILP: Not because it was not rele­vant.

The TREASURER : This has already been before the House this afternoon, and the House came to a decision upon it. Now it is proposed to bring it up before the House to-morrow after· noon again.

Mr. LESIN A : I submit that the point now is : Is this notice of motion in order? If it is, then the Treasurer cannot take a point, of order now. He must wait until the matter is raised to-nwrrow.

The SPEAKER : This may be covered by the motion, notice of which was given for to-day, or it may not. I am not prepared to say now whether it is or not. I do not think the rele­vancy of the motion is at stake at this stage. The nsual practice is that if a member wishes to move an amendment on the report stage, he must give notice of that amendment. vVhen the matter comes before me I will give a ruling.

Mr. LESINA : Is the notice of motion in order now?

The TREASURER : Is this the proper time to give notice of motion?

Hon. H. PHILP : There is no other tim<>.

The TREASURER: There is a qmstion before the House. Is this moved as an amend­ment to the question before the House, or is the House going to have two questions before it at the same time?

The SPEAKER : I rlo not think this is the proper time to give notice of motion ; but when the business of the day is closed, it is n&ual in the House of Commons to allow notice of motion to be given just beford the adjournment..

The THEASt:RER: By leave? The SPEAKER: No; I do not think it is

exactly by leave. \\'hen the business of the day is finished, it will not be .out of order to give notice of motion.

Hall. R. PHILP: Our Standing Orders say that, on consideration of the Bill as amended, further amendments may be made.

The SPEAKER : Amendments will be in order just now, but not a new clause or schedule, of which notice mu.,t be given; and it would be contrary to parliamentary practice to deny an hon. member an opportunity of doing so-to force the report stage at the present time. I have to rule that notice cannot be given jtut now, but iL may be given at a later stage. The ques­tion is that the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideratirm. But I must point out that if I put this motion, and it is c:trried, the hon. member will be deprived of the right to give notice to move m1 amendment, which it is the right of any hon. member to move, because the question would be settled. It is for the l\1inister in charge of the House to say whet her he will use his power to deprive an hon. mtmber of his right of moving an amendment at the report stage.

The TREASURER: If it was a new idea; if it was a case in which the hon. member had not hac! a fair opportunity of persuading the House to his way of thinking, it would be wrong for the Minister to push the report stage of the Bill, but this matter has been discussed twice this afternoon already.

Hon. R. PHILP: No.

The TREASURER: It has been discussed, and the House decided to all intents and pur­poses, when you, Sir, were in the chair. And then it was di>cus,~ed in Committee ad nauseam.

Hon. R. PHILP: It was not.

Income Tax Act [23 OcTOBER.] Amendment Bill. 1379

The TREASURER: It was discussed in Committee ad nauseam, although when it actually came to be moved later on . the Chairman of Committees ruled that it was not within the scope of the Bill. So that I am not preventing anyone from expres>ing his full opinion. Every­one who wanted to speak had already exoressed his full opinion, and I think it is only' proper that I should not willingly consent to an idle waste of time in having the same matter dis­cussed over and over and over again.

HoN. R. PHILP: I distinctly deny the state­ment n;ade by the Premier. This matter was not discus,ed in Committee at all. I moved it and the Ch~irman ruled that it was not relevant to the Bill. I did not further discuss it. This afternoon I moved three matters, and they were discuAsed then. It was competent for the House to have decided to vote for two of them and not to vote for the third. I want this House to give an opinion on two distinct motions, of which I have now given notice. These motions were not discus•ed in the House this afternoon. I may say that it i• unusual for the Premier to refuse such a notice of motion. I never yet heard of any Premier refming to receive a notice of motion at the report stage.

Mr. MACARTNEY: Mr. Speaker,-! under­stand that the position is that you are not pre­pared to accept notice of motion in respect to the n.mendment suggested by the leader of the Opposition by way of the addition of a new clause. To get over that difficulty I propose that the followinrt words be added to the new clause 5-- ~

Mr. MAXWELL: You cannot do that.

Mr. :MACARTNEY: The words which I propose shall. he added are--

After subsection (vii.) or section thirteen of the principill Act, the following subsection is inserted:-

I will not take up the time of the House by reading through the whole of the amendment, as hon. members know what it is.

The TREASURER: Is this the question before the House?

The SPEAKER: The question before the House is that the Bill be constdered.

An HoNOURABLE MEliiBER : Yes.

The SPEAKER: Has this amendment been proposed in Committee?

HoN. R. PHILP: It was proposed in Com­mittee, and the Chairman rnled that it was not relevant to the Bill, with which ruling I did not agree, although I did not move that the Chair­man's ruling be disagreed with.

The i:lPEAKER: The Speaker may have his own opinions about motions that come before him, but there is a well-defined practice of the House of Commons and in this House--that where the Chairman of Committees l!ives a ruling, the Speaker does not review that ruling. If the Chairman of Committees ruled this out of order, then, following the practice of the House of Commons, I do not think there is any course open to me but not to review that ruling.

