Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Council

WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE 1918

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Stamp Act [26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 511

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE, 1918.

The PRESIDENT (Hon. W. Hamilton) took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

PAPERS.

The fol!owing papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:-

Report by the Under Secretary for Public Lands, under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act of 1917.

Report by the Under Secretary for Public Lands. under the Closer Settlement Acts, 1906-1917.

QUESTION WITHuUT NOTICE.

:MEMORIAL FROM MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO HIS ExcELLENCY THE GovERXOR.

HoN. E. W. H. FOWLES: I would like to ask, without notice, whether the representa­tive of the Government has any knowledge us to when a reply may be expected from His Excellency the Governor to the memorial, or .address, which was prDsented to him by a Ja.rge number of hon. nwmbero of this Council in May last?

Hon. P. J. LEAHY : There might not be any reply.

The SECRETARY FOR MI~ES (Hon. "\.. J. Jones): No reply has been received from His Excellency, so far as I know; but, whDn a reply is given, it will be ma<de known to hon. gentlemen in due course, und at the proper time. (Laughter.)

STAMP ACT AMENDMEKT BILL.

SECOND READING-RESU:IIPTION OF DEBATE.

Hox. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: As hon. members know, this Bill was before us bst year, and wa" then rejected. I do not know that anything has occurred 'inc'' to muke us viDw it with any better feelings, . although the l\Iinister claims that, as the Government have been returned at the recent elections by a larger majority thun before, that is practicc:lly a': en~orsemont by the people of all the1r leg!Slatwn. I h<>vc alreadv said that I do not consider the result of the ole~­tions eau be regarded as an endorsement of the policy of the Government at all. Through fortuitous circumstanccd the;v managed to get on the top of the wave of anti-conscrip­tion, and they also got the German vote. 'rhosc two factors combined to put them in •again.

The SECRETARY FOR MIXES: 'l'he Germ~.u voie did not represent 3 ]H'r cent. of the "'lectors.

HoN. A. G. C. HA WTHOR~: It ·was a big enough percentage to give the Govern­ment a majority in a larg0 number of PlC'f'torates.

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: In six electorates. The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I know Liberal

candidates in the past who had their speeches printed in German and spr<ead broadcast among German electors.

Hon. A. A. DAVEY: There was no war on then.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Did the Labour candidates not follow suit?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I never was able to do it. I represented the Binjour Plateau at one time, and there were numbers of GDrmans there who could not speak English.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: How did you communicato with them if they could not speak English?

The SECRETARY FOR YI:INES : I took an inter­preter with me.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: That was just as good as getting your speeches printed in German and read to them. However, J do not consider that the electors endorsed the polic;-; of the Govmnment.

Hon. T. ::'\EVITT : 'I'hen, there is not much good in !"oing to the country.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: The Go­yernment had great luck through having cir­ctnnstanC'cs in their favour.

Hon. T. NEVITT: They put their poliay l•c·fore the ~ountry.

HoN. A. G. C. HA \VTHORN: They were not elcc•ed on their policy; I think th<' hon. member will admit that himself.

Hon. T. :NEYITT: Xo, indeed. I will not.

HoN. A. G. C. HA 1\'THOR::-J: The posi­tion was sonwthing like that at the previous election, when thev abo had a lot of luck. They got in on the cry that they would give the people of Queensland cheap food. IIaYe they done so? I say most unhesitat­ingly they ha' e not. Living is clearer now than ever it was, and I will quote from Mr. Knibbs in proof of that ae,ertion. Knibbs's statistics for last month contain the following statement, showing how the cost of living ha.s gone up:-

" During the month of May the aggre­gate prices of food and groceries, com­prif'ing forty~•,Jx commodities, increased in all the States except New South Wales and \Vestern Australia. Figures pub­lishr~d bv the Commonwealth Statistician for the" thirty principal towns of the Commonw<ea.lth indicate an increase of 0. 7 per cent. For the thirty towns, con­siderPd as a whole, there was an increase of 4.5 per cent. by compari·mn with May of last vear. The increase since the out­break tlf war was greatest in Queensland 138.3 per cent.), followed in the order uamed by Tasmania (36.4 per cent.), Vic­toria 34.3 per cenr.). New South \Vales (33.9 per cent.), South Australia (29.8 per cent.), and Western Australia (12.3 per cent.). Ta,kir•g the thirty towns as a whole, the increase in the cost of the commodities included amounts to 32.2 per cent. A comparison of prices in the different towns and States in May shows that they were lowest in Victoria and highest in Tasmama."

That shows that the cost of living has in­crPast'd moro in Queensland than in any other State in the Commonwealth since the outbreak of the v-;ar, and the present Go­Yernment have berm in power almost since th<• con•menoement of the war. A few n•onths after the war began they came in on a cry that they were going to roduce the cost of living, but they have the unenvi­able r<>cord of haYing made Queensland thP State where the greatest increase in the cost of living has taken place.

Hon. A. G. C. Hawthorn.]

51Z Stamp Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

Hon. E. W. H. FOWLES: 'I'he'<" are increas­ing the cost of dying, too, under the Succes­Fion and Probate Duties Acts Amendment Bill.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR :MINES : There are other figures than those.

HoN. A G. C. HA W'l'HORX: Knibbs's figures are acc~pted as reliable all over Aus­tralia. 'rboy a re acc.:pted by the Industrial Arbitration Court as reliable with respect to "he cc·t of living. I consider that the ta'<:ation proposals of the Government ar.• nb·:o:utely unjustifiable. \Ve declined to pass them hst year, and we then told the Govorn­mult that the,. would have to makP erds meet. Apparc>ntly thry did not do so, although they reduced their expenditure a little, boc1m~ thev wound up the year with a deficit of £417,000 as against tho deficit of £497,000 which they forecast earlier in the ye-ar. I, therefore, consider that we saved the State £30,000 by vot giving them this taxation last year. If they had had this wxation. they would haw spPnt all the money cmd still had a deficit of c";mething like £400,000 That happened in spite of the fact that they had an income of £427,500 in c·xcess of the income of the previous year, and as against a lesser income enjoyed by the previous Go.-ernment of £1.103"972. Yet they cannot moke ends meet They come to Wl and ask u" to allow them to go on with thP same old policy or extravagance. Of course, tlw position is somewhat different to what it was \ast year, because the expendi­ture has actually hPen incurred and the deficit is a reality. We were lenient with them last year and gave them the oppor­tunit,v of suspending th0 sinking fund, and 1Ye g ;,ve them permiFsion to issue Treasury bills for the last deficit of £250,000. Yet, in spite of our warning, they have continued the same old extravagant policy, neyer at­tempting to cut ·down expenditure or "to practise economy in any direction.

I-I on. 'I'. NEVITT: A minute ago you told us they had saved £80,000.

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'l'HOR::-;r: Simply because we would not give them the taxation they wanted. They had £427,500 in excess of the revenue of the previous year, but thev increased their expenditure for the year b:)· £592,000. They made no attempt to make ends meet, and now they ask us to pass all these taxation measures to enable them to make up the deficiency. If we do, what guarantee have we got that thE'y will try to do any better next year? Unfortunately, we are in a position that we do not know exactly how the present year will wind up, ~nd we do not know what their programme 1s for nf'xt year. Under all the circum­stances, the position is one that we have to consider very seriously.

. 'l'he SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Opposition m the other Chamber have a~reed to this Bill. "

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'l'HOR~: How could they do anything else with twenty-four against forty-eight? (L•aughter.) What would be the good of their offering any serious opposition? Directly they offer any serious opposition they are gagged.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: The country has agreed to this legislation.

[Hon. A. G. G. Hawthorn.

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'l'HORN: The country had noth[ng to do with it. The country did not know that this Bill had be,,n before u,o,

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: These measures were b<'fore the electors. They were a part of the policy of the Government.

Hox. A. G. C. HA W'l'HORN: They had been already 11assed out by the Council for the benefit of the electors.

Hon. \Y. H. DK\1AINE: And they pasesd them back <tgain.

HoN. ~'1.. G. C. HA W'l'HORN: I contend that they did not. There are several very objectionable features in this Bill. One of the most objectionable is contained in clause 7, which gives the Commissioner tremendous powers o£ imposition and oppression. He is entitled to appoint inspectors, and the clause provides that-

" Any inspector, upon receiving a general or special authority in writing in that behalf from the Commissioner, may require any person to produce to him for inspection all or any instruments. documents, or writings relating to all or anY business transactions in the pos­sesqioh or under the power or control of such person."

