3rd Parliament · 3rd Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 2347
– I desire to call the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, to the fact that it was the custom with the previous Government to print and circulate, for the benefit of members of Parliament, the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and to ask if the present Government intend to follow that practice by printing and distributing the decisions which were given yesterday ?
– I shall bring the matter before the Cabinet. I hope that it will decide to do anything which is in the interests of members of Parliament, and that the result will be satisfactory.
– May I invite the Minister’s attention to the fact that Senator Guthrie limited his request to one set of decisions ? I ask the Government, to take a more general view, and to make avai]ablt to members of Parliament any decisions which are likely to be of interest or use to them.
– All the decisions of the High Court are printed, but the question of circulating the reports will be considered. I wish the leader of the Opposition to understand that I intended my answer to Senator Guthrie’s question to be taken as general, and not limited to any particular case.
page 2347
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 2347
Notice of Questions
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
Will the Government lay on the table of the Senate the reply of the late Minister for External Affairs to the despatch of the Colonial Office, dated 3rd September, relating to Navigation laws?
– In asking the honorable senator to repeat his question on Wednesday next, I desire to impress upon honorable senators the fact that it is not very easy to obtain by Friday morning replies to questions given notice of on Thursday. If on any Thursday in the future they will give notice of their questions, not for Friday, but for the first day of sitting in the following week, it will enable the officers in the different Departments to make fuller inquiries, and to furnish more satisfactory replies. .
– I recognise the reasonableness of the Minister’s request, and give notice of my question for next Wednesday.
page 2348
Debate resumed from 26th November (vide page 2281), on motion by Senator Pearce -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– The very nature of the matter covered by the Bill makes it one which, in ordinary circumstances, would create a considerable amount of interest, as I have no doubt it now does, and also induce any honorable senator inclined to discuss it, to speak at some length. But I recognise, first of all, that it has been before the Parliament, in one branch or other, for a very long time. Further, I recognise a very natural desire in, indeed, an obligation on, all honorable senators to be as brief as possible with their speeches, in order to close the session in time to enable those living in different parts of the Commonwealth to reach their homes before Christmas. I shall endeavour to assist the Government to close the session at an. early date. For that reason I shall make my remarks on this very important measure as brief as I possibly can. I do not propose to make more than a very short reference to the position of the iron industry in Australia.’ I think it will be recognised that it has undoubtedly all the raw natural wealth for carrying on a big iron industry. It may also be taken for granted that there is a very considerable market for the products of such an industry, and it will be admitted that there is an understandable desire to see it developed and established on a good sound basis. If those three things are admitted, the only point which arises is one to which Senator Pearce referred, and that is, which of three methods that have been suggested ought to be adopted. Those three methods are, first, a protective duty ; secondly, a bounty ; and thirdly, a State or Commonwealth enterprise.
– To neither of which the honorable senator has subscribed at any time.
– My honorable friend is absolutely wrong, as he generally is.
– No; I am perfectly right. I am watching with interest the honorable senator’s attitude on this Bill.
– I know that there are some honorable senators who still prefer a Customs duty; but I think it is generally conceded that, to impose a duty on iron imports at the present time, would very largely affect a number of industries, and a still greater number of those who are dependent upon the industries to which I refer for the things they require to carry on their ordinary occupations. It is not desirable, nor would it conform to the expressed policy of the Commonwealth, to seek to handicap, or seriouslystrain, a large number of industries merely to establish one. For that reason, quite apart from any fiscal views I hold, I discard the idea of a duty at this juncture, believing that’ its imposition would be ihighly detrimental to Australia as a whole. Coming to the second method, it seems to me that there can be only one objection urged against the grant of a bounty, and that is that the Commonwealth is asked to pay a certain sum. If the effect should be to establish an industry, every one would be pleased. On the other hand, if the attempt failed, the worst result which could follow from the Bill would be that the Commonwealth; would have spent £150,000.The payment of a bounty cannot hurt a single industry called upon to use iron. No engineer, no manufacturer of machinery, none engaged in subsidiary trades, can be in any way injured by the payment of a bounty by the Commonwealth to those who make iron.
– The honorable senator reasons that a protective duty is an impost on the consumer, and yet he wants to penalize every citizen in order to establish a private enterprise in New South Wales:
– I do not think that any protectionist, except Senator Findley, would ever contend that the imposition of a protective duty failed to increase the price of the article, at any rate during the early stages of an industry. It has been admitted, even by the most ardent protectionists here, that where you seek to establish an industry-
– It could not protect if it did not have that effect.
– Exactly. I am trying to state as clearly as I can, and, I hope, fairly, that the effect of a protective duty in the early stages of this industry would be to increase prices to those called upon to use the products of iron. A bounty is free from that objection. If it does not cheapen, it certainly cannot increase, prices, and the worst thing that would happen would be that the Commonwealth would be called upon to pay the amount of the. bounty.
– To exact a tribute from citizens in order to establish an industry.
– I admit at once that to pay a bounty is to take an amount from the pockets of all the citizens of Australia, and give it to those, who carry on an industry which we desire to see established. What is my honorable friend’s alternative? It is to take the bounty, not from the pockets of all the citizens of Australia, which is going to reap benefits, but from the pockets of a few persons who have to use the commodities which are being made under the bounty system.
– Nothing of the kind. I want to nationalize the industry.
– So far, I have only dealt with the advantages of a bounty as against a Customs duty. I come now to the third method. I assume that my honorable friend seeks a nationalization of the iron industry bv the Commonwealth. I do not propose at this period of the session - and I sincerely hope that no- one else will do so - to enter into a< discussion as to the advantages or disadvantages of Socialism. If we were to do so, we might as well say it once that we have no desire to close thesession, but are prepared to enter into an interminable discussion as to the merits and demerits of Socialism.
– Why not? These are matters which divide parties in the Senate and the other place, too?
– Of course, nothing that we can do, no standing order that we have, will restrain my - honorable friend from unduly consuming time if he wishes to do so, and, from my observation of him. I feel perfectly certain that no regard for the convenience of honorable senators will restrain him either.
– We are here to advocate broad principles.
– I think that the less the honorable senator says to me about a principle the better. I want to set the Minister in charge of this Bill right in a matter of history. Yesterday he inferred that a Bill for the payment of an iron bounty had been before the Senate on a previous occasion. That is not correct. So far as I know, no Bill for the payment of a bounty has ever been introduced here previously. A Bill bearing a similar title was certainly introduced, and with the Minister I helped to defeat it, but it was a mere pious declaration that at some future date Parliament might, if it liked, impose Customs duties. It had nothing in common with this Bill.
– It had the same object in view.
– I do not know that it had. It was a Bill to impose Customs duties at some later date, when Parliament had made up its mind on the subject; but this Bill asks Parliament immediately to sanction the payment of :in iron bounty. Not .only have the two measures nothing in common with each other, but here is what Senator Playford said in introducing the previous Bill -
The Government are of opinion that it is utterly futile to attempt the encouragement of the manufacture of iron by means of a bonus, an attempt to pass a measure with that object not having met with success.
That will show at once the wide difference between that Bill and this. This is a Bonus Bill. Senator Playford said that it was useless to attempt to pass a Bonus Bill, and the Government therefore brought in a measure, the effect of which was to proclaim to the world that at a future date Parliament was prepared to impose protective duties for the benefit of those who had established the industry. Now I want to come down to what is likely to be the ground of contention in reference to this Bill; that is, the question as to whether or not it is desirable to nationalize the iron industry. As I said just now, I desire to avoid opening up such a wide ground of debate, as one is almost attempted to do, by the mention of this question;’ but I wish to advance what appear to me to be solid reasons against the policy of nationalization at the present juncture. In the first place, not even Senator Findley would dream for a moment that it is practicable to do anything in that way immediately. If the Senate were to-morrow to affirm the desirableness of nationalizing the iron industry no one would say that it could be nationalized within the next few years, probably not even within the lifetime of any mon here. Consequently, the only effect of a resolution of that kind would be to postpone indefinitely the establishment of the iron industry in Australia. If the Government were to come down “with a definite proposal to nationalize the industry - I speak quite apart from the desirableness or otherwise of such a proposal - -and were to show the Senate that they had the ways and means for doing it, I might be inclined to discuss that mode of procedure as against the one proposed by this Bill. But no one can honestly get up in this Chamber and affirm that if this Bill be defeated we shall have the iron industry established bv means of nationalization for many years to come. The alternatives are this Bill or nothing. The alternatives are not iron industry by means of bonus, or iron industry under nationalization ; they are iron industry by means of bonus, or no iron industry at all. Between those alternatives I have no hesitation in making my choice.
– Where are we to get the money from?
– My honorable friend’s practical Scotch mind comes in there. Where are we to get the money from if we are to nationalize the industry? Let me now deal with a matter that is brought to mind by the aspect of the case which I have recently discussed. I should like to point out why, apart from the general objection to nationalization, one of the proposals of this Bill as it now stands is, to my mind, most iniquitous. There is a proposal here to compel any one who takes or applies for the bounty to give an undertaking to transfer his property to the State Government, or to the Commonwealth Government, when called upon to do so. What would be the effect of that ? No Government, I take it, would take over a bankrupt concern. Any concern taken over would be one that had already become highly successful.
– By means of Government money.
– We know what we are asked to pay. For every shilling which will be paid by the Commonwealth for the purpose of building up this industry, and making it a success, those directly interested in it will pay pounds. Yet this Bill says : “ Because we are placing one shilling beside your pound, we claim the right, after you have made a success of the industry, and have built it up by your own energy and sacrifice, to compel you to transfer the business to us ; whilst if it happens to be a failure, you can carry the loss yourselves.”
– There is only onepossible way to make the industry a success, and that is by State assistance and control.
– The proposal ofthis Bill would be a very fair one to make if the Commonwealth found half the money, and did not contribute merely a fraction) towards the capital cost. If the Commonwealth is prepared to find half the cost, and to put up with any loss which may accrue, there may be some justification for this proposal. But to place a Government, merely by the arbitrary power which all Governments possess, in the position to say : “ If you venture your money, and give the best years of your life to the development of the industry, and make a success of it, we shall have the right to take it over; whereas, if it results in failure, you can bear the loss yourselves,” is a monstrous proposal.
– It is done when people come to the Government for aid.
