House of Representatives
13 December 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- DEFECTIVE CARTRIDGES
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
QUESTION
- SECESSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES
QUESTION
- COLONEL LYSTER
QUESTION
- MILITARY CLOTHING AND CONTINGENT ACCOUNTS
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
- Second Reading
SUGAR BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
PAPER
- Defence Regulations, Statutory Rules, 1905 - No. 76
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Federal Capital Site

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6818

QUESTION

DEFECTIVE CARTRIDGES

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the VicePresident of the Executive Council prepared to answer the question which I asked on Monday last in reference to the examination of the cartridges which are now in use, and have proved defective at Castlemaine and other places? Is there any report of the Military Board on the subject?

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

page 6818

QUESTION

MILITARY CLOTHING AND CONTINGENT ACCOUNTS

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he furnish a statement to the House, during the present session,showing the amounts standing to the credit of clothing and contingent accounts of each corps in the several States of the Commonwealth, on the 30th June, 1905, and also the allowance for 1905-6.

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

The necessary information will have to be obtained from the various States, but the statement will, if possible, be furnished to the House before the end of the session. If time, however, will not admit of this being done, the information required by the honorable member will be furnished to him direct.

page 6818

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Billbe now read a second time.

I recognise that, in addressing myself to this question, I am undertaking a rather severe task, because of the many legal and technical questions involved ; but the motive of the measure is simple, it being intended merely to provide that due consideration and protection shall be given to the industries of Australia. I feel that no excuse is necessary for the introduction of the Bill, but if it were, it could be found in the statements published in the newspapers of the United States of America, showing the dimensions to which the enormous octopus trusts of that country have grown, and the harm which they have done, not only by their cheap exportations of manufactures to other countries, but by buying up and destroying the smaller internal business concerns of theUnited States. The Farm and Live Stock Journal of New York, dealing with this matter in a recent issue, contains the following statement : -

A Bill intended to curb the operations of the National Harvester Co., of Chicago- the legal name of the harvester trust - recently introduced into the Legislature by Senator Fyfe, was taken up in Committee of the Whole on Monday last, and led to a warm discussion. Senator Mills, of Menominee, moved to strike out section 3 of the Bill, which contains the essence of the measure. Senator Fyfe came to the defence of his Bill, and, in the course of his talk, said, according to the reports in the daily press : “I don’t know how many agents of the International Harvester Co. there are around here buying high-balls, but if you senators vote against this Bill I shall not be responsible for your political future.”

The report of the discussion continues : - “ Does Senator Fyfe know of any law that compels a dealer to sign one of these contracts?” asked Senator Mills. “ I know of a law stronger than any Statute,” replied Fyfe, “ the law of necessity.” “ But necessity knows no law,” laughed Mills. “ Yes, your necessity may know no law,” was Fyfe’s retort.

Senator Glasgow, who deals in agricultural implements, came to Fyfe’s assistance, telling how the Chicago trust is trying to hog the trade. He related how the different agents of the company had tried to induce him not to support the Fyfe Bill, but he refused to be won over.

After Glasgow’s speech, Mills withdrew his amendment, and the Bill was agreed to.

– She can hold her population, but Victoria cannot.

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

– Is this fiscalism or. trust?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Unfair competition has in all cases reference to those Australian industries the preservation of which (in the opinion of the ComptrollerGeneral or the Tribunal which has to determine any matter under this Act as the case may be) is advantageous to the Commonwealth, having due regard to the interests of producers, workers, and consumers.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Other clauses also make provision for the proper remuneration of labour, and throughout the measure will be found evidences of a strong desire to protect the workmen. Therefore, we are not proposing to confer benefits on the manufacturer and, at the same time, to permit him to grind down his workmen. I wish to refer to the action taken in Canada under the Customs Tariff Act of 1897. Section 18 of that Act provides -

That if the Governor in Council has reason to believe, in regard to any article of commerce, that there exists a trust or combination of manufacturers to unduly raise the price, or promote the advantage of the manufacturers, he may empower a Judge to make inquiry and report.

Mr Robinson:

-It is not a Judge, but the Minister’s creatures who are to have control here.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– In answer to the honorable and learned member’s very unfair remark, I may say that our desire was to secure the services of a Judge, but we found that the Justices of the High Court had already more work to do than they could properly attend to. The Canadian Act further provides -

If the Judge reports that such a trust or combination exists, and it appears to the Governor that any disadvantage to consumers is facilitated by the duties of Customs on a similar article when imported, such article shall be placed on the free list, or the duty reduced, in order to give the public the benefit of reasonable competition.

An Amending Act passed in 1904 or later, provides -

That if it appears to the Customs Department that the export price or actual selling price to the importer in Canada of any imported dutiable article of a kind made in Canada is less than the fair marketvalue, a special duty of Customs, equal to the difference between the fair market value, and the selling price, may be imposed.

Provision is made for a temporary exemption from special duty of any class of articles, if the Minister is satisfied that such articles are not made in Canada, and offered for sale to all purchasers on equal terms.

I should have liked to obtain authority to impose increased duties in order to regulate importations, but I recognise that honorable members are averse to raising the Tariff issue at this stage. I contend that the Bill before us is a good one - the best we can pass under the circumstances. Clause 10 provides -

Any person who wilfully -
1. being a commercial trust makes or enters into any contract, or engages in any combination to do; or
2. makes or enters into any contract with or conspires or engages in any combination with a commercial trust to do; or
3. as an officer member or agent of a commercial trust does or makes or enters into any contract to do any act or thing in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with other countries to the detriment of the public or any act or thing with the design of destroying or injuring any Australian industries by means of unfair competition with respect to such trade or commerce, is guilty of an indictable offence against this Act.

Penalty : Five hundred pounds, or one year’s imprisonment, or both.

Every contract made or entered into in contravention of this section shall be absolutely illegal and void.

– Section1 of that Act provides that -

Every contract combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States is hereby declared to be illegal.

Further on the Act deals with misdemeanours -

Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding Five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year or by both said punishments in the discretion of the Court.

Mr McWilliams:

– Has that Act been effective in the United States?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

-I think it has been, in some cases at all events.

Mr Deakin:

– It is reaching some of the trusts now. It reached the beef trust last year.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– There is a very important case which is known as the Merger, or the Northern Securities case, the headnote to which is “ Combination of Carriers Illegal.” The point decided in that case was -

That a contract or agreement whereby a holding corporation was created to which the stockholders of two competing parallel lines contrary to the Constitution and laws of the States, creating such competing companies, agreed to transfer the stock of both roads and turn it over to the holding company, creates a trust prohibited by the Federal Statute.

I need not go into the details of the case, but honorable members can see it for themselves, oh turning to the authority from which I am quoting. The next case to which I will allude is that of the great beef trust, which was dealt with under the same section. The reference to it is headed, in the authority from which I quote, “ Beef Trust an Unlawful Combination “-

On the branch of the case in which defendants claimed that they were not an unlawful combination, it was alleged that they were guilty of the following acts : - (a) directing their purchasing agents to refrain from bidding against each other at auction sales of live stock ; (b) in bidding up the price of such stock for a few days at a time to induce large shipments, and then ceasing to bid to obtain the stock thus shipped at ruling market prices;(c) in agreeingupon prices to be adopted by all and restricting the output or quantities of meat shipped:(d) in directing uniform prices for cartage and delivery throughout the United States as a device to increase the price to dealers and consumers; and (e) in negotiating with carriers for secret rebates on their enormous shipments, thus bringing about unjust discrimination against other shippers and competitors for the purpose of stifling and destroying competition.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Does this Bill deal with that?

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

– Not a scrap.

Mr Robinson:

– The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, which fixes the price of sugar for the whole of Australia, could not be touched under this Bill.

Mr Deakin:

– Move to enlarge it, then.

Mr Robinson:

– The Prime Minister and his supporters would vote against such a proposal on the ground that it would affect an Australian industry.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– There is a reference to what constitutesa misdemeanour under the Sherman Act, in section 2 -

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person orpersons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding£5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding oneyear, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the Court.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member has not read the Bill. Under clause 12 -

Whoever aids, abets, counsels, or procures, or by any act of omission is in any way directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in or privy to (a) the commission of any offence against the last two preceding sections; or (b) the doing of any act Outside Australia which would if done within Australia be an offence against either of the last two preceding sections, shall be deemed to have committed the offence, and shall be punished accordingly.

It deals with trusts generally, and it deals with the subject, not only in the interests of manufactures, but also of the labourers and consumers of the community. The great object of a monopolistic trust is to sell its goods at a price which will enable it to crush out competition ; and the moment competition is crushed out, the trust raises its price to the injury of the consumer. The value of the harvesters, imported into this country from the ist January to the 30th November, 1905, was £100,000.

Mr Kelly:

– What number was exported ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– In the year 1903, the value of harvesters exported was £58,978; in 1904, £29,556; and up to the 31st October, 1905, .£47,113. That statement includes 418 harvesters valued at £30,110. No harvesters were exported during November. I now desire to direct special attention to the number of harvesters manufactured in the Commonwealth. I find that in New South Wales- there are six factories, with an average annual output of ninety-one harvesters; in Victoria there are twelve factories, whose average annual output is 2,125; in Queensland there is one factory, with an average annual outp’ut of fifty ; and in South Australia there are three factories, with an average annual output of 435. Numbers of the manufacturers have reported that, owing to the severe competition of the imported harvesters, the local output has been necessarily restricted. I trust that the House will’ give this Bill very earnest consideration. There is no doubt that it will be far-reaching, but I would point out that even more drastic legislation has been enacted in other countries, and with beneficial results. Surely it behoves us in this young Commonwealth to extend to our native industries more projection than we have hitherto afforded them. The protection which they at present enjoy is almost a myth’. This Bill has been introduced to prevent the possibility of serious important trouble occurring during the next nine or twelve months. I commend it to every worker in the community, to every manufacturer, and to every consumer. It was predicted by honorable members opposite that the Commerce Bill would work a great deal of harm to the importer and the consumer. I venture to say that it will do nothing of the kind. Under that measure, I venture to say, the consumer will enjoy better conditions than he did previously. Having briefly explained the origin and effect of the Bill, I trust that the House will agree to pass it without undue delay, so as to permit honorable members to return to their homes before Christmas.

