Senate
8 May 1902

1st Parliament · 1st Session



The President took the Chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 12373

PETITION

Senator GLASSEY presenteda petition signed by 65 shareholders in and suppliers of cane to the Moreton Central Sugar Mill Company Limited, praying that the Senate may prevent the passage of a measure to legalize the retention under the federal Tariff’ of sugar held by manufacturers, refineries, and others on the8th October last.

Petition received and read.

page 12373

QUESTION

CONFERENCE: PATENTS OFFICES

Is there any objection to there being laid upon the table of the Senate the report of the recent conference of the heads of the Patent Offices of the various States, with a copy of the proceedings and of all papers relating to the same?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– T - The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

It is preferredthat these should not bemade public pendingtheir Ministerial consideration in connexion with the final settlement of the Bill.

page 12374

CUSTOMSTARIFF BILL

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from 7th May (vide page 12373), on motion by SenatorO’Connor -

Thatthe Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales.

– I hope it will not be deemed egotism on my part in addressing myself to the question before the Chamber, to refer to the fact that this is the fourth or fifth Tariff with which, during my public life, I have had to deal, and I may fairly claim that no member of the Senate has had greater experience inParliament and upon the platform in debating the question of free-trade. I do not, however, propose to address myself to-day to the ethics of free-trade,because I think that the occasion is not opportune. That is a duty which, no doubt, free-traders will discharge from time to time as opportunity may offer ; but, at present, we are face to face with a legislative rather than an academic proposition. It is with the proposals of the Government now before us that I intend to deal to-day. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the great freetrade State of New South Wales practically abandoned’ theoretical free-trade when, by the vote of her citizens, she accepted the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. I do not moan to suggest that New South Wales then abandoned free-trade for protection, and I should be very sorry if any one assumed that that is my meaning. WhatImean is, that a majority of the electors of New South Wales accepted federation, and apparently let free-trade take its chance, most worthily hoping for the best. I was one of the doubters, and all who have taken the trouble to inform themselves upon the subject are aware that I opposed the Commonwealth Bill upon the ground that I preferred the traditional free-trade policy of New South Wales to the prospective advantages, whatever they might be, offered to us in the shape of federation. Although I was in a minority, I have since loyally accepted the situation, and I take it that it is the duty of every member of the community, no matter what his views upon fiscal and other questions may be, toloyally abide by the provisions of the Constitution, and to do his utmost to see that the people of Australia benefit in every possible way from the union which was consummated by the acceptance of the Act. The proposals of the Government have created, so far as New South Wales is concerned, I will not say disappointment, but dissatisfaction, because that is a larger term which includes the lesser term disappointment, and I believe that if the State was polled to-day not 10 per cent. of the electors would vote for the acceptance of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Senator Stewart:

– The consummation of federation was the best thing that ever happened.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– That may or may not be ; I am stating what I believe to be a fact, though it may be a deplorable one. This dissatisfaction has been created very largely by the fact that many people did not look sufficiently far into the future, and pay sufficient regard to the possibilities that lay before them. They very worthily imagined that federation would accomplish a great deal which has not yet had time to eventuate, but which will probably come to pass in the middle or distant future. They are also dissatisfied because, instead of obtaining a Tariff such as they have been accustomed to ever since New South Wales has had constitutional government, they find themselves under trammels and restraints of which they had previously no knowledge. But it is our duty to be as loyal in adversity as in success, and if we as free-traders have not before us the privileges of freetrade which we enjoyed in the past, we must regard it as an obligation to do our best under the circumstances, and to take the rough with the smooth. It is the duty of frae-traders not to cry over spilt milk, not to ask for the unattainable, which I take to be theoretical free-trade, and not to waste time at the present juncture in discussing the ethics of free-trade. For my part, I shall leave such discussions for future occasions. I think, however, that it is our duty to demand a Tariff which, while producing sufficient revenue for the requirements of the Commonwealth, will do as little injury as possible to the community at large. The references which I have made to New South Wales will, perhaps, be the last which I shall make during my speech. I do not propose, unless I am driven to it, to draw any of the invidious comparisons, in. which some people have luxuriated, between the advantages possessed by one State and those of another, or the progress of one State and that of another ; nor do I wish to deal with the question from a narrow or purely provincial stand-point. I wish to consult the well-being of the greatest number in the community. That being so, I consider it the duty of free-traders to demand - and I use the word in its fullest significance - and if our voting strength be stronger than our voices and our arguments, to. take by vote, a policy which will do the greatest good to the greatest number, and the least evil to any. In my opinion, such a Tariff should interfere as little as may be with the natural conditions of the country, and take from the people only so much revenue as is needed in the interests of good government. In view of the fact that the Ministry submitted to the other Chamber a Tariff which, according to their own showing, would have taken from the taxpayers £1,000,000 more than was required, and that the proposals now submitted to us would take from them something like £500,000 more than is required, I say, with the greatest respect to those who support the propositions of the Government, that their scheme of duties is opposed to the cardinal principles of just taxation. There is no principle of taxation that has ever been laid down more persistently and with greater effect and authority than this, that it is the duty of the Parliament to take no more from the pockets of the people than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of good government. If it takes more it perpetrates a public wrong. It takes from the pocket of one man more than from the pocket of another - for whose benefit? Not for the benefit of the whole community, because when it has achieved the sum of taxation which is necessary for the purposes of good government it can go no further without committing a public wrong on some one. That being so, I submit this proposition as being a truth that it will be difficult to deny - that in view of the vast area of the Commonwealth and its sparse population, it is the primary industries - the natural industries - that produce the greatest benefits to the whole community, and consequently if there are benefits to be conferred upon any class because of the manner in which the Tariff is drawn, the primary industries are more deserving of consideration at the hands of the Legislature than are the secondary or artificial industries. Why ? Using the term widely,the whole world will buy the raw products of Australia, while very little of the world will buy its manufactured products, and for the simple reason that the natural products can be produced at the lowest possible figure, while the products of the secondary or artificial industries can only be produced, owing to our local conditions and our wages rates, at prices which render them impossible of purchase by the rest of the civilized world. We can send our wool all over the world. Every part of the world buys the clip of Australia, but all the world is not prepared to pay’ Australia’s needful prices for the wool made up in its territory. Therefore, I submit this proposition, that in the framing of our Tariff we should seek consideration for the industries of the soil and the mine rather than the industries of the. workshop and the factory, the market for the product of one being absolutely without limit in the world, while the product of the second must necessarily be limited to a market within our own boundaries. Having laid down these initial propositions, I come to another question, and one which I think has not been raised - Is the action of the Government such as warrants our placing at their disposal the enormous revenues that are involved in this Tariff?

Senator Stewart:

– Hear, hear ! They know how to spend it.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I shall come to another feature of the case in a short time - as to whether they spend it justifiably. I do not intend, if possible, to exceed the time I named last night - about an hour - and, therefore, I ask that I shall not be led off the track of my observations by interjections, because, if I am, I have no doubt that there will be interjections to which it will be possible to frame replies, and I do not know where I might stop. In the first instance, I ask - Are the Government, in their management of the finances, worthy of being intrusted with the huge spending power which the passing of such a Tariff as the one before us involves ? I submit these two propositions first. Has the action of the Government in connexion with the great question of defence been such in its financial relations as to warrant the Senate in placing at their disposal the large sums involved ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that that is relevant to the Bill?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Certainly it is relevant, according to all. my parliamentary experience. I submit, sir, with great respect, that this is a Bill which asks for money, and that when the Government ask for ‘great powers of raising revenue this necessarily involves the manner in which that money is expended. I am not going through the Government departments. Under the speakership of Mr. Barton, now Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, in New South Wales, I, as well as many others, have been allowed - I am not submitting that as a precedent, but as you have asked me a question, I am replying to it - to investigate the expenditure of every department at the fullest length, and I do not think, on consideration, you will see that there can be a more cogent connexion between revenue and expenditure than the one I propose to deal with. I have no intention of dealing at any length with this subject, nor do I propose to deal with more than the one department. The other proposition that I shall submit,, when I have dealt with the first, is a3 to whether in these proposals the Government have kept faith with the people who put them in their present position of place and pay. The framers of the Constitution Act thought that three great departments were of such momentous significance that they provided that they were to be taken over by proclamation, without waiting for any parliamentary action. They could have been taken over on the 1 st day of January, 1 90 1, so far as the law permitted. Immediately federation was consummated, it was within the power of the Government, by proclamation, to take over that which they took over very shortly afterwards - the three great departments of Customs, Post and Telegraphs, and Defence. By reason of the very fact, that these three great services were placed in the very forefront, there must be the fullest recognition, I am sure, on the part of all concerned, that they were leading features in the agreement that brought about the federal power which now exists. I am sure it must be within the knowledge of us all that no subject was more seriously discussed and more urgently put forward as a plea for f federation than the necessity of a satisfactory defence force. But I take it that there is no department of Government which has been so unsatisfactorily handled as the great Defence department, particularly in regard to financial matters. I see daily in the press statements by Ministers that there is to be a great saving in the defence expenditure. If there is going to be such a great saving as is intimated, that will be one reason, I submit, for not voting all the moneys which are asked for. If the Government intend to carry on the Defence department at six months’ expenditure, of a twelve months’ vote, we shall not want anything like all the money which Senator O’Connor is asking for in this Tariff. But what are the facts? That though Parliament has voted moneys for the Defence department, they are to be hoarded ; they are not in the hands of the public creditors of the Commonwealth. In one State that I have a very complete knowledge of it is almost discreditable to be in a position in the defence force that involves the incurring of liabilities, because the money is not forthcoming to pay them. In answering a question of mine in the Senate the other day - and I only mention this incidentally - the Minister said that the Government had received £340,000 from the Home Government in connexion with certain contingents despatched, or to be despatched. I cannot walk the streets of Sydney without being bailed up by people who wish to know why they cannot be paid when the Government have had this enormous sum in their possession from the Imperial authorities.

Senator McGregor:

– Did they take the honorable senator for the Minister for War?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- They took me for a Member of the Legislature, who, in a very humble way, is responsible, as well as the honorable senator who interrupts me, for seeing that the functions of Government are honorably carried out. Any creditor of the Commonwealth has a perfect right to apply to my honorable friend, to myself or to any other humble member of the Legislature and ask how it is that the financial obligations of the Government which Parliament has provided for are not discharged.

Senator O’Connor:

– H - Have these obligations anything to do with the Imperial contingents in respect of which the money has been received ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- Yes. There are abundance of obligations incurred by the Government to the people of Australia in connexion with the despatch of Imperial contingents, for which they, through my honorable and learned friend, have acknowledged the receipt of £340,000 through the Bank of Australasia in Melbourne. These people wish to know, as I do, why the accounts are not paid.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– I - If the honorable senator knows of any such cases I shall be very glad if he will bring them under the notice of the Government.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I shall take advantage of my honorable and learned friend’s request, but that does not affect the ordinary expenditure of. the departments - the money for which is derived from this Tariff. Things are so bad that, so far as I know, in one great State the whole department of Defence does not own half-a-dozen sheets of paper, or- as many envelopes, for carrying on its business. I know that officers and non-commissioned officers are incurring debts to provide even the few envelopes and few sheets of paper for carrying on their work. It is not creditable for any Government to ask us for our assent to a Tariff of £8,500,000, and not to be able to afford a few envelopes and a few sheets of paper which Parliament has voted the money for, which were requisitioned for months and months ago, but which are not yet forthcoming.

Senator Barrett:

– Would it not be better to discuss that question on the Appropriation Bill ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- -The proper time to discuss the question is when we are asked to provide money to afford more lack of attention to the administration of government. This great spending department - one of the most costly, unfortunately, and one which, therefore, makes the greatest demand on the Tariff - has been unhappily neglected in a very persistent manner. The Government have been in office nearly eighteen months, and we are passing Supply Bill after Supply Bill to provide from the proceeds of this very Tariff the means of conducting a department that is in a condition of chaos. Let me in the briefest possible way point out why I use that term.

Senator McGregor:

– I hope that the honorable senator did not tell that to the Japanese naval officers.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I had not the pleasure of meeting them; and if I had met them the honorable senator knows sufficiently well that, though I may consider it my duty to make an exposure of this kind here, it would be very far from me to do anything which would bring the slightest discredit upon the Commonwealth in any communication I might make in any other capacity than that of a representative of the people bound to do my duty, or to relinquish my position.

Senator McGregor:

– They can read English, so that they will get all the information no(*.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- If I needed a precedent to justify my present action it is to be found in the proceedings of the British Houses of Legislature, where it is regarded as a high duty to make known matters which are perhaps not pleasant, but which, in the interests of the whole community should be made known. The Ministry have been in office for nearly eighteen months, . but up to the present moment there is no law in existence which allows of the proper carrying on of the defence forces of Australia. After all this time there is not one single man who has been attested as a soldier or volunteer of the Commonwealth. There is no lawful authority under which a man can be so attested or sworn. The Government allowed twelve months to elapse - during which period they were seeking legislative assent to this profposed taxation - before they appointed a responsible military adviser. Before taking office they had a Bill prepared by the commandants of the different States, but although that measure was in print something very different was submitted to Parliament after it had been sitting three or four mouths. What has become of that Bill 1

The PRESIDENT:

– I must again ask the honorable senator if he thinks that his remarks are relevant to the discussion ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I am seeking to show how, in a very important division of the public, expenditure, which is or ought to be provided by the present Tariff, money is being practically wasted.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is quite justified in doing that, but he is going into the question of the action of the Government in reference to the Defence Bill.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Surely that is relevant. If, however, you rule that it is not-

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not wish to curtail debate in the slightest degree, but I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks as far as possible to the question of the Tariff.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I shall come to that very soon indeed. I merely wish to point out that after the lapse of all this time there is no Defence Act in existence, and consequently we are spending money without proper authority.

Senator Stewart:

– And our Minister for Defence has gone.

Senator O’Connor:

– H - He has left a very good substitute behind.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I agree with the statement of Senator O’Connor. His colleague, who has taken charge of the Defence department, has done good work in New South Wales as Minister for Defence, and, therefore, I am glad to offer my congratulations in connexion with what I think is a very wise appointment. In view of what the President has said, I shall postpone what I intended to say in this connexion, and what, from my experience as a Parliamentarian, I thought and think within the limits of debate. I shall have another opportunity of referring to the matter, and that before very long. Therefore, I content myself with saying that in respect of the finance matters connected with the defence force, I consider that the action of the Government has been highly culpable, and of a character that does not warrant them in asking at the hands of the Legislature the enormous revenue which they seek under this Tariff. Apparently the proceeds of the Tariff will be devoted to a continuation of the mal-administration to which I have already made partial reference. I shall, however, be strictly in order in pointing out that the last liberal Government of Great Britain was hurled from power over a mere detail connected with this very question. I have been discussing the whole of the finances of the Defence department, but the last liberal Government in England were hurled from power, because, in the estimation of Parliament, they had not a sufficient supply of one description of cartridge, namely, cordite, in stock. That one fact was enough to depose that Administration. How much worse is the position when we have experienced twelve months of bungling, neglect, and most unhappy dealings in connexion with a department the expenditure of which, in its relation to the affairs of the Commonwealth, is equally as momentous as is the military expenditure of Great Britain in its relation to the finances of the Empire. Now I come to the other proposition that I laid down - whether the Government have kept faith with the electors. In passing, I must be permitted to quote the utterance of the leader of the Senate, who, in moving the second reading of this Bill, used these words -

It was announced also that, as far as possible, consistently with the principles to which I have already referred, the Government being composed of men who had all through their lives followed protectionist views - and then my honorable and learned friend was interrupted by Senator Symon, who interjected -

Not all of them. to which Senator O’Connor rejoined -

Iam right in saying all of them.

Senator O’Connor:

– H - Hear, hear.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I think that if my honorable and learned friend will stretch his recollection a little he will remember that it is not a quarter of a century but materially less, since he himself was a subscriber to the funds of the Free-trade Association of New South Wales.

Senator O’Connor:

– H - Hear, hear.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I do not take it that the honorable and learned senator was subscribing to a free-trade association whenhe was a protectionist.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - I had not got salvation then.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– The honorable and learned senator declared that the members of the Ministry had been protectionists “ all their lives,” and I am pointin out that that statement contains a little inaccuracy. But Senator O’Connor does not stand alone amongst Ministers in having been a free-trader at one time. What did the Prime Minister say 1 His words may have been quoted previously in thisdebate, but if so, I did not hear them. At any rate, they are so good that I will quote them again. When the right honorable gentleman was a candidate for the great free-trade constituency of East Sydney-

Senator O’Connor:

– W - What year was that?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– It was about the same time that Senator O’Connor was a subscriber to the free-trade association - some fifteen years ago.

Honorable Senators. - Oh ! Oh !

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I think that great truths live longer than fifteen years, and, assuming that the Prime Minister was uttering a great truth when he used the words I am about to quote, that truth stands good to-day, even if the right honorable gentleman has turned his back upon it. Upon the occasion in question the Prime Minister said -

As regarded the great question of free-trade and protectionhe could conceive nothing more calculated to bring about the ruin of the colony than a Chinese system of protection. Our trade should beas free us air. No rigid wretched Chinese system of ad valorem duties should be imposed here.

It is not necessary that I should refer toother members of the Ministry, but at least half of them were once free-traders, and this does not bear out the statement of Senator O’Connor, that they have been protectionists “ all their lives.” Now I come to the honorable and learned senator’s utterance upon the occasion of the federal elections. I do not suppose that he wants to go back upon that.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - I do not want to go back upon anything that I said.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I do not think that the honorable and learned senator does. But without desiring to do so, he has gone back. At the time of the Commonwealth elections, Senator O’Connor was eloquent and effective - as healways is - in denouncing what he then called “wretched fiscalism.” These were his own words, and the public of New South Wales - who comprise a large section of the Commonwealth - accepted the proposition which those words implied, that he did not intend to be a partisan with reference to fiscal matters in the future. But what did he say here the other dav in moving the second reading of this Bill. He said-

In regard to the policy of protection generally, wherever it has been possible to carry it out without injuring revenue, it has been done in this Tariff.

Yet the honorable and learned senator, when he was before the electors of his State, spoke of “ wretched fiscalism.” He invited the people whose votes he needed to insure his election to turn their backs upon “ wretched fiscalism.” Though I do not say that he intended to mislead, unhappily that has been the effect of his statement tothe electors prior to the federal elections, when contrasted with his action as a member of the present Cabinet.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That is an absolutely incorrect quotation of what I said. I will refer to it in detail.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– IsHansard inaccurate?

Senator O’Connor:

– N - No ; but the other statement is.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Well, that statement was printed in all the newspapers in New South Wales.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - The honorable senator quotes from one portion of the speech, and omits the other. I will deal with the matter.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. NEILD.- The honorable and learned senator permitted what, after a little more than a year, he alleges to be a misstatement, to go uncontradicted at a time when people were recording their votes. I assure him in all sincerity that the fact of these words being attributed to him had more to do with his return to this Chamber than he thinks. I have no doubt that had he stood boldly before the people of New South Wales as a protectionist, he would either have been elected or have gone very close to being elected. But I do not think the honorable and learned senator would have been elected had these words not been attributed to him, thus giving the impression to free-trade voters that he would be no party to a form of fiscalism that represented the taking of party sides in the way that is done by this Tariff.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - I never made a speech in which I did not declare my direct adherence to protectionist principles and my intention to follow them.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I do not deny the truth of that statement. Of course, it is impossible for me to follow out this proposition. At the same time I maintain that the fact of these words being attributed to the honorable and learned senator, and being allowed to go without contradiction were the means of obtaining for him an amount of support that could not possibly have come to him had he been recognised as a protectionist throughout the piece. Now I pass to the consideration of what the Prime Minister has said and done, and of what he is asking us to help him in doing.

In his speech at Maitland, which was a public pronouncement for the whole Government, the Prime Minister used these words - which cannot be denied, whatever explanation the Vice-President of the Executive Council may offer now at this belated hour of the words attributed to him -

Our protection must be moderate, because prohibition or excessive protection will lead to the prevention of that access of revenue which is absolutely necessary for the proper government and security of the Commonwealth.

But what sort of Tariff has been given to us as a Commonwealth after that assurance of moderation ? What is actually before us to-day ? I would remind honorable senators that in confirming this Tariff - if we do confirm it - we have not only to fix the duties for the future, but to give our legislative sanction to the Tariff which was introduced in the first instance, and under which a large amount of revenue has been collected. W e have to deal with the original Tariff as well as with that which is now before us. Therefore we must consider the Tariff as it was introduced. As regards the moderate Tariff that the Prime Minister’s speech indicated, we find that a quarter of the duties imposed under it ranged from 45 per cent. upwards, some of them reaching as high as 250 per cent.; one-twelfth ranged from 25 to 45 per cent.; one-half were from 18 to 25 per cent., and only one-seventeenth of the whole were under17¾ percent. That is entirely apart from narcotics and stimulants. Then the Prime Minister went to Newcastle, and on the 5th March said - .

The only way to get over the difficulty was to raise a Commonwealth Tariff, which neither a protectionist nor a free-trader would think of for one moment. No Tariff which now existed could be adopted.

And yet the Vice-President of the Executive Council told us that as far as possible the Government framed a protective Tariff.

Senator Major Gould:

– And substantially a Victorian Tariff.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That is what is the matter with it, in the eyes of some honorable senators.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

.-I shall come to that directly. The Prime Minister said that no Tariff whichnowexisted could beadopted. That was quite true. The Government did not adopt the Victorian Tariff, because they “ went one better.” They asked Parliament to sanction a heavier Tariff than the Victorian Tariff, which certainly was a very long way from having any free-trade element in it.