– People do not want assistance if they build up a business without Government aid. When Mr. Sandford! went to the Government of New South Wales with an offer to them that they should take over his business, they said : “ It is not good enough.” But if he had been making handsome profits there would? have been no hesitation on the part of the Government to accept his offer. If there is to be a transfer of the property to the Government, it should be on terms absolutely just and fair. But it is a monstrousthing to tell me that if I or anyone else build up a business, put money into it, and) make a success of it, the State may come in and take it from me. It may be a crime, in the opinion of some honorable senators opposite, to possess money ; but it is not yet a legal crime under the laws of this country, and I repeat that it is monstrous to propose that, after people have built up a business, and made a success of it, bearing the stress and toil of the day, they should be liable to have it taken from them at the will of a Government.
– It is admitted that the parties concerned cannot make a success of this business without the aid of the Government.
– Does the honorable senator think that the amount of money which the Commonwealth proposes to contribute represents a fair share in this deal, as against the capital put into the works by the proprietors?
– On their own admission it is the aid of the Commonwealth that is going to establish the industry.
– I am afraid that in this matter my idea of what constitutes fairness is not on all fours with that of my honorable friend. What I put forward as a fair proposal, which has always ruled hitherto in all relations between a State and its citizens, is that when a property is sought to be transferred to the Government it shall be transferred upon a valuation which is declared to be fair and honest. But here is a proposal to give the Government arbitrary power to take over a property not at anything like Its market value, but merely at the value of the land and the plant and buildings erected thereon. Do honorable senators think that the ,£150,000 proposed to be spent here is anything like a fair contribution as against the very much larger sum which the proprietors are putting into this venture ?
– The same argument as is used in favour of this Bill anight be used in regard to every protected industry in Australia.
– That is an excellent illustration. The same contention might be applied to every protected industry in Australia. Having by means of a protective duty enabled an industry to be built up and made a success, the Government, according to the contention of honorable senators opposite, have a
Tight to nationalize it. But do they propose to do that? Certainly not.- The season is obvious.
– The illustration is not on all-fours.
– My logic may be at fault, but it appears to me to be absolutely so. Whether a Government assist an industry by means of a bounty or of a duty amounts to the same thing, and, according to the contention of the supporters of the principle to which I am referring, the Government, having given that assistance, has a right to take over the business at its bare value. I pass from that commercial - and in some sense moral - aspect of the question, to consider the right which we have to enter upon industries of this kind. Senator Pearce, I am sure, was not very happy when he was trying to argue that the Commonwealth had the constitutional right to enter upon a commercial undertaking of this sort. He must have had a very strong doubt in his mind, and that I think was manifest from the hesitancy with which he advanced that portion of his argument. I can find no authority to justify Senator Pearce’s statement that the Commonwealth is constitutionally entitled to carry on commercial undertakings. It is a curious thing that he ventured to quote Mr. Deakin, who was Attorney-General of the Commonwealth at the time when the opinion quoted was given.
– He did not quote Mr. Kingston.
– And more than that, he did not recall the fact that Mr.. Deakin was the head of a Government which introduced a Bill that failed to make provision for the transfer of the property to the Commonwealth. The Minister in charge of the Bill in the other House spoke when Mr. Deakin was present, and affirmed that the Commonwealth had no constitutional right of the kind. I will give the quotation. Sir William Lyne, speaking upon the Manufactures Encouragement Bill-
– Does the honorable senator regard him as a constitutional authority ?
- Sir William Lyne was a colleague of Mr. Deakin, who, as the report shows, was present in the House at the time, and he said - i do not think that the Government should undertake such a work without an amendment of the Constitution.
Surely Mr. Deakin, who was the head of the Government which introduced this Bill, would not have allowed Sir William Lyne to convey to the House a wrong impression. Surely we may assume that if Mr. Deakin held the view that the Commonwealth could constitutionally undertake work of this character he would not have allowed one of his colleagues to express the opinion that the work was outside the proper functions of the Commonwealth.
– Does the honorable senator say that Mr. Deakin has changed the opinion which he expressed.
– No, but I- think that my honorable friend has stretched Mr. Deakin ‘s opinion to find authority to justify the Bill. When the Bill came before the Senate, Senator Playford, who was in charge of it, said exactly what Sir William Lyne had said in the other House. ‘ Senator Playford made this definite statement -
There is a section of the Constitution which pi events any enterprise of this kind being entered upon, and that I think is most unfortunate.
I draw attention to the fact that Senator Playford was not opposed in principle to the Commonwealth carrying on an undertaking of this kind. He did not speak with any bias. But he said that it was most unfortunate that the Commonwealth had not the power, and his sympathies were evidently with Senator Pearce. Senator Playford also said -
It was most unmistakably the present Prime Minister’s opinion that the Commonwealth had noc power to establish and conduct such industries.
Those definite opinions from Mr. Deakin*s colleagues surely give us as clear an idea, of what Mr. Deakin thought, as the remarks quoted by the Minister of Defence. Moreover, the section of the Royal Commission which favoured nationalization, and which surely tried to make as much of the opinion of the then Attorney-General as it possibly could, arrived at the same conclusion. Its report said -
Your Commission have obtained the annexed opinion of the Honorable the Attorney-General, which shows that the power of the ‘ Commonwealth to conduct manufactures is limited as mentioned in the opinion.
In what way does the opinion say that the power of the Commonwealth is limited? Mr. Deakin stated what I venture to say it did not require any able lawyer to state, although we are glad to have Mr. Deakin’s opinion. Still, it must be obvious that our power in this respect is limited under the Constitution ; but what Mr. Deakin said was that the clear intention of the document upon which we rely is to give to the Commonwealth full right to manufacture anything and everything for its own requirements, or for the purpose of carrying out any of the powers transferred to it, and whatever is incidental thereto.
– The firm establishment of the Lithgow works would be very convenient to the Commonwealth.
– My honorable friend evidently has in mind the need of a small arms factory. I think I am correct in saying that the total consumption of iron for guns and small arms would not keep the Lithgow works going for one week. To enable them to be carried on profitably they must be kept going from year to year. My honorable friend therefore wants to establish an industry to do work for the Commonwealth for one week, and work for the public for fifty-one weeksof the year; and he wishes to call the fiftyone weeks’ work incidental to the one week’s work. Surely that is stretching matters altogether too far. I have given the Senate Mr. Deakin’s opinion.
– As interpreted by exSenator Playford.
– No, as interpreted by itself. I say that only one interpretation can be put upon the opinion, and it is not that which the present Minister of Defence seeks to place upon it. The true interpretation of the opinion is that the Commonwealth has full right to manufacture iron for its own purposes, and not only to give effect to the powers contained in what we know as the thirty-nine articles of the Constitution, but to carry out suchother functions as may be incidental thereto. But it has not the power to take a part in the ordinary commercial life of Australia and manufacture iron for supply in the ordinary way to the public. Though I am not prepared to do so, I might go so far to meet my honorable friends opposite as to admit that, if the Commonwealth were carrying on an industry, the major portion of the output of which was required for Commonwealth purposes, while incidentally the balance was allowed to go outside, that might by a stretch of Constitution be construed as coming within its four corners.
But it is an entirely different proposition to propose to start an industry working fifty-one weeks in the year to supply the general public and one week to meet Commonwealth requirements. That would be stretching the Constitution to a point at which it would be practically torn up.
– Then we do not intend to construct railways anywhere?
– I have yet to learn that railways are a Federal undertaking. That they may be so is possible. Anything is possible, especially if our honorable friends continue where they are.
– It is a contingency which might be provided for.
-We cannot provide for a contingency in that way.
– It is in the Constitution now.
– The Commonwealth does not require one ounce of railway material to-day, and it can only manufacture it for its own requirements. Will honorable senators say that the Commonwealth requires a single rail to-day?
– We shall require to construct railways.
– My honorable friends, in order to make the argument good, should first propose that we take over certain railways, and we should then have the right to manufacture rails. We cannot under the Constitution manufacture rails on the plea that at some future time we may take over certain railways.
– We propose to take over the Northern Territory.
– The manufacture of rails by the Commonwealth would be within the Constitution, if having taken over the Northern Territory we decided to construct railways there.
– It is as certain as that the honorable senator is standing where he is that the Commonwealth will take over the Northern Territory.
– My honorable friend will see that when the Commonwealth proposes to build railways of its own it will be in a position constitutionally to manufacture rails. But it cannot manufacture one rail constitutionally until it has a railway to supply.
– We shall have railways to supply.
– I have no doubt that my honorable friends opposite are prepared to do wonderful things. I have endeavoured to put before honorable senators what I regard as the arguments against the proposed method of procedure. On several occasions we have had before us Bills that have been very dear to the hearts of honorable senators opposite. The gravest doubts have been thrown upon their constitutionality, but they have ignored the doubts, and have insisted upon going ahead with the measures, because the goal at which they aimed appeared to them to be in sight. We know that what has happened has been that Bill after Bill of that kind has been declared to be ultra vires, and I ask honorable senators opposite to say whether the pushing on of those measures has helped their cause one bit ?
– They have been declared ultra vires by a majority of one.
– The honorable senator need not talk of a majority of one. What majority does he want? No grosser accusation could be levelled against a Court or a body of men set to preside over a Court than is implied in the honorable senator’s interjection. It opens up opportunities for the gravest possible abuse to introduce any question of a political element in the nomination of our Judges, and that is what is implied in the .honorable senator’s observation.
– Of course, we have not got it?
