Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 1954

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

1198 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

FRIDAY, 5 NOVEMBER, 1954.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. .J. H. Mann, Brisbane) took the chair at 11 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS.

Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr. Speaker:­

Government Loan Bill.

Friendly Societies Acts Amendment Bill.

Maintenance Act Amendment Bill.

Factories and Shops Acts Amendment Bill.

QUESTIONS.

VALUATIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY AREAS.

ltir. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Opposition) asked the Secretary for Public Works and Housing-

'' In reference to completed valuations under the Valuation of Land Acts, and dis­regarding the possible effect of objections or appeals, what are the total valuations, respectively, for each Local Authority Area (a) before and (b) after the valuations under such Acts~''

Hon. P. J. R. HILTON (Carnarvon) replied-

" Local Authority. (a) I (b) ----

£ £ Albert .. .. . . 415,849 596,771 Beau desert .. .. .. 891,916 1,683,273 Boonah .. .. .. 520,769 1,918,464 Brisbane .. .. . . 26,541,243 62,498,229 Bundaberg .. .. .. 521,022 1,762,424 Caboolture .. .. .. 397,381 636,898 Cairns .. .. .. 867,593 2,468,371 Calli ope .. .. .. 359,048 822,872 Eidsvold .. .. .. 211,010 365,533 Fitzroy .. .. .. 397,930 982,719 Gayudah .. .. .. 252,899 612,196 Gladstone .. .. .. 154,750 415,591 Goobnrrum .. .. 251,021 475,405 Goondiwindi : : .. .. 88,499 232,494 Isis .. .. . . .. 296,479 540,697 Kilcoy .. .. .. 261,994 397,266 Kilkivan .. .. .. 15,448 1,075,589 Kingaroy .. .. .. 474,792 1,324,931 Kolan .. .. .. 344,219 440,486 Laidley .. .. 293,837 868,921 Landsborough · .. .. 558,596 1,342,609 Livings tone .. .. . . 708,980 1,605,202 Maroochy .. .. 689,724 1,587,311 Maryborough: : .. .. 548,284 1,625,998 Miriam Vale .. .. .. 270,308 491,093 M onto .. .. .. 397,912 1,031,422 Moreton .. .. . . 694,663 1,151,885 Mulgrave .. .. 1,135,679 1,670,773 Mundubbera : : .. .. 232,005 585,502 Murgon .. .. .. 219,705 481,304 Nanango .. .. .. 341.771 659,151 Perry .. .. .. .. 122,124 266,517 Pine .. .. .. 305,722 664,710 Redcliffe .. .. .. 847,305 1,965,090 Redland .. .. 255,073 406,469 Rockhampto,; · .. .. 1,663,472 4,755,336 South Coast .. .. .. 1,168,660 1,563,945 Tiara .. .. . . 181,557 402,469 Widge~ · .. .. .. 434,371 988,252 Wondai .. .. .. 489,374 1,059,795 Woongarra .. .. .. 294,975 623,242

Questions. [5 NovEMBER.] Land Tax, &c. Bill. 1199

Local Authority Areas Valued Twice under Valuation of Land Acts.

(a) Local Authority Value. (b) First Valuer-General's Valuation. (c) Second Valuer-General's Valuation.

Local Authority. (a) ---

(b) I (c)

£ £ £ Cambooya .. 317,600 439,395 1,314,357 Chinchilla .. 436,59811,130,926 2,455,981 Clifton .. 385,395 583,020 1,825,953 Crows N~~t .. 375,642 444,906 976,795 Dalby .. .. 132,727 204,797 877,410 Gatton .. .. 340,446 570,635 1,049,292 Jondaryan .. 648,530 1,662,215 5,374,177 Millmerran 376,266 967,953 2,259,779 Mount M organ: : 70,595 65,969 100,864 Murilla.. .. 289,148 749,575 2,281,840 Pittsworth .. 421,115 795,996 2,759,470 Rosalie .. .. 552,175 1,093,547 2,752,571 Tar a .. .. 281,173 1,117,607 3,060,861 Taroom 383,839 1,059,850 1,168,201 Thursday Island. 24,113 23,244 35,285 Toowoomba .. 1,171,665 2,765,787 6,294,182 Wambo .. 842,697 2,379,087 7,736,103"

T.B. X-RAY UNIT.

lUr. MADSEN (Warwick) asked the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs-

"In reference to the mobile T.B. X-ray unit operating in country areas,-

1. When did this unit commence operations~

2. What localities has it visited to date?

3. How many X-rays have been taken~ 4. How many T.B. sufferers have been

discovered by such unit~ ' '

Hon. W. M. lliOORE (Merthyr) replied­" 1. The Mobile X-ray Unit commenced

operations in August, 1953. "2. The localities visited were:-

Ipswich, Rosewood, Boonah, Nambour, Gympie, Maryborough, Howard, Bundaberg, Gladstone, Mt. Morgan, Biloela, Rock­hampton, Ogmore, Yeppoon, Maekay, Proserpine, Collinsville, Bowen, Home Hill, Ayr, Townsville, Charters Towers; Railway '\Vorkshops at Ipswich, Rock­hampton, and Townsville; Meatworks at Rockhampton, Alligator Creek, and Ross River.

'' 3. There were 80,510 X-rays taken since the commencement of operations.

'' 4. There were 64 bacteriologically proved cases (.8 per 1,000)."

PROCEEDS OF COMBINED STAII.'E SCHOOLS CONCERT, TOWNSVILLE.

llir. AIKENS (Mundingburra) asked the Secretary for Public Instruction-

'' Will he inform the House if the net proceeds from the excellent combined State Schools Concert held in Townsville on 21 October last were sent to the Education Department in Brisbane, and if so, for what reason or purpose~''

Hon. G. IL DEVRIES. (Gregory) replied-

" The proceeds of the Combined State Schools Concert held in Townsville this

year have not yet been sent to the Education Department. The money is held in trust and assistance to Teachers of Music therefrom is available as and when required. ' '

PAPERS.

The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:-

Report of the Secretary for Public Instruction for the year 1953.

Report upon the Operations of the Sub­Departments of Native Affairs, "Eventide" (Sandgate), "Eventide" (Charters Towers), "Eventide" (Rock­hampton), Institution for Inebriates, (Marburg), and Queensland Industrial Institution for the Blind (South Brisbane).

The following papers were laid on the table:-

Order in Council under the Landlord and Tenants Acts, 1948 to 1950.

Order in Council under the Profiteering Prevention Act of 1948.

Order in Council under the S1.1preme Court Act of 1921.

LAND TAX ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION IN COMMITTEE-RESUMPTION OF DEBATE.

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Clark, Fitzroy, in the chair.)

Debate resumed from 4 November (see p. 1154) on Mr. Walsh 's motion-'' That it is desirable that a Bill be intro­

duced to amend the Land Tax Acts, 1915 to 1952, in a certain particular.''

Mr. SKINNER (Somerset) (11.8 a.m.): Many sections of the community grumble and complain about taxation and the incidence of taxation in its various forms, but govern­ments all over the word are charged with the responsibility of raising funds to carry out works and services for the community in the interests of the development and progress of the State. For instance vast areas of land are required for closer settlement purposes involving a large expenditure annually by the Government.

In its various forms, taxation has been universally accepted as the only means of raising :finance to carry on essential govern­mental services. Every hon. member knows that no longer are the Queensland Govern­ment the major operators in the field of taxation in this State. In 1942 taxing powers were assumed by the Commonwealth Govern­ment, with the result that this Government are now to a great extent compelled to rely for their revenue on income tax reimburse­ment from the Commonwealth Government.

The Treasurer's Financial Table discloses a total expenditure in 1953-1954 of approxi­mately £128,000,000, the money for which was obtained from Consolidated Revenue, Loan Fund, and Trust and Special Funds. I ask hon. members to consider what the State received

1200 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

from the Commonwealth Government during that period by way of income tax reimburse­ments. We received £22,716,813, which left this State with the responsibility of raising £106,000,000 to carry on essential services and developmental works. Education alone involves an expenditure of £9,000,000, which gives some indication of the money that is expended on non-productive services.

During the same period-that is, 1953-1954 -the Commonwealth Government levied the people of Australia as a whole an amount approximating £890,000,000, but they returned to the States, by way of income tax reim­bursements and special grants, approximately £142,500,000 only, made up as follows-

£ Queensland 22,716,813 New South Wales 56,285,547 Victoria 35,000,000 Western Australia 11,34 7,145 South Australia 12,240,757 Tasmania 4,831,602

An analysis of those figures shows that the Commonwealth Government retain for their own purposes approximately £748,000,000, almost 84 per cent. of the total revenue collected in taxation. If the Queensland Government are to, provide any relief from present forms of taxation, or abolish any of them, the Federal Government will have to adopt a policy of financial justice to the States, instead of :allowing them only 16 per cent. of the total Commonwealth revenue. The Queensland Government had to find an additional £106,000,000 for essential services. The Commonwealth Government are not extending financial justice to the States.

Let us examine the other side of the picture. Complaints have been made that the Queens­land Labour Government have done nothing to give relief. During the war years alone, land tax on undeveloped land >ms waived because of landowners' inability to carry out adequate improvements because of a shortage of labour, material, and equipment. The tax on undeveloped land was abolished in 1942, and never re-introduced.

In 1951 the exemption on town lands was raised from £300 to £500, and in 1952 to £700. The landowner got a further benefit by the non-issue of assessments under 10s., so that the effective exemption was £819. No one could deny that that has been of great value to the working-class people with homes on allotments of 16, 24, or 26 perches. The Treasurer reminds me that the increase in the exemption was far more than commen­surate with the depreciated value of the currency.

In 1951 the exemption on rural lands was raised from £1,500 to £1,700. In 1952 it was lifted to £1,900. These facts show that this Government have adopted a sympathetic attitude towards the land-holders of this State and they haYe endeavoured to the best of their financial ability to relieve the burdens on the landholders.

The hon. member for Rockhampton referred to the political hypocrisy displayed by members of the Opposition parties. He

pointed out that in 1929 the Opposition vociferously claimed that, if returned to power, they would abolish the land tax. The people have not forgotten that promise that was broken. When returned to power the Moore Government failed to do what they condemn the Labour Government for not doing. They had control of the Treasury benches for three years and during that period they collected not less than £1,000,000 in land tax, which, considering monetary values today, was a very large sum.

Much has been said about the effect of increased Yaluation'. I wish to deal with the position in my electorate. The Esk shire revaluations were to take place in July, 1954. 'rhe graziers and farmers in that area came to me when they heard the valuations were to be made in 1954 and told me that they had been told by my political opponents from the platform that when the new land valuations were given effect to they would be further handicapped by greater burdens of taxation because the Government were going to take into consideration timber and mineral rights on the property. That information was given to the people of my electorate. I throw that false state­ment back in the teeth of the Opposition. They were responsible for it. So firmly was it implanted in the minds of graziers and farmers in my electorate that I had great difficulty in convincing them to the contrary. I was not able to convince them until I came to Brisbane, saw the Secretary for Public ·works and Housing and the Valuer-General and asked for a statement so as to convince the people that what they had been told was not correct. I got the statement and I circularised it amongst the graziers and farmers in my area. I had it published in the local paper for the people to read so that they would not be misled by the political propag~nda of the Opposition. It was do~e for one purpose only and that was to dis­credit me and through me, the Government that I had the honour to represent. Hon. members opposite are not doing the peo:ele in the country a service when they deliber­ately mislead them, as my constituents were misled about the revaluation of lands.

lUr. Sparkes: Come up and see a few constituents in my electorate.

~Ir. Walsh: He would tell them the truth.

~Ir. SKINNER: Whenever I speak from the platform, and I do that as often as pos­sible, I try to be factual and honest. I present the true story.

If I had not been able to secure the considered statement from the Valuer-! Ge:neral for publication and to circulate in my electorate, the people there may have been taken in by the misrepresentation. Having read this circular they knew t~e true position, and they were very loud m their thanks. They appreciated the fact that the revaluation was to be on the unimproved value of the land alone and that timber and minerals were not to be taken into consideration. In many areas along the mountain ranges behind the Brisbane River

Land Tax Acts [5 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1201

there are virgin stands of hardwood timber, but the people know now that this valuable timber and the mineral deposits in the areas will not be taken into consideration.

lUr. HILEY (Coorparoo) (11.27 a.m.): The hon. member who has just resumed his seat told us that it is his practice to be factual and truthful. It is a pity he did not observe his own homily over the last 25 minutes, because the case he presented was based on a fallacy. Having mentioned the financial requirements of this State, he deducted from it the Commonwealth tax reimbursements, and then told us that Queens­land had to find the rest. That was a fallacy and misrepresentation. Did he tell the Chamber that part of that £106,000,000 comes from the Commonwealth Government through the Loan Fund W Did he tell us that part of it comes from the Commonwealth Govern­ment through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement~

Mr. Walsh: It does not come from the Loan Fund.

~Ir. IIILEY: It is part of the £106,000,000.

lUr. Walsh: Loan moneys are raised on behalf of the States.

lUr. HILEY: Very well. Do the Government say the same thing in regard to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement~ Do they say the same thing in regard to the Commonwealth Roads GranU Do they say the same thing in regard to the Common­wealth contribution to local authorities roads grant~ Do they say the same thing in regard to the Commonwealth contribution to national fitness costs~ Do they say the same thing in regard to the Commonwealth contribution to the sinking fund in respect of the State's debts~ Do they say the same thing in regard to the Commonwealth's con­tribution in respect of interest on the public debt~

If Government members are going to talk about honesty, it would be better if they tried to practise it.

Let me clear the air on the question of Land Tax. It is obvious that this tax is becoming mainly a revenue tax. The special purpose for which it was designed originally is now forgotten. It is also quite clear, and in this regard the Treasurer was correct in his statement to this Committee, that the tax is still mainly a city tax. That is where the main burden of it falls, bui it is equally true, and this is what the Treasurer did not tell us, that the burden is becoming a disproportionately increased one in regard to the country lands of this State, simply because when the last adjustment of exemptions took place there was created a grave disproportion between the increased exemptions on country land and city land.

~Ir. Walsh: That is not so. Does that apply to Queen Street~

lUr. HILEY: On the proportion of increased exemptions, the same money value was applied, but not the same percentage.

~Ir. Walsh: Would you say that the exemptions in the city or country had any effect at all on Queen Street values "I Of course they did not.

lUr. HILEY: The bulk of the Queen Street land is held by companies, and com­panies do not get the same degree of exemption.

It should be said that it is becoming a general revenue tax. The treasurer is perfectly right in saying that under 5 per cent. of the total land area of the State is subject to land tax. Less than that pays it.

)fr. Walsh: No.

~Ir. HILEY: I did not say it pays, but it is subject to land tax.

~Ir. Walsh: It is held under freehold tenure.

lUr. HILEY: Yes, but less than 5 per cent. pays it because of the exemptions. Something well under 5 per cent. of the land area of this State pays roughly £1,000,000 in land tax.

JUr. Walsh: That is true.

Mr. HILEY: When we come• to lease­hold lands representing something over 80 per cent. of the land area of the State, excluding lands held in occupation by the Crown in Crown service and referring only to land passed over under Crown leasehold for occu­pation by people, we find that the land tax paid last year was £1.7 million. We can make all the allowance we like for the quality of the land. No-one will deny that by far some of the most valuable land in the State is in the principal streets of the important cities. We can make all the allowance we like for the fact that the man who holds freehold has outlaid capital whereas the man who is occupying leasehold merely pays a rental but it is still clear that there is a very grave disproportion in the contribution to general revenue between the small area of freehold land and the very vast area of lease­hold land. Whether one is too high and the other too low, I do not know, bnt I do say there is very grave inequity between the rela­tive contributions of the two classes of tenure.

