Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

WEDNESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 1932

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Que.tions. [5 OcTOBER.] Abattoirs Agreement, Etc., Bill. 675

WEDNESDAY, 5 OCTOBER, 1932.

::'vir. SPEAKER (Hon. G. Pollock, Gregory) took the chair at 10.30 a.m.

QUESTION.

:\c;~IBF.R OF REGISTERED UNE1IPLOYED FROM JULY, 1931.

Mr. MOORE (Aubigny) asked the Secre· tary £or Labour and Industry-

" What was the total number of regis­tered unemployed at the end of each month from and including July, 1931? "

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Townsville) replied-

" The information is being obtained."

PAPER. The following paper was laid on the table,

and ordered to be printed:-Report of the Department of Public'

Works for the year ended 30th June 1932. '

ABATTOIRS AGREEMENT RATIFICA­TION AND MEAT INDUSTRY ACT AMEXDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IX CmnnTTEE.

(Mr. Hanson, Buranda, in the chai>·.)

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICCLTURE (Hon. F. W. Bulcock, Barcoo) [1Q.35 a.m.] : I beg to move-

" That it is desirable that a Bill be, introduced to amend ' The Abattoirs Agreement Ratification and l'vieat Indus­try Act of 1930 ' in certain particulars."

The Bill is not a; very far reaching one, and is intended to give expression to what was originally intended in the principal Act.

There are three principles involved, none of which at this stage require' very lengthy consideration.

The first principle involved concerns the question of compensation. As the Act stands at present, the ownership of a slaughter-yard is associated with a butcher. It has been found that compensation cannot be paid to people who, while they were not butchers, had slaughter-yards. Some £6,000 has already been paid as compensation, and there is now outstanding about £4,000. Some people who really have a legitimate claim for compeneation have not been able to secure that con:.pensation by reason of th<l' interpretation which has been placed on the, original section of the Act. It is obvious that they should get compensation along the, lines on which others have been compen­sated. The amendment provides that those, who have established yards-stockyards or slaughter-yards-will now come within the provisions of the original Act in the distri­bution of compensation. That is fair and just, and probably was an oversight, or perhaps the interpretation of the original section was not quite what was intended. "\VB now propose to rectify the defect so that people who have legitimate claims may be able to have those claims satisfactorily adjusted.

Mr. NIMMO: vVill you make allowance for delay in making claims?

Tho SECRETARY FOR AGRICULT1JRE: The original Act provided that claims for compensation- must be lodged within a speci­fied time. Some of those who lodged claims had their claims disallowed; but now the period for lodging claims has been extended so that they will be able to qualify if they have a just claim for compensation.

The second principle that it is proposed to lay down is in connection with boiling· down works. The board as it is constituted at the present time has not .adequate power to ,deal with boiling-down operations; and there is a suspicion in the minds of my officers and the people generally that c~r­tain people who are conducting boiling--down operations are not boiling down the whole of the carcases that they acquire for that pur­pose; and it is, therefore, necessary that

Hon. F'. W. Bnlcock.]

{516 Abattoirs Agreement [ASSEMBLY.] Ratification, Etc., Bill.

.oome adquato inspection should be placed on boiling-down operations. It is proposed to tirrhten up the powers of the board 111 tlus direction, und give it ample control of boiling-down operations in the a1:ea embrao.ed by the Act, so that carcases mtended for boiling-down will not be used for oth< r purposes.

The third principle dealt with is the _ques­tion of the storage of meat. The ongmal proposal in the Act was to give the Meat Industry Board absolute co'!trol of meat within the area and the m am reason that actuated Parlia;,.,ent-one to which I fully subscribe-was to protect the people and see that they secured an adequate and healthy supply of meat. That can only be done hy adequate observation of ~eat that 1s

desirrned for human consumptwn; and there is s,;'mo doubt as to the powers of the board in relation to the storage of meat as set out in the Act as it stands at the present time.

Mr. MDDRE: Storage in shops?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: More particularly in chillers. The inter­pretation is that t~e bo!'rd only has the power of actually _witne•smg meat_, through one of its responsible officers, bemg taken out of the chillers. \Vhile I do not profess to understand the ramifications of the legal mind in regard to the interpretation, the fact does remain that the board has not. at the present time, adequate power in respect of the supervision of meat stored for chilling purposes. particularly in the metropolitan area; and it is concervable, that as the Act now stands, meat could be bro~ght in from an adjoining district and stDred in Brisbane, and it would be very difficult for the board to exercise the func­tion that it is very properly intended it should exercise in relation to the supply ol meat tD the people. Those are the only three principles involved, and I think that. when they are brought into operation. we shall have a more adequate control of the meat supply of Brisbane.

Mr. J\<IOORE (.{ubigny) [10.40 a.m. :] I do not see any objection to the Bill. I imagine that anv person selling meat inside the area would be a butcher, whether he was selling wholesale in carcases or selling in retail shops; and I thought such an individual would be covcr0d bv the section of the Act which provides for the payment of compen­sation for people who are put out of business inside the area. Of course, if it is dis­covered that these people are not covered by ~he Act, it is only fair that they should be brought within its provisions. There are people just outside the area who are prac­tically put out of business, and I was wonder­ing whether they are to be included as well. They sold their meat inside the area, but slaughtered it just outside the area con­trolled by the board. A case was put up some tinic ago that they should be placed in the same position in regard to compen­sation as butchers inside the area, if they could definitely prove that the whole of their trade was inside the area. There are only two o1· three of them, and it did not seem quite fair that they should not be allowed to get compensation. I do not think there is anything vital in the amendment, but it will give these butchers an opportunity to secure the compensation provided for in the Act. With regard to the storage of meat in chilling rooms. I have heard it stated that such a practice as the Minister nwn.

l Hon. F. W. Bulcock.

tioned is going on, and veal is kept chiilcd, not in butchers' shops, but in chilling rooms.

A GOVERN:IIENT i\1EMBER : And pork, too.

Mr. MOORE: The whole object of the Act was to control the inspection of meat. If there is a flaw in the Act on account of which the board cannot control the inspection, we should know whore the Act is being evaded and see that the matter is put right. It was recognised that the con· ditions appertaining to the slaughtering and selling of meat in Brisbane should be remedied. I suppose it is not intended that the amendment dealing with boiling down should not be applied to shop fats and bones in butcher shops, but only to the boiling down of crippled or rejected cattle which came to the yards, and not to on1 in a :·y carcases which ltutchers boil down if they so desire. Most of them find it proht,tb,e t.o sell them to the abattoirs and gat their by­products therefrom. I see no objection to that, and it was anticipated when the first Bill was brought in that that woclid be pro­vided for.

Mr. KENNY (Uook) [10.44 a.m.]: There is one aspect of the Bill I am pleased to sec the Government have introduced. I must congratulate the Minister on trying to mete out justice to the people who were penalised through the abattoirs being brought into operation.

A GOVERN>IENT MEMBER: \Ye have to do the job that you should haYe -done.

Mr. KENKY: I hope that the Govern­ment will try to mete out justice rig:ht throughout their administration. The prm­oiple involved in measures they are now introducing is that of meting out justice. I have been asking a few questions lately to try to get .justi<;e for men who. through political sph~cn en the part of the Govern­ment, have been victimised.

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith): '\fr. Hanson, I rise to a point of order. The hon. membe1· for Cook has accused the Government of having victimised certain men. The statement is entirely untrue, and is, I submit, entirely out of order. I ask for a. withdrawal by the hon. member.

The CH.AIRMAK: I ask the hon. mem­ber for Cook to withdmw the statement.

Mr. KE="''NY: I am pleased to withdraw the statement. I would like the Premier to show that these men were not victimised.

Tho CHAIRMAN : Order ! I ask the hon. member to confine his attention to the question before the Committee.

Mr. KENNY: The que.tion before the Committee is this Bill to mete out justice to people, as there was a doubt w_het.her they were receiving justice. That prmc1plc is desirable and one which every hon. mem­ber on this' side will stand by and will help the Government to carry out right through their administration. I would ask the Government to consider very seriously the meting out of the same measure of justice to every section of the community that they have interfered with. I would ask them to mete out the same measure of justice to the members they dismissed from the Forestry Board.

The CHAIRMAK: Order!

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 677

:Hr. KEXNY: I take it that, if there is the same principle inYolved, we are quite prepared to support the Government in this measure. It is very unfortunate indeed for the Government and the Premier tr:;·ing to revive that question. I rise on this occasion to tell the Government that I am quite prepared to support them in all cases when thev wish to mete out justice to the people -of ·Queensland. I ask them to consider seriously every phase of the question where justice is not being meted out to-day. 'When we get to the second reading stage and have the opportunity of seeing the Bill we can discuss it further; but, meantime, I offer my congratulations to the Government on their desire to mete out justice to those people who were not getting it. There are men who we think are not getting justice, and we ask the Government to do them justice also.

Mr. WIENHOLT (Fassifern) [10.47 a.m.]: 'When the original Act was being discussed I raised a question-not in any personal sense, nor as affecting n1y O\Vn constituency, but as regards the question of the northern cattlemen. \Ve do not know what the future rnav hold. We have seen northern cattle coming down to the Brisbane yards, and we know that northern cattleowners have been getting a low price for their stock. This will partwularly interest the. hon. meml""' for Cook. and will no doubt interect other hon. northern members. In dealing with a Bill like this, I would like to be sure that there was nothing in it which will preve!lt northern cattlemen who may poss1bly wish to send their chilled beef to the metropohta11 market from doing so through the northern "·arks and getting a fair sha•:e of that market.

Question-" That the resolution (Jlr. lJulcock's motion) be agreed to "-put and passed.

The House resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee

had come to a resolution. Resolution agreed to.

FIRST READING. The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE

(Hon. F. 'N. Bulcock, lJarcoo) presented the Bill, and moved-

" That the Bill be now read a first time."

Question put and passed. Second reading of the Bill rr.ade an Order

of the Day for to-morrow.

II'\CO::HE ("UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF) TAX ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

COM:.VIITTEE.

(llir. Hanson, Buranda, in the chair.) Clause 1-" Short title and construction

of Act "-agreed to. Clause 2-" Validation of Order in

Council"-

Mr. :t>IOORE (A ubigny) [10.51 a.m.]: This is the vital clause of the Bill, and provides for the validation of the Order in Council increasing the tax. \Ve strongly object to the increase in the tax, because, under present conditions, it is not necessary. The late Secretary for Labour and Industry showed conclusively that the amount of tax that was coming in, after allowing for the

amount of money involved in the payment of outdoor relief previously disbursed by the Home Department, was practically suffi­cient to meet the requirements in view of the very definite alteration in the whole position by reason of the het that the Minister has available the special winter relief loan of £620,000 and the £940,000 from the Commonwealth loan raised for special unemployment relief. Consequently we can­not see that there should be any increase in tax; but, as the Government ha.-e appar­ently definitely decided to increase it, we think that, under the circurr.stances, there should be an exemption for people receiving not more than £2 per week or £104 per annum.

The SECRETARY FOR LABO"GR AND INDUSTRY : Why did you object to that when you were in power?

Mr. MOORE : It 1s just as well to explain--

The SECRE'l"ARY FOR LABOl:R AKD INDUSTRY : It is pretty difficult to explain.

Mr. MOORE: It does not take any explain­ing at all to any person of ordinary intelli­gence. I have endeavoured to explain that the conditions are totally different to-day from what they were when the unemploy­ment relief tax was first introduced, when we were limited as to the amount of loan money available, and it was impossible to float any special loan at all. 'l'ime after time the Loa,n Council discussed tiH, rnatter of getting more accommodation, but on this occasion the Government have the £620,000 winter relief loan secured in April and the £940.000 which the Minister, in introducing the Bill, said he had received and which was arranged for in June. Those amounts help the Government to cope with the unemploy­ment position.

Last year, after the Act had been in opera­tion for twelve monhs, the present Minister stated that there was no necessity to make the tax general in its application. He pointed out that the New South Wales law provided for an exemption of £84 per annum; that the Victoria Act provided for an exemption of £2 per week; that the New Zealand law provided for the exemption of Women and juniors; and he put up what must have appeared t<J be a very strong argu­~nent in favour of an exemption in this State. Now he has thB opportunity to carry out his desires. At that time our Government were at our wits end to obtain sufficient money for the relief of unemployment; but the whole position to-day is very much better. The present Government are not justified in increasing the incidence of the tax and in failing to provide for an exemption merely because they have decided to increase the rate of pay to the relief workers.

It must be conceded that increased taxa­tion must make for fltrther unemployment. The present Secretary for Public Lands very bitterlv criticised the action of the late Government in increasing the tax to 6d. in the £1, and contended that it would make for more unemployment. He pointed out that Queensland had reached the limit of taxation, and contended that the extra taxa­tion could not be borne without a serious increase in the unemployment figures. He also said that we should encourage the people to provide employment, instead of placing an additional tax upon them anc! r,_,.~·arding them as a criminal class.

Mr. Moore.]

678 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill;

The prescnl; Government are hitting them both ways. The Government are insisting upon preference to unionists. They have increased the rate of pay; they have increased the unemployment relief tax; and thev propose to incrcQse the incidence of income taxation. It is extraordinary that the peoplo to whom we should look. for a solution of the unemployment problem arc to be seriously affected by taxation burdens; and, if one can judge from the expressions of hon. members opposite when they sat in opposition, there is no justification for their failure to give effect to those expressed ?Pinions now that con~i~ions have materially Improved by the additiOnal supply of loan money. Over £1,500,000 of loan money is now availa):llc _for the 1:elief of unemploy­ment; and 1t w11! be poss1ble for the Minister to transfer a considerable number of relief workers from the operations of the unem­plo~:nent relief ~und to work which is being earned out w1th loan money specially allocated for the relief of unemployment.

The Premier has already stated that there was no occasion to proceed with the flotation of the " Revival Loan" of £2,500 000 from Queensland citizen_s, which he 'promised to floa.t m the mterests of the neop;c of Queensland and for the stilmtht.wn of trarlP, anrl conune!·ce g0ne:t·.1ll't. He now contends that sufficient money is avail­able to enable him to carry on without resorting to thi~ loan. It is extraordinary to thmk, after b1tterly condemning the action of the late Government, that the Government should now _cal_mly proceed not only to mcrease the mc1dence of taxation but also to decline to provide any exempdon. They had previously pointed out that a number of \Vorkcrs received practically no assistance i ye~ they were called upon to contribute to this ~axatwn because no exemption ha-d been prov1ded. .\1! the other hon. members who then sat in opposition played upon the same string, and ~caid that it was monstrous to think that no exemption was provided. Now the Government have the opportunity to remedy that alleged monstrous position. The present. Secretary for Labour and Industry then sa1d that he was most emphatic that we had not reached the limit of taxation in Queensland. He was strongly of the opinion that a person in receipt of less than the basic wage, and particularly the man who h17d to provide for a family, should not come w1thm the scope of a taxation measure at all. W:h~. ha~ he changed his mind? Has respons1b1hty mfluenced him in his decision?

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A:-<D IKDllSTRY : The big deficit left by your Administration leaves no alternative.

Mr. MOO RE: That mi~ht be an excuse but it is not a reason. Whe';-, the late Govern: ment were providing for an increase in the unemployment relief tax, the hon. gentleman then knew that the Government were bud­geting for a considerable deficit· but that did not influence him in his opinion. He did not have the sliO'htest regard for the financial interests of the country. He merely claimed that these people should not be called upon to pay, and that an exemption should be provided.

The hon. gentleman who is now Secretary for Railways actually moved an amendment for this purpose; and the hon. members then in opposition voted in favour of it.

[Mr. Moore.

The reasons the hon. gentlen1an gave Vl'el't::!~ he considered, unanswerabl<>.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : You opposed it.

Mr. MOORE: Yes, and I would oppcw' the same thing to-day if the conditions were the same. It will be noticed th..tt I have only made it applicable to this year.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDllSTRY : Because you are in opposition.

Mr. :MOORE: 2\'o; it is because of the £L500,000 that has been made available by the Commonwealth Bank to the Queensland Government to enable them to assist the unemployed, and because the Minister ;n charge of this Bill said that he would he able to place hundreds or men now on inter­mittent relief work on definitely reproductive works under the loan scheme. If he can do that, then the position ought to be such as to enable the Government to grant thf' exemption which the hon. gentleman said was so necessary when the conditions were not as good as they are to-da3. I '-''0itld not dream of moving this amendment if the Government had not secured the loan mm;ey, because I recognise that it is necessary to obtain a certain amount of money so that those unfortunately out of employm,,nt may receive, at any rate, scn1e assistance to ti.O.e them over a most difficult period. \Ve con­sidered that it was fair that the tax sho·~!d be placed on all sections of the peopi"; but. if we had been in the position that the Minister is in to-day, with £1,500,0CO from revival and relief loans to enable lmn to carry on in a much more efficient and eil'cc­tive way than we were able to do, the position would have been different. After all, we were right up against it; W<' hac! t--J Inakc cverv effort to secure cvcr~7 pl'nn.v. It is only 'necessary to look at the bmlget last year to appreciate that fact. At that time the vicious principle that the •'renuer talks about in his Budget Speech hau not had time to operate. It had not ha-1 time to improve the credit of Australia in the wav it has done to-day; and it must be recognised that the improvement in the credit of Australia is due to the viciuu-; principle that the Premier has rcfcrnl to because it has placed Australia again on the road to solvency, We have not, rcacJ,ed solvency, of course. \Ve are not in a posi­tion that we arc going to balance our budget, but as regards the unemploy~1cnt position the Government are in an mfimte,y better position than we were in became they have an extra amount of monev which enables them to employ men on rcni·o·ludive work which we could not do to any ~reat extent. ·when we attended the April Pren1iers' Conference cverv Au::.tralian Stah• \Vas recognising that~ somt?thing n1on· \vouid have to be done. All were feelnq· the r·iueh of the extra taxation, which was having :t

detrimental effect on industry g"0.PL'rally; ~o much so that it was difficult hr indnstci0-; to keep going under the circuinstaHc ~-; ·with~ out creating further nnemploynwnt It was decided that we would ask for a £10.GOO.OOO loan for reproductive work; and the re a son why that loan was not asked fot· n1s th-1t Xew South Wales declined to cndor;;e the Premiers' Plan and withdrew from the con­ference. The Victorin,n Govemmc·r•t "·crre facing an early election and '\1r. Tunne­cliffe, who was the Acting- !:'r<·miN of that State, also refused to endorse the Premi0rs' Plan. Seeing that two States like :.'\ C'"'

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 679

South \Yales and Victoria were out of the Loan Council-the two States which l•ad the largest number of unernplD:'cd in the Commonwealth-it was decid2d rhat it was irnpos,iblc to ask for £10,00\l,OGJ at that stage with any hope of receinn;, i~. It was accordingly decided to ask for £3,000,000, out of which amount Qucc• B 1and secured £620,000, which was to be spcnc in a definite way, under the aegis vf fL State Employment Council, on which the Common­wealth Government was represented. That council made recom1nendations approving of the expenditure of £360,000 bnfore the present Government came into po"·er.

\Vhcn the next Premiers' Conference took place, New South Wales and Victoria "ere again participating in the Loan Council discussions, and it ''as decided to continue with the first proposal for a loan of £10.000.000. That accounts for the £7.000,000 which was made aYailablc at the last conference, New South \Yales and Vic­toria ha ,-ing in the meantime accepted the Premiers' Plan. The Premier of Queens­land had nothing to do with it. ~ow that the money is available. the Government have sufficient monev with which lo earn· on intermittJc'nt relief work at rates which were, at any rah', proYiding sustenance and "· little more for those who, unfortunately, were unemployed. In order to give a higher rate and other conditions, why should they want to penalise other people by increasing the tax and offering no exemption? It is quite wrong to do that. The Minister and other members of the GoYernmcnt strongly supported the amend­ment moved by the hon. member for Mundmp;burra when the Bill was before the House last year. If they ·considered that, undu- the conditions tiien operating, the amendment was justifiable, how much more justifiable is it to-dav when the} have over £1.500,000 more? l move the following arnendnwnt :-

" On line 35, after the word­' validated'

insert the following paragraph:-'Provided that paragraph (x.) of

section 5 of the Income (Unemploy­ment Relief) Tax Acts as amended by the said Order in Council is amended as follows: --After the words " amounts paid to" in the said paragraph (x.), the following words arc inserted, narne1y, " persons whose incornc for the income year ending on the thir­tieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirtv-three, does not exceed the c.um of one hundred and four pounds and amounts paid to." ' "

The Bill is validating the Order in Council, and I wish to put the amendment in the Bill because the Order in Council is not printed with the Bill. The reasons put forward bv members of the Government Party on the last occasion are ample reasons for the acceptance of the amendment when you take into consideration the altered financial position of the country to-day. 'I'he Premier, in his policy speech, said that he was going to dispel the darlme·'' and ushc,· in a rosy dawn for Queensland. The dawn is going to be much more rosy if people in receipt of £104 a year arc exempted from the operations of the unem­ployment relief tax. If hon. members on thC' Government side were justified-and I presume they thought they were justified-

in moYing the amendment last y0ar and believed in the reasons they gaYc for 1t, ancl if they \Vere genuine, 110\Y is the oppor­tunitl- when conditions are totally differ­ent ,;1;d the people infinitPly better off than thev were to place their ideas in operation ancl gran't this exemption. I trust the Minister v;ill accept the amendment.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND I.:\DCSTR\. (Hon. 11. P. Hynes, 'l'owns­rille\ [11.9 a. m.]: I reject the amendment because the Order in Council was made pur­suant to the principal 1\..ct, -whieh pro\Tidcs that such orders shall ha.-e the force of the Act and shall not be quc,tioned. Also the principal Act did not, at the time of the makino· of the Order in Counc!l, contam any p~ovision whereby an incrca~e of the C"6sting rates could not be . rnaae. .,-\ls~, His Majesty has been collcctmg th.c addi­tional revenue since 1st August of th1s year; and, further. that the present Bill was founded on the mecsag·e from the Governor, which recommended that the nccc~;;ary appropriation be made; further, that Parlia­ment has already approved of the principles of the Bill on the second readmg.

Mr. DEACOK (Cunningham) [11.12 a.m.]: I,; that all you have to say?