I say that that power is absolutely too big. It can be easily made the medium of a great deal of opprew,ion on people who are carr.Y­ing on business. I think the present pro­vision ic'i quite sufficient, which gives the inspector power, on being asked by the Commissioner, to demand the production of a specified document. He has the power to­go and get it. I am sure that the Minister. in accordance with his promise that he will consider reasonable amendments, will con­sider tho question of knocking out that clause.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The Commis­sioner of Taxes has a similar power.

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'l'HORN: Two wrongs do not make a right. It is an iniqui­tous clause to put in any Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: But you helped to give the Commissioner of Taxes that power.

HoN. A. G. C. HA W'l'HORN: That it is oppressive is borne out by the fact that the Commissioner in the past has sent his in­spectors to business places in Brisbane and demanded the production of all documents. He has not got them, because most of the people knew that they could only be asked to produce specified documents. That shows what might be done if this power wero given. I would seriouslv ask th0 Minister, if he is anxious to g<'t his Bill throug-h, to give us some intimation thHt clause 7 will he knocked out. It is one of thP most obje<'­tionable features in the whole Bill .

One of the oth'"r objectionable featurE's which have been drawn vttention to is thM all contracts of <'V<'ry kind mnst be sbmped. The wordin!l' of the clauses in the schedul<' is so broad that, no matter in what form a man sends an ordnr down from an'· remote part of Queensland. it has to be ~tamned. If it is not stamped he is under a penalty.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It has to be stamned now. The only thing is that we are-­modifyinl! that hv charging 6d. on e\'ery £20, instead of 2s. 5d.

Stamp Act [26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 513

IroN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I think that the tax in that respect ought to be brought into conformity with the New South Wales and English Acts. I will read the exemptions in the English Act presently. It allows the same exemptions as this Bill, and only charges the 6d. which the Minister proposes to charge under this.

The SECRETARY l<'OR MINES : Which clause are you dealing with now?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I am deal­ing with the schedule with respect to the definition of agreements. There are certain exemption3 made, namely-

" 1. Agreement or memorandum the matt.er whereof is not of the value of fivo pounds.

" 2. Agreement made between the Government and parties tendering for the performance of work and labour or the supply of materials used by the Government.

" 3. Agreement, whether under hand only or by deed, made in pursuance of the Workers' Coml?ensation Act of 1916 or any Act amendmg or in substitution for that Act.

" 4. Agreement made by any person and his employer with respect to his employment or the terms of his employ­ment or otherwise for any purpose under any Wages Act in force or hereafter to be enacted, where the wages or salary payable under such agreement, if received for a year, would not exceed four hundred pounds.

" 5. Guarantees given in connection with shipping documents for oversea goods only, during the term of the present war and for six months there­after."

In addition to that, the English Act goes on to provide a further exemption, namely-

" Agreement, letter, or memorandum made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise."

"'Alpe," in his "Law of Stamp Duties," says-

" A liberal interpretation has usually been given to this exemption, on the ground that it has been enacted in the interest of trade"-

That is exactly the position here-" and it ha.s been extended to agree­ments connected with the sale of goods which were not strictly agreements for sale."

He further says, Qn the same page (58)-" The words ' goods, wares, or mer­

chanclise' include all tangible movable property."

That is the same section which they have in New South Wales and West Australia, where the exemption is the same with re'l'ard to goods, wares, and merchandise. In South Australia. I understand, the exemption is up to £50. It is not a fair thing to the trading communitv to be put on a different footing to New South Wales. New South Wales has that exemption, and we should ren1ember England has it also. It has worknd very well, and it is in the interests of trade that it ehould be so. Tho·•sands of small orders will be sent in to the metropolitan merchants, and I do not think it is fair that they should have to put a stamp on

1918-2 K

every one of those. I hope the Minister, in looking into this, will agree to the insertion of an amendment of that kind. Those are the two points tha't bear most seriously and harshly, particularly upon the trading com­munity. There are other difficulties which are pretty great, but not so bad as those. I would draw particular attention to the cases where an agreement or sale note for the sale of a. property has to be stamped for the full purchase money. Up to the present, in connection with these agreements for sale and sale notes for the purchases of land, it has been held that the highest consideration should be the only one on which the docu­ment should be stamped. If a man bought a piece of land for £300 and it passed through different hands to the higher pur­chase money of £500, when the purchaser came to stamp the transfer at the Stamp Office he would be char'l'ed with a duty of 15s. per £100 on the £500. which would be £3 15s., whereas now, if there are three transactions, and eventuo lly the last pur­chaser pays £500, he will have to pay on each of the three transactions, and will probably hnve to pay something like £11 5s. instead of £3 15s.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : He should pay now. It is an evasion by not paying.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is nQt all! evasion. This is certainly not an encourage­ment to sales of land.

Hon. T. NEVITT: That is a speculation.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: It is not a speculation. I think it is only a fair thing that the duty should be paid only on the highest and last consideration.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Under this Bill duty will be paid on the agreement itself.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: On every one of them.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: What is the English law on that question?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I have not gone into it from the Engl sh standpoint. l am quite satisfied that the pQsition in Queensland should remam as it is at present and I think that the duty should not b~ increased in this way. However, that is a matter which affects particular:y the wage­e~rner. The man who is buying a s,nall r.wce Qf land and wanb to have an oppor­tunity of making a few pounds on his p:.~r­chase is going to be restricted, because he knows it. is going to cost him more. It is not a fair thing that directly a man pur­chases a. piece of land he should havo to pay the whole of the purchase money.

The SECRETmY FOR MINES: He pays duty m• the sale agreement.

HoN. A. G. C. HA vYTHORN: He might r,evor complete the purchase; he might never get the property into his own name.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It only pre­vents evasion.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I do not think it does.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: The average man do'·· not speculate in land. He buys '\ piece of land and builds on it.

HoN. A. G. C. H \ WTHORN: Yes; he perhaps pays 10s. deposit rn an allotment,

Hon . .A. G. C. Hawthorn.]

514 Stamp Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

and 5s. a month there&fter, and he does not want to pay his full stamp duty straight away. There is a possibility, if times e.re b~d, that he may never be able to complete !:Is bargain . Then the~e is the question of chattels pass­mg by ·del!very, and stock passing on the transfer of a leasehold, and the leasehold being liable to the same transfer duty as a freehold. I think things should go on as they are at the present time, and that if a man sells his leasehold and stock, he sh~uld only be chargecl on the cost of the leaseho:d. Anything pa:;sing by delivery should be allowed to go without a document. In the past it has always been the practice to charge. duty on the document, but here we are gomg to charge on the actual transac­tion, and I think that method is wrong. All -chattels which pa:;s by delivery should be free. In regard to settlements, at present the duty is 5e. per cent. all round but in the future it is going to be lk per 'cent. on £1,000. up to 5 per cent. on £9,000, which will bear very heavily on those who want to "·ttle their property.

Those are some of the minor objections to the' l3ill. But the two which, to my mind are_ the most objectionable are the inquisi: tonal nature of the examination by the in­.,pectors, and the fact that all contracts of <>very l~ind are to be stamped, without any -exemptiOn on goods, wares, and merchandise.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Do you object to duty being paid on a tranefer by gift?

HoN. A. G. C. IIA WTHORN: I do not think that should be done; but that is a less objectionable feature than the two I have mentioned The Minister ought to give us an intimation, if he is going to reply to our criticism, that he will accede to our request in regard to those two particular points. I am speaking for myself only; but, looking at the matter from a broad point of view, we must apparently have extra taxation. There is £500,000 to be met somehow, anrl !'he question i> as to how we can best meet it. Personally, I am certain that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, under it and the Succession and Probate Duties Bill there will be far more than £50,000 obtained by the Government. It is the same with 1·cgard to the Income and Land Tax Bilk The Government have put down their expec­tations too low, although they have not been averse to spending a lot more when the time came. In this particular instance they are doing the Ra.me.

Hon. T. NEVITT: Are they not the esti­mates of the officers of the d0partments ~

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Possibly they may be, but the officers of the depart­ments, to a large extent, like to meet the wishes of the heads of the departments. I thin], that the estimates are too low, and that they will be largely exceeded, and. in­stead of the Government getting £400,000 from all this proposed taxation, they will get a much larger increase

The SECRETARY FOR MIKES : Do you think it possiUe to estimate the increased revenue under a Bill of this character?