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

– I rise for the purpose of asking the Minister if he will consent to an adjournment of the debate at least until to-morrow?

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Joseph Cook) adjourned.

page 6827

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th November (vide page 4969), on motion by Sir William Lyne -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– That is so. But that butter is shipped from Pinkenba, and is all southern produce. Northern Queensland cannot produce nearly sufficient butter to meet its own requirements.

Mr. Hutchison. Still, Queensland turned out a record shipment a month ago.

Mr BAMFORD:

– In 1901, Queensland imported from New South Wales £1,247 worth of cheese, £48,633 worth of potatoes, and £5,935 worth of onions. In 1902, the values were - Cheese, £8,788;potatoes, £44,307; and onions, £3,349. In 1903, we imported from New South Wales cheese to the value of £4,189; potatoes, £20,531; and onions, £831. In 1904 the figures were- Cheese, £705; potatoes, £6,752; and onions, £561. From Victoria during the four years 1901, ‘02, ‘03, and ‘04 we took flour valued at £228,064;. wheat, £15,670; hay, including chaff, £196,065; butter, £129,062; cheese, £25,791 potatoes, £120,223; and onions, £10,676. From these statistics it will be seen that Queensland has been a very good customer of the other States in the matter of these products. I have here one very significant table, which I am sure will surprise many honorable members. It relates to jams and jellies. We have been repeatedly told in this House that owing to the increased price of sugar caused by the operation of the excise and the bounty, the jam-making industry has suffered severely. I contend that it has not suffered at all. I have seen the

Statistical Register for New South Wales, and I find that the same increase that has occurred in Victoria in regard to this item has taken place there. In this State the increase has been very large indeed. Upon page 606 of the Victorian Year-Book for 1904, under the heading of “ Interchange,” Part X., appear the values of the principal articles of Victorian produce exported between the years 1900 and 1904. From these figures, I find that during 1900 the export of jamsand jellies was valued at £49,994, and in the following year at £46,178. Honorable members will note that in 1900 the Federal Tariff was not in operation, and that it was only in force for a few months during 1901. But in 1902, afterthe imposition of the Commonwealth Tariff, an enormous increase took place in the quantity of jams and jellies exported from this State. Their values rose in that year to £111,178; in 1903 they were £82,755; and in 1904, £71,941. In each of the three years mentioned, there was a great expansion in the export of these products from Victoria. That increase, however, was not confined to this State, I hold in my hand a return showing the quantity of jams and jellies exported to Queensland alone during 1904-5. The figures are most significant and instructive, and I shall be pleased to hand them over to the honorable member for Franklin if he desires to peruse them.

Mr McWilliams:

– Has the honorable member any figures showing either the increase or the decrease which has taken place in the number of aliens employed in the sugar industry in Queensland?

Mr BAMFORD:

– I will deal with that matter presently. In 1899 Queensland imported from New South Wales 30,828 lbs. of jam ; from Victoria, 1,728 lbs. ; from South Australia, 18,708 lbs. ; and from Tasmania, 26,856 lbs. ; making a total of 78,120 lbs. Of course, theconsumption of jam is always considerable in Queensland, and’ in the northern portion particularly, because, owing to the climatic conditions which prevail there, butter does notkeep well. In 1900, Queensland imported from New South Wales 30,828 lbs. of jam, and in 1904 the quantity had increased to 1,089,605 lbs. In 1899 Queensland imported from Victoria 1,728 lbs., and in 1904 the amount had risen to 1,543,324 lbs. From South Australia, the northern State imported 18,708 lbs. in 1899, and 249,408 lbs. in 1904. Similarly, Queensland imported from Tasmania 26,866 lbs. in 1899, and 977,217 lbs. in 1904. This makes a total in the one item of 3,859,654 lbs. That represents an increase of fiftyfold. and shows that so far as Queensland is concerned, the consumption of Australian produce has been very considerable indeed. Under these circumstances, the contention that the jam industry has suffered cannot be sustained. In reply to the question which was asked by the honorable member for Franklin a few minutes ago, I admit that there has been an increase in the quantity of alien labour in the northern portion of Queensland. When the Pacific Island Labourers Bill was under consideration, I foresaw that unless we could provide for the gradual deportation of the kanakas as their agreements expired, they would almost certainly be reengaged. My apprehensions were well founded. When I spoke to the Minister in regard to the matter, he said, “I acknowledge that it is very probable they will be re-engaged; but I am afraid we have no power to deal with the matter, as it is purely a State concern. We can legislate for the importation or deportation of the kanakas, but so far as their agreements are concerned, that is purely a State matter, with which I am sorry I am unable to interfere.” In some instances

– The principal objectors were from New South Wales; and I should like to read what Sir William McMillan said on that occasion. He spoke as follows : -

While there has been no absolute understanding in regard to the sugar duties during the whole discussion upon the white-labour question, ithas been assumed that a duty of this kind would be agreed to, and, therefore, we on this side of the Chamber do not intend to propose a reduction.

The honorable member for Werriwa did propose a reduction, but it was rejected on the voices -

We do not, however, desire it to be thought that we approve of this high import duty, nor that we approve of an excise duty which will disappear after a certain number of years, and leave a practically prohibitive import duty.

I may say at once that I am not in favour of the Excise duty disappearing after a certain number of years, because I realize that our Treasurers will require some duty upon sugar to help them to balance their finances. Sir William McMillan continued -

We intend to support the duty as amatter of high public policy, in view of the legislation which the Commonwealth has passed affecting the position of Queensland.

He, therefore, clearly indicated that the proposal was designed to some extent to compensate those who would suffer from the loss of black labour. That is our attitude. I freely admit that those who were engaged in theindustry when the Federal law was passed were empowered, under the State law, to employ black labour; but whilst I condemn such a , system, I rarely blame an individual for doing that which the law permits. On behalf of Northern Queensland, I support the Government proposal, although I am not in favour of the bounty being fixed at £3 per ton, and the excise being paid at the rate of £4 per ton. I would rather see a continuation of the present system,and if an opportunity be afforded me to vote for its maintenance, I shall avail myself of it.

Mr McLEAN:
Gippsland

– I think that honorable members generally will agree that the honorable member for Herbert had every desire to place his case fairly before the House; but I believe that I shall be able to point out that he made several grave errors in connexion with his contention that some of the States have not suffered any loss as the result of the policy of a White Australia. For instance, let us take the position of Tasmania, to which my honorable friend last referred. Dealing only with round figures, I understood him to say that prior to the imposition of the Federal Tariff that State received a revenue of £46,000 from the import duty on sugar, whilst last year it received £10,000 from the import duty, and £13,000 in respect of the Excise, or a total of £23,000. But instead of deducting from that the amount of the bonus paid by Tasmania, he added it to the total.

Mr Bamford:

– I added it to the Excise and the import duty, but I debited the amount to the States.

Mr McLEAN:

– It appeared to me, from the figures quoted by the honorable member, that prior to the imposition of the Federal Tariff Tasmania received £46,000 from the import duty on sugar, and last year it received a total of £23,000 by way of the import and excise duties. Its share of the bounty amounted to £5,000, and that sum should have been deducted from the total of £23,000, in order to show the total revenue which Tasmania received last year from the sugar duties. According to the honorable member’s figures, her receipts from this source amounted to £18,000.

Mr Bamford:

– That was the amount which went into the Treasury.

Mr McLEAN:

– Therefore the Treasury of Tasmania lost £28,000.

Mr Bamford:

– I admit that.

Mr McLEAN:

– Then, I presume that the honorable member was dealing with the matter from the stand-point of the consumer. But he did not go far enough. To show that the consumer had benefited, as he alleged, to the extent of £19,000, he should have proved that the consumer is now paying less than he was prior to the imposition of the Federal Tariff. As a matter of fact, we know that he is paying more.

– I do not wish the honorable member to misquote me. What I said was that a revenue tariff of 15 per cent. was a fair compromise between two States such as Victoria and New South Wales, one of which had been accustomed to protection and the other to free-trade.

Mr FISHER:

– I have never in the course of my political career tried to misrepresent any one, and I trust that I shall never do so. We may differ in our opinions, but I do not wish to attribute to the honorable and learned member that which he has not said. I think it will be admitted that the whole of the arguments of the honorable and learned member for Angas were based on the supposition that Queensland had herself forbidden the continuance of kanaka labour ; that in 1892 the Parliament of that State decreed that coloured labour should be continued for a period of only ten years. I sought to correct the honorable and learned member, but he said that his statement was made on the authority of Sir Edmund Barton. As a matter of fact, his contention is not correct. In 1892, the State Parliament passed an Act to further amend the Pacific Island Labourers Acts 1880-1885. The first three sections of that Act are as follows: -

ThisAct shall be read and construed with and as an amendment of “ The Pacific Island Labourers Acts 1880-1885.”
This Act may be cited as “ The Pacific Island Labourers (Extension) Act of 1892.” ” The Pacific Island Labourers Acts 1880-1885,” and this Act may together be cited as “ The Pacific Island LabourersActs 1880-1892.”
The fifth section of “ The Pacific Island Labourers Act of 1880 Amendment Act of 1884, and the eleventh section of The Pacific Island Labourers Act of 1880 Amendment Act of 1885 “ are hereby repealed.