Jlir. Walsh: Because of what?

~Ir. HILEY: Because of the basis upon which taxes and rents are levied.

lUr. Walsh: valuations.

Because of the new

lUr. HILEY: It is true that the new valuations are one of the factors. Another grave inequity is the progressive application of the valuations. The Treasurer cannot deny that the man whose property is in a shire that was revalued two or three years ago i~ treated most inequitably compare~ with ~he holder of a similar freehold block m a slnre that has still to be valued. When the Bill was introduced for the revaluation of the lands of the State we were told that the valuation of the whol~ State would be completed within a very short period, an~ I raise~ no protest against these progressive valuatwns because

1202 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

I hoped that the valuation of the State would be speedy, but the snail's pace at which it is proceeding suggests to me that it ia quite possible the valua tions will not be completed within a generation. It also indi­cates that some people will have been paying land tax while others might not be required to contribute for 20 years. That fairly reeks of inequity. It demonstrates clearly that the progressive application of valuations is one of the worst evils of present land-tax practice.

It is my conviction that there is still, in the present application of land tax, an inadequate penalty on failure to use land properly.

lUr. Aikens: Are you in favour of the proposed graduated scale f

:ilir. HILEY: It could not be applied, but just as the penalty is inadequate for failure to use land properly, so is there a Yery real penalty on the full use of land in many cases. We should deplore that. Surely the purpose behind land occupancy in this State is to encourage good husbandry and the proper and full use of land~ We should reward good Jmsbandry instead of punishing it as we do in many instances. We put our hands too lightly on the man who makes part use of his land and we do the same thing with relatively more weight on the shoulders of the man who is fully, intelli­gently, skilfully, and profitably using his land for the good of this State.

The next comment I make is that the graduation in the present scale of rates is very bad. The rates apply too high, too early, and the exemption is far too low. I man with £4,000 of taxable value becomes sub­ject to super tax and pays a total rate of 6~d. Another man can have a taxable value of £75,000 and pay only lOd. It is a bad graduation. If the graduated rates are to achieve the purpose of breaking up big estates they should hit with severity when the aggregations become large. Nobody could suggest that it is a detrimental scheme of graduation if a man with £4,000 of tax­able value attracts a rate of only 6!l;d. when a £75,000 taxable value attracts only lOd. If a man has £500,000 of taxable land he attracts a rate of only lOd.

lUr. Aikens: You are at variance' with the hon. member for Aubigny on that point.

Mr. HILEY: The hon. member for Aubigny will not shield the man who does not use his land properly but at the same time he does not want to see the man with a bare living area paying high rates of taxation. That is the inference to be drawn from the present scheme. The present amendment is not likely to move mountains. The Treasurer puts a value on the amend­ment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4,000.

Itfr. Walsh: The actual assessment last year was £3,628.

:ilir. HILEY: On that point I say that I do not think anybody can measure what the amendment will mean. I think it will mean a great deal more than £3,628. If that fact pleases the Treasurer he is entitled

to be credited with it, but I shall tell him why I think it will mean more than that sum. I have been preparing land tax returns for people for all the years I have been in public practice and because standing timber was not a relevant factor, not one land tax return from my office shows as a component element of the property, the value of standing timber, if it is a natural stand. That I am assured is the common practice with the great majority of people who pre­pare land tax returns. The Commissioner of Land Tax does not know the hidden factor of the value of stands of natural timber and countless returns in his office will not show it. Nobody has taken the trouble--

Mr. Walsh: He will agree that he has not been getting what he is entitled to.

}fr. HILEY: Wait a moment. Do not let the Treasurer pull the wool across our eyes. Take a grazing property with immense stands of timber that is sold for £15,000. The value of the fencing, the cultivation, the homestead, the dips and yards are assets and are taken off, and the difference that makes up the £15,000 is called the unim­proveu value.

Itir. Walsh: Standing timber is not taken into consideration.

:ilir. HILEY: It is left in the total purchase price.

:ilfr. Walsh: It was not considered in the total. The value is not put in the return as such.

:ilir. HILEY: Exactly. That is some­thing which favours the department and is against the taxpayer. From now on every return going from my office will show the figure of the standing timber. It \Vill be a deduction from the assessed value of the property.

:ilir. Walsh: We will reintroduce' it if that is the case.

}fr. HILEY: This is not going to simplify the administration of the depart­ment or simplify the convenience of tax­payers. The Treasurer will find that on every occasion when a property is sold upon which an important change takes place in the standing timber, there will be a duty put on the taxpayer to protect his own interests by notifying the fact and striking a fresh value for the residual value of the timber on his property.

I doubt whether the concession that the Treasurer has spoken of will ultimately prove to be a very welcome step in the administra­tion of the department. I suggest that the department will have and infinite number of extra figures to assess, because in the past people have never troubled to put down a figure for standing timber, which they will do in future. I believe the Treasurer is in earnest in thinking he is giving some con­cession to the taxpayers, and probably he is giving them a bigger one than he thinks he is. Heayen forbid that I should ever deter a Treasurer who is trying to benefit the tax­payers. Let us pat him on the back and

Land Tax Acts [5 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1203

see how it works out. I suspect that administratively it will be quite a problem to deal with the multitudinous stands of timber, to assess their values, and to change the values every time a few acres are cut.

Finally, it was when the exemptions were last varied that the greatest inequity in land tax practice was occasioned. At that time the Treasurer tried to give the same measure of money exemption to country lands as to city lands, but he failed to apply the same proportion. That is how the inequity came about. I agree that the heaviest financial burden of land tax still rests on city properties. No-one can deny that. The Treasurer says it is the banks and the breweries who suffer most, and no-one can deny that. However, the effect of the new valuations and the new exemptions has been to weight the scales a little heavier against country lands than city lands. The Treasurer would be wise to look at the real effect of the relativity of exemptions as between country lands and city lands, and consider whether he is not in fact imposing a relatively heavier burden on lands in the country than those in the city.

Hon. E. J. W ALSH (Bundaberg­Treasurer) (11.43 a.m.): The hon. member for Coorparoo has brought up some matters that I must admit are relevant to the debate. In the first place he had something to say about the speech of the hon. member for Somerset. I think the hon. member for Somerset, who has not had the same experi­ence as many other members of the Conunittee, particularly those on the other side who claim to understand rural problems, made a very intelligent speech. It was one of the best speeches I have ever heard from this side of the Chamber, and it dealt with a subject with whicl, the hon. member could not be expected to be very familiar.

The hon. member for Coorparoo and the hon. member for Cunningham spoke about the relativity of values in the various local authority areas. I admit there was a lot in what they said, but I remind them that the position is no different today from what it was before the Valuer-General started to value local authority areas. At that time there were 134 local authorities each with Its own valuer, whereas now there is one central valuing authority.

An Opposition Jllember: There was nothing like the same difference then.

lUr. W ALSH: What is the hon. mem­ber's justification for saying that~ I know that when I was a member of a local authority, the area controlled by the Maroochy Shire Council had probably the highest values in the State. Is there any reason why land in the Maroochy shire should be valued at an excessively high rate in comparison with other local authority areas which, although they may have different industries, have higher production values~

Jllr. Hiley: That is quite right, but it is merely arguing that two wrongs make a right.

JUr. W ALSH: The position now is no different from the position previously.

Jllr. Hiley: It is worse in degree.

lllr. W ALSH: Anomalies exist and will continue to exist. In some near areas, such as the Downs where transport facilities enable quicker ~aluing than in western areas or some coastal areas, local authorities have had a second valuation by the Valuer· General. Hon. members on the professional side of business will have some understand­ing of the difficulties of getting experienced, practical officers, who cn:n. undertake this work. Many local authonhes have to rely on the local commission agent who, because of his knowle<lge of local conditions, has been approved as a valuer by the Valuer­General.

Jllr F E. Roberts: The valuation does not ~ak~ any difference; it is the rate.

Mr. W ALSH: That is true. As t~e hon. member for Nundah says, the rate IS the important matter. The ho~. member for Aubigny said yesterday that with new valua­tion the W ambo Shire Council reduced the rate from 10d. to 3d. in the £1. It is quite possible that many people who were paying 10d. in the £1 previously would pay the same amount at the three-penny rate. Many others would be relieved to some extent because their values were adjusted on a proper basis. In Brisbane suburban areas, even some not far removed from the centre of the city, some land-owners pay reduced rates because of lower valuations.

Jllr. Sparkes: It would be a curiosity to find it had been reduced.

lllr. W ALSH: I have said before that the hon. member is interested in a bullock and a qmd.

lUr. Hiley: Nothing under a tenner.

lllr. W ALSH: I know from my exper~­ence as Secretary for Pub.lic Lands a~cl Irn­gation that he has beautiful propertws and he is a very good Crown tenant too. He uses his land to the fullest extent. 11y quarrel is that he does not want to pay a reasonable rental for it.

As the hon. member for Coorparoo pointed out valuations might be affected on unde­vel~ped lands. In the older countries, p~r­ticularly England, rate~ for local authonty purposes are based on Improved value. That is the position even now. If we l;ad t~at svstem imagine what city properties w1th all their improvements would attract .. Wh:re values were fixed on rental values, Imagme how much they would be paying. It would be far in excess of what they pay today.

lUr. Jllorris: If it was on an improved value. it would be a very much lower per­centage.

Jllr. WALSH: How does the .hon. mem­ber make that ouH A man w1th a block of land without any improvements must bene· fit as aaainst the man with improvements, if rates "'are based on the improved value.

1204 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The hon. member for Somerset was quite right when he said the Government had sus­pended the payment of tax on undeveloped land. That suspension has prevailed for 10 years. Even though it might amount to £10,000, we have not sought to collect it because the cost of collection might be very considerable; it is not worth chasing. If the amount goes up we certainly maJ get a few more pounds out of it.

Much has been said about the effect of land tax. Any charge placed upon the land can be said ~o be a tax on production, whether by way of mflated value, the local authority rate, or land tax. Yesterday the hon. member for Aubigny referred to the case of a man who owned 800 acres, who had to pay £350.

Mr. Sparkes: I got that from the Minister's department.

JUr. WALSH: My office·rs have not been able to find any case of a landholder paying land tax on 800 acres as stated by the hon. member.

Mr. Sparkes: 800 acres at £20 an acre. What is the land tax.

lUr. W ALSH: I shall not give the names of the people. I got my officers to look up the schedule, and they have not been able to trace the case of a landowner with the actual figure of 800 acres.

lUr. Sparkes: 800 acres at £20 an acre. I rang your department to find out the tax and they told me it was £350.

Mr. W ALSH: Of course the department would give that information. I shall quote a case that is near enough to the case men­tioned by the hon. member. I refer to a transaction concerning 301 acres.

.lUr. Sparkes: He would not pay land tax, surely.

lUr. W ALSH: This was part of a sub­division. This man owned approximately 1,182 acres, and he sold 301 acres which are shown in his return at £27·11 nn acre. That was the owner's valuation and the Valuer­General's valuation was £19.93. The owner of the property sought to sell the land to somebody else at a price in excess of its real economic value, therefore the person selling the property would be putting a far greater impost on the property than the department would put on it. . That has happened in thousands of cases.

lUr. Sparkes: On your own finding the man would still pay £350.

ltir. W ALSH: I am not saying that he pays £350; I go as far as to say that he would pay more. On the residue of 880 acres he paid £369 Ss. 4d. The point I make is this: this property was sold at £8 an acre in excess of the value determined bv the Valuer-General, so there is no ground for complaint about the valuation placed on it by the Valuer·General.

~Ir. Aikens: In other words he assessed his own land tax.

l\Ir. W ALSH: Of course. When you pay the rate of interest on that over a

period of years it amounts to a substantial sum. The 301 acres, having been subdivided, was sold at £27·11 an acre and it was valued by the Valuer-General at £19.93 an acre. Here again the seller was prepared to extract an additional £8 over and above the Valuer-General's value, and the purchaser was prepared to give it.

Mr. Sparkes: He would value it unimproved.

Mr. W ALSH: This is the unimproved value that I am speaking about. Does the hon. member desire to know all the figuresf An area of approximately 301 acres was sold for £10,525, apportioned as follows: Unimproved value, £8,162; standing crop, £2,363, which means it did not have any structural improvements on it. Probably the only improvements were fences.

JUr. Sparkes: And water.

Mr. W ALSH: It was a subdivision of a property of 1,182 acres and obviously the owner of the property retained the portion with the homestead. I could instance dozens of similar cases.

lUr. Sparkes: In what way does it vary from the information I gave~

I\Ir. W ALSH: It varies in the same way as the correct information varieS' from the statement of the hon. member for Cooroora that the local authorities were paying the full value of all these valuations. In regard to that statement I brought figures into this chamber which showed that the Land Tax Commissioner was paying two-fifths of the amount. The hon. member for Aubigny mentioned a property of 800 acres. My office staff have not been able to trace a property of 800 acres .

I\Ir. Sparkes: The Treasurer has men­tioned a property of 800 acres.

lUr. W ALSH: 881 acres. Evidently the hon. member for Aubigny haS' some hypo­thetical case.

lUr. Sparkes: It is a real case.

I\Ir. W ALSH: He might have telephoned the department, saying, ''I have a property of 800 acres valued at £20 an acre. How much would I pay in land tax~'' Any hon. member on this side of the Chamber could ring up and say, ''I have a property of 300 acres valued at £50 an acre. How much should I pay in land tax~" The department would always give that information.

l\Ir. Sparkes: Does the Treasurer think that there are no properties up there valued at £20 an acre~

Mr. W ALSH: No, and I dare say the·re are some valued at more than £20 an acre. I say too, that, if the correct values or the real values were taken into account, the figure would be higher.

The hon. member for Coorparoo claimed that rural areas attracted a disproportionate amount of land tax. That has arisen in recent years because of the valuations under­taken by the Valuer-General's Department.

Land Tax Acts [5 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1205

The action taken by that department has exposed the plot of the land monopolists of this State in the rural areas. For many years they have ben getting away with low values and low rates, and at the same time have been coming cap in hand to beg for greater subsidies from the Government.

Mr. Hiley: That does not answer my statement.

Mr. W ALSH: I am not suggesting it does, but it is one phase of it and I do not think the hon. member fo; Coorparoo can get away from it.

~Ir. Hiley: I deny it.

lUr. W ALSH: If the hon. member for Coorparoo too~ into consideration the city areas from wh1ch land tax is extracted and the productive value of those areas in the form of. services to the community, if it was po~s1ble to make that calculation, and set agamst that the value of production on rural areas, I think he would find that the value of production in rural areas would be greater than the value of services in the city areas from which we collect about 62 per cent. of the land tax of the State.

~Ir. Hiley: Infinitely greater.

Mr. W ALSH: That is so. In those circumstances, how can there be a squeal about it, especially when it is considered that the Government, in regard to the railways an.d other forms of government service, are bemg asked continuously to give subsidies and grants in this direction and that direc­tion to aid rural industries~ Where do Opposition members think we are getting the money to assist rural industries in that way~ Obviously the fund must be estab­lished in some way, and we are not going to tax the workers who, after all, make tlwir contribution in the prices they are called on to pay for the commodities.

lUr. Hiley: It does establish the fact th.at land rents on leasehold land compared w1th land tax on freehold land are negligible.

lUr. W ALSH: I am not going to dispute that point at all. As a matter of fact, I made the observation in this Chamber some years ago that perpetual leaseholds are exploited as far as sales are concerned to a greater extent than freehold lands. Crown land on perpetual lease was being sold at a greater value than freehold land in the same area. The leaseholders were geting more for their land, and at the same time were not called upon to pay any tax.

}lr. Hiley: That happens every time.

}lr. W ALSH: By an amendment of the Federal Income Tax Act, leaseholds no longer attracted tax in respect of the unearned increment in the case of a sale.

