House of Representatives
31 August 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- COUNT-OUT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH STATISTICAL BUREAU
QUESTION
- LETTER CARRIERS
MILITARY CANTEENS
PAPER
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF OPIUM
QUESTION
- HOME RULE FOR IRELAND
BUDGET
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers,

page 1767

PETITIONS

Mr, BATCH E LOR presented five petitions from certain residents of South Australia, praying that stringent legislation be enacted to prohibit the importation and sale of opium within the Common wealth.

Mr. POYNTON presented four similar petitions, also from certain residents of South Australia.

Petitions received.

page 1767

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

– I desire to make a personal explanation with regard to a report in this morning’s Age of some occurrences in this Chamber last night. With characteristic partiality, the journal omits practically everything that I said, but prints everything thatmy opponent said. The honorable member for Bland is reported to have said, amongst other things, that-

Ever since Ministers have assumed office, we have had from the Opposition a series of obstructing and stone-walling speeches. . . It is really amusing, when one remembers all the speeches which have lately been delivered, and which have been nothing less than stone-walling. There has been an endeavour to stop business, and to prevent the Government from getting any credit for the work it has brought forward.

I asked if this was in order, and after your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am reported to have said -

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do you really rule that an honorable member is in order, in making a charge of deliberately obstructingthe House ? If so, I am glad to hear it.

I did not make any such statement. I did not say that I was glad to hear it. On the contrary, I deeply regretted hearing such a ruling given.

page 1767

QUESTION

COUNT-OUT

Mr WILSON:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– In this morning’s’ Age, the following paragraph appears : -

Of course, the “ count-out”signified nothing, as it was merely on the question of the adjournment; The Government could have kept a quorum had it desired.

Bid the Government desire to keep a quorum ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– When a Minister moves the adjournment of the House, it is because the Government desires that the House shall adjourn. No honorable member left this Chamber last night at my request, but honorable memberswere informed, when the adjournment was moved, that those who had trains to catch might leave to do so. I having moved the adjournment, the Government was no longer under the obligation to keep a House.

page 1767

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH STATISTICAL BUREAU

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Home Affairs layon the table of the library the correspondence with the States Governments in connexion with the proposed creation of a Commonwealth Statistical Bureau?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– I shall look into the matter, to see to what extent the request can be complied with.

page 1767

QUESTION

LETTER CARRIERS

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether the letter-carriers of other capital cities in the Commonwealth are compelled to do their work from the General Post Office similarly to those employed at the. General Post Office, Melbourne,?
What is the total cost to date of centralizing the suburban letter-carriers at theGeneral Post Office, Melbourne?
What was the cost for the last twelve months ?
Has any actual saving been effected by this scheme?
If so, how much has been saved by this centralization?
Who originated this scheme ?
When this scheme was introduced was it not intended to amalgamate suburban offices, and thereby decrease the staffs of postmasters, &c. ?
To what extent has this been done?
Is it intended to expend a further sum on the Melbourne General Post Office, which would not be necessary if this centralization had not. taken place?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1768

MILITARY CANTEENS

Motion (by Mr. Mauger) agreed to-

That a return be laid on the table showing -

The receipts during the past twelve months from military canteens throughout the Commonwealth.

The expenditure in connexion with the establishment and maintenance of same.

The profits, if any, on intoxicating liquors, and the way in which such profits have been applied.

page 1768

PAPER

Mr. AUSTIN CHAPMAN laid upon the table the following paper: -

Copy of reports by Mr. John Hesketh, electrical engineer, on (1) matters investigated by him during a recent tour in America and Europe; (a) the message rate or toll system of charging for telephone services; (3) further report on the automatic telephone exchange system.

page 1768

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF OPIUM

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– I move-

That, in the opinion of this House; the importation of opium for other than medical purposes should be prohibited.

I think that this motion needs no. apology, in view of the evil effects which the use of opium has upon its devotees, and the danger which threatens the community from the development of the habit of opiumsmoking among the European population. I have some personal knowledge of these effects, because, in company with Senior-sergeant Jeffs, and Mr. G. E. Ardill, of the Sydney Rescue Society - a gentleman who for many years has been closely identified with a movement for mitigating the evils attendant upon the use of this drug - I have visited the opium dens in the Chinese quarter in Sydney, and have there wit nessed scenes of the most appalling, degrading, and repulsive character, reflecting, n6t only upon the municipal government, but upon the intelligence,ofour race for permitting them, I have also visited similar dens in Melbourne, and have seen the same occurrences there: I have brought with me a photograph of one of the dens in Little Bourke-street, Melbourne, which is self-explanatory, though it does not illustrate the worst phases of this vice, being a picture of one of the more reputable dens. I shall leave it on the table for the inspection of honorable members. I hoped to have been able to produce, this afternoon, a . series of photographs of some of the scenes which are enacted in the opium dens of Sydney; but they have not yet arrived, so that I am unable to do so: The majority of these dens are situated in the lowest quarters of the city. They are to be found chiefly in alley ways, and are ill-ventilafed, so that the stench on entering them is abominable, and has a nauseating effect upon those who are unaccustomed to it. In my own case, a visitation of two rhours to various houses in Sydney frequented by opium smokers resulted in a fit of nausea from which it took me some time to recover. In a small room, perhaps a little more than 10 feet square, the visitor will find a number of low tables or couches, supported upon trestles, and covered with matting. There is a pillow at the head of each couch, and a tray, and each couch accommodates two persons, In a room of the dimensions I have described, it is no uncommon thing to discover six or eight personssmoking opium. The doors and windows are kept closed, and the blinds are drawn, to exclude both light and air. When first the stranger enters such a room, everything is enveloped in a yellowish vapourresembling a London fog ; but. when the eye becomes accustomed to the gloom, the forms of Chinese, negroes, Portuguese, and men of other natiohalities, together with European girls, ranging from tender years to ripe old age, are discerned, recumbent on the couches, smoking opium, and in a condition of stupor. One case in Melbourne struck me as being particularly abhorrent, for on one opium couch, smoking from the one tray, was a shrivelled-up, decrepit-looking old Oriental, resembling nothing so much as a revivified Egyptian mummy, and a young European woman of scarcely twenty, very scantily clothed, who, I was informed, was married to a well-to-do business man, and was a frequent clandestine visitor to these dens. According to all the testimony that can be obtained from medical and police authorities, and from others who have had experience of the effects of this habit, its results upon the system are most injurious, and investigation of the reports of the authorities of China, India, and other countries where the drug is extensively used, shows that it is the universal verdict that opium smoking has a most destructive and demoralizing effect upon those who indulge in it, leading to physical decay and mental imbecility. Fortunately., in Australia the use of opium has not yet attained alarming proportions, but those proportions are sufficiently large to make it necessary for us to carefully guard against the spread of the habit. It would be very much easier to check this traffic now than it would be if we were to allow it to develop to a much more formidable extent. When we remember the number of petitions that have been presented to this House from persons residing in all parts of the Commonwealth, and we know that further petitions are being signed in opposition to the introduction of opium into the Commonwealth, except for medicinal purposes, we must realize that the people of Australia are awakening to the danger of the evil, and are anxious to see legislation of -a repressive character introduced. One of the most satisfactory features of the agitation against the opium traffic is that the Chinese residents of Australia ‘are joining in the crusade. Chinese merchants, who have been in the habit of importing opium and making large sums of money out of the traffic in that article are at the head of the reform movement, and are anxious that the traffic shall be suppressed. Ministers of various denominations are also entering into the anti-opium crusade with whole-souled sympathy and devotion. Moreover, opium smokers themselves will welcome the proposed legislation, because they are such’ slaves to the habit that they cannot resist their cravings whilst it is possible to obtain the drug. It may be urged that prohibition may lead to smuggling, but that consideration should not weigh with us. I understand that the Collector of Customs in Sydney reports that the authorities consider themselves quite capable of preventing the smuggling of opium to any great extent. They say that they make such a thorough search of all vessels coming into port that it is almost impossible for smuggling to be carried on to any great extent. Therefore, it seems to me that it devolves upon us, as an integral part of the Empire, to assist in trying, to get rid of this curse, for the existence of which throughout the world we, as Britishers, are chiefly responsible. It is not to the Chinese themselves that we owe the existence of the opium traffic, but to the British authorities who in earlier years insisted upon the drug being imported into China against the repeated protests of the Chinese authorities, because the Indian Government found that through the cultivation of the poppy in that country and the exportation of opium to China, manufactured from the poppy, they were able not only to secure very large returns in the form of revenue, but also to enable the cultivators to reap very large profits. It has always seemed to me that the history of this subject constitutes one of the greatest blots upon our national escutcheon. One’s reflections cannot be pleasant when one considers how largely, responsible our race is for the degradation of the millions of people who have been perniciously affected by the use of opium. It is only just to the majority of the public of Great Britain to say that until recently they were not aware of the alarming effects of the use of opium, and the extent to which habitual indulgence in opium smoking prevails. By means of the dissemination of literature, however, chiefly through the agency of the Christian Union for the Severance of the Connexion of the British Empire with the Opium Traffic, the British people have been largely made aware of their full responsibility, and have displayed willingness to do what they can to remedy the evils which have arisen chiefly through the mistaken policy of their rulers in the past. In the beginning the British authorities forced this trade upon China, despite the repeated protests of the rulers of that country, and it may be interesting in this connexion to read something that has been said by the Chinese Imperial Commissioner, who issued a proclamation upon the subject some time before the first opium war. The proclamation, which was addressed to the foreign merchants in China, contains the following pertinent question and comment : -