Senator McGregor:

– A heavier revenue producing Tariff.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– A Tariff with heavier rates of duty.

Senator Major Gould:

– And composite rates.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Yes, we are asked to sanction certain composite duties which were collected up to a certain date. One duty of this character still disfigures the Tariff, and I hope it will be altered before the Bill becomes law. The Tariff introduced by the Government, including narcotics and stimulants, was 6 per cent. higher than the Victorian Tariff, and apart from narcotics and stimulants, the average of the duties was 22-93 per cent., or practically 23 per cent. compared with 20 per cent. under the Victorian Tariff. The difference does not consist merely of 3 per cent. It is a great deal more, because it is 3 per cent. on 20 per cent., equal to 7 per cent., and therefore the increase is greater, looked at from the correct stand-point, than the figures would at first indicate.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator is a great mathematical manipulator.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I think that is a proposition that any boy of twelve or thirteen in our public schools would recognise that it was not possible to deny. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, in his speech a few days ago, said -

Whatever may have been said in criticism of the Tariff as compared with the Maitland manifesto, I assert without hesitation that there is not one item in it, and not one principle which has been enunciated in the statement of it by the Government which does not directly carry out the promise made in the Maitland manifesto. We have carried it out, and are here to adhere to it…… What I am pointing out is that ours is a protectionist Government. It is a Ministry which felt that it had a clear course to follow.

Now, I ask, did the Government follow a clear course? The Vice-President of the Executive Council has shown that instead of the Government following a clear course they followed a singularly muddy one ; one which I venture to think no previous Ministry ever dared to follow. No Government ever allowed themselves to be kicked and cuffed by a majority of the Legislature as the present Ministry has done. My honorable friend gave us a list of a dozen lines upon which he showed that the other Chamber had denied the Government £1,000,000 of revenue. That is following a clear course, according to my honorable friend ; but I think j,t is following a course of an exceedingly cloudy character. The Government have accepted at the hands of the Legislature what they could get, thanking God for it, and never caring twopence about principle, or policy, or even Ministerial self-respect. Unfortunately the bulk of these reductions - and I greatly regret it - have been made upon revenue rather than upon protective items, and the protective features of the Tariff are more obnoxious to me to-day that they were when first introduced, because there has been an enormous reduction of revenue duties. On three lines only there has been a reduction of £700,000, made up of £350,000 on tea, a revenue item pure and simple; £200,000 on cotton piece goods, another revenue duty pure and simple ; and £150,000 on kerosene, a revenue duty purely, with the exception that there are two companies in New South Wales engaged in the manufacture of that article. Undoubtedly the majority in the other Chamber, if they have not made the Tariff more free-trade, have at least done grand work in protecting the pockets of the taxpayers from unjust assault. In that respect they have my very hearty congratulations, although I do not agree with their action in having struck out some lines. I do not hesitate to say that if an attempt is made here to substitute the tea duty for some of the obnoxious items that find a place in the schedule, it is more than likely that I shall support it. I wish to make another quotation from the Prime Minister, and I think this will be the last. At Maitland he asked a question in these pregnant words -

Shall we pile the duties on to the cottager and the artisan?

Of course the question was asked with a view to eliciting a negative, and it implied a negative. I say that this Tariff’ piles duties on the cottager and the artisan, and on the workmen all round such as are not imposed upon people who are better able to bear taxation. That is mv strongest reason for not adopting this Tariff, or agreeing to it only with alterations of a material character. I shall mention a few of the duties which we were told were not to be placed upon the cottager and the artisan, and compare them with others in the schedule which will bear upon those who are better able to contribute to the revenue. If I were not a poor man I should probably nob feel as strongly as I do, because it is only by experience that we can learn to appreciate the difficulties that beset the poorer classes. If I had been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, or if I had been possessed of large property, or a big banking balance, I should probably not have been able to appreciate as I do the troubles of those who have to work for their daily bread, and to whom these imposts are matters of the direst consequence. . I find that under the Tariff as first introduced the poor man’s blankets had to bear a duty of 20 per cent., whilst the furs of the well-to-do were subject to a, duty of only 15 percent. Flannelette, which is very largely used by those who can not afford to buy anything more wholesome or better, was taxed at the rate of 20 percent., whilst silk bore a duty of only 1 5 per cent. Butter cloth and cheese cloth, which are used, by the farmer in preparing his produce for market, were taxed at 13 per cent., the same rate as was imposed upon velvets and laces, which are among the most expensive articles imported. The man who wanted a. tent or a tarpaulin to protect him or his goods from the weather had to pay a duty of 20 per cent., whilst ribbons, laces, flouncings, and plush were dutiable at only 15 percent. Is that protecting the artisan and the cottager? I think not. I think that is an assault on the poor in the interests of those who can better afford to incur expenditure.

Senator McGregor:

– But the cottager does not require many tarpaulins !

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– He wants a tent occasionally, and .also often wants, tarpaulins. Then we come to another little item that is certainly more in use by the cottager and the artisan classes than by the wealthy - floor matting, 20 per cent. ; while furs, feathers, and embroidery were to come in at 15 per cent. Is that protecting those who were to be protected according to the Maitland oratory ? The unfortunate woman who is endeavouring to earn a few pounds to keep her from the poor-house had to pay 20 per cent, on her mangle ; whilst fencing-foils and masks were to come in at 15 per cent., for the benefit of whoever wants to use them. Surely the artisan and the cottager use screws, but they have to bear a duty of 25 per cent., whilst the man with themansion, who wants electric lighting and. electric bells, was to pay, on his electrical appliances 15 per cent. Then we come to a line that seems to me to “ out-Herod Herod “ in this Tariff. Medicines for the sick, the comforts foi- the sick- room and the hospital, were to pay 25 per cent. - 5s. in the £1 - whilst perfumery was to come in for 5 per cent. less. I do not object to the importation of luxuries. Let every one who can afford to use luxuries have them. But, sir, this Tariff does not, as my honorable and learned friend asserted in moving the second reading of the Bill, fulfil the conditions of the Maitland speech, and it fails to do so in a very startling manner. But I will cometo the Tariff as it stands. I do not care by whose votes it has been altered. It is too long a job to go through Hansard and study the exact meaning of each division in order to ascertain whether alterations were made by the application of protectionist, free-trade, or revenue tariff principles. I care not for the influences at work : I care for the document which is put before us today, and for which my honorable and learned friend asks our support in its entirety, though I venture to say that he knows that he will not get it.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - I do not know anything of the sort.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– My honorable and learned friend knows that the Tariff will undergo valuable and material alterations.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– W - Wait till the numbers are up !

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- I do not know what the honorable and learned senator has “ up his sleeve.” He is very skilful at managing his fellow men. He is a great exponent of what is termed the art of manipulation. Though occasionally he does not get all he wants, yet he is so invariably courteous that he is often able to get round honorable senators, and I know that he sometimes obtains their votes under circumstances in which a less astute and courteous gentleman would not succeed.

Senator McGregor:

– You are paying him a great compliment.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I do not think I am paying him a compliment : I am simply speaking the truth about him. That is the way I feel towards him. Personally I feel the greatest regard for Senator O’Connor, and regard him as one of the most courteous gentlemen I have ever had the pleasure of dealing with in a legislative capacity. I am stating what has been my own experience - -nothing more nor nothing less. Now I come to the Tariff of to-day. Again I am going to take the Maitland speech, and refer to the effect of this Tariff on the cottager and the artisan, though I shall not refer to its application to so close an extent as I did in regard to the original Tariff. Mangles are articles that are more used by the poor than by the rich. They are more used by people who want to make a living by means of them than in any other way. Mangles pay 20 per cent., but steam-rollers are free. Why should the old woman who wants to save herself from the workhouse pay 20 per cent, on her mangle, while the magnate can get in a steamroller duty free t Agricultural and horticultural implements are to pay 15 per cent. Surely honorable senators will agree with me that that is a duty which falls upon the artisan and the cottager. But the well-to-do newspaper proprietor and the owner of a great printing establishment can have their linotypes and their other laboursaving machinery of a similar character imported free of duty. Clothes-wringers pay 15 per cent. There the old woman is affected again. But printing presses are free. Washing-machines for the old woman pay 15 per cent. ; sewing machines for the young ones pay nothing. The young ones get the advantage there as it seems to mo they generally do in this world. Beer bottles pay 10 per cent., whilst watch glasses are free. Why should not watch glasses pay as well as beer bottles? Why should not one equally with the other pay ] 0 per cent. 1 I come next to pianos. We know, Mr. President, that pianos are not used for purposes of public instruction by the State. They are used by private teachers. The teacher who wants to buy a piano for the purpose of obtaining pupils, and gaining an honest and useful livelihood - though the results of pianoforte tuition are not altogether pleasant for the neighbours - has to pay 20 per cent, on his instrument; but the man who wants to upset the sanity and peace of a whole district with a bad fiddle can get it in free of duty. I will wind up by one other shocking example. While the tools used by the handicraftsmen of almost every trade which can be named - even to the basket in which the tools are to be carried - are free of duty : yet, because some one has a wretched little hole where bad brushes are made, the painter and the paperhanger are to be mulct to the extent of 25 per cent, on their tools “of trade. I hope, that will be one of the things which the Senate will alter. Now I have come to my last note : and if this session is to last much longer, I think we shall all come to our last “ notes “ ! The Vice-President of the Executive Council more than once used a- phrase in his speech to which I take the gravest exception. He said -

The Senate has power also to make suggestions in regard to any item in the Tariff or in relation to any provision in the Bill which covers the Tariff.’

Where did the honorable and learned senator get the word “ suggestions “ from ? It is not contained in that part of the Commonwealth Act which deals with the powers of the two Chambers. The term that is used in section 58 is infinitely stronger and more powerful. It is the word “requesting”; and when that power of request is backed up by the power of penalty, it becomes so uncommonly like a demand that the difference is not worth discussing. This Senate has power to request the other Chamber to make alterations in this Tariff, and if those alterations are not made as requested, this Senate has the power to take such action as imposes a serious penalty either upon Ministers, ‘or upon the recalcitrant Chamber.

Senator Harney:

– What is the sanction to enforce the suggestion ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– First of all, the danger of the Bill being lost, in which case how will the Government stand before the country if it has lost its sources of revenue? The second consideration is that there may be a penal dissolution, which would affect members of the Senate to some extent, but which would be very welcome to many of us. There are members of the Senate who. would like to see a dissolution very much indeed.- “I should for one. Nothing would suit me better. Our policy would win. There would be no such Tariff before the next Parliament as the one submitted now. Of that I am absolutely sure.

Senator Barrett:

– Would the honorable senator’s party be game enough at the finish to do what he suggests ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I am not discussing whether we should or should not do it. This is not the time to discuss such a thing.

Senator BARRETT:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Is this a threat?

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is all very cheap !

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– It is almost as cheap as the threats of the honorable and learned senator,- with which I am going to deal directly. I was asked a question by my honorable and learned friend, Senator Harney, as to the power of enforcing the will of the Senate, and the answer I was giving was not necessarily applicable to present circumstances. ‘ I was only stating what the honorable and learned senator will see for himself, as he now has the Constitution in his hand.

Senator Harney:

– I am very doubtful.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– It is clear enough to a lay mind, but if I were a lawyer I might see that it. was wise not to have too pronounced an opinion before I was sure which side would brief me. . The word in the Constitution Act is not “ suggest,” it is “ request,” and there is a vast difference, to my mind, between the two words - between suggesting a thing, and requesting it with the knowledge that you have power to impose undesirable consequences if that request be not acceded to.

Senator Playford:

– We can only throw out the Bill.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I do not want to pursue the matter. I am only expressing my own view. I may not be expressing the opinion of every member of the Senate. But it is clear that the Constitution contains in very plain English and in very plain type the word I have, mentioned ; and we are justified in forming an opinion accordingly and expressing it at the proper time and in the proper place. I think it my duty to call attention to the fact that Senator O’Connor told us in effect that we must accept the Tariff as it stands - that we must, to use a colloquial phrase, accept it holus bolus - or risk the mysterious threat, “take the consequences.” But I think there are many senators, even amongst those in disagreement with me and my more immediate friends in the fiscal views I have expressed, who, if it came to a question of maintaining the rights of this Chamber, would maintain them with due regard for courtesy and the public welfare. I use the word “ rights “ because I hate the word “ privileges ‘’ - we have no privileges, but clear statutory rights, in relation to the other Chamber. It is our bounden duty to maintain those rights under all circumstances - to maintain them at all hazards - though I do not intend to convey the extremest meaning usually attached to that phrase. I, for one, am prepared to “ take the consequences,” whatever they may he, and I feel sure that I by no means stand alone. I believe that the Senate is prepared to do its duty - that protectionists and freetraders alike will do their duty. Whether the extremists on each side will also do their duty I do not know ; in the present condition of affairs I do not profess to be an extremist. L desire the greatest good for the greatest number. I want I do not know how many alterations in the schedule before the Tariff will meet my views. I advocate what is desirable for the community at large. I want to see the taxpayers’ pockets safe from unjust demands, and the great producing industries of Australia considered to the fullest extent in the imposition of duties which must, in some form or another, affect or hamper the development of enterprises, not only those most suitable for Australia, but others which are very little suited to the circumstances of this country, although they are at present in existence. I do not believe that we are justified in maintaining duties merely because half-a-dozen people somewhere or other have a little factory and are trying to manufacture under conditions which render success an impossibility. There is nothing I know of te prevent the breeding of polar bears at the Equator if we only provide enough ice. But who will pursue the possible merely because it is possible? Who will risk money, and, I might almost say, risk a reputation for sanity, in attempting industries which are wholly unsuited to our conditions, as compared with industries which are natural to the country, and afford the greatest scope for enterprise and employment, with wealth for those engaged in them, and benefit to the entire community?

Senator Stewart:

– What are those natural industries ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– The primary and natural industries of the country, as distinguished from artificial and secondary industries, which can flourish, if anywhere, more satisfactorily in other parts of the world. If the second reading of the Bill is carried, it will be the duty of every member of the Senate to give close attention to the details in committee. I cannot believe for a moment, as Senator O’Connor said just now, that there is any prospect of the Bill being passed without alteration.

Senator McGregor:

– Surely Senator Neild will not oppose the second reading ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- We shall see ; it does not do to say everything until one’s mind is made up. If the Bill could be thrown out on the second reading, my vote would be cast iri that direction, but I do not think that such a result is likely. A majority of senators prefer to tinker the Tariff a little more, although, heaven knows, it has been tinkered at hard enough in the other House. By a little more tinkering we may possibly attain something which, if it does not fulfil any known condition of fiscal principles, will at least answer the purpose of raising the necessary funds for carrying on the work of the Commonwealth, and providing for the different States the proportion of revenue to which they are entitled. All I can hope for is that, if the second reading be passed, reductions of duty representing at least £500,000 may be made, in order that there may be no excess of revenue beyond the requirements which .the Government themselves have announced. My second hope is that the incidence of taxation may be to the advantage of the larger industries instead of the smaller, and that to the whole of the community of the Commonwealth there may be the greatest amount of benefit with the least possible injury.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– Before addressing myself to the main question, I desire to refer to Senator Ewing’s very remarkable speech, of last evening, seeing that it affects me personally. The quotations which Senator Ewing used clearly prove the desperate straits to which the free-trade party are reduced in this Chamber. If the honorable and learned senator had known all the circumstances of the case - if he had ascertained the facts for himself instead of relying on other people - he certainly would not have made the remarks to which I take exception.

Senator Charleston:

Senator Ewing only used a quotation in reference to Senator Barrett.

Senator BARRETT:

Senator Ewing used a quotation which was used in the Victorian Assembly as far back as seven years ago, and surely, after such a period, there ought not to be a resurrection. Anything which has been buried for seven years is usually pretty “ high.” But I think that in the use of the quotation last night, and the surrounding circumstances, I recognise the bold Roman hand of the literary hack of the free-trade party,

Senator Matheson:

– The question is, was the quotation correct?

Senator BARRETT:

– If Senator Matheson will wait, that question shall be answered. I am following in my own way the weak speech which was made by Senator Ewing, and which I should think any school boy could answer. This literary hack of the free-trade party furnishes all the information to the free-trade members of Parliament. He haunts these buildings clay and night, and I can well remember that when theVictorian Tariff was under review in1895 the same old tactics were pursued in the local Legislative Assembly.

Senator Charleston:

– But, unlike protectionists, he has no personal ends to gain.

Senator BARRETT:

– The person to whom I refer is named Hirsch, and he is the agent for foreign importers. He is not, so far as I know, a British subject.

Senator Harney:

– Is it in order for an honorable senator to attack a gentleman who is not a member of the Senate ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that Senator Barrett is out of order. An honorable senator can make remarks about persons, whether they be in the House or out of it.

Senator BARRETT:

Senator Ewing did not quote from the Victorian Hansard, but from a scrap-book, in which this gentleman has preserved the speeches of protectionist members for the last 25 or 30 years. If Senator Ewing, and some of the senators from neighbouring States, will take a word of advice from me, they will not trust this German gentleman with regard to either quotations or any statement that he may make. We, in Victoria, who know this gentleman and his utter unreliability, would not dream for one instant of making any quotation on his authority, and I feel sure that the statement I now make will be borne out by Victorian senators. I asked Senator Ewing last night to give the whole of my remarks and not a mutilated quotation. ‘ Exactly the same quotation, leaving off at the very same word, was, as I have said, used in the Victorian Legislative Assembly in1895, as will be found on reference to the Victorian Hansard, page 387, vol: 77. I may explain that Mr. Irvine, whose name appears in what I am about to read, is at present the leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament.

Mr. Irvine. I always like, therefore, to quote good, strong protectionist authorities in favour of the arguments I put forward. The honorable member for Carlton South is reported to have said, in addressing a meeting at Carlton, on 6th March, 1805 : -

The worst forms of sweating exist in the colonyto-day, worse than in Great Britain.Englandisimmeasurably superior in this respect just now.

Mr Barrett:

– Hear, hear.

Mr.Irvine. Then the honorable member admits that. The speech was printed and circulatedas a broad-sheet throughout the electorate the honorable member was contesting.

When I spoke on the Tariff on that occasion my opening sentences were these : -

Mr.Barrett. - Sir, before I proceed to address myself to the question before the committee, I desire to say a word or two with respect to a remark which was made yesterday evening by the honorable member forLowan, who was engaged in the delightful task of quoting the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Trenwith) against himself, and, as he afterwards told the committee, the honorable member forRichmondagainsthisfriends. The honorable member for Lowan said on that occasion that I had declared in an election speech at Carlton South, that the worst forms of sweating existed in Victoria. The honorable member, however, was careful not to refer to the connexion in which those words were used.

The Senate will see at once that I am not very far out in my surmise. Fortunately I have retained a copy of the speech referred to. In making the quotation, Senator Ewing put me to a great deal of trouble, for I was compelled to spend nearly three hours to-day in going through a number of papers and periodicals, which I keep, in order to find the record of the speech, and I almost gave up the task in despair. I have now before me a report of the speech which the honorable and learned senator quoted last night, when he was not fair enough to comply with my request that he should give the connexion in which the words were used.

Senator McGregor:

– How could the honorable and learned senator do so when he did not know what the connexion was?

Senator BARRETT:

– The honorable and learned senator had the extract in a scrapbook, which belongs to a certain gentleman, but he would not quote it.

Senator Ewing:

– I had no scrap-book.

Senator BARRETT:

– This report will show the desperate position in which the honorable and learned senator was placed, and, at the same time, the consistency of protectionists in this respect. The report sets forth that I said on the occasion referred to -

The worst forms of sweating existed in the colony to-day. [A Voice. - That’s true.] Worse than in Great Britain. England was immeasurably superior to Victoria in this respect just now. With a passing reference to the English dockers’ strike of four or five years back, and the generosity of the colonial trades in subscribing £30,000 to alleviate the distress caused by their seeking to obtain 6d. per hour for their labour, Mr. Barrett asserted -

And this is the point. I was speaking of a certain contract which had been let by the City Council of Melbourne.

Senator Ewing:

– The context had no bearing on that contract.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am reading the full report of my speech. If honorable senators doubt my word they are perfectly free to see the report, and to use it in any way they please. I have nothing to conceal.

Senator Ewing:

– I do not doubt the honorable senator’s word.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am quoting an abbreviated report of the speech, the delivery of which occupied something like two hours. As the newspaper records clearly show, I was speaking at the time of a certain contract that had been let by the City Council of Melbourne at the disgraceful rate of 6s. 5d. per day for man, horse, and dray.

Senator Charleston:

– I am sorry that a protectionist State was brought to that level.

Senator BARRETT:

– What had the letting of that contract to do with protection ?

Senator Charleston:

– I thought that protection was always responsible for great prosperity.

Senator BARRETT:

Senator Ewing was speaking last night of Victorian protectionists and protection to native industry ; but I fail to see what possible connexion there can be between the quotation from my speech that he made and the great question which we are now discussing. The words quoted had reference to the particular contract which I have named. The report continues -

Mr. Barrett asserted that there were men now in the employ of the Melbourne City Council at a wage of £1 per week. He had gone to the trouble of getting a statement from one of the men engaged on the cleansing contract which had been let at6s.5d. per day for man, horse, and dray. The remuneration to the labourer was 3s. 4d. per day. He had to leave home at 6 o’clock. To get to work in time the man had to reside in

West Melbourne. By the time he had reached his home again he had clone thirteen hours a day - remuneration£1 per week.