In other words, they could speculate to the fullest extent in leaseholds, make as much profit out of them as they could and there was no way of levying even income tax from the unearned income. There is a good deal to be said in favour of leasehold as against freehold, and it is a mistake to suggest that

a perpetual lease runs for 99 years. It is not even for 9,999 years; it is a lease in perpetuity on an equal ba&i~ with freehold, with the exception that leasehold does not attract land tax while freehold does.

The Government are not unsympathetic on this question of land tax in rural areas, but until we can get a complete picture it would be farcial for me to bring down any proposal for an increase in the present exemptions. Until we can have a complete examination I do not propose to make any further amendments.

~Ir. PLUNKETT (Darlington) (12.2 p.m.) : The Treasurer ended by saying that he is very sympathetic to the people in the rural areas. He might be, but his Government are certainly most unsympathetic in their method of extracting land tax from rural areas. After all, the wealth of the nation comes from the land and if we destroy the incentive to produce that wealth we shall be in a very sorry plight. It seems to me that the Government will be the only ones who will benefit from this legislation because they will actually save money in not having to collect the £3,600-odd.

l'Ir. Walsh: If we save money, the community saves it.

}lr. PLUNKETT: That is all right so long as the rural areas are not required to find the £3,600-odd that the Government will be losing in revenue as a result of this measure. Land tax is the most obnoxious of all taxes. It taxes people at the base. The great fault is that the value of the land is based on what it can produce. If it has not already produced something or even if it has produced a crop, nobody knows its value. Actually, they are taking a shot in the dark by saying that a man must pay tax on the land irrespective of whether he earns on~ shilling from it.

lllr. Walsh: That is what the local authorities do, too.

Mr. PLUNKETT: The Treasurer has said that it does not matter two pence to the local authorities whether the valuations are high or low, that they require only a certain amount and that if the valuations are high they Teduce the rate. That has not been the position. Since the new valuations have been imposed, they have been collecting more.

How does the Valuer-General anive at these higher valuations ~ .A,ctually, most of them are based on sales in a given area. If some person who has more money than sense pays fancy prices for land because it appeals to him, the rest of the community is valued on that sale.

JUr. Walsh: If it is not a true value, they have the right to appeal to the Land Court.

lUr. PLUNKETT: There is another injustice. It is almost impossible for farmers to appeal to the Land Court.. If they had the right to appeal to a justice in their own areas, there might be some sense in it.

1206 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

You want to bring the farmer into the city to the Land Court. There is an injustice there. If the Government want to be fair and give the people an opportunity of appealing-and it is their right-they should hear the appeals in the districts in which there are Magistrates Courts.

Mr. Walsh: It is only where valuations are over £3,000 that they come to the Supreme Court.

~Ir. PLUNKETT: How much land can you buy for £3,000? The Secretary for Public Lands and Irrigation said last night that as a conservative estimate it would cost £10,130 to put a man on a dairy-farm. The value of land today has been increased by the high Government valuation, The

Government are taxing land on a value that somebody within the area received for a single sale. They tax land on its production, not knowing the value of the production and not knowing what the land will produce. ThiR is inflicting a penalty on landholders and I am sorry that the Government have not taken a leaf out of the book of the Common­wealth Government who know that it is from the primary production of this country that our wealth comes.

lUr. Walsh: You cannot name 10 far­mers on the Downs who get any benefit from it.

lUr. PLUNKETT: I shall tell the Treasurer later what they are doing to the people on the Downs. I am saying that the State Government should take a leaf out of the book of the Commonwealth Govern­ment. They know where the basis of our wealth is. Immediately the Government start to tax land without knowing the value of its production, they put a penalty on thn man on the land. It is all very well to tell people to appeal to the Land Court. People should be given land and told to produce something. The Government are going to tax people off the land; they are doing a serious injustice to the rural people of Queensland. The hon, member for Somerset had a bad brief from the Government. This tax is going to benefit the Government more than anyone else. Production does not remain stationary because of droughts and crops destroyed by floods and pests. These things destroy the income of the farmer, who still has to pay the land tax. I know that th<J '\reasurer will say that he can appeal against h1s assessment, but he would sooner pay the tax than appeal. It is an iniquitous tax and its application will be disastrous. When farmers run into bad seasons thev meet with disaster. I am sorry that the Treasurer is not listening. The value of our primary pro­duction is falling. It is on the way down now and how in the name of goodness do the Government expect people to pay land tax when the value of the production has declined by 50 per cent. W

We have had two or three years of fairly high prices and the land has been valued on that basis. But who will reduce land tax when land values decrease, as they musU I cannot see the Treasurer doing it. It is the small men like the dairy-farmers and the

wheat-growers who will be penalised. The wool and beef-grower~ can look after them­selves, but the dairy-farmers and the wheat­growers will be pauperised overnight. Any­body who tries to justify the imposition of land tax knows very little about the land. The hon. member for Somerset tried to give us some reasons for land tax, and he attempted to justify himself by saying he had many farmers in his area. How is it that New South Wales can do without land taxf

Mr. Walsh: How is it that Queensland does without entertainment tax?

Mr. PLUNKETT: I am talking about the land. This tax has nothing at all to do with entertainment, and I should like to see the Government do away with it for the bene­fit of Queensland as a whole.

Mr. Walsh: I shall have to look up "Hansard" to see whether you advocated it in 1929-1932.

~fr. PLUNKETT: The Treasurer can do what he likes. I am always consistent in my attitude. Unlike the Treasurer, I do not change my views.

This Government could have followed the lead of the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government and repealed this iniquitous tax. It cannot be applied with justice. According to the Treasurer's figures, only 5 per cent. of the people are paying land tax. They are the people who own freehold land, It was free­hold tenure that developed Queensland.

Mr. Walsh: Nothing of the sort!

~Ir. PLUNKETT: Of course it was. Those people stayed on the land and endured privations so that they could get the deeds and borrow money. They had to stay on the land for a certain number of years before they could get the deeds. Once they got the deeds they were able to borrow money, and then they could build decent homes to live in.

Mr. Walsh: If we abolished land tax about 50 per cent. of the amount that we are now collecting from it would go to the Com­monwealth Government in the form of income tax.

Mr. PLUNKETT: The Treasurer does not want to play ball with the Commonwealth Government. Although New South Wales and Victoria are controlled by Labour Govern­ments, they are prepared to play ball with the Commonwealth Government. This Govern­ment, however, are not.

This tax affects mainly the real producers of the State's wealth. The Treasurer tried to show that the bulk of the money comes from city business people. Primary pro­ducers have to take what they are paid for their products. Business people, including breweries and hotelkeepers, pay the tax only indirectly. It is all included as overhead costs in the price of what they sell, and the Prices Commissioner has to curb them. The working people have to pay it, but they would

Land Tax Acts [5 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1207

be able to buy foodstuffs much cheaper if business people did not have to include land tax in overhead costs.

1\Ir. Walsh: I did not notice any reduc­tion when the Commonwealth abolished theirs.

1\Ir. PLUNKETT: The Treasurer would not play ball with them. People in the city add this tax to the price at which they sell to the consuming public. That cannot be done at the production end. If it was tried the Prices Commissioner would say ''No''.

The Government value the land for us. \Ve do the work and pay about a dozen taxeH between starting work and putting the prod net on the market. We are penalised for anything under Government control. If we buy a few cows we have to pay a T.B. tax and the buffalo fly tax. If we use a brand the Government gets something from its registration. When we send the product to market, the man who takes it has to charge so much more, because his vehicle registration has increased twofold. The pro­ducer has to pay all that. The Government have doubled stock assessments. They have even included pigs, and the price of pigs has gone down. City people get it out of the consumers, but the producer cannot set any price he likes.

Valuations are based on sales in the area. Unimproved land does not enter into it, because many of these places which have been settled for years have been improved tremendously. A man who sees a good farm for sale, cleared, with a nice ho)lle, will pay any price if it appeals to him, without knowing what it returns, or what shire rates and taxes he would have to pay.

lUr. Hilton: You are re·flecting on your fellow farmers when you say they have no sense and do such ridiculous things.

lUr. PLUNKETT: I said the buyer does this if it suits him.

lUr. Hilton: He is a farmer.

1\Ir. PLUNKETT: No, he is not a farmer. If he was a farmer, he would not pay such a price.

The other farmers in that area had their valuations put up the day after. You have placed a burden on the rural people. In the city, there were 101 more valuations since 1951·1952 or 1 per cent. more, and in the country it increased to 2,176 or 37.6 per cent. It is obvious why the valuations were introduced-to get more money for the Gov· ernment. The tax assessments increased by £16,343 or 2.4 per cent. in the city and country lands went up to £174,341 or '70 per cent. After all is said and done, there is not a great deal of difference between the revenue you get from the city and what you get from the country. There was an increase of 101 in town land taxpayers and 2,176 in the country since 1951-1952. This taxation should not have been increased until the valuations were well advanced. Of 133 shires, only about 40 have been done. Those

who were done early have been paying the increased rate and those under the old valua­tions are paying a much lower rate.

The Treasurer said that many shires reduced their rate. Of course they did, because the valuation was higher. It is silly to say that you are doing a good turn to the shire councils. Since the new valuations were brought about land tax on these farms has increased. Take the last five years with six different shires.

In the first shire it increased from £52 to £338, in the next it increased from £6 to £193, and in the next it increased from £50 to £353. In the fourth case the payment five years ago was £62 and it is now £437; in the fifth case the payment previously was £37 and now it is £189; in the sixth case it was £53, and now, £568. In the last case the shire rates are £441, making a total payment by that man of £1,009. In another case of 1,518 acres the rental today is 13s. 7d. an acre. That is rental, not tax. It would appear that these people are going to be in difficulties if the value of their produce comes clown. There is a possibility that prices will not be maintained at present levels. It will affect those who are producing for export. They will be hit to a greater extent than the others. I can envisage deputations to the Treasurer urging a further amendment of the Act. Instead of £3,629 they will be asking for relief amounting to £1,200,000. I am sure the Treasurer will agree with that.

Hon. P. J. R. HILTON (Carnarvon­Secretary for Public Works and Housing) ( 12.27 p.m.) : I desire to reply to certain statements made yesterday by the hon. mem­ber for Aubigny, which are reported in '' Hansard,'' but before getting on to them I correct the statement of the hon. member for Darlington that inflated, extraordinary sales are taken as a basis by the valuers in the Valuer-General's Department. He should know if he has studied the position that that is not correct.

1\Ir. Plunkett: That is their basis, and they will admit it.

1\Ir. HILTON: They take an average of sales. They are instructed particularly to disregard any sales that may be termed extra­ordinary sales. They do not base their valuation on any individual sale in an area. As a matter of fact, the state­ment by the hon. member for Darlington reflected on his fellow farmers. He said that if the land appealed to them they would pay any old price for it, and that they did not inquire into local authority rates or land tax.

lUr. Plunkett: They are not farmers at all.

Mr. HILT ON: I have analysed carefully the sales that have taken place in recent years in the Downs area, and I find that by far the greater number of those sales were made to purchasers who were on the land already and living in those areas.

1208 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

The hon. member for Aubigny in a recent deputation stressed that point. I told him I would have it examined. I can produce iigurcs showing clearly that by far the greater number of these sales are made to persons who have engaged in rural pursuits.

For the information of hon. members I mention that nearly every week I receive letters from shire councils requesting that their shires be revalued or valued a8 speedily as possible by the Valuer-General's Depart­ment. If there was a big, malicious, con­certed plot on the part of the Government in regard to valuations, surely the majority of local authorities in rural areas would not beseech the Valuer-General to value their .shires as speedily as possible.

Mr. Plunkett: Why would they do it?

Mr. HILT ON: Because they realise that anomalies exist in their shires. They realise that, even by having an interim valuation made by somebody outside the Valuer­General's Department, the anomalies are not ironed out. They realise that the trained officers of the department are able to do the job efficiently and effectively. I am not saying that departmental valuers do not make· mistakes from time to time, but there is a process of objection to the valuations by the valuers. The right of appeal allows the .settler to obtain redress in regard to any anomaly or mistake that may be made. Thousands of properties are valued in each shire.

Mr. Plunkett: Those shires haNe had no valuation at all, I presume~

Mr. HILTON: Some have not been valu,ed. I know that there are terrine anomalies, and we are endeavouring to value those shires where there is a good deal of freehold land in order to iron out the anom­alies. As the Treasurer has said, when the whole picture is quite clear, when existing anomalies in valuations have been ironed out, this question of removing- anomalies in con­nection with land tax can be honestly and fairly considered. I assure the Committee that 'the Valuer-General's Department is pro­ceeding with this necessary work-for which the local authorities are clamouring-as speedily as possible.

I wish now to debunk some of the political hypocrisy indulged in by the hon. member for Aubigny in connection with this matter. He knows his shire was one of the iirst valued by the Valuer-General's Department. He knows he wanted that valuation made, yet he comes here and implies malice on the part of the Government and condemns the Valuer­General's Department from A to Z. Let me quote from tl!o Dalbv ''He, aid'' of 18 August. 1947, the follmYini( report of the business proceeding~ of the \¥ambo Shire Council ut a time when the hon. member for Aubigny was chairman-

'' Valuation. ''This shire is listed for re-,·nluntinn h"

the Valuer-General <luring the present iinancial year. 'rh's work s:1ould have heen completed by now, but up to date there is no sign of the valuers."

I can remember the hon. member complaining that it should have been done by then, and the report I have read clearly indicates the political hypocrisy in which he indulges.

I take exception to the malicious remark made by him yesterday He poses as a hail fellow well met and we know he indulges in a good deal of buffoonery in this Chamber. Sometimes he is a little bit humorous but when he thinks he can get away with some­thing that is politically malicious, he does not hesitate to .do so.

Yesterday, he referred to the unfortunat!J fact-I know it is a fact-that many wheat­farmers on the Downs were suffering great losses because of excessive rain. Anybody who knows the Downs knows that is so. The hon. member then said this-

" The Secretary for Public Works and Housing can smile, but let him go up to his electorate and smile. He got rid of as many as he could-

he was referring to farmers-'' round Millmerran. Let him tell some of the farmers in his electorate that it is a laughing matter."

Further on, he threatened to take a copy of his speech and distribute it in the elec­torate. He knows full well that I did not laugh at the fact that the farmers were suffering grave losses because of excessive rains on the Downs. He knows in his own heart and soul that it is not true. I denied it by interjection at the time, but unfortu­nately '' Hansard'' did not pick up my denial. That is why I stand here today to deny the malicious statement he made when he claimed that I was laughing at the sorry plight of the wheat-farmers on the Downs.

1\Ir. Sparkes: You were smiling. I would not know what you were smiling at.

lUr. HILTON: I was not smiling at all. There was a lot of to-do in the Chamber at the time. The Attorney-General had quipped the hon. member for Aubigny by doing a little bit of mooing, as he does, from time to time. The hon. member for Aubigny claimed that I smiled at the hardships of the farmers and then, knowing that what he was saying was not the truth, he boasted that he would take '' Hansard'' out and show it to the farmers.

lUr. Sparkes: What is wrong with that?

lUr. HILTON: If the hon. member thinks that malicious, dirty, lying propaganda is all right, I do not, and I deny it today. He imputed unworthy motives to me in that he said I got rid of as many farmers around Millmerran as I could. He was referring to the last electoral redistribution. He knows full well that the previous hon. member for Cunningham wanted Millmerran incorporated in the Cunningham electorate. That hon. member had the decencv to come to me and ask me would I object to its inclusion in the Cunningham electorate. I raised no objection on the score of community of inter­est and I said that it would be all right as f8r as I was concerned. I took no action in the matter. Millmerran was taken from out of my electorate by the commission and put

Land Tax Acts [5 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1209

into the Cunningham electorate, and a portion of the electorate of W arwick-Greymare-­was put into mine. You will see, Mr. Clark, the snide propaganda the hon. member for Aubigny was innocently trying to get in. I have debunked him on that this morning. Whilst I have some regard for him personally I think at times he exceeds the bounds of political decency when he tries to impute these unworthy motives.