– That makes the suggestion so bad that I refrain from pursuing the matter any further. It is a distinct affirmation of political influence in the nomination of Justices of the High Court, and that it continues to operate after their appointment. I will let the honorable senator’s interjection answer itself. I appeal to the good sense of my honorable friends opposite in this matter. Most of them I believe desire the establishment of the iron industry in Australia on a sound basis. I think they should leave their proposal for some future time in view, to put it moderately, of the constitutional point involved. Ironworks are not likely to be taken over by the Commonwealth at present, and if at any time it is thought desirable for the Commonwealth to acquire such works, Parliament can be approached with a definite purpose, and we shall then know what we are doing. I suppose that tha second reading will be agreed to, and I can only express a hope that if it is honorable senators will not allow the Bill to fail because of any difference as to the details to which I have referred-
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [11.6]. - I shall not touch on any matters mentioned by Senator Millen, with the majority of whose remarks I cordially agree. There are two reasons for which I can give this Bill my support. One is that the Senate has already assisted in putting on the statute-book provision for the payment of bounties for all sorts of things. A number of honorable senators have been prepared to vote for bounties on goats, peanuts, and Heaven knows what besides. We have voted for bounties totalling ,£329,000, as shown in the schedule to the Bounties Act. Whilst it may be a most desirable thing to provide for bounties in respect of fish, dried fruits, rice, rubber, sisal hemp, linseed, and even New Zealand flax, I think there are reasons why a bounty in respect of the iron industry may be considered of more vital consequence to Australia. I refer particularly” to the question of defence. In time of war the importation of steel would be just as much a matter of contraband of war as would the importation of arms. We could not defend Australia without steel in some form or other, whether in the rough or as a manufactured article, and as a Commonwealth we shall be scandalously wasting money in the establishment of an arsenal at Lithgow for the manufacture of arms unless we have a reliable supply of steel, the raw material necessary to make such works of any value whatever. On these two grounds, that a bounty on the production of iron is as legitimate or more legitimate than a bounty in respect of many of the productions which have already been considered fit subjects for bounties, and that a reliable supply of the raw material necessary for the manufacture of weapons of defence must always be ‘at hand in Australia. I feel perfectly justified in voting for the second reading of the measure now under discussion.
.I move -
That the word “ now “ be left ont with a view to add after the word “ time “ the words “ this day six months.”
I had hoped that we had seen the last of an attempt which has on more than one occasion been made in this Chamber and in another place to subsidize a private industry at the expense of the Commonwealths to the extent, as proposed on this occasion, of £150,000. Senator Neild has just now said that in his judgment it would be of greater advantage to the Commonwealth togrant a bounty for the production of iron> than to grant bounties for the promotion of some of the industries dealt with in the Bounties Act. But between this measureand the Bounties Act there is no analogy. Any holder of land in any part of the Commonwealth might take advantage of the Bounties Act to obtain the bounties provided for in that measure. But this Bill merely proposes to bring into existence a monopolistic industry, and if there is onething which the Labour Party’s hands areagainst. it is the establishment of monopolies and the continued’ existence of monopolies in any part of the Commonwealth.
– Every new industrymust be a monopoly to start with.
– That is not soThe policy of the Labour Party is clear and? distinct. One of its planks is the nationalization of existing monopolies. It is a? clear and unmistakable declaration that” monopolies privately owned are of no advantage to the community as a community, and that private monopolistic institutionsenrich themselves at the expense of the community. With the experience of years before us, it does seem a strange thing that” as soon as a Labour Government securespossession of the Treasury bench they should introduce a measure having for itsobject the furtherance of a system whichwe are here, as members of the Labour Party, to minimize as far as possible.
– The honorable senator has not proved that this would be a monopoly.
– There is room irc Australia for only one industry of the kind*, proposed to be subsidized under this Bill.
– If honorable senators on this side said that, the honorablesenator would say that we were libelling, our country.
– Our experience in’’ this matter in Australia will, no doubt, bethe same as the experience of Canada. The Dominion began by granting bounties for the establishment of the iron industry, and according to the Canadian Year-Book, foal most every year, since the bounties were first granted, the industry in Canada hasbeen making Oliver Twist demands for moreand more assistance. There is but one- course open to me as a labour man, and that is to continue to advocate and to endeavour to realize the planks of the platform of the party to which I belong, and to see that this industry shall be either State-owned or Commonwealth-owned. It should belong absolutely to the people.
– It belongs to the people now.
– No. It belongs to a gentleman named Mr. Hoskins, and that he cannot make a success of it with the money and capacity at his command is abundantly evidenced by the fact that upon more than one occasion he has made begging appeals to Parliament for assistance. Not long ago, a sad picture was drawn by certain newspapers of a visit which Mr. Hoskins paid to Melbourne. Upon that occasion, notwithstanding that he was in very delicate health, he undertook a long railway journey with a view to inducing this Parliament to grant him such assistance as would enable him to tide over his financial difficulties. That Mr. Hoskins does not possess the sympathy of manv who favour this proposal is clear from the reception which was accorded to a proposal to grant assistance to the iron industry at a meeting of the Sydney Trades and Labour Council. The matter had been considered by that body, and had been referred to the executive, which, after giving it full and earnest consideration, recommended the adoption of the following motion : -
That this council protests against the granting of the proposed Federal bonus in connexion with the iron industry to Hoskins Brothers.
– Are we here to accept the recommendation of that body, or to do what we think is right?
– The honorable senator is at liberty to do what he thinks fit.
– And Senator Findley does what he is told.
– I do what I believe to be right. I am here to advance certain principles, and I am not going to be a party to watering down those principles. I shall not be so inconsistent as Senator Millen, who, in discussing this Bill, a few moments ago, declared that three courses were open to us. namely, the nationalization of the iron industry, the payment of a bounty to encourage its establishment, or the imposition of a duty for the same purpose. Disguise the fact as he may, it cannot be disputed that the Bill which was rejected by one vote in this Chamber upon a former occasion, bore exactly the same title as does this measure, and had for its object the establishment of the iron industry at Lithgow, New South Wales.
– By means of the imposition of duties.
– Not exactly.
– Absolutely. Here is a copy of the Bill if the honorable senator chooses to look at it.
– Upon that occasion Senator Millen denounced the Bill in vigorous language.
– Because it was a Bill to impose Customs duties.
– And to grant bounties.
– No.
– We know how vigorously members of the Opposition denounced the granting of bounties to industries which it was proposed to establish outside of New South Wales. It would seem, therefore, that they are interested in this Bill only from a geographical standpoint. To me it is a matter of indifference whether an industry is to be established in New South Wales or in any other State.
– But the honorable senator is always opposed to any industry being established in New South Wales.
– I deny that statement. I have supported the granting of assistance, by means of Customs duties, to industries in every part of Australia. But I am not going to be a party to voting £150,000 of the people’s money to aprivate individual to enable him to establish a hugh monopoly, which, after it has been established, the Commonwealth will probably be asked to purchase at an enhanced value.
– Did not the honorable senator vote to encourage prospective industries by means of bounties?
– There is no analogy between the payment of bounties in respect of other products and the proposed bounty upon iron. Any man or woman, any youth or girl, is at liberty under the Bounties Act, to makeexperiments in the production of certain commodities, and if those experiments prove successful, is entitled to claim the bounty payable in respect to them. But the bounty whioh this Bill seeks to authorize has not the same general application. It is intended to assist in the establishment of a monopoly, for there is room in Australia for only one industry of the kind it is proposed to subsidize. When I was drawn off the track bv interjection, I was outlining the recommendation submitted by the executive of the Sydney Trade and Labour Council to the general body. Upon that recommendation the following amendment was moved -
That the matter be allowed to stand over until the opinions of those to whom it is one of vital importance, namely, the men at Lithgow, be obtained.
Both the amendment and the motion were discussed at great length, and after every phase of the question had been considered the amendment was defeated by 66 votes to 26, and the recommendation of the executive was agreed to. I am informed, too, that prior to that discussion, a letter was received from the secretary of the Eskbank Ironworkers’ Association calling attention to the fact that in their opinion the iron industry needed some encouragement, that a claim for wages was before the Wages Board, and that the award would largely depend upon the assistance which the industry received’ from the Government. But that letter had no influence whatever with the Sydney Trades and Labour Council. We know also that this very question has been discussed at various times by the Trades and Labour Council, Melbourne, and that, although strong efforts have been made by a section to induce the Council to agree to the subsidizing of the iron industry, the proposal has been ignominiously defeated, for the reason that experience has conclusively proved that wherever the industry has been established, it has created millionaires upon the one hand, and mendicants upon the other. In America the influence of the iron kings has been exercised in every conceivable direction - over newspapers, over parliamentary institutions, and over men occupying public and semipublic positions.
– And over public libraries, I suppose.
– The mean’s by which the money was obtained to build up some, of the libraries which are being established to-day as the result of assistance granted by one multi-millionaire in America, have helped to make many premature graves ‘An that country.
– Premature graves are to be found everywhere.
– That is so, but, if we can put ahi end to the system, which is responsible for the shortening of human life, it is our duty to do so. We all know the influence exerted by the iron kings of Germany. Are we going to establish in Australia an industry which will give lo those interested 4n it, the same’ power - industrially, politically, and financially - as is enjoyed by the iron kings of America and Germany?
– This is a magnificent free- trade speech.
– Not only is it proposed to subsidize this monopoly in NewSouth Wales to the extent of £150,000, within a period of five years, but already those interested in the industry have approached the Government of that State with a view to obtaining concessions in the matter of railway freights.
– Does the honorable senator know anything about those concessions ?
– I do not, personally.
– I thought that thehonorable senator did not know by the way in which he was talking. He is just making assertions, which he cannot prove.
– Those assertionshave been made in another place. Thecompany which is interested in this industry has already approached the New South Wales Government for the purposeof obtaining concessions.
– It has not.
– Then, if it does not do so, it will be a most remarkable company. It will approach the Government with a view to inducing it to purchase the material which it produces at its works.
– Is there anything illegitimate about that?
– Nothing at all.. What I wish to show is that, as the States Governments are the largest consumers of iron in Australia, it would be much more advantageous to their interests, and those of the Commonwealth, if the industry were nationalized. It would be much better, too, from the stand-point of the workmen employed. Of course, we have ‘been told’ that after a certain period has elapsed the Government can take over this industry if it feels disposed to do so. But similar promises have been forthcoming in regard toall private concessions which have been made in Australia from time to time. For instance) we received the same assurance- in connexion with the Melbourne tramway service. We were told that if we handed over the highways of this city to a private company it would lay down tramways, and the public would be convenienced in a way that they had never been convenienced before. We were also informed that after a certain number of years the people, through the municipalities, would become the possessors of the company’s property. But what are the facts ? We handed over the public highways to a private company, and immediately the tramways came into competition with the State-owned railways. Immediately the company started operations trouble occurred with its workmen.
– There has been scarcely any trouble. They are a good lot of employes.
– A strike occurred almost immediately the first line of tramway was opened, and since then not halfamile of line has been added to the routes specified in the Act under which the company carries on its operations. Why? Because the tramways are privately owned. Speaking generally, it may also be said that there has been no cheapening of the fares that were originally charged.
– It must be remembered that during the past few years all the States Governments have increased the railway fares.
– But upon all important occasions the States Governments, owing to the fact that the’ railways are publicly owned, grant facilities to rural residents to visit the different capitals at reduced fares. Not merely in Victoria, but in every State, the Government grants these facilities.