Mr. MACARTNEY : Right or wrong.

The SPEAKER : I think so, without at least time to consider it.

HoN. R. PHILP: Last session the Chairman of Committees--

The TREASURER: What is the business before t.he House?

HoN. R. PHILP: The Chairman of Com­mittees ruled that I could not move an amend­ment--

The TREASURHR: I rise to a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order, order !

The TREASURER: How often can a mem­ber address the Chair?

Hon. R. PHILP: You have addressed the Chair n.bout fifty times yourself.

The SPEAKER : With regard to l he point of order, an hon. member can only address the House once on any question, but this is the first time that the leader of the Opposition has addressed the House since the hnn. member for Toowong moved a further amendment.

An HoNOL'RABLE MEMBER: Question!

The SPEAKER: 'l'he question is that the Bill be now conBidered.

HoN. R. PHILP: I move that the Bill be not considered.

The TREASURBJR: I rise to a point of order.

HoN. R. PHI LP: Have I not a right to move a motion?

The SPEAKER: A point of order takes precedence over anything else.

The TREASURER : How often can the hon. gentleman address the Chair on this question

The SPEAKER : This is the first time that the hon. gentleman has spoken on this amend­ment. (Laughter.) We have got into-well, not exactly a state of confusion, but something like it. Unless the hon. gentleman wishes to move another particular amendment on this, I do not think he is in order.

The TREASURER: Do you rule that if an hon. member moves another amendment he can keep on act dressing you as often as he likes?

The SPEAKER: So far as our Standing Orders are concerned, any number of amend­ments may be moved.

The TREASUREI< : On the same question?

The SPEAKER : There is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent it if they are dif­ferent and relevant amendment~.

HoN . .,R. PHILP : I move that this Bill be considered to-morrow.

*The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: I take it that the only amendment that can be moved on the motion "that this Bill be now taken into consideration" is a distinct amend­ment to certain clauses.

Mr. MACARTNEY: He gave notice.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : The hon. gentleman got up and attempted to move it, and he was ruled out of order. On your putting the question from the chair again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman rose up and moved that the original question-that the Bill be now considered-be amended by the amend­ment that the Bill be considered to-morrow. I submit to you on a point of order that the hon. member is deprived of the privilege of moving an amendment which should have preceded and not followed his other amendment.

The SPl~AKER : I am not prepared to rule that the hnn. member is out of order, but the form of his amtmdment is out of order, as he

Hon. J. Leaky.]

1380 Acrlimatisation Societ_y Bill. [COUNCIL.]

moved a i!istinct negative. There is a motion before the House at the present time-that the Bill be now considered. It baR been put, and it has not been disposed of yet. If there is to be an amendment on that, it must be an amendment by omitting certain words, or else the motion before the House must be negatived, and a further motion proposed.

Question put and passed.

The TREASURER: I move that the third reading of the Bill stand an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

Question put and passed.

PROPOSED ADJOURNME~T.

The PREMIER :I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. The fir,t business, after private members' business to-morrow and the formal stage of the Income Tax Act Amendment Bill­the third reai!ing-will be Supply. We will take Supply on Thursday and Friday, and I think we might finish the Chief Secretary's Estimates in the two days.

The SPEAKER: Will the hnn. member withdraw the motion •s I have a message to announce.

l\Iotion, by leMe, withdrawn.

WAGES BOARDS BILL. RETURNED l<'ROlli COUNCIL.

The SPEAKER announced the receipt of a messa,;e from the Council, returning

[11.30 p.m.J this Bill, with the amendments indicated in the accompanying

schedule, in which amendments the Council requested the concurrence of the Assembly.

On the motion of the PREMIER, the mes­sage was ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

ACCLIMATISATION SOCIETY BILL. COUNCIL'S MESSAGE No. 2.

The SPEAKER announced the receipt of the following message from the Council :-

Mr. Speaker,-The Legislative Council, having had under considera­

tion the message of the Legislative Assembly"" ot date 17th October, relative to the Acclimatisation Society Bill, beg now to intimate that they-

Agree to the Assembly's amendment upon the Coun­cil's amendment in clause 4, line 55, page 2 i and

lnsist upon their amendment in lines 5 to 8, page 3, because-

(1) There is nothing in the original title deed com­pelling the trustees to me the ground as a public park;

12) There is uo assurance that either the local authority or the National Association would incur the exyense of maintaining the ground as a public park;

(3) There is in the immediate neighbourhood a large reserve for recreation purposes.

P.ETF.R J.iACPHERSOX 1

Presiding Chairman. Legislative Coun"il Chamber,

Brisbane, 23rd October, 1907.

On the motion of Mr. P AGET, the message was ordered to be taken into consideration on Thursday, 31st instant.

The House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to 12 o'clock.

[Hon. J. Leahy.

Elections, Etc., Bill.