If Senator Ewing or any of his free-trade allies can obtain any satisfaction from quoting speeches made by me or by any other protectionist in regard to a matter like that they are welcome to it. I would seriously counsel Senator Ewing and otherhonorable senators who are almost eternally in consultation with the agent for foreign, manufacturers, who is the hack of the freetrade party, and who shadows Parliament House day and night, that it would be far better for them to rely on their own efforts, and make independent inquiries instead of swallowing all that is placed before them.

Senator Charleston:

Senator Ewingcertainly quoted the honorable senator correctly.

Senator BARRETT:

– If the honorable senator can make a remark like that after the explanation I have made, I give him up. The whole thing is patent. I have proved that Senator Ewing was utterly wrong, and I think that by this time he will be sorry that he made the remark in question. I desire to say something in reply to Senator Ewing’s speech, but I have been diverted from the line of attack that I mapped out for myself. The honorable and learned senator was so delightfully simple in the arguments which he put before the Senate last night in relation to protection that I cannot refrain from replying to the statements that he” made. In this connexion also he quoted Mr. Bishop, who was at one time president of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council. If he had known Mr. Bishop as well as I do - if he had been aware of the fact that that gentleman is out of the State, as well as the cause of his absence - he certainly would not have fallen into the trap that had been set for him by his free-trade friends.

Senator Charleston:

– Was M r. Bishop president of the Trades Hall Council at the time that he uttered the words quoted by Senator Ewing?

Senator BARRETT:

– No. But that has no bearing upon the matter. The burden of the quotation made by Senator Ewing was that Mr. Bishop said that protection had failed. But what was the reason for that statement? Does the honorable and learned senator know the context from which the words in question were taken ? Does he not know that Mr. Bishop was referring at the time to that new protection which has always been advocated by the labour representatives of the Parliaments of this and other States ? He was referring to the fact that in the past the working man had not received the full fruit of his labour. He was pointing out also that if the manufacturers obtained protection through the Custom-house, the workmen engaged in all protected manufactories should also be protected by means of a minimum wage. That is a system of protection to which I think all labour men subscribe. It is a doctrine that I have held and preached for a number of years. Hence I say now that the statement is perfectly true j that in the years that have passed and gone the protected manufacturers have not done the right thing by the workmen of Australia. It is because we recognised that fact that we put our ideas into legislative form. To-day we have the minimum wage : to-day we have Arbitration Acts in some of the States to protect the workmen in the way I have mentioned. Senator Ewing appeared to derive a great deal of satisfaction from quoting the present Chief Secretary of Victoria, Mr. Trenwith. Certainly Mr. Trenwith made the statement attributed to him, but he made it exactly in the way that it was made by Mr. Bishop, namely, that although various trades and manufactures had been protected through the Customhouse, yet they had not done a correspondingly fair thing by their workmen. Senator Ewing waxed indignant upon the formation of rings and trusts under protection. That is the same old argument that has been trotted out time after time against the protectionist policy. I should like to ask the honorable and learned senator whether rings and trusts do not also obtain in free-trade countries 1

Senator Charleston:

– They cannot do so to the same degree as in America.

Senator BARRETT:

– I shall have something to say about America in a few moments. I shall read a quotation from one of the best articles by Andrew Carnegie, which cuts the ground from under the feet of Senator Ewing, Senator Smith, and two or three other honorable senators who have spoken very strongly on the formation of rings and trusts. It shows that the rings and trusts in America are not as bad as those honorable senators have endeavoured to make out. I should like to point out that rings and trusts exist also in freetrade as well as in protectionist countries. Senator Styles gave us a striking example of what importers can do when he referred to the coal ring which was formed in Victoria, and I shall give another.

Senator Stewart:

– What about the land ring in England t

Senator De Largie:

– And the coal ring in. New South Wales ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I cannot answer all these interjections at once. I am seeking in my own way to prove my own case. I desire to show that, even in the protectionist State of Victoria - and this example could be multiplied by many others - the importers themselves formed a ring, and forced up the price of a certain article on which there was no duty. I refer to the price of reapers and binders - a matter that is known to some honorable senators.

Senator Charleston:

– Oh, yes !

Senator BARRETT:

– Of course, it does not suit Senator Charleston to have this case quoted.

Senator Charleston:

– Yes, it does.

Senator BARRETT:

– This illustration will show the extent to which importers will go when they have the markets in their own hands. Under the old Victorian Tariff reapers and bindei-3 were free. And what happened 1 A reaper and binder could be purchased in America for £28 ; I think it was sold in Victoria for £56.

Senator Styles:

– At one time it was sold for ±’65.

Senator BARRETT:

– There was a hardheaded farmer who was thinking of taking a trip to America for pleasure combined with business. He had heard that reapersand binders could be purchased from the manufacturers there for £28 each. In a, casual way he informed a friend that he was going to do a very good thing for himself ; that he intended to purchase a reaper and binder for the sum which I have named. His friend replied - “I think you ought to help me to get a good thing too: buy one forme.” The farmer replied that he would do so. The matter leaked out in the farming community in which these people lived, and before the gentleman left Victoria he had been requested by no less than eighteen men to purchase reapers and binders for themfrom the manufacturers in America. On reaching America he went to the factory where the machines were manufactured and purchased twenty reapers and binders. He put down his gold. Everything was satisfactory, and I presume that the manufacturer thought that he had done a good stroke of business that day. But eventually the manufacturer said to him - “ Where do you want these machines to be sent 1” He replied - “Melbourne, Victoria.” The answer came at once - “ We cannot send them there. We cannot sell, and if you want - reapers and binders, you must buy them of our sole agents in Melbourne.”

Senator Ewing:

– An American ring.

Senator BARRETT:

– This will show that, so far as reapers and binders were concerned, there was a monopoly and a ring, and the difference between the prices I have mentioned was being filched from the pockets of the farmers of Victoria. Members of this Chamber, and Senator Dobson in particular, have been suggesting that we should take off all duties upon agricultural implements : but what would be the result if we did 1 The story of the reapers and binders would only be repeated in Victoria. The result would be that the farming community would be at the mercy of these avaricious importers, who could charge them what they pleased. Senator Ewing also found fault with the Government proposal for the purpose of breaking up these monopolies. The honorable senator and others said a great deal about monopolies in America. I am going to make a quotation on the subject from the North American Review, Volume 151, for the year 1S90. The article from which I quote is by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, and is entitled “ Summing up the Tariff Discussion.” It is a summing up of that great controversy - I suppose the greatest -which has ever taken place upon the subject - between Mr. W. E. Gladstone and Mr. J. G. Blaine. Mr. Carnegie refers particularly to monopolies, and this is what he says -

My capital is wholly invested in manufacturing, mid if there be any monopoly in the entire domain I should like to discover it. If unusual profits are being made in any branch of manufacturing, why do not Mr. Mills and those who think with him invest and share these grand returns, and by so doing strike down the monopoly V There is no branch of manufacturing into which they cannot put .100 or .100,000 dollars ; the shares of silk, and glass, and wool, and iron, and steel concerns are freely bought and sold in the open market. Those who believe that any industry gives its owners great profits have only to select the industry and invest. Into the woollen industry, for instance, investors to-day can enter for much less than its present owners did. In that of glass splendid opportunities for investment are surely at hand. In the iron and steel branch, with which I am familiar, any citizen of the United States who has 100 dollars can become part owner to-morrow. He can purchase the shares of almost all the steel concerns at much less than the capital actually invested. The shares of the Illinois Steel Company, the Bethlehem Company, Pennsylvania Steel Company, the Cambria Company, and the Troy Company as a rule do not command in the market the actual number of dollars invested. But I must not be understood as advising any one to invest too largely upon the theory that the returns will meet his expectations. The charge that manufactures in America are monopolies is without foundation, although it ma)’ still pass current in a rural community when delivered from the stump in Texas.

I do not say that Mr. Carnegie is right or wrong. I am not here to defend monopolies of this character, but I leave it to honorable senators who are eternally talking of the evil effects of monopolies in protectionist America .to consider the words of Mr. Carnegie, and see if there is any truth in them. I give the quotation for what it is worth.

Senator Pearce:

– All the big trusts have grown up since then.

Senator BARRETT:

– But the same conditions are operating to-day in the United States, and while the suggestion of monopoly may be partially true in some instances, so far as my research in the matter has gone the statements of Mr. Carnegie are correct.

Senator Charleston:

– Evidently the Government think them wrong, because they have made provision to deal with monopolies by withdrawing the duties.

Senator BARRETT:

– If the honorable senator would wait for a minute he would see that I am perfectly in accord with him so far as that is concerned. Admitting for the sake of argument that all that has been said about monopolies is perfectly correct, it is only one of the great questions that has to be faced and not shirked ; and what are we to do ? I say at once that, so far as this Commonwealth is concerned, and so far as any other country is concerned, it is the duty of the Government to legislate against these monopolies, which cannot be defended by any one.

Senator Ewing:

– By abolishing the duties.

Senator BARRETT:

– This is the old cry of abolishing the duties.’ Have I not exploded that old cry to the satisfaction of Senator Ewing 1 Have I not shown him that to abolish the duties would be, to use a common expression, only to jump from the f frying-pan into the fire 1

Senator Ewing:

– Read the clause of the Bill.

Senator BARRETT:

– I know the clause of the Bill, and if the honorable and learned senator had only waited, he would have heard my summing up with regard to it. I say that the only satisfactory way to deal with this question is for. the Government to interfere and say that in the interests of the people none of these monopolies shall exist. What have the Government done ? According to the clause in the Bill, the Government have, I think, solved the difficulty by a certain method. They have, therefore, done the right thing.

Senator Charleston:

– What is the method ? Free-trade in the particular article ; that is the remedy proposed.

Senator BARRETT:

– Where on earth does free-trade come in in regard to that?

Senator Harney:

– The clause says that free-trade is the remedy for that evil.

Senator BARRETT:

– The clause says nothing of the sort. The clause says that where certain action is taken, and the Judge of the High Court is satisfied that a monopoly exists, that monopoly is to be broken down in a certain way.

Senator Harney:

– In what way?

Senator BARRETT:

– By the removal of the duty.

Senator Harney:

– Therefore the duty creates the evil, and by removing the cause of the evil it comes to an end.

Senator BARRETT:

– And according to the line of argument I am pursuing, if the same thing occurs again under the new conditions, the Government will then put on the duty. But by taking this course the Government are dealing with monopolists they know, and not with monopolists whom they do not know, and who are on the other side of the world.

Senator Charleston:

– Monopolists whom they helped to create, remember.

Senator BARRETT:

– If the system proposed by the Government is not a correct system, and if some of those honorable senators who profess to be so much opposed to monopoly, though in their hearts I do not believe they are, know a better way in which to deal with it, let them propose it.

Senator Harney:

– That is not the point.

Senator BARRETT:

– We have the proposal of the Government, and if those who know all about monopolies, and who are so superior in their ideas, think it is not sufficient, it is their duty to point out some other and better course to adopt. If they do point out such a course they shall have my vote and the vote of many of my friends in the labour corner.

SenatorHarney. - The Government say that free-trade is the cure for monopoly.

Senator Ewing:

– And we agree.

Senator BARRETT:

– Another stock argument used by Senator Ewing, and also by Senator Dobson and other honorable senators, is to tell us that population is leaving Victoria. They have said that because population was leaving Victoria, it must therefore be due to protection.

Senator Charleston:

– No : that protection did not keep them here.

Senator BARRETT:

– What are the facts ? A few years ago, in the matter of population, Victoria was the leading State, but there happened in this State what is known as “ the land boom.” There was a banking crisis, and manufacturing industries stagnated.

Senator Ewing:

– Thirty years ago the same thing went on.

Senator BARRETT:

– This land boom and this breaking of banks was brought about by certain individuals.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– By protection, because it brought the bulk of the inhabitants of the State to Melbourne.

Senator BARRETT:

– What nonsense ! Protection had nothing to do with it.

Senator Higgs:

– By free-trade bank directors.

Senator BARRETT:

– The boom was brought about by monopolists speculating in land, and as manufactures stagnated the State was at its lowest ebb, and a great number of the people being unable to obtain work in Victoria had to seek it elsewhere. Fortunately, about that time, gold was discovered in Western Australia. Honorable senators are well aware that the discovery of gold in any country always leads to an exodus of population to it from other countries. In the circumstances existing at the time it was a good thing for Victoria, and for some of the other States, that gold was discovered in the sister State of Western Australia. The discovery of goldthere was one of the reasons which account for the loss of population which we have not yet entirely regained.

Senator Major Gould:

– The honorable senator must not forget the large addition to the New South Wales population from Victorian emigration.

Senator Ewing:

– And she is still losing population.

Senator BARRETT:

– I shall come to that, and I shall answer it, I think, satisfactorily. If I do not, it will be the duty of some of these honorable senators to set me right. I do not pretend to know every thing in connexion with this matter, and, if there is any knowledge to be picked up on the way from some of these honorable senators who know better than myself, I am willing to acquire it from them. Another, and, I think, a very fair reason, accounting, to some extent, for the loss of population, is to be found in the fact that Victoria is a very small State, and that almost the whole of the good agricultural land available has been taken up. In New South Wales, to which Senator Gould has referred me, there is a very much larger area, and we know that some of the other states of Australia have larger areas even than New South Wales. The fact that there is so very little good land available in Victoria has driven farmers from Victoria to the other States in order to obtain holdings. I do not mean to say that all the land in Victoria is in use. Unfortunately a great deal of it is in the hands of private owners, who do not fully use it ; but when the time comes, as it must come, when the lands of this State, and of the other States, are fully thrown open to settlement, we shall have more population both in Victoria and in the Commonwealth. Senator Ewing would have done better if, in speaking last night about the wages paid in Victoria, he had sought for his information, instead of availing himself of the assistance of the literary helps of the free-trade party.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is not referring to the secretary of the Protectionist Association ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I am referring to Mr. Max Hirsch, a gentleman manufactured in Germany; who is the agent and “ flunkey “ of the free-traders of Victoria.

Senator Harney:

– He is a gentleman possessed of a great deal of information in regard to this subject.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am pretty severe in speaking of Mr. Hirsch, but I have reason to be, because I know that the tactics which are being used now are the same as were used a few years ago, and men’s living may be taken from them by dishonest ‘ statements. I am not a rich man. During my whole life, except for the last three or four years, I have been engaged in manual toil, and may have to go back to it before I die. Therefore, 1 am interested in seeing that the conditions of the people are made tolerable, so that they may be able to live in this country, and not be driven out of the State or out of the Commonwealth. The gospel, according to Senator Ewing, is that in Victoria the workmen have not been protected, and have had to invoke the assistance of the strong arm of the law by obtaining minimum rates of wage.

Senator Ewing:

– I was referring to the wages boards.

Senator BARRETT:

– I have already pointed out that the institution of wages boards is quite legitimate. The wages paid in New South Wales prior to the imposition of this Tariff were not as good as the wages paid in Victoria.

Senator Major Gould:

– Yes, they were.

Senator BARRETT:

– I say that they were not, and I have ample evidence of the truth of the statements which I have made. I do not make my statements upon hearsay, or because an industrious friend has told me that such and such a thing is the case.

Senator Ewing:

– Surely the honorable senator gets his information from somewhere. His facts cannot be his own creations !

Senator BARRETT:

– The honorable and learned senator is uneasy because I have had to be severe with him ; but this is a time when we must speak our minds, hit hard, and strike home. The information upon which I am speaking was obtained directly from the trades unions of New South Wales. I was for twenty years before entering this Chamber an official of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council, and corresponded weekly, and in some cases daily, with the trades unions of the other States, of Great Britain, and of the Continent. Therefore I know that wages were much lower in New South Wales than in Victoria. For years the workers there have been trying to invoke the strong arm of the law. There is no talk of moral suasion now. Those connected with the industrial life of this and all other countries are seeking to obtain “legislative redress of the wrongs under which they suffer. In New South Wales an Arbitration Act was passed a few months ago, and the Arbitration Court established under its provisions has been rushed by the workers of that State, and, for a time, will be kept fully occupied.

Senator Harney:

– People always rush where they think they can get more money.

Senator BARRETT:

– It is not a question of rushing for more money ; it is simply a question of trying to obtainj ustice. Furthermore, in Western Australia, the State which Senator Ewing represents, they have an Arbitration Act in existence, and as he must know of the beneficial effects of that Act, it was all fudge for him to talk as he didlast night. He also advanced the old argument about the number of female workers employed in the factories of Victoria. The same string was pulled by Senator Smith, and other free-trade senators.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I did not mention the subject.

Senator BARRETT:

– My memory is pretty good, but, as the honorable senator disputes what I say, I accept his denial. Let us see what the conditions of female labour are in the only two free-trade countries in the world - Great Britain and Turkey.

Senator Matheson:

– What about New South Wales?

Senator BARRETT:

– New South Wales is not now a free-trade country.

Senator Matheson:

-It was until quite lately, and the latest statistics deal with the period during which New South Wales enjoyed the advantages of free-trade.

Senator BARRETT:

– So far as I know, the women of Turkey are not engaged in manufactures. Unfortunately, their position is perhaps more degraded than that of the women belonging to any other civilized nation. But let us see to what extent female labour is employed in free-trade England. I am about to quote from a series of articles which appeared in the Bulletin some time ago, and were entitled - “A policy for the Commonwealth.” The Bulletin is the most democratic newspaper in Australia.

SenatorMillen. - Is it the most reliable?

Senator BARRETT:

– This is not a question of reliability, so far as the Bulletin in concerned, because the statistics which the writer uses have been taken from the standard work on the subject-Mulhall. I have no doubt that these admirable articles have been conned by our free-trade friends, and that they have found them very hard nuts to crack. . They are, I think, the best that have been written upon the subjects with which they deal. I suppose no free-trader will dispute the accuracyof Mulhall andCoghlan. The statistics which I am about to quote are a complete answer to the remarks of Senator Ewing. The writer says -

In view of the considerable number of females employed in Victorian factories (though the proportion of females in the factories of protected Victoria is only a fraction of the proportion of females in free-trade Britain), the free-trade party in New South Wales - the party which preaches free-trade, but is so very reluctant to practise it - has set up a. theory that the employment of females in manufacturing industries is one of the curses of protection. Also, that a tendency of the number of female factory employes to increase is pre-eminently the curse and birth-mark of protection. In view of which it is interesting to find (Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics, page 422) how free-trade Britain is getting on in this respect.Mulhall here sets forth the number of males and females employed in manufactures and agriculture for 184] - about the end of the protectionist period - to 1881, when Britain had long been en joying the “blessings” of free-trade. Unfortunately he publishes no similar series of statistics about other countries, so that it is impossible to say whether the same alleged evil is growingthereor diminishing. But in view of the constant declaration that the increase in the number of females employed at laborious occupations is a sign of a bad and foolish and utterly corrupt fiscal system, the figures for the United Kingdom are interesting -

senatorMillen. - Is thisin Great Britain?

Senator BARRETT:

SenatorMillen. - That is better than a shrinkage of male employes side by side with an increase of female employes.

Senator BARRETT:

The fact that between 30 and 40 years of freetrade led to an increase of 444,000 females in these ill-paid and laborious occupations, and an increase of only114,000 males,is interesting, in view of the constant assertion that it is protection whichforces women to struggle for a crust inways for which they are constitutionally unfit. But if a comparison is made for the twenty years from 1861 to 1881, when free-trade was really well established in the land, the results for the United Kingdom are still more surprising -

No details are supplied for any year later than 1881.

These are facts which I would commend to my free-trade friends when they assert that protection is responsible for the women in our factories, not that I, or those who are associated with me, advocate the employment of female labour. We regret that women are employed in factories, and if it were possible we would do away with such employment. I have done with Senator Ewing and the speech he made last evening, and I now come to other questions that arc brought under our notice. This has been a very remarkable debate. I do not think that the time has been wasted in any degree. We have had remarkable speeches ; for instance, we had for nearly two days “from Senator Pulsford a deliverance which ranged over a great deal of ground. Not only did he bring in the birth rate, and of course the unanswered query - “Why do not men marry?” but he also took us to all the countries of “the known world, and wound up with some remarks on what sort of life people led in the tropics. I do . not intend to discuss the general question at very great length, so far as statistics are concerned. I feel that it might be better if we were to curtail our remarks under that head. We all know that because of this discussion, because of the unsettled state of business, it is needful for the Senate to pass the Tariff so that the country may know the exact position in which it is. Tariff discussions always evoke a very great deal of heat. Although we may fight very strongly for our opinions, yet there is no need, I think, to regret any of the utterances that we have made or that we may make. AVe have heard a good deal of free-trade, and I have been asking myself the question, what is free-trade?

Senator Higgs:

– Where do we find a free-trader ?

Senator BARRETT:

– As my honorable friend has very pertinently asked - “ Where do we find a free-trader 1” Is there one in the Chamber at the present time?

Senator Pearce:

– Is there a protectionist ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I am not asking where there is a protectionist, but where there is a free-trader. A free-trader I understand to be a man who advocates a free port, who is willing to strike away the shackles, or anything that trammels the free course of trade. Can that be said with regard to the free-traders in the Chamber ? The only free-trader I know in this city - and I have known a good many of them - is he who advocates free-trade on the lines of which I have been speaking, and in order to obtain the necessary revenue he advocates the single tex. Is Senator Pearce prepared to accept that position ?

Senator Pearce:

– Not necessarily the single tax ; there are other taxes besides that.