Th<> SECRET.IRY FOR LAnot:R AXD IxDDSTRY:

That is enough. :Hr. DEACON: That is a very poor

reason for rejecting the amendment. 1 never heard before thD.t we had no nght to amend a Bill in Committee. Surely the Minister is not sincere when he states that he cannot .accept the amendment because 1t is necessarv legislatively to sanctwn the Order in Council. 2'\ovi that we arc hew and have the opportunity, surely_ there is 110

1·cason whv we ehould not take mto acconnt the ,tate "of the finances generally ! 1:1•~ Government e.rc in a much better pos1bon with re&(ard to their revenue account, bcwg better off by £1,500,QPO, than the preYious Governn1ent were ·when the rates of taxa· tion were fixed. Surely unemployment. ha; not increased to such an extent that 1t IS

necessary to haYe more than £1,500,000 extra! The operations under the Act _last '"Tear were carried on with the amount ra1sed from the taxpayers, many of whom were only earning a moderate wage. Sur:Jy the Government have enough money ~nth the extra amount obtained from the Comn,oa· wealth Government to meet the situation! VIe find they are rounding up everybody­even the J1oor washerwomen. ~obody ev< ,. dreamt that a Ls.bour Government would have been so greedy .and grasping. The Labour voters did not dream th11t the' Government they were returning at the laet election would be so mean as to come down on the poor washer:-votncn. The 8ecrc1Ttry fol· Labour and Industry, when bdore tho electors, would have been insulted at su0 a suggestion, and would iu,ve said th"t a man who tncntioned such a thing nught to be deported. A number of newspapers snp· parting the Opposition were dead against this proposal at the last election. The Minister doe·-; not m·ed the money; and the people who are taxed cannot afford to pay it, as most of them are not earning the basic wage. Some of them are married n1en in poor cjrcum­stances with large families to support; yet the Governm£-nt require an ex.tra axnoun:: of taxa­tion from them. The late Govemm•'m had at least the excuse that they could not get

llfr. Deacon.]

680 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

sufficient money for the unem)Jloyment relief scheme, and had to ask everybody to con­tribute. Now, when the present Govern­ment have more money 'Lvailable, the'e people ought to be let off. This is the last thing anybody would have expected from the Governrr,i~nt.

Mr. KEX?\Y (Cook) [11.15 a.m.]: It was interesting to hear the reply given by the Minister, when he said that che p~ssage of the second reading of the Bill was a reason for not amending the Bill in Committee. As the hon. member for Cunningham effectively stated, we have passed the second read­ing so that we can amend the Bill in Com­mittee in the interests of the people con­cerned. I could understand any Minister other than the Secretary for Labour and Industry giving the reason he did, but not that hon. gentleman. When we intro­duced a similar Bill he was very loud in his condemnation of our not allowino- thP exemption_ we are asking for to-day, although the cond1t10ns then were very different from what they are to-day. ·

I shall give the Minister svme rc·ase>h why the amendment moved to-day should b0 acce:pted; and, to help me in my .nrgunwnt, I will call ~he Prem!e_r to my assistance, who,_ when. m oppos1hon, spoke on the prev1ous B11l on 29th September 1931 in connection with an amendment ~imila~ to the one moved by the Leader of the Opposi­tion, which had J:een moved by the hon. member for Mundmgburra. The Leader of the Government's words were-

" The object of the amendment is to make it cl!'ar that on and after the pass­mg of this law an income of £2 per week, or £104 per annum shall be exempt from this form of ta~ation. . " Our object in providing an exemp­

tiOn of £2 per week, or £104 per annum, IS to place the exemptiOn as low as pos­sible. That would be fa.r too low in ordinary circumstances but sure! v one cannot argu'.' in favour' of taxing a per­son whose mcome falls below £2 per week, or _£104 per annum. If that is t):le only m<;ome, it !s little enough to hve upon . w1thout bemg called upon to pay ta_xahon .. \Vhen the principal Act was bemg cons1dered last year, we moved an amendment to provide that casual employees or those engaged in domestic employment should be exempt from its taxation proYisions."

Where does the hon, gen~le_man stand to-day? Has he changed h1s opmwns? Why is he not pr<_lpared to. give to these people the exemptiOn he Wished them to have when he was on this side of the Chamber?

I have a very yivi<;[ recollection of speakers on t~e La?our s1de m the election campaign deaJmg w1th the question of unemployment relief and the taxation of the late Govern­ment. The hon. member foQ' Fo·rtih1de V alley on 30th May, 1932, said-

" The Bill making provision for the neeess~ry money to carry on Sizer' s relief work 1mposes conditions bv wav of addi­tional taxation that are ~vithout prece­dent in the history of Queensland."

I quote that and other statements to show that the }ntention ~f the Labour Party-or the mtentwn they Wished the people to believe they had-was to rclieYe them of the burden of taxation altogether, and to lead them to

[Mr. Deacon.

believe that the late Government had done something awful by increasing the tax to 6d. in the £1. How, then, can they justify an increase to ls. in the £1, especially when they have received £1,500,000 of extra loan money which was not available to the late Government? That is another reason why the amendment should be aecepted, Indeed, the Government have no argument against aceepting it.

The hon. member for Cairns, in the same campaign-he will not be able to deny thi,;, as he did another statement-said in Cairn5 on 1st June-

" If Labour were eleded to power, it would have to carrv on with the exist­ing taxation until such time as the law could be amended, and then the workers who were on a bare existence would be relieved of the heavy taxation which was now imposed upon them."

The hon. member said that, if they were returned to power as a Government, the workers who were paying the unemployment relief tax would be relieYed of the burden of taxation.

Mr. O'KEEFE: What are you quoting from?

Mr. KENNY: I am quoting · from the hon. member's speech. The hon. member does not like his own words; it is not the ilrst time the hon. member has put his foot in it. Do the Government Tequire any further argument for aCDepting the amend­ment than the wor-ds of their own candidates in the election campaign 1 Why do these members now stand behind the Government who are increasing the taxation to ls. in the £1? Surely they are going to keep their election promises! I would expect them to do so when I recall the words of the Leader of the Government in Mackav on 6th June- .

'' Labour did not stand for repudiation in any shape or form, and never would repudiate anything it undertook to carry out. Labour's word was 1ts bond, and the electors coul-d rest assured that anything contained in his policy speech would be honoured."

Mr. Lano- in New South \Vales said that the pledge

0

of a Labour man was as binding as his pledge to the bondholder. What \Jecame of his pledge to the bondholder when he got into power? To-day we have the Premier saying that his pledges will be carried out. We have members supporting him saving that the workers would be relieved. of the burden of taxation, and that it would be wiped out; yet they :will not support an amendment to give relief even to men receiving less than £104 per annum.

The Minister in charge of the Bill says that he will not accept the amendment because the second reading has been passed. Surely hon. members behind him who have made such ·election speeches as I have quoted are going to take the opportunity of fulillling their pledges, and proving that the pledges of Labour men are worth while. Address­ing the electors of Bulimba on 4th May, 1932, the hon. member for Bulimba got very hot under the collar when he referred to the fact that orphans had been deprived of ls. per week. Dealing with the adminis­tration of the Moore-Barnes Government, he said-

" The people were obliged to supply their own relief scheme, and a rottc·n wage was provided for which Australians

Income (Unemployment Rel·iej) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 681

,ltould not be asked to work \Vhen we took this country from the blacks oYer \_;ne hundreds years ago, "\YO gavo thenl clothing and food. In 1932, in Queens­land, the Moore-Barnes-Sizer crowd sny it is good enough to work fo" tucker -only.

"The treatment of single men was inhuman. Not only were they obliged to walk 25 miles before thev could draw rations, but if, owing to- their weak physical condition and their desire to obtain work, they ' jumped the rattler,' they were liable to be declared habitual criminals. The Labour Party woulcl put a stop to this condition of affairs by applying the basic wage to work for single as well as married men.

" I am of opinion that the basic wage of £3 14s. is barely suflicient to keep the bodies and souls of a man, wife, and three children together without putting anything by for a rainy day."

The hon. member for Bulimba considers that £3 14s. per week is little enough to keep body and soul together; yet I stwpose he is prepared to Yote against the amendment to provide for an exemption of £104 per annum i!1 the contribution towards this taxation. Is he going to stand for this inhuman tax on these poor unfortunates? We know that the present Go,-ernment are gaoling people for ''jumping the rattler." We know that con­ditions in that respect have not changed in any shape or form. The Minister offers the paltry excuse that he cannot accept the amendment because the principle has already been confirmed at the second reading stage. Surely hon. members opposite arc prepared to support the Leader of the Opposition in his amendment providing for an exemption of £104 per annum ! Surely they are pre­pared to stand behind the little newsboy, of whom the Minister had so much to say on another occasion ! The Minister previously complained that these poor little individuals were to be taxed. He sympathetically pointed out that they had to r11-n the streets bare­footed to sell newspapers so that a hungrv GoYernment might pay a wage to relie-f workers. He referred to the difficulties of these poor little chaps. Arc hon. members opposite now prepared to support the Oppo­sition, and to grant a measure of freedom to these little boys who have to run the streets barefooted_:_thc little chaps who are ~ompelled to go upon the streets in cold mornings to hop on to trams trying to sell newspapers so that they may earn a crust? What is to happen to that poor little fellow to-day? What is to happen to the unfortu­nate washerwoman, who has to get up early in the morning, and who, when it is too early to catch a tram, must walk a great distance to work. Are these unfortunate individuals to be penalised, or is the Minister prepared to relent and accept the amendment!

Hon. members opposite claim that the position has altered. It has altered; and it has altered for the better. When tho late Government were in power, a rehabilitation of the finances of Australia was impossible because of the wild financial views of Mr. Lang. It was his very action at a meeting of the Loan Council which prevented Queens­land and the other States from participating in a loan of £10,000,000.

During the election campaign the Premier deluded the people into believing that he

would raise a loan of £2,500,000 for the relief of unemployment; but he calmly informs the people to-day that it is not necessary to raise that loan because suflicient money is otherwise available. Then why the noed to increase the rate of taxation'?

Hon. members opposit<, have had an oppor­tunity to restore to the public servants the right of access to the Industrial Court. During the election campaign the hon. member for Bulimba had quite a lot to say about the rights of public servants, both with respect to access to the Industrial Court and to their former rateo of pay. I •hall have more to say on those subjects later. Why should the Government be so determined to tax the newsboy and to refuse public servants the right of acceod again to the Industrial Court if sufficient funds are available for their purpose? Speaking at the Loan Council in April, 1932, the late Premier said-

" The Queensland Government have already tackled the problem of unem­ployment in a practical way, and com­plete machinery is available to handle further constructive proposals along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister. It has already carried out many repro­ductive works and has proposals to place before the conference whereby at least £2,500,000 could be profitably spent in Queensland on relieving unemployment and reviYing industry."

It will be seen that the Premier took the words out of the ex-Premier's mouth, and went to the people with a proposal to get a loan of £2,500,000 and carry out public works to that extent. In other words, the present Government used the brains of our leader. The people of Queensland, believing the pre­sent Premier's statement, returned his Gov­ernment to power. Now we have the hon. gentleman saying that there is no need to raise £2,500,000. As a matter of fact, when they made that promise, they knew they had no power to carry it out. \V e also recall that the Premier on more occasions than one stated that the Moore Government had not taken full advantage of the money which was available for Queensland. Let mo quote what the present Leader of the Opposition said when he attended that Premier's con­ference as Premier of Queensland-

" But before definitely committing themselves to any proposals, the Queens­land representatives desire to remind the conference that on a previous occasion when the question of loan allocations was discussed, Queensland was declined assist­ance owing to her having funds of her own available. It is therefore essential that a definite assurance be given that a similar attitude will not be adopted on this occasion. The basis of the alloca­tion of funds available is of utmost im­portance to Queensland, and its represen­tatives are not prepared to commit their s.tate to any proposal until that ques­tiOn has been definitely and clearlv defined." -

We also remember that, although the present Premier claimed that he would revise the Premiers' Plan and would get £2,500,000, he found he could not get that amount when he did attend the Premiers' Conference.

The CHAIRMAX : Order ! The hon. mem­ber must confine himself to the amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Kenny.]

682 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

Mr. KE="NY : I "m confining m} self to th<e relief of unemployment, Mr. Hanson. T~at is what this tax is for. When the Premrer attended the Loan Council, £6,000,000 was set aside for public works; but the hon gentleman did not got one penny of that.

The CHAIRI>'IAN : Order ! I would remind the hon. member that there is a ce,·tain amendment before this Committee. I do not want to call him to order again; but he must confine himself to the principle contained in that amendment.

Mr. KE:\'"NY: I am endeavouring to do that, Mr. Hanson. An amendment has been moved to exempt from this tax people who are receiving less than £2 per week; and I am endeavouring to convince hon. members sitting behind the Government that they should support that amendment, especially when they have plenty of money available.

The Premier has stated that there is no need to raise £2,500,000. If that be the case there is ,all the more reason whv thrs tax 'should not be increased. That is' what we are debating now. The amendment of the Loader· of the Opposition is aimed at relieving the burden of people who are m receipt of small incomes.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the history of the £10,000,000 loan pro­po~cll. I have shown whore the Government have taken advantage of the ::\foore GoYern­ment's proposal to expend £2,500,000. I have also shown that before the JYioore Govern­ment left. office n rrangements were made for a winter relief loan of £620,000. My argu· ment hss also g·one to show that, when tho present Premier ·.,ent to the Loan Council, it was the chamred attitude of New South \Vales and Yictoeia that 0nabled the original proposal for a loan of £10,000,000 to be pro­ceeded with. so that £7,000.000 was made available, of which Queensland received £940,000. \V c know that the Prime Minis­ter has said that at the next meeting of the Loan Council consideration will be g-iven to the m0ans of raising that money. Consider­ing that the Queensland Government have aHilable £620,000 and also £940,000 in excess of the amount at the disposal of the Moore Government, I sa: definitely that there is no nocPssitv to increase the tax. There is much less nece,sity for the Minister's refusal to accept the amendment moved b:· the Leader of the Opposition. I appeal to Government members to support the .amendment. In view of their previous utterances, they should be only too happy to do so. If they do that, they are certainly going to benefit those people wham they led to believe they were going to help.

To show that some hon. members opposite realise that they have plenty of money on hand, I need only quote some of the actions of the Government since they have been in power. \Ye know quite well that we wore conrlemned for making economies in order to relieve the unemployment position and to avoid increasing the unemployment relief tax. Now, when they have plenty of money on hand, when they are increasing this ta.x -we find that the poor little newspaper boy is being taxed-the Government are putting­men into permanent positions in the public serv1ce. In an~y·n:"r to a question asked yes­terday, the Minister ac1mitted that he had put sixty-seven permanent employees upon the revenue staff, and that he had put thirty­six temporary employees upon the revenue

[Mr. Kenny.

staff. If they have plenty of money avail­able so that there is no need to effect econo­mics, and if tney ean put any number upon the permanent staff to be paid for out of revenue, where is the necessity to increase thi;; tax 'I Taking the revenue, trust, and loan_ fundB, the Government have put seventy-srx per· manent officials and eighty-six temporary hands into the Government service. Alto­gether they have put over 160 men m to the· public service; yet they condemned the late Government for effecting economies !

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member is departing very widely from the amendment.

Mr. KEKNY: I am trying to show that it was necessary for the late Government to effect economies in order to avoid the neces­sity for increasing the unemployment relief tax· and when the Government to-day hav~ plenty of money on ha.nd, they shol;lld not be increasing the expenditure, whrch will mean an increase in the tax. They should continue the policy followed by the previous Government, and should keep the cost of administration within reasonable bounds. If they do that, there will be no nece-.sity for rejecting the amendment. I say they have no intention of doing tha.t. Although they made promises to the electors during the election campaign, when they have the opportunity of carrying out those pro­misee, as the Leader of the Government would say, they have cynically and callously turned these people down after h~ vmg received their votes. That cannot be JUSti­fied. The Minister will not tell us how many tempora.ry hands have been put. into the public service. \Vhile this expendrture· is g-oing on, I cannot understan_d the Go~ \'ernment wishing to increase this tax. If it is their intention to increase the number of pu[Jlic servants-if it is their intention to· give political plums to their supporters­there is no need to tax the poor newspaper Lays. But they must tax these unfortunat_e individuals so that they can put thmr polr­tical supporters into good positions. Surely hon. members opposite are not going to attempt to justify that po;;ition ! Surely they are not going to try to justify the rejection of the amendment! Surely they are not going to try to justify the taxatiOn of newspaper boys, washormomen, an~ o~her low paid workers so that they can grv? JObs at high salaries to their own political fnends! It is outrageous if they are going to take that stand a.nd no party is justified in con­doning sudh action. I look forward to hon. members opposite, particularly those whom I ha vo quoted in condemnation of the late Government, justifying the s_tand they took in this Hou"o on that occasron.

The bell indicated that the hon. member's time had expired.

Mr. EDWARDS (Nanango) [11.41 a.m.]: I desire to support the amendment for two reasons. I have always said, and state very definitely now, that an unemployment relief tax is wrong in principle, and the amend­ment is the first step towards removing that tax from the shoulders of the people. The imposition of the unemployment relief tax is bringing the people to a worse standard of conditions. By putting a greater tax on people receiving a small rerr.uneration for their work the Government are forcing them back 'upon the dole. That is what the Government are doing step by step. The

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 683

Government definitely promised at the elec­tionK that there would be no increase in taxation if his part.y was returned to power. vVc know that the Premier rarely introduces a measure in this Chamber vvithout n1aking the definite statement that it is in accord­ance with the programme placed before the electors in his election address. There was no matter placed more prominently before the electors than unetr.ployment. I go fur­ther, and say definitely that the new rr.em­bers on the Government benches got into Parliament by their promises with regard to unemployment relief. '" e know how they talked about single men walking about for rations.

In view of the promises those hon. mem­bers made on the hustings. it is up to them to get up and show that they are going to stand by the principks on whieh they were elected.

The amendment is a step towards reliev­ing the people of the unemployment relief tax altogether at a future date. I hope the Minister will accept it, and that next session he will be able to accept another amendment eliminating the unemployment relief tax alto­gether. It is bad in principle and against the interests of the people to impose a per­manent unemployment relief tax on the com­munity; and it only increases industrial trouble, and results in rr_ore men coming under the unemployment relief work or being put upon the dole.

The Government should consider who are the people who are paying this unemplov­ment relief tax. Have not these people g;t enough difficulties to contend with without having to find the large amount of money for unemployment relief work, which is largely of an unproductive character? We know that many people who are struggling under great difficulties through lack of employment are too independent to come to the State for assistance in this direction. We want to inculcate a feeling of independ­ence in our people, and to enable them to realise its virtue. Hon. merr.bers opposite should remember that there are many people who do not receive help under this scheme who are working under just as great diffi­culties as those who are receiving unemploy­ment relief work or taking the dole.

Seeing that, when the Moore Government introduced the original measure, the Minister was one of the greatest advocates to have it withdrawn, I would ask him to consider the advisability of gradually eliminating this tax, which is so prejudicial to the interests of the State. In a State like Queensland we should be able to get along without this form of taxation. If hon. members opposite were prepared to mislead the electors on the platform in order to bring about the sooialisation of industry, which they are supposed to stand for, it is not much honour to therr,.

By placing these imposts on the people we ar•• loading industry to such an extent that it is impossible for it to carry on. If statistics were collected, it would be realised that step by step men are being thrown out of indus­try and placed on the dole or unemployment relief, with the result that the people who are paying this tax are being overloaded to such an extent that they arc giving way one by one. Surely the Government must realise the dangPr of the position into which they are driving the country ! The amend­ment is not moved to harass the Govern-

menJ, lmt be, a use we believe that it is a step in the direction of removing the tax from the ehouldPl,, of the people. vVe hope tbat process will continuE' until it is removed altogether, hPcause b>' this means we shall get contentment amongst the people who are attempting to build up our industries under such conditions that private capital will be; invested and the unemployed will get that reasonable work which everyone desires thev should have. I hope the :VIinister will vie•~ the matter from that standpoint.

The hon. member for Cook has dealt witn the quc-<tion from the point of .-iew of tho S)'mJ1athetic references made by the Minister and other members of the Government, when sitting in opposition, to the newspaper boy, the "\vasherwoman, and others. 1\::mrs \Vere shed in this Chamber and also on the elec­tion platforms by hon. member's opposite. Definitely they told the people that tho l\Ioore Government were the greatest tragedy and the cruellest Administration that ever held office; yet to-day they are increasing that GDvernment's taxation, although they admit that their financial position is much better than that of their predecessors. They have only to look up their own speeches when the late Government introduced this scheme in order to appreciate their inconsistency. Those of them who were not in the House at that time mav turn to their election speeches. If they' vote for this proposal by the Minister, I can see nothing else than for them to go back to the electors and tell them what they have done, and ask the electors what they are going to do about it. Surely we have not reached that stage in the politi­cal life of the State when we are prepared to mislead the electors and say nothing at all about it ! It would be honourable for hon. members to put the matter before their elec­tors in cases where they have been compelled by the Government to abandon their pledge'i -because, undoubtedly, the Cabinet must ha.-e whippe-d them into line.

HoK. W. H. BAR""ES (lVynnum) [11.52 a. m.): I think it is very evident that there has been another conversion on the Trea­sury benches, and that the Secretary for Labour and Industry now joins the Treasurer at the. penitent form, because he seems to have turned right round. It is well that we should remind the hon. gentleman of what he said and the Premier of what he said. I have taken the trouble to look up what the Premier said to the electors at Mackay on 28th April-

" Relief from the burden of taxation can be looked for in the • direction of a policy which is conducive to increasing employment. resulting in greater indus­trial activities generally. .Such a policy will be pursued by the Labour Party. and fair and equitable conditions will be restored as early as possible."

Yet this morning we find that one means of restoring them is not to give that relief which they so earnestly advocated when on this side of the Chamber, but to put addi­tional taxation on the shoulders of the workers!

When we commenced to consider this Bill in Committee this morning, the majority of hon. members opposite became very ner­vous about this amendment, and went out­side of the Cha.mber, presumably to summon up sufficient courage to face a division so that they might be able to say, "We hav_e turned completely round." How strange 1i

Hon. W. H. Barnes.l

684 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

will be to see them voting again"t what they themsclve;; said should be done. vVhen the present Secretary for Public Lands sat in opposition, he criticised the legislation intro­duced by the late Government in these terms-

" If I were the Premier, I would not ]fring in a resolution such as is being brought in to-day; but would go to the people and ask them to ab"olve me from the solemn promise I made. This was the last promise made on thQ eve of the eledion. Hon. members opposite told the people of Queensland that they would find this money, and first of all, they brought in a Bill to tax these poor people 3d. in the £1."