Mr. HEADING (Marodian) (12.36 p.m.) : I suppose one has to agree with what the Treasurer has done, but as an hon. member representing a country electorate I am dis­appointed that he has not done more about it. The hon. member for Somerset said that we seemed to think that the Government could go along without taxation. I am sensible enough to know that the Government require money to run the State and that thev must get it from taxation. It is the method of taxation that I am concerned about more than tJ:!e ::;mount of it. I shall compare land tax WI~h lllCOme tax which I say is one of the fall'est taxes. If 50 per cent. of the land tax previously collected by the Federal Government goes to the Federal Government, as the Treasurer said in income tnxation, and I am somewhat doubtful about that, this Government would get their share of it from the Commomvealth Government.

Mr. Walsh: You know diffe,rent to that.

Jir. HEADING: As a matter of fact the Treasurer is getting more than he car{ spend. He cannot refute that statement. Income tax is a fairer tax because you pay Y?ur tax on. income, and you have sometlnng to pay It with. I remember the ti~e when my son became a taxpayer. He said to me, "Dad, a lot of people complain about paying tax, but I know that when I pay ta;c I, have ~ad the money to pay it. If. I didn ~ have 1t I would be squealing." Bemg a f~Ir tax n~body objects to paying it, but we obJect to high taxation. We attempt to avoid paying high taxation, and, Mr. Clark, I did not say "evade''. We do not mind paying income tax but it is a different story with regard to land tax. We have to pay land tax whether we have made a profit or loss on the year's working. I remember many years ag.o, because of the drought, that farmers, graziers, and people on the land made anything but a profit. In manv cases they suffered extensive losses. If the·v came within the land tax group they had 'to pay land tax.

Mr. Sparkes: The hon. member for Romerset said that the farmers liked paying it.

llr. HEADING: I am sure that if a copy of his speech was sent to his electorate the farmers would tell him what they thought of land tax. I do not advocate any amend­ment of the Act. Although I support this one, I say that land tax should be com­pletely abolished, as it has been by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Walsh: Can you name 10 farmers in your area who derived any benefit from the abolition of Federal land tax'

Mr. HEADING: It is not my job to do that. Since the valuations were increased, I have had to pay land tax for the first time in my life.

Mr. Walsh: You are crowing about the abolition of Federal land tax. On the statement of the hon. member for Coorparoo, 50 per cent. of it went back to the Common­wealth Government in income tax.

Mr. HEADING: I am saying that the Commonwealth Government abolished land tax, and I suggest that the Treasurer should follow that very good example.

The remarks of the hon. member for Darlington should make the Treasurer sit up and think. The men to whom he referred have to find money to pay land tax, whether they have made a profit on their year's work or not. It is the man who went out in the early days and opened up the country that is being hit by land tax. He went out onto freehold land and--

llr. Walsh: Would you sooner have freehold than perpetual lease~

lUr. HEADING: I have freehold. Frequently, the men to whom I have

referred can barely afford to pay land tax.

~Ir. Walsh: What about the drought relief paid to people in your area W

~Ir. HEADING: Although there have been bad seasons periodically in my area, the Treasurer has never had any trouble in collecting this money from the farmers once the seasons have broken.

~Ir. Walsh: Most of them have' done a good jub.

~Ir. HEADING: I am glad the Treasurer admits it.

I have never been happy about valuations. In my early days I experienced the result of unfair values. Valuing is a very difficult task to undertake. It is necessary to have very experienced valuers, and even they can go \Hong. Hon. members opposite talk about using comparable sales, but that is not a fair basis of valuation. I am not saying that all purchasers of property are ignorant when they pay more than the true value, but it often happens that a man wants to put his son on a property and he will pay a fairly high price for one adjoining his. If that is accepted as a basis of valuation, the valuer may be misled. He should go on the unimproved value of land, irrespective of sales in the district.

lUr. Walsh: How would you arrive at thaU

Mr. HEADING: The valuer should know what is being produced and the value of production. He should know the quality of the land and be able to arrive at a fair valuation. He should know when a man has paid more than a farm was worth and other people should not be affected by that.

Mr. Walsll: Are you advocating a valuation based on productivityf

Mr. Sparkes: He is not advocating that at all. Don't fall for that.

1210 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

IUr. HEADING: No, I will not fall for that. The Treasurer said that much of this taxatfon falls on breweries and banks in the city. That will not convince thinking people. Banks and breweries cannot exist unless they recover the cost from somebody.

llir. Walsh: Any more than farmers can.

llir. HEADING: That is so. The trouble is that the farmer cannot pass on his costs, otherwise the economy of the country is affected. Unless we can persuade the Government to give increased prices we do not get anywhere.

llir. Walsh: Why are you not advo­cating an increase in the price of butter based on cost of production~ The hon. member for Warwick did that, and they were going to expel him.

llir. HEADING: I am talking about banks and breweries. The Treasurer said they paid most of this tax. No doubt the heads of those establishments, in totalling their costs, would add it to the goods they sell.

lUr. Waish: So do your people.

llir. HEADING: We are doing our best, but we are often frustrated by the Govern­ment. It is said that the tax was imposed in the early days to break up large estates. That is not the reason. If the Government want to take over an estate, that is all there is to it. It is silly to talk about taxing the owner out of it.

I am concerned at the increase in valua­tions. For the :first period they were not too bad; some were doubled and some were trebled. At the second revaluation the valuers really put it on. I am not sure just why that should be so. Government members talk about efficient valuers, but over the years values have jumped millions of pounds. Before revaluation the local authority area at Chinchilla was valued at £436,598.

In the first year the new valuation was £1,130,926, and the second valuation was £2,455,981, or more than double that of the first year. Take the shire of Jondaryan. The local authority valuation was £648,530 and the first valuation by the Valuer-General's Department amounted to £1,662,215, and the second to £5,374,177. I wonder if those local authorities who are asking that their areas be valued realise what is going to happen. The local authority valuation for the Mnrilla shire was £289,148, and the first valuation by the Valuer-General's Department was £749,575, and the second was £2,881,840. The local authority valuation for the Millmerran shire was £376,266, the first valuation by the Valuer-General's Department was £967,953, and the second valuation was £2,259,777. The local authority valuation for the city of Toowoomba was £1,171,665, the first valu­ation by the Valuer-General's Department was £2,765,787, and the second was £6,294,182.

lUr. Walsh: What the hon. member overlooks is that in each case the local autho­rity has accepted and approved of the valua­tion. They could have rejected it had they wished.

lUr. HEADING: They could not do any­thing else but accept it. The valuation of the Wambo Shire by the local authority was £842,697, the first valuation by the Valuer­General's Department was £2,379,087, and the second was £7,736,113. When they have finished God help the people on the land. It does not matter so much about rates. The shire council can reduce the rates. The Government have brought in thousands of people who were not in before. They will be collecting a great deal more in the way of land tax, unless, in the goodness of their hearts, or as a result of pressure from this side, they decide to give some relief.

llir. Sparkes: You might have some more support when the hon. member for Somerset goes back to his people.

llir. HEADING: The hon. member for Port Cnrtis said last night that he was in favour of a higher land tax. If that is the case I think he will get a hearty welcome from his electors.

llir. Sparkes: They may have to resign.

Mr. HEADING: There are other hon. members on this side of the Chamber who want to say something in regard to this matter. I do not propose to take up any further time.

llir. Aikens: Hear, hear!

llir. HEADING: In view of that remark by the hon. member I shall continue a little longer.

Mr. Sparkes: Hear, hear!

Mr. HEADING: The hon. member for Mundingburra will get a good reception from the primary producers in his area.

llir. Aikens: The primary producers in my area are too poor to pay land tax.

llir. Sparkes: That is what one would expect, with the hon. member representing them.

llir. HEADING: I now come to the case mentioned by the Treasurer of the person who paid £54,000 in income tax.

}fr. Walsh: He paid 30s. an acre for land he was renting from the Crown at ls. 3d. an acre.

lUr. HEADING: The provisional tax would have to be deducted.

llir. Walsh: Take off £18,000.

llir. HEADING: Was that the provi­sional tax~

iUr. Walsh: Yes. He leased the land from the Crown for ls. 3d. an acre and the Commonwealth Government took 30s. an acre.

}fr. Sparkes: They give it back to the State.

lUr. HEADING: It is given back to the State. The Treasurer is never satisfied. On many occasions people come to me and tell me how much taxation they are paying, and I find on making inquiries that a certain amount is the provisional tax. A lot of

Land Tax Acts [5 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1211

those people do not realise that the pro­visional tax is taken off the tax next year and they pay the difference.

Mr. W alsh: Even if the provisional tax is deducted, it is still £1 an acre.

1\Ir. HEADING: He was making up to twice that amount. It should be remembered that provisional tax is a tax in advance, and, when the Treasurer mentioned the amount of £54,000, he knew that it included the pro­visional tax.

1Ur. Walsh: The hon. member for Marodian knows that there were hon. mem­bers on the other side of the Chamber, including the hon. member for Aubigny, who were embarrassed that year. Look at the big advance he had to get from the bank to pay it.

1\Ir. HEADING: Consider the amount that the State is getting in ta.x reimburse­ments. The amounts received from the Com­monwealth Government have been increasing year by year, and the Treasurer does not know what to do with it. Despite that, he is screaming all the time.

I advocate the abolition of land tax.

1\Ir. CHALK {Lockyer) {2.15 p.m.) : When this legislation was introduced by the Treasurer, it was evident that there would be a l&OOd deal of discussion about land tax. Now that it has been before us on several occasions over the past few days, there seems to be no doubt that the Treasurer is coming to the conclusion-probably rightly so-that most of the arguments that could be advanced in connection with land tax have been put before the Chamber.

lUr. Walsh: I do not think anything you can say will influence me in my decision.

1\Ir. CHALK: I can appreciate that probably nothing I can say will influence the Treasurer, but some of the things said by members of the Opposition influence the people. I am prepared to state my views, believing that I am doing what is in the interests of my electors and the people of the State as a whole.

As there has been considerable discussion on the measure I felt perhaps that there was nothing new I could say. I agreed with what previous Opposition speakers said, and I thought there was no need for me to enter the debate, but the hon. member for Somer­set surprised me with his contribution this morning.

lUr. Walsh: A very intelligent contri­bution.

lUr. CHALK: I believe it was handed to him by the Treasurer to put before the Committee.

1\Ir. Walsh: Nothing of the sort.

1\Ir. CHALK: As the representative of a farming community, I give him credit for knowing better than to believe what he pro­fessed to support.

1\Ir. Walsll: He knows what he is talking about.

1954-2s

Mr. CHALK: Then let him tell his electors what he said nere this morning. He tried to justify the imposition of land tax.

Mr. Walsh: Who said so?

IIIr. CHALK: He said that the people of his area were quite satisfied to pay land tax.

Mr. Larcombe: He did not.

Mr. CHALK: The Somerset electorate adjoins mme. Is the hon. member for Somerset going to tell me that the people who live on the Somerset side of the boundary are quite happy about paying land tax when the people who live on the Lockyer side, and speak the same language, work under the same conuitions and produce the same products, are very concerned about it~ I do not believe for a moment that the hon. member for Somerset was sincere when he advocated the continuation of this tax.

Mr. Walsh: How many in your area would pay land tax~

lUr. CHALK: I am coming to that. In a few minutes, I shall mention what has hap­pened in the area since the land tax was introduced and explain the effect of the latest valuation. The hon. member for Somerset went on to say that prior to the last election members of the Opposition went throughout his electorate saying that land tax woulu be increased and that timber stands anu mineral rights would be taxed. What in the name of fortune are we bring­ing in legislation for if it is not to remove the very tax we are talking abouU

lUr. Walsll: Obviously they were not taxed to any great extent.

IIIr. CHALK: The Treasurer is quib­bling. We are being charged with political hypocrisy by the hon. member for Somerset and other hon. members opposite, in going through the country and saying this was happening when it was in the Act all the time. At the same time as we were going through the country allegedly saying this-and admittedly it was in accordance with the Act-the hon. member was adniltting in his electorate that he had a private brief handed to him by a member of the Cabinet to the effect that legislation was to be introduced into this Chamber to remove timber stands and mineral rights.

1\Ir. SKINNER: I rise to a point of order. I never said I had a private brief nor did I use words like them, and I was not told. I ask the hon. member for Lockyer to withdraw that statement.

The CHAIRltiAN: Order! I ask the hon. member for Lockyer to accept the denial of the hon. member for Somerset.

~Ir. CHALK: I accept the hon. mem­ber's denial, but he conveyed the impression to us that he was in a position to tell the people of his area that this legislation was to he brought down. If he had the informa­tion, where could he have got it? From a member of the Cabinet. If it was given to him by a member of the Cabinet, that would

1212 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

be a breach of the law for it is a breach of the law for a member of the Cabinet to reveal any information a bout proposed legis­lation until it comes before this Chamber.

)Ir. SKINNER: I rise to another point of order. The information I received from the Valuer-General was after the amending legislation was put through this House last year. How could it be in anticipation~ The files of the Press will record that.

The CHAIR)IAN: Order! I ask the hon. member for Lockyer to accept the denial of the hon. member for Somerset.

Mr. CHALK: I am prepared to accept the denial. I am speaking of the manner in which he presented his case this morning. However, I am not going to press the point any further. I just wanted to make the point because I believed it was vital to the discussion before the Chamber.

I want to register a protest on behalf of my electors against this iniquitous land tax and also to say that so far as we on this side of the Chamber are concerned, we believe the time has come when land tax should be abolished altogether.

We heard the Treasurer delivering his Financial Statement. He told us of the solvency of this country. Members of the opposition clearly pointed out the surplus the Government had. The Government are prepared to continue to tax primary pro­ducers so that they can continue to fill their coffers. •

~Ir. Jesson: Nonsense.

~Ir. CHALK: I knew that somebody would come in. J_,et the hon. member talk to the people in his electorate. Let him tell them that is is nonsense. We know wh[tt is happening at the present time-he is talk­ing about running away from his own elec­torate to contest Sonthport. If he is sincere, let him go back to his own electorate and say that land tax is nonsense.

The Treasurer told us that the great benefit that he was giving to the people of Queens­land was in the vicinity of £3,600. He went on to tell us that it would cost the Govern­ment that much to collect it. In other words, the Treasurer is not giving anything away. Admittedly he is leaving a few pounds in the pockets of some people, but really he is giving nothing away because the cost of collerting the tax will be as much as the tax itself. Let us not be misled by the state­ment that this is a handout. It is only a face-saver for the Government, and some­thing out of which they hope to make some political capital.

~Ir. Kerr: They call him "Generous Tec1.''

lUr. CHALK: I do not know about that. .All I know is that he will get his hands on eYery penny he can, and it is always the primary producer who pays.

We all know that when the Valuer-Geneml went through the various areas, valnations were increased considerably and the 'l'reas­urer has said that as a result there have

been reductions in the council rates. Admittedly the rates in the shire councils have been reduced, but I should like to know the actual percentage of ratepayers who are not paying more in rates to-day than they did previously.

JUr. Hilton: Your valuation came down.

Mr. CHALK: The hon. gentleman says my valuation came down. How would he know~ As a matter of fact, it went up. At the first valuation it rose only by a small amount but on the second occasion there was a considerable increase. I am paying more in rates today than I did previ­ously, and I own only a small piece of land in the city of Toowoomba. HoweYer, I refuse to let the Secretary for Public \Yorks and Housing sidetrack me.