Senator BARRETT:

– Are my honorable friends prepared to follow out their beautiful theory with regard to free-trade, and give us an entirely free -and open port ?

Senator Charleston:

– Is the honorable senator opposed to the taxation of land values ?

Senator BARRETT:

– No.

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable senator opposed to graduated succession duties ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I am not. If I had my way I should tax land, because I consider it is the most righteous tax that can be enacted in any country. We have not at the present time any free-traders. They have been driven from their position, and now they tell us that they are revenue tariffists

Senator Major Gould:

– Arid what is the honorable senator - ja protectionist ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I shall tell the honorable senator what I am in a few minutes. I shall try to explain in the best possible way the position I take up. These honorable senators have changed their name, and they are now revenue-tariffists. Their mission is to strike off all protective duties, and obtain their revenue from all the articles embodied in the Tariff, giving us no free list. We have another section who call themselves moderate free-traders, and moderate protectionists. I do not know how these honorable senators explain themselves. When we speak of moderation, where does it begin and end, so far as the fiscal policy is concerned ? When we speak of an honest man, we do not call him a moderately honest man. When we speak of a good or virtuous woman, we do not call her a moderately good or virtuous woman, but we use exactly the language which conveys our meaning. Again, there are the protectionists. What is protection ? We have been told, not only during this debate, but on other occasions, that a protectionist is a prohibitionist.

Senator Charleston:

– Logically.

Senator BARRETT:

– Logically, I admit he is. I am quite content to bear all the odium, so far as protection is concerned, if I am dubbed a prohibitionist. I suppose by the remark of the honorable senator and by his smile he thinks that I have fallen into a trap. What does protection mean 1 It means thoroughness. From my point of view, it means that unless the duty is high enough, to keep out or to prohibit the article sought to be imported, it is a sham and a misnomer. Of course, the honorable senator thought that I was falling into a trap ; but I know exactly where I am and what I am saying. If we accept the definition I am laying down, protection needs to be thorough, and it is clear that the duty must be high enough to prohibit importation. In that limited sense, therefore, I stand here as a prohibitionist. Victoria has been held up as an awful example of protection. I affirm that no nation has ever become prosperous,, free, happy, or truly great, that has not had the shield of legislative enchantment thrown around the growing industries of its people. England, the United States of America, France, and Germany, are striking illustrations of the truth of this statement. But even in Victoria have we not witnessed the stimulating effects produced by the protective Tariffs which have operated since I86’5 1 It is because we have had experience of a protective policy and know the results of its operation that we are prepared to advocate it. The other day Senator Pulsford, in discussing this question, referred to the report of the Victorian Tariff Board, which was presented to the Legislative Assembly of this State in 1895. Broadly speaking, the assertion which he made upon that’ occasion was that the people of Victoria had gone hack upon the system of protection. He further declared that the report of the board in question confirmed his statement. In order that honorable senators may see whether his declaration is borne out by the facts of the case, I intend to read some paragraphs from that report. The document in question states -

Although we have not examined minutely into the position of each individual industry, we have had exceptional opportunities for gauging the feeling of the people of Victoria in regard to the general policy of the Tariff. The principle of protection has scarcely been assailed, and we are convinced that the majority of the taxpayers of Victoria are in favour of a continuance of the system.

If I quoted only this portion of the report, it would suit my purpose admirably, but I intend to give the whole of the quotation, and let it be borne in mind that, the finding of the board was not unanimous, several members objecting to sign it, and afterwards repudiating it upon the floor of the Legislative Assembly. Any sympathy with the latter statement, of course, is entirely contradictory of the former, and the subsequent action of the Victorian Parliament in enacting the Tariff, bore out the declaration that the people of this State were in favour of its settled policy, and rejected the untenable and contradictory statements of the Tariff Board. The report goes on to say - and this is the portion upon which Senator Pulsford seemed to hang his sweeping statement -

But, whilst the principles have received support, a very general impression exists that the duties are too high. Throughout the country, and frequently in Melbourne, witnesses advocated a maximum rate of 25 per cent, for protective purposes. The increases made in 1892 were those which were most frequently objected to, and we are strongly of opinion that, but for the alterations then made, the outcry for Tariff reform would not have been general.

Now, if my memory is accurate, the increases made in 1892 were made by Sir Graham Berry, who was a member of the Shiels Administration, and, in passing, let me say that protectionists were not altogether at one in regard to them. The report of the board continues -

It is scarcely necessary to discuss the wisdom of reducing duties to the maximum of 25 per cent, at the present time, inasmuch as such a change is practically impossible. The ad valorem rates could, possibly, in some instances, be brought down to that amount, but the immense decrease in the fixed rates would, in some instances, lead to great loss of revenue, and in others at once destroy large industries, throwing numbers of persons out of work, and depreciating property to an enormous extent. The duty of 3d. per lb. upon dried fruits may be quoted as an example of this. The industry of making raisins and currants, at present increasing yearly, would, by a decrease to 25 per cent, ad valorem or its equivalent, be completely destroyed, and the vineyards of raisins, grapes, and currants would be almost valueless.

At that time a little noisy band of freetraders in Victoria, together with those who were in the Legislative Assembly, attempted to give expression to their views. Mr. Murray Smith, a gentleman for whom I have every respect, a really consistent freetrader, and a man who had been in public life for a number of years, voiced the opinions of the party to which I refer, and, whilst the Tariff was under discussion, tabled an amendment fixing the maximum rate at 25 . per cent. Upon division that amendment was defeated by 70 votes to 13, clearly demonstrating, as far as the representatives of Victoria were concerned, the particular fiscal system which they favoured. The other day Senator Pulsford attempted to reply to the remarks of Senator Best, who had defined the position of Victoria under that particular Tariff, and who proved conclusively that that State did not go back upon her fiscal policy. Senator Best said -

On the same principle, the revision of the Tariff, which I had the honour to undertake in 1895 - I think I was the first in Victoria to reduce the duties - did not indicate for one moment any alteration in the policy of protection, but simply meant a readjustment of the Tariff to the then existing conditions. The Canadian Tariff was revised two or three years ago - after twenty years experience - and, I may add, upon exactly similar lines. Senator Best continued -

Listen to some of the enormous reductions which took place. The duties on eighteen items were reduced to 35 per cent., on seventeen items to 30 per cent. , and on 40 items to 25 per cent.

These are the advances in a free-trade direction which have afforded such great joy to my honorable friends opposite.

If we make a comparison - talking, of course, of ad valorem duties - in Victoria we had one 45 per cent, duty and one 40 per cent, duty ,: in Canada they have neither. In Victoria we had nine 35 per cent, duties ; in Canada they have 53 35 per cent, duties. In Victoria we had thirteen 30 per cent, duties : in Canada they have 75 30 per cent, duties. In Victoria we had 33 25 per cent, duties : iri Canada they have 89 25 per cent, duties ; in Victoria, 21 20 per cent, duties ; in Canada, 32 20 per cent, duties.

This, I think, supplies the ansswer to Senator Pulsford’s statements to which, by interjection, I strongly objected at the time. If we take Canada as an example - and I suppose that a comparison between that country and the Commonwealth is about the fairest one that can be instituted - we find that the trade of the former is increasing by leaps and bounds. If we are to profit by the example of other countries, we must adopt a protectionist policy. Surely the whole world cannot be wrong, and Great Britain and Turkey right ? If we are to decide this matter as we generally do, by comparison and by the weight of evidence presented to us, I say that the overwhelming testimony of the world is that a policy of protection is the right policy to adopt.

An Honorable Senator. - Is not Great Britain worth the rest of the world put together ?

Senator Millen:

– If numbers count, Christianity must be wrong.

Senator BARRETT:

– I shall deal with Great Britain directly, and I shall ask my honorable friend to bear with me a little longer. I have plenty of material available.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator will get it all answered.

Senator BARRETT:

– I hope that, in answering it, only reliable data will be presented. A moment or two ago an interjection was made having reference to Great Britain. In this connexion I wish to point out that from the 13th century till 1840 Great Britain was aprotectionist community. I mention this fact for the benefit of those honorable senators who are always using the old stock cries - “ How long are we going to coddle these industries’?” and “ Howlong are we to adopt this artificial means to strengthen the position of a protectionist policy?” If England required from 1337 to 1S40 - a period of more than 500 years. - to develop those industries which mads her the greatest and richest country in the world, surely we can allow the Australian Commonwealth a few years, even if we go only to the extent of the life-time of the present members of this Chamber. In presenting the case for protection, I desire to quote a book written by Ernest Williams, who is also the author of that remarkable work, “ Made in Germany.” Let us now inquire into the old-fashioned drastic methods employed in the thirteenth century, when England started on her protectionist career. In the time of Edward III. certain enactments were made with regard to protection. Chapter I. provided that no merchant or alien or denizen should export wool from England after the feast of St. Matthias until otherwise ordained. Then, according to Chapter II., the people were not allowed to wear cloth of foreign make after Michaelmas Feast other than that made in Wales, Ireland, or Scotland, upon pain of forfeiture of the goods and further punishment. No merchant was permitted to import foreign cloth other than from Wales, Ireland, or Scotland. Foreign cloth workers were permitted to reside in the United “Kingdom. This shows the astuteness of the King, who was quite willing that foreign cloth workers should reside within his realms in order to assist English workmen in building up native industries. In the reign of Henry VI. enactments were made aiding the home in dustries, including Acts prohibiting the exportation of sheep and wool, and forbidding the exportation of woollen yarns for a period of three j-ears. In 1445 an Act was passed providing that for five years no silk ribbons or laces should be imported into England on pain of forfeiture of £20. These facts prove the soundness of the policy of protection, and show that our forefathers had more wisdom than have some of our twentieth century politicians.

Senator Millen:

– Some curious labour laws were passed by the wise men of those days.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am not dealing with the labour laws,.of which I know a good deal, but with what the Kings of England did to protect local industries, with the beneficial results that we see to-day. I shall show also that England has declined because she has forsaken a protectionist policy. In the reign of Henry VII., the prohibition against the export of woollen cloths was continued, and the textile industries were aided by extending for twenty years the old prohibition against the importation of ribbons, silks, and laces. In the reign of Henry VIII., the prohibition against the exportation of woollen cloth was continued, and it was enacted that noblemen should wear cloth made within the realm, a fine of £10 being imposed for each offence against these laws. An Act was also passed prohibiting the importation of woollen hats, caps, and bonnets. This was subsequently modified by an enactment which provided that imported caps, hats, and bonnets should be sold at certain prices. All this clearly proves that the monarchs of those days understood that protection was really the best thing for the nation.

Senator Pearce:

– I suppose they limited prices in order to get at the trusts.

Senator BARRETT:

No. If I remember aright, it was because the English industries had made such progress that they allowed foreign goods to be introduced, but stipulated that they should be sold at a certain price in order that they might not compete unfairly with the locally made -articles. I do not intend to refer at any greater length to the condition of England under protection. I might show that from the time I have been speaking of down to 1S40 Acts were passed from time to time for the purpose of stimulating the industries of Great Britain, and that these Acts have tended to make her the great and powerful nation she now is. Now, let us look at the position occupied by England today. She has been spoken of as declining, and I think I shall be able to prove that that is the correct view. Let us see the enormous advantages that England has enjoyed. England had three great essentials for a manufacturing community. In the first place she possessed enormous quantities of coal, and also abundant supplies of iron, tin, and copper, and, because of these enormous advantages, her decline has not been so apparent as it otherwise would have been.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator cannot quote any figures in support of his statement that England has declined.

Senator BARRETT:

– I have not done yet. I have plenty of information here in Mulhall to show that England is on the decline as compared with protectionist countries.

Senator Matheson:

– V,hat is the latest date for which the honorable senator has Mulhall 1

Senator BARRETT:

– The latest obtainable. Another circumstance that aided England considerably was the fact that machinery was first developed there. England was the home of mechanical invention, and when steam was applied to her industries she enjoyed such enormous advantages that she became the workshop of the world. Since 1840, however, England has declined, because she has forsaken the protectionist policy. I do not stand alone in taking this view. There are men in England who are proving to the British people day by day the truth of what I have stated. I have quoted from Mr. Williams’ book, and I might refer to the writings of a score of others, such as the authors of Drifting and of Protectionand Prosperity.

Senator Millen:

– The author of Drifting has given figures which are absolutely wrong.

Senator BARRETT:

– If he has done so, the honorable senator will have an opportunity of proving it. It is strange, however, that this particular work should have passed unscathed through the controversies which have raged throughout Great Britain and the continent, and that its reliability has not been successfully challenged.

Senator Millen:

– If lie is right, Mulhall is wrong; that is all I have to say.

Senator BARRETT:

– I was saying that England had declined, and I would first direct honorable senators’ attention to tools of trade and cutlery. Years ago, when England was enjoying the advantages of protection, the tools and cutlery manufactured at Sheffield were to be found all over the world. To-day, for one line of British goods such as I have indicated, 50 lines made in Germany and America can be seen in our shops and warehouses. Again, let us take watches. The English lever under protection was the standard watch of the world. What is the position today 1 The watch which is most in use comes from Amercian factories. The English lever and the Swiss watch have been superseded by the Waltham and the Elgin. This is another illustration of what has been done under protection in America aided by superiority of mechanical invention, and by the fact that those who were engaged in the industry were prevented by the free-trade policy of England from earning a living there, and had to emigrate to America to earn a livelihood.

Senator Pearce:

– Then why did not protection save the Swiss watchmaker1?

Senator BARRETT:

– The honorable senator knows as well as I do that the statement I have made is perfectly true. Why did certain members of this Senate leave the old country 1 Because they could not live there. Many of our fathers came to Australia for the same reason.

Senator Millen:

– That is not answering Senator Pearce’s question.

Senator BARRETT:

– I cannot answer every interjection that is made. Our fathers left England because there were in Australia newer and better conditions, and because if they had remained in England, as Senator Glassey forcibly put it yesterday, they would have starved or died in the workhouse. In another aspect that was a good thing, because the flower of the English artisans came to Australia, and our fathers in this country have helped to build up improved conditions for us. It is because I realize the value of protection, and the position to which England has been brought by free-trade, that I am so strong in my .protectionist views.

Senator Stewart:

– What drove people out of the old country, free-trade or landlordism 1

Senator BARRETT:

– Free-trade and landlordism combined. We ought to bear in mind some of the features of the American position in regard to this matter. Freetraders make a great mistake - I say it in all humility - when they make comparisons under this head. In order to make a fair comparison so far as Australia is concerned, we ought to take a new country. The conditions perhaps will not be on all fours with those of the Commonwealth, because we cannot secure such a case; but we should select a country possessing something like the conditions existing here in order to make a fair comparison. I am going to quote a passage from a book from which I quoted a few minutes ago, namely, the North American Review vol. 151 for the year 1890. I want to show what some of the great minds of America have said with regard to a protectionist policy. These passages form part of the article by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, entitled - “Summing up the Tariff controversy.” He says* -

That great Scotchman, Alexander Hamilton first struck the key-note of the second struggle when, as secretary of the Treasury, 5th December 1791, he said : “ This idea of an extensive domestic market for the surplus produce of the soil is of the first consequence. It is of all things that which most effectually conduces to a flourishing state of agriculture.” “ To secure such a market there is no other expedient than to promote manufacturing establishments.” “It is the interest of a community, with a view to eventual and permanent economy, to encourage the growth of manufactures. In a national view, a temporary enhancement of price must always be well compensated by a permanent reduction of it.” American statesmen have followed in similar strains. Thus Washington’s last annual address, 7th December, .1796, says - “ Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible.” President Madison’s special message, 23rd May, 1809, says: - “lt will be worthy, at the same time, of their just and provident care to make such further alterations in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufacture which have been recently instituted or extended by the laudable exertion of our citizens.” Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Benjamin Austin, Boston, 1816, says: - “Tobe independent for the comforts of life we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place our manufactures by the side of the agriculturist. . . . Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort.” President Monroe’s first inaugural address, 5th March, 1817, says - “ Our manufactures will likewise require the systematic and fostering care of the Government. Possessing, as we do, all the raw materials, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend, in the degree we have done, on supplies from other countries. While wc are thus dependent, the sudden event of war, unsought and unexpected, cannot fail to plunge us into the most serious difficulties.” President Jackson, 26th August, 1S24 - “Heaven smiled upon and gave us liberty and independence. The same Providence has blessed us with the means of national independence and -national defence. If we omit or refuse to use the gifts which He has extended to us we deserve not the continuance of His blessing. He has filled our mountains and our plains with minerals - with lead, iron, and copper - and given us a climate and soil for the growing of hemp and wool. These being the great materials for our national defence, they ought to have extended to them adequate and fair protection that our manufacturers and labourers may be placed in a fair competition with those of Europe, and that we may have within our country a supply of these leading and important articles so essential to war.”

This is where the point of my quotation conies in -

Such are the teachings of the fathers. Pages could be filled, proving their passionate anxiety to establish manufactures by legislation, which Mr. Gladstone thinks partakes of an immoral character. I quote these memorable utterances to illustrate the difference between an old land, which has the best-equipped system of manufacture over known already in operation, and produces more manufactures than it cun consume, and a new land which has no manufactures, but is desirions of obtaining them. How different the point of view from which the statesmen of the old and the new land must regard the policy of protection ! how different the problem with which they have to deal ! To place the differences in the clearest light, I quote Mr. Gladstone’s presentation of free-trade (pages 9 and 10, North American Revieu), for January). “International commerce is based, not upon arbitrary or fanciful considerations,- but upon the unequal distribution among men and regions of aptitudes to produce the several commodities which are necessary or useful for the sustenance, comfort, and advantage of human life. If every country produced all commodities with exactly the same degree of facility or cheapness, it would be contrary to common-sense to incur the charge of sending them from one country to another. But the inequalities are so great that, for example, region A can supply region B with many articles of food, and region B can in return supply region A with many articles of clothing, at such rates that, although in each case the charge of transmission has of necessity been added to the first cost, the respective articles can be sold after importation at a lower rate than if they were home grown or home manufactured in the one or the other country respectively.

Now, I am going to make a quotation from John Stuart Mill. This passage has been quoted before in reference to the fiscal controversy. My honorable friends opposite regard Mill as a great economist.

Senator Clemons:

– Is this the passage about new countries 1

Senator BARRETT:

– Yes ; and it is a very hard nut for my honorable friends to crack. They are very fond of quoting Mill when he is in their favour, but to be fair they should quote what he says in favour of protection -

The position of the new country desirous of industrial independence we will state in the words of an Englishman not unworthy to be classed as an economist with Mr. Gladstone himself - John Stuart Mill.

Senator Clemons:

– Is the honorable senator quoting from _ Mill direct or from somebody else’s report ?

Senator BARRETT:

– I am quoting from Mr. Carnegie’s article. Does Senator Clemons mean to infer that the quotation from Mitt is not correct ?

Senator Clemons:

– Not for one moment.

Senator BARRETT:

– Because if so, I invite Senator Clemons to look up Mill as I have done. I used this quotation exactly in the same way in the Victorian Parliament ; and it is as follows : -

The superiority of one country over another, in a branch of production, often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent ad vantage on one part or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience to acquire, may, in other respects, be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field ; and besides, it is a just remark, that nothing has a greater tendency to promote improvements in any branch of production than its trial under a new set of conditions. “Will the disciples of Mill try the experiment under the new conditions of the Australian Commonwealth 1

Senator Major Gould:

– We have had protection for 35 years in Victoria.

Senator BARRETT:

– What is a period of 35 years’? I thought I answered that point a few moments ago when I spoke of the manufacturing industry of Great Britain, which, by means of protection for hundreds of years, was placed in the premier position in the world.

Senator Major Gould:

– So long as we understand how long protection is to last.

Senator BARRETT:

– We should keep protection in the Commonwealth as long as we need it, which may be 50 years, 100 years, or 200 years. Those who believe in the principle are determined to keep protection as long as it is necessary. The quotation from Mill continues : -

But it cannot be expected that individuals should, at their own risk, or, rather, to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture and bear the burden of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protecting duty, continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment.

There is one more short quotation from Mr. Carnegie, as follows : -

Here we have the whole question in a nutshell. I have heard Mr. John Bright say that Mr. Mill, by this paragraph, had done more harm than all the remainder of his writings would ever do good. But Mr. Bright confounded effect with cause. Mr. Mill’s paragraph in itself has done neither harm nor good. It simply records practice to every new country that seeks to develop its latent manufacturing powers. Mr. Mill’s words were, no doubt, surprising to Mr. Bright and to Britons generally, perhaps to Mr. Gladstone himself. The new doctrine differed from the policy which, being desirable for Britain, Mr. Bright naturally thought of universal application and desirable for all. The statesmen of the United States, however, had discovered, acted upon, and demonstrated by unprecedented success the wisdom of Mr. Mill’s words long before they were written.