He further said-" The Minister, when introducing the

resolution, excused himself for doing so -he did not like doing it-and then he pointed out that there would be exemp­tions, and said he had considered the question of exempting the people up to £156, which "how, that our argument is right."

I wonder how the present 11inieter feels this morning! \\'hen i\lr. Speaker sat in opposi­tion, he criticised the measure introduced by the late Government in these words-

" The test of taxation is, not what it takes from a man or his family or what it yields to the country, but what he has left to live on after the taxation has been paid. In the case of a person receiving £104 10s., or a fraction over £2 a week, that £2 12s. is a big item, especially if he has a wife and a family. Such a man has more to do >vith that £2 12s. than to provide for the unem­ployed. Is it fair to impose a tax of that amount on a ma.n with a wife and perhaps six chil-dren, >.·:ho ·is getting about £2 a week?"

I want to uso his argn1nent this morning in connection with the amendment. It would not be unfair to sn~gest that ')/Ir. Speaker should vote with the Opposition on the amendment to-day, although the procedure ''ould be quite 11nusual. The Speaker of a Parliament generally likes to abstain from voting; but the amendment is so important, and his conscience is so tender that it would bP quite right to suggest tl;at he should vote for the amendment. Perhaps some hon. members opposite might prefer to go outside the Chamber rather than vote against the amendment. It mav be that they will be able to got only half way, but it is quite a good thing to be able to get even half way. The party who claim to be so con­sistent will be displaying their absolute inconsistency if they refuse to endor~e the amendment. I feel that the Leader of the Opposition has been most gracious. He has really taken the stand, now that there is sufficient money available, that he should give hon. members opposite an opportunity to put themselves right; and he has m'oved an. a_mendment cm bodying the very same pnnCiplc that >>as embodied in an amend­ment which hon. members opposite moved on a previous occasion when conditions were not so good.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : 1'--hich you opposed

HoN. W. H. BARNES: Yes b\ reason of the pnwailing conditions. Th~ Government then did not have the assistance of a loan

[Hon. W. H. Barnes.

of £620,000 and a loan of £940,000. The :\Iinistcr seems to have gone back on his principles to a fearful extent-that is if he is not prepared to accept the amendment. It may be that he is now pondering and is going to accept it. I notice that he is very busy with his pencil. Probably he is writ­ing down just the best way out in order to. sa\ c the situation.

I noticed this morning, too, that the Pre­nlier seerned .sm:newhat concorne.d, because he chatted wnh the Secretary for Labour and Industry as he went out. Appa.rently he thought it would be wise, for the sake of Labour, to accept the amendment. Tho }1inister now ha;; the audacity to say, in effect, that he has been su]fj·ect to such a wonderful conversion and his feelings towards the workers have changed so much that he cannot accept the amendment. He really says, " I >von't accept it. I have slipped badly; but, now that I am in office, it does not matter so much-I am not going to accept this rcaeonable amendment." 1 am quite sure that, if he is prepared to think the matter over, he will decide that there should be a complete turn round. I am sure that he will then be able to say, ''Yes, the Opposition are right to-day, because, in a sense, they have embodied om· policy in the amendment. 1\-e are going to be a united party, all voting in the one direction." I feel perfectly sure that that is what is going to bappen this morning.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOuR AND INDTJSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­vi/le) [12 noon]: I do not intend to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. gentleman is really sincere in his desire to assist this group of taxpayers, why did he not accept the amend­ment >vhich was moved in 1930 bv the hon. member who is now :Minister for Transport? (Opposition dissent.) The Moore Govern­ment had the opportunity to show their sincerity. ·

Mr. I'ETERSON: \Vc did not have the n1oney.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND I)IDTJSTRY: X ever ha Ye we had such a display of hypocrisy and humbug as we ha,-e witncs~cd from the Opposition benches this morning. (Opposition dissent.) The hon. member who has just resumed his seat had no hesitation in voting for the Moore Government to exclude the group of tax­payers covered by an amendment moved by the Labour Opposition in 1930. No sug­gestion was then made by the hon. member or his colleagues that men in receipt of, say, £1,000 a year should be taxed ctt a higher rate than a person receiving only £2 per week. There was no suggestion of a graduated tax; a flat rate was imposed.

The position to-day is vastly different from what it was when the Act was initiated.

l\lr. EDWARDS: You said that before.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOuR AND IKDUSTRY: I will prove it. I am not like the hon. member; I do not expect the Committee to accept my unsupported testi­mony. In 1930 15,787 people were registered as unemployed in Queensland. vVhen we took office the number had increased to 32,994. It was estimated that the receipts from the tax,ation imposed when the Act was introduced would total £800,000, and at that time it was continually stated by the

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 685

Moore Government that conditions would be improved because the panacea for unem­ployment had been found. In view of the fact that only 15,787 people were unem­ployed, and that £800,000 was anticipated to be received from the tax then imposed, members of the then Opposition were justi­fied in asking the Mooro Government to ex­empt people in receipt of less than £104 per annum. That is a complete answer to the a.rguments adv~nced .by hon. members oppo­site. (OppositlOn dissent.) Can it be for one moment seriol!sly suggested that this G!overnment would countenance the imposi­tion of a tax on people in receipt of less than £104 per annum if we were not faced with a much more difficult problem than confronted the Moore Government in 1930 when only 15,787 people were registered a~ unemployed? To-day double the number of unemployed exist. IV e have to make some provision. Relief concessions have been liberalised v~ry considerably. At an earlier stage of this measure I pointed out that the. Govor!'ment had decided to extend the basis of mcome under a family arrange­ment so that )mndreds of additional people now rec01ve Intermittent work and other f~r~s of relief. We had to make some pro­' ISIOn for wo~·k for the unemployed single men. The phght o_f the unemployed single man has been considerably improved under our regime.

·when the last Labour Government rolin­qms_hed office, approximately £5.000,000 was av~Ilable for use in directions that would rehevo unemployment. VVhen we took office there was only £800,000 in the Loan Fund: and we know it is a serious matter whe1~ you get below £1.000,000 in connection with that fLmd. I certamly would like to accept the amencl'!'ent; but I can asqure hon. mem­be:·s opposite, as well as hon. members on this side, that v:e have giYen this matter very grave consideration. At all times we ha vo end ea Yourecl to place the tax on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. ~~'e propose a gra~luatecl tax so as to compel the person gettmg the higher income to pay more m the £1 than Is paid by the person on a low mcomo. The speeches n:ade bv hon. members on this side last year which h~ve been quoted by hon. _n;embers opposite "ere made when the position was entirelv different from what it is now. At that time there was a flat rate of 3d. in the £1 on all workers. You are shedding crocodile tears--

The CH.AIRMA='I; Order ! I ask the Minister to address his remarks to the Chair.

!he~ SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND II\Du STRY: At the present time hm1. mem­bers opposite are shedding crocodile tears on behalf of people in roc~ipt of less than £104 a year being obliged to pav 3d. in the :£1. When the original Bill was" introduced, I~ fixed a flat rat~ of 3d. in the £1, irrespec­tive of the ~armngs of the individual tax­payer, s~owmil" that they did not want to hurt thmr fnends, the wealthv taxpavers of the community. A graduated" scale pl~ces the burden on the. shouldc;rs of the people best able to bear It, and m the ratio that ~hey can afford to pay. I assure hon. mem­t>ers opposite that we have no intention of accepting the amendrr on.t. At the present bme It would be Impossible for us to cauy out the pohcy of the Government if the amendment were agreed to, because it would mean a considerable reduction in the amount

we estirnate to receive in this connection, and that would rebound on the people in receipt of less than £104 per annum. Wo have assisted those people indirectly by g·iving their brothers and sons ono clay's work every two weeks, and by giving them 6s. worth of rations in the alternate week. \Ve are relieving the economic pressure on ·that section very considerably by the humane alteration of the existing arrang·ement. To-day there are 32,000 unemployed, whereas, when the original Act was passed, there were only 15,000; and it was estimated that the receipts from the unen:ployment relief tax would amount to £800,000. It will, there­fore, be seen that the problem was not a very big one, as £800,000 should have been suffi­cient to deal with the 15,000 unemployed at that time, and we were justified in taking up' the attitude at that time that there should be an exemption in regard to thoso whose earnings did not exceed £104 per annum. To-day the position is entirely different; and I say the maladministration and the incapable manner in which tho Moore Go;-ornment handled the iinancus of the State are responsible in a large measure for that big increase in the unemployed in Queensland. I wish to reiterate that I have never listened to so much hypocrisy, humbug, and cant as I ha vo listened to this mormng frorrc the Leader of the Opposition and his henchmen.

Mr. C. TAYLOR (Windsor) [12.10 p.m.]: I am sorry the .Minister cannot sec his way clear to accept the amendment. It is very difficult to understand why he cannot do so. The whole trend of his speech was that the Labour Party throughout the whole of their existence have boasted that they intended to place the taxation on the shoulders of tho'~ best able to bear it. In season and out of season-before ever the question of an unemployment relief tax came before the Chamber-they always told their sup­porters that they intended to put the taxatiOn on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. Can the i\linister or any hon. member on that side of the Chamber say that taxation on an income of £104 a year is either fair or equitable?

At 12.12 p.m., Jl.lr. GLEDSO).[ (I ps1cich), one of the panel of

Temporary Chairmen, relieved the Chairman in the chair.

~lr. C. TAYLOR: The Minister says that the position has changed; but it does not seem to have changed for the worse. If we take the indications on all sides, the rise in the prices of Australian goods, the successful conversion in London of the New South \Vales loan, and the appreciation of other investments, it must be admitted that the conditions are slightly Letter than they were, 1>nd that they will continue to improve.

I am of opinion that there is no necessity whatever to increase the unemployment relief tax. However, we are dealing more particu­larly with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to certain exemptions which ;ye on this side think should be allowed at the ]Jl'e"ent time. The question as to whether the hon. member for vVynnum is sincere or not in connection with this particular tax does not come into the argument at all. The fact remains that the Minister and the whole of the Labour Party at the time this legislation was intro­duced spoke against it, and did all they possibly could to haYe those in receipt of

1111·. C. Taylor.]

686 Income ( U nemployrnent Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

iucmnP" of £10~ per annnn1 exempted from the tax.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: Your party insisted on having them included.

l\ir. C. TAYLOR: I know we ditl, and the hon. g·entlcman's party insisted that thev 'h0uld not be included, but now they are including then1.

The SECReTARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I have pointed out that conditions have changed.

l\Ir. C. TAYLOH: So they have; but not in such a direction as to warrant the con­tinuation of this tax on these particular people. The r,linister is raising the rate of the tax in other directions, and expects to get £400,000 or £500,000 more than was obtained by the late Government. The Go­vermnent hii ve the balance of the £620, OOJ and the £940,000 loan; and the ::Yiinister has stated that he doe' not expect to see nearly as. big a drain on the fund on account of the transfer of certain men to other forms of relief work under the loan fund. Yet the . Minister says that he will not remit the taxation in regard to people getting £104 per annum, but is going to continue it. I have never seen such a change of front on the part of a number of men as I have wit­nessed in this Chamber thi' morning. No men could have been more sincere in their advocacv than the l\finister and those associat~d with him that this tax should not have been imposed in the first instance, but they are not now prepared to relinquish it. I think it is ,a great mistake; in fact, I believe that the whole of the increased taxa­tion proposed by this Bill will have a serious effect on unemployment. 'l'he Government would have been well advised to leave that £Pction of the communitv free from taxation because no one can say t"hat people in receipt of only £104 per annum should b~ subject to this particular form of taxation. I hope that even yet the Government will see their way clear to relieve these people of this form of taxation.

Mr. TOZER (Gym pie) [12.16 p.m.]: I am sorry the Minister will not· accept the amend­ment. He accused hon. members on th·i, side of hypocrisy. The hon. member for Windsor said that no one could have been more sincere than the present Minister in connection with the amendment moved on .a former occasion by the hon. member for l\fundmgburra. If he was absolutely sincere at that time, he is g-uilty of hypo01:isy now. What has led the Minister and other hon. members opposite who were members of the last Parliament to change their minds; Thev all strongly supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mundingburra, which was the same as the present amendment moved_ by the Leader of the Opposition. At that t1me everv hon. member opposite who BRoke strongly supported the exemption of pe'?ple earning up to £104 a year. They 1JOmte? out the hard position those people were m, . and smd that they had not suffi. c1ent to hve on and were suffering, and were not fit to go to work because their strenrrth was sapped by not having sufficient fo;d; and they urged that their amendment should be accepted. Things have changed. ·who is re'·ponsiblc? Is it that members of the Gm·ernment Party who were in the last Parliament are not consistent, or is it that they wish to remain consistent but thev are forced into this action by the new men':.bers,

[}fr. C. Taylor.

·wl1o are saying, "You n1ust not give thig l'dief'? Thoro must b0 some cause for the change, because on the hustings Pvrry rncrn­bcr 011 the ollwr side not only pointed out the injustice of not exempting incomes of £104 or less, but he also said, " Look at the injustice which has been done by bringing thousands of permns into the field of income taxation by reducing the exetnption fron1 £250 to £150 !" Do they consider that pe.ople to-dav can live on less than £104? Do thev argue that the price of living has con1r down?

It may be asked, " \Yhy did members of the Opposition not vote for the amendment !llOYed by the hon. member for :Mnncling­burra ?" Although the Minister says that in 1929 the1·e were only 15,000 unemployed, you, Mr. Gledson, know that in 1928 you gayo figures to Parliament showing that at that time there were 46,000 totally unem­l'ioyed .Eend 69,000 partially unemployed. \Ve take it that those figures were abso­lutely correct, and, when the Moore Gov-ern­ment went out of power, there were only 32,000 unemployed .

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member has got away from the amendment altdgether. It deals with a specific matter-the exemption of persons in receipt of less than a given income.

Mr. TOZER: I quite agree, but I am merely giving the reasons why there should be a change. I suQmit that your figures must have been correct. because the amount of sustena.nee had increased from £4,500 to to £460,000, and surely 10,000 men did not require £460,000 for sustenance! If they did, they were getting an exceptional amount. Personally, I con~2rtd that I am absolutely consist-ent, because I tried to get an exemption up to a certain amount, realis­ing that the man getting only a small sala.ry would feel the payment of the relief tax more than the man on a larger salary. In the Order in Council of the 29th July, 1932, with which this section -deals, exemption is granted to casual washerwomen and casual cleaners employed in private homos. Per· sonally, I do not quite know what the casual cleaner in a private home would cover; but, if the Government think it advisable to give the exemption to thes·e classes of workers, why not go the whole way a.nd give -exemption up to £104 per annum as suggested ? The Minister, howev'er, is obdurate, although he has no reason that we !mow of for refusing this concession. \Ve say that conditions have altered alto, gether from what they were when we were in power. \Ve left £1,600,000 in the Trea­sury. They say thev left £5,000,000. Both of llS say that ce1·ta~n commitments reduced the amount. Admitting that, they have had £620,000 from the special winter relief loan and £940,000 from the special unem­ployment relief loan.

To say the least of it, the Government have had the l,!Se of an additional £3,160,000 since they assumed office. Of course, they have increased expenditure by the appoint­ment of a number of persons to the public service. The conditions have altered, and for the bett0r; so there is no reason why this exemption should not be provided. The Minister merely contents himself with saying that he will not accept the amendment. He should be prepared to base his refusal on sound grounds. Surely no great amount

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 687

is involved by the provision of this exemp­tion ! I again ask the Minister to consider the matter in the interests of the people who cannot afford to pay the tax. These people look to the Labour Party for relief, firmly believing that the Government will honour the definite promise made during the election campaign. The Premier stated that the Labour Government did not stand for further taxation; hl.J,t almost every measure introduced this session has provided for further taxation. He has definitely gone back on his promise. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN (lifurilla) [12.27 p.m.] : The present Minister took a very prominent part in the criticism of the legislation introduced by the late Govern­ment; and I somewhat sympathise with him in his humiliating position to-clay in having to swallow his own words. He made some \cry definite statements when he sat in opposition; but to-clay he cannot see his "·ay clear to give effect to the principles he then enunciated. It has been pointed out from this side that the conditions to-clay are so much better than the conditions that pre­vailed when the Moore Government found it necessary to introduce legislation to cope with the unemployment problem. The Minister has endeavoured to show that con­ditions are worse to-day; but does he not sec that his remarks are highly conclemnatorv of tloe actions of his own Government? Thre;, months ago the Government informed the people that the position would improve if theY wex:e ret11rnecl to . power; but to-clay the Mm1ster has clefimtely admitted that there is more unemployment in this State at the present time than there was three months ago. \Vhat have the Labour Government done to reduce that number?

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND h;DrSTRY : When did I admit that?

Mr. GODFREY MORGA='!: The hon. gentleman admitted that in his speech this 1norning.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I f'avc the figure as at June, when we took office.

Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: There were 3.oqo single men in receipt of Government :t'Sistance at the end of June and the Minist0r now states that that n'umber has ]Jeen increased to 10,000, or the enormous mcr(·.cse of 7,000. When the late Govern­nlent were in office, certain restrictions were imposed upon sin!jle men, and only a limited number >vere enbtlecl to Government assist­ance. Those restrictions have been removed b:' the present Government, and to-clay single men arc able to obtain Government assist­ance at the expense of the taxpayers of the State. Many of these single- men are the sons of people who are in a, position to sup­port them. To the number of over 7.000 they have. become a charge upon the State; and that 1s one reason whv the Government require additional money to meet the extra charge on the fund.

When a similar amendment "as intro­duced by the present Minister for Trans­port, his colleagues unanimously supported 1t. As a matter of fact, a ,e-rcat number of members of the Mooro Government deplored the tax on people receiving less than £104 per annum, and. would have welcomed a different position. But it \7as

not thought advisable to accept the amend­ment at that time. Conditions have now improved considerably. The :Minister in charge of this Bill misstated the position when he said that £5,000,000 "<1s available when the Moore Government took office. That is untrue, because ihe hrm. g•mtle­man well knows that commitments entered intG by the previous Labour Government rccluced that amount to £3,000,000. The ::Vloore Gm·crnment recognised the futility of creating a false impression and were imbued with the idea of carrying on until they were ::blc to place things once more on a solid foundation. On the other hand, the Labour Government are anxious to cnatc a favourable impression in their first few months of office; but in doing so they are leading the- people to believe that condi­tions are better than they really are. The Government do not appreciate the fact that they may be doing an injury to the State.

I urge the Minister to accept the amend­ment. The hon. gentleman str.ongly sup­ported a similar amendment at one stage of his parliamentary cart)'ll', ali.hough I imagine no one is more sorry to-day than the hon. gentleman that he spoke on thail occasion. I am perfectly certain that the hon. gentleman would like his remarks to be expunged fron1 "1Iansard." Of course, the hon. gentleman "'as speaking 'Xith no sense of responsibilitv To-clay the responsibilities of ofl'.ice have altered hi" opiuion·. H ll18f8lY "'hOVi'S how Careful hon. ffi('ffiberd should b.,-,.

:VIr. LARCOYIBE (Rockharnpton) [12.25 p.m.]: I have never obs~rvecl such an exhibi­tion {]f political insincerity as I ha vc listened to during the last two hours. Here are rrwmbers of the party responsible for the imposition of this tax criti• i'in6 the Govern­llH'llt for continuing it. 1hey are not O]JjlO,ed to it in principle, because in 1928 the· ;1on. member for Hamilton protested thiit on 1 ,. ~5.000 perwns in Queensland paid tax, and argued that by reason of the limited arc~ for the imposition o£ bEr. tion the principles of taxation were infringed. The hon. member argued that there should b;, a wider area in the distribution of taxa­tion; and his contention was based on the Opposition policy. When the Moore Govern­ment came into office, they imposed this tax; yet hon. members opposite now come along, and pretend tha.t the tax is unfair and should be repealed.

Mr. GODFREY MoRGAN: Do you not think it is unfair?

Mr. LARCOMBE: I think it is. Mr. GODFREY MORGAN: \Vhy do you sup­

port it? Mr. LARCOMBE: I will explain the

reason. Not only di-d hon. members oppo­site impose the tax, but they reduced Queensland to such a state of financial insolvency that it is impo,oible at the pre­sent time to abolish the tax. It is com­parable to expect a doctor to restore magically the health of a patient who has been suffering seriously for the past three years. Financially, economically, and aoci­all:.- Queensland has suffered in the past three )'eCLrs to such an extent that the paticnt­Queensland-was almost on the verge of death and it is expected that doctor Labour should restore the patient to normal health in the course of three months. It cannot be clone. The responsibility for this tax is upon hon.

111 r. Larcornbe.]

688 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts A·mendment Bill.

members opposite, They irrcposed it; they are rc;ponsible .for the dire financial stress in which Queensland finds itself to-day; yet, with mock sympathy, they come along this morning with an amendment for its repeal. It is nothing but political propaganda-mock heroics-playing to the gallery-in an endeav­our to bulldoze the electors of thi-; State.

J\1r. GODFREY JYIORGA" interjeuted, Mr. LARCOMBE: The interjection

reminds me of Emerson's line-" Our opinion of others is a reflex of

our o·wn character." In the words of that illustrious countryman of the Premier, Robert Burns, the Govern­ment is-

" Doomed to the sorest task of man alive

To make three guineas do the work of five."

At 12.38 p.m., The CHAIR~!AN resumed the chair. Mr. LARCOMBE: The Government have

been forced into that position by the Opposi­tion. ·when the present Administration came into power, they found accounts overdra.wn; and the deficits for three years totalled over £4,300,000, including £700,000 transferred to consolldated revenue from Trust and Loan Funds.

Mr. GoDFREY J'.10RGAN : You are a -con1edian.

Mr. LARCOiMBE : The " back to the horse" comedian who was in the Rail­way Department a short time ago 1s very ready with stupid and senseless interjections. The unemployment relief fund was overdrawn when the present Govern­ment came into power. The fund being insolvent and the State being reduced to the dire level it is in at the present time, it is, unfortunately, necessary for the present Government to continu<;; this tax for a time. It is obvious that the Govern­ment have carried out a lot of their promis8s to which hon. members opposite have referred.

Mr. R. M. KING: You promised the basic wage to the unemployed.

Mr. LARCOMBE: We are paying the basic wage rate, which is a substantial improve­ment in the conditions of the workers, and it carries out the promise made by the Government.