The11th section of the Pacific Islanders Act of 1880 Amendment Act of 1885 which was thus repealed read as follows: -

After the Thirty-first day of December One thousand eight hundred and ninety no licence to introduce islanders shall be granted.

– We do not ask for that. Originally my idea was to ask for another £1 ; but the present arrangement has been so successful that I think that a continuance of it for fiveyears is desirable. Thequestion is full of technicalities and difficulties, as honorable members who have looked into it must know, and no doubt the Bill can be better dealt with in Committee than on the second reading. But in order to make honorable members a.ware of some of the difficulties under which white men have to labour, I wish to read part of a report recently submitted by Dr. Maxwell to the State Parliament. This report was not prepared with a view to influencing the Federal Parliament, because it was thought that the Sugar Bounty Bill would have been passed before it could be presented to the State Parliament. His remarks show that, wherever subject labour is employed, it is considered by the employers that any white persons undertaking similar work should conform to the same conditions as are accepted by the coloured labourers. This is what Dr. Maxwell says on the subject - and I quote from the Brisbane Courier’s statement of his report, laid on the table of the Queensland Legislative Assembly on the 8th inst. : -

At the time that the Treasurer entered into the possession of the Central sugar mills, and the management was placed absolutely under the Comptroller of the Bureau of Central Sugar Mills, it was found that the conditions of living of the white workmen were not such as to induce white men to remain permanently in the service of the mills, neither were they calculated to promote the interests of the mills themselves. The provisions such as existed a year ago showed that hardly any practical distinction had been exercised between coloured labour and white labour, so faras the living conditions were concerned.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member wish us to think that white men have sunk to the standard of living adopted by coloured men?

Mr FISHER:

– No; but wherever subject labour is employed the white persons engaging in similar work find themselves offered the same conditions.

Mr Hutchison:

– The two cannot exist side by side.

Mr FISHER:

– That is the point. We have been brought face to face with the necessity of doing something to prevent, white workers from being required to work under degrading conditions. Dr. Maxwell uses language quite as strong as that employed by the strongest advocates of the White Australia policy. He says-

The improved conditions provided for the welfare of the workmen have been only a short time in operation, and at certain mills are only coming into operation with the present crushing season. It is already apparent, however, that the men are ready to appreciate and to give practical evidence of appreciation for the provisions of comfort that have been and are now being made for them.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does that refer to house accommodation ?

Mr FISHER:

– It refers to various kinds of accommodation which should be provided for men who are accustomed to the ordinary comforts of civilization. Dr.

Maxwell then indicates the beneficial effects that have been brought about by these changes. He says: -

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Yes. My point is that if we deport the kanakas we shall not do away with the coloured labour evil - the coloured labour that will be substituted will be no great improvement.

Mr Bamford:

– It will be worse.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– That is what some of the planters told us. They asked us why we did not get rid of the Hindoos and the Chinese, who were worse than the kanakas. I asked the magistrate previously referred to whether he had many cases of the kind described. He told me that he had been in the district three years, and had been called upon to deal with only forty of such cases. I expressed the opinion that that was a fairly big record, and he told me that far more offences were committed by whites. He admitted, however, that they were not of the character I have been describing. He admitted, further, that many of the parents of children who were molested would not give information to the police, on account of the stigma that would attach to their children if the cases were made public. He asked what we could expect, in view of the fact that the kanakas came to Queensland, as did the Hindoos and Chinese, without their wives. He asked us what we could expect to happen if a regiment of soldiers were stationed in the district without their wives. The treatment to which the kanakas are subjected is bad enough ; but I wish to direct the attention “of honorable members to the statements of Dr. Maxwell with regard to the treatment of white labourers on the plantations. He says -

He found the living and sleeping conditions arranged for white labourers in a really shocking state in many instances. The house provisions were inadequate, and in many cases the men had to sleep where they could. Where there was, sufficient house accommodation we found 40. and 50 men sleeping on canetops or bagasse, which very soon filled the whole place with vermin and uncleanliness.

Is it a matter for wonder that the planters cannot secure white labourers to work in the cane-fields when such conditions prevail ? One man told us that he had been in the employment of one of the leading planters in the Bundaberg district, who was reported on good authority to have made a profit of £30,000 or £35,000 during the previous season. According to this labourer’s statement, he, along with fifteen others, had had to live in a room 12 feet by 14 feet. The rations served out to the men did not include potatoes, which are almost a necessity to workers on the cane-fields. I do not know that the men were provided with any meat at all - at any rate, the quantity was very small. They were provided with trashy tea., sweetened with the refuse of the sugar. Yet the planters wonder why they cannot get reliable white workers. I was introduced to one planter, who had in his employment three boys from Townsville. They were the sons of poor people, and their ages ranged between sixteen and eighteen years. They were receiving 5s. per week, and had to work from early morning until late in the evening.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What does all this go to show?

Here were three men, who, with gangs of others, were anxious to work in the canefields, but unable to learn of any planter who required white labour. The next paragraph sent to me is from the Planter. and it is of still greater importance. It is headed - “Available White Labour,” and it set forth that Mr. Lacaze, whose hospitality I had the pleasure of accepting has shown us a copy of a communication received by the local Police Magistrate from Mr. Young, of the Townsville Labour Bureau, in which is stated that there is plenty of white labour available in Townsville. Any one in want of labourers should communicate at once with Mr. Young. Mr. Lacaze assures us that eleven men procured by him through this source are giving the utmost satisfaction.

Mr. Lacaze is a successful planter, who has h’ad experience in Mauritius. He introduced’ us to his white workers, and stood aside whilst we conversed with them. They told us that they were thoroughly satisfied with their treatment, and that it was ‘a pleasure to work in the cane-fields. Then, in a telegraphic message from Brisbane, dated nth July, it- was stated! that-

Mr. G. Barber, M.L.A., has returned from the Bundaberg sugar district, and states that the opening of the various mills is tending to absorb most of the unemployed labour, although it looks as if some men will not get places.

Mr Wilson:

– That is further south.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– That is so. The kanakas are available in the north, and, therefore, the planters there do not want white labour. According to a telegram from Brisbane, dated 15th June, and published in an Adelaide newspaper -

The Treasurer states that inquiries made as to the supply of labour for the cane-crushing season go to show that it is more than likely that there will be plenty of men available locally. In one or two cases mills have commenced to crush with the full complement of men. In many districts men were waiting in camp a month ago for the season to start.

– No. The man receiving 12s. 6d. per week was strong, and was admitted by his employer to be a hardworking fellow, whilst the three lads were strapping boys. At the Burdekin, I found that Mr. Gibson’s men were averaging £2 17s. per week, whilst Mr. Noack said that his men averaged £3 per week. He had a very heavy crop, and cheerfully paid that wage. As bearing on the value of white as against coloured labour, I wish to read the following letter addressed by Mr. F. Holmes, of the Proserpine, to a conference - “ In 1898 I had Chinamen cutting my cane, the cropaveraging about 37 tons to the acre, and they averaged one ton of cane per day, that was cutting and loading. In 1900 I had kanakas in a 20-ton to the acre crop, and they averaged1 ton 7 cwt. per man per day. In 1903 I had white men cutting and loading a 21 ton to the acre crop, and they averaged three tons each man per day. From this it will be seen that one white man was equal to two kanakas, or three Chinamen.” Evidence as to the efficiency of white labour could be multiplied, but it is needless.

– I have never seen white men living in quarters so bad as are those occupied by some of the Chinese whom we saw in Queensland, nor have I known them to gamble and smoke opium in the way that the Chinese in the worst parts of Melbourne, Sydney, and other

States capitals do. I was disgusted to find that a large proportion of the storekeeping trade in Queensland was in the hands of aliens. Surely it cannot be denied that our own countrymen are capable of conducting such a business. We have heard a great deal about the climate.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member is a free-trader?

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member makes his deductions from too little data, or too hurriedly.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– If it were in. order to go into the matter, I could show that that is not so. This is what Dr. Lloyd says -

Children whose parents have the means to house, feed, and clothe them adequately suffer little by comparison with those of the -poorer class. . . The houses are generally built of wood, often of iron. Few of those belonging to the poorer farmers or labouring men are ceiled, and in the greater part of the day they are little less than ovens.

– I do not think so. My experience is that commercial people study their own interests primarily. They do not care how the fruit-grower fares. The Government of Queensland have advanced £500,000 to central sugar mills under the Sugar Guarantee, Act, and there is no doubt that if the industry perishes the Government of that State will suffer. In the absence of the payment of a bounty to encourage the production of sugar by white labour, I feel convinced that the industry will be wiped out. To my mind it is a very singular fact that so far we have heard nothing from honorable members in reference to the duty. Some protectionists are quibbling over the payment of the bounty without assigning any reasons for their action. If Queensland could produce sufficient sugar to supply the requirements of the Commonwealth, and if an import duty of £6 per ton were operative the consumer would pay just as much for his, sugar as he is paying now. Yet honorable members quibble over the payment of the bounty. The fact that after four years’ experience of existing legislation one-third of the sugar crop of Queensland is grown by white labour, is in itself eloquent testimony to the success of the policy we have adopted. Some years ago an Act was passed, at the instance of Sir Samuel Griffith, providing that no more kanakas should be imported into Queensland. That legislation was enacted just prior to a general election.

