House of Representatives
4 June 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Temporary Supply Bill
QUESTION
- G OVERNOR - GENERAL’S SPEECH
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

page 569

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Temporary Supply Bill

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– Before the order of the day is called on, I should like to say, if Mr. Speaker will allow me, a word by way of explanation to honorable members. If honorable gentlemen will refer to the Constitution Act, they will see that by section 83 a period of one month, after the first meeting of the Parliament, is allowed during which the Governor-General in Council -

May draw from the Treasury, and expend such moneys as may be necessary for the maintenance of any department transferred to the Commonwealth, and for the holding of the first elections for the Parliament.

That period expires on Sunday next, the 9th June, and, as Friday is our last sitting day before the 9th, it will be necessary, in order to keep within the provisions of the Constitution, to obtain the requisite Supply not later than that day. As it is not usual to introduce any measure which may prove contentious before the Address in Reply is adopted, this necessity enables me to ask honorable members to co-operate with me in securing the conclusion of the debate upon the Address either to-night, or, at the latest, by half-past six to-morrow evening, in order that we may then proceed to ask for and obtain supply.

page 569

QUESTION

G OVERNOR - GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address in Reply.

Debate resumed from 31st May (vide page 568) upon motion by Mr. W. H. Groom -

That the following Address, in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, beagreed to by this House : -

Mayitpleaseyour Excellency : -

We, the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, beg to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the gracious speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Upon which Mr. Cook had moved, by way of amendment -

That the following words be added to the proposed address : - “We desire, however; to inform Your Excellency that in our opinion the proposals of the speech regarding the question of what has been termed a white Australia are inadequate, and not in accord with the views of the majority of the Australian people.”

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– As I understand that the Government are anxious to close the debate as soon as may be convenient to honorable members, my remarks shall be as brief as possible. I have listened with great pleasure and interest to the excellent speeches which have been delivered by honorable members on both sides of the House, and I think that this body is to be congratulated upon the spirit in which those speeches were made. As this is the fi rst d ebate of the first Parliament of Australia, I think every advantage should be taken by honorable members of this opportunity to express their views. The discussion must already have been of very great assistance to the Government, inasmuch as they must now have learned the opinions of representatives from all parts of Australia upon the various questions which are referred to in the Governor-General’s speech, and this knowledge should be of very great assistance to them in framing the measures which they propose to put before us during the session. I have noticed, however, that comparatively few of the members who sit immediately behind the Government have addressed the House. We have had very few speeches from honorable members who were returned by the State of Victoria to advocate high protective duties. We have had speeches from members of the Opposition in favour of free-trade, and from a large number of honorable members who sit on the Government side of the House in favour of protection ; but, so far asmy memory serves me, none of those honorable members who advocate protectionhave stated what measure of protection they actually desire.

Mr Mauger:

– Surely this is not the time to do that.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– Those honorable members have not even told us with how little protection they will be satisfied, if they do not get everything they want.

Mr McCay:

– We shall probably have to be satisfied with what we can get.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I hope that honorable members will be satisfied with what they get, and that they will not get very much. It seems to me that the Government ure in rather an awkward position in regard .to this very important question. To use an old phrase, they appear to be “between “ the devil and the deep sea.” Honorable members on the opposition side of the chamber urge the adoption of a free-trade policy, while honorable members who sit behind the Government are, we know, in favour of the imposition of high protective duties. If we are to take the speeches delivered by these honorable mern.bers during ‘the elections as a guide to what they require, it seems to me that the Government must depend, to a very large extent, upon the assistance which they will get from honorable members sitting upon the cross benches who are in favour of moderate and reasonable duties, and of honorable members sitting on the opposition side of the chamber, who will vote for moderate protection rather than have a high Tariff. I wish to make my position in regard to the Tariff question as plain as possible. I am in favour of the imposition of moderate and reasonable duties, and I think that the Government should carry into effect the language used in the Governor-General’s speech, making revenue the first consideration. If we can, in providing for revenue, give our industries fair and reasonable protection, we should by all means do so ; but when I consider the composition of the Ministry, and remember that all its members, except one, are pronounced protectionists, I begin to have doubts as to whether the expressions contained in the speech are. really genuine, and I feel inclined to say, like the patriarch of old -

The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.

Mr Barton:

– Well, Jacob was a very good fellow.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I hope that events will prove that I am mistaken, and that the Government will stand by the language used in the speech. If they do, I am sure that they will receive the hearty support of the majority of honorable members in this Chamber. Honorable members who are in favour of high protective duties must surely by this time haveseen from the expressions of opinion by various speakers that a policy of high protection for the Commonwealth is utterly impossible, and that nothing but a policy of moderate protection will satisfy a Chamber composed of honorable members of the opinions which are held by the majority here.

Mr Mauger:

– What is moderate protection ?

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I shall define it in a minute or two. It is a most astonishing thing that nearly every honorable member on this side of the House is now a moderate protectionist. If we had judged by the lion-like expressions in favour of high protective duties which were launched forth by a large number of those honorable members on their various electioneering, platforms, we should have been led to understand that nothing but a policy of the very highest protection would satisfy them. But I suppose it is because the conviction has been forced upon them that a high protective policy is now impossible, that they are lying on their oars, as the saying is, and recognise that it is not wise to be rash at this juncture, that it is not wise to say too much, and that they had better wait to see how the proverbial cat is going to jump.

Mr Barton:

– We say no more and no less than I said the very night we opened the campaign.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that the Government will stick to their guns. If they do they will have my hearty support. I wish to define my position most particularly and exactly, and to lay it down, as I said on every election platform throughout the length and breadth of my constituency, that I am in favour of moderate duties - duties as low as we can possibly impose, in order to obtain our revenue ; but I desire these duties, as far as possible, to he protective, and the highest duty to which I would consent on .any single article coming into the Commonwealth would be 25 per cent.

Sir W McMillan:

– Oh !

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– The Opposition may smile at that statement-

Sir AV McMillan:

– Does the honorable member call that a revenue duty 1

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I shall point out to the Opposition that in some instances we cannot expect very much less.

Sir W McMillan:

– Does the honorable member call that revenue-producing or prohibition 1

Mr Barton:

– Free-traders impose duties amounting to 500 per cent, on some things.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– A large number of honorable members apparently have been led away by the idea that we can have a uniform duty of about 15 per cent. I have studied the question very carefully, and I do not see ho w we can have it. In the first place, we require a revenue, I understand, of about £8,500,000. How are we going to obtain it ? It is acknowledged on all sides that we cannot touch direct taxation in any form. .’Direct taxation, as we know it, belongs to the States, and to the States only. Any new income tax or any new land taxation would necessarily have to be altogether different from the direct taxation obtaining in the States ; it would have to be extra taxation. Therefore, the Government have necessarily to fall back on the Customs for their revenue. If we are to believe our statisticians, our imports from foreign sources in 1899 were, as nearly as possible, £33,000,000. Of that amount between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000 came u rider the head of spirits, narcotics, and tobacco.

Mr McCay:

– More than that.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– No ; if the honorable member can take Coghlan, he will find it-

Mr McCay:

– £3,118,000.

Mr A GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– C. GR OOM.- The honorable member is wrong. The revenue we derived from the imports was £3,118,000, but the total amount of the imports was under £3,000,000.

Sir W McMillan:

– But that is not counting excise : that is only imports.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I am coming to that in a moment. I desire to see the free list, in regard to the balance of the imports, maintained in the same ratio as it is in Victoria, where as nearly as possible about ii third of the imports come in free, the rest being dutiable.

Mr Kingston:

– Two-thirds the honorable member means.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– With all due respect to the right honorable gentleman, I desire to say that they do nothing of the kind.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable member is including the intercolonial imports.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I referred just now to all the imports which come from foreign sources only, and I stated that the imports which came in from those sources amounted to £33,000,000, or thereabouts. I have nothing to do with the imports, and we have nothing to do with the imports which come from the various States and ‘are not dutiable. Therefore we discard that altogether, and we take the actual amount of imports from foreign sources a,t £33,000,000 The whole amount which comes in under the heads of wines, spirits, tobacco, cigars, and narcotics is between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000. The amount of duty that was collected on those imports was £3,118,.000. AVe know that we have that revenue certain. That leaves us £30,000,000, less the amount of the free list, on which to calculate our duties. When we take off one-third, it leaves us £20,000,000 of imports on which to pay duties . which will give us the revenue we require in addition to the excise. If we have an average duty of 20 per cent., it will give us £4,000,000. Add that to the £3,118 000 on the imports of wines, spirits, and narcotics, and we have £7,000,000, leaving about £1,500,000 to be collected by excise duties in the various States on the manufacture of wines, spirits, tobacco and cigars, and on the manufacture of sugar. It seems to me these duties will have to be raised somewhat in that ratio.