Mr. KENNY: What about the promise to the single men?

Mr. LARGO MBE: They are being given greater employrr.ent. Instead of getting about two days every three months, the0 are getting a day every fortnight.

Mr. KENNY: Do you think it fair to expect a man receiving 6s. worth of rations for the week to do a full day's work?

Mr. LARCOMBE: Is it fair that hon, members opposite should have destroyed the confidence in this State; should have been responisble for the policy that closed down the factories and reduced the output of those factories by £7,000,000 in three years? Yet hon. members opposite profess to be astounde-d that the State is in such an unfor­tunate state tha.t it is necessary to continue this tax! This tax violates the soundest tenets of taxation. It is obviously unfair, but the Government have no option at present but to continue the tax owing to the record of the Moore Administration.

[Mr. Larcombe.

I want further to state that, in my opinion, the amendment is not in order.

Mr. CLAYTON: That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. LARCOMBE: It is not. I have a perfect right to submit a point of order, and it is for the Chairman to determine whether that point of order is sound. It appears to me that the amendment is not in order, as it would increase the burden nnpoGed on the Crown. It would reduce the revenue from the source the Crown propose to secure it from, and thereby place an extra burden on the Crown elsewhere.

:Vir. KENNY: That is an assumption. Mr. LARCOMBE: It is an assum;.t'ion

that is supported by "May's Parliament· 1·y Practice," which, at page 511, says-

" The principle that the sanction o [ the Crown must be given to every graJ,, of money drawn from the public revenuc• applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue. No motion can therefore be made to impose a tax, save by a Minister of the Crown, unless such tax be in substitution, by way of equivalent, for taxation at that morrcent submitted to the consideration of Par­liament; nor can the arr.ount of a tax proposed on behalf of the Crown be augmented, nor any alteration made in the area of imposition."

That is supplemt•nted by the following remarks on page 544 :-

" An amendment to repeal a duty pro­posed on consideration on a report of a resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means imposing the duty at a. reduced rate has been refused by the Speaker."

I wish to emphasise those words. Those are analogous conditions. It is proposed here to reduco the rates, to cut out, through altering the area of imposition, a certain amount of revenue which the Government are now enjoying. That being so, the amend­mer.t should ·come from a 'Minister of the Crown, and not from a member 'Jf the Opposition,

The CHAIRMAN: With reference to the point of order raised qy the hon. member for Rockhampton, I have given the amend­ment a good \deal of consideration this morning, and I confess that there is a slight doubt in my mind as to whether the amend­ment is in order or not. As there is only a slight doubt so far as I am concerne-d, I propose to give the mov,er of the amend­ment the benefit of the doubt, and allow the amendment to be decided by the Committee.

OPPOSITION MEMBERS : Hear, hear !

Mr. WIENHOLT (Fa,,.ifern) [12.44 p.m.]: This is one of the most curious debates I have ever listened to. 'l'he Leader of the Opposition has quoted what the Premier. the Secretary for Labour and Industry, and other members of the Government said on a previous occa.sion; while the Government have turned round and quote-d the speeches of Opposition members when they were in power and brought in the original Bill. It appears to be that the independent member is going to be the only consistent man in this Committee.

The argument has been used that the position has changed. The Minister in charge of the Bill, who is cognisant of the difficulties with regard to unemployment

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] 'l'ax Acts Amendment Bill. 689

relief administration, said that things have got worse, and quoted figures to prove it, while hon. members on this side say that there has been a change for the better. This matter is very important as it affects the Budget; and '"e have not heard either from the Leader of the Opposition or from the :\iinister in charge of the Bill as to the 0xact amount of monev involved <>hould the .amendment be carried.· vVhen the ex-Secre­tary for Labour and Industry brought in this tax I supported him, and contended that the tax should be put on everyone; that it -.. ·as merely a palliative for the time being, and that, generally speaking, all would be glad to spare some portion of their incomes to help those who were unemployed. That wemed to be the main point stressed at that time. Having supported the late Govern­ment in their action in declining to provide for an exemption, to be consistent and to be fair I must now decline to support a similar amendn1cnt.

I believe that, on general principles, it is better to tax than to borrow; but it is better to economise than to do either. '<V e shall la.ter see the effect which certain proposals f01· economy may have.

The Government have altered to a certain e>etent the expenditure and administration in connection with the Act. I am •entirely with the Government in regaru to some of the,e things, especially with regard to single men not having to walk for rations, but I am entirely against them giving any statutory preference to one man over another. I do not know whether the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition and the support g1ven to it rings true or not. To b« corc­sistent and fair, I shall vote for the tax tc. remain as it is until circumstar~ce§ change ; but I do not say that I will conmtit myself to vote in favour of any increased taxation.

Mr. _NIMMO (Oxley) [12.48 p.m.]: I am surprised that the Minister did not accept the amendment, because he spoke very strongly in favour of a similar proposal by the hon. member for Mundingburra to relieve from this taxation those poor unfor­tunates who had very small amounts on which to live. A big change of front has taken -place since then; but I hope that he will yet acc<:.?t the amendment.

The hc;1. member for Fassifern says that he is in a difficulty, and that each side supports a proposal one year and opposes it the next; but things have changed very considerably since last year-though not in the way the Premier wishes to infer. World conditions are very different from what they were when the Moore Government intro­duced this tax. Wool has advanced very considerably in price, and a New South \Vales loan has just been converted at the low rate of 3~ per cent., whilst Common­wealth 5 per cent. bonds are quoted at £110. \Vorld-wide conditions are much easier, and the Minister sh<mld accept this exemption. Unquestionably there are people in the State with very small sums to live, upon, notwith­standing the amounts that are being released to help industry. Men are to be taxod, although they may get only a day's work a week; and, from my experience, I know that men on a mere pittance find it very hard to make ends meet. Even 3d., or 6d., or h. filched from that class of worker is felt verv much more than pounds taken from the purs'e ·of the man on a higher scale of wage.

:\Ir. \VATERS: You reduced their wages.

Mr. NIMMO: The hon. member is always butting in where it would be better for him to keep out; and that remark holds good in this case, because his Government are banking on a reduction in the basic wage. Will he accllse his Government of reducing wages if the Industrial Court grants a fm·the,r reduction~which is more than the late Government ever did?

Another matter for conside,~ation is the position of casual workers '"ho get a day here and there, and are, therefore, just debarred frDm taking advantage of the relief scheme. Is it not an awful thing that they should have to contribute to this tax?

.J.Ir. '\YATERS: You did not exempt them.

Mr. NIMMO: Times have changed since then, as I have already pointed out.

Then we have the position of people with small incomes from money invested in Com­monwealth loans and other securities, which, perhaps, have been left to them by their parents. Some of them may be aged women wholly dependent Dn such income. Their interest rates have been reduced by 22~ per cent., and they are drawing only a mere pittance. They are debarred from coming under the relief scheme, and in many cases from getting old-age pensions. Yet the Minister, although h" admits that times are better, refuses to give them the small relief from taxation which 3d. in the £ wonld mean. I know one case where .a person has two little cottages and is getting 12s. 6d. per week from them. The whole home has to be kept gain;; c..! the income derived from that property, and rates and all other out­goings ha.-e to be paid as well. Yet the Minister is prepared to impose this tax on such persons ! They are unable to get anv relief. •

The 8EORETARY FOR LABO<JR AND I:t\DUSTRY : They were taxed by the late Government.

Mr. NIMMO: I am not admitting that any wrong was done by the late Government; ~ut. if a wrong was done then, why should 1t be perpetuated? The late Government had to contend with Yery severe financial conditions, which were common to the wiiole world, and it is only now that some allevia­tion is apparent.

The late Premier wa" able to obtain £620,000 from the Loan Council for the relief of unempl~yment in this State, and the pre­sent Premwr was successful in securing an additional .allocation of £940,000 for thG same purpose. The present Government have had the assistance of an additional £1 500 000 for the relief of :memployment; still,' th~ Minis­ter, who clann.s to stand for the interests of the working class, persists in imposing a tax on these poor people. The future of the S~ate has been pawned with the object ?f rehevmg unemployment; but the Minister 1s determined to filch 3d. in the £1 by way of unemployment relief tax fwm newsboYs, from the owners of small cottages and from others in receipt of meagre incon'l8s. These people are entitled to a measure of relief.

When discussing the legislation introduced b_v the late Government, the present Secre­tary for Labour and Industry said-

" I regret very much that the lVIinister cannot see his "::ty to accept the amend­ment moved by the hon. member for l\.Inndinr:;,bnrra."

llh. Nimmo.]

690 Income (U~temployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

Exactly the same principle is involved in this anlEIH.hnent-

" He tacitly admits the JUStice of our claim when the hon. gentleman intro­duced this to,x in the first place last year that the lower-paid se<:tions of the com­munitv should not be brought within the scope of the tax. That was an argument we adduced during the passage of the principal Act. Now we find him recognising that principle so far as the incidence of the pre.oent tax will con­cern those people in future; in other words, people who are receiving less than £104 per annum will not be obliged to pay the inureased tax."

'l'he hon. gentleman has since assumed Minis­terial control, and he is now determined to collect revenue from these unfortunate people whom he previously claimed to defend.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : There is now a greater need fqr the money.

Mr. NIMMO : I believe that the Minister is sincere in his statement. It is well known that unemployment is increasmg at an alarming rate in this State. The latest figures for the metropolitan arco, show an increase of 650; and ample evidence is to be found to support the statement that unem­plo.nncnt is on the increase. The Brisbane City Council has announced its intention of dismissing a number of employees; and it is safe to assume that further unemployment will be the result of the passage of t',is n1casure. During the last election can1paign the present Secretary for Public Lands advised the people to vote for the Labour Part;- so that taxation migl1t be reduced and that prosperous conditions should prevaiL

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC LANDS : \Vhen did I sac· that?

Mr. J\iL'dJ\10 : Speaking in Caims on 23th May, 1932, the hon. gentleman is reported as follows:-

" It has been stated tho,t Labour could not get £2,500,000 if returned to power; but he dcsrred to tell the people that Labour could get it, and would spend rt m the mterests of Queen,land and not in the interests of a few mon~y lords.

" The Tories vrere trving to rnake soup kitchens permanent. 'l'he people wanted work and not soup kitclcen,,, Labour would provide work and do awav with soup kitchens. •

" If Labour were gi-cen the reins of State, it would eventually do awav with the unemployed relief tax, but" these would be uncmp~oyed for some time, and they would reqmre some mono,- to carry on the unemployed relief, bu't the tax would be graduated."

"Those who could not afford to pay would not be 8sked to pay, but it was the brg man who would pay."

The fact remain, that the poor unfortunate persons on low wages are now being asked to pay.

The Secretary for Public Lands also said on the san1e occasion at Cairns-

" Young men haYe been Bent to gaol throup-~1 'jumping the rattl~r' looking for \.!ne of l'dr. J\.Ioore's jobs, but none b~ve been successful. The only remedy was to vote for Labour, who would not put those young men into gaol and would not brand them as ,criminals."

[Mr. 1Wrnmo.

l\ly reason for reading those extracts from: tho speech delivered by the Secretary for l'ublic Lands--

'fhc PREllliER: Is because you wanted eo improve your mind.

Mr. KIMMO: No, because I wanted to impreo;s upon the minds of hon. members that the Labour Party secured the reins of office by promising to remove the taxation burden from the people. Now they are doing the reverse; even the unemployment relief workers, who were not taxed by the 11oore Government, will suffer under this ta'-:'asure--

The PREMIER: 'fhat is not true.

Mr. NIMMO: It is true. The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY ~

It is another of your dastardly lies. Mr. JY1AYWELL. I Tise to a poiut of order,

::'.lr. Hanson. Is the Minister in order in .oaying that the statement made by the hon. member for Oxley is " another of his dastardly lies~"

The CHAIRMAN : The Secretary for Labour and Industry is not in order in using that expression, and I ask him to withdraw.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I withdraw, Mr. Hanson; l substitute the word '' untruths.''

Mr. -:'\IMMO : People a,re being taxed to a greater extent than they have ever been taxed ; yet they were given definitely to understand by Labour members that relief would be given. Although the Premier did not say so in defmito language in his policy speech, e;-er;vbody expected that they would relieve taxation on t~}C poore-: sections of the community. It · -~s generally expected that the unemployment relief tax would be abolished. \V e Tecall how hon. members novv sjf~ing· behind the Governrnent made much ad'· about the washerwoman. If she is in constant employment, she is &till taxed; but, if -causually employed, she gets relief. \Vhat, howoYer, is the position of a gardener· who is only ca·-ually employed and who has a family to support? The fad. is that the people have been grossly decerved. That calls to mind what Mr. Lang said on 29th July, 1930, at a meeting of the Loan Council-

,, Before the end of the year three State Governments at least must go to a general election. If the policy of the fixation of the qasic wage is. adopted, it means that these three elections will be contested on the question of the nominal wage the candidates are prepared to flg-ht for in .Parliament, and, human nature being what it is, these elections must result in the return of the party promising the highest "ages no matter how recklE'>s the promise may be."

It strikes me forciblv that members of the present Government· decided to adopt Mr. Lang's idea when they made their most reek· less promises from ihe hustings. The people accepted those promises, and returned the Government to power. To-day the hon. member for Rockhampton contended that the present action of the GoYernment in this matter "ao; absolutely ncc•JSsa,ry. \Vhy did not the hon. member sctv so in his election campaio-n? Speaking " at Rockhampton during the campaign, the hon. member for Rockha.mpton said, "\Yhat -do you think of the Moore Government taxing poor people

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 691

who are only getting £1 a week? These people have to pa v the relief tax." Is not that another way· of saying that, if the Labour GoYcrnnH~nt \\·ere returned to power, the tax would not be imposed on persons in rPz:cipt of small incomes 1 Yet to-day the Minister refuses to accept an amendment which will relieve the very people the Labour Government profess to cater for.

Undoubtedly certain relief has been g·iven, but to people who can really afford to bear this tax. The people to whom relief has been given have been good unionists. That relief takes the form of a compulsory pre­ference for unionists, \vhich involves a com­pulsory tax. If the unions were doing any good, it would not QO necessary to force people to join them.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! 'l'he hon. member must confine his remarks to the -question before the Committee.

.:Ylr. NIMMO: I admit that I have trans­gressed, but one gets carried a way when he thinks of how the parents of starving children are being taxed. If a man is only <Carning 35s. a week,- his children must be more or less starving; and, if you take a feVI pounds from him by way of taxation, it is only adding to his difficulties. We have to fight in this Charr .. ber for the rights of these people.

During the election campaign it was stated ~uite freely that school children wore starv­mg-; and members supporting the Labour Party stated that the parents of some of the children who were starving paid the iniquitous tax put on by the Moore Govern­ment to provide relief work. They definitely stated that the Moore Government were not providing money for the relief of unem­ployment, but that they were stealing it out of the pockets of those who could not afford to pay. I remember seeing a photo­graph of children who were supposed to be starving and who wore getting soup at the Wynnum state school. I exposed that photo­graph to my electors, and I pointed out how wonderfully well dressed the children wore.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the questio~ before the Gorr .. mittee.

Mr. NIMMO: The amendment before the Committee is that the unemployment relief tax shall not apply to those poor people of this State who find it very difficult to make a living. Just visualise a man earning only 35s. a week having to tell his wife, ·' It is not 35s. ; the Secretary for Labour and Industry has taken so much out of the pay envelope." That poor wife will have to find something for the rent. She has to find clothing for her children, and she has to, keep them in food. She has a very diffi­cult problem. I know what it is, and it must not be forgotten that these people, through­-out Queensland, are watching this debate.

The Secretary for Labour and Industry knows that he cannot accept the amend­ment. He knows that, if he accepted it, he would not have enough money in his fund; yet he has £1,500,000 more than the Moore Government had last vear with which to rr_.eet this te~rific problein of unemploy­ment that Is famng us to-day. This problem was brought about by fourteen years of bad rule by the Labour Government and their action in increasing the capital indebtcdne,s ,of the country to such an extent that it

requires £5,500,000 annually to be sent away to pav interest on their loans. This unem­ployment relief tax has now to be imposed in order to provide work for the unem­ployed; and the Minister knows that, to extend the relief to his own friends and g·ive them further concessions, he requires a con­siderable sum of money. He alreadv has £1,500,000 of loan money, and he expects to receive £1,500,000 from this taxation. It must not be forgotten that the intoro',t bill of this State is being further increased, and the problem will be a much more difficult one for the Government which "-ill follow the present Governrr:.ent.

The PREo!IER: Your deficits will cost the State another £400,000 per annum.

::Yir. :'-!IMMO : Our deficits were made during the most difficult period in the history of Queensland, and when the prices of pri­mary products were at the lowest ebb. Those deficits were brought about because the Mooro Government were doing their best for the unfortunate unemployed. \Vhen the Moore Government attained office, we found that the L:abour Government had done nothing to relieve tmom)lloyment. There were armies of unemployed parading the streets and endeavouring to intoniew the Labour Premier. When the Moore Government got into office, they had to do something to relieve the position. If Queens­land had continued under the policy that the Moore Government inaugurated--

.:Yfr. GLEDSON' There would be no Queens­land now.

Mr. NIMMO: Things would have been much better. \Ye had already noticed the irr,provement, which was most marked about May last. When the Premier attended the Premiers' Conference a, few weeks after his election, he stated that a distinct improve­ment was noticeable. Surely he is not egotistical enough to think that, because he had been returned to power and had been two or three weeks in office, he was respon­sible for that improvement ! We all know that that improvement was due to the operations of the I\IIoore Government.

The PREMIER (Hon. W. Forgan Smith, Jiackay) [2.12 p.m.]: It is very interesting to follow the speeches of hon. members oppo­site and to notice the egregious tactics they indulge in. We have ha<\ ample evidence to-day of the truth of my previous de;;cription that the Moore Party have neither a moral nor an economic basis. When in opposition, they promised all kinds of attractive things, but, when in power, they brutally and callously betrayed the people who trusted them. (Opposition dis­sent.) Those who are shedding crocodile tears and who are responsible for this amend­ment showed very small regard for the tax­payers of Queensland in whose interests they now presume to speak. The iiioore Govern­ment, in the principal Act, gave legislative power to the Executive Council, It was not done inadvertently; they deliberately with­drew from the statute the control of taxation by Parliament, thereby giving the Executive Council the power at any time to increase taxation without bringing the matter before Parliament at a.ll, which indicates what their intentions were when given the opportunity. An Order in Council was issued, and, in accordance with the terms of the Act, it was laid on the table of the House after

Hon. \tr. F'organ Smith.]

692 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

the opening of Parliament. Under the con­ditions of the statute, any hon. member could have moved within fourteen days after the laying of the Order in Council on the table for the disallowance of the Order; and, had that been carried, the whole Order in Council, with all the increases involved in it would have been rendered null ancl void.' They neglected to take any action in that regard, thereby indicating that they hacl no desire to do anything in the way of protest against taxation, but waited for the opportunity to move an amendment of th1s kind whereby they hope to regam some popularity. No Government in the histor1 of Queensland ever had greater opportum­ties than the Moore Government had, and no Government more brutally and callously betrayed the electors than they clid.

When the hon. member for Oxley was speaking, one naturally thought of the £2,000,000 or 10,000 jobs, of the statement made about giving the boy a chance-of all those attractive promises which the Moore Party made at the election in 1929 in order to secure support. ·when they secured that support their record was one of destruction, of broken promises, and of brutal, cynical, and callous betrayal of every principle they had previously enunciated. (Oppos'ition dissent.)

Another phase of the question is that we could withdraw the Bill at this juncture, and the law would still stand. \Ve could with­clra w the entire Bill, and the rates of taxa­tion and its incidence would still stand. The Opposition, who are now pretending to have a great regard for the lower paid worker, neglected to take the. opportunity of moving for the disallowance of the Order in Council. The period in which that could have been done has gone; therefore, by their silence, they have tacitly consented to that Order in Council; and all that ,,·ould be required hy the Government, but for one thing, is the withdrawal of this Bill and allow the Order in Council to operate. \Ve bring down this Bill because we first of all desire to restore to Parliament the control over taxation, which shoulcl ne.-er have been filched away from it. vv·e also clesire to remove Ct_rtain anomalies in the principal Act. That can only be removed by legisla­tion. The Bill is based on a svstem of graduating the burden according' to the capacit;) to pay.

Hon. members opposite have had a good deal to say vaguely about election promises and speeches. I want to quote for the bene­fit of the people what I actually did say in regard to taxation-

" Relief from 'the burden of taxation can onlv be looked for in the direction of a poficy which is conducive to increas­ing employment. resulting in o-reater industrial activities generally. Such a policy will be pursued by the Labour Party, and fair and equitable conditions will 'Qe restored as early as possible,"

We stated the truth there. Everyone who is not blinded by prejudice or stultified mentally by association with the ='lation­alist Party recognises that relief froc1 taxation can only come about when price levels are restored, and when industries and normal employment reach their former ]8\-el. By that means the rev·enues become buoyant, and the amount required to be levied in taxa­tion obviously becomes less. Does anyone think that Governments impose taxation

[Hon. W. Forgan Smith.

simply because they like doing it? Every­one realises that the Government which could reduce taxation would be a very popular Government indeed and would rank V'ery ~igh with the people of the State.

These taxes are imposed, not because o£ a desire to impose them, but because of the dire necessity of the position, to ,,-hich hon. members opposite very largely contributed. We have people talking about decreasing taxation whose accumlated deficits were· practically equal to all the deficits that Queensland has ever had since it beca.me a self-governing State-over £4,000,000 in a short space of three years. They disregarded every principle that the people ·cherished and enjoyed and held most dea1·, and their reign was a period of misery, doubt, and despair in thowJands of homes in the State. \Yhen the present Government had been in c-ffice for a few weeks and desired to give people payment for the services they performed, and, laudably enough, wished to give inter­mittent workers something more than a mere pittance to keep body and soul together, hon. members opposite came along and shed crocodile tears about the lower-paid sections in the community, although they know, and everyone else who has studied the position knows, that the conditions of the lower-paid sections of the community arc very la.rg;ely due to the ruinous and vicious policy of hon. members opposite.

Particularly in regard to the relief tax, I quote again from the policy speech·-

" It will be necessary to continue unem­ployed relief taxation until such time as Labour's policy of stability in industry is achieved."

