Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 1 July 1926

Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) . - I supported Senator Elliott on a former occasion, and, after listening to the debate to-night, I can come to no other conclusion than that the 'Government, in introducing the measure in another place, was of the opinion that certain individuals who should have enjoyed certain concessions under the bill were not included. That in itself was sufficient to cause Senator Elliott to< see if some amendment could not be drafted to remove the anomaly referred to by the Treasurer.

Senator McLachlan - And the Minister now says that the suggested amendment goes too far.

Senator PAYNE - The Minister should show in what respect the amendment is too drastic. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government. The Minister has told the committee that the amendment will extend the scope of assistance to be given, and that if it is agreed to the Government will have to drop the bill. Why should the Government do that? The amendment does not affect the principle of the bill. I. have no desire to assist in the passage of any measure that will be unfair. The underlying principle of the original provision was a recognition of the fact that business men who fought for their country should receive greater consideration in respect of taxation than those who stayed at home.

Senator Crawford - That was not the intention of the original act.

Senator PAYNE - Then why did the Treasurer specially refer to certain anomalies ?

Senator Crawford - The Treasurer's remarks have been entirely misinterpreted.

Senator PAYNE - The Treasurer admitted that he had heard of a number of hard cases, and agreed that probably there were more, of men who, at the time of their enlistment, were engaged in business. A man might have been closely identified with a business, and after having reached the war zone, sue- ceeded to that business on the death of his father, the senior partner.

Senator Crawford - He would have succeeded to a bigger estate.

Senator PAYNE - Had he succeeded his father the day before the war commenced, he would have received the benefits conferred by this bill. Because he happened to have become a partner while at the war, should he he deprived of thoso benefits? Before his enlistment, he probably had more to do with the business than his father had.

Senator Crawford - That is pure assumption.

Senator PAYNE - lt is not. I intend to support the amendment moved by Senator Elliott.

Suggest corrections