Mr Glynn:

– That will be as heavy as the present. The present rate is 23 percent, on 26 per cent, of the imports, less stimulants and narcotics.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– That may be ; but still, when we have to raise a certain revenue and we have only a certain amount of imports on which to raise it, it means that if the free list is going to be any larger than a third of the dutiable imports, the average rate will be over 20 per cent., but I am taking the ratio as it now exists in regard to imports from foreign sources. That is, as I make it, as nearly as possible a third, and that will give us an average of about 20 per cent., because from the information I have been able to gather from the various statistics I think we shall be able to raise about £1,500,000 from the excise duties on the various articles manufactured in the States and on the manufacture of sugar. The Minister for Trade and Customs will correct me if I am wrong. What I am in favour of is a discriminating Tariff. First of all, we should have a third of our imports free. All our raw material for articles we can produce or manufacture here should come in free, and this, as I said before, comprises about a third of the imports. But I am not in favour of an all-round duty on everything else, for the simple reason that I think we should have a discriminating Tariff- - a Tariff which commences at possibly as low as 10 per cent, even, perhaps a little lower on a certain class of goods coming into the States, and which gradually rises to 12 per cent., to 12£ per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent., and 22^- per cent. ; but in no case, in my opinion, should it be over 25 per cent. That is my definition of moderate protection.

Mr Mauger:

– Not a bad definition either.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– In my opinion, if our industries cannot maintain themselves on the protection I have named, then the sooner they die a natural death the better. I have never been in favour of high protective duties. I have always considered that the high protective duties which have existed in Victoria, especially during the last few years, have been far more to our detriment than to our gain. If we go back thirty or thirty-five years - to the time when Victoria first adopted protection - no doubt some of the honorable members here will remember that the great arguments which were used in favour of protection in those days were as follow : - First it was claimed that as our mines were failing, a protective Tariff would cause industries to spring up around us, which would afford a large amount of employment to the miners, to their sons, and to their daughters, at highly remunerative rates, the result being that Victoria would go ahead by leaps and bounds, that her manufacturers would necessarily prosper, and that she would become the great manufacturing centre of Australia, and the most attractive colony of the group. We must admit that, after the inauguration of that policy, a large number of important manufacturing industries did spring up around us in various parts of the State, and that they did afford a very large amount of employment to our sons and daughters, and that the wages which were paid in those days were good. And it really looked as if protection was going to do for Victoria everything that had been promised. In fact, protection in those days became very popular, and I remember the time when we used to point with a finger to our important industries, and say, “Look at what protection has done for Victoria.” But a change came about in this way.

Under protection, we had our own markets, and also the markets of the adjoining States for which to manufacture. The result was that there was a greater demand than we could supply, at highly remunerative rates. The States comprising the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, and I may add, New Zealand, woke up to the great advantages Victoria enjoyed in consequence of her protective duties. Consequently they started exactly the same policy themselves. The result was that our valuable export markets in the various States were, to a large extent, closed to us, the demand for our manufactures fell off, and we produced more than we required in our own markets. The consequence was that prices came down. Manufacturers were not satisfied with the prices they were, obtaining, and the workers were thereupon paid less wages than they were accustomed to. Then Parliament was appealed to, and asked for still further protection, the reason given being that the manufacturers desired to be still further protected from the cheap commodities that came into the State from Europe and America. Parliament granted them further protection. Things remained in that condition for a few years until commodities were once more overproduced. Then the manufacturers came for the third time to Parliament, and asked for still further protection. They got it again, and, strange to say, with this result : that the higher protection was Jess beneficial. Our manufacturers seemed to prosper less, and wages were lower than the workmen formerly received. I am sorry to say that matters did not turn out as we had hoped when protection was inaugurated.

Mr Mauger:

– In what industry did that take place 1

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– In every industry, more or less. It was felt that the higher duties were not giving the advantages for which we had hoped. I, myself, in those days, believed that the higher duties would benefit us to a large extent. I believed that our manufactures would prosper to a greaterextent than they had done, but, owing to our high protective policy, more manufacturers entered into the various industries than the demand warranted. The result was that there was an over supply in the market, and prices came down. I have learned the lesson that high protective duties, such as we have known in the past, can never make our country great, for the simple reason that we never can develop an export trade with the goods produced in our protected industries. If we impose high protective duties against goods coming in from the various great centres of America, Europe, and England, we cannot export the same commodities to the markets of the world, and compete successfully against the countries from which we claim protection. We never can develop any great export trade in the particular goods which require protective duties. The result is that while moderate protection may be good in itself to keep on their feet those industries which it is necessary to maintain, still it never can make us great manufacturers, and can never make us a great nation. We are on an entirely different footing in regard to protection from America, Germany, and the great European countries, where there are large populations, simply because they have a greater number of people for whom to cater, and there is an unlimited demand for their productions. They can manufacture in greater quantities for export to markets which are close at home, and in regard to which there is no great cost in the way of freight. We are in a different position. The only markets we can hope to capture are those close to us, and there we should have to compete against the very articles for which we require protection. Therefore, I cannot see how protection is going to help us to any great extent beyond seeming us our home market, and that must necessarily be limited. What we require is to develop our great natural resources. We wish to see help given in regard to the exportation of the great natural products of the farm, the orchard, and the grazing paddock. Our producers need to be assisted to put those articles in the very best possible condition on the home market. They need the cheapest possible freight to enable them to compete in the markets of the world. Those are the directions in what a paternal Government can help us in the future, and in that way more good will be done than by “ endeavouring to foist a highly protective policy upon the country. I intended to speak on other subjects mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech, but I do not desire to take up much more time at present. I hope to speak on the defence question on another occasion; but, before I close, I will say a word as to the transcontinental railway. Personally, from the information I have been able to gather, and from that furnished by honorable members of this House, I am strongly in favour of that line. I should like to see it constructed, provided it is warranted. Before the House is able to decide that question, the Government must authorize a complete examination of the country to be traversed.

Sir John Forrest:

– It is being examined now.

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

– I am glad to hear it. We should have a trial survey made, and a reliable estimate furnished as to the probable cost of the line. With that data, the House should be able to judge whether the railway should be constructed. I do not know the population to be served, or the country and its possibilities, and am not able to give an opinion as to what course should be taken ; but, as far as I have been able to learn, I am at present inclined to favour its construction. I- should like, however, to hear more from honorable members in regard to the question, and to have the information for which I have asked supplied to the House. In regard to a white Australia, I am in favour of that declaration in the policy of the Government, but at the same time I recognise that the question is surrounded by a great number of grave difficulties. Adequate support must be given to the Government when dealing with the question. At any rate, they should be given reasonable time to bring in a Bill dealing with it. We should have legislation with the object of keeping out all aliens in the future ; but the kanaka evil should be removed as quickly as possible. At the same time, I recognise that there are important interests connected with the sugarindustry, and I should be sorry to deal with the matterinaharsh way towards those concerned in the enterprise. I would like to hear what the Government have to say on the question before finally giving my opinion ; and the Government should certainly lose no time in bringing in a Bill to deal finally with the question. Before sitting down I desire to thank honorable members for the kindly way in which they have listened to me, and to congratulate you, Sir, on your elevation to the high position you occupy - a position which, I am sure, you will fill with credit to yourself and to the great assembly over which you preside.