– Still they have increased fares.
– I challenge any one to contradict my statement that the various Railways Commissioners, because the railways are publicly owned, cheapen the fares when any event of importance is about to take place in any State. But these tramways, because they are privately owned,’ increase the fares on certain days in the year. On Cup Day and New Year’s Day a person is not permitted by the Melbourne Tramway Company to utilize the citv tickets. If one wants to take a ride from Parliament House to Spencer-street he has to pay threepence cash, or tender a twopenny ticket.
– He can use a member’s ticket.
– No.
– Yes; let the honorable senator try it.
– Not on the Melbourne trams.
– If the honorable senator tenders one of the white tramway tickets issued to members of Parliament, he will find it is all right on Cup Day or any other day.
– That is a very appropriate colour to issue to a member of Parliament.
– That almost suggests that insidious influences are at work.
– How is it that Labour members of Parliament have not heard anything about these white tickets?
– I think that the honorable senator is getting away from the question before the Senate when he is talking of insidious influences being at work.
– The honorable senator might ask why Labour members of Parliament have not been let into this little secret. Has it been because they are Socialists ?
– I never heard of it before.
– I did not hear of it.
– Nor I.
– Order. No doubt this is a very interesting topic ; but I ask honorable senators not to refer to it.
– It is now generally known in the Senate that by going to a certain place its members can get tickets which will enable them, as members of Parliament, to travel at a reduced fare on certain days, when every other citizen of this State has to pay a higher fare.
– That is only made known now though.
– That probably is one of the influences exercised by the Tramway Company, with a view to getting further control in respect of their monopoly. It is said that if this Bill is not passed the iron industry at Lithgow will be closed down, and that a number of workmen will be thrown out of employment. A similar statement was made six or eight months ago ; but the works have not been closed down, and the workmen are employed there to-day. Even if it meant a closing down of the works, which would throw out of employment 100 or 200 men-
– That is a bit serious.
– I admit that it is serious to throw men out of employment ; but if it meant that in the course of twelve or eighteen months this industry would be established by the State or the Commonwealth, that a considerably larger number of men would be employed on a better wage standard, and with more reasonable conditions of toil, that users would get the material at a cheaper price, and that the profits, if any, would belong to the whole of the people, the little suffering which the men might be called upon to endure by their temporary displacement would be to the advantage of the whole of the Commonwealth. We are asked to grant a subsidy or a bounty of £150,000 to a company; but after we have done that, is there any guarantee that it will npt come along later and ask for a duty? Those free-traders, who have ever been against the imposition of any kind of duty, urging as a reason why import duties should not be enforced, that they increase the prices of commodities, naturally will be anxious to continue the subsidy, so that it will mean either more subsidy or more duty. Whichever way these folks look at it, it will mean additional taxation of the citizens of the Commonwealth ; because we know that the people interested in these industries abroad have at their command such an immense amount of capital, and such influences at work in almost every part of the world, that they would be prepared to sell their commodities in different parts of Australia at below cost price, with a view to wiping out any competitor here. This firm in New South Wales have no possible chance of competing with the iron kings of America and Germany if the latter declare war against them. But if the industry were nationally-owned, the chief consideration would be to turn out the materials requisite for certain industries as cheaply as possible, and of such quality that they would compare favorably with any materials turned out by private enterprise in any part of the world, and the State Governments would feel that they were in duty bound to give first consideration to the enterprise that was owned by the people. We know that nowadays some States have Governments which extend little or no consideration to any local product if the imported article can be obtained more cheaply. We know that, although resolutions have been carried in the Victorian Parliament recommending that preference should be given to locallymanufactured articles, there has been a departure from that recommendation, and goods have been obtained abroad on the ground that they cost much less than the locally-made articles.
– The honorable senator objects to that then, except in the case of iron? He likes them to use locally-made articles, except iron.
– I do nothing of the kind. With me the consideration is - Are the people of Australia to be advantaged by the proposal embodied in this Bill? It is true that Hoskins and Company will be advantaged to the extent of £150,000.
– If we can start an industry, surely it ought to be an advantage.
– Have Hoskins and Company any greater claim upon the Commonwealth than has any other- person who desires to embark in any industry ?
– The firm have as much claim as the hundred and one people whom the honorable senator helped under the Tariff.
– The firm have shown that they are enterprising. At any rate, they have spent their own money, and that is what everybody else does not do.
– It shows that they have been enterprising with a view to getting certain results.
– And that they believe in their scheme too.
– If they do, that is evidence to me that in New South Wales there are certain persons well circumstanced in life who have not the same faith in the scheme as Hoskins and Company have. And if it is going to be such a highly successful business it does not speak well for the wealthy State of New South Wales that the firm cannot secure the services of enterprising citizens to the extent of £150,000.
– Tt is as important an industry as that fly-paper one for which the honorable senator sought to get State aid.
– That is altogether beside this question. To me it would seem that neither a duty nor a bounty would successfully establish the iron industry in New South Wales or any other State, for the reason which I have given, namely, that there are such powerful influences at work in different parts of the world that it would be very seriously handicapped from the very day of its commencement.
– Oh ! that is nonsense.
– Those who are conversant with the doings of the huge trusts and syndicates of America and Germany know that there is truth in the statement which I have made. We know what influence the Standard Oil Trust exercises, and that is only an offshoot of the trusts incidental to the iron and steel industries of America. When I come to consider the history of this movement to get a bounty for the iron industry in New South Wales, my recollection takes me back four or five years when a Royal Commission was appointed to investigate the matter. It was presided over by the late Mr. C. C. Kingston, and included Mr. J. C. Watson, Mr. G. W. Fuller, Mr. D. Watkins, Mr. G. B. Edwards, and others whose names I cannot recall at the moment. I remember reading much of the evidence it took, and its report. It was equally divided in its opinions. One section favoured the bounty system, another section was strong in its condemnation of any bounty, and that section, including Mr. Fuller and two or three other representatives from New South Wales - free-traders fiscally - signed a report in favour of the nationalization of the industry. It does seem strange to me that instead of that principle having gained adherents there has been a disposition on the part of certain members to water down the policy which they advocated but three or four years ago. What has brought about this change? Surely if there is anything which one can admire in a public man it is consistency. Some of those honorable gentlemen would seem to be consistent in one thing only, and that is in their inconsistency. Canada provides a lesson which we ought to take to heart, the people’s money being expended year after year to advance the interests of private citizens. Let us view Japan. I do not suppose that there is any country in the world that has during the last thirty years made such material progress as has Japan. That progress has ‘to a very large extent been due to the fact that the Japanese Government, intelligent as it is, notes the manifold advantages of publicly-owned enterprises, as compared with privately-owned enterprises. Every writer who has written on Japan has pointed out the business-like way 111 which public industries are controlled and managed. The success which the Japanese have made of the tobacco industry has been observed. Although a few years ago Japan, as a nation, owned but a portion of the railway lines of the country, to-day the State owns and controls every mile of railway in Japan. It owns and controls sugar plantations and refineries ; it owns and controls paper mills; it owns and controls one of the largest iron and steel works in the world. I have here a short summary dealing with the Japanese Imperial Government’s steel works. This booklet shows the importance of conducting an iron industry on modern principles both in regard to military and industrial requirements, and how that lesson was early perceived by the Japanese Government. What a difference between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of Japan ; and what a difference between some of those honorable senators who support this proposal and those who advocate nationalization ! We know that within a few years it will be urgently necessary to expend greater sums of money for the defence of Australia. For that purpose large iron and steel works will be needed. Surely it would be well for the Government to own and control the industry which supplies materials required for defence. This booklet states that the attempt to nationalize the iron and steel industry in Japan at first ended in failure, as did also the attempt to induce private enterprise to take up the matter. In Japan, and elsewhere, there are certain people who believe that private enterprise can much more successfully conduct businesses than can a Government. No doubt that section induced the Japanese Government to grant big subsidies as an incentive to persons to embark upon tha industry. The attempt was unsuccessful. Then the project was allowed to remain in abeyance for some time. At length the Government made a second attempt,. In 1890 and 1891 estimates for the necessary expenditure were submitted to Parliament. They were rejected on the ground’ that the information furnished by the Government regarding works was not sufficient in respect to the amount of raw material available in Japan. How much more business-like were the people responsible.for the government of that country than are those responsible in the Commonwealth. We do not know what raw material is available in Australia. We are told that sufficient raw material exists in New South Wales for a huge industry to supply the needs of the whole Commonwealth. But we have no information as to iron deposits in the Commonwealth generally. When the Royal Commission se.t, I am unaware that it took evidence on the subject outside Melbourne and Sydney. The iron and steel industry is well established in Japan to-day. The reason why it has been successful is that the Japanese Government proceeded in a business-like manner. The booklet before me shows that the members of the House of Peers insisted on a full investigation regarding the possibility of the establishment of the industry. A Committee was appointed. The question whether the amount of iron ore available was sufficient was carefully considered. Skilled engineers were sent to almost every country in the world who collected information, and furnished estimates and recommendations. As a result the industry is to-day successfullyestablished. To show the magnitude of the Japanese works, I may mention that the length of railway lines within the works themselves was, in 1901, 10 miles, and it was then estimated that the length would be 17 miles hereafter. They have a quay wall 630 metres long, with a water depth of 30 feet at ebb tide. They have a fleet of three or four steamers of from 2,000 to 3,000 tons displacement, which are able to load and unload simultaneously alongside the wharf. They have hospital buildings, workmen’s dwellings for 3,000 persons, and many other conveniences such as are needful in connexion with such a huge undertaking. Surely the object lesson which Japan provides is one well worthy of emulation by the Commonwealth. I do not know that any words of mine are likely to convince or convert those senators who have made up their minds to vote for the second reading of the Bill. But I am convinced that the amount of the bounty will not stop at £150,000. Once we start assisting this industry, we shall not be able to turn back. It seems to me to be a cruel thing that the whole of the citizens of Australia should be penalized in order that a private citizen in New South Wales may be enabled to establish an industry to enrich himself. If the view of the people of Australia were taken to-morrow, I venture to assert that an overwhelming majority would be opposed to this project.
– There would be eight to one in favour of it.
