Both these reports aim at complete
z0-ordination of all the means of transport,
 a course of action which experience
 elsewhere strongly supports.
42. There are many directions in
which each form of transport can supplement
 the working of others and
there are, we suggest, possibilities of
great economies by the elimination of
undue competition.
Whether the association under one
Ministry, as is proposed in New
South Wales, is a sufficiently close
co-ordination of the functions of these
various forms of transport, whether
a transport board as proposed by the
Victorian report, or whether an even
closer association under one executive
head is the best means of effecting
that co-ordination, is a matter of
opinion and must be left to Governments
 to decide. We ourselves favour
the exercise of executive power in
regard to transport by one official in
cach State.
43. In particular, we think that such
so-ordination would diminish, if it did
not remove. the uneconomic comvetiion

 between road and railway transsort.
 The present position is illogical.
The States having constructed railway
 lines are now providing competing
transport agencies with a highway,
-e., the equivalent of a railway,
‘or a more modern form of transport,
with the result of depreciating the
ralue of the State-owned railways.
We do not suggest that it is not the
luty of the State to provide a good
‘oad where the public, by its action
n using an existing road, indicates
hat road transport is the natural
neans of communication between two
slaces, but we do suggest that there
's great scope for seeing that fresh
rapital is not unwisely spent, and that
wsets purchased by past State capital
xpenditure are not unduly depreviated
 by the use of fresh State
apital. If the . States adopt the
orinciple of the co-ordination of all
‘forms of traffic, as we trust they will,
it seems to follow logically that by
ome means a co-ordination of traffic
for the whole of Australia should be
achieved.
B. Tavarion.

1. We refer to this subject because
specific recommendations in connection
with the imposition and incidence of
taxation have been placed before us by
various representative bodies and persons
 in Australia. We recognise that
taxation is primarily a question for
the Commonwealth and for each State
to settle, and in making the suggestions
 which we do we have in mind
the necessity for previous political
agreement between the respective
Governments.
2. Income  Tux.—The principles
governing the imposition of this tax
are now well established, and a variation
 in rate, or in the deductions
allowed, can be made to effect any
desired difference in the amount, or
the incidence of the tax in various
States. We suggest that there should
be uniformity throughout the Commonwealth
 and States in regard to the
method of calculating income for the
purposes of income tax, thus at the
same time saving administration exnenses
 and annovance to the taxpaver.

We believe that recommendations in
this sense were made by a Royal Commission
 in the year 1922, but not
carried into effect, and we suggest
shat further efforts to secure this desirable
 object should be undertaken.
As a recent writer on this subject says,
‘ Instead of seven separate income
axes and seven separate inheritance
axes, with different rates and exymptions,
 we should have two uniform
axes, raising with more ease the same
nr even a greater revenue. Any maladustment
 could easily be cured by
rarying the amount transferred by the
Jommonwealth to the States.” The
lombined Federal and State income
ax might be payable as one charge
and apportioned on payment between
the Commonwealth and State Treajurers,
 but the total amount should
b5¢ paid in two instalments to meet
the convenience of the taxpayer.
3. Set off of Losses.—Modern
thought on income tax recognizes the
equity of either averaging the income
over a period of vears or allowing a