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

– Like the honorable member for” Brisbane I exceedingly regret that Queensland was not represented at the various Conventions which were practically the means of bringing about our sitting here to-day, but my regret is for totally different reasons from those advancedbythathonorablemember. Thehonorable member for Brisbane said the reason he was sorry Queensland was not represented at those Conventions was because the black labour question and thatof the sugarindustry could have been dealt with by the delegates sent there. While to a degree I recognise that it would have been wise for the question to be thus dealt with, I at the same time would like to have seen Queensland represented, for another reason - namely, that the State at the time would probably have sent to the Convention ten labour delegates, who would have assisted the democratic delegates to make the Federal Constitution more democratic, if possible, than it is. That is my reason for desiring that Queensland had been represented at the various Conventions. I think it well the position of Queensland should be placed before the House, and the reason shown why that State was not represented at the various Conventions. It will be remembered that at the Premiers’ Conference it was agreed that the delegates to the Convention should be elected by the votes of the people. The understanding was, I believe, arrived at among the Premiers, with the exception of the Premier of Western Australia, now the member for Swan in this House. However that may be, there was one State in which the compact then made was broken ; because the Premier of Queensland desired that, while any man in Queensland - at that time they numbered somewhere about 80,000 - whose name was on the rolls, could be nominated as a delegate, the electoral college for the delegates should be the Legislative Assembly. We maintained that that was unjust and wrong, and that it was breaking the compact entered into by the various Premiers ; and with the aid of the democratic portion of the Queensland Assembly, we were enabled to prevent the Government from carrying out. their plan on that occasion. It was a well-known fact that the Government could not then have carried any seat for the Convention, and that was the reason Queensland was not represented in the body which drafted the Constitution. I. merely make this statement so that honorable members, who are probably not acquainted with the politics of Queensland, may know exactly the position that State was placed in so far as the Convention was concerned. I should not have spoken in this debate, had it not been that one or two Queensland members from the tenor of their speeches, seem to have desired to leave the impression - or, at all events, left that impression on my mind - that they were speaking for the whole of that State. There was a time when some of those gentlemen could probably get up and talk on behalf of Queensland, because they usually got their politics from the Government of the day, and naturally thought that they were speaking on behalf of the whole of the people of Queensland. There is another section in Queensland who generally think that Queen-street is Brisbane, and that Brisbane is Queensland ; but this view is totally wrong. Those honorable members - I refer to the honorable member for Oxley and the honorable member for Brisbane - were elected to this Parliament only after a very hard struggle, and I notice that in their platform speeches throughout the campaign, they were very careful to keep the question of black labour in the background, never bringing it forward prominently.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– Not at all.

Mr MCDONALD:

An Honorable Member. - It means that the cane is worth two shillings a ton more.

Mr MCDONALD:

– Yes. But then the question arises - “Does the extra amount thus received compensate for the trashing of the cane?” and onthispoint alargenumber of farmers who grow cane in Queensland say that it does not. So that even on this most important point, we find that the planters themselves differ. I was very pleased when I saw in one of the Queensland papers that the head of the Government had given instructions to Dr. Maxwell to get him some data upon the management of the sugar plantations. I hope that this important point will be impressed on Dr. Maxwell, and that the Government will try and obtain from that gentleman, who has vast experience and knowledge of the growing of sugar cane, an answer as to whether it is absolutely necessary to have the cane trashed. If it is not necessary, then there is no need for the employment of the kanaka. The whole argument advanced for the employment of the kanaka would then fall to the ground.

Mr Barton:

– Is it not a very general opinion now that the trashing is only necessary when there has been heavy rain, likely to lead to a soakage between the leaf and the stalk ?

Mr mcdonald:

– Some say that, but others say - “ No, we never trash our cane at all.” Some go so far as to burn it.

An Honorable Member. - Some trash it when they are cutting it.

Mr Mcdonald:

– Just so.On that point it appears to me that there is good ground to consider whether it is necessary to perform this particular work, which the advocates of black labour say the white man cannot do, although I do not for a moment admit that the white man cannot do it. I believe there are occupations in the northern portions of Queensland in which white men are employed where far heavier work is imposed on them, not only in regard to heat, but in regard also to the laborious nature of the work. Take the sinking of a winze in a mine. I have seen men go down into places where they could not remain for more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time. The only air they could possibly get was, of course, that given to them by artificial means. Yet those men do their work effectually and well. We do not hear any talk about their being unable to do it, or any complaint that they are unreliable. I say that white men are just as able to perform any sort of work in the cane-fields as are black men or kanakas. Of course, we are told that if an immediate stop be put to the importation of kanakas the sugar industry in Queensland is ruined. A good deal of this feeling has grown up through the planters themselves. They have used every effort to discourage the employment of white men in the sugar-fields of Queensland. They have tried to create the impression that tropical agriculture should be looked upon as degrading, and as fit only for black men. This is why many white men have looked upon it as an occupation in which they shouldnot seek employment, and it is this fact, together with the low rate of wages paid to white men who seek the work that has produced the present state of things. We hear men say sometimes - “It is of no use my going to the plantations because they pay such small wages, and expect me to live under the same conditions as does the kanaka or coloured labourer who is employed there.” Having these ideas, white men strongly object to seeking employment amongst the sugar plantations, and the sugar planters themselves are therefore to blame for not having sufficient white labour with which to carry on the industry in different parts of Queensland. As far back as 1883 legislation was enacted to prevent the introduction of the kanaka into Queensland after the year 1892. During that nine years nothing was done by the planters themselves to provide for the employment of labour other than coloured labour, and thus when the time came for the introduction of coloured labour to cease, it was found that the planters had not the necessary labour available to carry on the industry, and that there was nothing but ruin staring them in the face. Already we find that, owing to a large number of the sugar planters in Queensland being in the hands of the financial institutions, some of those institutions have been trying to bring pressure to bear upon the farmers by refusing to advance money, and when the farmers ask the reason they are told the present Federal Government is going to stop the introduction of kanakas, the result being that the industry will be ruined. The financial institutions, together with the planters, have created the impression that in the north, centre, and south of Queensland the stoppage of the importation of kanakas is going to have the result of ruining the industry.

Mr Kennedy:

– Does not the State advance money to the sugar planters now?

Mr McDONALD:

– That is so. But, in spite of that fact, that the Government knew that when federation took place it was more than probable that the stoppage of kanaka immigration would be brought about, they were prepared to introduce a Bill last session making a farther advance to the extent of £150,000 in connexion with the central mills system. As far as the Government of Queensland was concerned, they apparently were not afraid of the stoppage of the introduction of kanakas. Regarding the kanakas working in the sugar-fields, there is a word or two to be said on their behalf. I think the introduction of kanakas into Australia, and particularly into Queensland, is one of the most disgraceful pages of our history. I think it has been the most inhuman traffic that has ever taken place, or is ever likely to take place, in the history of Australia. I do not think, as other members think, that it is necessary to introduce kanakas in order that the sugar industry may live, and I say that, rather than continue the inhuman conduct that hastaken place in connexion with the traffic in South Sea Islanders, I would sacrifice not only £7,000,000, but £47,000,000 if necessary, and let the industry go to the wall. It is a disgrace to us, and a thing that ought never to have taken place. We are told by some that the kanakas are gradually dying out, and we certainly cannot wonder at it. In a great many cases, they are introduced at the ages of from 15 to 30 years to work in the sugar-cane fields of Queensland. What has been the result 1 We have found that in the first six months these unfortunate wretches have been afflicted with a death rate as high as 200 per 1,000, while the death rate among the white population has been only about 11 or 12 per 1,000.

Mr Barton:

– The average is between 4 and 5 per cent. for kanakas, but it is much less for the whites.

Sir William McMillan:

– So I do.

Mr McDONALD:

Mr WINTER COOKE:

– That might be. At the same time free-traders say that the United States would prosper under freetrade. Undoubtedly, I believe that a race such as the Anglo-Saxon - an energetic race not yet decaying - in almost any climate, under almost any fiscal policy, would thrive, but I submit that under free-trade the United States would thrive more than they do under protection.