The Treasurer is now collecting far more money in lancl tax than he was previously. During the past 12 months he got approxi­mately £1,122,538, compared with £969,437 in the previous year. The Treasurer cannot tell me that the people are paying less in land tax following the revaluation of part of the State by the Valuer-General. It is obvious that the land tax must increase. I point out-and this is very important-that some shires have been valued twice, others once, and others not at all. Is this not, therefore, a sectional tax~ Is it right that some people should be paying on two valua­tions while others have not been valued at all?

llir. Walsll: Of course they have been valued.

~Ir. CHALK: Not by the Valuer-General. There is a vast difference between the two. The shire of Laidley was valued only recently. Previously the valuation of the shire was £293,837.

~Ir. Hilton: Was that a true valuation?

llir. CHALK: The important point is that that was the valuation placed on the land by the shire council. Since the last valuation by the Valuer-General, however, the amount has been increased to £868,921. In the adjoining shire of Gatton, where the land is identical with that in the Laidley shire, there have been two valuations. In the first instance the valuation of the shire was increased from £340,446 to £570,638. It is now £1,049,292. Some people are now paying tax on the basis of the ValuCl·-General 's valuation, while people in the adjoining area are not. The hon. member for Somerset said that his shire is only now being valued. It is no use his saying that people within his area appreciate land tax.

llir. SKINNER: I rise to a point of order. I did not at any stage make the state­ment suggested by the ·hon. member for I~ockyer .

1Ur. CHALK: I accept the denial of the hon. member. He did say that people il'l his area were happy so far as land tax is con­cerned. I ask him to look at his proof. Is he in favour of land tax or is he noH I am opposed to land tax. It is no use his having

Land Tax Acts [5 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1213

10s. each way on the issue, as appears from his speech this morning. One either favours land tax or is opposed to it. He is not going to tell me whether he favours it or not. I believe his speech indicates that he favours it and I am prepared to leave it at that.

I now intend to deal with the increases.

lUr. Skinner: What about telling us about the rate in the Laidley Shire~

~Ir. CHALK: Other hon. members have dealt with the position in the city, where the number of taxpayers in 1951-1952 was 9,661. It rose to 9,809 in 1952-1953, and in 1953-1954 it was 9,762. The number of taxpayers has not increased much in the city area oYer three years.

Let us now examine the position in the country. The number of taxpayers in 1951-1952 was 5,788, in 1952-1953 6,330, and in 1953-1954 7,964. The Treasurer is gradually drawing in a greater number of taxpayers from country areas.

This is most important to the issue. The Valuer-General has valued only a small portion of Queensland. The figures for city areas are almost complete, but that figure of 7,964 taxpayers in the country will probably rise to 12,000 or 14,000. That indicates that this tax is definitely sectional.

The tax on town lands rose from £682,422 in 1952 to £698,765 last year. In the country it rose from £249,432 in 1951-1952 to £423,773 last year. In the city the increase is approximately 2.4 per cent. and in the country something like 70 per cent.

The Treasurer says that this tax is not creating a hardship in the country. In order to illustrate what is happening I shall quote an instance in my own electorate. The valuation of a property that was originally £3.000 and on which about £20 in land tax was paid has been increased by 200 per cent. Most of the Lockyer lands were highly valued in the first place owing to their high fertility. This man is now paying £170 in land tax or an increase of £150; that is an increase of 7 50 per cent. Can anyone reasonably say that that is a fair deal~ They cannot.

~Ir. Walsh: It is better to pay it to us than to Fadden.

~Ir. CHALK: That is the cry all the time-it is better to pay it to Queensland than to Fadden. The Federal Government are giving the State a good hand-out so far as taxation is concerned. (Government laughter.) The Premier may laugh, but the Queensland Government have never been better off than they are at the present time. (Government interjections.) They must admit that they have the best surplus they have had for years and years. Where did they get itf

~Ir. Gair: You are the bloke who smelt the ink on the Casket tickets.

iUr. CHALK: We could go into the Casket matter but I do not ·want to he per­sonal about that. I played the game in

regard to the Casket, and the hon. gentle­man must admit it. (.Government inter­jections.) It has been stated in this Chamber that the basis of the land tax was to break up large estates. I believe that is the reason why it was introduced; but now it has become a revenue tax. It is just another case of the primary producer being slugged by this Gov­ernment to build up funds that the hon. member for Somerset said were so vital for the benefit of this State. That was the hon. member's apology for taxing the landholders; the hon. member contended they wanted more money. That myth has been blown out by members of the Opposition. The hon. mem­ber for Coorparoo exposed the hypocrisy of the speech made by the hon. member for Somerset. I believe the people of Queens­land, particularly the primary producers, are very concerned about the increase in land tax. I join with other hon. members on this side in entering a protest against the increase.

~Ir. LLOYD (Kedron) (2.39 p.m.) : The import of the amendment seems to have been missed bv hon. members opposite. The object of it is "to give some relief to a· few people who have suffered an injustice under the Act. The amendment seeks to bring the Act into line with the Local Authorities Acts that were amended last year. The hon. member for Fassifern stated that the Opposition had pressed for the amendment during the last 12 months, but when the Local Authorities Acts were amende<l last year the substance of this amendment >vas incorporated in them. I think there were several properties that ha<l to pay land tax on improved land that embraced timber, minerals and coal. The Local Government Acts provide that those things should not be taken into considera­tion. The Government are bringing the pre­sent Act into line with that provision.

Hon. members opposite put forward a scheme under which land not in production should be taxed and productive land not taxed. I do not know how assessments could be made on that basis. Take the case of a man owning 1,000 acres of freehold land in fee simple in the coastal area of Queensland. That would be a substantial property and he would be a wealthy man. If he produced crops on 400 acres of it, under the scheme put forward by hon. members opposite he could contend that he was not liable to pay land tax. He could have the land surveyed and divided into five blocks of 200 acres each, and on each of those five blocks he could utilise 5 acres of land. He could then say that each of the five blocks was produc­tive and he could claim exemption from land tax.

~Ir. ~I orris: On what principle· does the city council decide ruml and urban rates~

~Ir. LLOYD: By zoning the total area into rural and non-rural areas.

The principle of the argument put forward by hon. members opposite is quite good, but 1t would be difficult to determine what land was productive and what land was not. A tax on undeveloped land was imposed by

1214 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

previous Labour Governments. If that tax was imposed again, it would have the effect of discouraging ownership of land in fee simple by people who were not producing on that land, and would enable the land to be put under production. Perhaps hon. members opposite desire to see the reintro­duction of a tax on undeveloped land. I should think that Country Party members would object, but that is the proposal that has been put forward in this debate.

It is quite obvious that Country Party members have been discussing the matter from the point of view of the large land­owner only. Then hon. member for Fassifern mentioned the case of a man who owned 4,000 acres in the coastal area. That man would be one of the most wealthy men in Queensland.

.l\Ir. Aikens: That is not right. Some of it is very poor country.

lUr.. LLOYD: The hon. member for Fassifern spoke of land valued at £20 an acre undeveloped. That would be good land. Land in certain scrub areas would not be valued at that figure, and, of course, the owner of that type of land would not be paying much land tax. All the examples given by hon. members opposite have been large blocks of land, 800 acres, 4,000 acres and so on, and it is quite obvious that hon. members opposite have been stating a case from the point of view of the large freehold land-owners of the State.

I understand the cane lands of the North are valued at anything between £25 and £30 an acre. Any man who possesses from 200 to 300 acres of good cane land will pay land tax only if it is some of the best cane land in Queensland. The same thing a pp lies to the coast. For instance, if the hon. member for Southport owned 200 acres in the Nerang Valley it could possibly be worth £20 an acre or a total of £4,000. The land tax paid in such a good dairying area would not be Yery great. The many protests that are put forward by hon. members opposite are made on behalf of the large landholders. The Treasurer has pointed out that Yery little of the land in Queensland is freehold, that the majority of it is held under lease­hold and does not attract land tax. If there is no land tax there is no discourage­ment of people's owning land and holding it in a non-productive state. I am certain most hon. members will agree that people coming from the South wanting to engage in rural production here have been prevented from doing so because so much of the present unprodue"tive land is held in fee simple. If hon. members oppo~ite want an undeveloped land tax, let them say so.

llir. LLOYD ROBERTS (Whitsunday) (2.48 p.m.): I have said previously, and I repeat that this is one of the most wicked and ;-icious taxes ever inflicted on the people. Nobody can deny that it is a straight out capital tax. A man may have £5,000 in the bank and he is not required to pay tax. Whatever that £5,000 produces, of course, is taxable. If he invests it in bonds, the same thing applies. If he invests it in a building

or business, or even buys a racehorse he is not required to pay tax, although the revenue produced from whatever he buys is taxable. But immediately he takes the £5,000 out of the bank and invests it in land, it becomes subject to land tax. It would appear that we shall continue to have land tax so long as we have a Labour Government in this State. The abolition of land tax is a plank of the Liberal-Country Party's platform as was proved by the recent abolition of Federal land tax.

lUr. Walsh: Can you name one primary producer in your area who benefited from the abolition of Federal land tax~

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: I can name several primary producers in and around Mackay who benefited. That would not serve any good purpose. The Minister had quite a lot to say about Queen Street and that free­hold land constituted only 5 per cent. of the land of this State, and that only a percentage was taxable in any case. He said that the big­ger amount of tax was paid on Queen Street properties. vVho, after all, pays the tax in Queen Street? It is the worker, the man in the street, and the consumer who pays the tax. It is all eyewash for the Minister to say that the big people are paying the tax. How many times have we seen the primary producer slaving with his wife and family, to pay this tax and not working a 40-hour week~ The Government are not concerned about how the primary producer slaves. They are more interested in filling their moneybags.

It was stated this morning that the Bill had only one principle, the exclusion of the value of timber and/or metals or minerals or coal on freehold land. The Minister also went on to say that under the present law natural timber is taken into account in assessing the value of the land and that cultivated timber is not. He said that this amendment would correct that anomaly. That, in my opinion, is as it should be. I said when we were discussing Local Government Bills that it was not right that timber, coal, minerals, and things of that nature should be taken into account in assessing land tax. They are things that you can see. You can see the timber on the ground and you can see the coal in the ground if you dig a little hole­you can see minerals ancl metals. They are things you can see, and if there is any justi­fication at all, you might be entitled to include them, but it all comes back to what the land will produce. When those things are sold they are taxed. There was one item that I expected to see in this Bill and at this stage I foreshadow an amendment to say that the- value of sugar-cane assignments shall be excluded from the valuation.

.l\Ir. 1Valsh: You know before you move it that it will be out of order.

lUr. LLOYD ROBERTS: It is not out of order. We have not yet seen the Bill and quite likely it excludes cane assignments with timber and other things. If I am •nongly ruled out of order in this case, I could not be out of order in Committee when I actually move the amendment.

Land Tax Acts [5 NOVEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1215

Have you heard anything so ridiculous, Mr. 91ark, tha_t a sugar-cane assignment shall be mcluded m the value of land P It is not something that you can put your hands on although it is an agreement on paper. It i; a ~ost ridiculous thing that a sugar-cane ass1gnment should be taken into consideration in valuing land. After all, a cane assign­ment is simply a licence to grow cane. There are many other licences, for instance the licence granted to a hotel to sell beer~ Is the land on which the hotel stands loaded any heavier because it carries a licence to sell beerW

Jlir. W alsh: Are you an approved valuerP

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Yes.

I\Ir. W alsh: Then you should know whether hotel land is loaded any heavier.

Jllr. LLOYD ROBERTS: You can shift a hotel from one area to another, and although the value of the hotel may be the same, the value of the land may be different. There would probably be a very big differ­ence in the value if the ammint of trade that the hotel does is taken into considera­tion, but that would bring in goodwill.

I\Ir. Walsh interjected.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: It does not matter if there is goodwill on a cane farm. It has nothing to do with the unimproved value of the land. It is certainly of value to the farm, but nobody can tell the extent of the value. Even the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board cannot tell you the value of a cane assignment. One farm with an assigned area of 50 acres will produce a certain amount of cane, whereas another farm with an assigned area of 100 acres may not pro­duce any more. The 50-acre farm may be on fiat country with good soil while the other farm may be hilly and stbny. Again, one farmer might produce 2,000 tons annually on a 50-acre farm, whereas another man might be struggling to produce 1,000 tons.

Jlir. Walsh: That applies to any rural property.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Of course it does. That is why I say that a cane assign­ment should not be considered when the unimproved value of land is being assessed.

The same remarks apply to a sawmill, for which it is necessary to have a licence. The unimproved value of the land on which a sawmill is erected does not increase because the sawmill is licensed. If the sawmill was burnt down overnight, what would happen to the value of the land~ It is th" same with ca~e assignments. The Central Sugar Cane Pnces Board can cancel a cane assignment whenever it sees fit; it has cancelled many assignments, and reduced many others, when the land covered by them has not been pro­ductive. A cane assignment could not be regarded as a myth, but it is something intangible that is taken into consitleration in assessing land values.

Mr. Walsh: The High Court has ruled accordingly.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Only for one reason, and that is that it is the law. We make the laws and the High Court carries them out. The Treasurer is now excluding timber, minerals and coal, and all that is necessary is a further amendment to exclude cane assignments. We could then amend the Local Authorities Act to tie everything up.

Mr. Power: Take the cane assignment away, and see how much you would get for the land.

Mr. LLOYD ROBERTS: Unfortunately, many properties have to be sold without assignments. Why should the unimproved value of the land be any less if the assign­ment is taken from it~ Consider the piece of land on the corner where the Belle-Vue Hotel is situated. That is valued at so much a foot frontage. It does not matter what is on the land at present; that is the value for the area. To value the whole property one has to take the specifications of the building into consideration.

This is a most important matter. Thousands of cane-growers will be affected. Not a great many are affected yet, as the Valuer­General has not been through all the cane areas. He has not yet been through the Mackay area. If valuations are going to rise by 700 or 800 per cent., as happened in many areas, you can imagine, Mr. Clark, how many cane-growers will be paying land tax in the future.

In this Chamber we have a number of Labour representatives from sugar-cane areas. I shall give them an opportunity to prove whether they represent those districts or

whether they represent themselves. When I move this amendment to include cane assign­ments, we shall see how many of them really represent cane-growing areas.

Mr. MADSEN (Warwick) (3.2 p.m.): I have listened with considerable interest to the points raised by hon. members on both sides. This debate has demonstrated that the word ''unimproved'' is a misnomf'r when applied to land tax.

Improved value is the starting point in assessing the unimproved value. The Act states that the improved value refers to the capital sum the land might be expected to realise by a genuine sale under reasonable terms and conditions. More is involved in a sale than the land and buildings. Various speakers have stressed that many things enter into it. When such matters as cane assign­ments enter into it, how can it be suggested that the word "unimproved" is applicable~

Itir. Walsh: The law says so.

Jllr. IIIADSEN: That does not show that it is right. It shows how wrong the law is in using the word ''unimproved.' ' Under Labour Governments we find so many of these misnomers. The unimproved value of land can fluctuate RO easily. This morning the Treasurer mentioned a matter which is par­ticularly applica!Jle to a small farmer. The

1216 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

hon. member for Kedron said that hon. mem­bers on this side put up a ease for the large landholder. I shall refer to the case the Treasurer mentioned where 301 acres had been sold from a larger holding, and the price was £27 lls. an acre.

Mr. Walsh: That was the total price including the standing crop.

Mr. MADSEN: I put it to the Chamber that at this period when the 301 acres had a sale value of £10,521 the money value was only about one-third what it was previous!;·, and that one would be justified in saying that that land in pre-war days was worth approximately £9 or £10 an acre: A prac­tical land-owner who owned 301 arres worth £10 an acre in pre-war clays would have ne more than a living area. I think that is a fair and reasonable statement.