Why do you bring to our land the opium, which in your land is not made use of, by it defrauding men of their property, and causing injury to their lives? I find that with this thing you have seduced and deluded the people of China for two years past; and countless are the unjust hoards you have thus acquired. Such conduct rouses indignation in every human heart, and it is utterly inexcusable in the eye of celestial reason.

In another document, the Commissioner says -

Of all the evils that afflict mankind, the greatest are those he perversely brings upon himself. . . . Reptiles, wild beasts, dogs, and swine do not corrupt the morals of the age so as to cause one anxious thought to the Sovereign. There are, however, men who do.

All the lime the Chinese were protesting against the introduction of the drug into China they took a highly moral stand, and were actuated by a desire to preserve the physique and general character of the Chinese. In addressing a memorial to Queen Victoria on the subject, the Chinese Commissioner wrote as follows: -

In the ways of heaven no partiality exists, and no sanction is allowed to the injuring of others for the advantage of one’s self. . . . Your honorable nation, though beyond the wide ocean, acknowledges the same ways of heaven, the same human nature, and has the like perception of the distinction between life and death, benefit and injury. . . But there is a tribe of depraved and barbarous people, who, having manufactured opium for smoking, bring it hither for sale, and seduce and lead astray the simple folk, to the destruction of their persons and the draining of their resources. Formerly the smokers thereof were few, but of late the practice has spread and daily do its baneful effects more deeply pervade this rich, fruitful, and flour i shins; population. . , Hence those who deal in opium, or who inhale its fumes within this land, are all now to be subjected to severest punishment, and a perpetual interdict is to be placed on the practice so extensively prevailing.

It will be observed from this that, notwithstanding the determination, of the British authorities to insist upon the drug being imported into China, the rulers of that country, realizing the evil effects of opium-smoking, did what they could to discourage the- practice, and imposed penalties upon those who were found indulging in it. The Commissioner proceeds -

We have reflected that this poisonous article is the clandestine manufacture of artful schemers, and depraved people of various tribes under the dominion of your honorable nation. Doubtless you, the Honorable Sovereign of that nation, have not commanded the manufacture and sale of it.

We have heard that in your honorable nation, the people are not permitted to inhale the drug. . It is clearly, from a knowledge of its injurious effects on man, that you have directed severe prohibitions against it. But what is the prohibition of its use in comparison with the prohibition of its sale and manufacture, as a means of thoroughly purifying the .source. Though not making use of one’s self, to venture on the manufacture and sale of it, and with it to seduce the simple folk of this land, is to seek one’s own livelihood by the exposure of others to death. Such acts are bitterly abhorrent to the nature of man, are utterly opposed to the ways of heaven- . . . We would now then conceit with your honorable sovereignty, means to bring to a perpetual end this opium, so hurtful to mankind, we, in this land, forbidding the use of it, and you, in the nations under your dominion, forbidding its manufacture. . . . Will not the result of this be the enjoyment by each of a felicitous condition of peace?

Those are noble words, nobly inspired - written, not by a European, but by a representative of a nation which we have always been taught to regard as barbarous. I venture to say that if we compare the utterances of the Chinese Commissioner with some of the .deliverances which have been made from our own side, the greatest credit must be given to the representative of the Celestial Empire on the score of right and justice, as well as wise and lofty ideals of statesmanship and morality. The action of the British authorities in forcing the opium traffic on the Chinese led to a series of wars - three in all - upon which I do not care to dwell, because that aspect of the question is exceedingly painful for any one of British origin to contemplate. There was absolutely no justification whatever for those wars. An attempt was made to induce the Chinese Government to legalize the introduction of opium. But throughout all the negotiations with China a continuous protest was made by that country against its introduction, and it was only the force of British arms which ultimately compelled its acceptance. Upon the subject of the war, I do not think that it would be out of place for me to read what Mr. Gladstone himself had to say. He denounced it in these terms -

A war more unjust in its origin^ a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know, and I have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic ; and if it was never hoisted, except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror.

The details of those wars were frightful, as anybody who has read an account of them must know. The Times of 3rd December, 1842, in the first leading article written upon the war, said -

We think it of the highest moment that the Government of Great Britain should wash its hands, once for all, not only of all diplomatic, but of all moral and political responsibility for this (the opium) traffic; that we should cease to be mixed up with it, to foster it,, or to make it a source of Indian revenue. . . . We owe some moral compensation to China for pillaging her towns and slaughtering her citizens in a quarrel which never could have arisen if we had not been guilty of this national crime.

The Spectator of 29th October of the same year said in this relation -

It is impossible to read the account of the military operations in China without shame and disgust. It is not war, but sheer butchery - a battue in a well-stocked preserve of human beings. . . The Chinese are hacked, shot, and drowned without resistance, overcome by their own sense of helplessness and their excited imaginations; and the details of the butchery are such that we should feel sickened to see it exercised on cattle or game. . . Is it a sign of humanity to sanction such wholesale butchery of human beings ? Is it a sign of morality to do all this in order that a poisonous drug may be smuggled into the markets of China?

That is very strong language, coming from reputable and responsible sources, but it expresses the opinions of some of the foremost leaders of public thought in Great Britain at that time. Yet, notwithstanding the strong condemnation of the traffic by Mr. Gladstone himself, and by the leading newspapers which I have quoted, it was still persisted in, and has continued to grow until it has reached its present colossal proportions. Up till 1902 the revenue derived from the traffic between India and China was, I think, something like ,£256,000,000. I have not the exact figures before me, otherwise I should give them; but the amount was a very large one. So great was the trade in opium that in some instances traders actually made a fortune out of a single cargo. One case is cited in which the ship Sir Edward Ryan, armed with sixteen guns, and carrying seventy men, made a net profit of £50,000 in one opium cruise. Seeing that such large profits were made out of this traffic with China, we can well understand that those who engaged in it did all that they possibly could to prevent interference with it. I mention these facts to show that we cannot blame the Chinese for having introduced the drug into our midst. We have to blame ourselves for forcing it upon a nation which was unwilling to accept it - a nation which clearly saw what a demoralizing influence it exercised upon its own citizens. In this connexion, I desire to read the opinion which Lord Ashley expressed in the Imperial Parliament upon the subject. Lord Ashley, afterwards the Earl of Shaftesbury, moved the following resolution in the House of Commons -

That the continuance of the trade in opium, and the monopoly of its growth in the territory of British India, are destructive of all relations of amity between England and China, injurious to the manufacturing interests of the country by the very serious diminution of legitimate commerce, and utterly inconsistent with the honours and duties of a Christian kingdom, and that steps be taken as soon as possible, with due regard to rights of Governments and individuals, to abolish the evil.

Mr Deakin:

– That is a good while ago.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Yes, it was in 1843. I am speaking now of that early stage. I am pointing out that, notwithstanding these protests, the traffic has been allowed to grow until it has, assumed its present alarming proportions, .which render it very difficult to deal with it effectually. Lord Ashley further stated -

I am fully. convinced that for this country to encourage this nefarious traffic is bad, perhaps worse than encouraging the slave trade. . . . The opium trade destroys the man both body” and soul ; and carries a hideous ruin over millions, which can never be repaired.