Hox. A. G C. HAWTHORN: I think they can get fairly near it, and I am. sure they have put it on a very low footing. I know from the way in which the department has been worked of late that they have

[Hon. A. G. G. Hawthorn.

found out a good many evasions, and got "' good many items of duty in that probably ha':e been neglec~ed in _the past. With that assistance and w1th th1~ measure they will get.~ m:xch larger amount than they are anticipatmg, I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the interests of the tradmg community generally, who are already oppre"se·d with taxation, and find it very difficult iu many instances to make ends meet. If they are going to hA oppressed with further taxation and harassed by the depart­ment, I think it is putting an un'air charge upon them, and one that should not be in­flicte-d at the present time. I hope the Minister will agree to an amendment on those two poinb.

'The SECRETARY FOR MINrs: I have pro­mised to give full consideration to each cl~use of the Bill when we get into Com­Jmttee, [Lnd I expect the a·~sistance of the legal minds of this Chamber

HoN. A. G. C'. HA W'IHORN: It would be much better, I think. if the Minister would intimate in what direction he is prepared t<> consider amendments. The two I have suggested are reasonable, and the Ministe~ should n:eet us in the interests of the trading commumty and of Queensland generally. The tracling community contribute a very large amount of taxation to the Government, and for thMe reasons we should make the incidence of this taxation as light as possible, and not oppressive.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I do not need to say ,-cry much on this Bill. I think that the most important clause is the one referred to particularly by the last speaker. There is no question that revenue is required, and that it will have to be obtained from somewhere; but it does appear to me that a most extra­ordinary process is proposed here, because there is a wry heavy and distinct tax on the trading community in clause 25, dealing with contracts. It seems to me that as things are [!oing now it would h' a very good thing ii we had unification. I have always, in the past, been opposed to unification, believing that a great State like Queensland cvuld be best governed by people who knew some­thing about its resources and its conditions; but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, by reason of the duplication of taxation, that it would be a very good thing if the various States were entirely swept away and the legislation for the whole country passed by the Commonwealth Government.

It also appears to me that the proposal contained in this Bill, and the proposals in

many other taxation Bills that [4 p.m.] have been preoented to us, are

ultra vires of the Constitution. Wh<m the Australian people agreed to a Commonwealth, it was inferentially under­stood that there would be equality of oppor­tunity amongst the various States. There was to be interstate freetrade; no one State "as to get any partocular advantage; there was to be no favouring of one State over another. Now, at the present time, business conc,'rns being carried on in Queensland are very heavily handicapped as compared with those in New South \Vales. I suppose it would be a fair estimate to sav that one­third of the business done by merchants in Queensland to-day is probably done upon promissory notes. Those notes have to be stamped. The Government get the duty for that, but, when the promissory note is signed

Stamp Act (26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 515

hy the client and returned to the firm, the f1rm in Brisbane has to send a receipt, But it is not money-it is only a promise to pay; nevertheless, they have to pay a very heavy stamp duty in acknowledging the receipt of the promissory note. In New South Wales they do not have to do anything of the kind. lf you are doing business there, you send down your promissory note properly stamped, or pay for the stamping, and you get a receipt marked, " Settled by promissory note so-and-so." but not stamped. Thereby, as a manufacturing community, we have been handicapped from the start, although I will say that at the present time Queensland manufactures, in my honest belief, are quite equal to the manufactures of anv other State. That is by the way, but I say that Wll started as manufacturers in the federa­tion at a distinct disadvantage. n was like a trained runner, represented by Victoria, running against mmeone who had just gone into training and entered into the race. Howevc,r, we have iust overcome all tho"e difficultie', and the Gowrnment come along with proposals from time to time which are further har;dicaps t<J this great young co[!ntry. Now, it is well known-I cannot assum0 that hon. members can be so i~;norant that thBv do not know it-that the business in Que<:'nsland is being competed for with the moot intense keenness bv Victoria and New South Wales and the other States. Quepncland business people have also become so enterprising and succC''Sful that they are to-day doing business in the other Shtes. ~\ lot of bu inc'SS is being done with the Northern Rivers. and on the interstate rail­way to Tenterfield, and in other places. Nearly all over New South \ValPs Queens­land merchants arB competing with those in the older States. But is it a fair thing to introduce and pass legislation which is a still greater handicap on business here? I sav it is not. I rqrrct I was so busy that I could not. as I intend0d, get some figurPs that would give an idBa of the actual ta'\:ation placed upon a Brisbane merchant in this respect as compared with a merchant in New South Wales. Is it a fair thing, considering all the advantages that the older States have over us. to place further taxation upon us, which really is an additional handicap? I say distinctly it is not, and I say, further, that I believe it is unconstitutional, and I am mre that, when the Federal Constitution wac; framed, it was intended that there should be no such thing as that. The Government profrc<s-and I would be willing to give them credit for it if they would give any evidence of it-to be interested in the development of the gTBilt resources of this State and of the secondary industries, which are of almost equal importance. in my judgment, with the primary indmtri<'s, and in the matter of <'mployment of labour are far more valuable, becau'e far more money is paid in wages in the secondary industries than in the primary industries. I recognise that the Government must have money, but let the Government d<evise some scheme which is not really a tax upon industry. \Vo want things to' go a,head and to be developed. and this is not the way to do it. If this Bill is passed with that clause as it is now, it will be an enmrrwu' tax on the industries of Queens­land and on the business houses of Queens­land. I say it is not fair, and it is not right.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : We are re­lieving them in some directions.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: I read a remark made in another place as to the support that the commercial community of Queensland had given to this Bill. As evidence, there was dragged in what was a jocular remark by Borne member of the Chamber of Manu­facturPs. It appears that they had under discussion some matter, and reference was made to the proposal in this Bill to reduce the stamp duty on apprenticeship indentures from £1 to 2s. 6d. It is stated-I did not see it in the report-that some member in­quired why the Legislative Council threw it out, and another member replied, " Out of pure cussedness," and the secretary is alleged to have said. " From force of ha bit," and laughter ensued upon those remarks.

The SECRETARY FOR MTNES: They were very annoyed cvident:y, judging by the report that I re~d in the " Standard."

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Those remarks were only jocular, but they have been used to try to prove that the members of the Chamber of l\1anufactnres were snch fools as to con­sider that this Council did wrong in throw­ing out the measure becau<;e in one particular instance, which was a verv small affair, the stamp duty had been reduced from £1 to 2s. 6d.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Their subse­quent action in voting for the Government showed that they were annoyed.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Very few manu­facturers, I think, voted for the Government.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I think so. At any rate, I do not suppose that, even if they did, thev are any more perfect than anybody else, and we must forgive them for their ignorance. I do not know how they voted.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: If you had heard th•cm speak, you would know.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: I have a rough idea, but I do not know positively how they vote?. At any rate, the Government are back m power and must get money, but my ad;-ice to them is to try some more just and reason­able meihod than is proposed in some of these clauses.

An HONOURABLE MEMBER : They might try to be economical. ·

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Of course, if they tried W'conomy it wou'd be a very great thing, but I am not expecting that the Go­vernment will be economical, because I do not think it is part of their plan. I want to enter a strong protest against the clause I have mentioned, and, if th~ Bill gets through the second reading, I hope an amend­ment will be made in that respect. I under­stand that the interpretation of this clause is that, if any order is sent down to a firm in this city from a cli~nt or a traveller, it becomes a contract.

Hon. \V. R. CRAo!PTON: That is so now.

HoN. A. A DA VEY: How does it be­co~e a contract? No Act of Parliament makes it a contract. Surely, it takes two persons to make a contract ! I cannot make a contract with myse,lf. I might make an agreement with myself, but it would be in rriv own mind-although I would not put it past the Government to try to t«x even t,hat. I understand, however, that the inter­pretation is that on every order s<;Jnt down stamp duty will have to be paid.

Hon. W. R. CRA!I!PTON: It has to be paid now-that is the interpretation.

Hon. A. A. Davey.]

516 Stamp Act fC:OUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY : That is not a eorn· men-sense interpretation, because there is no contract about it at all. They hav(J no right to enforce such an interpretation, because it takes two persons to make a contract. I am not a lawyer, but I have enough common sense to know that there must be two par­ties. If an ordr.r is sent down to a firm for execution in this city or any other city. and the goods are simply sent on, there is no contract about that. That is a sale, but not a contract.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If the merchant gives " price and you accept, there is a contract.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: You do not accept anything. Unless you acknowledge the order, unless you make it a contract your­seli by intimating to the customer that you have received his order and you arG pre­pared to carry on and do it at the price stipulated, there is no contract. But that does not take place with orders. As a matter of fact, when orders have corn(! in we have always sent out the goods to fill them.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: Supposing you send a price list?