So much, then, for the teachings which freetraders are always willing to accept as gospel, but which are a perfect justification of the policy of protection. It is very singular that we should be told that all the world is wrong except Great Britain and Turkey. I reiterate that if we pay any attention to the teachings of history ; if we are to accept evidence as in the ordinary affairs of life - as in our law courts, where the balance of testimony always decides the issue - we have undoubted proof that the policy of protection is the policy for the Australian Commonwealth. It is with some trepidation that I refer once more to Mulhall; and I only do so because of the questions which have been asked by Senators demons and Matheson. Mulhall clearly proves that England has been declining since she adopted a free-trade policy by comparison with protectionist countries; and I again quote from that excellent series of articles, A Policy forthe Commonwealth. These articles have been published in pamphlet form, and throughout may be found striking examples of the truth of the statement that England has declined, and is declining, under free-trade as compared with protectionist countries. Freetraders are always referring to the wealth of nations, and I commend to them the following quotation from the appendix to the pamphlet I have just mentioned -

page 12398

AGGREGATE WEALTH OF STATES

This includes land, houses, railways, ships, furniture, crops, cattle, money - every kind of fixed or movable asset, in fact. The figures in brackets refer to the page in the 1889 edition of Freetrader Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics where the information may be obtained. The figures for 1840 are worked out fromMulhall’s estimates of wealth and population, and any one can check the result for himself. The figures for 1896 are taken bodily from a table on page 818, the result being worked out by Mulhall. They don’t apply to exactly the same year in each case, but they get as near to it as the records supplied will permit : -

The free-trade State shows the smallest progress. Mulhall gives no actual population figures for 1840, but he records that the British population was 24,133,000 in 1831, and 26,855,000 in 1841, so the increase was at the rate of £272,200 a year, which makes a total for 1840 of 26,582,800.Mul- hall, unfortunately, supplies no comparative statistics as regards Germany.

SenatorPearce. - That does not show a decline, but an increase of wealth in Great Britain.

Senator BARRETT:

– What I am showing is that, according toMulhall, England is declining as compared with protectionist countries. I have said that half-a-dozen times this afternoon. I am showing that the countries which have adopted protection have increased in natural wealth, and afford other evidences of prosperity with which the condition of England bears no comparison.

Senator Millen:

– The figures which the honorable senator has quoted refer only to the wealth within the countries named, and make no allowance for the enormous sums which England has invested abroad. AVe want the whole truth, not a half truth.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am not in the habit of giving half-truths, and have in every case stated the authority from whom I have quoted. I presume that not even the honorable senator would deny the accuracy of the statistics furnished by Mulhall or Coghlan . On Tuesday Senator Styles, taking Coghlan’s statistics, proved in every line of a speech which cannot be answered by honorable senators opposite, that their position is altogether untenable. We have supported our position by figures, showing that the earnings from all sources are greater in protectionist countries than in Great Britain, and that as regards agricultural and manufacturing production, mineral production, trade, internal and external, amount of savings bank deposits, areas under crop, spread of education, and in almost every other respect freetrade England is at a disadvantage when compared with protectionist countries. I have no wish to further continue this discussion, but I commend the study of the figures which I have given, and the authorities I have named, to honorable senators opposite. If they can show that Mulhall’s figures are wrong, and disprove the arguments contained in the admirable’ series of articles which I have quoted, they may be able to upset my contentions ; but they cannot do so, and the assertion that protection is the right policy for the Australian Commonwealth is one which cannot be satisfactorily contradicted. I did not, when I set out, intend to cover so much ground, but I have dropped a good many points, of which, under other circumstances, I should have taken notice. In conclusion, let me say that I desire to see the Commonwealth advance and make progress. I have studied the effects of the fiscal policies of other countries, and I have seen the beneficial results of protection in the State of Victoria. I believe, therefore, that protection is the right policy, and, as I desire to lay the foundations of Australia’s prosperity both broad and deep, so as to make our national life a success, and the Commonwealth a great power in the world, I intend to follow the noble example of the great men of America - some of the noblest minds that have ever existed - and not only vote for protection, but do what I can to see it adopted as the policy of this great Commonwealth.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– The explanation of the proposals of the Government in regard to the Commonwealth Tariff made at Maitland by the Prime Minister was, I think I may safely say, regarded by the vast majority of the electors of the Commonweal vh as a satisfactory and practical solution of a very difficult question. Throughout my electoral campaign I stated that I accepted it as such. I pointed out that the first and all important thing was to so frame the Tariff that the amount of revenue required - some £8,500,000 - would be absolutely secured, and the financial position of the Commonwealth made certain from the very start. I also pointed out that as there were in existence six varying State Tariffs, five of them being protectionist, to a greater or less degree, and one freetrade, it would be impossible to frame a Commonwealth Tariff which would suit all parties ; but that whatever Tariff was framed .would be more or less of a compromise, would necessarily have to be moderate in respect to its duties, and would contain duties which, looked at from the New South Wales stand-point, would appear to be high ; but, looked at from a protectionist stand-point, would appear to be low. I also stated that where, not merely in Victoria, but also the other States, industries had been established by protection, and had been in existence for a number of years, I, although a free-trader, and opposed to protective duties, would not be a party to suddenly removing or unduly diminishing the pro-‘ tection which they were enjoying. That is the spirit in which I intend to deal with the Tariff) when we come to consider the Bill in committee. The framing of’ the Tariff was undoubtedly a very difficult matter. Those who have had to deal with the framing of Tariffs, such as the very complex one which existed in Victoria, know the difficulties of the task. How much more difficult an undertaking had the Ministry to perform in trying to bring the diverging Tariffs of the six States of the Commonwealth into something like uniformity. Such a task would have taxed the utmost powers of commercial men of large experience, and thoroughly acquainted with the intricate operations connected with the importation and manufacture of goods. I thoroughly sympathised with the Ministry in the difficult task which it undertook, a task made the more difficult by the fact that no member of the Cabinet can be said to have had commercial experience. In my opinion, it is to that lack of practical commercial knowledge that the serious miscalculations of the Treasurer as to the anticipated returns of the duties was due. But, making all allowance for the difficulties of the task, I am compelled to say that I was greviously disappointed with the Tariff as at first introduced, and the more I considered it the more firmly convinced was I that it did not fairly carry into effect the promises made by the Prime Minister at Maitland. I can account for that fact only upon the supposition that our friends who believe in high duties got the better of the Ministry, and they did it in a most clever way, by the introduction of innocent-looking composite duties. It was not to be expected that those who are unacquainted with commercial matters could estimate the effect of these composite duties, but so startling did they appear to me that I felt warranted in having calculations made as to their equivalent when worked out at percentage ad valorem rates. I thought it my duty to the public and to the members of this Parliament to publish the results thus obtained, and I think that I am justified in saying that those results opened the eyes of the people and of members of both Houses to a very considerable extent. At any rate, duties, which ran up to 160 per cent, ad valorem have now been reduced to 30 per cent, ad valorem. In this discussion I wish to drop the question of free- trade and protection altogether. It is not a novel question for me to discuss, because, when protection was first sought to be introduced in 1864 under the term “ Incidental Protection,” I was in the thick of the fight, and I have almost enjoyed hearing, during the last few days, arguments which reminded me of the struggle which took place in this State nearly forty years ago, when the battle was a very fierce one, and the protectionists won all along the line. There is, however, one point in connexion with high duties which has not been touched upon, and which I should like to mention, and that is their effect upon our natural productions, such as wool, wheat, butter, cheese, and many others, which exceed our local requirements, and which we therefore have to export. It is of importance that we should relieve from unnecessary taxation those engaged in what may be termed natural industries, and make free their tools of trade, such as agricultural implements. In passing, let me say that in New Zealand agricultural implements of all kinds have always been free of duty. Despite that fact - and I am speaking with an intimate knowledge of New Zealand, which extends over nearly 40 years - the importation of agricultural machinery has been comparatively small, and the local manufacturers have been able from the first to supply machines which the agriculturists there prefer to imported machines. To-day there are in New Zealand agricultural implement factories equal in size to any we have in Victoria, and turning out equally good work. I visited some of them only the other day, when I was in New Zealand. Although the industry is not protected by duties, the wages paid in it are at least equal to those paid in Victoria. The object and natural result of high duties is to reduce the importation of the articles upon which they are imposed. If they did not have that effect, there would be no reason for imposing them. But if we considerably reduce importation, we reduce the volume of our shipping. If we impose high duties, ships will in many cases come here with only part cargoes. I am speaking of what has happened occasionally. With part cargoes an increased freight will have to be paid on imports, while the charges on the outgoing freights, which will consist of our wheat, wool, and other natural products, will also be increased. In this way those who produce our natural products will be hit on both sides. Owing to the high duties, they will be hit first of all by the increased cost of the machinery which they use as well as of their food and clothing, and they will be hit a second time by the increased freights on the products which they have to export to compete in the markets of the world. That is a point which has not hitherto been touched upon, and, as it is a very important one, I have ventured to call the attention of the Senate to it. These increased freights will run into very large figures, and, speaking as a commercial man, with some little knowledge of these matters, I say unhesitatingly that they must ultimately be the result of the Tariff as it stands. I should like to say a word or two in reference to the details of the Tariff, and to examine some of the items, because even the “Vice-President of the Executive Council must acknowledge that we shall have to make some alterations in it. We must admit that there are anomalies in it. When we remember that it was before another place for something like seven months : that during that time constant fighting took place ; that first one decision was arrived at, and then another, and that in some cases items were brought up for consideration a third time ; it is not a matter for surprise that, with thousands of items in the Tariff, anomalies should have occurred which we shall have to set right. Let me point out some of them. On piece- woollens there is a duty of 15 per cent., while woollen apparel - manufactured woollens - have to pay a duty of 25 per cent. That gives a protection of 10 per cent. On the other hand, cotton in the piece is liable only to a duty of 5 per cent., but cotton apparel pays a duty of 25 per cent. That gives a margin of 20 per cent, protection. The ‘ result of these duties is that while the protection on goods made of cotton, which we do not grow, is 20 per cent., the protection on woollen goods is only 10 per cent., although we grow the wool ourselves. But there is a still further anomaly, for while we give apparently a protection of 10 per cent, on woollen apparel, as a matter of fact, the yarns from which woollens “are made pay a duty of 10 per cent., so that the protection is practically extinguished. I would call the attention of Senator Barrett to these matters. . I know that he is just as honest a protectionist as I am a free-trader, and I feel satisfied that I am only doing right in bringing these matters under the notice of the Senate.

Senator Barrett:

– The yarns ought to come in free, as they are raw material, and I am going to move in that direction.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am very glad to hear that. Yarns may be made from local wool, and therefore there is a large natural protection, apart from anything else. While woollen yarns are subject to a duty of 10 per cent., cotton yarns are free. Then again, coir yarns, which are used in the manufacture of cocoanut matting, and are made by black labour, are also free. Honorable senators, who like Senator Glassey, do not believe in unduly playing into the hands of coloured labour, will perhaps take some action in this matter. There are other anomalies. Sporting cartridges, forexample, are allowed to come in free under this Tariff. The consequence is that the shot contained in them is free of duty ; but shot in bulk, which must be used in the manufacture of Cartridges, locally, is subject to a duty of 5s. per cwt. The absurdity of the position is that the finished article is allowed to come in free, while one of the main items used in the manufacture of cartridges locally is dutiable. I may say, further, that the manufacture of shot is not a large local industry, for I am informed that there are only about fifteen men employed in that way. On the other hand, I have it on reliable authority that there are hundreds employed all over the Commonwealth in making up cartridges. That anomaly will have to be rectified in some way. Another matter to which I desire to refer is the position in regard to tea in packages. As honorable senators know, tea has been declared to be free. I am sorry that that decision has been arrived at, for I think it is a mistake in the fullest sense of the word. Not only has tea been placed on the free list, but tea in packages is also free. “Under the former State Tariff, which imposed a duty both on tea and tea in packages, a large industry has been established in putting up teas. But the effect of making package tea free must be necessarily to drive the industry away to Ceylon and India, because apart altogether fr,om the fact that not the slightest protection is afforded it, everything used in putting up tea - the paper, labels, lead, and so on - is dutiable. It is therefore a hopeless case. I have looked into this matter carefully, although it is hardly necessary for me to say that it is not one in which I am interested, and I am credibly informed that the result of making package tea free must be a loss amounting to about £50,000 per annum in the wages of those directly and indirectly connected with packing.

Senator O’Connor:

– A l A loss of £50,000 in wages?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Yes. On wages and incidentally. “We must bear in mind that there is a great deal of printing required in connexion with package teas, so that there will be a loss to those engaged in that trade as well as to those employed in packing the tea. I am informed by a. gentleman, in whose knowledge of the subject I have thorough confidence, and who, I am satisfied, would not mislead me, that the loss in wages must amount to nearly £50,000 per annum.

SenatorO’Connor. - How many persons are employed in the industry?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I cannot say ; but from my knowledge of the extent of the tea-packing establishments of Melbourne, and of those engaged in them, as well as in trades more or less dependent upon the industry, I am satisfied that there must be a very large number. I was startled by the figures, and questioned very closely the gentlemen who gave me this information ; but I was unable to shake the evidence which they placed before me. I always feel that I should take every care to ascertain the accuracy of any statement that I place before the Senate.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– Why does not the honorable senator give us the details of the £50,000 loss in wages?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

-The. honorable senator will readily understand the difficulty when I tell him that it was only the day before yesterday that these facts were brought under my notice.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– There is no difficulty in making the assertion.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am making it on the authority of gentlemen who are just as truthful as is the honorable senator.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– That is not in question.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– As I have said already, I was staggered with the figures when they were first presented to me, but after going into the details, I did not think that they were excessive. I shall now draw the attention of the Senate to an anomaly in regard to candles, on which there is a duty of1d. per lb. In order to manufacture good candles, both stearine and wax are required. Stearine is made locally, and there is a duty of1d. per lb. upon it. Wax, however, is not made locally ; it is manufactured from the residuum of kerosene, and has to be imported. It costs about1d. per lb., and there is a duty of1d. per lb. upon it. I have been informed to-day that the effect of the duty on wax, which is really one of the raw materials used in the manufacture of candles, will be either one of two things. If it is allowed to remain it will lead to the manufacture of inferior candles. I have been informed only this morning, and I have proved it to be correct, that candles made from stearine and wax have been and are still being made in Sydney under freetrade, and that they are very much superior to those made in Victoria under protection. I can vouch for the accuracy of the statements that thousands of boxes of these candles have come here from Sydney since the Tariff has been in operation, that they are selling at lower prices than those of Victorian manufacture, and that, although they are of lighter weight than the Victorian candles, they are guaranteed to burn an hour longer.

Senator Playford:

– I am very doubtful about all these statistics.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I will place the honorable senator in a position to obtain the same information as that which I have secured. The duty on strawboards is another matter which the Senate must consider. Originally the duty was 4s. per cwt., and was equal, as nearly as possible, to 100 per cent.; but it has been reduced to1s. per cwt., which is equal to 25 per cent. The selling price of the locally manufactured strawboard ranges from £10 to £10 5s. per ton, while equally good strawboard could be imported at prices ranging from £6 to £6 10s. per ton. Owing to this duty, the public have to pay the difference between the two quotations. Let me turn now to patent belting, which is required for driving engines, and is not, and cannot, be made here. Its use is absolutely necessary in all wet mines, or in mines in which there are any chemicals. The duty on it is 20 per cent. But there is another kind of belting which is made here. It is known as cotton belting. And what do honorable senators think is the position under the Tariff as it stands ? By a decision of the Customs authorities within the last few days cotton belting has been declared to be liable to a duty of 5 per cent. as cotton piece-goods. Thus, patent belting, which cannot be manufactured here, pays a duty of 20 per cent., while cotton belting, which can be made here, is liable only to a duty of 5 per cent. These are some of the anomalies of the Tariff, and, free-trader as I am, I feel that I am bound to call attention to them. I might greatly increase the list, but I do not think it necessary to weary the Senate with more of these figures. I should like to bring under the notice of honorable senators the fact that the percentages of duties shown in the schedule do not by any means indicate the amount of protection given in respect of any class of goods. There is in addition to be added what may called the natural protection, or in other words the cost of importation. Honorable senators will clearly understand that the highpriced goods are imported at a very much lower cost than the commoner goods used by the ordinary consumer. I mention a few instances in connexion with my own trade. I could obtain similar examples in connexion with other trades, but I thought it better to deal with matters to which I can personally certify. Take woollens first : High-priced, woollens cost 8 per cent. to import. The duty over all woollens is 1.5 per cent. The protection therefore upon highpriced woollens is 23 per cent. But lowpriced woollens cost 21 per cent. to import, and that, added to the 15 per cent. duty, means that there is a 36 per cent. protection on low-class woollens. There is an anomaly here also which I incidentally referred to just now. The duty on woollen yarns is 10 per cent., but as the cost of importation is 14 per cent., there is a protection of 24 per cent. on woollen yarns, while upon high-priced woollens the protection is23 per cent., and upon low-priced woollens 36 per cent. Taking felt hats, the cost of importing the higher-priced article is 13 per cent., and the duty is 30 per cent.

Senator McGregor:

– How would the honorable senator avoid the anomaly to which he refers in the case of high-class and low-class woollens?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not think this is the time to go into that. I am anxious now only to give the Senate such information as I have been able to obtain, in order that honorable senators may see the effect of the duties as shown in the schedule.

Senator Glassey:

– Is not the information given with some object ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The object is that Senator Glassey, for instance, may know what perhaps he did not know before. If the honorable senator asks me what it may lead up to, I can only say that he will have as much to point out in that matter as I shall have. As I have said, the duty upon felt hats is 30 per cent.; the highpriced goods cost 1 3 per cent to import, and that is a protection of 43 per cent. But the low-priced goods cost 61 per cent. to import, and that added to the duty of 30 per cent., gives a protection of 91 per cent. on the low-priced goods.

Senator O’Connor:

– W - Will the honorable senator explain why low-class goods cost so much more to import than high-class goods ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– It is a matter of bulk to begin with.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is bulk and not packing?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– No. The honorable senator will understand that a case of a certain size, for instance, 3ft. 6in. square, will naturally hold a larger value of high-priced goods than of low-class goods. On cotton hosiery, the import cost on the high-priced goods is 8 per cent., that, added to the duty of 10 per cent., gives a protection of 18 per cent. The import cost of the low-priced goods is 1 7 per cent., which, added to the duty, gives a protection of 27 per cent. The import cost in the case of woollen hosiery, shirts, and pants, high-priced goods, amounts to 7 per cent., which, added to the duty of 25 per cent., gives a protection of 32 per cent., while the low-priced goods cost 17 per cent. to import, giving a protection of 42 per cent. On cotton pants and shirts the import cost of the higher-priced goods is 14 per cent., which added to the duty of 25 per cent. gives a protection of 39 per cent. In the case of the low-priced goods the import cost is 29 per cent., which gives a protection of 54 per cent.

Senator O’Connor:

– A - According to the honorable senator’s view that must always take place in respect to ad valorem duties.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not say it does not, but I am anxious that the honorable and learned senator, as well as others, shall know exactly what these duties mean, and that they do not mean simply what is shown by the schedule.

SenatorDobson. - In addition to these figures the honorable senator must add 10 per cent. to the invoice.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– That is so, but I have not gone into that, as I did not wish to unnecessarily complicate the question. On coir netting and matting, with a duty of 15 per cent. and import charges of 40 per cent., the protection is 55 per cent. Take again the case of the Abbott buggy, the duty is 25 per cent. and the cost of importation is 70 per cent., so that the protection is 95 per cent. A low-class Abbott buggy costs £10 or £11, and they are largely used by agriculturists.

Senator O’Connor:

– D - Do they not use the locally made articles?

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– What would the 95 per cent. amount to?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I have the detailed figures, but I do not desire to trouble the Senate with them. I should like tosay, with regard to the schedule, that I have had a number of instances submitted to me in which goods are made dutiable in one part of the Tariff and are free in another ; but perhaps that has been unavoidable on account of the long discussions which have taken place on the Tariff. While on this question, I should like to deal with the administration of the Tariff. We know that a Tariff containing such an immense number of items must necessarily be difficult to administer. We know also that this is a new Tariff, and though the Custom-house officials of Victoria are not new to this sort of work, the Customhouse officials of New South Wales are new to it, and there have been many differences of opinion as to the interpretation of the Tariff to begin with. I wish more particularly to refer to the effect of the financial provisions of the Constitution, which require entries to be made where goods are shipped ; for instance, from Melbourne to Tasmania. In such a case this is what has to be done : The merchant is required to give the following information : -The original docket number, when the material was imported, the number of yards used, the description of the material, the original invoice price, the amount of duty paid, the ship by which the goods arrived, the date and number, of the entry, the number of the case, the rate of duty charged, whether free or dutiable, whether State or Commonwealth duty was paid, and what the material is used for.

Senator McGregor:

– That is all available information.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Is it, indeed? I shall show the honorable senator how difficult it is to secure this information. I purposely take a very common article, calico. Shipment after shipment of identically the same calico arrive. The goods are never marked in order to show what ship they came out by, but they are put into the open stock with stock already there, and no one can tell where a particular piece of calico came from. That difficulty will apply to a very large proportion of goods.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - If a merchant has not the information he cannot give it ; but all this is necessary in order to trace these goods.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD.I am perfectly well aware of that, but it is in consequence of this information being required that these outrageous actions have been brought against respectable firms. For instance, Messrs. Dalgety were summoned for an error of some 5s. or 10a. in connexion with some exports to Tasmania.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– How many of these cases have taken place ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Three or four, to my knowledge.

Senator O’Connor:

– O - Out of many hundreds of cases, I suppose.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I desire to show the enormous amount of labour which this entails, not only upon merchants, but on the Customs-house officials, and all this costs money. I have in my hands a small entry in connexion with articles to the value of only some £4 or £5. The document contains 229 figures and 120 words, and it took five hours to obtain the information given so far as it could be got. It deals with a matter of apparel, and we are required to give the quantity of every item contained in that apparel. For instance, there is £ yard of tweed,2½ yards, 7½ yards, 2½ yards, 10½ yards, and 1-32 yard of other materials. Bear in mind that this does not affect the merchant one iota. He neither gains nor loses by the declaration which is required by the Customs officials.