His speech was the first great indictment of the trade in Parliament, and it was described by the Times as being far more statesmanlike than were the deliverances of those to whom he was opposed. It has been said that it is impossible to prevent the use of the drug entirely, because even if we prohibited its importation, it is possible to grow poppies in Australia and to manufacture opium within the country.

Mr Deakin:

– It has been done.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I was not aware of that, but I know that it can be done. In this connexion it should be remembered that when Li Hung Chang took the matter in hand he really advocated the cultivation of the poppy in China itself. When he found that he could not prevent the importation of the drug from India, he conceived the idea that it would be better to encourage the cultivation of the poppy in China for the purpose of cheapening the price of opium.

Mr Deakin:

– It is alleged that in the centre of China, poppy cultivation and opium-making have always been carried on.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I believe that tha’t statement is true, but only to a limited extent. As a matter of fact, the poppy was cultivated in China about the period of 600 a.d., if my memory serves me accurately. But at that time the use of opium for smoking purposes was not known ; it was merely cultivated for medical preparations. It was not used for smoking purposes until a much later period. About 1730 a.d. it first began to be used for smoking, but only to a very limited extent. The effect of imposing a high tariff upon this drug was to cause it to be regarded as a greater luxury than ever, and to increase the desire of its devotees to obtain it. When once the opium habit has been acquired its victims will sacrifice almost anything to get the jj rug- They will even sell their own brothers, sisters, .and wives in order to obtain it. For this reason, Li Hung Chang thought that by cultivating the poppy for the manufacture of opium for smoking purposes, he would be able to lessen the imports of the drug, and to encourage the use of the locally-grown article by reason of the fact that the Chinese would be able to purchase it cheaper. His idea was’ to discourage the importation of opium until, ultimately, he got rid of it, and then to employ internal means to suppress its use and even the growth of the poppy in China. As far as I am able to gather from a study of the subject, that was his aim in sanctioning the growth of poppies in China itself. I notice that a great agitation has been going on amongst the British people in- opposition to the opium trade, and, on 9th December last, an overflowing meeting was held in Exeter Hall, London, calling upon Christians, under a deep sense of duty, to unite in a determined effort to bring our national connexion with the opium traffic to an end. I have already referred to the selfsacrificing efforts of the Chinese themselves in regard to this matter. In this connexion I wish to mention that a great’ meeting was recently held in the Centennial Hall, Sydney, in which prominent Chinese merchants and other Chinese residents took a leading part. That meeting was most enthusiastic, and was absolutely at one with the conveners. As far as I have been able to discover, whenever attention has been called to the evil effects of the drug, no opposition has been offered to those who desire to get rid of the traffic. Some idea of the extent of the volume of that traffic in China may be gathered from the fact that during the reign of Queen Victoria 284,582 tons of opium were exported from India to that country. These figures represent an average export of more than half -a- ton for every hour of her late Majesty’s reign. These are appalling figures, and represent a terrible state of affairs. Of course, I recognise that the question of revenue is a very serious one to consider in this connexion. But to me that consideration is as nothing compared with the degradation1 and the iniquity of a traffic of this character. I cannot conceive of the possibility of the question of maintaining a revenue from such an unquestionably Harmful source being defended upon any- grounds of morality, expediency, humanity, or necessity. I now wish to say a few words in regard to the report of the Royal Commission which was appointed to investigate the question of the opium trade, and from which I propose to give some brief quotations as to that trade in Burmah, India, the Straits Settlements, and China; I also desire to quote the opinions of Dr. Roth and Sir John Cockburn in connexion with the traffic in Australia. The consensus pf opinion of Burmese merchants is contained in the following sentence of one of the witnesses before the Commission : -

I would say that in Burmah total abolition would be the best thing to be done, as they have done in the case of ganja.

This ganja is made from a” plant which grows wild in Burmah. It was found to be so harmful in its effects that the authorities took prompt and successful measures to suppress its use. That prohibition has proved most effective up to the present time. At page 148 of the report of the Royal Commission, the following statement, in answer to question 7232, will be found:- -

It is desirable to prohibit the sale of opium. People of Burma would hail such a measure with delight.

The Royal Commission summed up their conclusions as to the Burmese trade as follows : -

The Burmans are specially susceptible to injury from opium, and there is among them a popular sentiment against the habit. Special regulations have therefore been introduced, which, short of universal prohibition, seem to us as restrictive as it would be expedient for any Government to enforce.

Having regard to the fact that this Commission was largely a partial one, and favorably disposed to those who were engaged in the opium traffic, it must be admitted that this was a very serious statement. The impartiality of the Commission has of late been impugned, and startling evidence has been brought forward to support the contention of those who have questioned the accuracy of its report. Coming to the position in the Straits Settlements, we find in volume 167 of the Royal Com- mission’s report the following statement by Mr. Riccard, Superintendent of Police -

Opium smokers of the poorer class soon become physically unfit for labour, owing to not having means to support themselves with’ proper food. The majority become slaves to the drug.

In volume 176 we find the following statement by Surgeon-Major O’sullivan -

Generally speaking, opium smoking, in those who persist in its use, leads to moral, physical, and social deterioration-

Mr. Koh Seang Tai, an ex opium farmer, who was interested in the trade, and farmed out the business to others, is reported, in volume 158 of the same report, to have made this statement -

When used to any considerable extent, the consumer becomes worthless - morally, physically, and socially. . . It is felt that the opium traffic is a stain on the fair fame of the British people, and that owing to her power in the matter, it is England’s duly to mankind to efface the stain, 5? it be within the limits of possibility to do so.

Shaik Ensoff is reported, at page 172 of the report, as follows: -

The smokers ruin th’eir health. Almost all the races consider the habit of consuming opium to be condemned and injurious.

I now come to the position in Hong Kong. Mr. Woodhouse, Police Magistrate, is reported in volume 191, to have said -

With regard to Chinese, the effects of any kind, whether moral, physical, or social, from taking opium, are in the direction of deterioration proportionate to the extent to which it is taken. . . . In every instance the adoption of the habit is a wound to the moral instincts of the individual, and lowers his self-esteem to the general weakening of his character-

The Acting, Registrar-General made the following statement, which is also to be found in volume 191 of the Royal Commission’s report: -

The Chinese become weak and an?mic, lazy and shiftless . . . will steal in order to obtain opium, if not able to continue to buy it. The majority are inclined to be sots. The opium smoking divans are a disgrace to the Colony.

Dr. Eitel, the Inspector of Schools, is reported, at page 207, as follows : -

There cannot be, in my experience, frequent indulgence without a corresponding degree of physical, moral, and social injury.

Law Wai Chun stated that its effects were deadly -

In thus stopping the supply of opium, the whole of Asia will be benefited, and England will be carrying out the will of Heaven in protecting its children, and will receive in turn infinite blessings.

Chin-U-Tin also made the following statement, which is to be found at page 188 of the report of the Royal Commission : -

The Chinese are only too glad if the Government would adopt any method to exterminate this evil.

I propose now to quote statistics showing the value of the opium imported into the various States of the Commonwealth. In 1903-4,- the value of the imports of opium into New South Wales was ?16,180; Victoria, ,?9,438 ; Queensland, .?24,831; South Australia, ?6,196; Western Australia, .?4994; and Tasmania, ?553, the total value of the importations for the year being ?62,192. In Coghlan’s *Summary of Customs Imports for 1 903, we find a return showing the various countries from which our supplies of opium came during that year. The return shows that 319 lbs. were imported from the United Kingdom ; 21,147 lbs. from Hong Kong; 514 lbs. from India; 8,120 lbs. from Straits Settlements; 10,516 lbs. from China; i,8ot lbs. from Macao; and 10 lbs. from Dutch New Guinea; making a total of 42,427 lbs. These figures show that the consumption of the drug in Australia at the present time is exceedingly large, especially having regard to the fact that only a very small proportion of it is used for medicinal purposes.

Mr Deakin:

– Under 5 per cent.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I believe that upwards of 95 per cent, is used for smoking purposes.