– I am only answering a statement that was made from the other side. I did not intend to refer to statistics at all, hut I found that a certain statement as to figures had been made from the other side. I do not think that in a general discussion of this kind one can, by quoting statistics, arrive at any fair conclusion. That, I hope, will show why I feel it incumbent upon me to sit on this side of the House. There is one other question on which I differ from Ministers, and from some honorable members also on this side of the House, and that is the question of adult suffrage. I do not believe in womanhood suffrage, and when the time comes to speak I hope to give reasons which, though not satisfying to the House generally, will, at all events, be sufficient justification for the faith that is in me. In all other questions I shall wait for details, but I think I am at one with the Government. With regard to a white Australia, my reading and my converse with men has taught me long ago that it is not good for any community that there should be large bodies of whites and large bodies of blacks. That has been proved to be the case in the United States of America. It has been proved to be the case, I believe, in South Africa. I do not believe it is good for even our white race in India, small though the number of white people may be there.- I believe it is not good for the dark race or the white race. Therefore, I shall give my hearty support to the proposition to eventually get rid of both Asiatics - if that can be done with the consent of the “Imperial Government - and kanaka labour. We must do our best to see that Australia remains as a possession for the white man, and the white man only. On other questions, such as railways and so on, I shall wait for further information. I can assure the Government that I shall give no fractious opposition to their proposals. -I have mentioned the only two questions on which I differ from them - all important ones to my mind. As to what is a proper fiscal policy for the country, I want free-trade started from the commencement. My objection to protection is not so much on economic grounds. It rests on far more important grounds than that. I think that the social and political evils that. arise from people having to depend so directly on the action of the Legislature for their means of living is bad both for the people and the Legislature. There is a pas-

Sage in a very good little book which I will commend to honorable members on the other side of the House. The book is The Commerce of Nations, by Professor Bastable, Professor of Political Economy in the University of ‘Dublin. The passage to which I allude is as follows : -

To these economical difficulties in the operation of protection we ought to add the social and political results of placing industry in such direct dependence on legislation. Where the imposition of a duty may make the fortune of a producer or owner of some natural resource, and its withdrawal mean lowered profit or rent, the employer becomes perforce involved in “politics,” in the vulgar sense. The English corn laws, the French protective systems, and the various American Tariffs have all been in part the outcome of the exertions of interested parties. Such relations are evil both for industrial and political life, and have a disastrous tendency to demoralize those concerned. It is not well that a measure so vital as the conduct of industry should depend on political contingencies, nor that the work of legislation should be mixed up with questions of. commercial loss or gain.

Those protectionists are right who declare that protection is the only justification for a Tariff, and the advocates of a Tariff for revenue only, have no case. If we do not needa Tariff for protection, we need no Tariff at all.

Mr CHANTER:

– I am afraid my sense of humour is not very greatly developed. In the second place, New South Wales is four times the size of Victoria : and, therefore, comparisons between the two States are not fair. In New South Wales I have never known a free-trade policy - there is not one there now, and there never has been one : but if this policy of free-trade, as predicted, is to do so much for the people, why has New South Wales not gone by leaps and bounds ahead of every other State which has a different policy ? Why has she lagged behind in the race? With her vast territorial possessions, magnificent not only in area, but in fertility, why is it that State has never developed ? In fact, it is only in recent years the industry of agriculture has been started in a systematic way in New South Wales. Permit me to say also in answer to a previous interjection, and to the speech of an honorable member on the other side, that it was not the Reid policy of so-called “free-trade” that developed agriculture in New South Wales, but it was the only protective policy New South Wales ever had, under the leadership of the then Premier, Sir George Dibbs, with Sir William Lyne as one of his colleagues, which encouraged agriculture by the small duty imposed on the importation of wheat.From that moment the figures showing the advance of agriculture rose very rapidly. As my honorable friends who have struggled with me in the State Parliament of New South Wales know, the balance was so keen between one policy and the other, that those who had been put on the land in consequence of that assistance, stayed there in the hope that the Dibbs Government would come back, to enable them to keep the position the Tariff had placed them in.

An Honorable Member. - The Tariff stood six years.

Mr CHANTER:

– No, it did not stand six years. It stood only as long as the Dibbs Government were in power, but the Reid Government - the so-called free-trade party - took off the duty on cereals, and the position was very much altered. Then, as before, the New South Wales farmer got less for his produce than did the farmers in the other States, and at the present moment he is getting less because there is no duty upon wheat in New South Wales, whilst there is a duty upon it in every other State. We were asked the other day - and I think it was the honorable member for Wentworth who asked the question - “What benefit can the farmer receive from a policy of protection?” I ask the honorable gentleman to take up the Arc/us newspaper and he will there get a far better answer than I could give him.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– We all read the Age here.

Mr CHANTER:

Mr CHANTER:

– If the honorable member is so then it is the first time I have heard it, and his repute is of quite a different character. The greatest harm I wish the honorable gentleman is that he may never want a pound. Now, a great deal has been said also about the advantages that New South Wales has at the present time over the State of Victoria, and if the legislators of the State of New South Wales goes on year after year in the same direction it has taken in the past, apparently those advantages will remain ; but when they are taken away, and when we go into the matter closely, we will find that the people of New South Wales have now nearly arrived at that position, or, if not, they shortly will, when they will demand at the hands of Ministers a different principle altogether in the legislation of that State. t New South Wales, as has been said by some honorable members, has been living on her capital. Victoria has never been in that position.

An Honorable Member. - That is what we want to live on.

Mr CHANTER:

– That is where I disagree with the honorable gentleman. I want to live on the interest of the capital. I do not want to carve off a piece of the Commonwealth of Australia and sell it, and put the money to purposes to which it should not be put. What has been the position of the two States during the last ten years ? ‘ ‘ .

Mr Conroy:

– I thought the honorable gentleman was referring to the federal capital.

Mr CHANTER:

– I think there is no doubt that the honorable member is in no more hurry than is any one else to get to the federal, capital, which, we are told, is to be established in snow country. During the ten years previous to 1899, the territorial revenue of Victoria was £4,000,000 odd, and of New South Wales £19,00.0,000 ; that is, New South Wales had to expend £15,000,000 which she did not put into a sinking fund or into a fund for the reduction of her loans. Her loan expenditure during the same period was £20,000,000, against £14,000,000 in Victoria.

Mr Mauger:

– Protection gave them their best customer.

Mr CHANTER:

– If this is a legitimate objection - and I am only voicing an objection that finds expression amongst numbers of my fellow-workers in the State of New South Wales - it is an objection that is no credit to the Government or to the first Federal Parliament. As to the civil service of the Federation being drawn only from the civil servants of the States, and to the statement that Mr. Fegan’s withdrawal was due to that objection, we are now led to suppose that important appointments are to be made from outside the civil service, but, in these cases, from the legal profession. Any objection, if it is to have any weight or is a legitimate objection to” the appointment of a son of the soil in favour of a trained man in the civil service, should apply equalty to appointments from members of professions. If the appointment is to be confined to the civil service so far as Mr. Fegan is concerned, then other appointments ought to be confined to the civil service so far as those other gentlemen are concerned. From my stand-point as a layman, I am of opinion that we have, unfortunately, started federation with too many legal men concerned in it - that there are too many legal men at the head of affairs - but that cannot be avoided, and we will judge them by their work. If, however, they are going to fill the civil service with legal men, I, for one, will raise my voice against appointments of this particular description, because I believe such appointments will not be in the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth and the people of the States. There is one matter I am glad to see the Government proposes to deal with. I do not know whether the relative importance of measures is to be gathered from their positionin the Governor-General’s speech, but the measure I refer to is of such importance that I trust the Government will give it one of the first places in their consideration.

Mr Chapman:

– When the leader of the Opposition got close to free-trade, he said that the abolition of protective duties was a matter affecting flesh and blood, and that he could not go any further; and so he went back.

Mr BROWN:

– Comparisons have been made between the conditions of England and America, and there is a very interesting article on the subject in the North American Review for April last. It deals with British expansion during the Victorian era, and the writer points out that, despite the fact that there was a large decrease in the population of Ireland, the population of the United Kingdom doubled itself during the reign of Queen Victoria. During the same period the public revenue increased by 132 per cent., although the number of articles upon which duties are imposed has been reduced from over 1,000 in 1S43 to about 20 at the present day, and the public expenditure increased by 156 per cent., while the imports and exports of the kingdom increased by about 539 per cent., and the tonnage of shipping to the same extent. The writer, Mr. Alleyne Ireland, sums up the position in this way : -

We hear a great deal about the decadence of the United Kingdom as a commercial power.

We have heard a great deal on that sub”ject here, to prove that protection is a better policy for building up commerce and increasing population and national greatness than is free-trade.