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: If anybody made application for a price list, we would tell them that we do not issue price lists. As a matter of fact, a very large number of firms doing large business do not issue price lists. Some of the retail merchants who want to get their wares into the country do issue price lists, but my own firm, for instance, does not issue price lists.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Do you contend that, if a man sends an order for goods to the value of £20, stamp duty has to be paid on that transaction?

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I am told that that i 3 the interpretation.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Well, that is a wrong interpretation.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: What constitutes a contract?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If a firm sends a price list and they reply to that price list, that is a contract of sale.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises that it takes two to make a contract. I am only stating what a legal friend of mine, and one who knows what legal interpretations are, has told me, and what I have had given to me by business men.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If there is ;ony doubt, in Committee we can amend it in the direction I have stated.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : Sending an order is not a contract, even though it be carried out by the merchant?

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Of course, if we get an assurance that that is so, it would do away with my objection. My main objection is to anything which will have the effect of placing the commercia] community at a great disadvantage as compared with those in other States. They are already at a great dis­advantage by reason of the stamp ·duties that they have to pay.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : There must be two parties to an agreement.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I will give the Minister this case-because it will be well

[Hon. A. A. Dave,y.

for him to go into the matter and consider it before we go into Committee. A firm has its representative in the country-it is just as well to come right ·down to what will actually take place. One of those represen­tatives calls on a customer. They go into the sample room and make a selection of goods, and the customer orders those things. We all know what an " order" means. He gives the order to that traveller--

Hen. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: At a fixed price.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: At a fixed price­if you can give a fixed price. Under ordinary conditions you can, and do. That order is sent down to the firm. The firm, in accord­ance with the usual decent and orderly method of conducting its businees, acknow­ledges the receipt of the order. It has been customary to send out a notice something like this:-

"We beg to acknowledge the receipt of vour t'sleemed crdcr ,,; · uch-and-such a date for so-and-so, which has had our attention."

And they forwa.ro the goods accordingly. Is that a contract?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : That would constitute an agreement.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Well. that is what I am saying. Now, supposing the same order comes down, and the firm who receive it make no acknowledgment whatever, but simply take the goods off their shelves and send them out, is that a contract?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If you merely forward the goods, there will be no agree­ment,

Hon. A. G. r" HAWTHORN: Will you put that into the Bill?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is in the Bill now. That is the proper interpretation.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: I am given to U'lder­stand that the department int· -rpret it differ­ently. I am quite sure that the Government do not want to interfere with busim''', but they are going to interfere very seriously wttn business, and I do not know that they will do any good. As the Hon. Mr. Sumner interjected yesterday, it will all be passed on to the poor working man.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: If a firm sends out a price list and the other party agrees to the acceptance of that price list or any portion of it, and orders goods contained in that price list, that will constitute an agree­ment.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: Everyo1e has a price attached to the samples he subm.ts to his customers. Supposing an order is given from samples, and at a fixed price. and the repre­sentative of the firm sends down that order to his firm for execution, the Minister "ays that, if the firm courteously acknow'edges the order and tells the customer that they are executing it, that wiil constitute a con­tract. But, supposing the firm do not acknow­ledge the order, but merely send on the goods. will that constitute a contract?

Hoh. A. G. C'. HAWTHORN : The Ministu says "No" ; but is he prepared to put it into the Bill ?

Hon. T. NEVITT: The Minister said it was already in the Bill, and that was the proper interpretation.

Stamp Act (26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 517

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Then the Minister does not know what the interpretation of the department is, because they say that is . a contr<wt.

Hon. T. NEVITT: That is what the '\Iinister said, and he said it w~s already in the Bill.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Does the Minister {)Onsicler that an order which is executed without being acknowledJi,'ed constitutes an agreement?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Then it would not have to be stamped. The only acknowledg­ment a customer gets in a case of that sort is the receipt of the goods. If acknowledg­cllents of orders are to be regarded as con­tracts, then the Government are showing very littte regard for the welfare of the business community or for customers in the country. We know that at present, on account of the &hortage of material and labour, it is fre­.quently impossible to execute orders in many kinds of manufactures. We also know that. on account of importations being cut short by reason .of t~e lack of shipping, a great deal more IS bemg attempted in the State to meet the demands of people and a lot of new lines are being manuf~ctured locally. The result is that, where customers in the pa':t used to b~ able to get supplies of goods whlCh were bemg manufactured in three or four weeks, they have now to wait three or four months before their orders are executed. Supposing an order was given three months ago, and the representative of the firm said to the custo~er, " I cannot tell you definitely w~en you will get these goods. I believe it wrll ~ak:- l;!S thre:' months to supply them, but,, rf It rs P?RSible to let you have them ear her, you wrll get them." After waiting three months the customer does not get the goods, and he begins to make inquiries. It IS an exceptionally patiPnt man who does not make inquiries. long before three months have passed. hut this patient man writes to the firm, " With reg-ard to the order given to your re:>rrsentativr on such-and-such a date-ab.out three months ago-I have so far not recPJved .the. goods, nor have J received ·"PY commumcatwn from you. and I would hke to kr>ow whether mv ord!'r reached vou ·or .whether you intend to execute it." Yo~ write hack to your cuetomer. and say. "Your '()rder hM been rPcPived. and is now in hand. and we hone to f~rward thP g-oods to you in such-end-eurh hme>." \V0ulrl th"t c0nsti­tute an a grpement? That kind of thing happPns <'very day and all day.

T.he SECRETARY FOR MINES : That is merely saymg- th.at the forwarding oi the goods wiil be expedrted.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I asked the Min­istPr just now if an order that was sent down an~ not acknowledged, and the goods were ult1mately sent o':· 'Yould constitute an agree­men~,. and he said rt would not: but if. on re.cervmg an. order. a firm intimates to its diPnt that .'t has received the order. that would <'?nstrtute an agreement, althoug-h the only ohJP':t of woh an acknowledfl'ment is to let the ch.ent know that the order had not ~>een lost m thP nnst, because things are lost m the post nowadays.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: The Bill does not state what is an agreement at all.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: It should say what is an agreement, because that is what we want to know .

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The Bill inter­prets what is an agreement in accordance with the views of the department.

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL: The customs of trade should be taken into account.

Hon. H. C. JoNES: The law of contract lays it down-not the Stamp Act.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN : That settles it. Now we know all about it. (Laughter.)

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: Unless you happen to be engaged in business, these things do not come under your notice. I do not be!ieve the Government want to harass the busmess communitv at all, and if the Minister will come to ;Dy office at any time I will show him how the thing is going to work. You must either lay yourself out to evade the duty, or you must put your custo.mers to a great amount of inconvenience wrth regard to their orders.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The Bill does not say wh<1t constitutes an agreement.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that. if a. catalogue of prices is sent out and an order IS Rent down, "Your No. 237, Ladies' skirts at 9s. lld.­Please send us one,". that constitutes an agree­ment. Well how rs that an agreement or a. contract any more than if you have a repre- · scntative out to sell the stuff? In the one instance, you send out a printed sales!ll:'n, and in the other you send out a hvmg salesman. Yet the Minister says the living salesman's trar:saction is not liable to taxa­tion as an afl'reement. but the transaction in the case of the printed article-the dead cata­logue-is liable to taxation. That seems to me a most extraordinary position.

The SECRETARY FOR MI~ES : The position is, that a document must be stamped if it is an agreement.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: Well, we want to know what you consider constitutes an agreement.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : If it is an agreement in accordance with the law, then it should be stamped.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You mean, if it is an agreement in accordance with the interpretation of the department? The department does not always give a ruling upon the law, and a man m.ay. not care to fight if the department say It 1s an agree­ment and he thinks it is not. What we want to do is to get it defined distinctly.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The view of the department would be the correct one.

Hon. E. W. H. Fowr"ES: The Bill says that if it is a conveyancP of agreement, it has 'to be stamped-not if it is an agree­ment.

ThP SECRETARY FOR MINES : That is only legal phra,eology ; it is practically the same thing.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I am anxious to give the :Minister all the assistance I can to pass necessarv legislation, but, if a transaction involvecl" an agreement in the common acceptance of the term " agreement," I have nothing much to say against it. But, if you are going to make ordinary business

Hon. A. A. Davey.]