– I -believe there would be eight to one against it if the subject were clearly put before the electors. If it were put as Senator Millen has put it to us, that it means passing this Bill or having no industry established, the probabilities are that a majority of the electors would favour the proposal. But if the question were put whether the industry should be nationally owned and run in the interests of the citizens of Australia, or whether £150,000 should be granted to a. private citizen, I have not the slightest doubt as to what the verdict of the people would be. The number of those who believe, in the policy of nationalizing monopolies is increasing. Here we have an opportunity of giving effect in a practical way to the principles we have times out of number advocated. But there is a disposition to back down because we are told that there is a likelihood of the industry not being established, and of a number of men being thrown out of employment if we do not consent. I earnestly hope that the amendment I have moved will be carried, and that some measure of support, at any rate, will be given by those who have on previous occasions affirmed the principle of the nationalization of monopolies. Whether I _ meet with support or not. I have at least given evidence of my consistency on this question. I have opposed the granting of a bounty to this industry inside and outside of this Chamber and I shall continue to oppose it. If approved of by a majority of the Senate, the Bill, even though it should be amended in the way proposed, will probably meet with a similar1 measure of support ‘in another place. Should it become an Act, Mr. Hoskins will receive the bounty, and we shall be given an opportunity in the course of a few years, if we feel so disposed, to take over the industry’ and carry it on as a. national enterprise. But let me say that in five or ten years’ time we shall have no better opportunity than we have to-day to take over the industry and to make it a national enterprise. As a matter of fact, when we have by the payment of the bounty successfully established the industry as a private enterprise, we shall have greater difficulty in taking it over.
– The honorable senator led me to suppose just now that the industry would fail unless the bounty proposed in this Bill was increased.
– I said that unless the industry is given further subsidies it will fail. Mr. Hoskins will be able to demonstrate from his point of view that unless he is given additional subsidies he will not be able to carry on the industry.
– Then the Commonwealth will be able to purchase it very cheaply.
– That may be so; but I am endeavouring to point out that the same opposition will be shown by certain honorable senators to the taking over of the industry by the Commonwealth, even if it is a non-paying concern, that is shown at the present time. It is a nonpaying concern to-day, according to Mr. Hoskins. It is because he cannot make it a success that he asks the people of the Commonwealth to make it a success for him. That is a peculiar position for any citizen of the Commonwealth to place himself in. In effect, he says. “ I have been a failure at it. I cannot make a success of it. I have not sufficient money, and I cannot get a sufficient number of people in New South Wales who have the same faith in the enterprise that I have myself to come forward and take a hand in it ; so I am going to make a begging appeal to the Commonwealth Parliament and to the representatives of my own State therein for the assistance that I cannot secure in my own State.”
– This is very like the harvester business.
– No. There is a very great difference between a bounty and a duty. Some honorable senators argue that duties increase the price of commodities. I do not admit that. I say that, temporarily, by the imposition of duties prices may be increased, but any one is at liberty to embark in a line of industry advantaged’ by the imposition of Customs duties. That naturally produces internal competition and cheapens the price of the dutiable commodities. But, in the case of this industry, neither a bounty nor a duty can be of advantage to the Commonwealth, because there is room in Australia only for one industry of the kind. Imposing a duty for the benefit of this industry would be imposing a duty for the benefit of a monopoly, and granting a bounty to it would be merely doing the same thing. I do not wish to delay the Senate further. I have made my protest against the principle embodied in the Bill, a protest consistent with my platform utterances, and consistent also with the planks of the party to which I belong. We are against existing monopolies, and that being so, I cannot for the life of me understand why we should spend public money in an endeavour to create additional monopolies, and say in the next breath that although we propose to assist the creation of a monopolistic institution, we make provision in the Bill to enable the citizens later on, if they feel so disposed, to take over the monopoly at the valuation which the people whom we shall have assisted bv this subsidy like to place upon it.
– Not at their valuation, surely?
– We can depend ‘ upon it that we shall not be allowed to take over the industry at our valuation.
– We shall take it over at a fair price.
– The fair price will be something much in advance of the price which would be asked for the industry to-day, because we shall be putting £150,000 in hard cash into it in five years, and any man of business capacity might, with £150,000 at his disposal, build up realizable asset of at least £500,000 in that period of -time.
– Would those engaged in the industry put no capital of their own into it? They must establish works, and1 produce iron before they can secure the bounty, and that means the expenditure of money.
– It is true that those engaged in the industry must do certain things before they become entitled to a penny of the bounty provided for in the schedule to this Bill. They tell us that they are unable to do those things now unless they get Commonwealth money. So that they will turn out this material, not with their own money, but with Commonwealth money, and .when they have done so, they will approach the States Governments and ask them to take the material which they have turned out at the people’s expense, at the price which they will place upon it themselves. In all probability we shall be carrying out a forward policy in the Commonwealth within the next four or five years - one which will make for the advancement of the various States of the Union.
– In four or five years ?
– In four or five weeks, the honorable senator means.
– I am speaking generally, and not of the policy of any particular Government. I believe that, no matter what Government is in power in the Commonwealth, whether it be a Labour Government or one opposed to the policy of the Labour Party, we must, within the next four or five years, if we are to be worthy of the name of citizens of a nation, adopt a forward policy. That may mean the construction of a railway between South Australia and Western Australia, and if I can help it it certainly will mean the taking over and the development of the Northern Territory.
– Will the honorable senator help the construction of a railway between the east and the west?
– I do not know that I shall. That depends on certain contingencies; but that these lines of railways will be built in the course of years goes without saying. That a railway will be built in the Northern Territory is. I feel sure, as certain as that I am standing here this morning. The construction of these lines of railway will mean the payment of thousands of pounds for steel rails. The Commonwealth could make these rails more cheaply than private enterprise will be willing to make them for. If they are made by Mr. Hoskins he will look for profits on the material he turns out, and if the industry were in the hands of the Commonwealth, those profits might be saved for the people, and the industry would be on a much more satisfactory basis. I am satisfied that it would be a step in the wrong direction to subsidize any private citizen to the extent provided for in this Bill. I am satisfied also that if this Bill is carried and the proposed subsidy is granted to Mr Hoskins, there will, in the course of a few years, be another appeal to Parliament for additional assistance for this industry.
Amendment negatived.
– I should like to say a few words on the second reading of this Bill. The argument urged by Senator Findley appeals in many respects to me. I feel that this is pre-eminently an industry that could be successfully nationalized. I feel, further, that it is an industry, the opponents of which are so strong that it would be of great advantage to it to have the strength of the nation behind it. But I recognise that it is an industry we are so urgently in. need of that nothing should be permitted to prevent its earliest possible establishment. There is not, in my judgment, a sufficiently strong feeling in favour of the nationalization of this, or of any other industry, to warrant the assumption that that end could be achieved in the near future. This Bill furnishes an opportunity of establishing; the industry, and if, as Senator Findley believes, there is a large majority in favour of its nationalization, the provisions of the measure will enable that majority to achieve its will when it is made manifest at a general election by the return of a sufficient number of persons pledged to give effect to that proposal. But, in the meantime, we shall have an industry, the importance of which transcends all others established in our midst. We are continually expressing our senseof the importance of a complete and effective defence system. It seems to me that the question of defence is inseparably bound up with the production of iron. It is impossible to create munitions of war without an adequate supply of iron and steel.
– Or to build ships.
– For my purpose, ships may be regarded as munitions of war. It is impossible to carry on our battle for existence without haying at almost every stage easily obtained suppliesof iron and the products of iron.
– That is a strong argument in favour of the nationalization of the iron industry.
– I quite agree with that. I desire Senator Findley and others to understand that I am entirely in favour of the nationalization of this industry, and when the opportunity arises, I shall give my voice and vote in support of that proposition; but at present, in my opinion, the nationalization of the industry is not practicable. I am not one of those who are prepared to wait for ever for what I consider the best thing if I can ger a good thing immediately, with a prospect of obtaining the best thing at some future time.
– Would not an increase of the duty be sufficient for the purpose ?
– No, I do not think it would. This is one of those cases in which I think that we require a bounty before the imposition of a duty. As I have said, iron and steel enter into almost every detail of our lives. We cannot have our dinner prepared, or eat it, we cannot be carried about the city or on the railways, we cannot build our houses, or do anything of a material character without the products of iron and steel, and at present we are dependent for our supplies entirely upon foreign sources. I do not use the term “foreign “ as applied to Great Britain, in any offensive way. We may rest assured that Great Britain will always be glad to give us the supplies of iron that we require, so long as she is able to do so. But her ability to do so depends upon her maintenance of the command of the seas, and we must remember that at any moment we may be absolutely cut off from our source of supply in the matter of this absolute essential. We cannot, therefore, over-estimate the importance of having within our own borders an abundant supply of this important commo’dity. For that reason I am in favour of establishing the iron industry at the earliest possible moment, and with the means which are available. Some honorable senators have .suggested the imposition of a duty upon iron as an alternative to the bounty system proposed under this Bill. But whatever plan we may adopt, some years must necessarily elapse before we can develop our iron resources sufficiently to supply our own requirements. I believe that we have practically unlimited deposits of iron ore, but before they can be made serviceable some years of developmental work must be undertaken. If we were to impose upon iron a duty sufficiently heavy to be protective in its incidence, it would not have the immediate effect of making available the quantity of iron that we require, and consequently its cost to the users of this commodity throughout Australia would be increased. Of course, some persons will say that T have always contended that the imposition of a protective duty has the effect of decreasing the price of any commodity. That is so, and I maintain that a protective duty upon iron would eventually cheapen the cost of that article. But we cannot ignore the fact “ that the iron industry is one which it would take many months, and probably years, to develop. Consequently no analogy can be instituted between iron and other manufactured articles. It is of more importance than any other commodity of which I have any knowledge. Gold dwindles into insignificance when compared with it. For that reason I intend to vote for this Bill, which, I believe, will have the effect of at once establishing the iron industry. I shall look forward longingly to the time when circumstances will enable us to nationalize it. But even if we do not nationalize it, it is better to have. the industry conducted by private enterprise in our own midst than to have it conducted bv private enterprise abroad, seeing that the foreigner has power to tax us at his will, and that we are in imminent danger of having our supplies entirely cut off, in which case we should be utterly helpless. These, briefly, are the reasons which induce me to vote for this Bill. I support it, not because I am opposed to nationalization - because I ardently hope that that step will yet be takenbut because I desire to see the iron industry established at an early date, and because I think that this Bill provides the means of establishing it.
