Los Angeles herald., 1910-12-11
TAXATION TO OPEN
AUSTRALIAN LAND
South Wales Labor Government
Proposes Bill to Cut Up
Big Estates
OPPOSITION TURNS TO COURTS
ConstitutionaIity of the Levy on
Population Values viii
Be Contested
OPPOSITION TURNS TO COURTS

SYDNEY, N. 8. w, Dec. 1o.-The
land tax bill of the new Labor gov
ernment is monopolizing public atten-
ton to a great extent because, directly
or indirectly, it affects the interests of
more people in a tangible and substan-
tial fashion than any bill that has
seen the light of day in any Australian
legislature. No legislative proposal
hitherto introduced in this country
will have anything like such lmme-
diate effects upon individual citizens
as this measure If carried in its pres
ent form promises to have unless 1t
altogether fails to fulfill the intention
of its authors.
The case for the imposition Of some
form of land taxation by the federal
parliament can be stated briefly. There
is a case for 1t now, and fairly strong
one. Whether that case Justi1es
tax in this form is another question.
First large areas of land suitable for
agriculture are certainly at present
locked I'D In the hands of wealthy
holders and are not put to their most
productive uses. The extent or TINS
evil is always exaggerated, but the
evil Is undoubtedly there, and In the
interests of immigration and defense,
If for no other reasons, requires to be
cured. It is not so easy for the small
farmer as it ought to be to get land
not too remote and suitable for culti-
walton on a small scale. Second, the
state parliaments have had this evil
before their eyes for a long time, put
they have up to the present taken no
vigorous or properly effective steps
to cure 1t.
nEspA1RED OF STATE ACTION
With them land taxation was duty,
and they are directly responsible for
letting 1t pass into other hands and
upon a scale that makes any klnd Oh
equity, not to speak of equality of sac
rifice, all but impossible. Third and
last. the electors undoubtedly gave
their sanction April 13 last to the i'm
position of some form of graduated
land taxation, calculated to burst
up" the big estates containing Iahu
suitable for closer settlement. They
did this because In most cases they
despaired of state action, long over
due, and still either neglected or IN
operative. There is, to begin with, the
fundamental question whether, taxing
for granted ali the evil results of state
inactivity in the past, the federal, par
lament can be the proper authority TO
correct these. In other words, Is IL
constitutionally entitled, IN the appar-
ent exercise of it's taxing powers, TO
ing in the states?
This is, in one of its aspects, dry
question of law, which Is certain TO
be submitted to the judgment of the
high court as soon as the tax comes
into operation, and constitutional
LAWYERS seem much divided as to
what the answer will be. On the
precedent of the new protection cases,
where the high court held that the
federal parliament could not, by pre-
tending. to impose an excise tax, regu-
late the conditions of workers in rae
tories, there seems to be some ground
for the anticipation that the gradu-
ated land tax, which under the guise
of a tax undoubtedly regulates the
conditions Of the holding Of land, will
be disallowed At all events, this is
the main ground on which Mr.. Deakln,
leader of the opposition, has based his
adverse amendment.
WILL TEST CONSTTTUTIONALTTY
Even assuming the tax to be consti-
tuttonal in the legal sense, 1T Is still
quite possible for it to he unconsti-
tutional in the political sense, the op-
position claims. Mr.. Deakin claims
that it strains the federal powers to
their utmost and imposes limitation
on the freedom Of the states to control
their land policy-which they alone
can control effectively-and on the
state powers of taxation. Though this
NAV be consistent with the bare words
of the constitution, 1t is claimed that
1T is not consistent with the mainte-
nance of the equilibrium of govern
mental powers, and means, in effect,
the transfer Of a governmental power
of the first importance from local
authorities, which can exercise 1t ef-
fectively, to one central authority,
which for both constitutional and
practical reasons cannot. 1t is not
argued that every form of federal land
taxation is obnoxious, but only that
form with which the people are now
confronted, since while affecting TO
he a tax for revenue purposes 1t in
effect controls the size of land hold
fngs in the states. 1t is argued that 1t
NAV be q good thing that the COM
monWealth should be now invested
with the power with which the con-
stitution has not endowed it to legis-
late on this question, but that 1t is not
a, good thing that it should obtain or
exercise the power by a subterfuge.
THESE considerations will not prevent
the passage of the bill. 1t is out OF
fashion now to show any regard for
the maintenance of the federal prin-
cinIe on which the whole Of the con-
stitution was deliberately and care
fully founded. The people have be-
come impatient of any barriers that
stand between the majority and the
Immediate realization of their political
aspirations, even though they them-
selves placed the barrier where II Is
only ten years ago.