518 Stamp Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

transactions come under the definition of "agreement," although they are not agree­ments, I think it will be a great mistake.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : That is not the intention of the Government.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: I am very pleased to hear that, and I hope, when the Bill gets into Committee, if there is any doubt about it, the Minister will be willing to accept an amendment which will make it clear that the transactions to which I have referred will not be interpreted as agreements. If he does that, that is all I want.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Why make the Bill cumbersome by inserting unnecessary amendments?

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: That is not an unnecessary amendment. You must make it clear.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is clear now. HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I have already

pointed out that in Queensland we are already heavily handicapped in the matter of stamp duties as compared with New South Wales, with which we are in direct com­petition. If this kind of thing goes on, it will be a further very heavy handicap.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The agreements to which you have referred are liable to stamp duty under the present Act.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: Well, the duty has never been paid.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: You mean that it is held by the department that they are liable to stamp duty?

The SECRETARY FOR Mnms: We propose to reduce the duties. (Laughter.)

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: With all due respect to the Minister, I do not think that is the law at the present time. Of course it may be a debatable point. Lawyers ea~ debate any sort of question, whether there is any justification for a contention or not. Surely it is a simple thing to say whether the Government are prepared to exempt from stamp duty the transactions to which I have referred.

The _SECRETARY FOR MINES: It is really a Committee matter. Everv clause will be fully explained in Committee.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: They have not been fully explained on the second reading and they ought to have been explained. '

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I fully ex­plained the Bill. I was over half an hour trying to explain it.

Hon. F. T. BRENTNALL : If you bring in Bills of this kind, you must expect them to be debated in detail.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It is purely a Committee Bill.

HoN. A. A. DA VEY: I shall strongly sup. port the insertion of an amendment that will make it absolutely clear that the trans­actions to which I have referred are not agreements and are not liable to stamp duty, and I hope that hon. members on this side will be prepared with such an amendn1ent to place the matter beyond doubt. '

Hon. E. W. H. FoWLES : This is the same definition as in the original Act.

H<;m. A. s:-- C. ~AWTHORN: But they are puttmg a different mterpretation on it.

HoN. A. A. DAVEY: It is reasonable to suppose that, if stamp duty has never been

[Hon. A. A. Dave:y.

imposed on transactions of this class, the liability to duty does not exist. I hope the Council will, at least, refuse, even if it passes the Bill, to submit to this iniquitous proposal to place a further handicap on the industries of this young State.

HoN. T. M. HALL : Before the debate is closed, I would deal with this questiou very briefly from a purely commercial standpoint. I will admit that the Government are keen on sustaining the present industries of Queens] and as against competition from other States ; but, if an infliction is placed on the trading community in regard to stamp duties on small matters, such as has been mentioned by the Hon. Mr. Davey, it will drive a con­siderable amount of catalogue business to the other States. Indeed, at the present time,

a tremendous lot of business is [4.30 p.m.] being done by postal means with

New South Wales, and even Vic­toria, and, if it becomes necessary in order­ing from a catalogue to stamp the docu­ments it will m0an having a higher price placed on the goods here which the buyer will have to pay, which will divert trade from QuPensland to New South Wales.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: And it will eventually fall on the consumer.

HoN. T. M. HALL: Of course, it will eventually fall on the conmmer. The real question at iR'ue at the present time seems b be as to how far the interpretation which has been placed on this Bill by the outside public is correct. If that interpretation is correct, then it is going to inflict a lot of hardships on innocent men, and those who are not perhaps, as innocent as others will find so~e means of e.vading it. What we want to do is to have the meaning of the Bill so clearly expre"sed that there shall be no mistake about it. If we are to have taxation by these m-:ans, let us have i! in such a form that it will not place a handwap on this State as compared with other States. I am !oval enough to say that we ought to be place-d on the same footing as the other States so that we shall not be at a dis­advantage in our trading; and the wh?le question seems to circle round the questiOn as to whether certain articles are subject to stamp duty. I hope that in Committee the matter may be so ca~e~ully d_efined t!'at people will have no d1fficulty m !<nowmg where they are. At the present tm;e one has to keep a lawyer <.m. the prem!'les to know how far he is confl!Ctmg w1th the laws laid down by Parliament. It is the duty of the House to see that these matters are placed so clearly before the public that there can be no mistake about them.

·what has given rise to some of tJ:e com­ments '"hich have been made here th1s after­noon is the fact that the department have been approached about the interpretation to be placed on commercial travellers' orders, and thev have ruled that they are subject to stamp duty. These matters can all.be clearly defined in the Bill when we go mto Com­mittee, and, as we have the assurance that the Minister is prepared to accept amend­ments on thosfl lines. the difficulty can be got over · but I think that, if Queensland is to hold' her own in competition with the other States of Australia she will have to be more liberal in the treatment of those doing busi­ness here, as otherwise it will only drive trade out of the State. Of course, the other

Stamp Act (26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 519

phase which seems to be somewhat depress­ing to business men-especially to honest men·-is the fact that it will be competent for any person who may be appointed as an inspector in connection with stamp duties to obtain from banks and business houses information which it would not be desirable to make public. For instance, it would be a very serious matter to have circulated in the community information that a man's overdraft at a given period was so much, and was subject to certain stamp duty. . The SECRETARY FOR MINES: l am suggest­lllg an amendment.

HoN. T. M. HALL : I am glad to know that you are.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: That is only as to secrecy.

HoN. T. M. HALL: With regard to other matters, I can see the difficulty of collecting stamp duty in a case, for instance, where a man enters into a draper's shop and buys !f hat, for which he pays £1. He merely puts down his £1. The slip is made out and the cash is sent to the cash desk by !he ?Su~l "!'ethod. If that is to be stamped, It will mfhct a tremendous amount ot work and expense on the institutions which have to carry it out. In addition to that, you can take it from me, that the cost will be added on to the price of the goods purchased. Every properly conducted business calculates its expenses on the original cost of every article, and to that it adds the basis of profit that it proposes to make. All these little pinpricks in business are paltry, and the ultimate result of the taxation will be a very small amount in return for the incon­venience and trouble it will give. However, I hope that when the Bill goes into Com­mittee all these matters will be so closely defined that we shall have no person endeavouring to evade the law, and, once it is laid down clearly in the Bill, the administration of the department will then be quite within the reach of the men who are administering it.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: As two lawyers, a commercial man, and a taxation expert have spoken on this Bill, there is not much left for me to say.

Hon. W. H. DEMAINE: What class do you come in?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I do not belong to any of these clasees, and I do not belong to the ·same class as the Hon. Mr. Demaine either, I am glad to say. (Laughter.) There are a few observations which I wish to make, and as I know the Minister wants to finish the business quickly and get away to Sydney, I shall try to be as brief as possible. The first objection I have to the Bill is with regard to clause 7, which really gives any person representing the department a uni­versal and general warrant to go into a person's business and inspect all correspon­dence and documents of every description. It is true enough he is supposed to go in omly to inspect documents which are liable to stamp duty, but if the clause is passed in its present form, there will be nothing to prevent him from going into the office of a political opponent and seeing the corre­spondence he may have had with political unions or workers' organisations or anything E!lse.

Hon. H. C. JoNES: That is far-fetched. HoN. P. J. LEAHY: It is not far-fetched.

Supposing a person wanted to go into the

Hon. Mr. Jones's house, or some other per­son's house-! do not know whether the Hon. Mr. Jones is a single man or not, but I will as"ume he is-he might peruse his love letters. (Laughter.) There would be no restriction of any kind. I am showing the wide powf!rs that could bl) exercised under this clause. If there is a document that ought to pay stamp duty, let the department ask for it. If a man wants a telegram from tjle Postal Department, in a law case, he is supposed to ask for the particular telegram. We had a Supreme Court action some time ago in which the Government improperly got a large number of documents produced, and only applied for one. That is the kind of thing we want to avoid. WE) do not want such sweeping and inquisitorial powers. We are not living in Russia that we should do these things.

'l'he SECRETARY FOR MINES : l am suggest­ing a secrecy clause.

HoN. I'. J. LEAHY: A secrecy clause is not enough. Thes'l things are so bad that it is better to wipe them out completely.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Then, you had better wipe it out of the !!)come Tax Act.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Probably we will.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : You cannot wipe it out of this Income Tax Act.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Why not? The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Because we

are not amending it. (Laughter.) HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Two wrongs do not

make a right. I do not think we could have noticed the full effect of it in the Income Tax Act.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I think you argued in favour of it.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: No. It was probably passed over, or we might, perhaps, have had more faith in the Government and its officers at that time.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : You were in the Assembly at that time, and did not miss much. (Laughter.)