– 1 take a very great interest in the iron industry, and have done so for the past few years. The State which I represent possesses some of the purest iron deposits to be found in any part of the world. It is interesting to know that those deposits have been reported upon by one of the best experts in the world. Some time ago the owners of the Blythe Iron Mine engaged an expert from Great Britain to report upon them - a gentleman who was held in such high repute that his fee for a few months’ work was £3,500. The Bill under consideration does not specifically propose to assist the iron industry of Tasmania or of any other State, although we know perfectly well, as a matter of fact, that it will have the effect of substantially encouraging the industry in New South Wales. But in matters of this kind our convictions ought not to be swayed by geographical considerations. Although Tasmania possesses magnificent iron deposits, I recognise that large deposits also exist at Lithgow, and that men have- been found with the courage and capital necessary to give those deposits a fair trial. It seems to me that in dealing with measures of this kind we are apt to regard prospective industries through quite different spectacles from those through which we view industries which have already been developed. Only this morning Senator Findley argued that because an attempt has been made in New South Wales to establish the iron industry, we ought not to assist it. To me that fact is a very solid reason why we should assist it. We all recognise that the industry is struggling with very great difficulties indeed. Personally,, I should not have referred to the local aspect of this question, had it not been for the fact that reference has already been made to it. I think that we should discuss the matter from the broad stand-point of whether it is desirable by any artificial means to encourage the development of the iron industry in Australia. Undoubtedly it is. In a huge continent such as we inhabit, we must recognise that our railway system, as it expands, will afford a fair measure of employment to those engaged in this industry, and the fact that we occupy a country which is likely to be isolated from the rest of the world should also weigh with us in considering this question.
– We should make ourselves a self-contained community.
– I should very much have preferred the Government to have intimated their intention of proceeding with this Bill in the form in which it reached us from the other Chamber. But instead of doing that, they propose to introduce into it an important controversial element, which is likely to jeopardize its passing. I hope that they will not risk such an important measure by insisting upon the insertion of that provision.
-It is to be hoped that the Opposition will not jeopardize the passing of the Bill. The responsibility will lie with them.
– Speaking for myself, I say that if an attempt be made to insert that unconstitutional provision - because, notwithstanding what Mr. Deakin has said tol the contrary, I hold that it is unconstitutional-
– Mr. Deakin has never said anything such as the honorable senator suggests. His opinion can be easilv verified.
– As the AttorieyGeneral of the Commonwealth, Mr. Deakin’s opinion was given to the Royal Commission which investigated this matter some years ago. At that time he declared that the Commonwealth had no right to embark upon any enterprise of this kind. But, having affirmed that a certain course was not authorized by the Constitution, Mr. Deakin, with characteristic vacillation, immediately proceeded to get round the difficulty in an indirect way.
– He did nothing of the kind.
– Is it not a fact that there are both expressed and implied powers under the Constitution, and that in his opinion Mr. Deakin dealt with both of those powers?
– But the desire of the Commission when it questioned Mr. Deakin upon the subject was to ascertain whether under the Constitution the Commonwealth could legitimately embark upon this industry. Mr. Deakin ‘s first answer was “ No;” but he then proceededto say that the Commonwealth possessed certain implied constitutional powers. He declared, in effect, that it had a right, in running the Post Office, to manufacture the hessian which is used in the making of mail bags, or to establish a sealing-wax factory. That is the interpretation which I put upon his utterance. He said, virtually that it is not constitutional for the Commonwealth to attempt to establish an industry of this kind, but that there is a wav by which we can get round the Constitution.
– The honorable senator is straining his opinion.
– I am very sorry if I have done an injustice to Mr. Deakin, because I have no such desire.
– Shortly put, Mr. Deakin says that the Commonwealth cannot establish an industry for commercial purposes, but that it can establish an industry if it wants to manufacture an article for its own use.
– And proceed afterwards to dispose of the surplus product.
– Oh, that is nothing ; it is only incidental.
– If we want to establish any industry, there is one way in which to acquire the necessary power, and we have no right to anticipate the verdict of the people. Unfortunately, the weakness of our legislation has been that we have tried to exceed the terms of the deed of partnership which contains express limitations, and whose great central feature is that we are to deal with only those matters which have been handed over to us. It has been shown by the decisions of the High Court that in several instances we have tried by indirect means to accomplish that which we have no power to accomplish directly. I do not want to enter into further argument about the desirability of nationalizing the industry. Briefly stated, my opinion is that every one of these projects should be dealt with purely on its merits. If it is a desirable industry to nationalize, then let us take the power to nationalize it. But with the question of nationalization generally, and the socialistic aspect of the matter I am not dealing. I am really anxious to see this Bill passed. I do not want to see difficulty raised which cannot effect any useful purpose. In this matter, one has lo take a certain degree of personal responsibility. In common with a great many members of this Parliament, I have been watching for some time the trend of financial affairs in the Commonwealth, and I am sorry to say that I have a very grave doubt as to whether we are not going to have a financial crisis. That is a thing which we need not have. But our present policy seems to be bringing a crisis upon us. We are now asked to give a bounty, and I desire to say, in justice to my constituents and myself that I know what .1 am about to give. We are asked to confer a bounty not on a prospective industry, but on an existing industry, and it will cost us straight away £30,000 a year. That, in itself is not a very large sum. It is worth quite that sum to establish the iron industry, and I intend to vote for the Bill on that account. But this, with other commitments into which we have allowed ourselves to be drawn recently in various ways, will, in my opinion, make the financial position of the Commonwealth in the near future a very difficult one. Notwithstanding that possibility, I am here to take my share of the responsibility, and to give a very hearty support to this Bill without any amendment
– It is generally known that I have taken a considerable interest in the iron industry since I became a member of the Senate. On several occasions, the Question of establishing ironworks in the Com monwealth has been discussed here from various stand-points. I am pleased to say that no matter what another place mav think of the principle of nationalization v th.; Senate has placed its hall-mark of approval on it. I feel as certain as I stand here to-day that before very long the time will come when that principle will be applied to the iron industry. There are so many reasons in favour of its nationalization that I am surprised indeed that gentlemen who take a lively interest in the welfare of the country, and pose from time to time as State-righters, can take up any. other, attitude for a moment. Honorable senators can talk as they like about the iron industry being in existence-, but it is so little in existence that it will practically lapse unless the Government come forward with the money of the taxpayers to rescue it. In the proper sense of the word, it isnot an established industry. Of necessity, it must be a monopoly practically situated in one State, for the simple reason that in Australia there is not a sufficient market,, either now or, so far as I can- see in thefuture, for more than one reasonably uptodate ironworks. If it is to be- worthyof the name of an ironworks, it must be able to supply the requirements of Australia, and the one article which above all’ others it must produce must be steel’ rails, and, of course, the State Governments will, be the principal customers for those products.
– They will be theprincipal, but not the only customers.
– When we remember that this industry must be confined’ to a few individuals who seem to have very little compunction about charging a StateGovernment, even the Government of New South Wales, from whom they hold’ a contract, a much larger price for their ironthan they charge to others; when we recollect that an extra. .£1 per- ton is charged” to the Government of that State for all1 the iron which it takes, we- are able to foresee what will happen throughout the Commonwealth.
– But that was a matter of agreement.
– It can only expand and grow into a concern worthy of the name of an iron industry by securingthe custom of the other State Governments. Without that support, it will remain a puny, insignificant, trifling affair. Having received a foretaste of what a monopoly cando, we must recognise that the various-
States must be prepared in the future to pay for railway material a very much enhanced price oyer what I call a decent market price.
– How can that be unless w? impose a duty ? Every State can import just as it feels disposed.
– After the attitude they have taken up on this Bill, my honorable friends on the other side cannot afford, with any degree of strictness or fitness, to call themselves free-traders. We are now asked to establish the iron industry by means of a bounty which is only another form of protection, and so soon as -it is properly on its feet, we shall have forced upon us the necessity of imposing a protective duty, or the works must be mollycoddled with an enormous amount of public money - more than I think we shall be able to afford. There is no escape from this inevitable position. Either we must continue to pay an enormous amount in bounties in order to place the industry at Lithgow, or wherever it may be started, and keep it going, or we must impose an enormous protective duty in order that it may command ‘ the whole of the Australian market.
– Would not that have to be done if we nationalized the industry? Would we not have to pay some money in order to keep it going?
Senator St. Ledger. If we consented to nationalize the industry, would the honorable senator then pav the bounty ?
– It would all depend upon whether it was a State or Commonwealth concern. If it belonged to the Commonwealth, it would not be necessary for us to take money out of one pocket in order to put it in another. That, I think, must be quite obvious to the honorable senator.
– I should like to know exactly which leg the honorable senator is on. Is he against a bounty, or against nationalization ?