In both cases you \vill see one line of thougbt. In regard to taxation, the speech sa1d that it could only be reduced bv the revenue becoming buoyant and the restoration of industry. In regard to rdicf taxation in particular, the same speech said that it would require to be continued until such time as the stability previously referred to had been achieved.

This Bill is the most equitable that could be introduced under the circumstances. I in no wr.y accept the responsibility for the method of taxation contained in the Bill. 'l'he whole svstem of i.ntermittent relief and the ba.sis of ·taxation by which it is financed are the creation of the iYioorc Govermnent. By means of that policy as a geiJCral policy they er·ectcd . .1n organis.htion t.ha t is in imminent danger of destroying the State­an organisation that causes anyone who loves· the State to fear for the future, These things cannot be abolished in a day or a week or a month or a year. rrhc organisation has to be maintained, and the people concerned have to be prO\·ided with food. 'rhe system must be continued, and taxation must be· impoo·•d. What did the late Government do 'Qut levy a flat rate of tax, irrespective of income' It is well known that, had they boon in power to-day, that flat rate would have been continued, and it would have· been the same as in ~ ew South \Y ales-a flat rate of 1s. in the £1 on income. The increases that haYe been made, however, have been ma.de in proportion to income; and there has been no increase whateyer in the tax !Pviable on t.he lower-paid workers of the community. On the other hand, cer­tain classes of casual employees are com­pletely exempted. Furthermore, provioion is made to exempt by Order in Co!].ncil such

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 693

class or cl asses of persons as the Governor in Council may declare. "While it is a .wrong thing for the Governor . to rmpose taxation no one would object to the Governo~· in Council exempting from taxa­tion or reducin" taxation. It is the inten­tion of the Gc;'vernmont, as the strain on their funds is reduced and more peop!o are pla·ced in normal employment, to increase the exemptions and. remove frorr: the amb;t of taxation people m lo'xer posrhons. We also look forward to the time, although it may be somewhat distant, when the whole system of unemployment relref taxation can bo abolished entirely. There is no case fm· the amendment that did not previously exist. The situation in which the Government find themselves to-day is indeed very largely due to the policv pursued by our predecessors and to the financial wrccka.ge that they left in their train.

Mr. SIZER (Sanrlgate) [2.25 p.m.]: I am sure that the people to whom the Premier is accustomed to appeal for support by playing on their passions will not altogether accept his apology to-day. His apology was a real apology. If ever an hon. rr.ember has turned a complete political somersault, it is that hon. gentleman. I read on one oceasion that the hon. gentleman was a good painter, and I believe that he was a good painter; but he will never be able to blot out the picture of his record as contained in his speeches in " Hansard." \\'hen tho hon. "Cntleman sat in opposition, he dcnoun~ccl the Government for their policy­the ven- policy which he endorses, extends, and fatheTs to-clay-a policy that he says must be continued. It "·ill take the blackest paint that he eau find to blot out that Tecord of his opinions.

His apology was .somewhat amusing. He sidestepped every rssue. Ho drd not face the issue at all. He preferred. metaphori­cally speaking to remain round the corner and· to refer t~ the dim distant futuro. He counselled the people to hope. He promised that, when things became rig·ht, if they ever did become right-this year, next year, some timf', or never-sorr.e time in the far distant future-if something happened, then LaboLlr would do <omething for the people. Ho said in effect that, if the people could live to the age of ::Yiethuselah, the hon. gentleman might be able to do something. The people expect relief at the hands of this Govern­ment no,,·, and not in the future. They have everv reason to expect that relief, because they" were told they would get it. I have no deci re to run awav from the position taken up by the late Government to meet an urgent situation.

When the Premier sat in opposition, he was fullv informed of the facts of the fman­cial situation. He was informed of the critical position in this State. Ho was informed both publicly and privately; but, despite that knowledge, he made his out­rageous and extravagant speeches. To-day he is charged \vith the responsibility of the State; but he declines to accept the rospon­sibilih for the method of taxation laid down" in the Bill. If he does not accept that rr,·ponsibility, if he is opposed to that method of taxation, why not alter it? Is he a weakling- who is afraid to depart froJTc a principle with which he does not agree? If he does not agree with the principle, then why not alter it? 'That is the acid test of the amendment. It discloses the

utter hypocrisy of hon. members opposite when they >'at in opposition.

No valid ar10:ument has been adduced to show why the amendment should not be accepted. The same principle was not adopted by the previous Government because of administrative and financiar difficulties; but that reason has not been claimed during this debate for the rejection of this amend­ment. It is the only valid argument that could be adduced. The Premier is respon­sible for the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves to-day. He upbraided the late GovernJTent in imposing a flat rate of tax and in declining to provide an exemption for persons in receipt of small income·'· He contended that it "as a vicious principle to impose taxation on people who were in receipt of less than the basic wage. He said that Labour would never dream of doino- a thing like that. They have departed from that vow now. In fact, they ha vc decided to act in direct conflict with the sentiments they expressed when they sat in opposition. Thero is not a shadow of sincerity left in their words. No one can take the word of Labour now. The Premier enden,voured to drag in the promise about £2,000,000; but I would remind him that he promised to raise a loan of £2,500,000 when he had no statutory authority to do so. He afterwards had the impertinence, and in a spirit of downright betrayal, to say in this Chamber that there was no need to raise that money. 'The hon. merr.ber for Roekhampton has said that the Government have three years in which to raise the money. The people require the money now.

J.Ir. LARCO)IBE: vVe have done it.

Mr. SIZEH: You have not done it. Ylr. LARcmmE: Look at the Estimates.

:\1r. SIZER: The hon. member can figure as he likes. The Government have not received the £2,500,000, because the Premier san the monev is not necessarv. And do no't forget t.ha't the proposal \Vas to raise £2,500.000 from Qticf'nslancl citizen.J: Ilon. members opposite eau talk as they like; but they arc endeavouring- to side·.tep the issue, and are doing it \'ery clumsily indeed.

It arr.used me to hear the Premier say that ho did not agree with this principle of taxation, and that he would not accept responsibility for it; and then, as the head of the Government, he refused to alter the system; ·and, in fact, endorsed the principle laid down by the Moore Government. He is continuing every economy introduced by the Mooro Government. He has increased the taxation beyond what \Vas provided bv the Moore Government. Having done all those things, he refuses to accept the respon­sibility for so doing. Hon. members sitting on the back Government benches will have something more to explain when they meet their organisation than the Premier has stated to-day.

Mr. GAIR: \Ve will stand up to our obligations.

Mr. SIZER: Then thev will have to stand up to quite a lot. I object to the statement so frequently made by the Minister that the late Government, if returned to office, would also have raised the tax. That is not so.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY ( Then how would you have managed?

Mr. SIZEH: With the extra £1,500,000 which the present Government have received,

Mr. Sizer.]

694 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSE:NIBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

there was no need to raise the tax. As a matter of fact, in the most critical year of the unemployment problem the 1\ioore Go­vernment managed the position and the fund was only overdrawn to the extent of £108,000. At that time we had to provide for the whole of the people. Moreover, we had no loan money. Just before we relinquished office, we arranged for the £620,000 loan for Queensland, and on a latet· occasion the pre­sent UO\·ermnent received £940,000. Can it be seriously argued that the Moore Gm·ern­mont would not have managed the position without increasing taxation if they had been returned to power?

The position will not be met bv following Labour shibboleths. The Government m a •· possibly be giving some people 2s. 6d. pe.r week more; but does an additional 2s. 6d. pet· week raise people from penury to the aftl nence th.a t the Premier speaks o'f? Will the Premier say that, because some people have 2s. 6d. per week more, they are now in affluence? Will he say that theo· are well off because they are receiving that .amount extra?

The PHE11IER: "'hat you gave them was absolute penury.

Mr. SIZER : In some cases the Govern­ment are giving half a day's less work to some men.

The SEORETAHY FOR LABOUH AND INDUSTHY : That is not true.

Mr. SIZER : It is true ; and, if the hon. gentleman is in doubt, I will cite a number of cases in which men who were previously receiving one and a-half day's work now only get one day's work.

The SEORETAHY FOR LABOUR AND INDUS THY : Some of your political friends at Sandgate, probably.

Mr. SIZER : In many cases people are worse off under this scheme; but, assuming that they are 2s. 6d. per week better off, doe· that mean aftluence, and is that what they thought they would get from Labour? I would like the Premier to meet them and tell them that that. is what he meant. His reception would be entirely different from that which he received befo're the election.

The PREMIEH: Would it be. like vour own reception? (Laughter.) •

Mt·. SIZER : I would remind the Premier that all the machinations .and underground engi_neering which were. resorted to by Labour durmg the last electwn could not unseat me. Definite promises were made by Labour members, and they are failing to redeem those pr:omises. I~ the Premier were to fight an election campmgn on that issue, he would be the loser, because he cannot reconcile his pre-election attitude with his .attitude to-day. The hon. gentleman has given no reasons for changing his attitude. What are the reasons whieh have influenced him so that he cannot now support an amendment which he s~ . enthusiastically supportPrl when in oppositiOn? Nor has the Secretary for Labour and Industry given any valid reason. T~e SEOHETAHY FOH LABOUH AND INDUS THY:

I d1d.

Mr. SIZER: I give the Minister credit for the silence which he at first maintained

® becau~e his ~ubsequent side-stepping wa~ calamitous. "e have a perfect right to know the reaPons for the change of front.

Mr. O'KEEFE: vVhv arc you so jealous of the present Minister.?

[Mr. Sizm·.

Mr. SIZER : I am not. It is not only in that but in every other direction that the Labour Government have somersaulted. Would it be fair to ask when the 44-hour "·eek is to come about: Hon. members oppo­site might inform us, too, when the public sen·ants are going to be re,;tored to the Industrial Court. That is not quite to the point; but it is in keeping with the non­pa: Inent of ordinary increase~.

The CH.AIRYIAC\ : Order !

:VIr. SIZER: It may not be quite to the point, but I wish to poiut out that the Go­vernment have somersaulted in that matter also, although probably not quite so badly as they have in regard to unemployment relief. Despite the fact that a Labour Go­Yernn1ent is in power, the unC'mploycd nun1ber~ are growing.

l\lr. O"KEEFE: 'We blame the Tories for that.

Mr. SIZER: To-da' thev cannot blame the Tory Administration. " They have to take the responsibility themselves; but the hon. member for Cairns would blame any­hod,, but himself. When the hon. member fm· " }lerthyr was in the Brisbane City Council, he used to get very heated over this question; and it must have come as a shock to some of his supporters to think that he should support such a proposal as is contained in this Bill. At that time he established a reputation as to the heat he could work himself into over these poor people. To-day he is attacking them, and will continue to attack them.

Mr. KEOGH: I am not ashamed of my attitude while in the Brisbane City Council.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! Mr. KEOGH again interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order ! The ban. member for Merthyr must cease this con­tinual fire of interjections. He must obey my call.

Mr. SIZER: Hon. members opposite used to work themselves into a white heat over this matter; but to-clay they are con­tinuing the tax, although they stated that, if they were returned, they would relieve these people of payment of the tax. The Secretary for Public Lands was violent in his denunciation of the tax.

The SECRETARY FOH PUBLIC LANDS: He still is.

Mr. SIZER: It is a different kind of violence to-day. I believe there is on record in the history of Queensland politics a case where one man who established quite a considerable fame in Parliament was finally unseated through a comparison of his various speeches on the same subject. A statement was published comparing what that gentleman stated one year on a given su bjcct with what he said the next year. I think the Attorney-General knows the case quite well, and I am afraid that, when people delve i:rto '.' H~?"sard" of, last year and compare It with Hansard of this year, history will probably repeat itself. \Vhatever case may be made out for the Government, the fact remains that they have £1,500,000 more to deal with unemployment than the late Government had. and, in addition, they have taken £250 000 from the main roads funds. They arc {lsing that money in another direction,

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 695

giving the Government a total of £1,750,000 more than the late Government had. In addition to that, the Government h~tve increased the tax by 100 per cent.; and, furthermore, thev are not going· to grant exemptions which they advocated so heatedly when they were m opposition.

The Leader of the Government stated that, had we been returned, we would have followed the lines of New South Wales. The New South \Vales Government have reduced their unemployment relief tax; so, had we marched in that direction, we would have done entirelv different to the hon. gentle­man. He said there was no need to increase the tax.

I conclude by saying that the Government have not put forward any valid rca<;on why they arc running a way from their pre-election pledges in regard to exempting people wi~h incomes under £104 per annum, and, m their heat, denouncing any t.axation on people under the basic wage. No case has been put forward by any Labour organs why that is being done. With the £1,750,000 extra money at their command, this increase of taxation is unnecessary; and the taking of money from the main roads fund should have further assisted them. If the amend­ment to exempt up to £104 per annum was justified previously, it is one hundred times more justifiable to-dav, because the Govern­ment have the finance necessary. The altera­tions which have been made in the gradua­tion of the tax are administratively a com­pliment to the Minister who framed the Bill, as that is the only method of pro­cedure which could be adopted; bnt the basis is not sound, and the Minister will find as he goes along that it will not help the situation in any shape or form.

There has been an unprecedented number of Labour somersaults since the days when, in opposition, they talked against the reduc­tion of the basic wage and afterwards reduced it. The Government are now doing worse than that; and the effect of their administration will in due course make the position definitely worse. They have politi­cally somersaulted in all directions, and have shown clearly that it is no use taking any notice of what they say in opposition, be­cause. whPn they get into power, they do exactly the opposite.

Mr. !YIOORE (Liubigny) [2.45 p.m.]: I do not like to let the extraordinary statements made bv the Premier go without criticism. Fancy "- Premier disclaiming the responsi­bility for the taxation he has put on the people because, according to him, the late Government put it on! I oa.nnot understand his attitud<e. I never heard such an excuse made before. He must accept thP whole of the responsibility for the effect of this Bill; and he cannot escape by saying that the previous Government brought in a Bill and imposed a tax for a particular reason. He went on to say that there was no justification for the amendment, and that it had only been moved for political reasons. If there was no justification for moving it to-day, when the conditions are, totally different from what th"v were previously. and the Govern­ment have now £1.500,000 available what justification was there for it who;, they moved it?

The PRE:\IIER : vVhen you brought in the Bill, you had over £3,000,000 in the Treasury.

Mr. MOORE: The Government have £1,500,000 available for relief of unemploy­ment, and that is apart from th<e ordinary loan fund. The Premier pointed out in his Budget speech what I always contended~ that the allocation of loan expenditure for Queensland has been fixed by the Loan Council. But this money has ~1othing at all to do with ordinary loan funds. This is a special ioan of £1,500,000. If there is no jmtificatior,. for the amendment to-day, what was the justification for moving it last year, when the position was entirely different? The Government are condemning themselves for their political hypocrisy last year when they moved the same amendment. \Ve only made the tax applicable for one year while loan money was not available. Thi-:; anH:mdn1enti

as not intended to go on after one year; it was done morelv because the conditions were different and the loan money was available. If the position had not im­proved since last year and loan money was not available I would not have moved the amendment. I opposed it last vear because there was no justification for it. I cannot understand the Premier say­ing there is no justification for moving the amendment when the conditions are totally different from what they were last year.

The PREMIER: You had more loan money than we had.

Mr. MOORE : If the hon. r;entleman rPfers to his own Budget he will see that the allocation made by the Loan Council for Queensland to spend~not the new loan moucy that may be secured. but the alloca­tion for Queensland to spend~has boon fixE>d at £1,600,000.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LA:t-<DS : You said that we got no bPnefit from the Loan Council, a.nd must obey it.

Mr. 1HJORE: I said exactly what I have ahY ays said~that the hon. member would not bD able to secure any loan money so long as he has money in hand' and that is exactly what happened. When the £6,000,000 of new loan money for public works was allo­ca tcd, Queens] and got none. Did not the SC'crctary for Public Lands come back and ]JUt into the papers that long rigmarole of excuses in which he pointed out that theJ were going to have money repaid by local authorities, and that they would get money from other sources, such as issues over the counter, so that there was no necessity for any loan money ? All the time we ''ere in po-wer--

A GOVERNMENT ·YlEMBER : \V e got nothing.

Mr. MOORE: Exactly. That is exactly what we got. Dut the hon. gentleman said i~hat we neglected our duty in securing noth­ing. Then we have another fact. The Pre­mier went on the hustings over the whole of Queensland, and said he was going to get a loan of £2,500,000 from Queensland citizens to assist Queensland and help in the re,toration of industry and im­prove thP unemployment position. He knDw, or he should have known perfectly YYell, that he could not get it, or would not be allowed to get it, but tha.t one of the conditions of gdting any of this loan money was the acceptance of the Premiers' Plan. After coming back from the meding of the Loan Council, he said that there was no occasion for it, and that they had se·cured sufficient money without it. If so, there is no justification for this Bill.

Mr. Moore.]

696 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSE:;.viBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

The moving o£ the :nnendment is amply justified because of the fact that the Go­vernment have an Bxtra £1,500,000.

The other statement of the Premier as to the responsibility for this Bill is too puerile for words. I ha.-e ne.-er heard of such a tSuggE' 4_tion from_ a Jlremier. I have never heard a man in such a position disclaim responsibilitv in so feeble a fashion by putting forward the excuse that the latp Government did it.

The PREMIER (Hon. IY. Forgan Smith, Jlackay) [2.51 p.m.]: There is one point I

·desire to make before the debate closes. The Leader of the Opposition has evidently endeavoured to become a juggler or conjurer >vith figures. He claimed justification for moving his amendment, and said that the GO\·ernment should be condemned for the Bill bv reason of the contention that this year inore money is available than was formerly the ca·ce. I want to say very definitely that the statement is one which cannot bear investigation. \Yhen this taxa­tion was first brought in, the amount to the credit of the loan fund account was in excess of £3,000,000. The Government of the day had that money at their disposal when they brought in the principal Act. (Opposition dissent.) Last financial year, when they brought in a Bill giving them authority to tax by Order in Council, they had an infinitely larger amount of funds at their disposal. This is proved by the fact that, despite the expenditure of something in the vicinity of £1,500,000, they had an amount of £2,075,000 in hand to carry their revenue deficit. The revenue deficit, of course. was in excess of that. Even then there was a sum of £889,000 left in the cash balances at the end of the financial year, so that, if there is anything in the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that, because £1,500,000 is available this year, this taxa­tion should not be imposed, what must have been the position when the Premier had at his disposal an amount in the vicinity of ±:3.ooo,ooo r

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AKD INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, 1'owns­,·ille) [2.53 p.m.]: I would like a final word in reply to some of the very obvious untruths uttered by the ex-Secretary for Labour and Industry. First of all, he stated that we increased the tax on people who were taxed at a lower rate unde·r his Government, referring, I take it, to people who were receiving the basic wage or less than the basic wage. I emphatically deny that. The hon. member knows that he uttered an untruth when he made that statement. The Order in Council did not in an0- way increase the tax on a person who is receiving the basic wage or less than the basic wage ; and a man of his responsibility in this Chamber should not utter a statement which is so far from the truth as that.

Mr. SrZER: I was speaking of the relief workers.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: The relief workers were always under it.

:Hr. SIZER: X at under my administration.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: The hon. gentleman is not au fait with his own Act. Can he tell me where the relief worker was exempt under the terms of the principal Act? The relief worker was not exempt. It was the practice

[Mr. llioore.

of the department to pay the tax for all those relief workers who received less than £3 per week, and that practice is being con­tinued. I wanted to nail that untruth before it went any further. The GO\·ernment have been compelled to increase the unemploy­ment relief tax because of the maladministra­tion of the previous Government, who would have been compelled to increase the tax had they been returned to power.

Mr. SIZER: No.

The SECRETARY FOR LABO'L-R A:\'D I::s'DUSTRY: It is no use the hon. rr.ember for Sandgate saying "No." \Ve know that that was the intention of the previous Government.

Mr. SIZER: It was not.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A:i\'D INDUSTRY: It Vias their intention to increase the rate to 1s. in the £1.

Mr. SIZER: Mr. Hanson, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman must accept my ,tatement that there is no record in the office to show that an investigation had been made for this purpose. No effort was made to ascertain what an increased tax would return. I ask the hon. gentleman to accept my denial.

The CHAIRMAK : The Minister must accept the denial of the hon. member for Sandgate.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AKD INDGSTRY: I do so, but I can only con­clude that the hon. member did not attend his caucus.

Mr. KEKKY : Caucus did not discuss the question. Don't shuffle.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: 'fhe estimated receipts for the year on the old basis of taxation were £1,050,000. · That sum would be quite all right provided expenditure could be kept within bounds, but the late Government during the last th~·ee rr_onths of their adminis­tration expended £378,116 from this fund, which was at th<> rate of £1,500,000 per annum.

Mr. SIZER: The late Government spent £1,200,000 per annum.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: The late Government were spending at the rate of £1,500,000 per annum, when provision had been made for only £1,050,000.

Mr. SIZER: Mr. Hanson, I rise to a point of order. The late Government were not spending £1,500,000 per annum. The biggest amount expended was £1,200,000 per annum.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: I obtained these figures from the department. It must be obvious to any person who gives the matter consideration and is not blinded by politic":! prejudice that the Moore Government mtended to increase the tax if they were returned to power. They could not have gone to the bad to the extent of £400,000 without making sorr;e provision. I reiterate that the late Government were spending at the rate of £1,500,000, whereas provision had been made for only £1,050,000. In addition, the pre­vious Administration left an overdraft in the fund of £108,000, clearly showing that it was their intention to do something. A sum

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OCTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 697

of £620,000 was secured by the previous Government for the relief of unemployment just prior to the last election; and they proceeded to use it with such indecent haste that they forced a loan on the Brisbane Gity Council so that a glowing picture might be painted.

Mr. SIZER: That is not correct. The PRE~IIER : It is correct.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: The hon. member for Sand­gate talks about the painting of pictures; but I remember the hon. gentleman painting a very glowing picture of prosperity just round the corner, ready to be ushered in immediately the Moore Governrr_cnt were returned to power. The previous Govern­ment were anxious that a number of works should be taken in hand just prior to the election. An amount was received bv the Brisbane City Council, and, although" hon. members opposite contended that the amount was advanced out of the winter relief loan, we ascertained on our assumption of office that the amount had to be met out of the ordinary loan funds.

1\lr. SIZER: ?\o. It came out of the £620,000.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A::\ID I:;\I"DUSTRY: I merelv wanted to make it clear that, if the late Government had been returned to powe1·, they would ha 1·c hem• obliged to increase this taxation.