After the election, however, fresh legislation was introduced, under which the prohibition upon kanakas was removed. Some of the sugar-planters in that State appear to think that the same thing will happen in connexion with Commonwealth legislation. Until the end of 1907 arrives, and they realize that the kanakas are to be deported to their homes, we shall continue to hear the cry that white men cannot successfully labour in the cane-fields. As a matter of fact, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that white men can do the work that is demanded of them. The truth is that when they go into the northern por-: tion, or even into the central districts of Queensland, they cannot secure employment. I know some men who wandered all over that State last year in search of employment in. the cane-fields, and who were offered only a miserable wage of from 12s. to 15s. per week. Another point is that the housing accommodation in some cases is unfit for human beings. I am sure that if reasonable rates of wages were offered, and fair accommodation were provided, no difficulty would be experienced in procuring white labour for the cane-fields of Northern Queensland. Under existing conditions there is no inducement for white workers to go there. Mining is carried on in some parts, but there are no sheep stations ; and as the wages offered by many planters are not by any means reasonable, white workers are not encouraged to seek employment there. Travelling during the rainy season is also very inconvenient, as rain falls for weeks almost continuously. Some of the planters declare that white workers are unreliable, and hard to find; but the truth is that these men will not pay fair wages, preferring rather to employ kanakas, Chinese, and other Asiatics. If the large estates surrounding the sugar mills were cut up, the way would be open to the employment of a number of white men; but at the present time the Company rules the country served by the tramways, and asks such exhorbitant rates for its land that it is practically impossible for white men to secure it. It has been asserted by the honorable member for New England that on the occasion of a recent visit to Queensland, he made the startling discovery that white men could not work in the cane-fields because the sun was vertical. That must have been news to most honorable members. It is only during December that the sun is vertical, and as the cane-cutting commences in the early part of June, and is concluded, at the latest, in November, the honorable member for New England will have to search for some other reason. It is those who have but little knowledge of the conditions prevailing in Queensland who are continually bringing forward absurd arguments against the employment of white labour in the cane-fields. As to the terrible climatic conditions of Northern Queensland, of which we hear so much, I am sure that those honorable members who visited that part of the Commonwealth some time ago will agree that the men and women whom they met there would compare favorably with those living in any other part of the Commonwealth. Personally, I prefer the climate of Queensland to that of Victoria. I do not wish to prolong the debate, because I feel that my fellow representatives of Queensland, as well as the honorable member for Hindmarsh and others, have placed the question in its true light before the House. I earnestly hope that the House will have some consideration for the interests of Queensland. Any one who has seen the black, brown, and brindle people living in many of the towns in Northern Queensland must recognise the virtue of the policy of a White Australia. The sooner we get rid of these coloured aliens the better for the Commonwealth. I am sure that no honorable member would care to have to associate with such a class. We have heard a great deal about the cleanly habits of the Japanese, but when they reach Queensland they do not appear to differ in any way from the Hindoos and other Asiatics who flock to the northern part of that State. As to the kanakas, I may say that during the parliamentary tour of inspection, I did not hear of one who, when questioned on the subject, said, that he had no desire to return to his island home. That being so, why should we attempt to keep them here. We can do nothing, so far as the Chinese and other Asiatics already in the Commonwealth are concerned ; it simply remains for us to see that the Immigration Restruction Act is vigorously administered, so that we may have no increase in their numbers. I trust that the House will favorably consider the position of Queensland, and agree to the passing of this Bill.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I fully recognise the reasonableness of the des,ire of the House that this debate should end as soon as possible ; and I do not intend to make a very lengthy addition to it. But I feel that, as a free-trader, it is due to myself, and to those who sent me here, to offer some explanation of the reasons that prompt me to support this measure. I intend to support the second reading, in the hope and belief that certain amendments will be made which may, at all events, show the Queensland people who are at present enjoying the bounty that there is a limit to the time during which the Commonwealth will continue to pay such an enormous annual s.um by bonus and increased cost of sugar, in order, by artificial means, to maintain the “ white “ sugar industry. I recognise that this measure is one of the results of the policy of a “White Australia.” If the Commonwealth had not adopted that policy, and, in a measure, produced results detrimental to the sugar-growers of Queensland, I should be one of the first to oppose the Bill as being in many respects a protectionist proposal, which I, as a free-trader, could not support. But I think that, although the White Australia policy has necessitated this, measure, as well as the existing Act, the country should realize what this system is costing. It should also recognise the opinions of men who, we must admit, are capable, after collecting all the data to enable them to make a tolerably sound deduction, of judging the effect of the White Australia policy upon the Commonwealth. I find that, alt-hough the consumption of sugar in Australia varies sometimes to the extent of 100 per cent. - from 60,000 tons to 120,000 tons a year - an average of 100,000 tons may be taken as a fair one. It has, been very clearly shown by the honorable member for Franklin that the difference between the price of sugar in England and Australia averages about £4 per ton. If we take it that the average consumption of sugar in the Commonwealth is about 100,000 tons per annum, that means, from a free-trade point of view, that, as a people, we are deliberately paying £400,000 per annum in sugar alone in order to secure the policy of a White Australia. I am not going, at this stage, to carp at that policy, because, subject to very considerable modifications, that are obviously taking place in public opinion, it has become the policy of the Australian people. An honorable member of the Labour Party, in the course of a speech literally bristling with data and statistics bearing on the condition of the people of Queensland, made the notable confession this evening that after a lengthy visit to that State and a very careful investigation of the effect of the White Australia policy upon that part of the Commonwealth, he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it - the White Australia policy - was practically a failure. These are two facts which the impartial public outside cannot afford to ignore. It is very natural that honorable members, who have almost violently advocated this policy, should continue to try to persuade themselves that they believe in its efficacy ; but a member of the Labour Party has made the confession, which I value very highly, that, in his opinion, it has practically proved a failure.

Sir William Lyne:

– I did not understand him to say that.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is quite compatible with his having said it. I heard him say it, and I remarked to those who sat near me : “ That is a very valuable admission,” and then he repeated it. If the facts that the Commonwealth is paying about £400,000 a year under this policy, and that this so-called method of “ preserving the purity “ of the race is proving a failure, are put together, the public will be able to estimate the desirability of continuing it. As an opponent of the more hysterical form of a White Australia policy, I am satisfied that the public is gradually becoming educated to the extreme character of the view taken by Parliament in 1901, and that in a few’ more years it will be satisfied that we have attempted an impossible ideal. It is all very well for legislators to aspire to ideal conditions, and to try to realize an Utopia in this corner of the world; but the practical man must ask himself whether these aspirations are possible of achievement. In my opinion, in a few years, it will be evident to the public of Australia, as it is already evident to the outside world, that we have attempted the impossible, and when that time arrives I shall have the satisfaction of being able to say that I foresaw this impossibility. As a free-trader, I have no hesitation in characterizing this legislation as protective, and on principle objectionable ; but I recognise that, as the policy which Parliament has adopted affects an important Queensland industry, it is only fair that the loss should be borne, on the principle of “ general average “ by the whole of the people of Australia. That has been done for the last five years ; but it is clear, from the testimony of Dr. Maxwell, whose opinion as a fair and impartial one, I have no reason to doubt, that our legislation has not yet had the effect which it was, intended to produce. He says that a renewal of the bounty for at least five years is necessary. I am hopeful that before the Bill leaves this House certain amendments will be made in it which will make it clear to the people of Queensland that we favour a limitation of the period for which the bounty will be paid, and that the time is coming when they must either demonstrate that they can do without it, or give up the attempt as a failure. The Minister, in calling for a report from Dr. Maxwell, evidently anticipated that, there was’ to be some limitation of the bounty ; because the first question he put to him was not, whether, in his opinion, it is necessary to indefinitely extend the bounty, but, for what further period, it appears necessary to extend it. That form of the question satisfies me that either the Government, whose mouthpiece the Minister was, or the Minister himself, recognises that the bounty is not to be a’ permanent buttress for the “white’ ‘ sugar industry. I shall deal with Dr. Maxwell’s answer presently. The honorable member for Gippsland delivered a short, but very practical speech, which I value very much because of the point of view from which- it was conceived. The honorable member is a protectionist - not an extreme or rabid one, but one who believes in the principle of giving State assistance to industries - and it was to be supposed that he would favorably regard a measure of- this sort. But I was pleased to find that he recognised that there is a danger in continuing such a bounty for an unlimited period, and that he went so far as to say that he would advocate its gradual reduction, with a view to ultimately abolishing it.

Mr Thomas:

– Because it does not assist a Victorian industry.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not think that that is a just observation. I am prepared to admit that there are many protectionist members in this House, some of them occupying very high positions, who do not seem to be capable of recognising the complaints of any industry outside Victoria ; but I acquit the honorable member for Gippsland of taking so selfish, parochial, and narrow a view. If proof were wanted for that statement, it is supplied in the fact that he is willing to continue a bounty for another period of years for the assistance of an industry in another State, which requires the people of Victoria to pay £4 per ton more for their sugar than they would otherwise have to pay. The honorable member made the suggestion that, if a sliding scale were applied, the bounty need not be limited to five years. In his opinion, the present arrangements should be continued for at least two or three years before the application of the sliding scale ; and he proposed that it should be then reduced by about 12 J per cent, per annum, which would involve the bounty not being finally abolished until eight years after the commencement of the sliding scale, or something like eleven years hence. The House is to be congratulated upon the very temperate, level-headed, and serious manner in which this subject has been discussed. I have remained in the Chamber the whole time, as I wished to hear all that could be said by what I may term the “ sugar members,” and because I felt that the representatives of Queensland must of necessity have given special care to the study of this subject. .They have, however, shown a fairly strong leaning towards the interests of their own State; and not one of them commented upon the enormous cost which the Commonwealth has to bear to give their State the advantage which it enjoys. They claim to be entitled to the bounty, because of the effect of the White Australia policy upon one of the industries of their State; but they did not even acknowledge the great cost which the bounty imposes on the other States. I think that we have heard too much to-day about the effect of this policy upon particular States. The honorable member for Franklin gave us a great deal of interesting information about the jam industry, and the effect of this legislation upon it, scarcely all of which was apropos. He, however, gave us the important information that the difference between the cost of sugar in England, and its cost in Australia ranges from £4 to £6 or £7 a ton. If he had quoted the prices ruling during the time when the European bounties were in operation, under which the manufacturers of England were able to secure European sugar for less than it cost in the countries of production, his figures would have been less useful ; but they covered a later period. -

I submit that this matter is simply one of cost. One could grow pine-apples or bananas in Iceland, or do anything else: by artificial means ; but would it pay to do so? Is it worth our while to persist in trying to carry on the sugar industry by white labour in competition with countries like Java, Fiji, and New Guinea, where cheap, coloured labour can be employed? I do not advocate the abandonment of the “ white “ sugar industry in Queensland; but every Australian citizen must sooner or later ask himself : “ How t long are we to continue to attempt to grow sugar with white labour at an expenditure in wages four or five times as large as h paid in the industry outside Australia?”