– I hope that my honorable friend is not attempting to pull my leg. If the industry were nationalized by the Commonwealth, ‘there would be no necessity for any bounty to be paid. But if it were nationalized by the New South Wales Government - the most likely Government to embark in the enterprise - I take it that the amount of assistance which we are now asked to give to a private company would be just as necessary then. The cost of carrying on the concern would be just the same then as it is now, and it would be unfair to ask that State at its sole expense to establish what I believe ought to be a national industry. We must make up our minds that there will be an enormous outlay on the ironworks, and for that reason, I contend that it ought to be in the hands of the central Government, and not in the hands of even a State Government. I should object to a State Government taking over the industry, because I am satisfied that it would provoke very much discontent amongst the various States if they had to subscribe in order to keep alive an industry within the borders of one State. I am quite sure that those who are constantly crying out about State rights would be the first to raise their voices when they realized that New South Wales owned an ironworks which’ the other States had to help to keep going. I cannot understand those who in one breath talk about State rights, and in the next breath are prepared to create a monopoly which, in my’ opinion, must be confined to one State. T hope that those honorable senators who are endeavouring to put this monopoly in the hands of one company in one State will bear that in mind, and that when next they explain to the public the process of parliamentary business, they will be kind, enough to point out that they have assisted in creating a monopoly in one State only for the benefit of one company only, in opposition to the proposal of the Labour Party that should create a truly national industry. When what is desired has been done, I have no doubt that those people who are at the present time in such a hurry to create a monopoly in New South Wales will be loudest in crying out against it. I see no urgent necessity for rushing into this enterprise. The only argument that I can see in favour of it is that in Lithgow there are a large number of men with families who are dependent upon the ironworks. That is an unfortunate position, which I forecasted some years ago, when I outlined my proposal to establish ironworks under the control of the Government. I pointed out that, sooner or later, vested interests would be created, and that the central Government would be compelled to grant its help. It would be urged, I said, “ How can we allow men and women to starve when there is an industry that requires our assistance?” That is the position that faces us now. The industry has to some extent been established at Lithgow, and the workmen are in need of employment. We have been told that the predecessors of the present company, who started the industry, had some promise made to them. ‘ I denythat any promise was made to any company. If they had regard to the attitude of the Federal Parliament, it must have been obvious that the intention was that the industry, if established at all, should be a national concern. Yet it has been said that the investors were encouraged to go into the industry, and that we cannot now refuse to help them. Mr. Sandford may have gone into it with the hope of securing assistance, but the present company have no such excuse. They bought the concern with their eyes open. They entered upon the trade knowing its drawbacks. Therefore, I am satisfied that this Parliament is, in no shape or form, under any obligation to do the slightest thing to help the company. But, as I have admitted, there are other considerations which we cannot ignore. There are a number of people who must seek employment elsewhere unless we extend assistance. I know, personally, what it is for a workman to have to seek employment. An appeal on that ground must reach the heart of every one who has any feeling in his breast. But the national aspect of the question cannot be ignored. As politicians, when we cannot secure all that we want, we are often obliged to make the best of a position. I am sorry that there is not a sufficient number of members in the Federal Parliament who believe in doing the right thing ; though in saying that I do not attribute to any honorable senator a desire to do the wrong thing. I am sorry that there is not a majority who recognise the necessity of placing the industry on the only true and sound basis. We have been told that we have not the constitutional power to establish an industry of the kind. Mr. Deakin’s opinion has been hawked about to a considerable extent. But I point out that Mr. Deakin propounded, as Attorney-General in the Barton Administration, a very elaborate view. I grant that he did not say straight out that we had power te nationalize the industry. But he said that there were powers under the Constitution which would enable us to conduct an industry of this kind. For instance, if we need iron for defence purposes, there can be no two opinions as to our having the constitutional power to establish ironworks to supply our own requirements. To show that Mr. Deakin’s opinion was not circumscribed, as represented, I will read what he said. His opinion was -
The manufacture of iron may be incidental to the execution of such powers, e.g., defence or the construction of railways. The Commonwealth might clearly undertake the manufacture of any goods for its own use ; and probably if it did so, and it were incidentally advantageous to the interests of the economical working of the undertaking that it should also manufacture for other consumers, such manufacture would also come within its implied powers.
That, I hold, expresses the full power of the Commonwealth, not only to manufacture for defence and railways, but, for purposes of economic management, to manufacture and sell to customers, whether they be manufacturers in South Melbourne, or boilermakers in Perth. We, as a Commonwealth, can go into the concern and work it “from A to Z.” We can supply the whole requirements of Australia, if it be necessary to manufacture on a large scale to make an economic success of the works.
– Mr. Deakin doesnot say that we can take works away from the people who own them, and conduct them for our own purposes.
- Mr. Deakin could not be expected to give an opinion on such a silly, hypothetical case. The ironworks had not been established when he gave his opinion, and the question of taking over works that did not exist could not enter into consideration. I am satisfied that we have under the Constitutionthe implied power to go into this concern without fear of interference with State rights.
– But not of individual rights.
– It is not every industry in the land that would be directly affected by the operations at Lithgow, although the States Governments may be put in an awkward position through this monopoly being situated in New South Wales,, and being in the hands of one company. This company will endeavour to get all the profit they can out of the works, and, that being so, the States have an interest in theworks not being controlled by private shareholders.
– There is no danger solong as there is a free port for iron.-
– I know that Senator Millen thinks that we are going tohave open ports, where the manufacturers of the United States, Germany, and’
England will be able to send their products. If that be so, he contemplates that the ports of Australia are going to be left open to the manufactures of the world ; and then down will go the iron industry of Australia.
Sitting suspended from i to 2.15 p.m.
– -I was pointing out the advantages which would accrue if this industry were carried on by the Federal Government, and the dangers likely to arise to the States Governments, and also to the Federal Government, if it is permitted to remain in the hands of private persons. The danger to the interests of the various States is not very obvious at the present moment, otherwise honorable senators opposite would not be found so ready to support the establishment of this industry as a private monopoly, as according to their public protestations they are great States rights men. Under existing circumstances we must view this matter on the assumption that the industry is to be established at Lithgow, since there is no immediate prospect of its establishment anywhere else in the Commonwealth. And we should ask ourselves whether wc are justified in doing anything which would further the establishment of iron works at a place which is not at all favorable for the development of the industry. I know sufficient of the geography and the commercial conditions of New South Wales to say that Lithgow is not the best place in that State for the establishment of iron works. I lived in the State for a considerable number of years, and while there took a lively interest in the development of the iron industry. Many years ago Mr. Joseph Mitchell, who was at one time a colleague of the President in the representation of the Illawarra district in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, but who has since gone, let us hope, to a better place, took a very prominent part in the establishment of iron works, and he expressed the opinion that Lithgow was not a favorable place for their establishment. He was a strong freetrader, and he held that there were grave difficulties in the way of the establishment of such works in any part of Australia, because the labour conditions here are so different from those which obtain in most of the countries where the great competitors in such an industry are established. Lithgow, according ro Mr. ‘ Mitchell’s opinion, in which I concur, is one of the most unfavorable places for the establishment of iron works from a Commonwealth stand-point. It is situated at a considerable distance from the seaboard. The cost of the transport of coal, ore, limestone, and the finished products of iron works must always be a most important element in the success of the industry. Without cheap transport such an industry is very heavily handicapped. In every other country in the world a first consideration in the establishment of the iron industry has been the necessity of cheap and easy means of transport, and wherever possible land transport has been avoided. We are not at present in a position to say where such works might most advantageously be established in the Commonwealth. New South Wales certainly possesses a more abundant coal supply than any of the other States; but that is perhaps the only advantage which in this matter is possessed by New South Wales. Iron ore is to be found in every State in the Commonwealth, and there are several places in other States in which there is much richer ore than that of New South Wales. The presence or absence of certain chemical ingredients in the ore used might make or mar the industry. If possible, the ore must be free from phosphorus, sulphur, and other ingredients difficult of extraction. Unless ore of a high quality is available the industry must be heavily handicapped. I do not say that there is not good iron ore in New South Wales, because there is very much of fair quality; but the reports of experts go to show that perhaps the purest and best ore so far discovered in Australia is that found on the Blythe River in Tasmania.
– What about the Iron Knob?
– The Iron Knob is a mountain of really good ore ; but I was speaking of iron ore commercially available, and no one will say that iron ore in a mountain far inland in Australia is commercially available.
– The Iron Knob is only 40 miles from a port.
– If the Iron Knob is not more than 40 miles from deep water, it is much more favorably situated for the establishment of an iron industry than is the ore to be found in the Blue Mountains. I may say that in the mountains of the Murchison district of Western Australia ore is found containing a higher percentage of pure iron than any that has been discovered elsewhere in the Commonwealth so far.
SenatorW. Russell. - The honorable senator does not know how rich the ore at the Iron Knob is.
– I know that it is good ore, and I know that there is good iron ore in Queensland.
– The iron ore of Tasmania contains the highest percentage of ferric oxide.
– It also contains a percentage of phosphorus which entails a most expensive method of treatment.
– There is neither phosphorus nor chrome in the Blythe River ore.
– Does the honorable senator say that there is no phosphorus in the Blythe River ore?
– There is no injurious percentage of it.
– There is a percentage of phosphorus in the Blythe River ore, I admit it is a small percentage, and it is a very good ore indeed.
– Is it worth while going into all these details?
– Of what use is it for the honorable senator to ask me such a question? I consider it the height of impertinence for the honorable senator to suggest that I should ask his permission to explain the matter in my own way. I am justified in saying that so far as the quality of the ore is concerned that at Lithgow possesses no special advantages, and there are some serious disadvantages to the establishment of the industry there. If iron works were established on the south coast of New South Wales we could bring iron ore to them from every part of the Commonwealth.
– At Dalgety ?
– At Dalgety or wherever the Federal Capital is situated. By establishing such works in the Federal Territory, we should be establishing a community and a new settlement, and if they were established at Jervis Bay or at Twofold Bay they would be situated perhaps in the most convenient place in the Commonwealth for the carrying on of such an industry. Cheap coal could be obtained in any quantity from the Illawarra coast, where the best coke coal in Australia is to be obtained. We could bring iron ore to the works by water transport from the
Blythe River, from the Iron Knob, and from any other part of Australia. This would be the cheapest means of transport, and without the cheap transport of its raw materials the industry cannot be made a commercial success. Lithgow is a town away in the Blue Mountains about 100 miles from the coast, and that is too great a distance to transport raw material for the manufacture of iron. Iron works established in the United Kingdom are placed as near to deep water as possible, in order that the cost of transport may be reduced to the smallest possible amount. The works are so situated that the materials can be transported by water. Iron stone is to be tound in most parts of the United Kingdom, and I have seen coal and iron brought out of trie same mine, whilst the furnaces were not more than a mile away from the mine. That is how the iron industry was built up in the United Kingdom, and it had commercial advantages not to be obtained in . any oither part of the world. We have no such advantages at Lithgow, and I cannot see how we can hope that the industry will be carried on successfully there. I wish to direct the attention of honorable senators to what Mr. Attard has to say in this connexion as to the approximate cost of the production of pig iron there.
– How much coal is required for the production of a ton of iron ?
– Avery fair average is about 30 cwt. Of course, the quality of the coal varies considerably, and so does the ore, only more so. In the biggest manufacturing part of the United Kingdom - I refer to Cleveland - 3 tons of ore are required to produce 1 ton of iron; but in most other parts 2 tons of ore are sufficient to secure the same result. With regard to the Lithgow iron works I find that during a period of six months they produced 13,856 tons of pig iron. That is equivalent to nn average of only 495 tons per week. Yet we have been told that these works have a great capacity. We have been led to believe that they were producing about 700 tons weekly, and that their output was to be increased to 1,000 tons weekly. But even if that expectation be realized those works will be a very twopennyhalfpenny affair compared with the up-to-date furnaces which are to be found in other parts of the world. I find also that at Lithgow the cost of the labour and material necessary for the production of one ton of iron is £3 12s.