It has been stated several times during the debate that the position has altered consider­ably since 1930. It is true that we have twice the number of unemployed to deal with. In the first year of the operation of this tax the Moore Government had to deal with 15,787 unemployed, and expected the tax to produce £800,000. That amount should have been adequate, seeing that the 1ioore Government had £3,000 000 of loan funds available. In those circu~nstances we were quite justified in submitting the amend­ment which has been so frequently referred to to-day, asking that the lower-paid workers should be exempted from the tax. If the Moore Government had accepted our amend­ment then, obviously there would have been no necessity for its imposition to-day. If the Moore Government had been sincere they would have given effect to thei; expressed intentions.

. The .hon. meJ?ber for Sandgate says that mterm1ttent rehef workers are receiving onlv 2s. 6d. per week extra as a result of the activities of the Government. That is the ab.solute minimum increase paid to the inter­m_Itte:nt and other relief workers. In some d1stncts the increase is considerably more than that. For example, while the rate is based on 13s. 6d. per day in the Southern Division. the basic rate is 17s. lOd. in other divisions. Furthermore, the divisional pari­ties have been extended to relief workers so that men situatccl at, say, Cooktown or Xormanton, receive the same effective wage for the work they do as their confreres in the South. That is costing us a considerable surn of money.

1\Ir. KEN:-.iY: How many men are working in Cooktown or Croydon 1

The CHAIRMAN' : Order !

The SECRETARY FOR LABO"CR AND I:'\DUSTRY: If the hon. member knew any-

thing at all ~hont his rnn~t-it.nPnPv he ought to k~now that. -- --------n

Mr. KENNY: How many? The CHAIRMA:\ : Order ! Mr. KENNY: How many workers are there

.at all?

The SECRETARY FOR LABO"CR A:\lJ I:\DUSTRY: Shut up!

The CHAIRMA:0f: Order ! The hon. member for Cook must obey my call to order. I ask the hon. member to restrain himself.

Mr. GODFREY MoRGAN: The Minister told him to " shut up."

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A:'\ll IN:QUSTRY: The Chairman has told him the same thing.

"Cnder the previous Government single men were receiving £50,000; but the concessions we have given to single men have increased the amount to £260,000 per annum. We arc, justified in doing that because we gave a solemn pledge that, in the event of our being returned as .a Government., single men would participate in any relief scheme which we inaugurated. \Ye are giving the single man one day's work per fortnight; in the alternate week he receives 6s. per week rations. It is not all we would desire to give, but it is as much as the state of the fund will pern1it. As circumstances improve, we "·ill ameliorate the conditions of the relief worker. We are hopeful that our policy will bring about a feeling of security among the employing class. There is more money circulating to-day, and the feeling of pessi­mism is not so pronounced among the busi­ness people as it was prior to the advent of the Labour Government last June. V\'e are hopeful that we shall be able to discon­tinue, or to amend, this tax in the direction of removing the burden from the lower-paid prnployees in the not very distant future.

:c\Ir. SIZER: By doing that you will be help­ing your deficit.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A::-JD I:\D"CSTRY: With all due respect to you, Mr. Hanson, I feel that my point of order had something to back it up, because this amendment reduces the area of the impo,i­tion.

The CHAIRMA!\ : Order !

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND I?\DUSTRY: The amendment, if accepted, would reduce the receipts, so that to accept the ·amendment will increase taxation indi­rectly. I, therefore, submit that it is uncon­stitutional to accept the amendment. I believe that most of the hon. members oppo­site realise that we had to increase the tax, because inevitably they would have had to do the same thing. All the heat that we have. listened to to-day is so much political propaganda. Just imagine the Leader of the Opposition serionsly suggesting that he is in favour of exempting from the tax workers in receipt of less than £104 per annum! When he was Premier of the State, he ha.(] full power to give effect to that policy; but he did not for a moment dream of accepting the amendment which was moved by the Labour Party, which was then in opposition. He is not paying a very high tribute to the intelligence of hon. members if he expects them to believe that he was sincere. when he moved his amend­ment.

Hon. M. P. Hynes.]

698 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

Mr. DEAC9N (Cunningham) [3.8 p.m.]: The C''planahon given by the Minister has not altered the situation. I admit that the Moore Government had to provide for fewer unemployed, but we certainly had much leRs money with which to do it. The Minister has not explained that he has got £1,500,000 more than we had, and that, with the extra money he has received he could carrv on without increasing th2 tax. It appears' that the hon. gentleman is administerin~ his department on an extravagant scale.

0 He

1s g1nng relief where relief is not abso­)utel:v necessary. That is his trouble; and it 1s no use the hon. gentleman trying to tell tts what we would have done. The hon. gentleman took the expenditure for three months, and on that he based his statement that there would be an increased expcndi­tLue for the whole year. If the hon. gentle­m_an takes any three month of last vcar he w1ll find _that the rate. of cxpenditur~ ya~icd because m some perrods there was more unemployment than in others. Yet the hon. gentleman took the last quarter of the year ~nd argue-d that because we spent so much m that penod we would have spent so much ~or _the whole year ! 'l'he Minister is not JUstified m making such a statement. He lJas taken more money from the people not only by means of the increased tax b~t by ?tlJer means .. He could manage without the mcreasc, and 1t is up to him to try to do so. . Quest1m;~" TlJat the words proposed t b mserted m ~lause 2 (Jir .. lfoorc'., am~nd~ m?nl) be_ s_o mscrted "~put; and tlJe Com­m1ttec d1v1ded :~

AYES, 23. Mr. Barnes, G. P. Mr.

Barnes, W. H. Clayton Costello Daniel Deacon Edwards King, R. M. Maher Maxwcll

:\Ir.

Moo re M organ Nicklin

Barber Bulcock Conroy Cooper Foley Funnel! Gair Gledson Hanlon Hayes Hynes Keogh King, w. Larcombe

AYES.

NOES, 26. Mr.

T.

PAIRS.

Mr.

Petermn Plunkett Roberts Russe]] Sparkes Swayne Taylor, C. Tozer

'Tdlers: Kenny Nimmo

:Mull an O'Keefe Pease Smith Stopforcl Taylor, G. C. Waters Wellington VVienholt Wilson

Tellers: Copley, W. Williams

J.

NOES.

one statement he made. He said thev were paying 17s. 10d. per hoad in Cooktown and Croydon. I say that statement is an abso­lute untruth. They arc not paying that rato to anyone employed in Cooktown ur Croydon to-day, and the Minister knows it. \Vhen I interjected along those lines the ::>Iiuistcr said, " Shut up !" I could not reply, :Mr. Hanson, because :cou are in charge of the debate; but I object to that statement, and to the Minister trying to mislead the people of Queensland. He lmowc; that he is 11ot paying tlJose men tlJat amount. He knows that, when I approaclJcd him with a view to getting work started in tlJe isolated portions of my electorate, he told me it was not the intenli•m d the Government to start intermittent relief work in eYcry town in Queensland ; yet, in try­ing to justify the statement he made, he said lJc "as paying men those rates in the towns referred to. Ho is trying to put something over the people that tlJey do not understand. \VlJat is the use of him telling me to look after mv own electorate and that, if I knew it, I "Would know what was happening'! I know what is lJappcning. _If the GovNmnent would make money aYa11-able for those areas, instead of spending it on work which is of no benefit in th'' c.ities of the State a better service would be done to the comm'unitv. vYc know tlJat a number of the relief \\:arks being carried on in Brisbane are not giving a fair return for the monev exn<>nded on tlrem. There is ncces­sarv \Yorl;,: td be done in a country district, and if the GoYcrmnent are sincere in paying the' extra wage in outlying portions of the State let them shift men from Bnsbane to tlJe dountry districts, wlJere there is work of a reproductive nature to be done. It is not riglJt for the Minister to try to m1s­lead the Committee, and I have no intention of allowing him to get >tway with state­ment·· of the kind to which I lJave taken exception. ,

The Minister also said that the increased cost in respect of single men amounted to £260,000 per annum. ~f he wanted to make that money reproductive, he co':'ld _let the single men go into the country d1stncts and develop them. There 3.re ro<tc\, waiting to be constructed and land waiting to be oJKnl•d up, and tlJe rrconoy can be spent effec-tively tlJerc. He says that iohe G0vernment are justified in this increa"e of the bxatwn because of this assistance to single men, who are receiving 6s. in rations one week and tlJe next week a day's work at the rate of 13s. 6d.

An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Where?

1\Ir. KEN='i'Y: In tlJe city of Brisbane. The Minister knows quite well that tlJey are not working in the country districts.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : They are. TlJey are working at Cairns. Mr. Walker

Grimstone Fadden Brand

Resoh-ed in the negative.

Dash Col!ins Bruce Llewelyn

lV~r .. KENNY (CQok) [3.15 p.m.l: It is reg-rettable tlJat the Go 1 ernment did not acce_nt ~he >tmendment; but, in attempting to Justify t):remselves for not acceptin~ it and fo~- ~he mcrease of tlJe taxation im·ol;ed the Mm1ster put for;ward a lot of untmth<' ~ spoke to the amendment, and it is not m·~ rntent1on to speak to the clause· but i: cannot allow the Minister to get a\~·ay with

[Jlr. Deacon.

Mr. KE~i'-TY: Is Cairns a country dis­trict? It is a city, if I remember rightly; and I am sur·pri,<ed that the ·hon. member for Cairns does not correct the Minister. The Minister said a few days ago that he expected a fair day's work for a fair day's pay on tlJe relief work. Is it a fair thing for the single men of Queensland wlJo are participating in this work to be paid 6o. in one week for rations and tben to be expected to give a fair day's work the next week? How can they do it on 6s. in rations? It shows the inconsistency of the h<on. gentle­man. When commenting on our policy with

In<!ome (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 699

regard to single men, he said that we had made them " hurr.p their swags " and " jump the rattler," and that, when they did "]ump the rattler " in looking for work theY were put into gaol. :I'\ow he justifies the i1'lcrease in taxation because, he says, these men are ;;o.t to be placed in the position of having to

JUmp the rattler" and be gaoled for it. I have that educational journal the " Stan­~ard," of t~-day, a':d on the front page I find an art1elo w h1ch I propose to read. Publicito is even given to it. It is headed "Rattler Jumpers Fined." '

The CHAIRMAN: I '' ould point out to the hon. member that the clause under di-­cussion seeks to validate a cerL"in Order ;-;., Council, and the hon. member must confine his remarks to that.

Mr. KENNY: I take it that that Order in Council is the one which increased the unemployment relief tax, and I am showing that ':-'e should not ratify that Order in Cour:cll. T~e Government seek to justify the I:t;crease m taxat10n by saying that it is done m orde_r that. they may pay single rr.en 6s. a week m rations and then give them a day's work the following week. They say that by: getting that rate of wages these men wlll not be compelled to look for work an_d in doing so to "jump the rattler." That bem~ so, am I not justified in tr:ring to convmce hon. members on the other side that the legislation they propose does not have that. effect? These single men are still !ookm~ fm• w·ork. They cannot live on 6s. 1n rations one week and a day's 1vork in the following week. They are still compelled to " jump the rattler."

Mr. W. J. COPLEY: Your Government let the single men starve.

The CHAIRMAN: I again ask the hon. member. to confine his remarks to the clause. They w1ll be quite relevant to some of the succeeding clauses, but not to clause 2.

Mr. KENNY: I shall obey your ruling Mr. Hanson, but I heard the hon. rr.emb81:

for Bulimba interiect that we let single men starve. When the Labour PartY were in power previously, they gave s1ngle men 3s. _10d. for rati?ns and they had to hump their swags lookmg for work. We increased the ~mount to 6s., but now hon. members are m power again, and they have gaoled some of them for "jumping the rattler."

In his reply the Minister quoted the amount of loan money on hand when the late Government went out of power and said that we should have utilised that ~oneY but that we did not, and that we left the p~;ition worse than we found it. Our point is that the present Government have £1 500 000 specially raised for the relief of un~mpioy­ment that we did not have when we went out of power; and that is why I say it is unnecessary to increase this taxation and why we should not be asked to ratif'y the Order in Council and thus justify the Govern­ment in their actions.

I look forward to seeing- members on the Government. benches replymg to the charges mad_e by ;h1s party .. vVe have made many d1stmct Ciilarges agamst various members sitting behind the Government. We have cornered t)lem on th<;ir . election promises. I say defimtely that th1s 1s a breach of faith with the people. The Government have no mandate from the people, and we ask hon. rr.embers opposite to get on their feet and

justify themselves. =" o Minister of the Crown has done it, and the lYiinister in charge of the Bill is not justified in making deliberate misstatements and untruths to this Chamber and thus trying to mislead the people.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A?\D INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hyn~s, l'owns­Tille) [3.24 p.m.]: I said that the increase of 2s. 6d. was the minimum prescribed for the No. 1 Division. The rates prescribed for the North are-

No. 1 Division ;\; o. 2 Division No. 3 Division

s. d. 15 4 pe1· day 16 8 per day 17 10 per day

Those are the rates prescribed by the present Government, and those are the rates to which I referred. I am not going to permit the hon. member for Cook to twist mv words. and to say that I said that a n~mber of people were working and receiving those rates. I said that those were the rates prescribed. There are a number of inter­mittent relief workers receiving in excess of 13s. 6d. per day, which thC' hon. member for Cook endeavoured to lead this Chamber to believe was the maximum paid by this Government.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE (Hon. F. W. Bulcock, Barcoo) [3.25 p.m.]: It was not my intention to engage in this debate at all; but, during the second reading debate, mention was made of a land settle­ment scheme in which my department is interested. I refer to Beerburrum; and, as this is the appropriate clause on which to discuss the matter, I should like to place before the Chamber some of the facts associated with Beerburrum.

Mr. SrzER: What has that to do with the clause?

At 3.27 p.m., Mr. W. T. Kr:-w (J1arec), one of the panel

of Temporary Chairmen, relieved the Chairman in the chair.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: The Temporary Chairman will decide the matter. This clause provides for the inci­dence of certain taxation, and validates the Order in Council relating to that taxation. It also connotes expenditure arisin~ from that source. The basis of the expenditure is over many areas, included in which is the Beerburrum area. From time to time hon. members opposite have claimed that the solution of many of our problems lies in the direction of land settlement; and it is a most remarkable fact that they should pro­fe~s lip service and lip loyalty to land settlement over a period of three years, and that during that time they did absolutely nothing to consummate their loyalty to that project. They did nothing to settle on the land one single individual who was unem­ployed. All that hon. members opposite can say is that from time to time funds were made available to retain people who were in difficulties and who were already on the land.

Mr. MooRE: What about Sunnybank? The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE:

No concerted effort on a decent scale was made to settle men at Sunnyhank. That brings me to the question of suitability; and Sunnybank may possibly prove to be a very vulnerable proposition so far as suitability for agricultural pursuits is concerned.

II on. li'. 1f". Bulcock.l

700 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSElVIBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

The late Secretary for Public Lands sug­gests that Bcerbqrrum is not suitable for the production of tobacco. I propose to lay some facts before the Committee, and to argue that the recurring factors associated with our present system of relief lead us nowhere. If we are going to chip grass in the streets to-day, to-morrow, and on the third day have an individual again on our hands looking for relief, we obviously have no permanent solution of the problem of unem· ployment. I maintain that we must turn our attention to those factors which mean a permanent solution of the problem con· honting us.

~1r. NnniD : Mr. King, I rise to a point of order. Is the Secretary for Agriculture in ol'dcr in making a second re·ading speech on this clause?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRi\iAN: I ask the Minister to proceed. I shall decide w hetht'r or not he is in order.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: It is obvious that hon. members opposite resent any suggestion of any implication of their shortcomings in regard to the question of then professed loyalty. I am quite willing to ·discuss any question associated with Beer­burrum. There are ninety-one men up there, all of whom have access to the unguarded and inconsidered statements made by some of the members of the Opposition· and it is necessary and dt'sirable that the truth asso­ciated with the case should be placed before this Committee.

The_ PRE)!IER: They are trying to " queer the p1tch."

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: Exactly.

Mr. KEN:SY: \Ye are trying to save those men.

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULT"CRE: The officers assvciated with the establishment of the tobacco industry in the Mareeba area and il_l ~he ::'\orth generally were the officers commisswned to examine in minute detail the possibilities of the production of tobacco at Beerburrum. Mr. Tarrant and 1\fr. Good­child-more particularly Mr. •rrarrant-in c?mpany with _Mr. McC_awley spent a con· sideraWf porti.on of. bme, running into several weeks, In mak1ng an exhaustive sur­vey of the blocks at Beerburrum. It appears to be a conception of the ex-.SP·metarv for Public Lands that we have held that ;,very block on Beerburrum is a potential tobacco­growmg ):llo~k. That is not the case at all. My defimte mstructions to the officers I sent to. surve.1 the land at Beerburrum were to this effect: Recognise suitable soil types based on m·ca" th!'t are !'!ready growing toba?co there, and, If there IS anv doubt con­cermng the possibilities of any block pass it out. That was done. The soil tvpe~ chosen at Bee_rburrum approximated ver~ closely to the soil types already producing· tobacco at Beerb~1rrum. On the question of Beerburrum's capac;ty to _produ~e tobacco, I have some very mterestmg evidence. Several selectors the survivors. of the old soldier settlement scheme, realised after some experimental work tha~ there were possibilities so far as the growmg of tobacco at Beerburrum was concerned. Last year several of them under­took the growing of tobacco on a commercial scale. That was the third year in which t~bacco ha.d been grown in that area. The h1ghest pnces realised by grower " A " was

[Hon. F'. W. Bulcock.

3s. 6d. per lb., by "B" 3s. 6d. per lb., " C '' 3s. 7d. per lb., and '' D " 3s. 2d. per lb.

vVe have heard considerable talk about Mareeba and the Northern areas for the settlement of men. Is it not apparent to hon. members opposite that the lands which lie closest to the biggest volume of unemploy­ment should be utilised? If we agreed to use all the abandoned blocks at Bccrburrum, there might be some justification for the arguments advanced by hon. members oppo· site. In spite of what has been said in support of Mareeba, Sarina, and other dis­tricts, at the last tobacco sales the price received for Beerburrum tobacco averaged 33.87d. per lb., whereas the average prices for Sarina and Mareeba tobacco were 33. 712d. and 31.978d. per lb., respectively.

Mr. MAHER: What is the average yield at l3eerburrum?

The SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: The yield at Beerburrum compares more than favourably with the yield of any other area in Queensland. I have quoted the prices realised at competitive auction, which estab­lished the fact that Beerburrum tobacco finds a ready market at the highest prices realised.

I have dealt with the question of the survey of land. Only those lands which were the proper soil type in the opinion of the officers who brought Mareeba and the Northern tobacco settlement to a successful conclusion were the lands embraced under the scheme. This scheme offers some solution of the unem­ployment problem. I say unhesitatingly that under proper supervision it will succeed.

-The same argument is frequently used with regard to this type of settlement as was applied to the soldier settlement-that you do not get the right type of men. I want to asomre hon. members that every effort was made to get the right type of men; and, although overtures were made to me by some hon. members opposite to include certain people in the group who were oent to Beer­burrum, I did not include any person on my own say-so. Every person who wao selected for l3eerburrum was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, including a medical examination.

Another aspect of the question that is well worth mentioning is that, with one exception -and he is a man who is the supporter of a family and, therefore, ranks as a married man-none but married men were selected. They are an excellent type of men. His Excellency the Governor, who paid a recent visit to Beerbunum, informed mo that some of the finest men he had met in Queensland were on the Beerburrum area, and I entirely agree with that. The men aro optimistic; thev believe there is a future before them. Ye~terday they concluded a ballot, whereby each man in the group was allotted 15 acres, which will allow for a rotational period every three years and a come-back to the original 5 acres. Each man will plant out 5 acres of tobacco. The scheme is co­operative in its conception and there is no friction. What gives me the greatest plea­sure is that we have removed a group of children from the environment of the city, with all the disappointments attendant on the parent being out of work or being a relief worker, and have placed .them in the harmonious surroundings of the congenial bush, where they will function and grow in the way that we hope our good type of Aus­tralian will function and grow.

Mr. MAHER: \Vliat is the tenure?

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 701

Th< SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE: ·w c arc giving them a perpetual leasehold tenure. Hon. members opposite arc sceptical as to the capacity of Becrburrum to pro­duce tobacco; .and during the second reading debate I discovered quite a lot of tobacco experts in the House; and because we had such a number of tobacco experts here I thought they would readily be able to recog­nise a good type of leaf. This leaf, which I lay on the table, is not a selected leaf; 1 can assure hon. members of tha,t. This is a leaf that was taken at random from a Beer­burrum consignment of equal quality. This leaf was not grown under experimental or test conditions. It is an ordinary commer­cial sample which ordinarily finds its way to the ma,rket. It is this type of leaf that brought the highest price at the recent tobacco sales; and there is no reason to believe that the land there is not capable of continually producing this particular type of leaf. I lay it on the table so that hon. members may have an opportunity of exam­ining it, because my experts tell me that it rcali;ed no more than its market value when it topped the market. In addition to that, as there is a verv definite belief that the test of the pudding is in ·the eating, I instructed my department to make some cigarettes from that type of leaf; and hon. members will be afforded an opportunity of testing the qua,lity of the tobacco when 'pro­·cessed into cigarettes. I lav a packet on the table, and invite hon. members to try the quality of cigarettes manufactured from .Becrburrum leaf.

There is another phase associated with this question, and it is a, most important pha.sc. \Ve cannot continue as a people to employ our people under conditions such as we are employing them at the present time. Our national outlook will diminish in direct ratio to the manner in which we employ the people ; and the placing of people on the land ~nd building up a yeomanry of service that 1s so necessary to the ,a,dvancement of the State is the most lofty ide.tl that can be undertaken by any Government. I believe that Beerburrum will oucceed; but I feel rather resentful of the fact that hon. m em­ben who know verY little about the case­indiYiduals who do 'not know the conditions in rc•gard tD the selection of the soil tvpe or the selection of the men who went there­should co':le into this House, without making mvesugatwn, and condemn what is being done. You ha,ve to start somewhere. I am guile cons·cious of the fact that if it had been some other locality and ;ome other scheme, we would have received just the san1e measure of condemnation as we have rceived in respect of Becrburrum. I was at Beerburrum on Sunday last. The men were not unaware of the things that had been said in this Chamber, and, at a mass meeting which I attended, they asked me to say that they were perfectly content to work out their own destinies, and that. if they faikd. they did not want the Opposition to help them to fail.