HON. P. J. LEAHY: As regards the appeal that has b10en made to the Minister to accept fLmendments, I trust the hon. gentle­man will be reasonable. So far as I am concerned, if there is anything which I consider unjust in the Bill-and I suppose other hon. members are just as strong as I am on the matter-! will insist on making those amendments, whether the Minister approves or disapproves of them. I was very glad to hear from the Minister that this is not a taxation measure, because that giVEl.S us very much larger power than we might otherwise have cared to exerci&e in the matter of making amendments if it was a taxation measure. He told us the object of the Bill was not taxation at all. Inasmuch as it is not really a revenue Bill, I take it that there is no part of the Bill that is sacred from amendment, and that we have a per­fect right to make amendments wholesale, accepting the dictum laid down by !;he Minister.

Passing to one or two more of the obje~­tionable features of the Bill, I come tu t!!a~ part which treats the sale of a property and live stock ao. if they were one. I have not studied the Bill as carefully as I woul·d like to have done, but I take it that this Bill will not only app:y to the sale of a station

llon. P. J. Leahy.l

520 Stamp Act [COUNCIL.) Amendment Bill.

with stock. or a grazing farm with stock, but that it will apply to the sale of a dairy farm with live stock aloo, so that it will hit not only the big man but also the little man. 'Vhat seme is therA in taxing a man who eells his leaseho:d or freehold together with the stock, both upon the property and the stock, while another man who removes his stock and sells them separately is only taxed upon his land? Would not a man be justifi~d in ende'lvouring, as far as possible, to sell his 'tack separately? If he were to sell them sc,parately under this Bill, he would have to pay no tax.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : It prevents evasion.

HoN. P. J LEAHY: Does the Minister contend that if a man sends a number of cattle from Queensland over the border, he would be taxable under this Bill?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: No.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: If he sent them into New South Wales, he woul·d not be taxable under this Bill; and because he sells them on his own place with his land, is there any greater reason whv he should be taxable than when he sells them on the road?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: It is when it is the one tran;;action. It prevents a vendor from vaming his land very low and his stock very high.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: As a matter of fact, it is an unfair way of getting revenue. If a man is doing anything dishonest, there are metho·ds by which that can be ascertained. The Minister can get some competent man to go and value his property.

Hon. T. NEVITT: You would not give us the power.

HoN. P J. LEAHY: Yau have sufficient power under the existing law, and if the Minister requin•d this power, the Bill of iast year would have been of no use to him. At the present time, in probate and otltet matters, if the Commissioner is not satisfied with a valuation, he gets a valuation by a competent man. There is nothing to prevent him from doing it. It is altogether unfair to say that, in order to prevent unfair valua­tions, you are going to have a check of this kind, which will tax people to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds. I cannot help thinking-whateYer the Minister may say­that that is the real object.

The SECRETARY FOR l\!IINES: No; that is not the object of the Bill.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Why is it proposed to tax a man who sells the cattle on his station and not to tax the man who sells them as they are travelling? There is no justification in either case.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : He will not he taxed under this Bill if he sells the stock separately without the lease.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: No, but he will be taxed if he sells them together. Supposing a man has a dctiry farm with 200 hel!!d of cattle and a lea ehold, and he sells to the same man the leasehold at 6o much and the stock at so much, will he be taxable under this Bill? I think he will.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: Yes, if it is one transaction.

[Hon. P. J. Leaky.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: But, supposing he sells them on separate occasions, will he be taxable? The Minister suggested a moment ago that he will not. If the Minister would make it clear that he can sell his farm at so much, and the stock at so much, as separate transactions, most of my objections to this particular claU3c would vanish. That is what I want to get information about.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : 'I'he opinion I expressed is correct.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: The opinion which the Minister expre&c,ed was that if a man sold 100 cattle and hie grazing farm separ­ately, taking £500 for the cattle and £100 for the lease, he would not be taxable under this Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: He would not be taxable; the transactions are separate.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: All I can say is that the clause will have to be amended to mah;e it very clear that what the Minister says !s correct. I only want now to touch very briefly on the matter that was dealt with so well by the Hon. Mr. Davey. There can be lio doubt at all in my mind that, if the Bill were to become law, it would put people at a great disadvantage as compared with those in New South Wa.les, because every trader quite legitimately will endeavour-and, prob­ably, will succeed in most cases-to pass this thing on to the consumer, and if the con­rumer can go to New South Wales, where they are not harassed in this way, it stands to rea~on that he will not send his orders to the Hon. Mr. Davey or the Hon. Mr. Bcirne, heoause he can get goods as cheap there as he can in Queensland. And here we have a Government who profess to act in the interests of the public, but they are deliberately acting to drive business out of Queensland.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: In what way?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: By providing that, if a man quote'" you a certain price and you reply, you make a contract which is liable to duty. The same man sends orders to New South \Vales and there is no such stamp duty there.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: \V e are not altering the l&w in that respect. The Hon. Mr. Fowles agrees with me that there is no difference between the present Act and the Bill.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I have always been told that law that is not paid for is no good. I do not know whether the Hon. Mr. Fowles is right or not, but I do know this much­and I have given some attention to this matter-that it was never intended that the law should have placed upon it the inter­pretation which the officials have put upon it, and the fact that I am right is shown by the further fact that no previous Govern­ment took that view of it. So I do not admit for one moment that that is the interpretation put upon the present law, and I say that, in effect, this is some­thing new that the Government are doing. Then, again, clavse 37, page 16, deals with policies Df insurance. Under the existing Sta,mp Act a policy of insurance fm g-oods tD be carried by sea or land is charg<'d 3d. as stamp duty, whatever the value. Under this Bill the duty will be 3d. per cent., instead of 3d. on each policy. For example, ta.ke at the

Stamp Act Amendment Bill. [26 JUNE.] Popular In·itiative, Etc., Bi-ll. 521

present time an open policy for £10,000. 'l'he duty under this Bill will be 25s., or 100 times the present duty.

Hon. H. C. JONES: It is 3d. per £100 now.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: They are increas­ing it 100 tine'', and I suppose th.;t this Bill is in pursuance of the general policy of the Government to confiscate property without paying for it.

Hon. G. PAGE-HANIFY: That is too slow a pn~cess.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Of course, it is too slow for the Hon. Mr. Page-Hanify. If that hon. meu1ber W<Jre to have his wav he would "onfiscate everything at once, an'd without any payment whatever. At any rate, he would confi,cato the property of anybody who had a larger bank balance than himself -I do not know what he would do about -others. I do not wish to go into detail any more, but clearly this Bill is of a most harassing nature. The Minister admits it is not intended to bring in much revenue. It is a Bill which, he says, is in the interests of the community. and, as the Hon. Mr. Fowles <>r the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn pointed out. the original object wa;; the advantage of the trading community and not bringing in revenue at a'!. \Vhat do we find? That the eommercial community are up in arms about it, because, although they are to get relief in ono or two minor matters that are not really worth considering, in other matters the provisions of the Bill are inequitable, harsh, haraHing, and irritating, a.nd, indeed, very crushing in their incidence.

Hon. T. NEVITT: Nothing more?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY:I could have gone on a good deal further, but I like to measure my words. I take it that if there is any one of th0 taxation measures which should be .amended, it is this. Hon. members have said that it is a Bill which we ca.n take into Committee.

The SErRETARY FOR MINES: Will you take it into Committee to-day?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I cannot imagine bow we can take any Bill into Committee to-day, because we have had no opportunity of preparing amendments, and nobody knows better than the Minister that some amend­ments must be framed which will take a g-reat deal of time.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: Pass it if he is prepared to meet us on clause 7.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Regarding inspectors? We are meeting that with an amendment.

Hon. A. G. 0. HAWTHORN: Secrecy? That i" no good.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: Well, we will talk n,bout that. I know the Minister is very reasonrrblr, nnd I have no doubt that, if he gets the Bill into Committee, he will go as far as he can, and, if he does not go as far as we ·want him to go, we shall have to insist on expressing our views, and leave it to people in " another place" to further con­sider the matter. Do I understand the Minister to be willing to meet us with regard to these travellers' orde!·s and other things mentioned by the Hon. Mr. Davey?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Yes, because the Act is not being altered in that direction.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: You will meet us in that direction? That is one thing.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I say the Act is not being altered.

Hon. T. M. HALL : Is the administration being altered-that is the question?

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: I have no doubt that, if the Minister will meet us on that, and possibly on a dozen other points, we can come to an understanding.