But .Englishmen may take some comfort from the above comparisons, which serve to show the enormous bulk of trade which still fulls to the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. It will be seen that the United Kingdom imports per head of her population more than the United States, France, and Germany together, and that she exports of her own prodr.ce mid manufactures nearly as much per head as the people of France and Germany taken together, or as the people of the United States and Germany taken together. It may also be noted that, whereas England depends on the United States for 32 per cent, of her trade, the United States does 57 per cent of her total trade with the United Kingdom.

Yet, England, we are invited to believe, is decaying under the policy of free-trade, and we are asked to look to America, Germany, France, and other countries for evidences of national growth and prosperity under protection. I, for one, am satisfied that the comparison which has been made is wholly to the advantage of the mother country so far as volume of trade and national wealth is concerned, though I. agree with the statement that national greatness does not depend upon the volume of trade and national wealth of a country so much as upon the distribution of wealth among the people of the country. And I find that amongst the people of .the country in free-trade countries it is more evenly distributed, and that there are those conditions winch go in the direction of true national greatness and true national prosperity. That is my reason for the faith I have within me, and whilst I hold to that opinion I am npt going to lend myself to any attempt, be it covert or otherwise, to inflict on this Australia of ours a protectionist Tariff. I believe that protection does make people wealthy ; but it makes the few wealthy at the” expense of the many. I belong-to the many, and I am going to raise my voice, and to assist in devising legislation in the interests of the many, and not in the interests of a particular class or section, or the few. I believe that true national greatness, true national life, is not to be built up by putting the millions in the hands of the Vanderbilts or in the hands of the few, but by distributing them as far as possible amongst the millions who make the millions - the toilers and workers. We have heard discussed, in years gone by, in New South Wales, these theories of free-trade and protection, and I have heard the honorable member for Riverina say the very identical things about New South Wales which he has urged here concerning Australia. He wants freedom in Australia and protection against the outside world. In New South Wales, not so very long ago, he wanted protection in New South Wales against Victoria, New Zealand, Queensland, and the other colonies, and one ‘of the greatest benefits which federation will confer on Australia is to break down the. fiscal barriers that separate one Australian community from the other. The sooner those fiscal barriers are broken down and the people are allowed to trade in those directions in which they find it suits then] best to trade in without let or restriction the better, and the more solid will the community become. It will be found that it is on these lines we shall build up an enduring nation. And the same principle holds good with respect to those of our own race who are outside Australia. If it be a good thing for the people of Australia to trade with each other, why is it not equally good for the people of Australia and New Zealand to do so? And if it is a good thing for the people of Australia and

New Zealand to trade with each other, why is it not equally good for the people . of the mother country and the people of the race from which we have sprung? I know there are those who say - “We agree in sentiment with that, but what we want to provide against is the competition with pauper labour and foreign labour.” Let honorable members look up their statistics and they will find that the trade which the people of Australia do with foreign powers is infinitesimal. The bulk of our trade is done with the people of our own race, and I believe in making that trade free, and in opening up the natural opportunities of our country ; and we cannot open up those opportunites and make them available unless we have free intercourse and freedom of commerce and trade. It is in that way that we shall build up a nation here which we can very well be proud of, and which the race from which we have sprung may well be proud of. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity of addressing these sentiments to the House, and whilst there is much more that can be said on the matters set forth in the opening speech, I am not so hide-bound to any party as not to recognise good measures when I see them. If the Government bring down good measures I shall judge those measures on their merits, and assist them to put their Bills on the statute-book as loyally as I would assist any other men in the House to do so. But, when I see measures or matters of administration which do not commend themselves to me as being in the best interests of the people of Australia, they shall receive my opposition, I care not from which side of the House they may come. Whilst there are many matters in an address like this which invite attention, still some consideration must be had for my brother members. I will not, therefore, inflict myself further upon . their time and attention, but will simply express my thanks to them for the very patient way in which I have been listened to.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– I do not propose at this stage of the debate to take up very much time, nor indeed would the condition of my health allow me, even if I wished to do so. Some remarks . fell from the honorable member for Deniliquin in connexion with revenue tariffists and protectionists. I stood before the electors of Illawarra as a revenue tariffist, and I held that a revenue Tariff meant this - that we thought that all the money coming from the Customs of the country should go into the public Treasury, be treated as public money, and be spent for the benefit of the people, whereas those who advocated the system of protection advocated that the whole of that money should go not into the Treasury, but should filter into the pockets of private individuals. I and the party to which I belong strongly objected to any part of the money coming from the Customs of the country going into the pockets of private individuals to enable them to become rich at the expense of the great masses of the community.

Mr McCay:

– That is an assertion only as far as true protective duties are concerned.

Mr FULLER:

– I think it has always been recognised as the result of protective duties that the bulk of the money, at any rate, goes into the pockets of private individuals. There isonematter to whichIwishto refer, and which recent events have brought prominently before the people of Australia, and that is thequestionof thequarantine regulations. During the last few days we have had a state of affairs happening in Sydney Melbourne, and other ports of Australia which has brought this matter very prominently before us. Luckily for the people of Australia, we have a strong and determined man in the position of Minister for Internal Affairs. I trust, that the Government will, as Soon as practicable, take over the quarantine departments in the whole of the States, so that we can have one uniform system in the Federation. It has been pointed out by those in charge of the quarantine station in Sydney that if certain ships - had been properly inspected at the various ports they visited, this serious outbreak in Sydney and Melbourne would not have occurred. Nor, indeed, is this the only occasion on which a similar

I thing has occurred. Some time ago the Chingtu was passing Thursday Island, and if a proper inspection had been made, we should not have had the serious outbreak which did take place. I sincerely trust that ! the Minister for Internal Affairs and the

Government will take this matter in hand, and have it dealt with as soon as possible. In the opening speech there is one paragraph to which I wish to refer. It is as follows : -

Existing Tariffs have, in all the States, given rise to industries, many of which are so substantial that my advisers consider that any policy tending to -destroy them is inadmissible.

Mr FULLER:

– In connexion with London, the stateof affairs is this : Since the establishment of free-trade the sweating business has decreased to a considerable extent, and the only sweating there at the present time is in connexion with foreign refugees, who are the victims of those men who indulge in the system.

Mr McCay:

– Victoria, a protectionist country, is the only country which has dealt with sweating.

Mr FULLER:

– In Victoria a hoard was appointed by Parliament in 1893. It was officially called the Factories Act Inquiry Board, but it became known as the “ Sweating Board.” Its duty was to inquire into the working of the Factories Act since 1890. In opposition to that, there was an organization known as the Victorian AntiSweating League, and on the council of the organization were parsons, judges, merchants, journalists, legislators, and working men. Two big mass meetings were held in the Town Hall, the first of which fell through in consequence of the unpopularity of the then mayor, but the second held in 1895, and presided over by the Rev. Dr. Charles Strong, was a very large meeting. The first resolution carried was : -

That this meeting deeply regrets the extension of the sweating evil in our midst, and deplores the fact that public opinion has not long since been sufficiently aroused to insist upon its suppression.

At that meeting remarks were made by a gentleman well known in Victoria, to which I would like to call the attention of the labour representatives here, and through them the attention of labour men in the Commonwealth. In submitting the motion, he said : -

Ardent protectionist as he was, he was sorry to admit that protection had failed - (cheers) -so far as the workers were concerned. Workmen united to support protectionist candidates for Parliament, and were told when that system was establishedtheir wages would be secure. But the result had been that the employer was protected, whilst the workmen were starving. (Cheers).

That is exactly what we on this side of the House say of the protectionist system - namely, that the effect is to give the employer the opportunity of taking money out of the pockets of the people, and putting it into their own, while paying starvation wages to their own men. The speaker goes on to say : -

There were three trades that had suffered more than others by sweating - the boot trade, the furniture trade, and the clothing trade. (A voice : “ All heavily protected.”) He was bound to admit that protection had failed in that respect. It was granted on the understanding that employers should maintain the standard rate of wages. Had they done so ? (“No, no.”) No ; they had not done so, and the workmen were ground down. They must insist on protection to the worker as well as to the employer. (Cheers. ) Otherwise they must call upon the Legislature to withdraw that principle. (Cheers. )

And these were all heavily protected trades. That is the opinion of Mr. Bishop, then president of the Trades Hall Council ; and the Trades Hall at the present time is, I understand, a very large supporter of protectionist principles in Victoria. These are words which call for the most serious attention at the hands of everybody who wishes well for the working population of the whole of Australia. I do not wish to labour this matter further than to quote the opinions ofa few of the labour leaders of England. We have been told by some honorable members on the opposite side of the House that, so far from free-trade having benefited the working man, the very opposite has been the result. Now, I have in my hand the opinions of five or six well-known labour leaders in England, and these, instead of supporting the proposition put forward by those honorable members, have the very opposite effect. I will just make a few quotations from some of these men, in order not to weary the House too much.