Senator McGregor:

– But this is rendered necessary by the Constitution.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am perfectly well aware of that.

Senator McGregor:

– Then what is the use of grumbling ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The whole of this had to be done in this case for the sake of securing to Tasmania 5½d. on 9s.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That is one illustration, but there must be a certain routine gone through in these matters.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The honorable and learned senator should have seen the number of these cases that I have seen. I have another case in which the amount concerned is about £20, and in connexion with that men were employed for two days finding out from the factories the various quantities and values of the materials used. As different materials are in many instances purchased by the factories themselves from different importers, and no separate record is kept, it is quite impossible for this information to be given accurately. If honorable senators think that information can be obtained, I can assure them that it cannot, and if the Customs authorities continue to demand it we must give up the trade.

Senator McGregor:

– They will import into Tasmania then.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– What is to be done in the meantime? What I suggest is that the Customs authorities should do something similar to what was done years ago, when ‘drawbacks were commenced in Victoria - look carefully into the accounts of the merchants, and arrive at a certain percentage. I can assure Senator O’Connor that this is becoming a perfect bugbear. The time occupied in connexion with it is considerable, and it affects both merchants and Custom-house officers. If the honorable and learned senator will inquire, he will find that the Customs officers are as keen upon this matter as the merchants. It entails an immense amount of trouble for no practical benefit. I freely acknowledge that the same difficulty does not arise in all trades. It does not arise, for instance, in a certain number of trades which deal only in bulk, but in all open trades dealing with broken bulk the difficulty occurs. I have been interviewedby the representatives of numbers of trades, who are looking for some improvement in this matter.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is surely a matter to be represented to the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I intend to do that, but I think it is also well that this Senate should know some of the difficulties arising out of this Tariff.

Senator McGregor:

– Arising out of the Constitution Act.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I should like to make some reference to statements made by previous speakers, and I take them in order. Senator Best stated, amongst other things, that the Tariff had resulted in the closing of some industries and in the probable closing of others, but, in answer to my inquiries, the honorable and learned senator did not give any definite information. I have made inquiries since, and so far I cannot find that the honorable and learned senator’s statement can be substantiated.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable and learned senator mentioned some distilleries.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– We know perfectly well that the statement has been made that if certain lines in the Tariff pass as at present proposed, they may cause the closing of factories. But we in Victoria recollect perfectly well that exactly the same thing has been said whenever, from time to time,changeshave been proposed in previously existing Tariffs. In all those cases the representatives of various factories proved to their own satisfaction, if not to the satisfaction of others, that if certain reductions were made the factories must close. That was said to be particularly the case with respect to woollen factories ; but what has happened? The duty at present is 15 per cent., while the duty on yarns is 10 per cent., and yet the woollen factories are in full swing ; they are more full of orders than they have ever been before ; some of them are working day and night, and I know that they are satisfied. Again, in the case of felt hats, the duty was at one time up to 160 per cent.; it is now 30 per cent. Dire results were predicted, and it was said that the factories would have to throw hundreds of hands out of employment. Here, again, I find that these factories are in full swing and are paying well. In passing, I may say that while the duty in Victoria has been up to 160 per cent., the duty in New Zealand has never been more than 22½ per cent., and yet the factories there are doing well. I may add that my firm has just established a very large felt hat factory in New Zealand under this22½ per cent. duty. With regard to hoots, the duty used to be from 25 up to 160 per cent. In New Zealand there has never been a duty of more than 22½ per cent., and for a large number of years there has been no duty whatever upon boots in that State. We established our factories when there was not a particle of duty. It is only within the last few years, comparatively speaking, that there has been any duty on boots, and yet not only is the factory prospering, but we are able to pay as good, if not better, wages than are paid in Victoria. In New South Wales boots have been duty free practically all along, and yet an immense number of boots are turned out to my knowledge, and good boots, too.

Senator Dobson:

– That shows that the duty can come down here to 20 per cent. plus 10 per cent.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am not going to express an opinion on that point. I merely wish to give the facts, and to leave honorable senators to draw their own conclusions. Senator Best also stated that moderate protection does not raise prices. The term moderate is open to a very wide interpretation. I suppose, judging from the past, that some of our friends in Victoria would think 150 per cent. moderate. It is not safe for us to trust our protectionist friends to interpret the word ; for I recollect well that when protection was first agitated for in Victoria in the early sixties, its chief apostles, the late Mr. J. G. Francis and Mr. (now Sir Graham) Berry over and over again stated that the maximum duty would never exceed12½ per cent., and would be imposed for only a few years until the industry was established. That is the experience of Victoria. I have been an importer for 50 years, and a manufacturer for 40 years, and therefore I know absolutely the cost of importing goods, not only into Victoria, but also into New South Wales, Western Australia, and New Zealand. I also know all the details in connexion with the manufacture of our particular goods, and the prices paid by the public in each State. That leads up to the statement made by Senator Best, that protection - I would rather use the expression “high duties “ - does not raise the cost of commodities.We must bear in mind that the avowed object of these high duties is undoubtedly to raise wages. If you raise wages you must raise the cost of” what is produced by those wages, and I state unhesitatingly, from personal knowledge tested over and over again in the various States where I have houses, that if you will take similar dates - because goods fluctuate in prices - you will almost invariably find that the prices have been higher in Victoria than in any of the other States.

Senator Styles:

– Will the honorable senator say whether the wages paid to bootmakers under the high protective Tariff of Victoria were higher than the wages paid to New South Wales operatives ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I have not afactory in New South Wales, and therefore I cannot speak from personal knowledge. Under free-trade in New Zealand the wages were just as good as those paid here.

Senator Styles:

– Therefore the high duties did not raise wages.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I can state from knowledge and observation that the prices of goods are distinctly higher in America and Canada than in the old country, because for years I have been a large buyer of both Canadian and American goods.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– -What goods does the honorable senator refer to?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– To pretty well all classes of goods, I may say.

Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
VICTORIA · PROT

– Ironmongery and things like that ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am purposely keeping myself to softgoods. I do not know the prices ofother goods, but I know that boots are clearer in the United States and Canada than in the old country. Then Senator Best stated that the foreign manufacturer pays the duty. I listened to the honorable and learned senator with amazement, and wondered how on earth such a statement could be made. It is absolutely incorrect. I, know the prices charged by the manufacturers to my firms in Victoria, New South. Wales, New Zealand, and Western Australia. Absolutely the same prices are charged for the same goods, and the manufacturers do not pay one cent of the duty. To suppose that manufacturers’ profits in the old country, America, or the Continent are such as to enable them to pay duties of from 5 to 150 per cent. appears to me to be perfectly absurd.

Senator McGregor:

– Then what becomes of the statement that they send them out here at cheaper prices than they charge to their customers in their own country ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– That is absolutely true. They sometimes charge the local consumer a higher price. We can buy American goods more cheaply in London than in New York, because, having got their whole local market to themselves, they charge the local consumer almost anything they like, and can afford to sell the surplus at any price outside the country.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is exactly the. same in free-trade England and everywhere where they have a surplus.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– As a proof that the duty is not paid in that way, I would point to what happens when there is a change” of Tariff. Directly a duty is taken off, as’ occurred recently, down goes the price, and as soon as a duty is imposed, up goes the price. The merchant has to pay the duty, and he varies his price accordingly. If honorable senators are under the impression that themanufacturers in the old country, America, or the Continent pay the duties, all. I can say is that they would believe anything. Senator Styles laid considerable stress on the point that the abolition of the sugar duties had destroyed the refinery trade in the West Indies. I wondered whether he had read the report of the Royal commission which went out to inquire into the cause of the failure of sugargrowing in the West Indies. If he had read the report he would have known that it was very conclusive ; and, although to a certain extent the growers had suffered, they had suffered far more from the fact of their obsolete mode of growing and manufacturing, and their retention of obsolete machinery. The Royal commission pointed out that, if they would only adopt the modern scientific mode of growing and producing, and use the most modern machinery, they need fear very little.

Senator Glassey:

– What about the refiners in Glasgow, and elsewhere ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I grant that it has had a very serious effect on the refiners, but has there been nothing to put against that ? What about the enormous trade in the manufacture of confectionery that has sprung up, employing far and away more hands and capital than did the refineries? Formerly, almost the whole of the confectionery trade, and all appertaining to it - an enormous trade it is, extending all over the world - was centred in France. The effect of the bounty on sugar in France, Germany, and Austria has been that the consumer in Great Britain gets his sugar at about half the price that the consumer in the producing countries pays.

Senator Dobson:

– At less than that.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am purposely erring on the safe side. The very fact of the English being able to obtain that sugar at such a low price has enabled them to start these huge confectionery manufactories, practically using the French sugar, and sending it back to France in the manufactured state, and: making a good thing out of it. So that the labour and. the capital employed in this industry far and away exceed the labour andcapital displaced in connexion with the refineries. Another statement by Senator Styles was with respect to the import of foreign goods into these States.

Senator Styles:

– Pardon me, I never used the word imports.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The honorable senator said that year by. year the quantity of goods imported into the States from foreign countries, but formerly imported from Great Britain, had steadily increased. I took a note of the remark at the time.

Senator Styles:

– I never mentioned the word “imports” or “exports” in my speech. I said the trade between each State and places outside the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– What is the difference ? I do not think that the honorable senator and I differ.

Senator Styles:

– Yes ;I was referring to the trade, including both exports and imports.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Very well. I shall deal for a moment with imports into the States from foreign I countries. The honorable senator has made a statement which apparently is absolutely correct ; but what are the facts? Until the last few years all the merchandise from Germany, France, Austria, and Switzerland usedto go to London, there to be shipped to Australia, and entered as British exports ; and we knew nothing about Germany, Austria, or France as the producing country.

Senator Styles:

– May I ask how long ago that was ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I cannot give the date, but I shall give a reference that will lead up to it. The honorable senator will recollect that the Imperial Parliament passed an Act called the Trade Marks Act, which requires that all goods of foreign manufacture shall be branded with the name of the place of manufacture. The buyers from the various States thus very soon learned where the Continental goods came from, and the result was that the orders went direct to Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. But that would not have done it had not the German and French boats been started. Continental goods that used to go through London nowcome direct from various foreign ports in foreign bottoms. That is the reason why there has been apparently a very large increase in the imports of foreign goods. As regards the exports, practically the same thing wouldhappen. The. wool that was shipped for Germany, France, or Austria used to go to London, where it was transhipped to foreign ports ; but now the French and German liners, which come direct with cargoes, take away our wool.

Senator Styles:

– I should like to know the dates, because it is an all-important point.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I cannot tell the honorable senator on the spur of the moment when the German boats began to run.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - This has been going on for the last ten years.

Senator Styles:

– And it would not affect the case I put.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– The same remark to a large extent is applicable to American goods. Senator Barrett stated that where one found a single article of British manufacture in a shop one would find fifty articles of German or American manufacture. The reason is the same in both cases. The goods have to be landed. Formerly they came from London, but since American shipping lines have been established, they come direct from the United States.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That is no answer whatever.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I thought that it was a very good answer. At any rate I know that, whereas we used to obtain all these goods from London, we now get them direct from America.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is during the ten years of which the honorable senator spoke that these increases in foreign goods have taken place.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– But the very first shipload which came direct from America would constitute a very large increase, because it would practically be an increase from nothing.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

r. - But since the stream has set in that direction, there cannot be much difference.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– If the honorable and learned senator knew as much about business as I do, he would understand that this information does not become known to everybody at once. But, as the knowledge gradually spreads, others adopt the same plan, and thus the direct importations increase. Of course, 1 do not say that there has not been a development of trade with the foreigner. Another matter which seemed to shock . Senator Styles was the fact of the merchant reducing the quality of goods in consequence of the imposition of high duties. But after all the whole question resolves itself into one of the ability, or inability, of the local buyer to pay the increased price. The workman naturally says that the imposition of duties does not increase his wages one iota, and that because a high duty is levied upon a suit of clothes he cannot afford to pay more for it than if no duty were operative. As he cannot pay an increase of 25 per cent. upon a suit of clothes, he practically compels the merchant to import an inferior class of goods, in order to suit his pocket.

Senator Styles:

– But I pointed out that the merchant to whom I referred - and my authority was Mr. G. H. Reid - reduced the quality of the goods more than 15 per cent. when the duty was only 10 per cent.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I merely state what happens. The merchant pays the duty upon the reduced value, and upon that reduced value, plus the duty, gets his profit.

Senator McGregor:

– Are the people in New South Wales better clothed than those in Victoria ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I say unhesitatingly that we import a better class of goods into New South Wales than we import into Victoria.

Senator McGregor:

– I never saw them.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– That may be. I am very glad to find that Senator Styles is shocked at this state of affairs, because he is one who has contributed to bring it about by advocating the imposition of high duties.

Senator Styles:

– But the merchant reduced the quality of the goods when the duty was only 10 per cent - a purely revenue duty.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– It does not matter what the duty is. “ Of course, the higher it is the greater must be the reduction in the quality of the’ goods. Therefore, I commend to the honorable senator the advisability of joining the freetrade party, and endeavouring to reduce these high duties, thereby enabling the wages of the labouring men to go further. Another point in the honorable senator’s speech amused me immensely - in fact, I could not refrain from laughing, though I hope that he will not regard my action as offensive. When he spoke about the profits upon imported goods I could not avoid smiling. He read with considerable gusto an extract, stating that the profits ‘ of the importer were 20 per cent., and that those of the retailer were 33 J- per cent., upon that.

Senator Styles:

– I gave my authorities.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– When I interjected “ those profits are gross,” he replied - “They are not profits, then.” But the fact remains that they are what, in the commercial world, we call “gross “ profits.

Senator Styles:

– Then I cannot believe either the Arc/its or Mr. Glynn.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Those profits are “gross” profits, and have to be reduced by the cost involved in carrying on the business - both wholesale and retail - by rents, salaries, and a thousand other things, not forgetting, the important matter of bad debts. I may says moreover, that the statement that the profit in the soft goods trade is 20 per cent, is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the profit upon each individual transaction is very small.’ Competition renders it so ; but where the merchant makes his profit and his interest upon capital is by getting through two or three transactions of that nature in the year. That is where the large firms have a distinct advantage over the small ones. The small firms do not make a sufficient return to live by it. In addition to that, high duties play into the hands of the large firms. Cash is required to pay these duties, and only wealthy firms can provide that cash. Hence the small establishments .are squeezed out of existence. If I advocated what suits my own pocket, I should say, “Clap on as heavy duties as possible - the higher the duties the richer I shall become.”

Senator Playford:

– But when importation ceased altogether where would the honorable senator be 1

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– That would not affect me. The honorable senator must not imagine that there is any special advantage in ordering, goods , twelve or eighteen months beforehand. I listened very attentively to the remarks of Senator Styles in regard to increasing the amount of our trade with the old country. The idea underlying his statement in this connexion is a most admirable one, and one to which we ca’n all heartily say, “ Yea.” Accordingly I followed him very closely, but I am bound to say that I fail to understand what he proposes. I cannot conceive how, by levying a 10 per cent, duty upon certain goods, we should throw the trade in those goods into Germany, whilst by levying a 25 per cent, rate upon them we should throw that trade into England. I shall, however, be very happy to sit at the feet of Gamaliel and learn wisdom.,

Senator Styles:

– The fact remains, anyhow

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I wish now to say a word or two in reference to the remarks of Senator Glassey, who stated that the shipping trade of Great Britain has declined. In this connexion I desire to quote £rom Whittaker, of 1902, which covers the period ended 31st December, 1901. According to that authority the ton.nage of the world in that year was 30,600,000, of which amount that of British ships represented 14,700,000, or as near as possible, one-half, while the tonnage of American shipping was only 3,077,000 tons. Then again, the ships built by Great Britain in 1901 represented in the aggregate 1,417.000 tons, of which they sold to foreign nations vessels representing 347,000 tons, leaving a net increase to Britain for that year alone of 1,070,000 tons. From these figures it does not appear that English shipping is going back. If we calculate the value of the ships sold to foreign countries at the low price of £6 per ton - and I am. informed by an expert that I should not be far wrong if I allowed £10 per ton for them - that is equivalent to no less a sum than £2,000,000. Surely that is not a bad return to the old country for one year alone. From 1895 to 1901 ships aggregating 3,228,000 tons have been sold to other nations. Upon the same basis of calculation those ships would represent a return to Great Britain of £19,363,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the shipping industry is not a small one, and is not flagging. Reference has been made to the rapid expansion of German shipping. But, in regard to this matter, I find that in 1895 Great Britain had 5,574 steamers alone, representing 7,775,000 tons, whilst Germany owned only 741 steamers, aggregating 929,000 tons ; so that a very wide margin existed between the two countries.

Senator GLASSEY:
QUEENSLAND · PROT

– Germany has made rapid strides since 1895.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

-But so has England. She increased her shipping by over 1,000,000 tons last year. Both Senators Glassey and Barrett repeatedly declared that Great Britain was living upon capital. Senator Glassey said -

I cannot agree with the free-traders as to the progress of Britain, at all events, for the past few years.

I suppose that the best test of the progress of a nation is to be found in the increase of her wealth, and I know of no better test that can be applied to the increase of Britain’s wealth than is supplied by ‘the operation of the income tax. In 1869 when the income tax was 6d. in the £, it yielded £8,600,000, or as near as possible £1 , 400,000 per penny. In 1901, how.ever, a similar tax returned £13,750,000, the penny producing £2,600,000 or £1,200,000 more that it did in 1869, or nearly twice as much. That does not look as if England is going to the dogs, or living upon capital. As a ‘matter of fact reliable estimates show that she is saving from £120,000,000 to £140,000,000 per year of net income over expenditure, and the operation of the income tax clearly proves that that is so.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That conveys very little, unless we know something about its distribution.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I must confess that somepersons in the old country who were considered financiers - men like Gladstone and others - always thought that the income tax was the best possible barometer of the progress of the nation.

Senator O’Connor:

– O - Of the total amount of wealth. But surely there are other things to be considered.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

Senator Glassey said that Great Britain was living on her capital, and I have been endeavouring to show that that statement was not correct. In dealing with the trade of Great Britain - that is to say, the imports and exports - we must not forget the effect of the establishment of foreign lines of shipping. I have already referred to some of these, and I should like to mention another in connexion with the raw silk trade of the East. Formerly that was all carried in British ships to London, which was the central market for the raw silk -trade, representing a value of about £8,000,000 per annum. Upon the establishment of the Messageries Maritimes line that trade was not simply divided between the British and French ships, but was all taken to Marseilles, which is now the silk market of the world. Therefore, that £8,000,000 worth of trade ceases to appear in the import and export returns of Great Britain, and it is well to remember this when we are dealing with the figures. Then, again, the wool that was formerly sent through London to the Continent now goes, very largely, if not entirely, direct to the Continent. Yet, is it true, as stated by Senator Glassey, Senator Best, and Senator Styles, that Great Britain is not holding her own ? Let me direct the attention of honorable senators to a few figures, taken from the Board of Trade statistics. These were published in Commerce, the official journal of thf united chambers of commerce in Great Britain. The table gives the value of imports into the United Kingdom from.lS91 to 1901. In 1891, the value of the imports was £435,000,000, and the average for the five years from 1891 to 1895 was £417,000,000. The next five-yearly period started in 1896 with £441,000,000, and ran. up to £523,000,000 in 1900. This was the highest point reached. The average for this period was £474,000,000. Now, let us deal with the year ended 31st Decern- . ber, 1901, bearing in mind that the highest point was reached in 1900. The total for 1901 was £522,000,000, only £1,000,000 less than the highest point that Great Britain had ever reached.. Now I will turn to the domestic exports, exclusive of ships. I purposely referred to the ships sold to foreign nations in order that honorable senators might see that their value, which was not inconsiderable, should, in fairness, be added to these figures, because ships are just as much domestic exports as are any other manufactured goods. The exports for the five years from1891 to 1895 averaged £226,000,000 per annum. The average for the next five years was £249,000,000 per annum. The highest point touched was in 1900, when the exports were valued at £282,000,000; and in 1901, that is last year, the exports reached the value of £271,000,000. This lastmentioned amount was considerably above the average for the previous five years, and very much above that for the five years from 1891 to 1895, while it was £11,000,000 lower than the return for 1900, when the highest point of export was reached. That would seem to indicate that there had been a serious falling-off, but the values of goods have to be taken into account. Unfortunately we know that there has been a very serious falling-off in the values of commodities.

Senator Glassey:

– That applies all over the world.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– But I am dealing with Great Britain. Senator Glassey contended that the trade of Great Britain had fallen off, and I am endeavouring to show him that it has increased.

Senator De Largie:

– Has it increased as largely as the trade of other countries ?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am not dealing with other countries now. Of course, other countries which are only just developing their trade would increase it by a far greater percentage than would an older country. It is just the same in business. When a business is small, an increase of a few thousands of pounds represents a very large percentage, but, when a business becomes large, three or four times the increase in trade would represent a much smaller percentage.

Senator O’Connor:

– A - All that is contended is that Great Britain is lagging behind in the race.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I contend that she is not. I now propose to deal with values, in order to show that so far from there having been any falling-off, a considerable increase has taken place in the trade of Great Britain. England has been wealthy enough to buy a very much larger quantity of goods than formerly. The Economist of 18th January, 1902, says -

The accounts of the import trade of the United Kingdom in 1901 are more satisfactory than they would appear from the published official returns. Although the total recorded value of the imports for theyear is £836,177 below that of 1900, there has been a large addition to the quantities of goods received, calculated to be equivalent to £18,175,000, accompanied by a reduction in the cost of some £19,01 1 , 000.