Question-That the Bill be now read a second time-put and passed.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I movs­That the committal of the Bill be made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next. That will give hon. members ample time to pre­pare any amendments they may think nece.•­sary to improve the Bill. I hope they will be amendments that will improve the Bill, rather than amendments that will have the effect of having the Bill lost altogether.

Hon. P. J. LEAHY: Do we not always im­prove Bills?

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I hope the Minioter will, in the meantime, endeavour to make some compromise to meet us on these two particular points. We are all anxwua tu assist him if we can, but we have got to consi-der the general body of electors in Queensland, and more particularly the mer­cantile community and others who are de­pendent upon them, and I hope that he will try to make some arrangement whereby we can come to an agreement

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I will certainly take into consideration the speeches which have been made on this Bill by hon. mem­bers on that side.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I am sure that if the hon. member does, being the rea'Jonable ma.n we usually find him, he will try to a"siet us. But there is no question, as emphasised by the Hon. Mr. Hall, that we are placed at a very great disa-dvantage as compared with New South ·wale~, who have that particular exemption of duty on agree­ments of which I spoke. They get a very large amount of our trade, and we want to try to keep that trade if possible.

HoN. P .• T. LEAHY: During the speeches we have made reference to the same matter which the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn has mentioned now. I do not know exactly what is sug­gested or intended. Does the Minister mean to meet some of us, or that he will consider the matter and decide what amend·uents he is prepared to make in Committee?

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I shall have an opportunity of discl!ssing it with my colleagues on Tuesday mornmg beforP we go into Committee, and I will consider the speeches that have been made.

Question put and passed.

POPULAR INITIATIVE AND REFEREN­DUM BILL.

FIRST READING.

On the motion of the SECRETARY FOR MlNES this Bill, received by message from the Ass~mbly, was read a first time.

The second reading was made an Order of the Day for Wednesday next.

Hon. A. J. Jones.]

522 Land Tax Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment Bill.

LAND TAX ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

SEruND REAl>rNG--RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: To my mind, of the different taxation proposals brought forward by the Government, this is by far the most objectionable. It will prove, if carried, the most onerous and the most damaging to owners of property and to the State, result­ing not only in considerable depreciation of the value of private property, but also of the public estate. This proposed super tax, if added to all the other taxes upon land in existence at the present time, will make a tremendous imposition, and, as I have said, there will be a considerable reduction in the value of landed property. It must be borne in mind that freehold land was bought from the Crown originally, and the Crown received payment for it. A great deal of that land is lying at the present time unimproved and unimprovable. When I say "unimprovable," I mean that it is not capable of improvement at the present time, because there is no demand for it, either for sale or for lease, or in any other way, and so the proposal of the Government to levy an additional tax on such land is a most unreasonable and unjust thing. It is like asking a man to pay something out of nothing. In the case of income tax, unless there is some income, there is no tax, but in the case of unproduc­tive land it is a different matter.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Whv should he lock it up? Why not utilise it a'nd make it reproductive?

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: But what if you cannot utilise it? I know of lots of land in our district which cannot be utilised, because the population has not increased sufficiently to make a demand for it.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : We do not tax land, but the value of land.

HoN. G. S. CURTIS: It is a most unre.1-sonable thing that the State should ask a man to pay a tax upon the amount of mane1· which the Government receive in the first

instance for the land. If the Bill [5 p.m.] passes its >econd reading and ge•s

into Committee, it should '"""" tai~ly ?e amended in the direction of I!JVIag relief m respect of unproductivn land llil·1

~]so in respect of highly improved lanrl ~;1i-:o!1 IS no! giving an adequate return. 1 know a highly improved property which is not bringing in more than 2~ per cent. or 3 per cent. To levy a super tax on a property like t~at will be a great injustice. I think that tughly 1mproved properties which are not bringing in at least 5 per cent. should be exem].ted from this super tax. There ar•l many 1mprovcd prop,,rties which are not bringing in anything like an adequate return. In fav. wmro of them are really a loss to their c·wners by reason of the heavy taxatro•J !mposPd upon them.. Heavy land taxation 13 a very bad advertisement for Queensland. I cannot conce>ivo any worfe advertisement fer the country If it goes forth to the world that the po !icy of the Government includes h8a vy _land taxa.tion of a confiscatory char· acter, mv,•stors m other countries are likely to fight shy of Qu<eensland. I cannot con­ceive of a coantry haYmg a worse reputation, or ono calculated to do it more serious damage with investors, than for it to go forth to the world that that country is adverse to the ownPrship of freehold land <tnd that its policy is to confiscate the valu~

[Hon. G. S. Curtis.

out of freehold land by means of land taxa­tion. Not only will the owner of land suffer inconvenience in having to pay the tax, but the property will suffer a reduction in value by reason of this increased taxation, so that the landowner will be hit in a double way, If the Bill passes, it is likely to do injury to people engaged in business and others who have obtained advances from their bankers or from financial institutions on the security of their landed property, as it will reduce the value of those securities. If the Bill is passed, banks and financial institutions will review their securities and see whether there i 3 a sufficient margin for the advances; and, if the margin is insufficient, in their opinion, they will either ask for additional security or ask for a reduction in the amount of tbe advance, thereby causing a very considerable amount of inconvenience and trouble. In addition to damaging the property o~ indi­viduals, such attacks will seriously damage the Crown lands. I do not suppose more than 5 per cc.nt. of the public estate in Queensland has been alienated, so that some­thing like 95 per cent. of the Crown lands still remains in the haH<ds of the Government, and if any of those lands should be placed upon the market in the future, it will be found that they have depreciated in value b,t reason of this increased taxation. I hope that, if the Bill is allowed to pass its second reading, certain reasonable amendments will be accepted by the Government. Personallv, I am of opinion that the proposal is unjusti­fiable, coming on top of all the existing taxes. It will certainly penalise the owrwre <>f property to a. tremendous extent, and will depreciate the value of their properties.

HoN. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: I cousidc'~ this a Bill with which we can more pro­perly deal in Committee, but I would just like to say that if we pass the second read­ing, it is not to be taken a's an indication tLat we are going to allow it to go through Committee without attempting to make some alterations in it. The Hon. Mr. Curtis has spoken at length, and we may, therefore, allow it to pass its second reading on the distinct understanding that certain amend­ments will be made in Committee. The Minister has already intimated that he will consider reasonable amendment<, and . if those amendments are inserted. the Bill will be, passed in a less harsh and arbitrary form than that in which it has been submitted to us.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: I am sorry that the Government have decided to resort to such a tax as this, considering that only about 5 per cent. of the land in Queensland has been alienated. Unquestionably, large landownnrs will be affected very seriously bv the P'ts•a<re of this BilL T1n"nre I sit down I will show that some properties which will be <ubject to this heavy impo t are not rr'turning 3 per cent, on their canital value. Within the last three months a Queen-street property was sold, and the price was not within £150 per foot of the price obtained for that property previously. Some few weeks ago the City Council actually increased the valuations of some land in Queen street. How they arrived at that dE>cision I do not know. I could understand the aldermen say­ing, "\Ve require more money, so the rates must be increased," but, it is beyond my comprehension why they increased the valua­tions in many instances by as much as £20 and £25 per foot. It has often been pointed

Land Tax Act (26 JUNE.] Amendment Bill. 523

out that, if a man feels aggrieved at his valuation, he has the right of appeal. I had always been. under the impression until lately that an ordmary appeal might cost from £50 to £100; but. when l came to inquire into it the other: day, I found that '.'-n appeal on a property m Queen street or Wrckham street would probably cost £500. It is, therefore, not ren1arkable that there have not been many appeals in the past. I would like to refer t_g one Queen-street property, which cost £6,500. That property returns a rental of £430 per annum. Against that return h~ve to be set. the following items of expen­<hture :-Reparrs, £74 14s. 6d.; insurance £21 10s. 10d. ; municipal rates, £88 6s. 3d. { Federal land tax, £19 13s.; State land tax, £63 Ss. 9d. ; Federal mcome tax, £38 4s. ; State income tax, £6 19s, 6d. That left a I". et return of only £117 3s. 2d.

Hon. A. G. C. HAWTHORN: There is not much of the " fat man" about that.

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: No. The return on £6,500 was only 1.80 per cent. On top of that, there is this new tax to come, and there will no doubt be a heavier tax to come from the Commonwealth. As I pointed out last night, people arc likely to got rid of property if they can find a better investment. Perhap' it may not be, altogether patriotic to put the money into the Commonwealth loan; but if the owner of this property were to put t,he £6,500 which he paid for the pro­perty into the Commonwealth loan at 4~ per cent., it would give him a return of £292 10s.