Mr Bamford:

– That argument will apply all round.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– As sugar can be grown in Java, Fiji, and New Guinea, with cheap coloured labour, we must ask ourselves whether it is worth while to continue to pay nearly £400,000 a year to grow sugar in Australia with white labour. It is not as if we were deficient in other industries. Every one knows that this country is as yet in long clothes, so far as the development of industries is concerned. Without referring to the causes which have, in my opinion, operated to discourage the introduction: of capital and the carrying on of industries in this country, I have no hesitation in saying that we shall, in the future, when our legislature is less disposed to interfere with economic laws, be astonished at the output of the results of our industries, as compared with what we are doing at present. It is not as if we had exhausted the industries for which Australia is suited, and in which white labour can be appropriately employed. We are deliberately trying to provide employment for white labour in a portion of Australia, which, as President Roosevelt says, ought to be utilized by people of other nationalities than our own. The question we have to consider is whether we are going for generation after generation to carry on this industry under abnormal and unnatural conditions. Dr. Maxwell, towards the close of his report,, says -

The undertaking of substituting white for coloured labour, and of placing a tropical industry upon a basis of white production, constitutes a great experiment. The experiment, in its execution, traverses natural and economic conditions that have to be consulted at every step.

It is not for me to object to the people of Australia trying this experiment if they wish to do so; but, as practical men, we have to consider whether, on the ground of sentiment, we should authorize the expenditure of £400,000 per annum, in order to carry on an experiment which, on the face of it, appears unlikely to succeed. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has come to the conclusion that the experiment has failed. He has formed that opinion against his own inclination and aspirations, and in spite of his former convictions. I <have no feeling one way or the other; and it does not matter to me what the public decide to do, after I have made my protest, and have pointed out the industrial anomalies of the situation. Dr. Maxwell says that this is an experiment, and that it is merely a matter of cost. If honorable members will refer to his report they will find that in answer to question 2, Dr. Maxwell says: -

The purpose of the bonus is to substitute white for coloured labour, making it thus in the first place a matter of cost.

– I have not heard of any bigots on the other side of the White Australia question, so far as this House is concerned. I suppose that I am about as rigid a free-trader as any one in the Chamber; and yet I am willing to extend the period for the payment of the bounty so long as conditions are appended whichwill prevent false hopes from being raised in the minds of the people of Queensland. I should like to direct attention to two or three passages in Dr. Maxwell’s report, bearing upon the question whether or not the experiment which has been carried on during the last four years has proved successful in the northern portion of Queensland. I findthat in the northern district there were thirty-six growers in 1892, and only 124in 1905. With all the artificial aid given, there has been an increase of only eighty-eight growers in that district. I do not think that that indicates very great success. Dr. Maxwell says -

In the Northern District, the situation is otherwise. In that district settlement is sparse ; and, so far, has not been increased by the provisions in favour of white sugar production.Neither white people prepared to settle upon the land, nor white labour ready to work at the higher wage that the bonus would provide, are on the ground, in the same proportionate state of readiness that obtains in the Southern District.

He says further -

Therefore, if an increase of excise,with a corresponding increase of bonus, is made, it is likely to induce or force an immediate substitution of white for coloured production in those districts where the natural and economic conditions allow at once of the change.

He thereby differentiates between those districts in which the natural economic conditions would allow of the change being made and those which do not offer any such possibilities. Upon page 4 he says -

But a third class of cane-growers exists, comprised of alien occupiers and growers, who are producing by the aid of alien labour, and this class is confined almost wholly to the localities of the Northern District. The question essentially arises whether protection should be extended to this class of producers; and, if so, what proportion of the amount that is being given to those white farmers, who, although they have not yet adopted, are eligible to, and are in part preparing to adopt those conditions that are required to place the sugar industry upon a permanent white basis. . . . The undertaking of substituting white for coloured labour, and of placing a tropical industry upon a basis of white production, constitutes a great experiment. The experiment, in its execution, traverses natural and economic conditions that have to be consulted at every step.

I suppose that there is no man in Australia who combines a special knowledge of this industry with a thorough grasp of the economic and natural conditions of Queensland in a higher degree than does Dr. Maxwell. His testimony appears to confirm the opinion, which some of us have formed; that the production of sugar bywhite labour in certain latitudes of Queensland is an attempt to fly in the very teeth of nature. I shall be very glad if anything can be done to differentiate the northern portion of that State from the remainder. In his report, Dr. Maxwell gives some very valuable information, to which previous reference has not been made. In reply to the question put to him as to the period over which it was necessary to extend the bounty system, he says -

In view of the facts sets forth”, it is made apparent that sufficient data and results are not yet in our possession, enabling it to be said, with an approach to exactness, “ for what further period it appears necessary to extend the payment of bonus.” It, therefore, can only be advised that a further extension shall be adopted.

That statement seems to confirm the view which is entertained by the honorable member for Gippsland, that the period over which this Bill proposes to extend the bounty is not long enough. Though I am a ‘free-trader, I so clearly recognise the justice of continuing the bounty for a time - even though it has been pronounced a failure, by one member of the Labour Party, and even though Dr. Maxwell is doubtful as to whether it will ultimately succeed - that I am willing to support its extension for more than five years, provided that the amendment outlined by the honorable and learned member for Corinella be adopted. Under his proposal, a sliding scale would be introduced at the end of three years, and under that sliding scale the bounty would gradually diminish, until it absolutely disappeared. Dr. Maxwell points out -

It is the possibility of failure of the present measure of bonus to meet the difference in cost between coloured and white labour which is, in part, confirming the larger employers of_ wage earning labour in holding to the use of aliens.

– No. I think it depends entirely on climatic conditions and the quality of the soil. There is a greater variation in the industrial conditions of the different districts than there is in the sugar contents of their cane, and a fair and just distribution of the bounty would pay regard to economic and industrial conditions. It might be found, if consideration were paid to that difference, that the grower in the Cairns district should receive twice as much bounty as the grower in the Logan district. I am not prepared to submit a scheme of distribution, but I think that a more equitable distribution could be arranged on the lines I suggest than that which takes place at present. I think we should extend the bounty for another five years, and, further, that we should increase the. Excise duty in order to offer some inducementtoemployers to substitute white for coloured labour. There is no guarantee that a further extension of the bounty will not be required in the case of No. 1 district ; but there is some hope that, at the end of five years, we shall be able to discontinue it so far as it applies to the southern districts.. It seems to me that the only hope for white labour in connexion with the sugar industry of Queensland lies in the gradual subdivision of the plantations, and closer settlement on. smaller holdings. I shall support the Bill, which, I think, will do an act of justice to Queensland and to the sugar planters who have established their plantations, under the protection of a State law, and in the just expectation that that law would not be altered to their irreparable injury, and in a way involving the confiscation of their estates.

Mr CAMERON:
Wilmot

– I was somewhat surprised to hear the honorable and learned member for Bendigo dilate upon the hardships of Queensland. I would remind him that other States have suffered just as much as Queensland has done from the exploitations of bagmen from Victoria. I was astonished to hear the honorable and learned member for Parkes, whom I have always regarded as a staunch free-trader, announce that he would support the Bill. As I have always endeavoured to act in accord with the views I have advocated, and I have been a staunch free-trader all through the piece, I shall oppose the Bill. I am aware that honorable members have practically made up their minds, and that no argument that I could bring forward would have any effect upon them. But, at the same time, I should like to point out that the bounty is, having the most disastrous effect on the revenues of some of the States. Tasmania has suffered very severely since Federation was established; but I have never made on her behalf any such piteous appeal as that which has emanated from the representatives of Queensland. We should be quite satisfied if the other States, and particularly Queensland, refrained from robbing us, and requiring us, to act the part of the camel and bear their burdens. Heavy financial loss is being inflicted upon some of the States, whilst the consumers of sugar are reaping no benefit. It is well known that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company has been making enormous profits, which itis afraid to disclose. Only recently the company offered a rebate of 5s. per ton to a large consumer of Tasmania if he would take their product instead of importing his sugar and paying the duty of £6 per ton upon 4,000 or 5,000 tons per annum. That arrangement has, resulted in a considerable loss of revenue to Tasmania. By legislation of this kind we are bolstering up persons who do not deserve our support, and are enabling them to make large profits at the expense of the poor. I do not think it is fair to drag in the White Australia question in order to secure the passing of this measure. I look upon the White Australia cry as sheer nonsense, in view of the number of coloured aliens we already have amongst us. I regard this proposal as not only wrong, but an actual robbery, and I shall certainly divide the House upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Question - That the Bill be read a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 40

NOES: 6

Majority … … 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definitions).