Mr. Walsh: Would the hon. member say that wheat land at £10 an acre before the war would be profitable~

Mr. MADSEN: Yes.

lUr. Walsh: It would?

lUr. MADSEN: Yes. The hon. member for Aubigny will recollect that some years ago when land that afterwards became some of our best wheat land was opened up it was said that it was not suitable for wheat­growing. By the application of new methods of cultivation this land is now classed \Yith the best in the State. Most of our \Yheat lands, before their wheat potential was known, were bought in thE' unimproved state for as little as £3 10s. to £6 an acre. As it became knO\Yn that these lands \\·ere suit­able for wheat-growing and with increased settlement and good roads the value rose to £10 to £12 an acre. The farms, like homes. have increased three times in value since prc: war days. A house that was worth £800 in pre-war clays would be worth nearer £2,400 or £2,500 today; and the same applies to land. The Treasurer referred to a 301-acre farm. That would be worth about £9 an acre pre-war and would be regarded as a one­man farm. The Treasurer went on to say that the land tax pairl was about £360.

lUr. Walsh: £369.

JUr. Sparkes: On 881 acres.

~Ir. MADSEN: No, this was on the 301 acres.

~Ir. Walsh: No, 881.

lUr. lliADSEN: I was going to say that if a farm of that area had to carrv that taxation it would be impossible for the" 0\Yner to continue to operate it. The basis of assessment is not flexible enough to ensure a true yaluation in each ca8e. For instance, an enterprising farmer may have a Yery well kept farm with no important buildings on it. The work and enterprise of the farmer may not be apparent to the purchaser. A piece of land may be sown with lucerne. The fact that a lucerne crop is on the lanf1 makes it more valuable. In the course of a few years the lucerne finishes and it is necessary to work the land for a number of

years before it is suitable to plant with lucerne again. After the removal of the lucerne crop the value of improvements fall, and the unimproved value of the land increases, despite the fact that the productive capacity had been considerably reduced.

The same thing applies to cane assign­ments. Is there any reason why the unimproved value of land should fluctuate because it has a cane assignment or because it is used for the growing of small crops f I think that is a wrong approach to assessment.

When you start \vi th the sale price, that is, the improved value, and work back, you take into account so many of those unknown things referred to in the Act a-s invisible things. I defy anyone to calculate those things that cannot be seen or that are not established.

In my own locality there would be mnny farms selling at £40 an aere. If the present basis of arriving at the unimproved value was followed, I venture the opinion that the land would appear to have no value at all. The value of improvements are deducted, and the value of clearing then has to be taken into account. ~With a heavy stand of timber such as was on that land, it would cost £20 an acre to clear, even when using the most modern methods.

.i.Ur. Hilton: It did not cost that amount in the first place.

1\Ir. Aikens: It would cost 7s. or Ss.

Mr. ~IADSEN: You cannot take the price of clearing then when considering present-day values. If you are going to take sale values now, you have to take clear­ing costs at the present time. You cannot have it both ways.

lllr. Hilton: You cannot finish with a minus result.

lUr. lUADSEN: No. That statement by the Minister emphasises my point that the word ''unimproved'' is a misnomer.

lUr. Hilton: Does the hon. member suggest that tax should be imposed on impro\·ed values~

lUr. JUADSEN: I do not suggest that at all. I agree with the statements of other hon. members on this side of the Chamber that there is no justification for this tax on freehold land.

The Treasurer yesterday took the earn­ings of a particular industry on the one hand and on the other hand the tax extracted from less than 5 per cent. of the lands of the State.

llir. Walsh: I was given that lead from opposition members.

I\Ir. lUADSEN: That only serve's to demonstrate that the tax is iniquitous and unfair, particularly now that the valuations have been increased. To date only a small part of the State has been revalued. The tax is going to have a very detrimental effect on the development of a number of small farms. Whether it is admitted or not, when the

Land Tax Acts [5 NovEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1217

total rural area is revalued there will be more producers paying tax than escaping it. It is a pity that the farmer who has only a living area should be required to pay a tax that was intended originally to encourage the subdivision of larger holdings.

lUr. Aikens: If it was leasehold land, l1e would pay nearly as much in rent.

lUr. j}fADSEN: By that remark, the hon. member demonstrates that he has not a practical understanding of the position. I relll:ind him that during periods of pros­penty when returns for primary products skyrocketed, the leaseholder had no increase in rental. I join with the other hon. mem­bers in appealing to the Treasurer to give some consideration at least to increasing the exemption if he will not abolish the tax altogethe;. Wi~h the present low exemptions, land tax IS lnttmg the small farmers unfairlv, and that is not in the best interests of the development of the State.

Hon. E. J. WALSH (Bundaberg­Treasurer) (3.17 p.m.): Unfortunately, the hon. member for Warwick, like many others on his side, has his figures and facts con­fused. I gave him credit for having some knowledge of the dairying and wheat indus­tries, but after listening to him this after­noon, I am afraid I must doubt his under­standing of them. He gave the impression that he would accept a valuation of £10 an acre for unimproved wheat land in pre-war days. If he intended to include the value of improvements, that would put a different construction on the matter.

ilir. Sparkes: There you go, trying to twist again.

lUr. WALSH: I leave it to the hon. member to read his own proof. He started off by talking about the interpretation of the word ''unimproved''. Having corrected him on that, I think he will agree that £3 15s. would be a high value for wheat lands in pre-war days. I think it would be safe to say that there was a good deal of land valued as low as 30s. an acre.

j}fr. j}fadsen: You must have the improved value to get the unimproved value.

lUr. W ALSH: I do not disagree with that. I know that is one of the principles that must be followed, and that is where the hon. member for Whitsunday is a little off the trark. He knows that when it comes to cane assignments the owner of cane land is given an equity for which he pays nothing whatever. He attaches that equity to the value of his land. The result of this is that land that may be valued at 25s. an acre without a cane assignment can easily be sold subsequently for £20 nn acre with an assign­ment. That has been done.

~Ir. Hiley: That may be so, but how does that trammogrify the unimproved value~

:Jir. W ALSH: The principle has been laid do\vn and determined by the courts. It has even been lnicl down by the High Court in the Drysdale case relating to the Bmdekin

area. The High Court ruled that the cane assignment was attached to the land as dis­tinct from an hotel licence which was attached to the building. That was Toohey 's case. The hon. member for Whitsunday knew that when cane assignments are allotted the land­holder pays nothing for them. Are we expected to hand to some lan~-holder an equity on which he would exploit somebody else~ What argument could there be agaiJ!st the Crown getting a return by way of some small moiety--

~Ir. Hiley: Except that there should be an annual charge for the licence.

j}fr. W ALSH: Apparently hon. members opposite are prepared to allow all and s~ndry to speculate in land sales and there IS no suggestion that this Government should introduce any legislation to prevent la?-d being sold a.t a val~e greater t~an 1ts economic value. There IS no suggestron that that should be done and, as a matter of fact, I should say from some of the remarks I have heard from hon. members opposite that I think the Department of Public Lands would be well advised to take out the state­ments made by hon. members opposite and place them iri. the hands of its advocate before the Land Court because I do not know of any better evidence that would justify the Land Court in increasing rents in the various grazing areas where they are hold on a leasehold basis. If it is argued that land held on a freehold basis capable of producing X bushels of wheat is worth £25 or £30 an acre how can hon. members opposite argue ag~inst the same quality land held under leasehold tenure being worth any less 9 The Department of Public Lands would be justified in determining the rent values on the same basis as for freehold value. If we accept the argument put forward by hon. members opposite that would be the case. The hon. member for Coorparoo said that a charge should be made for the annual licence. Let me give him a typical case which came under my notice to show the effect it has on land settlement and land develop­ment where we exercise no control over the sale value of land. I recall this case which was in the area represented by the hon. member for Aubigny at the time 1 was Secretarv for Public Lands. It concerned land heid under perpetual lease tenure. It was nart of the resumed Jimbour Estate and the court, having determined the com­pensation payable to the Queens!and National Bank, the amount so determmed was divided by the number of blocks, accord­ing to improvements, etc. In this particular case the canital value of the land was deter­mined at {4 6s. an acre and the lessee was expected to pay 3 per cent. on that as distinct from 1 t per cent. on Crown leases because this \Vas resumed land and the Act nrovided for that rental of 3 per cent. In l932, the Government, after having given a little relief to most other forms of rural lanc1 held on a leasehold basis looked at the Jimbour repurchased estate. I remember that the capital value was reduced from £4 6s. to £1 12s. an acre. The value of the improve­ments was set out in the report. In a brief

1218 Land Tax Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

time, the original owner of the property sold the land-and the value of the improvements were set out in the form-and after every­thing was determined there was a residue of £3 14s. an acre. In other words, the owner of the leasehold was selling to somebody else at a value in excess of that which the Crown had said previously was far too much having regard to the economic conditions. Actually, the purchaser of the leasehold ended up with a capital value of £5 6s. an acre compared with £4 6s., which was determined. by the court.

~Ir. Hiley: That difference might be merely a capitalisation of the advantage of exemption from land tax.

JU:r. W ALSH: But if the Government determine that the capital value is too high at £4 6s., why should anybouy be allowed io put a settler in a more invidious position than the previous owner~ The hon. member for Coorparoo will agree that the original lessee was paying 3 per cent. on £4 6s., which was reduced to £1 12s. The person who bought the property would be paying 5 per cent. on £3 14s. plus 3 per cent. on £3 l2s. He would :finish up paying not only the extra value, but also the equivalent of an interest rate far in excess of the rental charged by the Crown.

Mr. Sparkes: Did you say it was £5 6s. an acre in 1932 ~

~Ir. WALSH: The original value was £4 6s., which was reduced to £1 12s. After the allocation for improvements and so on there was a residue of £3 14s., which was allegedly for goodwill. What goodwill was there~ I took out dozens of cases similar to that while I was in the Department of Public Lands showing the effect on land development because of the exploitation of perpetual lease lands, particularly in the cane-growing areas. The hon. member for Whitsunday knows that as well as I do. He has been round pedal­ling cane-farm sales. He knows that per­petual lease lands in his own area are selling Rt a higher value than freehold lands.

~Ir. Lloyd Roberts: Rubbish!

~Ir. W ALSH: I shall get a few of the files one day and show the hon. member how correct my statement is. I have found excess values to the extent of £4 an acre above freehold values in the same area. I am referring particularly to the C::llcn area and areas round St. Helens. I have all the lease­hold numbers.

The hon. member for Darlington quoted some cases in respect of which he said that land tax would be considerably increased this year because of the adjusted valuations. I got my officers to make a rough calculation of the cases cited by the hon. member, ancl I do not think any of the land-holders con­cerned would like to hear the hon. member for Darlington referring to them as small farmers. On the basis of the tax that he said they would be paying, most of them would own properties the unimproved value of which would be between £15,500 and

£20,000. Like some hon. members who repre­sent country interests, they would very likely be staying at Lennons. I am sure they would not like to be referred to as farmers; they would consider themselves a rung above that. The hon. member said they were in the Boonah shire, but I think they would be in the Wambo shire. The values range from £15,499 to £22,200. I do not think anybody woul<l call those men small farmers. I have some idea of what a small farmer is, and nobody would call a man with land valued at between £15,000 and £25,000 a small farmer. We hear these pathetic pleas for the small farmer. They know it is not the small farmer who pays the tax. It is possible that four of these blocks are held by one person ac; a ' aggregation.

The hon. member for Lockyer went on in his usual wild, irresponsible way, with total disregard for the truth. I would hate to be put in the invidious position in which he has been put. I do not want to bring up the matter of the royal commission, but he has been so many times corrected. I swear on my oath before my God that the hon. member for Somerset did not get any brief from any Cabinet Minister. The hon. member for Lockyer tried to put words into his mouth which he never said. The hon. member for Somerset referred to the 1952 amendment, not this amendment. This shows the recklessness of the hon. member for Lockyer. The hon. members for Cooroora and Aubigny are sometimes reckless, but we expect it from the hon. member for Lockyer, because it seems to be a habit of his. Having been untruthful-and that is the best I can say under Standing Orders­surely he will not complain if I correct an obvious untruth.

All credit should go to a man like the hon. member for Somerset, who <has had no experi­ence in land development as a farmer, but is able to present the case of rural land­holders better than any member of the Opposition. That is shown by the intelligent way he put his case this morning. He did no more than I did myself during the years I was a private member. He dug into the reports presented to him here and read the various introductory speeches bearing on the question and informed his mind. The hon. member for Lockyer should put in a little time like that. He should take lessons from the hon. members for Coorparoo and Toowong, who approach their subjects intelligently. ·

It is said that Labour Governments do not assist the farmers. . The obvious evidence that the farmers have faith in Labour Governments is found in the dozens of mem­bers on this side of the House representing rural areas.

Motion (Mr. Walsh) agreed to.

Resolution reported.

FIRST READING.

Bill presented and, on motion of Mr. W alsh, read a :first time.

Parliamentary Contributory [5 NOVEMBER.] Superannuation, &c., Bill. 1219

PARLIAMENTARY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL.

CONTRIBUTORY FUND ACT

SECOND READING.

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane­Premier) (3.36 p.m.) I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

There is not a great deal that I feel it necessary to say in moving the second reading of this Bill, the principles of which I fully outlined in the introductory stage. The principles of the Bill are few, but, they are very necessary in order to clarify at least one doubtful interpretation of the existing Act. One deals with the case of a contributor to the scheme over a long period who is predeceased by his wife. Under the Act the beneficiaries of the estate do not benefit in any way. This Bill provides that in such cases the estate will benefit to the extent of a. refund of the contributions, as is the case wrth members who are defeated prior to qualifying for a pension. The remaining principle gives a varied period of grace of three months in the period of qualification.

lUr. Sparkes: Bringing it back to 9 months.

lllr. GAIR: Eight years and 9 months. A member who serves eight years and 9 months will be considered to have served 9 years and a member who serves 11 years and 9 months will be considered to have served 12 years. There is a period of three months grace which, I believe, is quite reasonable. There is a limit as to how far one can go in this connection. As I said when introducing the Bill after all an important consideration in 'any pension or supe.rannuation scheme is the period of servrce. I should say that 9 years is the mmrmum that can be taken into considera­tion; anything less than that would not be considered any great length of service. If you reduced it below 8 years and 9 months I think you would be destroying one of the primary principles of the Act.

ltlr. Hiley: It envisages in most cases three full Parliaments.

ltlr. GAIR: That is so. Over the years most Parliaments run the full time. There were extraordinary circumstances associated with the 1953 election, the projected visit overseas of the Leader of the Opposition and myself: I know that during the election campargn the Leader of the Opposition had a lot to s~y about the early election, but he knew qmte well the reason for it. It was necessary for both of us to be out of the country and further delay would have meant our missing the Coronation.

Mr. Aikens: He wanted to take, advan­tage of the unpopularity of the Federal Government.

ltlr. GAIR: The Menzies Government is on the peak of unpopularity all the time, whether it is March, April or May. Even ''The Courier-Mail'' was prepared to say that Federal polities did not intrude in the State election campaign.

Normally the election would not have been held in March. It would have been held in April or May.

!Jr. Hiley: It is unwise to hold an election in March. There is a chance of cyclones and floods at that time.

Mr. GAIR: That may be an advantage. The hon. member for Coorparoo will agree that, if advantages or disadvantages are experienced during election time, it cuts both ways.

Mr. Aikens: It is not fair to the electors who cannot get to the polling booths.

lUr. GAIR: I do not know that that has happened. The hon. member knows that at times elections have been postponed because of floods. He should not make that state­ment. In this State arrangements are ~1ade so that the people can exercise their fran­chise untrammelled and unimpeded.