Mr Deakin:

– The quantity differs in the different States, but the average quantity used for that purpose is about 95 per cent, of the total importations.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I believe that, roughly speaking, that average is correct. The House may perhaps be interested to hear briefly a few opinions on the subject by some of those who have been interested in the British Administration in China. Sir Rutherford Alcock, British Ambassador, in his despatch on the subject in 1869, said -

There is no doubt as to the frightful evils attending the smoking of opium, its thoroughly demoralizing effects, and the utter ruin brought upon all who once give way to the vice.

After twenty-five years’ residence in China, he summed up his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in the words -

Every opium smoker considers himself a moral criminal.

Sir Thomas Wade, who occupied the positions successively of interpreter, Secretary, of Legation, and Ambassador in China, wrote to his Government -

It is to me vain to think otherwise of the drug than as of a habit many times more pernicious than the gin and whisky drinking which we deplore at home. : . It has insured in every case within my knowledge the steady descent, moral and physical, of the smoker.

The Rev. Dr. Griffith John, of Han Kow, with half-a-century’s experience, declares it-,

An unmitigated curse, a curse physically, a curse morally, a curse socially to the individual and the nation.

Mr. W. S. Caine, a member of the House of Commons, and a leader in temperance work, after visiting India, bore the following testimony -

I have been in East-end gin palaces on Saturday nights ; I have seen men in various stages of delirium tremens ; I have visited many idiot and lunatic asylums; but I have never seen such horrible destruction of God’s image in the face of man as I saw in the “ Government opium dens of Lucknow.”

The effects of opium upon the natives was utter demoralization of them body and soul; and they became.so seized with the craving, that they sold themselves, children, women, or anything, to get it.

Sir John Cockburn, when Premier of South Australia, stated that -

From his prefessional experience as a medical man, he knew of large numbers, moving in fashionable circles of society, who were addicted to it in the form of morphia, and the disastrous effects it has upon them.

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr CONROY:

Mr CONROY:

– It is certainly much more repulsive so far as appearances go, but we cannot by legislation put an end to these and kindred evils. Under the present system, there is more chance of grappling with the evils arising from opium smoking, than there would be if we prohibited the importation of the drug for smuggling would be successfully carried on, and we should have difficulty in coping with it. It is not because I have no desire to see the evil abolished, but rather because I (hold that the suggested legislation would be fore-doomed to failure, that I oppose the motion.

Debate (on motion by Mr.” Austin Chapman) adjourned.

page 1781

QUESTION

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

Debate resumed from 17th August (vide page 1.t.28), on motion by Mr. Higgins -

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows -

May it please Your Majesty :

We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our name and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to express our unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty’s person and Government.

We have observed with feelings of profound satisfaction the evidence afforded by recent legislation and recent debates in the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of a sincere desire now to deal justly with Ireland; and in particular we congratulate the people of the United Kingdom on the remarkable Act directed towards the settlement of the land question, and on the concession to the people of Ireland of a measure of local government for municipal purposes. But the sad history of Ireland since the Act of Union shows that no British Parliament can understand or effectively deal with the economic and social conditions of Ireland.

Enjoying and appreciating as we do the blessings of Home Rule here, we would humbly express the hope that a just measure of Home Rule may be granted to the people of Ireland. They ask for it through their representatives - never has request more clear, consistent, and continuous been made by any nation. As subjects of Your Majesty we are interested in the peace and contentment of all parts of the Empire, and we desire to see this long-standing grievance a’t the very heart of the Empire removed. It is our desire for the solidarity and permanence of the Empire, as a Power making for peace and civilization, that must be our excuse for submitting to Your Majesty this respectful petition-

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– When this question’ was under consideration some days ago I occupied the last few minutes of the time set apart for tl.e consideration of private members’ business, and the House granted me leave to continue my remarks to-day. I was then entering upon a reply to the able arguments that had been put forward so calmly and dispassionately by- the mover of the motion and the honorable and learned member for Angas, and urged that the mere fact that the motion was a lengthy one should in itself be sufficient to arouse suspicion. I pointed out that it was really a gilded pill ; that the motion was nicely worded ; and that the speeches of those who had supported it had been characterized by good taste and expressions of goodwill towards the Empire. If all the advocates of Home Rule simply desired the introduction of the system suggested by the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne and the honorable and learned member for Angas, there would be very little necessity to debate the question. But the position is different. In the first place, I think, for reasons which I shall presently submit to the House, that the motion should not have been introduced at all ; but, inasmuch as it has been moved and supported, it becomes my duty, as one who is opposed to it, to combat the arguments that have been submitted in favour of its adoption. In the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne and the honorable and learned member for Angas the motion finds two doughty champions. Their astuteness, their legal training, and their ready flow of arguments make them formidable antagonists, but I shall endeavour to show the House why I, and those who think with me, oppose Home Rule for Ireland, as advocated by the present leaders of the movement. If those who are prominently identified with the agitation for Home Rule in the old world were as philosophical as are those who have supported this motion, there would be little to fear from the carrying out of the proposition. I feel satisfied that if the members of the Imperial Government who are opposed to the granting of Home Rule for Ireland were convinced that its advocates all shared the views of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne and the honorable and learned member for Angas, their opposition to the proposal would be considerably modified. When the matter was previously under consideration, I pointed out, in reply to the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, who had quoted the remarks of the younger Pitt, that Pitt’s policv had not been carried out, and he admitted that that was so. We find, in the concluding paragraph of the motion, the statement that-

Enjoying and appreciating as we do the blessings of Home Rule here, we would humbly express the hope that a just measure of Home Rule may be granted to the people of Ireland.

I would point out, however, that we have Home Rule in Australia as a part of the Empire, while the advocates of Home Rule for Ireland, according to their most recent statements, seek “Home Rule with separation.”

Mr Conroy:

– That was not so in the statement of Mr. Redmond.

Mr WILKS:

– If the honorable and learned member will permit me to deal with the subject in my own way, he will see that I am furnished with the most recent utterances of advocates of Home ‘Rule in England to prove that their ideal differs from that of the honor-able and learned members for Northern Melbourne and Angas. With regard to the words “ just measure,” the first question which arises ‘is, “Who is to define a just measure?” Is that system just which is advocated by the honorable and learned member for Angas, who says that Ireland is prepared to receive a subordinate Parliament? What she asks for is a co-ordinate Parliament. She will not be satisfied with an extension of municipal government, because, under- the Acts of 1903, she possesses advanced local government and advanced land legislation. My argument against interference is twofold. The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne says that Australia has already interfered in matters in which she is not concerned, and instanced our action in sending troops to the Transvaal, and in protesting against the employment of Chinese on the Rand. But in that interference we were justified, because, in the first case, thousands of our citizens had gone . to theTransvaal, and, in the second place, wehad had experience of the effect of allowing large numbers of Chinamen to come intothe country, which the people of the United Kingdom had not had. The last sentence of the moi-ion reads -

It is our desire for the solidarity and permanence of the Empire, as a power making for peaceand civilization, that must be our excuse for submitting to Your Majesty this respectful petition.

As I have already pointed out, the phraseology there employed is similar to that used by Daniel O’Connell, and, in an interjection, I charged the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne with having, consciously or unconsciously, almost cribbed the exact language employed ii» several of the speeches of that famous man. When, during the honorable and learned member’s speech, I interjected that a large part of the Irish do not wish for HomeRule, he replied that I interjected officially, as leader of the Orange organization inNew South Wales. I am sorry that he referred to that organization, and suggested that I am not a free agent in this matter. To say that I am” not a free agent is as true as to say that he is not, and that he moved the motion at the dictation of the local Hibernian Society, and by directionof Archbishop 0 -‘ . I am as free in thismatter as he is, and take full responsibility for my utterances; but I am sorry that he made that reference to the Orange institution. He further said tb.it in 1800 the Orange lodges opposed the Union ; but there he is wrong in his history, because Daniel O’Connell, speaking at the time, said that it was the Orangemen who caused it to be brought about. The honorable and’ learned member supported his motion by a very weak argument when he said -

I say, too, speaking now to members who have had to face elections in all parts of Australia, that we have a direct interest in removing thiscause of friction from our Australian issues.

Do those who wish for Home Rule think much of an advocate who brings that forward as a reason ?

Mr Tudor:

– Why does the honorable member oppose the motion?

Mr WILKS:

– Because I am absolutely opposed to Home Rule. But I deny that it is a cause of friction in Australia, though, even if it were, the honorable and learned’ member for Northern Melbourne would have placed himself in a most humiliating position in. asking this House to vote for the motion on grounds of personal convenience and interest, to remove a cause of friction from Australian issues. The honorable and learned member said -

All I am asking for is a just measure of Home Rule. The decision as to what is just must be left to those who have the power.