The SECRETARY FOH MINES ; But yesterday you said that was the reason investors are doing that.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: They are doing ~t :. you a_re .driving ~hem to it. I do not say rt rs patrwtrc to do rt, but if a man Is gomg to httve his property confiscated-and it is nothing more nor less than confiscation-you cannot blame him if he seeks some redress.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES ; The next thing Y<;U will tell us is that they are helping to wm the war by putting their money into the Commonwealth loan at 4~ per cent.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: Perhaps I shall. I oonnot quite understand why, because a man puts his money into landed property, he should be penalised more" thttn a man who puts it into some other source of income, and, perhaps, obtains his money from his own personal exertion. If a man makes an in­oome from personal exertion of £1,000, he will pay a State income tax of £34 10s., a Federal tax of £34 16s. 6d., and the super tax of £4 10s. He will ptty altogether £73 16s. 6d. If you take that from £1,000, it will leave £923 3s. 6d. If he obooined an income of £1,000 from freehold improved property, he would get a very much smaller amount than that. I fail to understand why there is that large difference. I want to show what a man htts to pay on ,a freehold pro· perty, the gross rental of which is £1,000, taking the valuation of the land at £4.600. He pays for municipal rates, £156 12s. 4d.; insurance, £35; maintenance and repairs, £50. He is exempt from Federal land tttx. The State land tax will be £85 2s. ld.; Federal income tax, £29 3s. 4d. ; and State income t .. x. £33 13s. ?d. His net income will be £610 8s. Sd. Why should that man have to pay £389 lls. 4d. on an income

produced from property, as against the £70 odd on the income he produces from personal exertion? Then, again, there ,are all the other taxes to follow on the top of that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The income from property comes to him more readily and with less work than by personal exertion.

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: I want to refer to the case of a widow who thirty-five years ago ]eased a large portion of land in the best part of the city. The lease contains a. pro­viso that the tenant pays the mumcrpal rates. With a Federal land tax and the State land tax she has practically no income at all frbm that property, and the lease has several yettrs to run yet. I consider that a very hard case. I believe that that par­ticular case has come before the Commis­sioner. There is another case ot a man, about seventy-eight years of age, who has £5.000 invested in landed property, and ttfter he pays the Federal income tax, the State income tax, and the State land tax, all that is left is £78 12s. a year. That is his total income. What will he httve ttfter the other taxes come along? There will be little or nothing left.

Hon. G. S. CuRTIS: His property will be confiscated.

Hox. A. H. PARNELL: It is a slow form of confiscation.

Hon. H. LLEWELYN : Cases of that kind will not come under this Bill.

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: Yes, they will; the value of the land is over £5,000. The buildings are old, and require a lot of repair­ing.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES ; It must be overvalued.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: I know the land is worth under £2,500.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Why does he not sell it and remain httppy for the rest of his life?

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: This Bill will prevent many people from selling their pro­perty. People are not going to put money into landed property when there is a pros­pect of heavier taxation coming along. The form of valuation is wrong sometimes.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : I quite agree· with you there.

HoN. A. I-I. PARNELL: I oon point to a case which occurred in a town in Queens­land. There was a choice allotment there, which was valued at £200. Some gentleman came along who had plenty of money and took a fancy to it, and he paid £800 for that allotment, which was valued at £200, and the ttdjoining land was not worth any more. Is it right, where a sale takes place like that, that the valuation of the whole of the adjoining property should be raised on that basis? In manv c<1ses that is done. I might point out that ittnd in that town in an opposite direction was sold by the Hon. Mr. Curtis at £RO per foot. ancl that hon. member rerkonPd th"t the !Hnd was given away at that price. The owner held it for some years. Higher up, and nP"rer the centre of the town, a more valuable tt!lot­ment was sold for £25 a foot, but wh!'n the owner came to appeal, the policP mag-istrate

Hon . .A. H. Parnell.]

524 Land Tax Act, Etc., Bill. [COUNCIL.] Adjournment.

refused to alter the valuation, though in both ,cases. the land was put up at auction, and in one mstance brought £50 and in the other £25.

Hon. G. S. CURTJS: The land at £25 a foot was the more valuable of the two.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : The court can­!'ot increase the value; it can only reduce It.

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: The man who g>ave £50 a foot thought his valuation should come down to £25, and, I suppose. the owners of the adjoining allotments thou.,.ht the oome thing. "

Hon. T. NEVITT: Yet vou opposed our valuation of Land Bill. .

HoN. A. H. PARNELL: There was a lot l~ing J;>enc':th that Bill. From one point of vrew, rt m1ght be a very good thing not to have municipal councils and the State mak­i?g separate v.aluations, and, at the same trme, the Federal Government coming along and making another valuation.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : That was agreed to by the Federal conference.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: If that had been the only thing in the valuation of Land Bill this Chamber would have accepted it but there was a lot more behind it. '

I think, from another point of view the State is going to looe a large amount ~nder a Bill like this, when it will not onlv reduce the valuation of property all round "but will prevent sales taking place. How ~any sales a.re taking place in Brisbane at the present time? The land ma~ket is practically dead. ~hat are you gettmg for stamp duties? L1ttle or. nothing.; and you will get less still when this taxatiOn comes along with the other taxation which is to folio>~. I know that, to some extent, the Minister is reason­able. As the Hon. Mr. Hawthorn pointed out, the Bill will pa.ss. its second reading, and I hope that the Mmrster will be rensonable in accepting amendments. One amendment which I would like to see passed, and I think it is reasonable, is that property which only show~ a net return of, say, 5 per cent should be exempt. I fail to see why the State should come in and take every shilling that property produces.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES : Such an amend­ment would discourage the proper utilisation of land. We are after putting land to its proper use.

HoN .. A. ~· P ARNELL: I am talking about highly Improved land. You sometimes turn round and say that land is not improved right up to its value ; but what encourage­ment has a man to improve land up to its highest valw~? Take some of the finest buildings which have been erected in Bris­bane during the last five years. Some of the offices in them have never been let. I have noticed that one of the best shops in

the city has been empty for a [5.30 p.m.] long time. I have come down

here and gone back, and come down again, and still that shop is empty. Only a reasonable rent is being asked for it. The rents and taxes go on just the same. When you come to look closelv into this Bill, you find that it is nothing" more than confiscation. I sometimes think that hon. members hardly realise that it means

[Hon. A. H. Parnell.

confiscation. Now, whether the Government really mean that or not, whether it is part of the programme of the Labour party that the man who has put the whole of his life's earnings into land should be taxed entirely out of it or not we do not know. I hardly think they mean that.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I can assure you on that.

HoN. A. H. P ARNELL: I hone that, when the Bill pas''es the Sl'!cond reading and co":es before us next week in ComYnittee, the ~Iinistcr will be reasonable and accept an amendment on the lines I have indicated.

HoN. T. M. HALL: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

Question put and passed.

The r."umption of the debate was made an Order of the Day for Tuesday next.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I beg to move-That the Council, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday next. The first busi­ness on Tuc,day will be thP Stamp Act Amendment Bill in Committee, and then the Income Tax Act Amendment Bill in Com­mittee, to be followed by the second reading of the Succee,ion and Prnbete Duties Acts Amendment Bill, and the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill.

Question put and passed.

ADJOURNMENT.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES: I beg to move-That the Council do now adjourn.

HoN. P. J. LEAHY: There is just one word I have to say with regard to that. The Minister knows as well as anyone what a difficult matter it is to prepare amend­ments on the Bills before the Council. It may be that the order of business which he has announced for Tuesday will have to be departed from. For instance,· we might ask him to take the second reading of the Succes­sion and Probate Duties Acts Amendment Bill firct. I take it he will meet us in any reasonable way. We are not endeavouring to delay him.

The SECRTI;TARY FOR MINES: I think the order of business may be altered to suit the convenience of hon. members, but I hope hoTJ. members will cons'der my convenience. (Hear, hear!) \Vhile I am on my feet, I we>tdd like to mention that someti nes it is difficult for me to agree to the suggestions of hon. members for the alteration of bu,iness. For instance, the other day I moved the second reading of the Chillagoe and Ethe­ridge Railways Bill, and immediately after­wards had to follow with my second reading speech on the Land Tax Act Amendment Bill, for which I was not at all prepared. It was due to my general knowledge of land value taxation that I was able to make out a case at all.

Question put and passed.

The Council , adjourned at twenty-five minutes to 6 o'clock p.m.