Mr. SIZER (Sanclgatc) [3.40 p.m.]: The Minister has initiated this tobacco-growing scheme at Bccrburrum, and I hope that it will be successful. Any scheme that will lead us somewhere is worth trying; and the Minister is wise in' trying every avenue pos­sible to relieve the present situation; but we cannot be unmindful of the pitfalls and dangers attendant on land settlement.

This is the main clause that validates the Order in Council, and I oppose it very definitely, in that it increases the tax, which would have been unueccssary if the scheme had been left alone. Secondly, I object to the clause becau<e the increase of taxation was initiated by Order in Council. It is no use the Government excusing themselves by saying that that power was in the Act. Admittedly the power was in the Act, but it was put there because we were passing through a great crisi;;, and at such times one does not know what abnormal emergency may arise. There is no need for the power to be used in the way it has been used; and, furthermore, it comes very ill from a, Government which condemns the principle of increasing taxation by Order in Council.

The Government have made a virtue Df the fact that they do not propose in future tcJ increase taxation by Order in Council. le is rather a peculiar kind of virtue after having comn1itted a sin to say, "We a1:e sorry we did it, but we will not do 1t again." The principle of taxation by Order in Council is bat!. I would point out to the Minister that the provision was only put there to be used in case of abnormal conditions, and there was no intention to use it as is now being done. Further. I object to the clause, because, with the added funds at their disposal, there is no need for the Government to increase the tax.

Mr. DEACOX (('unningham) [3.43 p.m.]: The Secretary for Agriculture spoke about Becrburrum, and referred to what I ~ad said about it. I do not withdraw one thmg I said. I gave my opinion then, and I am of the same opinion now, that it is a pit~­and a shame that this experiment should have been made at Beerburrum. The know­ledge of the experts with. regard to. t?bacco­rrrowing at Beerburrum IS not sufficwnt to ~;arrant the placing of a number of unem< played there, wasting their time and money with only a poss'ible hope of success. . Does the Minister remember the first expenment ,,,.hich took place at Beerburrum? That was not a payable proposition, for the simpl.e reason that there is only one class of soil there, and it is hardly possible to call it soil; it is all sand and clay. You run .off the lower ridges into swamp where nothmg has done any good.

The Minister said there had been experi­ments carried on for three years, but we have had only experiments made during one season which has been the driest on record, and that was on the poorest land. It is not a suitable climate for tobacco-growing according to experts. It is ve_ry .wet, in consequence Df which the crop 1s hkely to be damaged by mould and in~ects. The soil there does not seem to be smtable for any­thing. It has failed with . regard to pine­apples, only one crop o~ whiCh can be grown successfully. I went twiCe over Beerburrum, and interviewed every settler there ; and they told me they had tried every crop, and no crop had been successful except the one crop of pineapples. 'I'hey could grow vegetable~, but that would not be a payable proposJ­tion. It will take £25 or £30 an acre to clear the land.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : It IS

cleared.

Mr. DEACOJ'\: The whole block is not cleared. The Minister has not been ~p there, but I have; it is overgrown with

11-ir. Deacon.]

702 Income Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

saplingo, "·hi eh "·ill all ha vc to be dng ant.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDS: You h~ard what Canon Garland said about it.

1\ir. DEACON: I ·do not care what Canon (ia.rland or anv other man said about it. It is a shame 'that the unemployed should be sent there to make a settlement on the scantv information a1·ailablc. One season's trial, of a crop in the driest w~ather on record is not sufficient. There is p knty of land in other parts of Queensland which is much cheaper and better, and on which there would be more prospect of success. It is easv for the Miuist<>r to sav that it is going to be a succc'·s. and t.hat tiH' men arc of a g-ood type and have confidC'nce. The soldiers who ;vent there were of a good type. They g·ave BcC'l'burrum a good trs· out. and eYery crop was tried. Pineapples were grown because it was the most suitable crop. Ever:vthing else failed. .and pine­apples were the only crop that would grow; and they would onl~· grow once. and. even then had to be heavily feTtilised. MorcovN, they would only grow on top of the ridges.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC LANDR: ·what is the \'(ood of our experts? Thev tell us that it IS suitable. ,

Jl..h. DEACON: So far as farming is con­cerned. I have had as much cxperiencP of land a~ any of the Government's experts ; and, in any event. all the Government arc getting from their experts is a report based on the 0xperience of one season. There is no possible hope of Becrburrum being as successful as the ~1inister thinks. I would not ad,·isP a man to put in the best ,-ears of his life there. I know what the previous settlers there had to put up with. :\'a body went there of his own freewill.

The SECRETARY FOR PcBLIC LANDS: Y<'s.

::\fr. DEACON: Kobody who knew the country would go there. People "·ho did not may have done so. There is plentv of land available of a better class for tobacco­g~·owing, and it is cheaper. I have already given an mstance of such lan·d, in respect of which the experts' recommendations "·ere better-that was at Cooktown. It is easv to clear, is cheap, and has a climate equal to the best in the world. At Mareeba trials were made not for one vear but for thrN' years. The climate there and at Cooktown is suitable for tobacco. At Havana in Cuba. they grow tlw best tobacco in' the world. and these districts in ""orth Queens­land ha,·e the same climate. The Gm·crn­ment could put tho unemplo,1·ed to grow tobacco there .. 'I'here they had information that was worth while-even better infor­mation than that of the experts at Beer­burrum-and by putting the unemployed th~re they would not waste the money and rum the prospects of the settlers. I wish settlers succe~s everywhere. but eepecially at Beerburrum. I would like to see them successful, but I am afraid of their pro­spects.

Mr. !YIAHER (lVeRt ll£ ore ton) [3.49 p.m.]: The view expressed bv the la tc Secretarv fat· Public Lands is 'that of a practicl{l farmer, and, therefore, entitl<'d to the utmost respect. All the same, I do not agree with his point of view. Aftc1· all Beer-burrun1 is sandy soil. '

The TKMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowed a discussion upon Beer-

[ Mr. Deacon.

burrum by the hon. member for Cunning­ham, and I do not propose to allmv any further discussion on the subject, because J consider that it. reallv does not come "·ithin the ambit of this clause.

Mr. WIENHOLT (Fassijern) [3.54 p.m.l: I have read the speech delivered by tho· Minister with the object of ascertaining th<• exact financial position of this fund. It ;, cc verv serious matter for a member of P.a.rlia.­ment to vote on a question of increasing Utxa ·

tion, and we should be thoroughly acquainted with the whole aspect of the matter, just as it is our prime parliamentary dut,\ to guard the public purse. I gathered from 1he speech deliwred by the Minister that' the sum of £108,000 is required to meet tho delicit in this fund. I believe in balancing the budget, whether it be the budget for the whole State or the budget in respect of a special trust fund. Before I vote for inCJ·cascd taxation to the amount of £486,000 for unemployment relief, we should ha vc so1ne assurance that we arc going to really get the relief workers out of the rut of relief work and on to somethmg more per­manent and definite. I am prepared to make the J\.linister an offer regarding my vote on this occasion. If the Opposition could only win a couple of by-elections, my vote might have more value, nevertheless I am inclined to make the Minieter an offer. If Parliament approves of the new taxation. he, will receive an additional £486,000; and. afte,­allowing £108.000 to meet the ddicit in the fund. he is left with £386.000 of new money. I am not much concerned with what I might call the divergent and academic political views of the Minister, which the hon. member for Sandgate described as shibbolethc. I am prepared to vote in favour of this increased taxation if I am assured that something definite will be done to g-et the people out of the rut of relief work and on to some­thing better. The only channel through whir·h that can be done is land settlement. The Secrctan· for Public .Lands should open up all the scrub land that he can find.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: A sur­vey is being made of all the land throughout the State.

Mr. \VIENHOLT: I am very pleased to know that. X ot verv long ago I drove through some spl•·ndi~l virgin scrub lands which belonged to the State.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : If you: will tell me where the land is oituated. I will send a. man to im·estigate immediai.£ly.

Mr. WIE~HOLT: That is verv good indeed. I urge the '\linister to make the blocks too big rather than too small. If they are made too small, there will alwavs be continual trouble; but if they .are made too big no serious harm will be done, This extra rehef money could be utilised for the construction of roads and for the build­ing of schools m new settlements, but there should be no paternalism and no Government spoonfceding. It should be the object of the Government to place a man on a good farm so that he may become inde­pendent of the labour market, and thus carve out future independence for himself and his familv. If this were done "·e would be able to settle a number of new areas, and it would be a case of something attempted something done. I make the Minister this offer: I will support this increased unemployment relief taxation amounting to £486,000 if he will

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 703

undertake to see th11t £300,DOO of that :anlount is earrnarked for the Secretary for 1'ublic Lands for land settlement purposee in the interests of the unemployed.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : ~W c will encourage hind eettlement to the uhnost.

:\lr. WIK\HOLT: If £300,000 is definitely earmarked for hind ,cttlemout in the intcrecb of the nnemplo:. ed, it will give these people a definite chance to win independence for themselYcs and their families. That is my offer.

At 4 p.m., The CHAIR:YIA:-1 resumed the chair.

Mr. KENNY (Cook) [4 p.m.]: When the Minister was replying this afternoon, he quoted certain rates of pay w hi eh he said applied to relief work carried out in the N orthorn towns, but in sorrce of the towns which he quoted there is no relief work going on, nor is there any possibility of relief works being undertaken. In the smaller towns, before the local authority can get any relief work done, it must borrow money or pay for the relief of unemployment from its own funds. Under date 26th September, the Minister wrote to me-

" I have to inform vou that there arc no moneys available o;;_t of the Common­wealth-States Loan Funds for local autho­rity works. The council's application, however, has , been forwarded to the U ndcr Secretary of the Treasury for consideration under the subsidised local authorities' scheme for approved works, which is being administered by that department."

There is the definite statement from the Minister that no rrconey is available for out­lying portions of the State--

Tlw SECRET\RY FOR LABOUR AXD INousnw: That is not from the Commonwealth-States Loan Funds.

Mr. KENNY: Before a local autuo~itv <'an get any relief work c:trried out, it mus't either subscribe the money itself in order to get a subsidy from the Crown, or it must borrow money from the Crown in order to get a subsidy. Under those circumstances what is the use of the Minister trying to mislead this Committee by saying that cer­tain rates are prescribed for work in country districts 'I It is no earthly good stipulating rates if you are not going to pay them; nor is it any use taxing people in the outlying portions of the State up to ls. in the £1 in rmmy instances if you are not going to give them sorrce benefit. If the people in the outlying portions of the State were being relieved, there might be something in the Minister's argurrcent to justify the position; but the point is rapidlv being reached when the Government are placing on the local authoritie;; not only the burden of taxation but also the responsibility of relieving the unemployed in their areas. The Minister shouid formulate some scheme that will have application to the outlying districts that I have in mind. 'rhe apparent intention of the Government is to make the burden of the local authorities as onerous as possible. In that intention they are doing a dis­service to the community generally. vVe know that the Government have foreshadowed an amendment of the Local ~\.uthorities Act !'elating to the franchise. If they do that

they get a council w bich will vote for the borrowing of rr.oney, irrespective of the effect it will have on the landowner. 'l'hey can then got their subsidy from the Government and go ahead with relief work. The land­holders in those localities are g-oing to be burdened to such an extent that they cannot carry on, and then they will agree with the objective of th6 Labour Party for the wcialisation of land.

In regard to the expenditure cf moneys raised by means of the unemployment relief tax the Government should treat outside centres in th0 same way that they are treat­ing the city to-day. We see grants of £20,000 to the City of Brisbane; yet these country districts must foot the bill themselves. I have very effectively replied to the .argu­ments adduced by the Minister. The hon. gentleman should think twice before trying to mislead this Committee.

The Secretary for Agriculture made a great speech in reference to tobacco growing at Beerburrum and the criticism levelled at that scheme bv hon. members on this side. That Minister also attempted to mislead the Committee. He said that tobacco had been grown at Beerburru.m for three years.

The CHAIRMAN·. Order !

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­,.;u,) [4.8 p.m.]: I feel a little apathetic about the hon. member's criticisms, as c,·eryone in the Chamber looks upon him as a nuisance.

The CHAIRMAN : Order !

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND I:--.;DUSTRY: But there are occasions when one has to take notice of untruths uttered in this Chamber. I made the statement that the 13s. 6d. a day only referred to men who were employed in the Southern division, and they do not constitute half the number of men who arc getting the benefit of the relief scheme. The hon. member said there 'vas no one employed on relief vvork in his own electorate at the present time.

:\fr. KENNY: I never s"'id that.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: Evidently the hon. member does not know the true position, because there are men employed on relief work in his electorate.

Mr. KEN:-!Y: Mr. Hanson, I rise to a point of order. The Minister said that I said that no men were working on relief work in my electorate. I deny that, and I ask the Minister to accept my denial. I said that no men were working on relief work in Croydon and Cooktown.

The CHAIRM~\N : Order !

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND IXDUSTRY: Mr. Chairman--

:\1r. KENNY: Mr. Hanson, I rose to a point of order. I asked that the hon. gentleman accept my denial, and I think I am entitled to have my request acceded to.

The CHAIRMAN : Order ! The hon. member said that he rose to a point of order, but he did not state any point of order, and I asked him to resume his seat. J\ ow he asks that his denial be accepted. I ask thf.' Minister to aeeept that denial.

Hon. JJ1. P. Hynes.]

704 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AKD IKDUSTRY: I accept the denial. The hon. member made the statement that no people in the northern part of the State got relief work. That is ridict1,lous. There are men in his own electorate working forty hours a week, and they are receiving 16s. Sd. per day.

:Sir. KENNY: I know that.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND Il\Dl:'STRY: Then why did not the hon. member state it? There are intermittent relief workers engaged in Cairns, and a portion of the Cook electorate comes into Cairns. They are receiving 15s. 4d. per day. I made reference to that fact in order to refute the wild statements made by the hon. member for Cook, which should not be given credence.

Mr. TOZER (Gympie) [4.10 p.m.]: By this clause we are asked to approve, ratify, con­firm, and validate two Orders in Council, one dated 23rd June, 1932, and one dated 29th July, 1932. vV e are taking exception to these Orders in Council having been put into force. The first Order in Council extended the In­come (Unemployment Relief) Tax Acts for a further period, and the second provided for an increased tax in certain instances. \V hat are we asked to do? The Order in Council first brought forward consisted of about three pages and the next one of eight pages and. we are a"ked to approve, ratify, and confirm them.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: They YYere laid on the table for fourteen days.

Mr. TOZER: Yes, I know that; but some­time' the Minister makes a statement in­distinctly and half of us do not know what he says. It is quite possible that when the Orders in Council were laid on th~ table we missed hearing it. '

The second Order in Council which is rather long, deals with certain e~tensions to the casual washerwoman and the casual cleaner employed in priYate homes, and other employment of a casual nature and not employment in the course of the' em plover's trade or business. Provision is made' for increased taxation on the following scale:-

Up to :b104 a year From £10:0 to £208 From £209 to £499 From £500 and over

Rate in £1. 3d. 6d. 9d. 1s.

That is a very heavy increase in taxation and we are asked under this clause to validat~ it. We. cannot _possibly approve of those Orders m Council. From what I heard the Leader of the qovernment ~ay, they them­selves _do not beheve m taxatiOn by Order in Council. If they do not believe in it thev should not have brought it in. We ar~ no..:V asked to approve of their actions, but we cannot _do so. . S~ far as validating the Orders m Council Is concerned, there is no doubt that the Government can carry the clause. At the same time, although they made a mistake in increasing the rates by Order in Council, they have done right in bringing the matter before Parliament to have their action validated.

In view of the increased taxation, there should be more work given to single men.

[Hon. 111. P. Hynes.

I wish to bring before the Minister the case of a single man without work in a home where his father and one of his sisters and brothers are working. The matter came before the police, who inquired into it and made a recommendation to headquarters in Brisbane, and the answer went back, "l\'ot approved."

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDl'STRY : We have liberalised the scheme considerably compared with the conditions under your Govern1nent.

Mr. :\nmo: That is not so.

Mr. TOZER: I have had several instances like this brought before me. I know a case now where there are three young men in a family, and the father is a fettler on the railways and earning something like £7 a fortnight. He has his wife and daughters to support, and he also has to keep' three grown men simply because he is receiving that n1oney.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOL:R AXD INDL:STRY: The sons would be able to get relief war k.

Mr. TOZER: Then why is the answer sent back by the department " ='Jot approyed " ? They can neither get rations nor work. Some provi,ion should be made for these men in view of this increased taxation, \Vhy should the father have to keep grown-up sons simply because he happens to be in a position such as I have described? If he happens to make a slip in the railways, his work will be gone.

Tho SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : \Vhy did he have to keep them under your Government?

Mr. TOZER: The hon. gentleman who was always condemning us is there now. He used to say, " If we get over there, we 'vi]] show vou what we can do." \Ve ask them to do it. They have money. They have the £620,000 and the £940,000 in addi­tion to some money left in the Treasury, whilst the Premier in his policy speech said that they were going to float a Queensland loan of £2,500,000. Of course, when he was asked about it afterwards, he said there wa& no necessity for it, and that they had suffi­cient money. If so, why not treat the single men differently? These are hardships and injustices, and I ask the hon. gentleman to rectify them. There are cases all oYer Queensland of young fellows anxious to work, but failing to get it because somebody else ~n the family is willing to help. During the week I had the mother of the three grown-up sons to whom I have referred in to see me, and she said, " How can we do it? We are going behind ourselves. There are three of them. Why can they not get something to do or rations? Other people do." All they ask is one day's work a fort­night and then rations in the alternate week.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND h:DUSTRY : We are doing that.

Mr. TOZER: But, while the hon. gentle­man is doing it, they are allowing the people to starve. Why wait so long and talk so much? It is not much to ask that a single man shall have one day's work and rations the next week. I know it means a fair amount of money when the number is con­sidered; but, when the Government have increased taxation, it is only fair and reason­able that they should give necessary assist­ance.

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 705

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­Tille) [4.21 p.m.]: The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has been misinformed regarding the position of the people in the particular cases he has n:entioned. The position is that where there are less than three in the family and they are receiving less than the basic wage the single man is entitled to one day's work per fortnight. \\'here there are more than three in the familv he is entitled to 6s. rations in the alternate week. I reiterate that it is rather extraordinary that the hon. member Jor Gym pie did not make out such a good· case to his leader when he was Premier. \Ve have ameliorated the position of the single men, and the provision of intermittent relief work is costing us £260.000 per annum from the fund. In addition to that, the inhuman practice of compelling men to walk for rations has been discontinued. We have also revised the forrr.ula upon which it was decided whether a person was entitled to be assessed for relief work or not; and this has given considerable relief to the poorer classes in the community. In dealing with the family income we allow a greater proportion to be retained by the earner than was pre­viously the case. That is costing a great deal more money than previously. I repeat that single men are better provided for under our scheme, and single girls are getting­similar liberal and sympathetic treatment. I would like to extend our operations so far as finding employment for single girls is concerned; but hon. members know the diffi­culty of finding work of a suitable nature for girls. I assure hon. members that th<> Governrr:ent have strained their resources to the utmost in order to provide the maximum amount of relief for single persons.

Mr. NIMMO (Oxley) [4.24 p.m.]: I intend to oppose this clause~not because I believe that the unemployed should not be provided for, but h.ecause I am opposed to the imposi­tion of increased taxation on people who are unable to bear it. The people have been called upon to sacrifice a portion of their salaries in wage redu-ctions, and will find it very rlifficult to bear this additional impost. The Government decided to pa:v relief workers the basic wage rate, but they also decided to reduce the period of work. The intermittent relief worker now finds it exceedingly difficult to meet. his ordinary domc'">tie liabiliti<'s, and is compelled to seek work which provide, a greater rate of pay. It would be interesting to know just how the men secure those jobs. Over lOO men were placed on one job on the South Coast road. The Minister sent down a list, and o\·erv one of the men on the list was empi'oyed.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : That is a deliberate lie. You are a liar.

The C'HA 1RMAN : Order ! nnmt withdrCLw the words "deliberate liar."

The Minister "lie" and

The SECRETAR1 FOR LABOUR A;;;n lNDl:STRY: I withdraw.

Mr. NIMMO: One hundred men from the <'lcctorate of the hon. member for Brisbane were em played on one job on the South Coa;;t road. The other day I inquired from the Minister how many local men were employed on work in my electorate, and he informed me that only five out of the twenty-three men worn local men. I hold the view that

1932~z

land settlement offers the best solution of this problem. I do not favour the Beerbur­rum settlement, qecause I fear that the tragedy of the soldier settlement will be repeated. Water facilities will first have to be provided. I have in mind Laidley and Lockyer Creeks.

The CHAIRMA:\" : Order ! :'vir. KI:\LMO : I might be prepared to vote

for the clause if I were asmred that the rncn;cy would be wisely expende-d. This year tL8 nCLtional debt of Queensland will be increased by over £1.000,000, and the interest tr,c,·cc.rl, togctlwr with the increased taxation proposed; will make for further unemploy­ment.

Single mC'n must be absorbed in some occu­pation, and it wculd be far better if they were enga.ged in useful work in the country at £1 or 30s. per week rather than employed on the present bCLsis of 6s. worth of rati?ns one week and one dav's work the followmg '' eek. That basis mer'ely prolongs the agony. The system at present in operation makes for differentiation between certain classes of single men. Some are eligible for relief work. while others are not. The only oppor­tunities available to some can be secured only if they are prepared to leave home, camp in the bush, and then return to report that they are living at a place away from homo. Thcv cannot obtain relief work whilst living' at home.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : You object to our pro1·iding them with relief work at all.

Mr. KIMMO: Xo one can justly accusP me of that. I am in favour of the employ­ment of men on necessary relief works, but I do not stand for favouritism.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : You arc objecting to our getting funds to pay for the work.

Mr. NIMMO: I am drawing attention to the expenditure of £260,000, which is merely an apology fur finding work. Did not the Government say to the single men before the elections, "Return us to power, and we will give every one of you work" ? These men are getting only one day's work a f,.,,tnight.

Unless the :Minister can give us some assur­ance that this scheme will provide work in the development of the country, he will not get this measure through the Committee.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I will give you that assurance.