Do the believers in Home Rule ask for a just system? What they ask for is Home Rule, and I warn them to beware of those who would modify the request by asking for a “just” system. It is the Imperial Government which has the power in this matter, and the question should be left to them for decision. The honorable and learned member drew a harrowing picture of the dire distresses of Ireland, and in support of his statements said -

I do not know that I can appeal to any statistical authority higher than Sir Robert Giffen - a man whose motives cannot be impugned, and whose skill is proverbial - a man who is himself a unionist.

The honorable and learned member accepts the authority of -this great statistician in regard to Home Rule, but he refuses to take it in regard1 to the fiscal question. He s?i id -

The union between Great Britain and Ireland is an admitted failure - conceived in blunder, consummated in fraud, and maintained to the discredit and the damage of the people of the Empire.

– I am familiar with their speeches and their characters. Mr. Devlin in the Kilkenny Journal, said -

He appealed to them as lovers of their country, and as men anxious to lift her from the slough into which she had been reduced by the tyranny and oppression of centuries, to rally their forces together, and there, as in other parts of the country, make British “Government impossible, as the most effective means of ridding the country of the greatest curse that ever plagued a nation.

Thus” we learn that British rule is to-day considered the greatest curse that ever befel a nation. Yet we are told that Home Rule will make for the strength and peace of the Empire. These are the statements of the prominent men in the Home Rule movement. I now propose to deal with the power behind them. I intend to take the United Irish League as it exists in Ireland to-day, and to compare the character of its advocacy with that of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne and the honorable and learned member for Angas. I wish to make it clear that their desires in this connexion are not likely to meet with the wishes of the advocates of Home Rule in Ireland. “ The United Irish League is the official party organization of what is known in the House of Commons as the “ National “ party. It is that party’s fighting organization, and it is composed of the electors of Ireland! who believe in the system of Home Rule, advocated by the men to whom I have already referred. Upon 21st January of the present year the report of the Kinwarra branch of the league appears in the Clare Champion -

The treasurer of the branch announced : - Clonasee and Cartron will not be behind when, the collection is finished, neither will Dungora. The town collectors will stait on next week, and, as they are men of grit, ‘tis to be hoped they, will take no “ soft sawder-“ … A rigid scrutiny will be kept of the payments made, andany one refusing to subscribe will appear in thelist of defaulters to be published.

– The honorable member may call it what he likes. Another branch of the League - the Clostoken Branch - upon 29th January, carried the followingresolution : -

That we give this, our final warning, to every member of this branch that they will not be al-“ lowed to retain their cards of membership if they support or associate with non-members.

If they associate with non-members they will not be allowed to retain their cardsof membership ! Under such circumstances will they be prepared to accept the milkandwater resolution submitted by the honorable and learned member for NorthernMelbourne? Upon a former occasion, I

Mr Ronald:

– But New South Wales hai? a Parliament of its own.

Mr WILKS:

– And Ireland has advanced municipal institutions. Furthermore, she receives as a special concession representation in the House of Commons altogether out of proportion to her population. On a population basis, she would have seventy-one representatives in the

House, whereas she has 103. The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne in the Convention was strongly opposed to the granting of equal representation to the States, because he thought that representation should always be in accordance with population. There was no stronger advocate then of the democratic principle of representation on a population basis. But, although Scotland, Wales, and England have to be satisfied with such a representation, the honorable and learned gentleman thinks that Ireland has ground for complaint when she possesses a representation of thirty-two members more than her population entitles her to. The Irish question has caused a great deal of trouble in Imperial affairs. It was responsible for breaking up the Liberal party and forming the Liberal Union party, and drove from the Liberal ranks some of its greatest men. For years past it has led to the obscuring of other issues. But the more the Imperial Parliament does for Ireland, the more her people demand, and it is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that the Irish will not be satisfied until they get separation. They certainly will not be satisfied with the passing of this milk-and-water motion. In my opinion, the members of the Imperial Government are not fiends incarnate ; they are not men without sympathy ; nor are they unacquainted with the condition of Ireland. They know the condition of Ireland better than we can, and only two years ago the Imperial Parliament voted £112,000,000 for its amelioration, and granted a further extension of municipal government to Ireland. If, however, the Irish are given a Parliament of their own, the disintegration of the Empire will at once commence. I am thoroughly opposed to any such step being taken, and I think that the people of Australia as a whole are of the same mind. But, as the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has suggested that because I am an Orangeman. I am not a free agent in this matter, I would again remind him that I am as free as he is free from the dictation of Archbishop Carr and the local Hibernian Society, and have as much right to express mv opinions on the subject. The honorable member for Coolgardie is of the religion of the bulk of the Irish people; but I am sure that he will admit that the relations between us have always been of the friendliest. I tell him that if he intends to excite the Orange movement in Australia, the carrying of this motion is likely to have that effect. ‘ My remarks have been made, in my judgment, in support of the best interests of the Empire and of Australia, and I have endeavoured to combat the arguments of the honorable and learned members for Angas and Northern Melbourne. I trust that the House will not shelve the motion, but that there will be a division upon it, when, irrespective of party considerations, it will probably be defeated.

Mr. RONALD (Southern Melbourne).I am very glad that the motion has been placed before this Parliament, and I wish to deal with what is the only argument worthy of consideration which has been submitted in opposition to it.

Mr Kelly:

– Why was this motion taken out of the honorable member’s hands ?

Mr RONALD:

– I will deal with that matter presently. Not one sound argument or good reason has been adduced against the granting of Home Rule -per se. The only argument advanced by the opposition worthy of serious consideration is the “hands off” or “no interference” argument. It has been contended that the Federal Parliament has no right to interfere in a matter which is not of immediate personal concern, and it has been pointed out that the members of the party to which I belong were against interference by Australia in connexion with the troubles in the Transvaal. I, and most of those who will vote for the motion, certainly preached the doctrine of “ non-interference,” or laissez faire, in connexion with events in the Transvaal, because at the time war -was raging there, and I thought that Australia should not be involved in a quarrel with which she was not concerned. But I hold that we may interfere in the interests of peace, so long as we approach the Imperial Government with due courtesy, and through the proper channel. We should not interfere to make_ war and strife. There is no parallel between the two cases. There is a reason for interference in this instance, but there was no (reason for interference in the former instance. With regard to our action in respect to the proposed importation of Chinese into the Transvaal, that was justified on the ground that we in Australia had experienced the evil effects of employing Chinese, which the people of England had not. We desire tq respectfully approach the Imperial Parliament, because we have had experience of Home Rule, and can therefore speak of its blessings, and advocate th’e application of the same principle to

Ireland. The honorable member for Dalley has pointed to the many beneficent Acts that have been passed by the British Parliament in order to remedy Irish grievances, and to the fact that they have not proved effective. I make bold to say that if Ireland; were granted the best laws in the world, and they were not homemade, they would be regarded as nothing more or less than coercive measures. Universal experience points to the fact that laws in order to have any efficacy, or any claim upon the loyalty of the people, must be home-made. Many good features have been introduced, into the land-laws of Ireland, which have in some respects been models of justice as between landlord and tenant; but because such laws were not made by the people themselves they have been regarded as coercive. In order to make people law-abiding, they must have the right to frame their own laws ; otherwise loyalty in the highest and best sense cannot be expected from them.