Mr Crouch:

– Is this the Argus of two months ago?

Mr FULLER:

– No. These are letters sent from representative English labour leaders to Mr. A. Salaman, of Melbourne. The first is from Mr. W. J. Davis, of the National Society of Amalgamated Brass Workers, secretary’s office, 70 Lionel street, Birmingham, on the 1st December, 1900, so that it is of very recent date. He said -

The condition of the English workman is altogether superior to that prevailing in Grermany, but not so good as that in America. The liberals here are, with few exceptions, thorough free-traders. In reply to your inquiry as to whether I think new industries spring up from the adoption of freetrade, I beg to say that the great commerce of England has developed by leaps and bounds since the adoption of free-trade principles. With respect to wages of brass workers, they have increased since 1872 to the extent of between 30 and 40 per cent. , and their hours reduced from60 to 54.

The second letter I will quote is from Mr. George Howell. He writes from Hamden House, Ellingham-road, Shepherd’s Bush, W., on 30th November of the same year - Letme say that for more than 50 years I have taken part in public movements. I was appointed the first secretary of the London Trades Council in 1859 ; was its secretary in 1860 ; and in 1860 I remember walking a distance of 10 or 12 miles - from Wrington, in Somersetshire, to Bristol - to be present at the celebration of the carrying of the Free-trade Bill in 1846 ; so that my memory goes back to the old days of protection.

The condition of the working people in the forties was sad and miserable in the extreme. Provisions of all kinds were dear, and the wages of the workers were low. The hours of labour were long, and work was often scarce. Suffering and distress were everywhere ; riots and bloodshed were frequent. Little children of tender age were obliged to work to help to find bread for the family. Their homes were hovels.

From about 1850 the conditions of labour began to improve. The improvement has been continuous, and it still goes on with accelerated speed.

The next letter I will quote is from Mr. Sidney Webb, also a well-known labour leader in England. He says : -

Your inquiry as to my opinion upon the results of free-trade in England, pomes at an apropriate moment. We are just completing ten years of the greatest material prosperity that this country has ever known in all its history. We have been pursuing a free-trade policy, that is a Tariff for revenue only, without protection to native industry, for half a century. During that time (as I have described in detail in my little book, “ Labour in the Longest Reign “) the condition of the wage earners has greatly and persistently improved. Wages have risen, food and clothing have become cheaper, the working day has become shorter, the employment has become more regular. There is not the ghost of a chance of the English trade unions asking for a protective Tariff.

There is just one other letter that I should like to refer to, which gives the opinion of Mr. Thomas Burt, also a well-known labour leader in England. He writes as secretary of the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Association as follows : -

I may add that I know something of the condition of the workers of France, Germany, Belgium, and other countries of Europe where the policy of protection is in operation. I can testify that the general condition of the worker as regards wages, hours of labour, the standard of living, and everything that conduces to give a healthy and comfortable home-life, is incomparably better in free-trade England than in any of those protectionist countries.

I have always maintained, as far as my knowledge and abilities would allow me, that the adoption of free-trade principles would be best not only as far as New South Wales, but also the whole of Australia was concerned. Indeed, in years gone by, I used to cheer the sentiments uttered by the right honorable and learned gentleman who now leads the Government in this House. Not so many years ago - only as far back as 1885 - the right honorable gentleman was one of the free-trade bunch for East Sydney. He used then to declare that in regard to the policy of New South Wales our commerce should be as free as air. He used to say that we should have no Chinese wall of restriction thrust round New South Wales so far as her commerce was concerned. I contend that if it was good for New South Wales to throw her ports opento the world when the whole of the States had a restrictive Tariff against her, surely it is now a good thing for the whole of Australia - when we are to have intercolonial free-trade - to throw our ports open to the world, and to keep our commerce as free as possible.. There is another matter I should like to refer to, and that is in connexion with the position of the Government in regard to the black labour question. I unhesitatingly affirm that I am going to do my utmost to bring about a white Australia with as little delay as possible. I do not care whether that means a continuation of the sugar industry or not. I understand from the honorable members representing that particular part of Australia that there is about £7,000,000 invested in that great industry. We are told on behalf of the Government that this matter will be dealt with when an opportune time arrives. I understand that there is going to be the same delay in dealing with this matter in this House as there was in the Legislature of Queensland.

Mr Barton:

– There has not been one expression used which warrants the honorable and learned member in saying that.

Mr.FULLER. - I understand that nothing definite is going to be done in connexion with the abolition of the introduction of kanaka labour into Queensland.

Mr Barton:

– The honorable and learned member understands wrongly, that is all.

Mr.FULLER.- I will do my best, at the earliest possible moment, to stop the introduction of any further kanakas into that country.

Mr Chapman:

– Will the honorable and learned member vote for the amendment?

Mr FULLER:

– Yes, if it goes to a division. More than that, I look to our own people in New South Wales ; and I cannot understand men who represent the northern districts of that State taking up the position that one honorable member has taken up on this matter. We know very well that the moment we get a uniform

Tariff established we get inter-State freetrade for the whole of the States, with the exception of a sliding scale, so far as Western Australia is concerned. When we get Inter-State free-trade, if this black labour business is to be continued in Queensland, we shall immediately have the white men who are employed in the northern districts of New South Wales in the sugar industry placed in competition with the coloured labour of Queensland. I think it ought to be the duty of every honorable member, therefore, to see that we do away with this black labour, so that we may ‘have the whole of the industries of Australia carried on with white labour from one end of the continent to the other. I should like to say a word or two in reference to the federal capital. As far as I am concerned, I always objected to Sydney and the hundred miles of country around it being absolutely excluded from any possibility of becoming the site of the federal capital. I have always thought, seeing that Sydney is the oldest city of the continent, and that there are such beautiful sites for a capital about her neighbourhood, that that part of Australia should have the same right to be submitted for the consideration of this Parliament as any other part. However, we have agreed to the Constitution, in which the provision I have referred to is made. I look upon it as a most important thing, and 1! do not wish to go into the arguments that have been used in connexion with this matter ; but I do think that the Government ought, with the least possible delay, to have the site of the federal capital fixed, so that we may know where our federal Houses are to meet. As far as the whole of the land in connexion with the capital isconcerned, I think that not one acre of it should be sold. It should be kept in perpetuity for the people of Australia. We expect the federal capital to be a large place, and it must be borne in mind that we are not legislating for the few. millions who are in Australia at the present time. Many more millions will yet occupy this great country. When that time comes, this land on a proper system of lease, and with a periodical appraisement, will yield a large amount of revenue which will help to lift the burden of taxation from the masses of the community. Another matter of importance is that of an Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration

Bill. We remember in New South Wales particularly - and Victoria had also some experience of it - the disastrous effect of the great maritime strike of 1890. As far as this Parliament is concerned, we have only power to form an industrial conciliation board for disputes extending beyond the limits of one particular State. I think the time has arrived when we should get away from the barbaric system of strikes, and have all these disputes between employers and employes settled by arbitration. I consider that this Conciliation and Arbitration Bill should be made compulsory and binding so far as both parties to a dispute are concerned. I do not wish to take up further time at this stage of the debate, although there are many other matters I would have liked to have touched upon. I have come here as one of the representatives of New South Wales to do my best not only for New South Wales, but for the whole of the States. I regret exceedingly that, as far as the great colony of New Zealand is concerned, she is not with us in this Federation. We know that in 1891, when she was represented in the Convention by some very eminent men, including the late Sir George Grey, Captain Russell, and others, that Captain Russell said that, as far as New Zealand was concerned, she was prepared to accept the embraces of Australian Federation. But for some reason or other which is best known, I think, to her politicians, because I feel sure that the majority of the people of New Zealand do not agree with them in this matter, that colony has chosen to stand out of this federal movement. Not only has she stood out of it, but through her Agent-General, Mr. Pember Reeve, she sought, when our delegation was in London, to throw every possible obstacle in the way of the passage of the Bill ; since then she has tried to establish a sort of secondary federation by the attempted annexation of Fiji, which Mr. Chamberlain promptly put his foot upon.