So that Great Britain had, during that year, imported a very much larger quantity of goods than ever before, and had paid for them £19,000,000 less. Now let us deal with the exports.I have all the figures as to value worked out from the Board of Trade returns, and I shall be very glad to show them to any honorable senators who desire to see them. Dealing with exports, the Economist of 25th January, 1902, says -

The same characteristic marks each of the three branches of the external trade of the United Kingdom, viz., an all-round reduction in prices, accompanied by an increased volumeof trade. In the imports, as shown last week, there was a decreased value of £19,000,000, almost balanced by an increased quantity of goods, amounting to £18,000,000, and, as shown in the following tables, there has been a lesser amount received for the exports of our own produce of £10,500,000, made up of a reduction in prices of £15,000,000, and an increased bulk of £4,500,000, and in the re-exports of foreign goods the lower prices account for a decrease of £1,500,000, and greater quantity for an increase of £6,000,000, leaving the total for the year £4,500,000 above that of 1900.

It will be seen from the above tables that the total value of the imports retained for home consumption in 1900 was £460,534,000, and that if we had paid for our net imports of last year the same average prices as in . 1900, they would have cost us £471,803,000. It follows, therefore, that there was last year an increase in the quantity of our net imports equal to the difference between £471,803,000 and £460,534,000, which is £11,269,000, equal to 2-45 per cent. Similarly with the exports .

In 1900 we exported British products to the value of £291,451,000, while our exports in 1901, if we had received for them the same prices as in 1900, would have realized £295,703,000.

There was thus last year, as compared with 1900, an increase in the quantity of our exports, which is measured by the difference between £295,703,000 and £291,451,000, and amounts to £4,252,000, or . 1 -46 per cent.And taking imports and exports together, thevolume of our foreign trade last year (exclusive of re-exports) shows, as compared with 1900, an increase of 2-06 per cent., the computation being : -

In imports and exports combined the decrease in value, owing to lower prices, amounts to £32,6.15,000, or4-25 per cent., the calculation working out thus : -

Senator McGregor:

– If the honorable senator gained £15,000,000 in his buying and lost £15,500,000 in his selling, who would be on the right side of the ledger?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– That is not the point at all. I think I am justified in saying that the old country is not going back. She is still to the fore, and if the information I obtained when I was at home a few years ago - which information has been thoroughly supported byrecentadvices - was correct, old England is on the eve of a very important revival. There is no doubt that her people have been too conservative. Her manufacturers have been too well content to jog along on the old lines. I have frequently found fault with them on that account. They have been in the habit of making a certain class of goods which buyers might take or leave as they liked, but they are now waking up to a proper realization of the necessities of the case. The fathers are dying off, and the sons are coming to the front, and I am glad to say that they are following the wise course of sending experts to Germany and America, in order to ascertain in what respect Great Britain is lagging behind. I know that in some of the trades besides myown there have been marvellous changes for the better, and that English manufacturers, sofar from being afraid of the competition of foreign countries, are courting it. I believe, moreover, that, notwithstanding the fact that an increasing portion of our trade has naturally gone to Germany or to France, because we have been sending wool to those countries, which must be paid for in cash or goods, our imports from the old country will soon be, as Senator Styles and others desire, largely increased.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I think I have listened to every honorable senator who has spoken during the present debate, and if there is one thing I am heartily sick of it is the constant quotation of figures, and the constant attempts on the part of one side to show that poor old England is going to the dogs, that she is effete, that she has arrived at a state of nonage, and will sooner or later be wiped out ; and on the part of the other side to show that she is prospering. Senator Sargood has expressed a strong belief that with certain changes in her manufacturing methods, Great Britain will be able to hold her own against the world, and I trust that his prediction will be borne out. From the love I have for the old country where I was born, I do not want to see her go down. Then we have heard a great deal from the free-trade point of view to explain what has caused the prosperity of the United States. We have been told that it grew up, not because of protection, but in spite of it. Figures have been given to prove that contention. We have had the most elaborate statistics quoted by others to prove that the prosperity of America is absolutely due to protection. We have been loaded up with a mass of figures from one side and the other, till my poor brain is in a state of utter confusion as to which set of statistics is right; and I am quite sure that the people in. the galleries who have listened to the various speeches have gone away not knowing what to believe. One statement made by the honorable senator who last spoke was rather astonishing to me. It was that, as far as he is concerned, it would be better, and he would be in pocket, if high duties were the rule. Is it not a singular fact that every one of the big importers throughout the States is a free-trader ? The importers do not believe in any duties. Do honorable senators believe that these gentlemen ave likely to depart from the usual custom of men throughout the world of looking after their own interests ? I am inclined to doubt it. Although I believe that Senator Sargood made his- statement in all sincerity, I very much doubt whether his compeers in the same line of business look at the matter in the same light as he does. I am quite sure that they do not, or they would be protectionists instead of free-traders. But they see plainly enough, and it stands to common sense, that if a protective duty is put upon an article which is being imported into a country, and by that means the importation of the article is to some extent stopped in consequence of the country manufacturing it for itself, the importer’s business goes down. Then what becomes of his profit? There will be none whatever for him to make ! There is another point about which I wish to say a word. Senator Sargood has spoken of anomalies in the Tariff. I will say this without much fear of contradiction from any one who has studied Tariffs : that there is scarcely a Tariff in the world in which you cannot find anomalies. I had the honour in 1887 of framing a complete Tariff for South Australia. After it was passed through Parliament, and we commenced working under it, I soon discovered anomalies in it. There are anomalies in all Tariffs, and Senator Sargood has pointed out some in this. It will be our duty as senators to listen to all that can be said, and, where anomalies can be pointed out, I trust we shall be able to cure them. It will be our duty undoubtedly to respectfully ask the other House to agree to any suggestions or amendments we may make in that respect. My own opinion is that the Government made a mistake in introducing the Tariff this session at all. It would have been a great deal better if the first session of the ‘Federal Parliament had been devoted to the consideration of certain necessary machinery

Bills. We might then have had a recess over Christmas, lasting till the hot weather had gone, when we could have had a special session to deal with the .Tariff. If that plan had been followed it would have given to the Ministers who had the duty of preparing the Tariff proper time in which to master the details. When I had the preparation of the South Australian Tariff, I had, of course, the advantage of the old Tariff to build upon, and had not to take into consideration the Tariffs of other States. Yet I remember that mine was a great job. It was an immense work to undertake in addition to discharging the ordinary duties of my office. I also know that the difficulty of preparing this Tariff must have been six times intensified in consequence of the fact that the Government had to amalgamate six Tariffs, and to study the different positions of the various States. They had to consider that a duty upon any particular article would bring in a certain amount of revenue in one State, whilst the same duty would bring in perhaps double or treble the amount in another State. The most marvellous figures came out in the statistics brought before the House of Representatives in connexion with the production of revenue from certain duties. A duty that would be sufficient to enable Victoria to keep up her revenue from a certain article would produce in the State of Western Australia an immensely increased revenue on precisely the same article. That was due to the number of males in the latter State, the number of people working in the mines, the high wages they receive, and the fact that Western Australia had to import almost everything her people ate, drank, or consumed in any way. -Of course, in the face of those facts, any Tariff that would produce a small sum in Victoria would naturally produce a large one in Western Australia. I think that this Tariff, after all the knocking about which it has received in the other House, has not emerged from the process in so good a form as when it was originally introduced. I believe that a great many of the alterations that have been made in the other Chamber have created anomalies rather than cured them. I make this statement after having very carefully watched the progress of the Tariff through the House of Representatives. A number of men sat down to lick the Tariff into shape. Some of them were free-traders, some of them revenue tariffists, some of them protectionists, some of them moderate protectionists, and some of them immoderate protectionists. Amendments were made just according as chance divisions were taken, and alterations necessarily followed which, in many instances, have created anomalies rather than cured them. But, nevertheless, the Tariff is a fair compromise, as Senator O’Connor said when he introduced it. I say so because, on the one hand, I find the free-traders objecting to it as being too high ; and, on the other hand, I find the high protectionists objecting to it as being too .low. Therefore, it appears to me, that, taken as a whole, the Tariff may be regarded as a very reasonable compromise, except in one or two particulars. I wish now to allude to an honorable senator who has taken up a considerable amount of time, and to whom I listened with much pleasure. I allude to Senator Pulsford, of New South Wales.” I am a protectionist ; he is a free-trader: but I recognise that he is very much in earnest over the matter, a,nd he has evidently gone to a great amount of trouble to bring forward what he called “facts and figures.” I listened to him with a great amount of attention and instruction all through. He summed up the whole matter from his point of view in a phrase. He practically said, “ I am a free-trader because a protectionist Tariff takes money out of the pockets of the people as soon as the protectionist duties become effective.” In other words he contended that if a protectionist duty is imposed, as long as the Treasurer is receiving revenue from it the protection is not effective, hut directly the Treasurer ceases to obtain revenue from the duty in consequence of its being made effective by manufacturers starting the production of the article taxed, the manufacturer claps on the amount of the duty to the price paid by the consumer. Now I say that that contention is altogether wrong. It is one of those wretched free-trade fallacies we hear so much about, and that are constantly being rammed down -the throats of the people at public meetings by freetrade speakers. They argue that it necessarily follows that the amount of the duty is added to the price of the article as soon as the protection becomes effective. To pro ve. that it does not necessarily follow, I will allude to a little scene that occurred between myself and the leader of the Opposition during his speech at the commencement of this debate. In that speech the honorable and learned senator treated the question in a very fair spirit, except when he was criticising the Vice-President of the Executive Council, when he trespassed upon his imagination for his facts to a very considerable extent. But when the leader of the Opposition was denouncing manufacturers in protected industries, because, he said, they were practically robbing the . public by taking the amount represented by the duty and putting it upon the price of the article, I said, “None ought to know better than you that that is not so, because you are a manufacturer, and1 your industry receives the benefit of a 200 per cent, duty.” I thought I was perfectly justified in referring to that. I did not refer to it in any way that could be regarded as insulting to the honorable and learned senator; but when he was denouncing manufacturers as robbing the public, he being a manufacturer himself, it was only right that I should remind him of the fact. But no one knows better than Senator Symon* that he does not rob the public, and that although there is a duty of 200 odd per cent, for the benefit of the article he manufactures, he never puts that amount into his pocket. The statements of Senator Pulsford and Senator Symon as to the way a protective duty works out are absolutely disproved by the fact that though Australian wine - which is the article Senator Symon manufactures - gets the benefit of this 200 per cent, duty, the local manufacturer does not put that amount of profit into his pocket.

Senator Matheson:

– It is not the. same article in any sense.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is the same article, just as whisky manufactured in Australia is precisely the same article as a whisky manufactured in Scotland. There is not the slightest difference ; it is the same article, and any one who talks such utter nonsense as to say that the wine manufactured in this country is not wine just the same as imported stuff is wine, must have lost his senses. Of course, there are different kinds of wine. There are ports and sherries, and chablis and hocks, and various other kinds. But we manufacture hocks and sherries, and port wine and chablis in South Australia, and these wines are of precisely the same type as imported foreign wines. If the theory of Senator Symon and Senator Pulsford is correct, that the manufacturer puts upon the consumer the duty levied upon the imported article, the manufacturer of wine should be getting a very high price for this article. But as a matter- of fact the manufacturer is getting nothing of the sort. He is receiving only an exceedingly fair and moderate price. Why ? Because there are so many vineyards in the country that they compete one with another and bring down the price to just about the figure at which it pays to produce the article. There is very little profit attached to the industry, and the public are not robbed because of the duty. The only reason for imposing the duty at the present time is to prevent the wine-growers of South Australia and the Other States from having to compete with the cheap wines of France, made by means of cheap labour. They will sell you claret at Bordeaux for 6d. per gallon. I shall refer to another branch of industry in order to prove my contention”. It is said that when a duty becomes absolutely protective, and commodities are made in the country, the manufacturer charges the duty, or a large portion of it, to the consumer, so that, although the people are taxed, the Treasury is benefited in no way. When I introduced my Tariff in South Australia in 1887, a gentleman came to me and said that he had been making ploughshares in that State for a great many years. He had commenced in a very small way by manufacturing for the neighbouring farmers, but, owing to the satisfaction he gave, his business became very large. The English agents, feeling that their business was affected, represented to the manufacturers at Home that unless something was done to kill this thriving local industry, it would monopolize the trade. The result was that the English prices were immediately lowered considerably below any which had previously been charged. The local manufacturer could not afford to sell at these prices, and represented to me that he ought to have some protection. This presented a difficult task to me, because, in this and other Parliaments, we always hear the cry that we must look after the primary producer. It was the “poor” farmers who were interested in these ploughshares, and, of course, they had to be considered. But I introduced my protectionist Tariff, believing the statement of the South Australian manufacturer, that he could sell his ploughshares, at the prices which had previously been charged by the English manufacturer. I managed to squeeze the Tariff through in the face of a considerable amount of opposition, with the result that now the manufacturers of South Australia, not only make all the ploughshares which are required in that State, but also export to other States. The local manufacturers do not charge the duty to the consumers, as is proved by the fact that ploughshares are as cheap, or cheaper than ever they were before. This duty was imposed to prevent the unfair competition of the English manufacturers. In order to show that this lowering of importers’ prices is an old game which has gone on for years, I refer honorable senators to what took place in America early in the nineteenth century, and to a speech then made by a lawyer, named Brougham. There was in the history of the mother country an unfortunate period, which was followed by the second American war. England had prevented America sending goods to our enemy, Napoleon, or to the countries over which he ruled, and eventually this caused America to go to war with the mother country. It is not a very creditable episode in the history of America, but there is the fact. The United States put an embargo on all goods from Great Britain, with the result that the American people were forced into starting manufactures. Subsequently when the infant manufactures of the United States had been started, and the embargo removed, what do honorable senators think the manufacturers of England did? They flooded the American markets. And what do honorable senators think a public man recommended in the House of Commons ? We read -

It was a matter of so much importance that it was discussed in Parliament, and Mr. (afterwards Lord) Brougham declared in the House of Commons in 1816, “it is well worth while to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order by the glut to stifle in the cradle’ those infant manufactures in the United States which the war has forced into existence.”

Free-traders deny that anything of this sort ever occurs ; but we have here a reason why there must be protection in young countries in order to enable industries to be started fairly. What was done in South Australia in a small way, was done in a large way ill 1816 in the United States. Great depression afterwards occurred in America in consequence of English goods being forced on the market. Men were thrown out of employment and wages came down,, and in self-defence the United States were forced into imposing a protective Tariff. I think I have proved my position, and that I may now ask Senator Pulsford to join the ranks of the protectionists. Senator Pulsford said that the only reason he is a free-trader is that a protective duty directly it becomes effective, is diverted by the manufacturers from the Treasury into their own pockets, and the public are thus robbed. The statement is absolutely incorrect. Such a position can only arise under very peculiar circumstances ; that is to say, when industries are not fully established. After a time, when protection has had its full effect, and manufactures are firmly established, internal competition reduces prices to a fair figure, at which the manufacturers can pay reasonable wages. At any rate, prices, if at all, are little above what the commodities could be imported for if there were no duty. And workmen, who gain by protection, ought to support, and do ‘ support, their national industries throughout the greater part of the world. Senator Pulsford went into an elaborate calculation to prove that the Treasurer’s estimate of revenue for a normal year is fallacious : that it is, at least, from £600,000 to £1,000,000 too low. I listened very carefully to the honorable senator and followed his every figure, and I came to the conclusion that he had left out one great factor which will have its effect during the next year or two. My experience as Treasurer enabled me to discover what I find to be a universal rule in the matter of revenue. In South Australia we have had at times bad years through losses of crops; but I found that in such years the revenue from the customs was practically not lowered atall. In the next year, however, there was a great drop in the returns ; and it is a fact that the effects of a bad year are never felt until the following twelve months. We have recently experienced an exceptionally severe drought, which has culminated in much disaster in Queensland, New South Wales, and South Australia, and to a limited extent in the mallee district of Victoria. Does any honorable senator mean to tell mb that next year we shall not feel the full effects of it? Senator Pulsford commenced his speech on Tuesday last by alluding to a return just published, which showed that the revenue derived from customs during the last month was a considerable increase on that of the previous month ; and the honorable senator told us that that fact only strengthened him in the opinion that the Treasurer’s estimate was considerably too low. But Senator Pulsford did not take into account the fact that during the time the Tariff was before the House of Representatives, from October last until it had nearly passed through committee, every importer was keeping his goods in bond, only clearing enough to meet the barest requirements of his trade. Immediately the House of Representatives had practically settled the Tariff, importers began ‘ to operate more freely, having more confidence in what the Tariff was to be. They believed that they knew the worst or the best, as the case might be ; and their abnormal clearances accounted for the increased revenue. I am confident that the estimate of the Treasurer will not be exceeded, though I should be glad if it were. I believe that next year the’ Customs revenue throughout the various States, and especially in the States which require the largest revenue, such as Queensland, Tasmania, and South Australia, will fall very considerably, and these latter States will be great sufferers. As I say, I do not believe that the revenue for the whole Commonwealth will exceed the Treasurer’s estimate of £8,900,000 or thereabouts ; at any rate, the estimate will not be exceeded by the £600,000 or £700,000 mentioned by Senator Pulsford. We have heard a great deal about free-trade England and the feeling there in regard to fiscal matters at the present time. It is asserted that England has already taken a step in the direction of protection by imposing a duty on flour, and a low protective duty on wheat. I was in England from 1884 to 1S88, as AgentGeneral for South Australia, and I came into contact with politicians, merchants, and financiers. The representative of South Australia in London does all the indenting for the State : he calls for tenders for all the Government supplies, and in that way I became acquainted with many manufacturers. I also made it my business on more than one occasion to visit manufacturing centres, both in England and on the Continent, in order to do my best in the way of ob- taining for my State goods of the best quality as cheaply as possible. I admit that the merchants of the old country are all free-traders in spite of the position they occupy. No doubt they grumble, and if any body of men have justification for dissatisfaction, they are the manufacturers of - Great

Britain, whose goods are met in the markets of the mother country by foreign importations which are landed free of duty. The manufacturers of these foreign goods do not pay income tax, or any of the dues which are necessary in order to meet the expenses of government in the various cities and towns. Germany has absolutely captured the whole of the glass trade in England.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– Why?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not know, but they have done it. Not only the Germans but the Belgians - and the French to a more moderate extent - have gone into the brush trade, the woollen trade, the cotton trade, and the machinery trade of England. When I was in England it seemed to me to be a shameful thing that’ the men who were paying taxes in Great Britain, who possessed large factories, and who expended considerable sums of money, should be brought into competition in the English market with goods that came from the continent, and which did not pay any more for freightage than the local manufacturers were compelled to pay for the carriage of their’ manufactures to their destinations. The railway fares from the factories in the midland counties to London and the south of England were higher than was the freight from Hanover and other places on the continent from which goods were sent to England. I considered that it was a, grossly unfair competition. I reached England just after the publication of that celebrated book, Made in Germany, which called England’s attention to this matter in a way in which it had never been done before. On the occasion of one of his public utterances, Lord Rosebery quoted from the statistics of that book. He called the attention of the English merchants to the matter, and asked them, to improve their methods of trade and manufacture, and if possible to do something to counteract it. At the time, the whole of England was discussing the question of how to deal with the difficulty. A gentleman well known to a good many honorable senators, because he was in the Malay Archipelago for many years - I refer to Wallace, the great naturalist and writer on land tenure and a variety of other social subjects, and who. by-the-bye, if Darwin had not stepped in, would have been the first to propagate the doctrine of evolution, because he had found out precisely the same facts - wrote an article . in one of the reviews in which he pointed out this unfair competition. He was a strong freetrader; but he pointed out that the remedy was for the British’ Government to impose precisely the same duties on articles coming into England as those to which similar articles of English manufacture were liable on entering Germany. He said - “ For instance, they put a duty of so much a ton on machinery ; you should have precisely the same duty against them ; so that if they import machinery into England they will have to pay the duties which would have to be paid on English manufactures if imported into Germany.” That would be perfect free-trade, although, of course, it would be a little bit of retaliation, and it appeared to me to be absolutely fair.

Senator Charleston:

– That will not do.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I would take Wallace against Charleston any day. It is all very fine for Senator Charleston, who has not studied the subject, and who, no doubt, had never heard of the question until I spoke of it, to come forward with his ipse divit and say “ It will not do.” No doubt there are objections to that Scheme, and they were pointed out at the time by other writers. But there is a strong feeling growing in England at the present time that something must be done. In order to show honorable, senators the strength of that feeling, I should like to quote from a speech made by Lord Salisbury. He is a free-trader, and a most able and intelligent man. I had the pleasure of hearing him on more than one occasion when in England, and I have always been pleased to listen to that quiet, conversational way in which he addresses his audience, because of the _ sound common sense that he invariably displays in discussing any particular subject.

Senator McGregor:

– Does he know as much as Senator Pulsford ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I should say he knows a little bit more. This is what he had to say on the question of foreign competition in England -

Forty or fifty years ago everybody believed that free-trade had conquered the world -

I think we have heard that here - and they prophesied that every nation would follow the example of England, and give itself up to absolute free-trade. The results are not exactly what they prophesied, but the more adverse the results were, the more the devoted prophets of free-trade declared that all would come right at last-

Poor deluded mortals with their fallacies ! -

The worse the Tariffs of foreign countries became, the more confidentwere the prophecies of an early victory ; but we see now, after many years’ experience that explain it, how many foreign nations are raising, one after another, a wall - a brazen wall of protection - around their shores, which excludes us from their markets, and, so far as they are concerned, do their best to kill our trade, and this state of things does not get better. On the contrary, it constantly seems to get worse.