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I notice that the definition of “black labour” includes all forms of coloured labour, whether halfcaste or full blood. I think that the definition should, as in the Act of 1901, be limited to black labour brought into Australia under contract. If the Minister will not accept an amendment in that direction, I recognise that it will be useless to press the point.

Mr Fisher:

– That would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I quite agree with the honorable and learned member for Angas, but I recognise that it is useless to press the matter, in view of the large majority in favour of the Bill.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I merely wish to point out that if the amendment suggested by the honorable and learned member for Angas were adopted, the sugar produced by every class of alien labour would be entitled to participate in the bounty. I am sure that he does not desire that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and seven, there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly to every grower of white grown cane or beet within the Commonwealth, a bounty at the rates provided by this Act on all such cane or beet delivered for manufacture after that date, and before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twelve.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

– In the absence of the honorable and learned member for Corinella, I move the amendment of which he has given notice. As honorable members have already discussed the principle involved, there is no necessity for me to further explain the object of the proposal. The only question at issue is as to whether the bounty shall be continued for five years, and then abruptly withdrawn, or be further renewed, or whether it shall be made to automatically vanish by means of a sliding-scale. Of course all who desire that the bounty shall cease at some time or other will support the adoption of a sliding-scale.

Mr Mahon:

– Not necessarily.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– In my opinion it would be utterly impossible for us to abruptly discontinue the bounty. The only way in which it can be terminated without affecting a serious disturbance in trade conditions is by means of a sliding-scale. I ask honorable members not to vote against the amendment, because they may not happen to agree with the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Corinella as to the form which the slidingscale should take. That is a matter which we can settle after we have decided the principle of the amendment. I move -

That after the word “rates,” line 6, the words “ on the sliding scale “ be inserted.

An Honorable Member. - What about the abolition of the Excise duty?

Mr FISHER:

– I shall be prepared to debate that question when it arises. If the Excise is to be removed, the Commonwealth will be deprived of revenue, which it would be allowed to collect if the bounty were continued.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I think that the honorable member for Wide Bay has quite overlooked the fact that we started by proposing a protective duty of £6 per ton on sugar. At that time Queensland was over-supplied, and the records show that the imposition of the duty led immediately to an increase in the price of sugar grown in that State. That increased price had to be borne by some one, and it is clear that the only persons who could pay it were the white people living in the other States. This system has continued for some years. Because we confused the question with that of the employment of black labour, we made the mistake of deciding to pay a bounty to white growers of sugar, and so to offer an inducement to persons unsuited for the work to enter into competition with the alien races who were already engaged in the industry. I should have thought that the House would recognise that it is a bad policy to induce white people to enter an industry which experience has shown can be more fitly carried on by black labour. I refer more particularly to the experience of the United States. Mr. Hamilton, who was at the time one of the great apostles of protection in America, pointed out that a country could not enter into a policy more foolish than is that of seeking to persuade its white inhabitants to take up an industry which flourishes only under the poorest conditions of labour.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The question is whether there shall be a slidingscale.

Mr CONROY:

– As the result of our fixing the import dutv at £6 per ton. and imposing an Excise duty of only £3 per ton, we have encouraged the growth of sugar by black labour. We have given it an advantage of £3 per ton as compared with imported _ sugar, and this difference in favour of alien workers in Australia has had to be made good by the white people of the Commonwealth. It is now proposed to increase the Excise to £4 per ton, so that we shall still give the growers of sugar by black labour an advantage of £2 per ton as compared with the imported article, which the people of the other States will have to provide.

Mr Hutchison:

– We thus encourage black labour.

Mr CONROY:

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– ‘i shall support the sliding s;ale. I was not a member of this Parliament when the present Act was passed, with the object of securing the substitution of white for black labour on the sugar plantations. We know very well that the bounty has not brought’ about the results expected, and I want to know for how long the people of Australia are to be taxed in order to bring about the employment of white labour in a black man’s country? We shall never succeed in carrying oh the sugar industry by means

Of white labour until we can change the climate of Northern Queensland. The white man can labour with advantage only in the temperate zone, whereas the sugar industry belongs to the tropics. The representatives of Queensland seem to desire that the bounty should go on for ever.

Mr Fisher:

– New South Wales has had her fair share of the bounty.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I am aware of that. But I am consistent in opposing the bounty system altogether. The sugar-growers of New South Wales, who have never employed black labour to any extent worth mentioning, are not entitled to the bounty, and, if I had my way, I should entirely abolish the present system. We are impoverishing the great majority of the people, and disregarding economic laws, in order to give employment to a few white men in the sugar industry.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– I was surprised to hear the honorable member for New England, who professes to regard this Bill as an outrageous measure, express his intention to vote in favour of the sliding scale. I was still more astonished to find that extreme free-trader, the honorable and learned member for Parkes, voting for the second reading of a Bill the principle of which he has so strongly denounced. I am utterly unable to reconcile the attitude of some honorable members with my knowledge of their opinions, except on the theory that some time ago the free-trade flag was hauled down at Geelong, never to be hoisted again. If the honorable member for New England wishes to be consistent, he should not support the sliding scale, but should seek to bring about the termination of the bounty period some years earlier than is proposed. I object to the sliding scale mainly because I think that we are not justified in limiting the action of future Parliaments. If we adopt the proposal for the sliding scale, we shall pledge the word and credit of Australia for an unduly long period. Those interested in the sugar industry, and those who might enter upon it after this Bill became law, would have reason to complain if any alteration were made before the end of the period fixed under the sliding scale proposal. I am opposed to the Bill and to the clause now under discussion, and I am particularly hostile to the sliding scale. The hands of Parliament will be tied to a certain extent if the clause be passed, but that does, not make the other proposals any more acceptable to me. On the contrary, the extension of the bounty period for two years longer renders it the more objectionable. I am opposed to the principle of the bounty on the ground that it has failed in the object for which it was originally designed - the substitution of white for black labour in the sugar industry in the tropics.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I am surprised at the inconsistency of some honorable members. They are prepared to concede the fullest amount of protection to some industries, and to deny it to others. I am willing to extend to the growers of white sugar in Queensland a fair amount of protection, and, if we were not prevented from doing so by the Constitution, I should be in favour of increasing the Excise duty on black-grown sugar, and abolishing it altogether so far as the whitegrown product is concerned. However, according to high constitutional authorities, we are prevented from adopting that course. It has often been stated that we are giving a bonus to the sugargrowers. But that does not fairly represent the case. As a matter of fact, the planters are paying the Excise duty upon their product, and are receiving threefourths of the amount ba:k in the form of a bounty. If honorable members had to pay their £400 a year into the Treasury, and had only £300 returned to them, they would not consider that they were receiving a bonus.

Mr Mahon:

– What about the £6 per ton protection which they enjoy ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not dealing with the question of protection at the present time. If I attempted to do so, I should be promptly ruled out of order. I favour the adoption of the sliding-scale ‘ by increasing the Exciseduty, so as to render it more difficult for the planters to employ black labour.

Mr. BATCHELOR (Boothby). - We have had a most interesting discussion, and I am bound to. confess that the diverse reasons advanced by honorable members who wish to see the bounty discontinued have been to me a revelation.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted, be so inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 28

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MAHON (Coolgardie).- By this clause it is proposed to continue the bounty system until the 1st January, 1912. To my mind, we should not tie the hands of Parliament for so long a period. It seems tome that as the Braddon section of the Constitution will expire in 1910, and as the whole of the financial arrangements of the Commonwealth will then come under review, we should not extend the bounty beyond that period. In his report, Dr. Maxwell says -

In view of the facts set forth, it is made apparent that sufficient data and results are not yet in possession enabling it tobe said, with an approach to exactness, for what further period it appears necessary to extend the payment of bonuses.” It, therefore, can only be advised that a further extension shall be adopted, providing for the continuing and “ maturing of the purpose of the Federal legislation,” the period of the extension to be determined by certain cardinal considerations.

That being the case, I think that it is desirable to limit the operation of the bounty to a shorter period than is proposed, so that all the circumstances surrounding the position may be considered in 1 910. Under my amendment the planters of Queensland will have the advantage of the bounty for a period of at least five years.

That the word “ twelve “ at the end of the clause be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ ten.”

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).When I spoke upon the second reading of this Bill, I stated that I would support the application of a sliding scale to the payment of the bounty. That proposal having been defeated, I do not feel any longer bound to support the measure. I intend to vote for the amendment of the honorable member for Coolgardie.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa). - I shall certainly support the amendment, and I only wish that it limited the operation of the bounty to a shorter period. It is wrong for any Parliament to bind its successors. In this Bill we are invited to bind at least two successive Parliaments. To my mind, any such action would be absolutely unjustifiable. In view of therecent division, which indicates that it would be impossible to substitute an earlier date, I shall vote for the amendment; otherwise I should certainly have supported a proposal that the bounty shall cease in 1907.

Mr. FRAZER (Kalgoorlie).- As the result of the division just taken will prevent our carrying out the desire of the representatives of Queensland, whilst at the same time placing the granting of this bounty on a satisfactory basis, I think that the proposal embodied in this clause is a most extreme one. Under the existing Act the bounty will terminate in 1907, and it is proposed by this Bill to continue it until 1 9 12. In other words, six years must elapse before the conditions for which it provides may be varied, unless we are to break faith with the people whom it is designed to serve. During that period we shall have two, and possibly three, general elections. The question has been brought before the Committee at a time when it is exceedingly difficult to give it that consideration which it ought to receive. Sir William Lyne. - Let us divide ! Mr. FRAZER.- The Minister of Trade and Customs has displayed a remarkable anxiety to secure the passing of this and other Bills without debate; but while we may have a great admiration for his ability to draft a measure in a form that ought to be acceptable to the country, we cannot lose sight of our duty to our constituents. We are asked by the Government to give a vote which must bind the next two Parliaments unless faith is to be broken with the people whom this measure is designed to assist. I respectfully urge that the proposal to extend the bounty until 19 12 is an extreme one, and that the Ministry might well accept the compromise proposed by the honorable member for Coolgardie, whose amendment I shall certainly support.