Mr Barton:

– I do not think we can accuse Mr. Pember Reeve of throwing obstacles in the way ; he made certain suggestions which were considered by a conference. There was no further trouble.

Mr FULLER:

– I am very glad to hear that, because I gathered from the press that a good deal of that sort of thing had been done. Well, I am proud of the fact that I I. can stand here before the world with the. knowledge that I am an Australian citizen ; and while I rejoice in the fact that these colonies have joined in a great federation, I look forward to the time when not only New Zealand but all the islands of the South Pacific will be joined together in one vast federation, which will make Australia what she ought to be - the mistress of the Southern Seas.

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

– I regret that, owing to illness, I have been unable to attend the chamber during the course of this debate, but although I have not been here I have been giving attention to the speeches which have been delivered. This debate is one of a somewhat unusual character, because we are here met for the first time a new Legislature, unacquainted with each other, and, apparently, we each feel that it is desirable we” ought at this stage to let the Government know exactly our position. To that fact I attribute the length of this debate. Now, I would not have spoken on this occasion at all had it not been for the remarks made by Mr. Reid, who is not here to-night, and I am sure we are all sorry for the reason why he is not present with us. The right honorable gentleman, in opening this debate, adopted the unusual course in apparently seeking to fix honorable members on both sides of the house to a classification of their view on the fiscal question, which it suited him to form for his own guidance, I suppose, in order that he might see how far he was likely to receive support. In addition to that he laid clown, as he usually does, with great force and great ability, the views he holds with regard to the fiscal question ; and I regret to say that he and some others who followed him adopted the old plan, to which we have become so accustomed in these colonies when this subject is being discussed, of apparently looking upon those who may differ from them on that question as belonging to one of two classes - either the ignorant or the not quite honest. In other words, they are either to be classified as ignorant men who are fools or interested men who are knaves. NowI was in hopes that when wemettogether in this great Legislature which is now to administer the affairs of an enormous country, or what will in time become an enormous country, that we should have had this question discussed in a somewhat different spirit ; that, at any rate, we should have been prepared to admit honesty of motives on both sides. I am addressing myself now to the special views put forward by the leader of the Opposition, but I am not prepared to say for a moment that both sides have not indulged in the same sort of thing. Surely it is for us, as men who have a great responsibility, as men who are making history very rapidly, to deal with this question in a way somewhat different from that in which we have dealt with it in our separate and somewhat antagonistic positions as members of different States having different policies. In speaking here to-night, I confess that my desire is, if possible, to prepare our minds to some extent for a certain amount of tolerance of each other’s views, so that when we come to deal with the very important matter of the Tariff we shall, at any .rate, be able to give each other credit for fair and reasonable conduct, and a desire to do that which is best for the country. Now, to show that my view in this connexion is not an unreasonable one, I will just quote a few sentences from an authority whom I am sure our free-trade friends will accept - a leading free-trader of the United States of America, Dr. Atkinson, who was one of the great supporters of Mr. Cleveland. He does not, in supporting his view of the case, underrate or misrepresent the views of his opponents, but seeks to do them justice, and rests his case upon its merits. Dr. Atkinson, in his work “Industrial Progress of the Nation,” at page 253, says -

To incite an intelligent discussion of the Tariff and other economic questions in place of the common vituperative method which is so customary among those who may have no intelligent basis for what they call their opinions, and who are, therefore, accustomed to cover their real want of any knowledge of the subject by imputing ignorance or bad motives to their opponents on either side of the question.

Having set out the points of the protective theory, Mr. Atkinson continues : -

One may not hastily and dogmatically pronounce all these propositions to be without any foundation ; and it is both useless and mischievous to denounce those who present such views as being mere spoliators, or to say that they are striving as a body to support themselves and those whom they employ at the cost of their neighbours without rendering any true service in return. These views have been and are now held in perfect sincerity and integrity by many of the most upright citizens in this country ; they are still believed to be sound by a very large number of intelligent men, who sustain them without any other purpose than because they fully believe that the wel- fare of the nation depends upon their being sustained.

Professor Fawcett goes on to say : -

-. - I am not playing any game, and I challenge any honorable member to show that I am.

An Honorable Member. - The honorable member is suppressing something.

Mr HARPER:

– I am not desirous of suppressing anything. If the honorable member can show that I am suppressing anything let him trot it out. I have learnt too much from discussing matters with free-traders to fall into that mistake and I always look round my argument to see if there be any vulnerable point before I put it forward. It will not do to tell us, as we are told every day, that Great Britain is prosperous. We know she is prosperous ; but there are a great many things, as Professor Fawcett points out, which have built up that prosperity, and these things are well known. I am going to bring forward an argument tonight, and I want to guard myself against doing that to which objection has just been taken. I am going to make a statement with regard to the progress of Great Britain, and also other countries, notably the United States. It is not my purpose to show that the protectionist policy is the right one because America, Germany, or any other country has got ahead of England at a certain time. I simply want to call attention to the position of those countries, and to ask my free-trade friends the question : if free-trade is a heaven-sent inspiration, John Bright admitted it was not given from Mount Sinai, although he said it was equally strong in favour of freedom and for the benefit of the people, or something of that sort-

Mr Barton:

– It was the same inspiration that made John Bright support the slave-owning states in the American civil war.

Mr HARPER:

– My argument is not, as I say, submitted to show that either system is right or wrong, but to get the facts brought before the minds of honorable members, and to ask those who believe in free-trade how it is, if, as they contend, protection be abomination - even in the mild form the Premier has spoken of - if protection be desolation, how it is that America, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and other countries

Mr HARPER:

– This extract is taken from Book ii., chapter 5, of the “ Wealth of Nations.” I will read the passage from Adam Smith, and I will then read Mr. Justice Byles’ comment on it, because it is a far better comment than I could make. Adam Smith says -

The capital which is employed in purchasing in one part of the country in order to sell in another the produce of the industry of that country, generally replaces by such operation two distinct capitals thathad both been employed in the agriculture or manufacture of that country, and therefore enables them to continue that employment. When both are the produce of domestic industry, it necessarily replaces by every such operation two distinct capitals, which had both been employed in supporting productive labour, and thereby enables them to continue that support. The capital which sends Scotch manufactures to London, and brings back English manufactures and corn to Edinburgh, necessarily replaces, by every such operation, two British capitals, which have both been employed in the agriculture or manufactures of Great Britain.

Mr Conroy:

– That fallacy was fully exposed by John Stuart Mill.

Mr HARPER:

– The honorable member is quite capable of showing it up. Mr. Justice Byles further says -

The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for homo consumption when this purchase is made with the produce of domestic industry, replaces too by every such operation two distinct capitals, but one of them only is employed in supporting domestic industry. The capital which sends British goods to Portugal, and brings back PortuguesegoodstoGreat Britain, replaces by such operation only one British capital. The other is a Portuguese one. Though the returns therefore of the foreign trade of consumption should be as quick as those of home trade, the capital employed in it will give but one-half the encouragement to the industry or productive labour of the country. A capital, therefore, employed in the home trade will sometimes make twelve operations - or be sent out and returned twelve times - before a capital employed in the foreign trade pf consumption has made one. If the capitals are equal therefore, the one will give four-and -twenty times more encouragement and support to the industry of the country than the other.

I do not think the honorable member can deny one part of that proposition.

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; LP from 1913

– It was fully exposed by John Stuart Mill.

Mr HARPER:

– John Stuart Mill did not expose it at all, in my opinion. The honorable member may think he did, but I disagree with him.

Sir William McMillan:

– That settles it.

Mr Barton:

– John Stuart Mill never withdrew his own admission on the subject.

Mr HARPER:

– No, he never did, and it went quite as far as this. Mr. Justice Byles goes on to say : -

It is nob a small difference in price that can compensate the nation for the loss. For example, Suppose England can produce an article for£100, and can import it for £99. By importing it instead of producing it she gains £1, and, though she pays for it with her own manufactures, loses £100 of wealth which she might have created : that is to say, on the balance, she loses £99 which she might have had in addition by producing commodities at home.