Question~" That clause 2, as read, stand part of the Bill "~put; and the Committee divided:-

AYES, 25. l\Ir. Barber

Bulcock Conroy Cooper Copley, W. J, Foley Funnell Gledson Hanlon Ha yes Hynes Keogh King, \V. T. Larcombc

Mr. Mullan O'Keefe Pease Smith Stop ford Waters Wellington Williams Wilson

Telle1's: Gair Taylor, G. C.

llft·. Nimmo.J

706 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

NOES, 24-. Mr. Barnes, G. P. I\Ir. Peterson

Barnes, Vv. H. Plunkett Clayton Roberts Daniel Russe]] Deacon Sparkes Edwards Swayne Kenny Taylor, c. King, R. M. Tozer Maxwell Wienholt Moo re Morgan Tellers: Nicklin Costello Nimmo Maher

PAIRS. AYES. NOES.

Mr. Dash Mr. ''Valker Collins Grimstone Bruce Fadden Llewelyn Brand

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 3-"A mcndment of s. 8 (i.), pro ciso

{c)-Income (Unc mployment Relief) 1'ax-·­Collection of tax."

Mr. MOORE (A. ubigny) [4.36 p.rn.]: The Order in Council issued on 29th July referred to the total amount of "taxable" income, and this clause leaves out the word " tax­able.'· Section 17 of the principal Act reads-

" Subject to this Act, the following incomes, revenues, and funds shall be ex~mpt from income (unemployment relief) tax."

It then sets out the exemptions, and I "ant to know from the :Yiinister if, by taking out the word "taxable," he means to do away with some of the exemptions? It may mean that the tax will be payable on the grms income, but I -do not think for a moment that the Government intend that. There are several deductions allowed in the Income Tax Act. but which are not allowed in the Income (Unemployment Relief) Tax Act, and I would like the Ministm· to give some explanation as to whv the word "taxable" is left out. V

The 8~CRET ARY FOR LABOUR. A:'\D Ii'\DUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Tou·nH­rille) [4.38 p.m.]: The word "taxable" has been left out to avoid confusion. as there is no necessitv to have that word in the Act. A person may have income from employ­ment and income other than from employ­ment, and, if the word ·'taxable" is left in, it will lead to confusion.

1\lr. MOORF. (Aubigny) [4.39 p.m.]: I am afraid that it will lead to a g-reat deal more confusion if the word is left out. The clause will then read-

" The total amount of the income (including income from employment and income other than income from employ­ment) for the income year ending on the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirtv-threr, of e.ny em­ployee who was resi-dent in the State for the whole of such period of the income ycar''-

shall b0 subject to the tax. Whether it is intended or not, that m0ans that the gross income of the individual is to be taxed. I thoug-ht that. perhaps, it was meant to applv to visitors who came here from the South. If we leave out the word "taxable," it mak0s it most ambiguous,

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND TNDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­villr:) [4.41 p.m.]: This is n'ot a taxation

p111·. M oore.

clause. It refers to refunds. It also deals with persons who earn income partly in Queensland and partly outside the State. That person is not entitled to any refund. The clause has nothing to do with the rate of tax, b11t only with people who make application for a refund, having paid in excess of the rate they should have paid, when the income for the whole year is taken into consideration.

Clause 3 agreed to. Clauses 4 to 7, both inclusive, agreed to.

M1·. SPARKES (Dalby) [4.42 p.m.J: I move the following amendment :-

" On page 9, after line 37, insert the following new cl a use to follow cl a use 7-

7A, In subsection (3) of the said section eight the word ' thirty ' is repealed and the word ' ten ' is inserted in lieu thereof."

It v;-111 be apparent to hon. members that this will simplify the making of returns in country centres by people being able to post their cheques in payment of the tax.

The SECRET.\RY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, 'l'ou•ns­ville) [4.44 p.m.]: I will accept the amend­ment, although it rr_ay possibly add to the cost of administration, as it will mean that a ledgE>? account will haYe to be kept at the office ; but the advantage it may be to people in remote parts of the State _may compensate for any mcreased expenditure incurred. At the present time an employer of twenty persons or more can pay by cheque and is ea ved the trouble of getting stamps. The amendment >Yill reduce the number of employees to ten. Of co_urse,_ it will neces­sitate an employer sendmg m his cheque every fortnight; but I believe that. it will gi.-e us control over the fun? and m seme instances it n:av do a'vav 'Ylth evasions of the tax. - ' '

New clause (Mr. Sparkes) agreed to. Clause 8-" :lrncndmcntls of subsection (10)

of .<at ion 8-Lcry of tax in respect of income deriz·cd a.e. set forth in subsection (9)"-

Mr. l\100RE (Aubigny) [4.45 p.m.]: This is another clause in which the word " taxable" has been taken out before the word "income." This is a clause which provides that, where the income exceeds £208 but does not exceed £499 additional tax calculated at the rates give~, shall be payable. It is not a question of rdund at all. It appears to me that the person who is entitled to a refund ov~rpays if he pay" the tax. Subclause (a) provides-

" In paragraph (c) of subsection ten of the said section eight, the word " tax­able " , occurring ,?efore the word ' Income IS rrpealed.

It cannot be a question of administration. It looks extraordinary when you take out the word "taxable~' before "incon1e." because ''income" is surely meant to bo " taxable income" with deductions allowed. The OI:dcr in Council reads-

" ·where the total amount of the taxable incomB, including incon:e from employ­ment and income other than income from employment for the income year ending on thirtieth da.- of June, 1933--(or such other period accepted by the_ ~ommis­sioner), of the person receivmg the amounts, payments, allowances, and fees as are specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) as the Governor in Council ma}

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OcTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill. 707

so determine as proYided in the said sub­sedion nine, and/or of the person receiv­ing rents, interest, or other inco1ne, or credited with interest as is specified in paragraph (g) of the said subsection (9)"-

Then it goes on to prescribe the rates of tax. So far as I can gather, it certainly means that the gross income is to be taxed, although I eannot irr.agine that that is the intention.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND I="DUSTRY (Hon. 11. P. Hyncs, To11•ns­,ille) [4.49 p.m.]: The effect of the amend· ment made by the Bill is to include as income for the purpose of calculating the rate of tax certain classes of incorne 'vhich are not subject to tax. The point is that, in determining whether income is subject to taxation at the rate applicable to a person \Yho is earning £104 or is earning more than £104 or more than £208, certain classes of income which are not themselves subject to taxation are takPn into account. The tax­payer does not pay tax on the portion that is uot taxable: it is only considered in order to arrive at the rate at which he is to pay taxation.

Mr. WIENHOLT (F'assijan) [4.50 p.m].: I do not know whether I understood the hon. gentleman aright. I understood him to sav that the amount of the income that was not taxed was to be counted in order to determinf' the rat0 on the ren1aining portion that was taxable.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOuR AND INDuSTRY : Non-taxable income and taxable in<'omc arc included in order to arrive at the rate.

:'>Ir. WIENHOLT: I do not know whether this won't be found to be a mistake. I remember that there was a court case in respect of a similar provision. so I think the Minister will have to be careful. I think r hat. when the Labour Government were formerly in power, the Commissioner for Taxes tried to assess taxation on an income by including Commonwealth l)onds exempt from taxation in order to arrive at the rate. and the rourt held that he was not right in taking into ac<.::ount that income frOn1 C'ommonv Palth bonds in other words that his action was ultra' vires. I would just suggest to the hon. gentleman that he shoulu take that fact into consideration.

Mr. )V100RE (AuiJigny) [4.52 p.m.]: The Order m Council prO\'ides-

"' In re']1ect of the unemployment relief tax charg"'d, levied, and payable on income derived as is specified in sub­section 9 of the said section the follow­ing provision shall apply, n~mely."

Then the rates of tax to be charged are set out. so that it is not a matter of refund but of the rate cf tax. Th0n the Order in Council goes on to rn·ovide-

" vVhere the total amount of the tax-able income. "

That refers to the principal Act, under which you do not pay the tax on divi-dends derived fro_m a c~mpan0 which has already paid relwf tax m Queensland. You do not pay relief tax on income arising from deben­h!res,. stocks, bondF .. ccrtificatt">;, or treasury bills Issued by the Government of Queens­land or of the Commonwealth of Anstralia. I do not think the Government have anv right to take out the word " taxable " and put in these classes of income in order to

arrive at the rate of tax. It does not seem to be fair at all.

The SECREtARY FOil LABOCH AND I>~DUStRY: Read clause (c) (1) of the Order m Council of 29th July.

Mr. MOORE : That clausP reads-" \Vhere the total amount of the ta.x­

able income, including income from employmeut and income other than income from cmploymcnt-

(i.) Doe' not exceed in the \\hole £104 and such person has paid tax at a greater rate than that provided in provisions (i.) of paragraph (c) of sub section (1) of this section (8), such person shall be entitled to a refund of the tax oyerpaid. . . . ''

But that is not the same case as this. This does not apply to refunds at all. It appears to me that non-taxable income is to be taken into considcmtion in arriving at the rate of taxation. I can understand that, but I do not think it is rig·ht.

Mr. \YrExHOLT: I think it is ultra vires.

Mr. MOORE : It is not right that share­holders should be taxed in respect of divi­dends received when a company has already paid trtx on tlw amount. If interest derived from Commonwealth bonds. which is now not taxable. is to be taken into coneideration in order to arriYe at the rate, it means that the State Government are endeavouring to evade the legislation passed by the Common­wealth and agrped to by the States. The Order in Conncil is,ued on 29th July was \'erfectly dear and defitcite, but the position 1::: not clear nO\\ that the word ''taxable)' i, to b,- omitted. The taxation has already bepn paid. and the amount should not be taken into further account in fixing the rate. The _position is very obscure. An attempt Is be1ug 1nade to in1posp a rate of tax ascer~ tained on the basis of the gToss incomP which is quite wrong.

Mr. ROBERTS (East Toon·oom/)(l) r4.56 p.m.]: A case \\"as recentlv brought under mv noticf' of a resident in 'Scotland who "a:s liable for taxation in Queensland. The tax wa~ le\'icd on his personal represcntativp in Toowoomba. and the assessment was paid. The Commis,,ioner of Taxes insisted on a socict:- in 'l-,o~woorr1ba paying the same amount. and pomtcd ont that a refund could afterwards lw maclc. He insisted on this course of action. despite the fact that the tax had alread,· been poid. It would appear that the Minister is endeavouring to follow the proc,~clure set out in the income taxation la\v. That is unncccssarv and unsatisfac­tory. Thrre iR an 0ndcav~nr to fix a hjg-h('r rate by combining the taxable and 'non­yaxable incon1P, say, from Government Sav­mgs Bank inypstmcnts. for the purpo,e of arriYing at the rate applicable to the taxable 1J1C0l1H'.

Mr. :\'IM:VIO (Oxlcy) [4.58 p.m.]: Whv should dividends be subject to a second impost after taxation has .been paid by the corn pany and dividends distributed?

Tlw SECRETARY FOR LABOUE ",,~,

I:\'DUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, 1'owns­rillr) [4.59 p.m.]: The clause means that the taxable and non-taxable income shall both be takQn into consideration in fixing the rate­of taxation. I am informed by my officers that this clause. which refers to refunds. will [Jrobably not be brought into operation.

Hon. M. P. Hynes.]

708 Income (Unemployment Relief) [ASSEMBLY.] Tax Acts Amendment Bill.

There is a very remote chance of such cases cropping up. The clause refers to free lance journalists and to people working inter­mittently at various occupations, such as theatricals, etc. The clause applies only to refunds.

Mr. R. M. KING (Louan) [5 p.m.]: I think that we are at cross purposes. For example, on page 3 of the Order in Council it is stated-

" The provisoes (a) to (d) of sub-sec­tion one of the said section (8) of the Consolidated Acts are repealed, and the following provisoes are inserted in lieu thereof, namely. "

When the Minister states that this applies only to refunds I think he is referring to that, when he ought to be giving an inter­pretation of what appears on page 4, viz.-

" Subsection 10 of section 8 of the ]onsolidated Income CC nemployment Relief) Tax Acts is repealed, and the following subsection 10 is inserted in lieu thereof:-

(10) In re,,pect of the Gnemployment Relief Tax charged, levied, and pay­able on income derived as is specified in subsection nine of the said section, the following provisions shall apply, namely:-

{a) The rate of tax to be charged, levied, collected, and paid shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be at the following rates. ' "

It gives the rates and the method of collec­tion, and goes on to say-

" (c) \Vhere the total amount of the taxable income, including income from employment and income other than income from employment for the income year ending on the 30th June, 1933 (or such other period accepted by the Commissioner), of the persons r~eiving the amounts, payments, allow~ ances, and fees. . . . and such other clas:1es o£ income as the UoYcrnor in rouncil may so determine as provided in the said subsection 9, and/or of the pcrson receiYing rents, interest, or other income, or credited with interest. "

That only deals with income, and has no connection with refunds. If the ~VIinistcr can show us that there is anv connection with refunds, we will accept 'his explana­tion. If the word " taxable " is taken out. it appears to me that the rate would be collected on the gross income and not on the taxable income, which may be added to from the sources referred to bv the Minister, not for the purpose of increasing the amount of income but for the purpose {)f assessing the rate of tax.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND IKDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, 'l'owns­t·ille) [5.4 p.m.]: If a person makes applica­tion for a refund, it is taken into considera­tion then. I still maintain that it only refers to refunds. Only in remotes instances will that clause be brought into operation.

:Mr. ROBERTS (East 1'ooJCoomba) [5.5 p.m.]: As I understand the Act, it is not necessary to make any reference in the returns to deposits in the Government Sav­ings Bank. Is it now intended that the information will have to be furnished in {)rder that the taxable income may be increased and the rate consequently increased?

[Hon. 11!. P. Hynes.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes 'l'owns­ville) [5.6 p.m.]: The position 'is this: Suppose a highly paid musician comes from the South and earns £208 in Queensland in a short period. He would only pay a fiat rate of 6d. in the £ if the word " taxable" was left in, although his earnings for the year may amount to £2,000. We think that a man in that position should pay at the higher rate of 1s. in the £. It is only on rare occasions that this will operate, as there are not many people earning that amount of money in so short ,a time. The clause only has reference to refunds.

Mr. R. M. KING (Logan) [5.7 p.m.]: The Minister is taking up a wrong attitude when he says that this clause deals only with refunds. It has absolutely nothing whatever to cl{) with refunds. I am quite willing to accept the explanation given by the hon. gentleman in regard to the addition of income from other sources. I do not think that is right; but that is an explana­tion which might be perfectly satisfactory to the Minister, and which might explain the attitude of the Government in respect of the clause; but the point we desire to make is that the clause has absolutely nothing whatever to do with refunds as stated by the Minister.

Mr. RUSSELL (Hamilton) [5.11 p.m.]: I hope the Mimster will list-en to reason. \Ve are satisfied that by omitting the word " taxable" the taxpayer is denied the right to deduct statutory deductions. The Minister said that this clause only a pp lies to refunds; but I think the hon. member for Logan established a case beyond reasonable doubt as to what it really means. There must bo wme motive for deleting the word "taxable," which the Minister has not explained to our satisfaction. Seeing that the doubts we have raised have not been answered, I would suggest to the Minister that he postpone the further consideration of this clause until a later stage so that he can go into the matter carefully with his officers, and, if he can show that the Opposition are wrong, we shall be quite prepared to accept his explanation.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I am not going to allow you io take the business out of my hands.

::\fr. RUSSELL: Tho Minister is getting stupid. I appeal to him to postpone the consideration of the clause so that he may go into the matter more carefully; and, if he can show the Opposition that we are wrong, we are prepared to accept his ex­planation. We are not speaking in any spirit of obstruction; we simply have doubts as to the real meaning of the clause.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY : I contend that my explanation is right, and you say it is not. Let the Committee decide.

Mr. R. M. KING: If the Committee decides it, it may not be right.

Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. member for Logan explained the situation, and I rose to prevent the clause going through until the Minister has had further time to investi· gate the position. I hope he will not go on with the clause to-night, because I think our contention is right, and that there is no reason why the word " taxable" shoulrl

Income (Unemployment Relief) [5 OCTOBER.] Tax Acts Amendment BiU. 709

be omitted. There is a fear that the tax­payer may be denied the privilege of making his statutory deductions as at present. The inference is that he will be called upon to pay the tax on his gross income. \Ve want to make it clear that he will not pay any more than he is paying on now-that is, on his taxable income, which means his gross income less the deductions allowed bv statute. We are not obstructing the passage of the clause, but we want to see the measure made as perfect as possible, and that the taxpayer is not robbed of any rights which hoJ has under the present legislation. If the defect was discovered afterwards, the Go­vernment might have to bring in an amend­ing Bill to remedy it. I appeal to the Minister to postpone the clause until he has had an opportunity of consulting his advisers.

Mr. ROBERTS (East Toowoomba) [5.15 p.m.]: We are entitled to some further explanation. The Minister must recognise that there i~ some difference of opinion between himself and his advisers at the present moment. He has not informed the Committee as to what is intended by the Plause. I am not saying that in any offen­sive way, but am supporting the hon. member for Hamilton in his statement. I look upon the income tax and unemployment relief tax as the most intricate forms of taxation. \Vhen we interview the Commissioner of Taxes he will say, "This is the law. You made it. I am expected to put it into effect." vVe have a right to get a definite statement from the Minister through his advisers. and. if they cannot give the ex­planation at the moment, it might be as well to adjourn the clause until after tea.

HoN. W. H. BARNES (1V1;nnum} f5.17 p.m.J: I would like to suppo;t what has been said bv the hon. member for Hamil­ton and the hon. member for East Too­woomba. Since we passed clause 2 there has been no desire on the part of anv member of the Opposition to block the B·ill. It is absolutely essential in connection with a technical Bill like this that there should be no doubt about its meaning. I suggest that \'\'<' n1ight pass the other elauses and postTJone this one. There is no dt>sire to block' the passage of the Bill, but a desire to prevent that which may cause trouble later on. I am sure that no hon. member on the other side would like to make a rr.istake and seo the Government have to bring in an amend­ing Bill. I have not spoken on any clause other than clause 2 ; but this is a matter of the greatest importance. It is not of a political character, but a matter of adminis­tration, and I appeal to the Minister to allow the consideration of the clause to be post­poned.

Mr. DEACON (Cunningham) [5.19 p.m.]: There is a real doubt as to the meanina- of this clause, and the effect of taking out

0

the word "taxable," and it is n1uch too serious a matter to pass the clause without having it made perfectly clear. The Minister has not given a definite assurance that taking out the word will not mean the taxing of non-taxable income. Is there such a possi­bility?

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: No.

Mr. DEACON: Then the Minister should explain why the word is taken out. If he

satisfies the Opposition, the clause will go through in a minute.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY: I can giYe no other explanation than what I have already given. You are stonewalling.

:Mr. DEACON: No. As the hon. merr.ber for East Toowoomba has pointed out, tn.e Commissioner of Taxes does not considm· what the Minister thinks might have been the intention of Parliament, but what tha words in the section actually say.

Mr. KENNY (Cook} [5.21 p.m.J: I think there is a certain amount of right on the Minister • s side. I have consulted the parlia­mentary draftsman, who has shown me a copy of the Order in Council of 30th June, 1931, dealing with the matter, which we hwe not got on this• side. The contention of the Minister seems to be quite corr2d that this is an amendment of subsection :9) of st•<:tion 10. and, although the explanation that we have received from the hon. gentleman is not quite clear, it now -does appear that the clause deals with refunds.

Mr. DEACON (Cunningham) [5.22 p.m.]: The Minister is the person who should give an explanation of the provisions of the Bill, and not a member of the Opposition. It may be that the hon. member for Cook has been to the parliamentary draftsman and got the explanation which the Ministt:r has refu~ed to give; but we look to the Mnn"tcr to gwe that explanation. There is no stonewalling bv hon. members on this side. We want the position to be made quite cle•u. The parlia­mentarv draftsman is at the Minister's elbow, and the hon. gentleman can quite easily '"Y whether the explanation of the hon. member for Cook is correct or not.

Mr. G. P. BARNES (1T'arll'ick) [5.24 p.m.]: It is in the interests of the Minister to state dearly what is intended by the clause. The taxpayers of Queensland are also entitled to a clear explanation. We should not be asked to pa··s legislation that we do not thoroughly understand. An explanation is certainly due from the Minister.

Mr. TOZER (Gym pie} [5.25 p.m.]: Is the Minister prepared to say that the clause does not mean that taxation will be levied on the gross income? If it is to be so levied then it will be so heavy that it will not be po~sible for taxpayers to bear it. It is only reasonable that we should know what the clause means. The Commissioner of Taxes will interpret the clause as it stands, and not on the basis of intention. Why does the Minister object to saying that the clause does not mean that the tax will be imposed on the gross income? I ask him to give that assurance.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, Towns­ville) [5.27 p.m.]: The clause refers only to special payments to certain people, and has t;o general application.

Clause 8 agreed to. Clauses 9, 10, and 11 agreed to. Clause 12-" Additional sectionts 25A and

25B-Refunds; Assessments"-

Mr. R. M. KING (I agan) [5.28 p.m.]: Thii clause deals with cel'tificates of refund. It provides that no apvlication for a refund shal be entertained unless it !:le made before 30tb June, 1934. I see that the applicant has

Mr. R. 1l1. King.]

71() Q1wstions. [ASSEJVIBL Y.]

certain rights, and that they will be pre­served bY th0 extension of the Act. I think it wonlci meet the case if the proviso were elimmated, and I urge the Minister to con­sider that point.

The SECRETARY FOR LABOUR A~D INDUSTRY (Hon. M. P. Hynes, To,rns­rille) [5.32 p.m.]: The Act only operates for one yoa.r, and this will give a tweh~o months' overlap.

Mr. ROBERTS (East 'l'oowoomba) [5.33 p.m.]: l\i ow that the Treasurer is in his place, I would bring under his notice the rJuestion of refunds. Considerable dclav has taken place after a refund has been agreed upon b~: the Commissioner in sending out the cheque. I think such a refund should be paid within a fortnight at least. I have one particular case in mind.

The l'REMIER: That matter will be looked into.

Clausr> 12 agreed to. Clause 13-" Amendment of s. 36, Principal

.-lct-Exten.,ion of .-let "-agreed to. The House resumed.

The CRAIR>IAN reported the Bill with an a1uendment.

Third reading of the Bill made all Order of the Dav for Fridav next.

The Ho~sp adjourn:cd at 5.34 p.m.

Questions.