Mr. HUTCHISON (Hindmarsh). - I would point out that by agreeing to this clause we shall not tie the hands of future Parliaments to any serious extent. In the first place, if the amendment be accepted, it will be necessary for the Parliament to again deal with this question in 1909.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I intend to support the amendment, and, in doing so, feel that my vote will be perfectly consistent with the two that I have already given on this Bill. I supported the second reading against my fiscal convictions, looked at from an abstract point of view, but I did so because I recognised that the House has affirmed the principle of a White Australia, and had attempted, for a period of five years to compensate the sugar-growers for the disadvantage at which that policy has placed them. I was also induced to vote for the second reading, because I anticipated that the Committee would affirm the principle of a slidingscale of payments. Had that course been adopted, the bounty would have been paid at the full rate for two years, after the expiration of the period fixed by the present Act; then it would have gradually tapered off and terminated. Finality, would thus have been reached. The Government are now taking a course which is most undesirable; because it has been recognised both by the House and by Dr. Maxwell that the uncertainty in the minds of the sugar-growers as to. whether or not the bounty will be renewed is causing a great many of them to retain their hold on black labour, and to prevent it leaving the country. The adoption of a sliding scale would have been a clear indication of the intentions of the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable and learned member cannot now discuss the question of the sliding scale.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I submit, sir, that I am entitled to refer to it in order to show that the vote which I propose to give will be perfectly consistent with the others that I have cast. The adoption of a sliding scale would have ‘been an intimation to the sugar-growers that the bounty would begin to taper off two years after the term fixed by the existing Act. I am not prepared to vote for the continuance of the bounty for a further period of five years in such a way as to lead the sugar-growers of Queensland to believe that all they will have to do at the expiration of that time is to seek another five years’ extension from this House. We are giving them no indication that the system is to come to an end. We could have done so by providing that the bounty, after a certain period, shall gradually taper off, until it finally disappears. I shall vote for the amendment, believing that, if carried, it will be a sufficient intimation to the sugar-growers, of

Queensland that some definite limit to the continuance of this artificial support is to be decreed by the Federal Parliament.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– In view of the experience that I gained on the occasion of the interesting parliamentary trip through Queensland, I should have liked to address myself to the motion for the second reading of the Bill; but I refrained from doing so because of a desire to conserve the time of the House. When in Queensland, I stated that I was in favour of the adoption of a sliding scale, and I think it is to be deeply regretted that that proposal has not been accepted. However, we have to deal with the position that now confronts us, and, having listened to the debate, I have arrived at the conclusion that it would be well to provide for the extension of the bounty for a further period of three years. I trust that the amendment will be carried, and that before the time fixed has elapsed the Parliament will have determined upon the adoption of a sliding scale. The question should be dealt with some time before the period fixed by this Bill expires, in order that the sugar-growers may have at least two or three years’ warning of the decision of the Legislature.

Question - That the word “twelve,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 19

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BRUCE SMITH (Parkes).- I do not think that this matter has been fairly treated, and the only course open to the Opposition now is to negative the clause, which I shall ask honorable members to do by calling for a division.

Mr. FRAZER (Kalgoorlie). - I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, if, in the event of the clause being negatived, it will be competent to move the insertion of another clause, providing that the bounty shall terminate in. 1911 ?

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The recommittal of the Bill is obviously the best way to meet the difficulty. The Opposition lost the division which has just been taken because of the absence of two members who were prevented from reaching the chamber owing to the crowded state of thelift. Under these circumstances, I should think the Government would very readily consent to recommit the clause.

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

– Then I hope we shall be able to compel the Minister to do that which he is unwilling to do. Nobody expects the Minister of Trade and Customs, to do a fair thing at any time.

Sir William Lyne:

– If the honorable member wants to kill the Bill, let him kill it, if he can.

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

– The Minister has no right to make that remark. We do notwant to kill the Bill, but only to make it as fair as we may in the interests of the whole of Australia. I hope that we shall always treat matters of great importance in a reasonable way, but we are not to be compelled to do what the Minister requires. I suggest to all concerned that we should now content ourselves by allowing the Bill to go through Committee, and then endeavour to have it recommitted. We may be able to recommit the Bill, not only for the purpose of trying to make the improvement we sought to make just now, but also to insert the original proposal in regard to the sliding scale.

Question - That clause 3, as read, stand part of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 19

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause5 -

Bounty shall not be claimable or payable in the case of sugar-cane or beet produced on any white plantation by any person who has obtained bounty under this Act in respect of sugar-cane or beet produced on the plantation and has afterwards employed black labour in the cultivation of sugarcane or beet on such plantation.

Provided that the Minister may, if he is satisfied that black labour was unavoidably employed to save the crop growing thereon, exempt any sugar-cane or beet from this section subject to such conditions as he directs, or as are prescribed.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I wish to test the question whether we should continue to pay a bounty where there has been no substitution of white labour for coloured labour. In my opinion, if there has been no such substitution, it is a pure waste of money to continue the payment. In New South Wales, in 1902, there were produced 19,423 tons of white-grown, and1,526 tons of blackgrown sugar, while at the end of 1905, according to the Treasurer’s estimate, when he delivered his Budget speech, there will have been produced 20,150 tons of whitegrown and 2,475tons of black-grown sugar. During, the four years the bonus paid to the sugar-growers of New South Wales amounts to £152,594, or an average of about £38,000 a year. In almost all cases that money has been paid for nothing - simply because the Government apparently thought that, under the Constitution, no exception could be made in the case of New South Wales. As a matter of fact, the Constitution does not prescribe anything of the sort. While our laws are to be uniform-, there is nothing in the Constitution which says that their operation must be the same throughout the States. I mention this because, when the Treasurer was making his Budget speech, I interjected something on this point, which led him to make the remark that the bounty must be uniform. I immediately saw the fallacy of his position, but there was no opportunity to take any step on that occasion. Now, however, an opportunity is presented; and I cannot see what objection there can be to so framing the law that those who employed white labour only prior to, say, the date on which the Pacific island Labourers’ Act came into force, shall not receive the bounty. Those growers are not entitled to a penny ; and, although I have no absolute information on the point, I believe that the holdings of those who do employ white labour, throughout New South Wales, have acquired a speculative value, conferred by the Commonwealth in return for absolutely nothing. A mistake was made in the drafting of the original Act, and I do not think we should perpetuate it by paying, the bounty to those who have done nothing to deserve it. I move -

That after the word “ labour,” line 6, the words “ or during the twelve months immediately preceding the 17th December, 1901, employed only white labour,” be inserted.

I have selected the date of the coming into operation of the Pacific Island Labourers Act, because I think that that is a fair course to adopt.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– I am not lawyer enough to know whether the honorable and learned member’s proposal can be carried out; but if it is necessary that our laws should be uniform I am afraid that his amendment would be unconstitutional. I am prepared to vote against bounties altogether, but at present I doubt whether we shall be justified under the Constitution in proceeding to the length that the honorable and learned member desires.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I shall support the amendment, on the ground that it was never contemplated that a gift of £2perton should be conferred upon planters who have always employed white labour. The real object of the Parliament was to secure the substitution of white labour for black labour.

Mr Wilkinson:

– The honorable member would penalize the man who has consistently endeavoured to maintain a White Australia.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The question of penalty does not enter into consideration, except so far as the consumers of sugar throughout the Commonwealth are being penalized in order that we may make a free gift to men who are merely pursuing the course which they have adopted from the very inception of the industry. What would honorable members think if the honorable member for Yarra proposed that a bounty should be given to every white cabinet-maker in Melbourne?

Mr Tudor:

– If an Excise duty were levied upon the product of Chinese cabinetmakers, I would support a proposal to pay a bounty to white cabinet-makers.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The imposition of an Excise duty upon cabinet-makers might be justified if - as in the case of sugar - that industry were protected by a 40 per cent. Customs duty. Ever since the sugar bounty was introduced we have been making a free gift of £40,000 per annum to the sugar-planters of New South Wales for carrying on their industry under the same conditions that have prevailed from the outset.

Mr EWING:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Richmond · Protectionist

– The amendment is simply a device for penalizing men who have struggled on withwhite labour for many years past, and have done their best in the direction of maintaining a White Australia, and also for rewarding those who have hung on to black labour until the last moment. If honorable members think that would be right, I shall have nothing more to say.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– The Minister has utterly misconceived the situation. We have no right to, hand over to one body of citizens the money belonging to another section of the community. The payment of the bounty upon white-grown sugar has resulted in increasing the value of the land used for sugar-growing in the northern part of New South Wales and the southern part of Queensland; and in view of the fact that the amendment would have the effect of saving £90,000 a year to the Commonwealth Treasury, I shall vote for it.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

– The proposal of the honorable and learned member for Angas is not only an extraordinary one, but it would be most drastic in its operation. A number of men in the north of Queensland have been struggling on for years against adverse conditions, and the persistency of their efforts to maintain a White Australia has almost excited the hatred of their neighbours. If the amendment were adopted, these men, as well as thewhite sugar-growers of New South Wales, would be penalized. I believe that a number of planters in New South Wales are deriving more benefit than they are entitled to from the bounty, and I should not object to depriving them of the advantage they now derive if we could do so without inflicting hardship on others who are entitled to our fullest consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That after the word “ thereon,” line 10, the following words be inserted, “ from destruction by flood or fire.”