I may be stupid, but I will ask honorable members if they can give me a better explanation of the extraordinary fact that America, Germany, and every country that has adopted protection, has increased its wealth, increased its trade, increased its power in the world. If any honorable member can give me a better explanation than that I will give in.

An Honorable Member. - Oh, that is all exploded.

Mr HARPER:

– The honorable member says it is exploded. I have always noticed that English economists give a very gentle go-by to all the arguments coming from America or continental countries. They pass them by because they do not wish to raise a discussion. But I ask honorable members to explain to me how it is that in every case in those countries revenue has increased, industries have increased, and wealth has increased since the adoption of that policy. If there is a better reason than the one I have given to account for it, I am open to hear it,and I am open to be convinced. But the fault of the free-trade idea is this : It is a grand conception, but it does not apply to the circumstances of this world. It was not until 75 years after Adam Smith wrote his book that his opinions were taken up at all, and then gentlemen of the Manchester school took up only that part which suited them. It was a grand conception. They said - All men are brothers - Chinese, Japanese, and every one else; we will have free-trade. But they knew very well that that was after having had 200 years’ protection after they had had the advantage of the. inventions of Watt and Arkwright and others, and after they had had during the long war practically the whole trade of the world outside of the continent, and a good deal of that through smuggling. It was very well for them to say to every one - “ Let things remain as they are, and we will supply your wants ; we will import your raw material, and we will work it up, make a profit in the shipping, in the making-up of the goods, and in sending them back to you.” It was a grand conception, if all were on the same plane. Cobden, as set forth in a book which I have here, said in one of his speeches that he hoped the day would come when we would be all one and when we would be governed by a sort of glorified municipal government. We were to have no nations and no patriotism ; but human nature does not go that way, and that is the mistake of the whole idea. It is seeking to apply a system to human nature which human nature will not have, and to which human nature will not adapt itself. When honorable members speak to me about Great Britain, I say that I feel the greatest doubt as to the position there. And in that I am not singular, because many of the bestmen in Great Britain have serious doubts on the subject. We know that the leading men there are finding that Gladstone made a great mistake in so largely reducing the number of taxable articles. That comes up every time there is a difficulty about revenue. They regret that they introduced free-trade to the extent they did. While we are dealing with the question of the position of things in England, I will read a word or two from a book, the author of which does not give his name.

He goes on to say in regard to the foreign trade of Great Britain :-

We see in the first place the startling fact that in 1S95 our foreign commerce under all heads shows a large decrease in every item since 1890. Our total trade fell off by £40,422,000, which consisted of a reduction of £42,420,000 in exports and of £4,002,000 in imports. These losses consisted of £19,081,000 with British possessions and the balance of £27,34.1,000 with the rest of the countries of the world. The f falling-off in exports to foreign nations was £24,214,000 and that to British, possessions of £18,543,000.

The last passage I shall read from his book is as follows : -

The largest export trade of Germany is to Great Britain, and amounted for articles of domestic produce alone to £22,039,000 in 1885, or nearly 15 per cent, of the whole ; in 1890, to £34,476,000, or 20.” per cent., and in 1S95 to £33,776,000, or 20 per cent, of the total exportation.

Listen also to this : -

It is distressing- to-observe the steadily increasing exports to us of articles similar to our own which has gone on in spite of the general commercial depression in late years. Though German commerce may have fallen off in some parts of .the world, it has substantially increased in others, and is larger now than it has ever been as regards importation. In 1885 her exports of home produce stood at £143,015,000 and 18,814,000 metric tons ; in 1895 they had reached £106,950,000 and 28,329,000’ tons, representing increases of £22,935,000 in value and of £9,5 15,000 tons in quantity. Her imports for home consumption had increased from £147,220,000 and 17,867,000 tons in 1885 to £198,165,000.

– No ; it says that goods imported at any time before the imposition of the uniform Tariff and exported within two years.

Mr Barton:

– The Act says : -

Goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of Customs into any State, or into any colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after the imposition of Such duties, be Hable to any duty chargeable on the importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their importation.

We cannot overlook the fact that the great bulk of popular opinion in the United States at present is against the high Tariff men, and that is the position I take it we are getting into in this colony. The figures in America tend in precisely thesame direction as the figures given by the honorable member for Portland. In 1850 in the United States when there was a low Tariff the value of farms was something like £650,000,000. In 1860 still under a low Tariff - though not what we would call a free-trade Tariff - the value of farms had increased to £1,300,000,000, but in the following ten years after the Tariff had been very largely increased the rate of progress was much lower, and the value of farms only rose to £1,850,000,000.

Mr Harper:

– I say that now.

Mr CONROY:

– The honorable member continued -

In the following decade, under a still higher Tariff, there was almost a total arrest of progress, the value rising only from £1,850,000,000 to £2,000,000,000. So that during the first ten years, under a comparatively low Tariff, the increase was at the rate of 100 per cent., whereas during the last ten years, with a largely increased immigration, including a large body of farmers coming from all parts of Europe, the increase was less than 10 per cent., although the population increased during the same period by something like 30 per cent.

The honorable member for Mernda drew our attention to the United States of America, but he forgot to look up his pastspeeches.

Mr Harper:

– No, I did not.

Mr CONROY:

– I should remind him of some further opinions which he expressed then. He went on to say -

I could give further figures in the same direction, showing that the production of the community has been arrested by these enormous Tariff imposts, but I do not wish to weary honorable members. I hold in my hand an extract from a book recently published in connexion with the American Tariff, which shows most forcibly that the same force of things applies to the great accumulations of property. During the last ten years, from 1850 to 1860, when a low Tariff was in force, there was an enormous increase of real and personal property - 103 per cent. From 1800 to 1870, when there was a jump in the Tariff of 100 per cent., the rate of increase was pulled up, being only 39 per cent. . And from 1870 to 1 880 with a higher Tariff, it was still further arrested, being at the rate of only 10 per cent.

How are we to obtain these things from abroad unless we have an exportable surplus to send back in exchange for the-comforts and luxuries which’ really make life worth living, so far as its material aspect is concerned. We must obtain those things from countries that produce them in superabundance, and in exchange we must send them the things which we produce in superabundance.

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I. trust that we shall come to a conclusion of the debate at a sufficiently early hour to-morrow to be able to go on then with other business. Honorable members will recognise that I have not endeavoured to put any undue pressure upon them to bring the debate to a conclusion, and that I have not tried to curtail their right of speech in any way. But, if I mistake not, this is the eighth night of the debate, and I think that we might reasonably come to a conclusion very shortly. The matters embraced in the speech are numerous, and Bills covering those matters will be introduced during the session, so that there will be opportunity for all of us to discuss them later on. I appeal to the generosity of honorable members to enable the business of the country to be proceeded with by bringing the debate to a close tomorrow evening before half -past six. I understand that that proposition has theconcurrence of my honorable friend opposite.

Sir William McMillan:

– So far as honorable members on this side of the House are concerned there will be no opposition.

Motion agreed to ; debate adjourned.

page 634

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Barton) -

That the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 June 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010604_reps_1_1/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 June 1901

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Temporary Supply Bill

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

QUESTION

G OVERNOR - GENERAL’S SPEECH

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Barton:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Barton:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir W McMillan:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir AV McMillan:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir W McMillan:

Mr Barton:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr A GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir W McMillan:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Kingston:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Glynn:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Sir John Forrest:

Mr A C GROOM:FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr MCDONALD:Kennedy

Mr R EDWARDS:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr MCDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr MCDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr MCDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr W H GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT

Sir William McMillan:

Mr McDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr mcdonald:

Mr Barton:

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr R EDWARDS:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr SPE AKER:

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr Barton:

Mr mcdonald:

Mr Mcdonald:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr McDONALD:

Mr Barton:

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr Barton:

Mr McDONALD:

Mr Barton:

Mr McDONALD:

Mr McDONALD:

Mr Wilks:

Mr McDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr McDONALD:

Sir William McMillan:

House of Representatives
4 June 1901

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr A C GROOM:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · FT

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr W H GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr WINTER COOKE:
Wannon

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WINTER, COOKE:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917