the intention of the Legislature, it is quite clear that Parliament intended to impose taxation by the Tax Act and not by the Assessment Act, and that it framed the latter expressly in the form which did not impose taxation so that it might be open to amendment by the Senate. Assume, however, that the Acts may be read together, as the plaintiff contends, and that the Assessment Act is a law imposing taxation, the objection must still fail on another ground, namely, that in none of its provisions does the Act deal with any other subject of taxation than land." Per O'CONNOR, J., High Court judgment, (1911) 12 C.L.R., 355.

§ 105.

66

ONE SUBJECT OF TAXATION ONLY.” Taxation of Land and Personalty.

The Commonwealth Land Tax Act 1910-1912, section 39, provided that all land owned by a company shall be deemed to be owned by the shareholders of a company as joint owners in the proportions of their interests in the paid up capital of the company, with the same consequences as to liability to taxation in respect of their respective interests as in other cases of joint ownership. In Morgan v. Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax, N.S. W., (1912) 15 C.L.R., 667, objection was taken that assuming the object of taxation was land, and the members of the joint stock company were not the owners of land and that a law requiring persons not the owners of land to pay tax in respect of it is not, as to them a law imposing land tax, but a tax on personalty and that section 39 is therefore obnoxious to the provisions of section 55 of the Constitution. It was pointed out that Parliament had proceeded upon the assumption that the members of a company owning land are in substance the beneficial owners of the land in proportion to their interests in the paid up capital of the company. It was held by the High Court that the Federal Parliament in selecting subjects of taxation is entitled to take things as it finds them, in rerum natura, irrespective of any positive laws of the States prescribing rules to be observed with regard to the acquisition or devolution of a formal title to property or the institution of judicial proceedings with respect to it.

Double Taxation.

In the case of The Attorney-General of Queensland v. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, (1915) 20 C.L.R., at p. 164. the validity of the Federal Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914

was again impeached on the ground that it offends against section 55 of the Constitution by dealing with more than one subject of taxation, viz. :-To tax land as well as personality; that by sections 34-39 it imposed a tax on members of the joint stock company in respect of their shares or interests in the Company. The High Court declined to reverse its decision in Morgan's Case, 15 C.L.R., 661, which it had been invited to review.

Recommendation of Money Votes.

56. A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the GovernorGeneral to the House in which the proposal originated.

Disagreement Between the Houses.

57. If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects106 or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the

House of Representatives will not agree, the GovernorGeneral may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

§ 106. "IF THE SENATE REJECTS."

At the general election held in May, 1913, the Labor party majority of ten in the previous House of Representatives was turned into a minority of one in the new House, although at the same time, the Labor party in the Senate was strengthened and placed in a position of overwhelming superiority in point of numbers. The Prime Minister, Mr. A. FISHER, having resigned, Mr. JOSEPH COOK was summoned by the Governor-General, Lord DENMAN, to form a ministry, which he accordingly did after pointing out all the difficulties in the way of governing the country.

Upon the new House being sworn in on 9th June 1913, the retiring speaker, Mr. CHARLES MCDONALD declined to continue in the chair, and the retiring Chairman of Committees, Mr. POYNTON, also refused to be re-elected. The incoming Ministry were obliged to find occupants for these positions which resulted in their loss of the majority of one in the House in which they then had only equal number with those of their opponents. Had Mr.

MCDONALD remained in the chair, they would have had a majority of two with which to carry on the business of the country.

Notwithstanding this precarious position the Ministry persevered in their efforts to do business. They introduced a general amending Electoral Bill for the purpose of rectifying defects in the electoral machinery and restoring the provisions for postal voting. Other proposals of a non-party character were introduced, such as the Agricultural Bureau Bill. At the end of two months' sitting, no business of any kind was done in the House of Representatives, whilst in the Senate control of affairs was completely taken out of the hands of responsible Ministers.

When it became clear to the Government that no useful business could be done, they decided that a further appeal to the people should be made by means of a double dissolution, under section 57 of the Constitution, and accordingly they endeavoured to force through the House of Representatives two short measures for the purpose of fulfilling the terms of the Constitution, one of these measures being Government Preference Prohibition Bill," to abolish preference to unionists in the Government service.

The design and intention of the Ministry was well understood by Parliament and the country. There was no secret or subterfuge in the procedure adopted. After a long and bitter struggle the Preference Abolition Bill was carried through the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate where it was rejected. After an interval of three months it was again passed by the House of Representatives, sent to the Senate, for a second time it was rejected by the Senate.

On the 4th of June, 1914, Mr. (afterwards Sir) JOSEPH COOK sent a brief memorandum to the Governor-General as follows:

"Mr. Cook presents his humble duty to His Excellency the Governor-General, and advises him, in accordance with the provisions of clause 57 of the Constitution, to dissolve simultaneously the Senate and the House of Representatives. The provisions of clause 57 of the Constitution have been completely complied with in respect of a Bill (The Government Preference Prohibition Bill '), which has twice passed the House of Representatives, and which has been twice rejected by the Senate.

"The almost equal numbers of the two parties in the House of Representatives, and the small number supporting the Government

in the Senate, render it impossible to manage efficiently the public business." 4/6/14.

Later on the same day Mr. Cook sent a more comprehensive memorandum to His Excellency, setting forth the history of the controversy between the two Houses and the grounds upon which he based his recommendations.

On the same day the Governor-General sent the following memorandum to the Prime Minister :—

Commonwealth of Australia,

Governor-General, 4/6/14.

Referring to the Prime Minister's memorandum of this date, the Governor-General desires to inform the Prime Minister that he gives him permission to inform Parliament of the Governor-General's decision to dissolve both Houses, and to prorogue Parliament as soon as adequate financial provision is made to carry on the Public Service in all its branches for a period sufficient to cover the elections."

It was generally admitted that neither party could, under existing conditions, carry on the government of the country. It had been urged that the proper remedy was the dissolution of the House of Representatives and not a dissolution of both Houses. Mr. Cook combatted his contention by pointing out that a single dissolution could not relieve the existing situation as however much the Liberal majority in the House of Representatives might be increased as the result of a fresh single election, it would still have the same Senate to deal with, in which the Labour party had a preponderating majority, sufficiently strong to make the parliamentary machine unworkable.

It was argued by the Government that the power vested in the Governor-General by clause 57 of the Constitution to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously in the conditions therein set out is one in the exercise of which he should, according to constitutional principles, be guided by the advice of Ministers possessing the confidence of the House of Representatives.

On the face of the Constitution, it was a clear provision that, in a specified event, a specified remedy is available. The object of the remedy was to decide between the National House and the