Mr. GLYNN (Angas). - I wish to draw attention to a matter of drafting. It seems to me that it might be advisable to insert a definition at the end of the clause to the effect that “ person “ shall include successors in title or assignees.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I think the honorable member for Angas, is mistaken. I took special care to put the point he has raised to the draftsman, and he assured me that the word “ person “ was the right one to use.

Mr Glynn:

– If the Minister is satisfied, I am.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If it turns out, on further inquiry, that the honorable member’s view is right, I shall have an alteration made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 -

The rates of bounty payable under this Act shall be as follows : -

In the case of sugar-cane - six shillings per ton calculated on cane giving ten per centum of sugar, to be increased or decreased proportionately according to any variation from this standard; and

In the case of beet - sixty shillings per ton on the sugar-giving contents of the beet.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I wish to take a vote on this clause, to test the point whether the Committee is in favour of granting any protection to sugar produced by black labour. The only way in which I can do thai is., I think, to move that the word “six” be left out.

Mr Ewing:

– No sugar is absolutely produced by black labour in Australia. The cane may be grown by black labour; but probably the mill-hands, artisans, &c., who are concerned in its production are white men.

Mr POYNTON:

– In some districts two-thirds of the sugar grown is produced by black labour. I do not desire to make any difference in the proportion between the Excise and the protection, but, at the same time. I do not desire that growers who use black labour shall have any protection whatever. If we struck out the word “ six, “ and substituted “ ten,” it would indicate the opinion of the Committee that all white-grown sugar should get the same protection as it now receives, whilst black-grown sugar should receive no advantage. I move -

That the word “ six,” line 3, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ ten.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– If the word “six” were struck out, I submit that this Committee would have no power to insert “ ten “ in lieu of it. The proposition of the honorable member for Grey hinges upon what he desires to substitute for “ six.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is simply that a certain word shall be omitted ; but I point out to the honorable member for Grey that if that word were omitted, and he desired to insert a figure higher than the one omitted, it would not be competent for him to do so. While it would be competent for the Committee to reduce a proposed amount, the universal practice is against the acceptance of a proposal to increase it at this stage.

Mr CONROY:

– Forms of taxation are infinitely various, and it is not for me to suggest the ways and means. My object is to absolutely deprive black-grown sugar of the protection which it at present enjoys. If we gave effect to the suggestion of the honorable member for Grey, we should be able to secure exactly what we desire in the Sugar Excise Bill. Whilst a private member cannot move to increase the rate of Excise specified in that measure, a Minister can do so. The effect of adopting the honorable member’s suggestion would be to compel the Government to increase the rate of duty provided for i’n that measure. In order to test the question, I move -

That the word “ six,” line 3, and the word “ ten,” line 4, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five.”

Mr. POYNTON (Grey). - I cannot support the proposal of the honorable and learned member, because it would involve the payment of the bounty of 5s. per ton upon “ rubbishy “ cane - material which is of very little use. Under the circumstances, I shall not press my amendment.

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

– I suggest to the honorable and learned memTier for Werriwa that he should withdraw his amendment. However much we may differ as to the methods which should be employed to achieve our object, there is one limitation that we must all recognise, and that is the limitation which applies to our finances. In this connexion, I refer more particularly to the statement made by the honorable member for Bland. He pointed out that this proposal would injuriously affect the revenues of Australia. Having regard to the very serious situation which would arise if any such proposal were adopted, I ask the honorable and learned member to withdraw it.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- It seems to me that my point has been utterly misunderstood. Whilst it is true - as the honorable member for Bland has pointed out - that under the operation of this amendment the Commonwealth would suffer so far as the amount which it would be called upon to expend was concerned, I maintain that the revenues of Australia would be increased by £220,000, if the alteration to which I have referred were made in the Sugar Excise Bill.

Mr Watson:

– The net result to the Commonwealth finances would be a big loss.

Mr CONROY:

– The net result to the Commonwealth’ Treasury would be a gain, but as regards the amount which the Federation was called upon to expend, it would be a loss. It would mean that an extra sum of £220,000 would go to the Treasury, instead of to the black growers of sugar.

Mr Watson:

– But three-fourths of that amount would have to be returned to the States.

Mr CONROY:

– That sum is how being paid by white people, but is not going to the Treasury. The only reason why I ask leave to withdraw my amendment is because it is quite plain that there is no hope of its being carried. If it were carried, it would compel an increase in the other duty, and the enormous sum which is being paid in bounties would be made so manifest to the public that within the next year this very Government would have to come forward with a proposal to cut them down.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 -

The employment of any aboriginal native of Australia in the growing of sugar-cane or beet shall not prejudice any claim to bounty under this Act.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

-^ have read in the press that descendants of aboriginals - half-castes, and so on - have not been permitted to work on the sugar plantations, and I wish this clause to be altered so that they may enjoy that right.

Mr Fisher:

– Clause n deals with that subject.

Mr LONSDALE:

– I only wanted ‘to make sure of the clause in which it is dealt with.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This clause deals with the employment of aboriginals.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause11 -

The Minister may in special cases, if he is satisfied that there are special circumstances rendering it desirable for Kim so to do, permit any halfcaste born in Australia having one white parent to be employed on a white plantation and thereupon such half-caste may be so employed, without prejudice to any claim for bounty in respect of sugar-cane or beet produced on the plantation.

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– I think it would have been better to deal with the employment of half-castes in clause 9. Surely the descendants of the original owners of the soil of this continent have a right to be allowed to work on sugar plantations without getting a special permit from the Minister ! There have been a number of hard cases which have been brought to light, but which I cannot remember at this moment. It is an outrage that half-castes should be required to apply for a permit to work. We ought to show that we have a sense of justice and right, by allowing the descendants of the original owners of this country the right to work.

Sir William Lyne:

– This clause was specially inserted in order to provide for thesecases.

Mr LONSDALE:

– What is an “aboriginal”? The term does not mean a half-caste.

Sir William Lyne:

– What the honorable member wants is provided in the Bill.

Mr LONSDALE:

– If the Minister can point to a provision to the effect that the descendants of the aborigines can work upon sugar plantations without a permit, as a matter of right, I shall be content. What I wished to provide in clause 9, when I was “bluffed,” was that the descendants of aboriginals should be allowed to work upon the plantations.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I move-

That the following words be left out : - “ in special cases, if he is satisfied that there are special circumstances rendering it desirable for him so to do.”

The omission of these words would not limit the power of the Minister, any more than is absolutely necessary. Certainly it would give him all the power which he needs to possess.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. I inserted this clause because of special cases which came before me in the Department, and which seemed to me to be very hard indeed.

In my speech on the second reading, I referred to the case of a white man who had married a half-caste kanaka, and who could not be allowed to have his child on the plantation simply on account of there being no such provision as this in the law. I took the responsibility of allowing him to remain. I think the wording of the clause is more liberal than is necessary, and I cannot possibly accept the amendment. I have gone a long way in inserting this provision in opposition to the views of many honorable members.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Motion (by Mr. Isaacs) agreed to -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE (Hume- Minister of Trade and Customs). - Perhaps the deputy leader of the Opposition will not object to my going on with the Excise Bill.

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

– I certainly shall do so. I am anxious to sit here after Christmas.

page 6892

PAPER

Mr. EWING laid upon the table the following paper: -

Defence Regulations, Statutory Rules, 1905 - No. 76

page 6892

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Isaacs) agreed to -

That the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 6892

ADJOURNMENT

Federal Capital Site

Motion (by Mr. Isaacs) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I wish to know when we shall have an opportunity to deal with the question of the site of the Federal Capital. Before certain proceedings which took place recently, the honorable and learned member for Illawarra and some half-dozen other honorable members, with myself, were taking steps to ascertain whether a compromise could not be arrived at. At the outset I thought that both Lake George and Yass were more suitable than the site selected, but when the

Seat of Government! Bill was before us the honorable and learned member for Illawarra, was the only one who supported my advocacy of those sites. There has been a growing feeling , in the House that a compromise should be arrived at.

Mr Thomas:

– Carruthers has killed all that. ‘

Mr CONROY:

– If honorable members thought that a certain compromise should be accepted, surely their decision cannot be affected by what Mr. Carruthers has said.

Mr Bamford:

– They were merely willing to allow the matter to be again discussed. They did not say that; they would accept a certain site.

Mr CONROY:

– I shall not at this late hour discuss the matter, but I wish to know whether the Bill dealing with the question is to be presented to-morrow, and when we shall have an opportunity to deal with it.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · Indi · Protectionist

– I think that the Prime Minister has already said that, after the Anti-Trust Bill has been dealt with, there will be an opportunity for honorable members tb consider the Bill relating to the Federal Capital. It will be introduced this session, and dealt with.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.55 P m-

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 December 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19051213_reps_2_30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 December 1905

QUESTION

DEFECTIVE CARTRIDGES

Mr CHANTER:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Mr HENRY WILLIS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

SECESSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

COLONEL LYSTER

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

MILITARY CLOTHING AND CONTINGENT ACCOUNTS

Mr WILKINSON:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:Protectionist

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Second Reading

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Watson:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Knox:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Hutchison:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Conroy:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Henry Willis:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, 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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Henry Willis:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Henry Willis:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Conroy:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Conroy:

Mr Isaacs:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Kelly:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Robinson:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Knox:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Knox:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Deakin:

House of Representatives
13 December 1905

Mr CHANTER:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · 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 BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

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 BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

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

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

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

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

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 DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

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 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 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 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