Dalley said that Orangemen were advocates of the Union in the first instance. That is perfectly true. The Orangemen, with their usual jealousy and suspicion, at the beginning of the last century gravely suspected the reigning Monarch, and, still more;, the Heir-App’arent, of leanings towards Catholicism. They entered into a conspiracy to keep Queen Victoria from, the Throne, and to place upon it the Duke of Cumberland. These men, who now call themselves members of the Loyal Orange Lodge, and who have had the impudence to falsify history, and to call themselves loyal, are loyal only just so far as it may suit their purpose. There was, however, no loyalty about them at the time of which I have spoken, and the statement that disloyalty lurks behind this motion for the presentation of a petition to His Majesty comes with very bad grace from the party which was begotten in disloyalty, and which utters the parrot cry ‘ of “ God save the King “ merely to serve its own purposes. The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne said he hoped that if Home Rule were granted to Ireland we should hear no more of the objectionable sectarian element which was everlastingly cropping up in local politics. The honorable member for Dalley, 00 the other hand, stated that he “objected to a movement that would have that effect. I can quite understand that a certain type of politician would object to the disappearance of the sectarian issue, because* he lives by it, and if that issue were no longer present in Australian politics his trade would be gone. We desire, however, to eradicate this element, whose existence in our politics all decent men must deplore. Some remarks have been made with regard to the depopulation of Ireland, and I shall endeavour to point out the intimate connexion between the want of political liberty and the lack of interest on the part of the Irish people in the country of their birth. I should l(ike, however, to first draw attention to the distinction which exists between legislative union and Imperial union. I hold that the utmost devotion to the cause of Home Rule and legislative separation is quite compatible with the strongest attachment to Imperial union. It has been held by Gladstone, who was an Imperialist of the first order, that in the interests of Imperial union, legislative separation is absolutely indis pensable. Efforts to keep together in a legislative union people who are not fit to be ruled and governed by the same institutions promote dissension and that feeling of dissatisfaction which some men are tempted to call disloyalty. The most effective way of bringing about Imperial separation is by insisting, in certain circumstances, upon legislative union. On the other hand, the best way to make a lasting and true Imperial union is to grant legislative separation. The experience of the world proves that.

Mr Johnson:

– It has been denied that legislative separation only is sought for.

Mr RONALD:

– I contend that the best way in which the unity of the Empire can be promoted is by granting the fullest political liberty to all subjects of the King. We can furnish an example of this- in Australia. It is notorious that at one time the British Parliament desired us to separate from the Crown. They granted the fullest liberty of action in regard to the control of our army and- navy., and legislation generally, and the result was that we have clung all the more closely to the Imperial power. It is notorious that if an attempt be made to hold a people, they are repelled ; whereas if they are granted absolute liberty, they cling the more closely. When once legislative liberty is granted to any people they cling the closer to the central power. That is exactly what took place in Imperial Rome, which was, perhaps, one of the closest and most compact unions that the world has ever seen. It used to be a maxim amongst the Romans that they gave perfect autonomy in local and national affairs to the peoples whom they conquered. In this connexion I would commend to the notice of honorable members Cicero’s letters . to Atticus, as to how the Romans ruled their provinces. They gave to the people whom they conquered full liberty in regard to religion, marriage, and other concerns - liberty, indeed, in every shape and form. The Romans ruled their provinces by allowing the provinces to rule themselves. That is a secret which Imperial Britain has not yet discovered. The best way in which to bring about Imperial union is to grant legislative separation. Any man who chooses to seriously consider this great problem will find that the history of the world demonstrates the truth of my statement. Those who cavil at it are flying in the face of all history. I repeat that the surest way to Imperial union is through legislative separation. It has been stated that the Irish people have never preferred a unanimous request that they should be granted Home Rule. But I would ask, “ Have honorable members ever heard of any movement in any country upon which the people concerned were absolutely unanimous?” To my mind, the Irish Home Rule movement occupies a unique position in history, because it is the one movement which has commanded the support of an overwhelming majority of its people. The Province of Ulster has been trotted out as one which

All this points to the necessity for storing largely of the winter flow to provide for dry years, and also to the need of accurate and complete records. To this end, the officers intrusted with, the measurements and observations should be expert surveyors and trained to the work.

Then at page 17 we find the following statement : -

So far there has been little development of irrigation in New South Wales ; although, at Havand at Wentworth, irrigation schemes were started some years ago, under the authority of Acts of Parliament. Some of the land at Hay is. not considered suitable for irrigation, the site, as’ a whole, not being so good as that at Mildura. But perhaps the chief reason the settlement has not been quite successful is that those who first took, up the land lacked experience. Regarding this, one witness said : - “ I consider the soil is adapted for irrigation, and I have confidence in the scheme if we only had practical men on the area, men who understood fruit culture and the growing of crops by applying water to the land. . . We have, found that land and’ water in themselves are not sufficient, that there is a proper method of putting water on, and that method has to be learned by experience.

That shows the, enormous; quantity Hoff water that is running to waste every year - water ‘which would be of very considerable value if it were properly applied to the land. On page 18 it is slated -

The estimated storage capacity of the proposed reservoir at Yass is about 18,000,000,000 cubic feet- This quantity of water would irrigate 275,482 acres to a depth of 18 inches, which would be sufficient to grow two crops of sorghum, or four of lucerne.

It is further mentioned -

Two-sevenths of the waste flow of the Murrum– bidg.ee would irrigate 2,203,856 acres of wheat. oats, or barley, to a depth of 4^ inches; which would, judging from my experience, give a return of forty bushels of wheat or sixty bushels of oats to the acre, worth, say, 2s. for the former and is. 4d. for the latter, or a gross return . of ^’8,815,424 in either instance.

At page 22 we find that the irrigable area in the basins of the Murray and its tributaries amounts to no less than 50,042,400 acres. That is an enormous area, and I feel quite sure that we have too long neglected the opportunities presented to us in connexion with this vast tract of country. It should be turned to profitable account, and be made to yield enormous wealth to the Commonwealth. At page 25 reference is made to some of the lessons to be learnt from the experience of other countries in irrigation. It is stated -

In the United States of America, on the other hand, in the arid western regions especially, irrigation has brought profitable- employment, provided abundance of nutritious food, comfort, and luxury for the masses; while it has also found a profitable field for the investment of capital, and for the operations of the merchant and financier. . . . Few areas on the world’s surface support so dense a population as the narrow strip of land lying along the banks of the Nile. On both sides of that river, for hundreds of miles above Cairo, the fringe of fertility is hemmed in by the desert, which in many places extends down to the river itself. For many centuries it has supported a total population of nearly five persons to each acre of cultivation ; a density which, if it could be extended to countries like Australia, where there are millions of acres of irrigable land, would bring about a social revolution of unimaginable magnitude.

I do not see that much good can result to the States by extending the duration of the Braddon provision. It may restrict the spending powers of this Parliament, but I cannot imagine that we shall do anything to injure the people of the States. They are our constituents, and to injure them would be to injure ourselves. This Parliament will neither injure nor ignore the people of the States.

– I can only refer the Treasurer to his own words. If he does not believe in them, he should withdraw them. I now come to the receipts of the Commonwealth from Customs and Excise. In 1904-5 the actual revenue received from this source was ^8.799^.530; and the amount which it is estimated will be received during the current year is ^8,683,000 - a decrease as compared with the receipts for last year, which in themselves fell below the estimated revenue by ^180,470. This is a very serious matter to each of the States, and it is most important, therefore, that the Braddon section should be retained. The estimated amount of the deficit, compared with the receipts for 1904-5, is ^72,710. It is satisfactory to note that the income from the Post Office has increased, and promises to still further increase during the current year. But when we come to analyze the Customs revenue, we find that the returns obtained from the majority of the items in the Tariff show a serious deficiency so far as most of the States are concerned. In Victoria there has been an increase in the revenue derived from apparel and textiles, oils, paints, &c, drugs and chemicals, wood, wicker work and cane, jewellery, leather, paper and stationery, and vehicles. All the other items, however, show a falling off of revenue. The estimated sugar Customs receipts in Victoria for 1905-6, as compared with the returns for 1902-3, show a decrease of ^216,491, whilst the estimated sugar Excise returns show an increase of £.133,285, or a net deficiency on the two items of ,£83,206. This diminution of revenue must have been due to one of two causes. Either it has been brought about by a slackness in trade, or by an increase in our local manufactures. I think we may set aside the suggestion that this diminution of imports is attributable to slackness of trade, for we know that there was a very satisfactory increase in the manufactures of Victoria in 1904 as compared with the output for the previous year. I have here a statement from the Age, giving the official statistics relating to Victorian factories. It sets forth that - -

The Government statist has Issued summaries of the manufacturing returns of the State for the year 1904- These show that the number of factories was 4,208 - an increase of fifty-seven on the previous year. The hands employed numbered 50,554 males and 25,733 females - increases of 1,120 and 1,938 respectively. The amount paid in wages was ^4,794,365, an increase of ^220,570. The value of machinery, plant, lands, and buildings was ^3,668,185, as against ^2,978,841 in 1903.