We live in anage of a war of Tariffs. Every nation is trying how it can, by agreement with its neighbour, get the greatest possible protection for its own industries, and’, at the same time, the greatest possible access to the’markets of its neighbours.

The weapon with which they all fight is admission to their own markets - that is to say, A says toB, “If you will make your duties such that I can sell in your markets I will make my duties such that you can sell in my market.”

But we begin by saying that we will levy no duties on anybody, and w.e declare that it would be contrary and disloyal to the glorious and sacred doctrine of free-trade to levy any duty on anybody for the sake of what we can get by it.

It may be noble, but it is not business.

I commend these remarks to my free-trade friends. I can assure them that year by year this feeling in England is growing greater and greater in intensity. I know the feeling that is entertained by some members of the present Cabinet. I know that Lord Selborne, who was under secretary to Mr. Chamberlain, had the audacity to say, when addressing a meeting, of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool - of all places in the world - that England was no longer going to be bound by the fetish of free-trade. He was cheered to the echo by the very men who, but a few years before, w.ould have looked upon such a statement as rank heresy, and. who would have groaned him down if he had dared to say such a thing in view of the responsible position which he occupied. Although he did not spea.lt absolutely for the Cabinet, I know that he voiced the wish of some members of the Cabinet that something should be done to prevent the grossly unfair competition of foreign traders in the markets of England.

Senator McGregor:

– Did Lord Selborne say anything about preferential duties ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not recollect that he said anything special in regard to them, but I know that England would be inclined to adopt something of the kind. When I was in England Mr. Chamberlain asked me if I thought that the Australian colonies would give preferential treatment to the mother country so far as. her goods were concerned, just as Canada had done. I told him that they would not do so. I said - “ So far as I can see, we cannot do- it.” There is only one line that I know of in regard to which Great Britain could give us any preferential treatment, and that is colonial wines. I knew at the time that preferential treatment in that direction, would admirably suit my own colony, but that it would not suit the others. I thought that I expressed the feeling in the colonies generally when I told Mr. Chamberlain that we could not give preferential treatment to the mother country until she had a Tariff under which it would be possible for her to give us some preference. We are business people in the States, and we do not give something for nothing, no matter what Canada may do. I happen to know what Canada had in view in framing a preferential Tariff in favour of imports from Great Britain. I had an opportunity of speaking on the subject to the unfortunate Premier of Canada, SirJohn Thompson, who died suddenly at Windsor Castle, after he had been sworn in as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Councillors. I also spoke to Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the matter, and I know what Canada has in view. By giving preferential treatment to Great Britain, the people of Canada hope eventually to shame the mother country into giving them preferential duties in return. They donot mind suffering a loss for a few years, but they are equally as businesslike as I said the people of Australia were, when I told Mr. Chamberlain that we could not give Great Britain any such preference.

Senator Dobson:

– The honorable senator ought to have said “ Yes,” instead of “ No,” to Mr. Chamberlain.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I expressed what I believed to be the view of Australia as a whole. I think now that it would be impossible to pass a line in this Tariff which would give preferential treatment to Great Britain in regard to any goods which she might send out here. I do not think it could be done, and, indeed, I see no necessity for it. I look forward to the time, a few years hence, when she will be able to give us something in this direction ; when she will treat us in the same way as France and other countries treat their colonies.

Senator Dobson:

– They let the settlers’ goods in at half-rates.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Something of that sort. I listened with a good deal of attention to this debate, in order to discover if possible any new point. At last I found an absolutely new point, one that had never been thought of before ; that had never been referred to either in the Parliament, in the press, in the country, or anywhere else. It was first promulgated by Senator Styles. The honorable senator told us that he had carefully compared the foreign, trade of States- which had protection, with that of the only State which had a free-trade policy - and it was very bad free-trade - New South Wales. He said, that as the result of this comparison he found that the State which had adopted a free-trade policy sent fi larger proportion of her trade to foreign countries, than did those States which had protection. The inference which he drew was that. free-trade in the States was to the advantage of the foreigner whilst protection was to the advantage of the mother country.

Senator Harney:

– It sounds nice.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It may be right and it may be wrong, I cannot exactly say; but, during the long course of my life I have heard many statements which were exceedingly plausible, and, no doubt, in this case the facts are as stated. But is the inference drawn from those facts accurate ? That is the point. From time to time people have come to me with certain statements ; they have produced their facts and stated the inferences which they drew from them, and they have asked me to subscribe to them. I recollect one special instance when the fad in regard to bimetallism first came out. I think that at the time I was the Treasurer of South Australia, . at all events, I was a member of the State Government. I listened to all the arguments of those who waited on- me in reference to the subject.

Senator McGregor:

– Did Senator Charleston come to the honorable senator about the matter ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I think so.

Senator Charleston:

– No fear !

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I never knew of a fad in South Australia in which Senator Charleston, did not have a hand.

Senator Charleston:

– I had not a hand in that.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The honorable senator goes from one fad to another. He was a protectionist not long ago, and now he is a free-trader, and he goes round and round in the most marvellous way. I say that while the facts may be all right, the inference drawn from them may be altogether wrong. The position the bimetallists put was a very plain one. In 1S72, the German Empire resolved to have a gold standard, and it demonetized silver. . Many of the Latin nations did the some thing at the same time. Now comes the argument. From that time, 1872, right down to 1895 or 1896, there was a gradual fall in the price of silver. There was a gradual fall also in the price of products. Therefore the fall in the price of products was held to be due to the fall in the price of silver. We had only to rehabilitate silver, make it good money again, and a medium of exchange,, and all would be right. Up would go our wheat, wool, metals, and various other products, and a wonderful prosperity would be the result.. That took hold of people to such an extent that Mr. Arthur Balfour, the leader of the Government in the House of Commons, was smitten with it, and agreed with it. Our own Treasurer in South Australia, Mr. Holder, who is now Speaker ‘of the House of Representatives, was bitten with the same thing. A great many of the most able men in the world were bitten with it, including a very great number in America. So strong were, they in America, in consequence of their having behind them a lot of owners of silver mines, who wanted to keep the price of silver up, that they formed big associations, and, I believe, they went the length of running a candidate for the Presidency. It was something terrible. While the agitation was going on it all appeared to be plain sailing. There was no doubt that the price of silver fell, and, as it fell, so fell the price of products. The bi-metallists gob tables out, and they sent a man, called Frewin, all through the Australian colonies, lecturing upon the subject. I do not know whether any honorable senators present listened to the terrible lecture that gentleman gave, but he would have convinced, almost any one who listened to him that it was all as true as gospel. But the time came when theprice of silver still went down and the price of products rose. Then the whole theory was knocked on the head, and we hear no more about it now. It has gone. So I say to my honorable friend. Senator Styles, that, while his facts are absolutely correct, the inferences he draws from those facts may be absolutely inaccurate.

Senator Styles:

– And they may be right.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– When I came to deal with the exports of New South Wales I should require to know what classes of goods were sent, and if, for instance, they were goods that the other States could not produce. For instance, how about coal ? The other States could not produce coal to be sent to Honolulu and other places.

Senator Styles:

– I did not include coal.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The honorable senator is a very wise man. He has generally got something up his sleeve. However, I shall not pursue the subject further, but I again express my pleasure at having heard this new point. I did hear some other new statements made also. They were made by my honorable friend, Senator Smith. I am sure there was something new in the statement the honorable senator made about the fall of Babylon. He told us it was not due to the Medes and Persians,

Or to Belshazzar’s feast, or to the handwriting on the wall, Mene, mene, tekel upharsin or anything we might read in the book of Daniel ; but because Herodotus, that old father of history, had said something about those people giving their land away until it got into a very few hands, he told us that it was due to the large landed proprietors. But the honorable senator was not content with 1 Babylon. Not a bit of it. He must go to Persia, and he told us the same yarn about Persia. I never heard it before, though I am as good a historyreader as most people, and have as good a knowledge of history, both ancient and modern. Then the honorable senator came down further to Rome, and we heard that Rome was ruined not by our old barbarian forefathers, the Goths, the Huns, and the VisiGoths, who overran Europe at the time. We were told that the Roman Empire did not fall because of those people, but because of big estates. But here we have the old mother country with big estates, and she has been floating the old flag that has braved the battle and the breeze for a thousand years, and is alive still. Surely the free-traders will not say that the mother country is extinct ?

Senator Harney:

– She has not had big estates for a thousand years.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not believe we can draw any such conclusions as Senator Smith has drawn from any passages in history. I read Gibbon with a good deal of attention, and though ,he tells us all about the “ Decline and Fall,” the point which Senator Smith made is not one of the points which he makes.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - It is a new point.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is a new point, and one which it appears to me requires even a greater amount of proof than the new point made by my honorable friend, Senator Styles. Then there was another astounding statement made by Senator Smith, whose speech was full of ‘ curious statements. I learned a great deal from the honorable senator. One of his statements was that Europe went in for a policy of protection because of the military expenditure necessary in European countries.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Yes, in 1874.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I am glad that I have accurately quoted the honorable senator. There was no use in my interjecting across the Chamber, that Bismarck said he adopted the policy for the sake of protection. It was not a bit of use my saying that Thiers said the same thing in the French Assembly in Paris, and that Belgium put on high duties for the same reason. The honorable senator was quite sure that he had given the right reason, but does he not know that Bismarck and Thiers at least had common sense, and does he not know that to raise revenue for purposes of military expenditure, the very worst thing to do would be to put on protective duties, because, directly they became effective, there would be a loss of revenue? Bismarck was not such a fool as that. Bismarck and Thiers were both exceedingly eminent men ; but, however foolish they may have been, they were never so stupid as to put on protective duties to raise money for military purposes. Their own common sense would have taught them that directly those duties became effective, they would no longer bring in revenue to meet the expenses of their armies.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– If the honorable senator will read my remarks he will see that I said they put on high duties for revenue purposes at first.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Very well; I have now got another point which the honorable senator has made. I pay particular attention to my young friend, because I like to see young men in Parliament. A dressing down occasionally does them a world of good - I have had many in my time - and I hope that when we old people leave the scene we shall have trained up the young men. I am, therefore, exceedingly glad to see so many young men around me in this Senate, which is supposed to represent the age and wisdom of the States. I wish to tell Senator Smith that he ought to be very particular about his facts. If he desires to secure the respect of the Senate and of the community outside, he must be especially careful as to the truth of the statements he makes. I am very doubtful about one statement he made - that wages of 4 dollars a week were paid in coal mines in America. There is no truth in it. I defy the honorable senator to prove it, and his own common sense should have told him there was no truth in it. We know that wages in America are higher than in any other part of the civilized world. We know also that men who work in mines always get high wages, even in England. They get exceedingly high wages in England, and work exceedingly short hours too. All over the world it is the same. It is a hard and dangerous occupation, and especially trying to the constitution, and where men are employed in dangerous occupations, they must always be paid high wages. Men, for instance, who are employed in smelting works amongst lead, and who, in consequence of being leaded, have their lives shortened, are paid exceedingly high wages. While on this subject, I should like to read a quotation from Bryce’s American Commonwealth - the standard authority upon all political and social questions relating to the United States of America. Bryce says -

With one interval of trade depression, it [the United States] has for twenty years been developing its amazing naturalresourcesso fast as to produce an amount of wealth which is not only greater, but more widely diffused through the population than in any other part of the world, and the people allow themselves luxuries such as the masses enjoy in no other country.

Honorable members opposite speak of the millionaires to be found in America, and argue that wealth is not diffused there, but Mr. Bryce, who lived in the United States, travelled through it, and made it his duty to thoroughly inquire into these matters, tells us that wealth is more widely diffused there than in any other part of the world. I prefer to take Mr. Bryce’s account before that of Senator Smith. Of course, there are millionaires in America ; but there are also a few in the United Kingdom, and it must be remembered that the United States has twice the population of the United Kingdom. Henry C. Carey summed up the case for protection in these words -

Under protection we have had great demand for labour, wages high, and money cheap ; public and private revenues large ; public and private prosperity great beyond all previous precedent; growing national independence. Under free-trade we have had labour everywhere seeking employment, wages low, and money high ; public and private revenues small and steadily decreasing, public and private bankruptcy nearly universal, and growing national dependence.

He shows that almost since the declaration of independence, whenever there have been periods of protection, there has been prosperity, but that when free-trade has been the order of the day, depression, low wages, bankruptcy, and disaster have followed. When I was in England, President Cleveland, who was a free-trader, altered the American Tariff so as to make it practically a free-trade Tariff, with the result that the country became so unprosperous, and the balance of trade set so steadily against it, that they had to go into the market, and sell gold bonds in order to keep up the credit of the banks and of the Government. But when theMcKinley, and then the Dingley, Tariffs were imposed prosperity came again, and now the people of the United States are the most prosperous nation in the world, and are beginning to expand and to take possession of other countries. Popu lation there has increased, wealth has increased, the wages of the workmen are kept upto a high level, and the people consume luxuries which are not known to people in similar states of society elsewhere. When I visited the United States and Canada in 1882 and 1883, I made it my duty to converse with men who had some knowledge of the conditions of those countries, and as a result of what I saw and heard, I came to the conclusion that unmistakably protection was the right policy for South Australia. After I came back I got into Parliament, and in 1887 introduced what I call a moderate Tariff, though, of course, others might judge it by a different standard. That Tariff remained in existence until 1901, when it was superseded by the Commonwealth Tariff, introduced by ray right honorable friend the Minister for Trade and Customs ; and during all the years between 1887 and 1901 there was no agitation for its alteration, except in minute particulars. It was not altered, except to raise the duty upon champagne - a thing which even my free-trade friends would not object to - and to reduce the duty upon oats, for the benefit of the Adelaide cabmen.

Senator Pearce:

– Is South Australia a big manufacturing country now ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I do not say that it is ; but we manufacture our own boots and shoes, our own clothing, our own ploughs and agricultural machinery, and our own vehicles, which we did not do before we had protection. When I was Treasurer I was told by my freetrade friends, of whom I have plenty there, and with whom I talked over these matters in a most amicable manner - “ You have become Premier and Treasurer at a time of great trouble. During the last three years the colony has gone to the bad considerably over a million: When the revenue of a little colony fails to that extent to meet the expenditure, things are in rather a bad way, and yet you are bringing in a protectionist Tariff.” I said - :”I am not bringing in a protectionist Tariff, because in the world there is no Tariff which is protectionist in the true sense of the term. A Tariff is imposed primarily for revenue and incidentally for protection, and it is the wise people of the world who make their Tariff of such a character that, while it produces enough revenue for governing purposes, it incidentally protects their own people, giving them employment and making them self-reliant, and not dependent on other countries.” I was told in the most serious way - “ You have put a tax on boots, shoes, ready-made clothing, and other things. Ofcourse, the articles will be made in the colony, and you will get no revenue, and where will you be then?” I said - “ You will see where I shall be when the time comes round.” What resulted ? It is absolutely true - as true as a proposition in Euclid - that if you put a duty on an article you get a revenue while it is imported, but you get no revenue when importation ceases. The importation of boots and shoes and a host of other things practically stopped ; but the manufacture of all our readymade clothing in the colony went on very comfortably. We lost revenue in that direction. But this is what I gained. There were 300 or 400 men employed in making boots and shoes who were never employed in that way in the colony before, and they consumed various dutiable articles like tea and coffee - they had a little drop of beer occasionally, I suppose, and so forth - and the result was that I made up any loss of revenue caused by the protective duties becoming effective. I made up that loss of revenue easily through the employment of the men who were working on these manufactures.

Senator Dobson:

– The honorable senator said that this was a Tariff which Bismarck would not have been such a fool as to introduce.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No ; Senator Smith said that Bismarck brought in a protective Tariff for the purpose of producing a war revenue. I hold that no man would be fool enough to impose duties of a protective nature for such a purpose. I have heard the free-traders make these false statements from the public platform. I have got up and denounced them, and shown how wrong they were in trying to make the poor people believe that we would get no revenue if we had a protective Tariff - it was an absurd thing to say - whereas the real truth is that no Tariff is absolutely protective all round. If the protective duties you impose incidentally are effective, the revenue is made up to the Treasury by the duties on the goods which are consumed by the workmen, who would not have been at work and in the country if it had not been for’ the protective Tariff.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - That is the experience of America, too.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– That is the experience all over the world, so far as I know; that was my experience unmistakably. Now I come to- a part of the Tariff in respect of which I exceedingly regret the action of the other House. I am exceedingly sorry that the leader of the Opposition and of the free-trade party in that House voted against the retention of the tea and kerosene duties. He voted against his principles, and I think he ought to be heartily ashamed of himself for his action. He refused to allow a reconsideration of the proposals.

Senator Pearce:

– How about the protectionists ?

Senator De Largie:

– That is not a protectionist tax.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is a revenue duty, and a proper revenue duty,. too, as it is not felt by the community, and is not levied on a necessary of life.

Senator Pearce:

– What tea ?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is not a necessary of life in any sense of the word.People in this community very often drink a great deal toomuch tea. I would rather see a higher duty imposed, to keep them from drinking so much, than take off the duty and encourage the beggars to tan their stomachs with strong tea.

Senator Dobson:

– The honorable senator is hard on the ladies.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– The ladies have all sorts of absurd fads, which they follow. Not only do they drink their afternoon tea very often to excess, but they lace themselves so tightly that they can hardlybreathe, and do all sorts of absurd things. The honorable and learned senatormust not say that I am hard on the ladies.I could be very hard on them if 1 liked, because some of them do very stupid things, and to drink too much tea is a very stupid thing. I am serious on this question of the tea duty, and Iam exceedingly sorry that it was taken off. It was easily paid by the people. It was 3d. a lb., less in the Commonwealth than it had been in Queensland. It produced a nice little revenue to the Commonwealth, and there waa not the slightest justification for its abolition. I would sooner take the duty off cotton piece goods. That is what we did in South Australia. I wished to encourage people to make clothing in the colony, and I admitted their raw. material duty freo, but now we have a duty on cotton piece goods, which I think is a great mistake, and it might be taken off in the interests of the working people. Cotton will not hurt them very much unless it gets on fire, and then it is a very awkward thing. I am inclined to put a duty on flannelette because it is a very dangerous material for women to wear, especially if it gets alight, for it is all cotton. I now come to another item in respect of which I think a very great mistake has been made, and here Ispeak from a protectionist stand-point. It was a scandalous thing to take the duty off kerosene. In New South Wales they have a kerosene shale mine working. According to the reports in the newspapers, the little State of Tasmania has a deposit of kerosene shale of most excellent quality, far and above anything which has ever been found in Australia. Why should we not impose a slight protective duty that practically nobody would feel, and give some encouragement to the development of a natural industry 1

Senator Dobson:

– A primary industry.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is one of the primary industries. I look upon the Tariff as a very fair compromise, except in some particulars in which anomalies can bepointed out, I have no doubt, that we may readily cure. But I ask the Senate, whatever it may do, not to lower the duties which are imposed for revenue purposes, but rather to increase them. Look at the position that Queensland will be in after this fearful drought, with a deficiency of £200,000 in her Customs revenue. Look at the position that Tasmania will bc in with a deficiency of between £100,000 and £200,000. It is a very sad thing indeed to contemplate. South Australia will come out just about even, and therefore it is not a matter of very muchimportance to that State. Under this Tariff South Australia will derive a revenue equal to that which was previously returned by its State Tariff. But this is not thecase with some of the other States. I fear that in consequence of the severe drought which prevails in several of the States we shall fail to realize therevenue anticipated by the Treasurer, and therefore I ask the Senate not to make any request to the other branch of the Legislature to still further reduce these duties. I shall be only too glad to assist in restoring tea to the dutiable list by imposing a tax of 3d. per lb. upon it. At all events, letus levy some duty upon it. Let us preventthe tea-packing industry, which has been established in the various States through the operation of Customs duties, from being destroyed. It is an industry in which hundreds of people who are unable to do heavier work find employment, and therefore if we cannot see our way to levy a duty of 3d. per lb. upon tea, let us impose a tax of1d. per lb. upon that article in packets so that the industry may be kept going.

Senator Major GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

– I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to consent to an adjourn ment of the debate.

Senator O’Connor:

– T - There was a general understanding last night that the debate should be concluded to-morrow, and under the circumstances it is rather unreasonable to ask that the discussion should be adjourned at such an early hour.

Senator Major GOULD:

– If I speak tonight, and my remarks aro not concluded, I shall not be able to continue to-morrow unless special leave is given, and it does not seem possible to close the debate tomorrow.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - If the honorable senator has not finished at 1 1 o’clock I shall bc quite willing to adjourn. T really do not think that we ought to lose an hour.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I had hoped that the leader of the Senate would consent to an adjournment of the debate, because it is very much more convenient for one to speak at an earlier hour of the day.

Senator McGregor:

– Why does not the honorable and learned senator move the adjournment of the debate t

Senator Major GOULD:

– I cannot very well do that when the Vice-President of the Executive Council objects, and I do not think it is a proper course to adopt, because it is practically an attempt to take the business out of his hands.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must ask the honorable senator either to move the adjournment of the debate or to address his remarks to the second reading of the Bill.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

. the circumstances I consent to an adjournment, but I wish it to be understood that if possible we shall conclude the debate to-morrow. If that is impossible we must absolutely finish it upon Tuesday, even if we have to sit all night.

Debate (on motion by Senator Major Gould) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020508_senate_1_9/>.