Some ex-members have been put at a dis­advantage because they did not complete the period of nine years, but you always get the borderline case. If this period of grace had existed at the time of the last election there would still have been some periods of service which did not entitle the ex-member to qualify. we cannot provide for every contingency, and I think it would be futile to attempt to do it. We must ensure that the scheme has a sound basis, and I believe that the existing law is sound and just.

Arrangements have been made by the trustees, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker and me, to have the scheme examined actuarially, and when we receive the actu­ary's report we will be able to consider the superannuation fund from that aspect.

lUr. Hiley: As long as the fund is not in Dutch.

lllr. GAIR: In the blue or in the red, whatever it is called. Hon. members have quoted what is done in other places. That does not influence me at all. In an important matter of this kind we require a sensible approach. It is true that some hon. members consider that the superannuation should be increased; that in the event of their defeat they would not get enough in return for their weekly contribution of £2. All that will be examined by the actuary. If the fund can stand it, we shall have a look at it and see what we can do about it.

I feel that the principles contained in the Bill will have the support of this Parliament. We have found these amendments to be necessary in the light of experience.

ltlr. NICKLIN (Landsborough-Leader of the Opposition) (3.46 p.m.): All hon. members will agree with the principles con­tained in the Bill. They have been intro­duced to rectify what we consider to be the weaknesses that have been found in the operation of the legislation and to clean up some of the anomalies that have not been to the advantage of the contributors to the scheme.

The principles are not new, but they are important. In my view, the most important

1220 Parliamentary Contributory [ASSEMBLY.] Superannuation, &c., Bill.

of them is the one that provides that if a member dies before serving the minimum period his contributions shall be refunded to his widow or his estate without interest.

I supp?s.e th~ best way of examining the new provisiOns IS to see how they will affect the fund. The cost will depend upon how many hon. members die after having served a long enough period to become entitleli to an annuity, if ever. Those hon. members who will be affected are those who cease to be members before reaching 60 years of age or who are not entitled to an annuity until t~ey reach the age of 50 unless they are defeated at an election or at a plebiscite, ?r unless they produce medical evidence of Ill-health or can satisfy the trustees of good and s~bstantial reasons for not seeking re-electwn. For instance, it would cover the case of an eligible member who had served from the age of 25 to the age of 40 and w~o died before he reached the age of 50. His refundable contributions for the 15 years would amount to £1,530.

~he _intro~uction of this new principle, which IS . emmently fair, will not place a great stram on the fund. Those contributors ;vho are pla~ed in the position visualised by It a1_1d who m the past would have receiveli n?thmg whatsoever from their contributions Will now get back at least the contributions made by them during their period of membership.

I agree entirely with the Premier that we ha_ve made. a very responsible approach to this questwn of the superannuation of members. I think all hon. members will agree that a superannuatwn scheme is desirable and. nece~sary. It is recognised in industry no\>. ~V\ e have legislated for long-service leave an~l other concessions. \Ve have no long-servi~e leave unless it is that which the electors give us from time to time but then we get no remuneration for that.'

. As was pointed out when the Bill was mtroduced, the hazards of political life are greater than those of the average industrial employment. Again, if a man does serve for a considerable number of years in this ~sseml?l.J:, he :finds great difficulty in :fitting hnnself mto industry afterwards.

Apart from that if anybody gives a len;5thy service to his country he is, on his retuement, entitled to some recognition in regard to _superannuation. Also, hon. mem­be~s contnbute to that protection on their retuement_ ~r defeat and the Government make a limited contribution. I emphasize the word "limited " because in other par lia­mentary superannuation schemes in Australia ~here is no _limit placed on the amount that IS to be pmd by the Government concerned Under the Victorian scheme the Government are. to. ma~e _a contribution to the fund to mam~am. It m a solvent condition. The contnbutwn may be any amount. In Queens­land we lu~ve approached the problem of superannuatiOn from a responsible angle and we have endeavoured to establish a scheme that is actu1u-ily sound. Whether it is actuarily sound or not we do not know but we expect, as the Premier said, that

the actuary's report will be available in the near future and will give an indication as to the actuarial position of the fund. After all, when one considers the contribu­tions made and the bene:fits paid this fund is quite a modest one, and there has been no semblance of a raid on public funds to give members of Parliament bene:fits under the superannuation scheme.

Since the introduction of this Bill I have had an opportunity of looking at the Victorian scheme to see how it compares with ours. I found that payments down there are ~the same as ours-£4 a fortnight. In Victoria they started the scheme off on the -basis of £1 a fortnight but found they were getting in the "reel, white, and blue", as the Premier referred to, and it was neces­sary to increase the contribution to £3 10s. and it was then further amended to £4 a fortnight. The pension is at the basic wage rate for 15 years' service, three consecutive Parliaments, or eight years' or more service. At the outset they started off at £1 a week for the basic wage for 15 years' service and with the increase in contribution the qualifying period was reduced to eight years. There were no refunds of contributions to members who did not qualify as we have in this State but in lieu they had what they called a retiring allowance for those not entitled to pensions. Those who served in three Parliaments and did not qualify for a pen­sion were entitled to a retiring allowance of £975, £650 for two Parliaments, and £325 for one Parliament. If you compare our retiring allowances, a member who has served in three Parliaments and did not qualify for the pension would get £936 against £975 in Victoria, and if he served in two Parliaments he would get £624, and in one Parliament £312. In Victoria interest is allowed on contributions over the period. In that State there is the provision that if a member dies at any period after he enters Parliament and no pension is payable his legal representative or his widow or his estate receives £650 or the aggregate amount of deductions whichever might be the greater. A widower is paid the equivalent of the retiring allowance or the amount of his contribution, whichever is the greater.

I am sure the Premier will be interested to hear that provision is made in the Vic­torian scheme for previous Premiers of Vic­toria who are not now in Parliament and who have not quali:fied for any bene:fit under the pensions scheme. They are entitled to the maximum pension payable under the Act, that is, the basic wage. Possibly there arr some previous Premiers of Victoria who are not now in Parliament, and their services are being recognised in that manner.

As the Premier has said-and I agree with him-our scheme is based on a sensible approach to the whole question, and the trustees have adopted the attitude of not recommending any alteration to the con­ditions attached to the scheme till they

receive an actuarial report. That is the cor­rect approach to a matter of this nature, and nobody could quibble about it. It shows that we ha.-e at least some responsibility in

Parliamentary Contributory (5 NOVEMBER.) Superannuation, &c., Bill. 1221

the duties that we have to carry out, par­ticularly when we are dealing with some­thing that affects ourselves. It is only just that members of this House should be entitled to a superannuation payment on retirement or defeat, as long as they can qualify for it in accordance with the pro­visions of the Act.

The amendments in the Bill are necessary and desirable, and will overcome weaknesses that have been revealed. I trust that when we receive the actuarial report it will show that the scheme is sound. It will then be possible for us to review the position and see if we can make the scheme more attractive.

lUr. HILEY (Coorparoo) (3.58 p.m.): I do not think anyone can have any serious quarrel with the principles of the Bill. However, before any really sweeping amend­ments are brought fonYnrd there should be the recognition that this is not a Govern­ment fund, although the Government con­tribute largely to it. This is a fund for all members of Parliament, and in examining the limited principles before us I propose to show that there is room for a lot of fur­ther thought.

My only quarrel with the proposals now before us is that they touch too narrowly on the very vexed problem of a death wher'e there is no widow surviving. I doubt whether sufficient consideration has been given even to that matter.

ilir. Gair: We could ha,ve brought for­ward a number of amendments but we have deferred them pending the actuarial report. We have dealt only ·with the more mgent matters.

ltir. HILEY: As I say, I doubt whether enough consideration has been given even to the problem of the death of a member who is not survived by a widow.

ilir. Gair: It is not a Government fund. The Lender of the Opposition is a trustee.

. Mr. HILEY: TJ;te. Government, quite ng~tly,, take resp~nsibility for governmental legislatwn. It IS unthinkable that the Government should in advance have the views of the Opposition before legislation is framed; that would be quite improper and ~ should be the last to suggest it. But when It comes to Bills affecting the rights of members of Parli~ment generally, there is a case for the settmg up of a study group representing both sides to see whether a collective examination in anticipation of the event can produce a better Bill for the service of us all.

Mr. Gair: I should think that the study group would be the trustees.

ltir. HILEY: Were the trustees con­suited on this~

Mr. Gair: Yes, it emanated from them.

lllr. HILEY: I am sorry. I did not realise that. I understood that the text of the legislation was not discussed by the trustees, and that is why I raised this point.

We have set up this fund to which all hon. members and future hon. members must contribute, with the exception of a few existing members who chose to stay out of it. This is not a deal where nn hon. member has the right to say, "I wm enter into it," or "I will not enter into it." All future hon. members are told, ''Here is a fund which by law you are obligated to join.'' There is therefore greater need for us to make sure that our approach is as fair as we can make it for every conceivable hazard. It is unthinkable that we should force a man to join a fund which would be inequitable for him.

Remembering that, it is abundantly clear that, as the position now stands, if an hon. member is unmarried at any stage of his membership of the fund, the fund is unjust because it asks him to make a common contribution to a fund providing benefits for widows, when his failure to many makes it impossible for that benefit to accrue to him.

ltir. Aikens: His executor will get his total contributions if he dies.

Mr. HILEY: Now that we are passing this amending Bill. That is the basic justification for what we are now doing. In the case of the hon. member who never marries, there is abundant justification for the proposal before us.

Let us consider other grades of hon. members in relation to whom \1"8 find varying degrees of justification. In the state of the fund at present, if an hon. member marries and his wife predeceases him, the widow's benefit withers away. The fund has run the hazard of a widow's annuity for many years. Tnke the case of a man who is an hon. member for 17 years and his ·wife dies after 16 years and 9 months of his member­ship, he dying two or three months later. The fund has actuarially had to run all the hazaTd of the widow's benefit for 16 years and 9 months during the lifetime of the wife. Because of the accident of her dying a week or two, or a month or two, before her husband, there is to be no measure of the contribution for the actuarial load which has been carried over that period of hazard, and the full contributions of the hon, mem­ber are returned. As long as we are clear on what we are doing, I have no objection. In such a case it seems to be, if anything, a little on the generous side. The man who never marries should receive all his con­tributions back if he never qualifies for a pension, because he never had a wife who, as a widow, could benefit. In the case of a man who has had a wife for most of the period of membership and who dies a week ahead of him, he has had the benefit of having her covered during that period and he gets all his money back.

I think this proposal is generous to the man who has had a wife for 10 years and 9 months and who happens to predecease her h".sband by a brief period. Let us go to the other extreme where there is no correction and where there is still some element of injus­tice. Take the member whose ·wife out­lives him by one day. There is nothing under

1222 Parliamentary Contributory [ASSEMBLY.] Superannuation, &c., Bill.

the present law and nothing under the amend­ment to cover this matter. Take the case of a husband and wife travelling together in a motor-car and who suffer an accident as a result of which both are seriously injured. If the husband happens to die an hour ahead of his wife there is not a penny refund. Are we satisfied that there has been a suffici­ent, careful, and full examination to deal with the varying hazards~

~Ir. Aikens: Where would you draw the line of demarcation in a case like that~

:iUr. HILEY: I do not know. That illustrates the sort of problem that might arise; that justifies a full study of these hazards to see where the path of true justice lies. The Bill proposes to apply this correc­tion of refund only to people while they are members of the fund and up to the time when they commence to draw benefits. Take a man who retires at 50 and ·who is eligible to dra\y benefit at 60. If his wife pl·ede­ceases him while he is a member or up to the period when he is eligible to draw his benefit-unless he is beaten in a plebescite or defeated when he is 55-that protection of refund applies. Let us suppose that he retires at the end of this Parliament ancl is eligible for an annuity and draws one month's or one day's payment; if his >Yife predeceases him no refund is made. Are we satisfied that this matter has been suffici­ently and fully examined~

lllr. Aikens: You would want an Act as large as. that dictionary to cover every con­tingency like that.

~Ir. HILEY: These things should be studied. I doubt whether there has been a sufficiently full study of the problem. This touches every one of us-from the captain to the cabin boy. [ doubt whether this question has been sufficiently and fully examined to leave me with the feeling that we have set out to do justice to every member in as many cases as can conceivably be managed.

I do not oppose the Bill. I think there iE! merit in what the Premier has pointed out and which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Both those hon. gentlemen pointed out that these are not principal or far-reaching amendments of the whole super­annuation scheme; they will come later on when the actuary's report is available and when it will be possibe to determine what can be done and still preserve actuarial sound­ness. I accept that as an indication of the course that will be followed in improving the provident fund. I mention these direc­tions in which I detect weaknesses or neglect in order that they may be studied in the mea.ntime and that we may have a chance to look at them and have them taken into consideration when the matter comes before the House after the actuary's report is avail­able. I like the amendments, hut I do not think they deal sufficiently carefully with all the varied conditions that may arise when dealing with human beings. This at least deals with one thing that can happen. If a member drew his pension for one

month and then died without a widow, there >wuld be no refund. Take the example of the hon. member for Rockhampton who has been a bachelor all his life. If the hon. member for Rockhampton retired and drew his pension for one day and then died there would he no refund. Is that just?

ilir. Gair: Are you suggesting there should be a refund of the contributions less the pension collected~

ilir. HILEY: It is very hard to give a correct arithmetical answer. I say those are the problems that should be put to the actuary. Cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 could be put to him, and all others brought forward by hon. members. Those cases could be put to the actuary so that the path of wisdom could be determined.

~Ir. Gair: Many cases have been submitted.

ilir. HILEY: To deal only with cases such as the hou. member for Rockhampton, if he died before he drew his pension, a member who died, his wife having predeceased him and a member who died before he com~nenced to draw his pension, appears to me to be a narrow approach to a. broad and vast problem. I trust that what I have said by way of illustration will be carefully examined. I accept the Premier's statement that when the actuary's report is available quite possibly there will be a much broader examination of the operations of the fund.

ilir. AIKENS (Mundingburra) ( 4.13 p.m.): As probably the only member in this House who will never draw a pension under this Act unless I resign of my own volition, because I am never likely to be defeated in either a plebiscite or an election, I may be biased.

This Bill deals with two particular points. It establishes that a member's service for the purpose of the Superannuation Act shall commence on the day he is elected and shall terminate on the day he is defeated, or on the clay of the election that he does not contest subsequently. That was the original intention of the Bill, but I understand that legal opinion was that a member does not legally become a member of this House until the return of the writ.

J!Ir. Gair: You receive your salary from the day you are elected.

Mr. AIKENS: That is a very happy thought.

l\Ir. Gair: And you pay the contribution from that day.

~Ir. AIKENS: I was about to add that we pay our contribution from the day we are elected. When I was first elected, I was very happy to get my salary from that day, aucl I will go on drawing it until I die or resign of my own volition.

The other point cleared up is the service necessary to qualify, having regard to the periods of 9 years, 12 years and 15 years. I regret that there is no provision for

Parliamentary Contributory [5 NovEMBER.] Superannuation, &c., Bill. 1223

retrospectivity. Let us consider what hap­pened at the 1953 elections. It is all very well for the Premier to stand up here and in his most jovial and affable mood tell us why the election was held on 7 March. Inciden­tally, they tried to rush it on on 28 Feb­ruary, but the rolls were not ready. He told us that the elections were held on that date because he and the Leader of the Opposition had to go overseas to attend the coronation. That is rather an indictment of the Govern­ment Party and the Opposition. It means that the Labour Party on one hand and the Liberal-Country Party on the other are one­man shows and that the election could not be held in the absence of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

:illr. Hiley: Can you imagine an election without the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition~

:illr. AIKENS: Suppose they were both stricken with a serious illness~ We could not postpone the election. Let me tell the hon. member the truth, although he knows it just as well as I do.

lUr. SPEAKER: Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to give us a disserta­tion on when the election was held. The Bill deals with superannuation.