The article goes on to point out that -

Proper comparisons with years prior to 1903 cannot be made, on account of the new classification adopted by the statists in that year.

– This question has a very serious bearing on those engaged in fruitgrowing in the cooler parts of Australia, as well as upon our jam manufacturers. It is proposed by the Government to expend £146,000 during the current year by way of bounty on white-grown sugar, but this does not represent anything like the actual loss which the several States will sustain. In addition to that sum, they must suffer considerable loss in the shape of a decreased revenue from the sugar duties. In this connexion I desire to draw attention to two leading articles, which, in my opinion, should be carefully perused, for they practically represent both sides of the question, and are exceedingly valuable contributions to this question. The first of these was published in the Argus of 22nd instant. It was pointed out in this article that -

So far from the growers having been strengthened in their position so as to live without it, they one and all declare that the continuance of the industry depends upon a renewal of the bonus. They cannot, they assert, produce sugar by white labour with anything less than ^5 per ton protection.

Mr Lonsdale:

– They are all alike; they are not prepared to give up the bonus.

Mr WILSON:

– The Argus points out that -

The subject is a most important one from several points of view, and more particularly in respect to revenue. The consumption of sugar in Australia is, roughly speaking, 180,000 tons a year, and the position with regard to revenue may be indicated thus : -

It will thus be seen that in the first year of Federation revenue to a large amount was sacrificed in order to protect the industry on the then basis of Australian production ; but since then an additional ,£100,000 a year has been sacrificed in order to stimulate the growing of sugar by white labour, whilst, if this process becomes ultimately successful, and all sugar required by Australia be grown by white labour, we shall only receive a revenue of ^180,000. It may be thought that the consumer gets the benefit of a reduction of price by using the Australian-grown sugar, but that is not the case, for he at present pays the same price for all sugar, whether it be imported, whether it be grown by black labour in Australia, or whether it be grown by white labour in Australia, though the revenue obtains respectively £6, £3, and £1.

The statistics I have quoted show that the quantity of sugar produced by black labour in Australia is not diminishing.

Mr Page:

– Why does not the honorable member say, in all fairness, that the quantity produced by white labour has in-, creased ?

Mr WILSON:

– I have no desire to be unfair. The quantity of sugar grown by white labour has undoubtedly increased, but the quantity grown by black labour has also advanced, and -pro rata the increase of black-grown sugar is the larger of the two. To continue my quotation -

The additional protection of £2 per ton to sugar grown by white labour has, up to the present, had no effect in reducing the quantity of sugar grown by ‘black labour - quite the contrary. It has, however, largely stimulated the growth of sugar by white labour in parts of the Continent less suited to sugar production. Thus the production of white-grown sugar in Queensland was in 1902 12,000 tons, in 1903 24,000 tons, and in 1904 31,000 tons.

Sir John Forrest:

– It should be 39,000 tons.

Mr WILSON:

– I thank the right honorable gentleman for his correction.

As to New South Wales, Sir George Turner, in his last Budget speech, said : - “ New South Wales has undoubtedly received a very large benefit from the sugar rebate, because before Federation they were growing nearly all their sugar by the aid of white labour; consequently the bonus has been a little godsend to them.”

Quite true. A little godsend to the extent of £114,000 in three years for doing exactly what they were doing before. Alongside the sugar farms in New South Wales and Southern Queensland are dairy farms, carried on with white labour to the great profit of their owners and the community, and receiving not one penny of either bonus or protection from the Commonwealth. Contrasted with the tenderness to sugar-growers is the treatment of the fruit-growers of Victoria and Tasmania. They are heavily burdened in order that the sugar-growers may be coddled. They have to carry on their industry, contribute largely to the revenue, and afterwards make a profit if they can. But the sugar-growers are paid large bounties to keep them in an unprofitable industry, and prevent them taking up a profitable one.

– I wish to see Australia developed on commercial principles, and to see white men earning a comfortable living. A white man trashing in a cane-field in Northern Queensland would not be earning a comfortable living. I wish now to draw attention to some statements in an article which appears in to-day’s Age. In that journal Mr. Swayne, of Mackay, is reported to have stated at the recent conference of sugar-growers that -

It is quite within the bounds of possibility for Australia to produce annually 1,000,000 tons of sugar, of which 800,000 tons would have to find markets abroad.

This would involve the assistance, of coloured labour to the extent of 35,000, an estimate which the writer of the article regards as so exaggerated as to be unworthy of consideration. The article continues -

It may be taken for granted that the production of sugar from cane is established and has become essentially a genuine Australian industry.

Mr WILSON:

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Exactly. But honorable members forget that the high price of sugar compels the jam manufacturer to give as little as possible for his fruit. He is forced to do this in order to be able to place his product on the market at a certain price. The moment his price goes beyond that level his output is thrown open to competition from other sources, such as treacle, &c.

Mr Wilkinson:

– Will the honorable membar tell me why the fruit-growers of Queensland are altogether opposed to the rebate ?

Mr.McWILLIAMS.- The fruit grown in Queensland is entirely different from the small fruits of Victoria ‘and Tasmania. In the one case we have a tropical, and in the. other a temperate product. Sugar is wholly the raw material of the jam manufacturers of Tasmania and Victoria, and I wish to briefly state what I think ought to be done in favour of an industry which has just as much right to the consideration of this Parliament as has any other industry in the Commonwealth. I have the authority to state, on behalf of the jam manufacturers of Tasmania, that the duty on jam may be removed to-morrow, so far as they are concerned, for it is not worth a snap of the fingers if they are given sugar free of duty.

Mr Mauger:

– If it were abolished they would soon cry out.

Mr mcwilliams:

– I am speaking on behalf of the jam manufacturers of Tasmania.

Mr Groom:

– Did they give evidence before the Tariff Commission to support your assertion?

Mr mcwilliams:

– They did. There is now a duty of practically £14 a ton on jam ; but, as Tasmania exports most of her product, that duty has never been of the slightest use to her. When Mr. H. Jones was being examined by the Commission the following question was put to him by Senator McGregor: -

If the£14 per ton duty were knocked off jam is there any risk of jam being imported from the old country?

Mr. Jones replied, “Not the slightest.” He went on to say -

The duty is not of the slightest use to us. Give us our raw material free, and you can take the entire duty off jams.

Sir William Lyne:

– He sang a very different song not very long ago.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– He did not do anything of the kind. I have been acquainted with Mr. Jones for some time, and have no hesitation in stating that the Minister of Trade and Customs is distinctly wrong if he wishes to suggest that this gentleman was not always prepared to advocate the removal of the duty on jams, provided that the sugar imposts were removed. When Mr. Jones was before the Tariff Commission the following question was put to him by Mr. Clarke: -

If you had duty-free sugar, would you also be prepared to see the duties taken off fresh fruits, fruits in pulp, all kinds of preserves and fruits ; also jams?

That was a pretty wide Question. It covers practically everything. The answer is distinctly, “yes.” -

Mr CLARKE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member should read the report of the inquiry made by a Queensland officer into the subject.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I moved, on the 16th November last -

That a return be laid upon the table of the House showing -

The number of sugar mills erected in Queens land, for the cost of construction of which the Government of that State is directly or indirectly responsible.
The conditions imposed by the Government on those on whose behalf the said mills were erected.
The number of such mills which have not fulfilled their monetary obligations to the State.
The amount of arrears in interest and other liabilities (if any) owing in connexion with the mills, and total responsibilities therein of the State of Queensland.

Mr mcwilliams:

– i at once accept the statement made by the honorable gentleman, and by the outgoing mail to-night shall convey what I know will be pleasing, intelligence to the men, who take a great interest in this question.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Does the honorable member believe in increased military extravagance ?

Mr mcwilliams:

– I do not. I listened with great pleasure to the speech delivered yesterday by the honorable and: learned member for Corinella - a speech which, in my judgment, is one of the ablest on the subject that I have ever heard. I am one of those who have always held that our defence system is on a wrong basis. The whole of the revenue of Australia isinsufficient to give us an adequate military force on the lines now being followed. I strongly advocate a system under which every child attending our State and privateschools would be compelled to learn the rudiments of drill, and taught also how tohandle a rifle. I would compel every young man to undergo a certain number of military drills, and to go into camp from time totime for that purpose.

Mr Mauger:

– Then the honorable member believes in conscription?

Mr.McWilliams.-I do; butI should treat rich and poor alike. No distinction whatever should be made. It is only in this way that we shall be. able tosecure a defence force capable of defending Australia when the pinch comes. Themere handful of men that we can maintainon the present terms would be insufficient to enable us to hold our own against evena third-rate power, if we lost the protection of the British Navy. I have always thought that in the matter of defence wehave sponged on the mother country. Great Britain pays about , £35.000,000 per annum for the maintenance of her Navy, and towards that expenditure Australia contributes only , £200,000per annum. I would prefer to see portion of the sumwhich we are now expending on militarismdevoted to an increased subsidy to the Imperial Navy -which is, after all, our chief protection- and would spend the balance of the Defence vote on a purely citizen force. We should then be able to devote the rest of the money that we now expend on our defences to the work of developing Australia on truly progressive lines - to thesettlement of the people on the land, rather than to the training of them in military- encampments. I thank the House for the consideration which it has extended to me, and must apologize for having spoken at such length. I can assure honorable members that it has been from no desire to unduly prolong the debate that I have occupied their attention so long, but because I believe that our present fiscal system is striking a serious blow at what must be for many years to come one of the most important industries of the Commonwealth - the fruit-growing industry of Victoria and Tasmania.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– In delivering his Budget statement the Treasurer, instead of giving us a fair outline of the position of the Commonwealth, seems to have simply put before us a set of undigested figures. Various returns had apparently been placed in his hands by head’s of Departments, but the right honorable gentleman did not appear to understand them.

Sir John Forrest:

– That is good, coming from the honorable member.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I have read the right honorable gentleman’s speech, and have endeavoured to understand it, but it is difficult to know what he was really driving at. From his introductory remarks one might have imagined that he was going to give the House something very much better than we usually’ get in the shape of a Budget statement. In alluding to the fact that we do not secure many immigrants, the right honorable gentleman said -

When an immigrant comes to this country he feels that he “ holds his head to other stars,” and that he has left behind him those that shone upon him in his old home - he feels that he has left his native shores, if not for ever, at any rate for a very long time.

In these poetic words he told us of the coming of emigrants from the old country; but when he dropped poetry and came to the prosaic we find that for some reason or other he did not appear to understand the figures that had been placed in his hands, and from first to last was incapable of answering any question put to him. For example, when the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne asked him -

Was the reduction in Customs revenue owing to the sugar bounties? - his answer- was -

I shall deal with that when I come to speak of the Customs and Excise revenue.

Various other questions were put to him, but instead of giving direct and ‘ positive answers, the right honorable gentleman offered nothing but evasive replies. When the honorable member for Wentworth asked the Treasurer -

Can the right honorable gentleman give us any particulars as to what the arms and armamentare ? - his reply was -

The honorable member will find full information, in the Estimates.

Then the honorable and learned member for Werriwa interjected’ -

As I read the figures, the total expenditure on defence comes to over ^1,000,000; is that so? -

The Treasurer’s reply was-

I shall deal with other particulars a little further on-

Mr Johnson:

– He was always going to deal with them “-further on,” but he never got there.

Mr LONSDALE:

– That is so. His questioners never obtained the information they desired to elicit. The honorable member for Wentworth also interjected -

The right honorable gentleman significantly omits to mention the garrison forces. Is the personnel of those forces to be made up? - but the only answer he could obtain was -

The honorable member had better ask the Minister of Defence about the garrison forces.

When the honorable and learned member for Werriwa interjected later on, -These figures represent £1,250,000 per year,” the Treasurer replied -

The honorable and learned member may count them up in that way if he pleases.

He never attempted to give information to those who sought it. In his hearty, blunt way, he bluffed his interrogators, and refused to supply information that would have cleared up many matters. Coming to questions of policy, we find that from beginning to end the right honorable gentleman did no more than touch the fringe of them. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer should lead the House on matters of policy, but the right honorable gentleman did not attempt to do anything of the kind. It i? true that when dealing with the Defence Estimates, he gave us some indication of the Government policy in this regard, but he did not appear to be sure whether he was on safe ground. He did not seem to be quite satisfied that the tail or the head of the party - whichever it may have been - would agree with him. In speaking of the Defence vote, he said -

At Ihe present lime the people of Australia, who are a self-reliant and progressive people - as I shall be able to show before I sit down - pay only one-fifteenth per head of the amount paid by the people of the mother country fur their naval defence. That being so, the matter only requires to be put before them in a way that is acceptable to them, when I feel sure that it will have the attention that it deserves.

He did not attempt to say, however, that the Government would put the matter before the people.

Sir John Forrest:

– What was the next statement that I made?

Mr LONSDALE:

– I was coming to that. The right honorable gentleman continued -

I am authorized to state that the Government will give the most serious attention to this subject. They are fully alive to the urgency of providing for our harbor defence -

That had nothing to do with the question of the naval subsidy, to which he had just been referring - of placing our forts in an efficient condition, and of doing our very best to protect our coasts.

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

– Were they not safe proposals ?

Mr LONSDALE:

– Extremely safe.

Mr Johnson:

– They were noncommittal.

Mr LONSDALE:

– The right honorable gentleman was determined not to commit the Government to anything. He should have obtained permission to say what he wanted to say. There is no indication that the Government propose to increase the naval subsidy, and, though the Treasurer seems to suggest that we are not paying as large a subsidy as we ought to pay, he does not commit the Government to any action in the matter.

Mr Johnson:

– I call attention to the state of the Committee. Quorum formed.’]

Mr LONSDALE:

– The Treasurer gave us certain figures relating to the ‘revenue and expenditure of New Guinea, and when the honorable member for Franklin asked how much was spent in maintaining officials, replied that the information was to be found in the Budget papers. The right honorable gentleman continued -

The honorable member will find that information in the Budget papers. This must be a fine Territory to be able to support 375,000 coloured people with the primitive means of production which they adopt. I see no reason Why it should not be a self-supporting and flourishing Possession. The labour of the native population would surely be available if called upon; but capital and enterprise are required for the opening up of the country. It requires to be opened up and made available for the investment of capital by the laying out of roads, by encouraging the occupation of the land, and in many other ways.

Mr Lonsdale:

– Where would the producers of New Guinea send their produce if it were opened up ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

– To Australia, if this country would take it, or to the world’s markets, about which the honorable member is always speaking.

Mr Lonsdale:

– Would it not be in opposition to our White Australia policy to allow the produce of the natives of New Guinea to compete with the products of our own people?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– We have taken over the Territory, and have a responsibility in regard to it; and if we leave it idle we shall show ourselves unequal to the task we have taken upon ourselves.

Will any. one say what is the policy of the Government in respect to the products of New Guinea? I would allow them to come into Australia free. We spend £20,000 a year on the Territory, and yet we treat those who go there from Australia as foreigners.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why did not the honorable member fix up a policy ?

Mr LONSDALE:

Mr LONSDALE:

– As I understand the Government are now willing that progress should be reported, I shall be prepared to conclude my speech to-morrow.

Progress reported;

page 1821

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

.- Imove-

That the House do now adjourn.

I asked just now that the call for a quorum should be withdrawn,not because I had any doubt that there was a quorum present, but because, I felt that as we have to meet to-morrow morning at 10.30 a.m., and it is now almost a quarter past 1 1 o’clock, out of consideration for the honorable member for New England, who had indicated to me the probable length of his speech, I should be prepared to agree to adjourn at this hour.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at11.14 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 August 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19050831_reps_2_26/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives31 August 1905

PETITIONS

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

QUESTION

COUNT-OUT

Mr WILSON:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH STATISTICAL BUREAU

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GROOM:Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

LETTER CARRIERS

Mr TUDOR:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

MILITARY CANTEENS

PAPER

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF OPIUM

Mr JOHNSON:Lang

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Deakin:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Page:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Page:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Page:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Page:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr Page:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr MAUGER:Melbourne Ports

Mr Deakin:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Webster:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr DEAKIN:Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

Mr Mauger:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mauger:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Wilks:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mauger:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mauger:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Mauger:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Webster:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr Deakin:

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

Mr LIDDELL:Hunter

Mr Conroy:

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr CONROY:Werriwa

Mr Johnson:

Mr CONROY:

Mr Johnson:

Mr CONROY:

House of Representatives
31 August 1905

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

Mr WILSON:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

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

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

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr DAVID THOMSON:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WILKS:
Dalley