Mr. AIKENS: I was elected to this Parliament on 14 April, 1944.

:illr. Gair: A tragic day.

:ilir. AIKENS: No. It is celebrated as St. Thomas's Day, in Northern Queensland.

The former hon. member for Cunningham, Mr. Mcintyre, was also elected on that day. I very seriously regard that part of the Bill that makes no provision for retrospectivity. Mr. Mcintyre would have been nine years in Parliament on 14 April, 1953, but, because the Queensland Government, for the purposes of political expediency, rushed the election on on 7 March, 1953, we now find that Mr. Mcintyre does not enjoy the pension to which I consider he is justly entitled.

I went to see Mr. Mcintyre. He sent for me, and I went to see him when he was lying seriously ill at the Mater Hospital. I have had communications from him since. He told me he had had correspondence with the trustees of the fund ever since the date of the last election. He says, with abundant truth, that he could have lain on his side verandah without contesting the election at all in a personal sense and won the Cun­ningham seat at the 1953 election. He could have remained the member for Cunningham until 14 April, 1953, then resigned and put the country to the expense of a by-election. But because he honestly believed that, having served for nine years in Parliament-that is for three full Parliaments-he was entitled to his £5 a week superannuation he did not do so. To his astonishment, he found after the election that he was not entitled to it because, if I remember rightly, the Trustees said he was about 32 days short in his time.

I know there are other cases like those of the former hon. member for Sandgate

who is now getting £5 a week instead of £6 and of Mr. Luckins and Mr. Macdonald who were formerly hon. members for Maree and Somerset respectively. In view of the fact that those men were here when the original Act was passed, there should be at least a retrospective clause dating back to the pass­ing of the original Act to bring those men, Mr. Mcintyre in particular, under its provisions.

I know that the attitude of the Govern­ment is that men who were members of the Liberal-Country Party are, ipso facto, wealthy men and therefore do not need the £5 a week or the extra £1 a week, as the case may be. If that is the attitude of the Government, then it is a very miserable one indeed.

JUr. Gair; That does not come into it, and you are miserable for suggesting it.

JUr. AIKENS: I am making the sug­gestion, and I am prepared to wager that if a member of the Labour Party was in the same position as Mr. Mcintyre there would have been a retrospective clause in this Bill. I am absolutely astonished, indeed ashamed, of the Leader of the Opposition and his followers for not having given notice that they propose in Committee to move an amendment to make this clause retrospective so as to embrace Mr. Mcintyre and the other three members of the Opposition who were defeated at the last State elections.

~Ir. Nicklin: Do you know what the definition of ''service'' ;vas under the old Act~

Mr. AIKENS: I remember the passage particularly well. I think the present Premier was the Acting Premier when he put it through. I remember that passage in the old Act. I have looked it up with the Clerk of the Parliament. As a matter of fact, I was able to point the particular incident out to him. There was a three months' back-lag clause in the draft as sub­mitted to this Chamber but the present Premier, who was then Acting Premier, moved that the "three" be omitted and "two" substituted. If the original draft of the Act as submitted to this Parliament­! think it was in 1948 when it first came down-had been left as it was Mr. Mcintyre, Mr. Decker, Mr. Luckins and Mr. Macr donald would have been drawing their full pension today.

Mr. Nicklin: Not necessarily.

~Ir. AIKENS: Yes, because there was three months' grace.

:ilir. Nicklin: Service was reckoned on issue and return of writs.

~Ir. AIKENS: If the Leader of the Opposition looked at the Act as I have, it says that if Parliament is dissolved within two months before the effluxion of time-a member under the Act as it stands today is entitled to two months' grace-then the member's service shall count up to the original effiuxion of time.

lUr. Nicklin: You look up the original Act.

1224 Parliamentary Contributory [ASSEMBLY.] Superannuation, &c., Bill.

Mr. AIKENS: It contained a three­months' grace clause, which was amended by the Premier to two months. We never thought--

}fr. Nicklin: It did not say when you should measure service from and to.

}fr. AIKENS: I will not enter into a bitter controversy with the Leader of the Opposition because I have read the Act and I have read it with people who claim to have a full knowledge of the law and every­one I have discussed the matter with agrees with me. If the original draft had been left in the form as it was presented in 1948 these men would not have been diddled out of superannuation payment. It is not too late to remedy the matter now. The Act embraced every hon. member of Parliament actually sitting in this House at the time but because of some error of ours we have deliberately excluded men from superannua­tion. I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of a party which included Mr. Mcintyre, should have made some tangible effort to right a wrong that has been done.

Mr. Nicklin: What right have you to say that~ The trustees looked into this matter.

}fr. AIKENS: I should like to hear the hon. gentleman's answer why he is not doing it. Mr. Mcintyre offered to send me all the correspondence. It was a tribute to me that a man of his character and calibre should appeal to me when apparently his appeal to his leader had fallen on deaf ears. I hope the Premier will see his way clear to make that clause with regard to the eight years and nine months from election to defeat as the case may be, constituting the nine-year period, retrospective to the day the Bill was introduced. If we do that we will remove this, shall we say, stigma, on the Bill at the present time and we will remove the sugges­tion that I have made very plain in this Chamber that the retrospectivity clause is not in the Bill now because it would benefit anti-Government members of Parliament.

I again suggest to the Premier that if a Labour man elected at the 1944 election on 14 April had been defeated at the 1953 election there would have been a retrospec­tivity clause in the Bill.

Hon. V. C. GAIR (South Brisbane­Premier) ( 4.24 p.m.), in reply: I should like briefly to make reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Coorparoo, who indicated that he considered that we had not given sufficient consideration to many cases that merit consideration, where ex-members of Parliament could have predeceased their wives by a da v or so and there would be no refund of contributions.

The cases raised by the hon. member for Coorparoo are worthy of consideration but, as I said before, many similar proposals have been submitted to the actuary. They ue being considered by him, ancl no doubt he will refer to them in the report that the trustees have aslred him to submit.

The hon. member for Coorparoo is mis­taken in his belief that we dealt only with the case of a member of Parliament who dies and is predeceased by his wife. Here is one of the cases that was submitted-

'' As the Act stands, there appears to be no provision for a refund of personal con­tributions, without interest, on the death of

(a) A member of the Legislative Assembly who is a member of the Fund, who possesses at least nine years' service, and who is not married at the elate of his death, or

(b) a person who is entitled to an immediate or deferred annuity, and who was not married at the elate of his retirement.''

rhen there is the case of a member of Par­iament who is defeated prior to reaching

his 50th birthday and who, under the exist­ing law, is not eligible for a pension or superannuation until he is 50 years of age. We have submitted to the actuary a pro­posal that in such cases the trustees be per­mitted to pay to the member or ex-member a refund of his contributions if he elects to accept a refund instead of waiting till he is 50. His future may be assured and he may not be concerned about the pension. He may prefer to get a refund of his contributions immediately than receive a pension at some future date.

Again, an ex-member of Parliament, because of circumstances, may consider that a lump sum payment of £900 would be of more advantage to him in rehabilitating himself in busines or industry than a pension at some future date. Take, for instance, the hon. member for Isis, the hon. member for North Toowoomba, and the hon. member for Burclekin all of whom came here as teachers from the' Department of Public Instruction. In the event of defeat at the polls, they would normally go back to the teaching service. Because they were in the employ of the Crown, they would then be disqualified from any benefits under this scheme; there would be no provision for a refund of t~eir contributions.

As I say, we have examined these things, but everything hinges on their financial impact on the fund generally. The actuary has been asked to examine many cases that have been raised from time to time.

}fr. Aikens: Could not the hon. mem­bers you have mentioned draw a lump sum first and then go back to the teaching service1

Mr. GAIR: Not if they were entitled to a pension. At the present time, no option exists. If a member qualities for the pension he must take it, but immediately he re-enters the service of the Crown he ceases to receive the pension. The ex-member, in my opinion, should be given the choice of a refund of contributions or a deferred pension. A teacher would go on until 65 or 661 years before he would qualify to become an annui­tant under this scheme.

Parlia rnentary Contributory [5 NOVEMBER.] Superannuation, &c., Bill. 1225

For the benefit of the hon. member for Coorparoo, I say that we are examining all these cases which occur to us from time to time in the administration of this fund.

He also said that there should be a study group to deal with these matters. I am not opposed to that. On these subjects which concern us all, nobody has been more ready than I to consult hon. members of this House on matters of common interest. There are three trustees, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and myself. We can go into these matters from time to time. The legislation now before this Parlia­ment has been based on decisions of the trustees. The minutes from which I read of 7 June say-

'' After considering suggested amend· men~s,_ it w:;s decide~ to have the following provisiOns mserted m a draft amending Bill ''

The provisioha are th<>n set out. The hon. n;ember for Coorparoo aceepted my explana­twn, and I do not want to stress it. I am reading from the minutes merely to prove that what I say is correct, not that I think the hon. member expects any further proof that the principles contained in the Bill emanated from the trustees.

I now come to the remarks of the hon. mem· ber for Mundingburra, which were intemperate unfair, and unjust. In the first place h~ suggested that if a Labour member had been defeated at the last election and had been in a position similar to that of Mr. Mcintyre, Mr. Dec~er, or somebody else, who were put at· a disadvantage because of the early election, we would have had a retrospective clause in this Bill.

iUr. Aikens: That is right.

lUr. GAIR: That is a miserable asser­tion. That is a diabolical, typical statement of the hon. member for Mundingburra. To prove just what an unreliable member of this Parliament he is, he might now explain why we have not a retrospective clause in this Bill to deal with the case of Mr. Hanlon, who contributed to this fund for many years from its inception and who died, predeceased by his wife. Neither his estate nor his children received one penny refund from this fund. If we were as miserable as he is suggesting, why did we not have a retrospective clause to cover Mr. Hanlon 's case~

JUr. Aikens: Why don't you write it in?

l\Ir. GAIR: The hon. member for Mundingburra does not examine these things very carefully, but he makes a cowardly attack on the Leader of the Opposition. I say "cowardly attack" advisedly because he knew that in this debate on the second reading the Leader of the Opposition had no opportunity to reply to him, but I am going to reply on his behalf. The hon. member for Mundingburra's statement regarding the Leader of the Opposition is cowardly and unfair because Mr. Mcintyre's case was submitted to the trustees by the Leader of the Opposition and all three of us were just as sympathetic, and probably more

practical in our sympathy than the hon. member who mouths these charges without any real basis. The Leader of the Opposi­tion examined it, with the rest of us. No­one is going to suggest that I would not have helped Mr. Mclntyre in the circum­stances if it was at all possible. If we were to consider retrospective legislation in this connection we would have had to do it in the case of Mr. Hanlon. There is no ending or finishing once you start. The hon mem­ber does not know that as far as Mr. Mcintyre was concerned, if we had had three-months' grace instead of the two, as provided in the existing Act he would not have qualified for the pension.

Mr. Aikens: That is the story he told me.

Mr. GAIR: The hon. member should look at the Act where he would see that Section 7 ( 2) (a) provides-

''If any person ceases to be a member of the Legislative Assembly by reason of a dissolution taking place within two months before the expiration of the Legislative Assembly by effiuxion of time, he shall be deemed to remain a member until the day when the Legislative Assembly would have so expired.' '

Section 7 (2) (a) would therefore not apply in respect of any of the last five elections, as Parliament was dissolved more than two months before the expiration of the Parlia­ment by efiluxion of time. Even if the House had been dissolved at the normal time Mr. Mcintyre would not have been eligible under the Act unless the election took place on 15 April or later~

Mr. Aikens: Why didn't they take place on 15 April or later~

Mr. GAIR: If it concerned an election for the hon. member I think 1 April would be the most appropriate date. It is all right to pick out individual cases. We must remember that when this Act was introduced in 1948 all those ex-members, whose cases the hon. member tried to champion today, were members of this Parliament, and they voted in favour of the Act.

Mr. Aikens: They never thought that you would have an election on 7 March.

Mr. GAIR: They had no guarantee; the Government are not bound to hold office for the full three-year period. In recent years in the Federal sphere we have seen that repeatedly. There was an election in 1949 and another in 1951. The same thing applies in the State sphere. The Govern­ment are not compelled to hold an election on a certain date; circumstances compel Governments to go to the people. There were extraordinary circumstances in these cases, as I pointed out. Had we deferred the elections till the ordinary time it would have been very inconvenient for those of us who represented this Parliament at the Coronation to get there in time. There will always be borderline cases; and it is utterly impossible to legislate for particular cases. But we try to dispense justice. We have

1226 Parlt. Contributory, &c., Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

to have regard to this fact too, that with a superannuation scheme like any mutual bene­fit scheme, some people must be disadvan­taged or get little or nothing out of it other­wise there would be no benefieiarie«. In a mutual benefit society, particularly a friendly society, the man who is blessed with good health still pays his contributions. He could say, ''I have been a member of this society for 30 years, paying Is. 6d. a week, and I have never drawn a cracker.''

Mr. Aikens: He is the luckiest man of all.

lllr. GAIR: Of course he is. He is contributing to the payments :t;lade to less fortunate people, and that rs why the societies are called mutual benefit societies.

The hon. member for Mundingburra in his customary, boastful way this afternoon said he would be here till he died.

lllr. Aikens: I may resign.

lllr. GAIR: If it is a case of the old adage ''Only the good die young'', we shall have to put up with him for a long time. I am not a bit fearful of his boasting in that connection. The fact remains that an hon. member who has a secure seat is not very much concerned about the superannua­tion fund. Why did we introduce it~ What is the primary purpose of it? The primary purpose of it is to assist the man who leaves his industry, his job or his calling to come into Parliament and, after serving in Parlia­ment for nine years or more at a vital stage in his life, is defeated or is compelled to retire because of ill-health. He finds because of his advancing years that his chances of obtaining a position are not very bright.

lllr. Aikens: Too old at 40.

lllr. GAIR: That might be so. He experiences difficulty in earning a livelihood, because he is thrown out into a new world as it were. He cannot go back to his trade or calling. The object is to give this man something on which to subsist. He con­tributes to it. It is not a gift, any more than the police pension scheme or any other scheme. The contribution at present is £2 a week. The Government subsidise the fund and there is nothing wrong with that. If each of us examined it from the personal point of view, what each would get out of it, a lot of individual cases would have to be covered.

It is not possible to legislate for every possible ease. The actuary will pay regard to the effect of all these things on the financial stability of the fund. I feel that some of the submissions we have made to the actuary could be accepted, but I am not an actuary. I llm not in a position nor am I qualified to say what effect these cases would have on the fund. He is qualified to tell me and the other trustees.

As trustees we have examined the matter very thoroughly. If we had been satisfied about the actuarial position, we could have recommended more amendments, but until the actuary's report is examined we are not in a position to do that.

I very much regret that the hon. member for Mundingburra took advantage of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon in regard to the case of an ex-member of the Country Party.

lllr. Aikens: Mr. Mc!ntyre fe-els very strongly about it.

Mr. GAIR: He may. Personal interest colours judgment. That is an old saying. It is true that he may feel his position very keenly. We all regret that circum­stances compelled his resignation. He was a good member of this Pa~liament. He con­tributed a great deal to rt, and we sympa­thise with him in his long illness. I can assure hon. members that his case, like that of any other hon. member, received the utmost consideration.

On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not able to speak at this stage, let me say that he submitted the ease on behalf of Mr. Melntyre efficiently and well and did everything humanly possible with a view to obtaining superannuation for Mr. Mclntyre, if at all possible.

Motion (Mr. Gair) agreed to.

COMMITTEE.

(The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Clark, Fitzroy, in the chair.)

Clauses 1 to 4, both inclusive, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

The House adjourned at 4.49 p.m.