– But the bulk of the difference between that cost and the cost of labour and material in Europe is absorbed in labour. Surely the honorable senator does not object to that.
– I do not think that the difference is absorbed in labour. If it were, the condition would not be so unsatisfactory as it is. In reply to specific questions put to him, Mr. Allard stated that during a period of twelve months the average cost of iron ore to the company was 8s. per ton. That is an enormously high price to pay for iron ore compared with the price paid for it in other parts of the world. I find, too, that at Lithgow coke costs 19s. 5d. per ton, which is an abnormally high rate. I cannot understand why such a price should be charged at Lithgow, where coal, which is the raw material of coke, can be obtained so cheaply. The works there also pay 6s. 100. per ton for limestone, which is not at all a low price.
– Is it not reasonable to suppose that, as the operations of the company are extended, those prices will be reduced ?
– It may, or it may not. The fact remains that the difficulty of transport cannot be overcome. To me these high prices constitute the most depressing feature connected with this proposal, viewing it from a commercial standpoint. Then we have been told that the iron produced at Lithgow is superior to the imported article. Of course, I can understand that we are naturally proud of our own production, but at the same time we should not permit our judgment to be warped merely by sentimental considerations. But what are the real facts of the case? I find that the iron produced at Lithgow has not even been sold at the ordinary market rates ruling in Australia. According to the Customs returns the selling price of the Lithgow iron, both last year and this year, was a few shillings per” ton lower than the selling price of the imported article to which it is alleged to be superior. In 1906 the selling price of the Lithgow article was £3 12s. per ton, and in 1907 it was £3 13s. 3d. per ton.
– How can the Customs, Department know what was the selling price of iron?
– That is not my trouble just now.
– Where did the honorable senator obtain his figures?
– From the Customs Department. The prices which I have quoted do not by any means indicate that the iron produced at Lithgow is superior to the imported article. I have already pointed out that the prices which the New South Wales Government have been charged by this company are very unfair. The Government of that State has paid £4 9s. per ton for its iron, whereas, according to the statement of Mr. Allard, the average price paid by other customers has been only £3 4s. 8d. per ton. That gentleman quotes other cases in which outside customers have been charged £3 5s. 6d. per ton by G. C. Hoskins and Co., as against £3 10s. per ton charged to the Government. This is the way the private enterpriser works the Government milch cow. From the New South Wales Government, they get their iron carried from Lithgow to Sydney at half the usual rates. When the iron is bought by the Government, £1 more is charged than to other customers, and this is the industry that anti-Socialists of the Senate, those advocates of private enterprise and self-reliance, are now demanding more public money for in the form of bounties. So surely as we establish this industry so surely will these prices be increased, and the States Governments will be called upon to pay, perhaps, £4 9s. per ton for their iron, whilst other customers are paying only £3 10s. per ton.
– The honorable senator is speaking of pig iron only ?
– Yes. I have not analyzed the prices from the standpoint of the production of steel rails. Before concluding I should like to point out that the bounty system, wherever it has been tried, has proved the reverse of satisfactory. We all recollect the experience of Victoria in connexion with the butter bonus, and we know that the local consumer was called upon to pay for that article a higher price than ‘ was the customer abroad. The history of the bounty system in Canada is far from encouraging. When it was initiated the promise was made that it should continue only for two or three years, and that the industry would then be sufficiently established to be able to compete with other countries without any artificial stimulus. But notwithstanding that the iron bounty has continued for thirteen years in that country, only last year the Parliament of the Dominion had to agree to its renewal. Seeing that the people of Canada have already expended $6,000,000 in the form of iron bounties, we must beprepared - if we pass this Bill - to submit to a very costly experiment. Of course, I recognise that the industry cannot be established without some assistance being granted to it. If we were to nationalize it I think that the taxpayers might possibly receive some return for the money which would be invested in it. The time will undoubtedly come when the iron industry in Australia will be a very big one. But under the scheme which is embodied in this Bill it will be controlled by a few capitalists who will exploit the masses for their own purposes. We shall then have Australian Carnegies growing rich at the expense of the taxpayer.
– Only a few moments ago the honorable senator was arguing that the experiment would end in insolvency because the figures which he quoted showed that the industry could not pay.
– I merely pointed out that if the industry is to be made a commercial success it should not be established at Lithgow, nor put into the hands of private enterprise. One thing is certain, namely, that when once the bounty system has been initiated in respect of the iron industry it will have to be continued. Personally, I would like to see the industry controlled by the Commonwealth. Whatever profits were derived from it would then find they way into the national exchequer. But under this Bill we are asked to assist a private capitalist to make profits.
– Has a bounty the same effect as a duty?
– No; it has a different effect.
– Does the honorable senator imply that the duty is imposed for the purpose of making a profit only ?
– Certainly /that is the eni de sac into which Senator Lynch’s argument drives him. The iron industry has been a source of great prosperity to every country in which it has been made a success. All countries which are well advanced in the iron industry are also well advanced in civilization and progress. The United States, I suppose, owes its enormous wealth more to the iron industry than to any other. Scotland, my native land, was one of the poorest countries in Europe until she established her iron industry ; and then, owing to her enormous mineral wealth, she became, and still is, one of the richest countries in the world. I dare say that in the future we shall be able to look upon our iron industry in a somewhat similar light, and see it yield an enormous profit, but at the present time we must recognise that very little profit is likely to accrue to the general public from it. We are taking a step in the wrong, direction when we propose to use public money to keep going a ‘ private concern. There is another aspect of the question which I cannot overlook, and that is the position of the workmen. Perhaps as poorly a paid class of workmen is to be found in the iron industry all over the world as in any other industry. I can remember having to work, when a boy, for the handsome wage of 6d. .a day in an industry which was yielding enormous fortunes to those who were fortunate enough to call themselves “ ironmasters “ which, in Scotland, is synonymous with millionaires. These men became enormously rich at the expense of poor working men, many of whom were toiling for 16s. a week. I foresee these difficulties arising in Australia just as they have arisen elsewhere. We all remember reading of the poorly-paid workmen in Carnegie’s ironworks, and the riots which occurred there years ago, when the negro was brought there to blackleg on the white man. We know the poor wages that obtain in many countries where the iron industry is established. We should take the only step possible to avoid those evils in Australia, and that is by placing the iron industry in the hands of the central Government, who will see that the men who bear the heat and burden of the day are well treated. Iron work in Australia must, of necessity, be very laborious, and the men deserve to be well paid. There is no better employer or paymaster than the Government, and for these reasons we ought to establish the industry on the broad basis of control by the Commonwealth.
.- I confess that I listened with a good deal of surprise to the speech of Senator de Largie, who is practically a member of the Government. He threw a wet blanket over the Bill, and apparently he does not desire it to pass. He dwelt a good deal upon the danger to the Commonwealth and the States if we decide to give a bounty. But he forgot to say that the Commonwealth and the States will have the matter entirely in their own control. If an attempt should be made to exact undue prices for the products of the ironworks, it will be entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth and the States to bring them down. The fear that they will be compelled to pay undue prices, and that therefore the people will be unduly taxed, is utterly unfounded, because we should have simply to open the ports to bring the prices down to what was reasonable. Senator de Largie made an attack, not only upon the Bill, but also upon the place where the iron industry is being carried on. This Bill is not brought forward entirely in the interests of Lithgow, although possibly it will derive the first benefit from its enactment, because the industry has been advanced more there than in any other part of Australia. The benefits which it offers can be enjoyed in any part where there are iron deposits and persons enterprising enough to engage .in the industry. I agree with all that has been said regarding its importance. Senator Trenwith and others have shown what an enormous advantage the establishment of the industry will be. It is really the foundation of all industries, and we ought to go a good deal out of our way to try to get it established here. I regret that the Bill has been so framed as to make it absolutely impossible for many honorable senators to vote for it exactly as it is. I do not see that there was any necessity to frame it in that manner, nor why it could not have been framed in the same way as the late Mr. Kingston’s Bill of 1902. He did not include any clauses regarding wages which are now being settled by a Wages Board - or any clause regarding the nationalization of the industry. We find the same body of men blocking the establishment of the industry now as on that occasion.
– Who are they?
– The Labour Party. It was owing to their action that the proposals of Mr. Kingston were shelved, and to them is due the non-establishment of the industry. If the Government were honest, and desired to help the industry, why did they insert in the Bill objectionable clauses which it is impossible for many honorable senators to vote for, although we are all agreed as to the necessity of establishing the industry and giving assistance to it? Why should those clauses have been inserted to divide us? Was it done in order that the Bill might be lost? Honorable senators on the other side claim to be consistent. Senator Findley, for instance, claimed that he gave certain pledges regarding this industry to his constituents. But he must recognise that other honorable senators have given pledges “to their constituents, and that, naturally, they want to keep them. It is a very great pity that this bone of contention was put in the Bill.
– Does the honorable senator want to take out of it all the protection to the workers?
– No. I am not objecting so much to those clauses, but which, I may say, are not necessary, because the men now have a Wages Board, and admit that the wages they get are quite satisfactory.
– But in other States they have not a Wages Board.
– Wages Boards have not yet been established in other places, but they will come in good time. It seems that our honorable friends on the other side are more concerned about the conditions of labour than in getting work for men. If you get work for men, you can settle the other matter by-and-by. My honorable friends want to do too much at once, and thus it is that they get nothing done. I “ shall support the Bill as far as I can. I support its second reading, because I think that the iron industry needs developing. For many years private enterprise has been tackling this problem.. The Sandfords manfully tackled it for years, spending an enormous sum. They battled against misfortune, against drawbacks, against disappointment from this Parliament when, owing to tlie action of the Labour Party, they did not get a bounty which they were led to expect. Finally, they had to succumb, but they found that another firm was enterprising enough to put £250,000 into the concern, and endeavour to make a success of it.
– When has the Parliament ever said that the industry would get a bounty?
– It has made no such statement, but the owners of the iron works at Lithgow were led to believe by the Government and others that they would get that assistance. The honorable senator not only spoke disparagingly of Lithgow as a place for carrying on the iron industry, but he also criticised adversely the Lithgow ore. I have spoken to ironworkers and foundrymen in this State who have been using large quantities of Lithgow ore for the last year or two.
They have informed me that there is no better ore coming into the country. In fact, they say that it is better than the imported ore which they have been able to get. Firms who control very large works, and employ between 700 and 800 men, have told me that the Lithgow ore is better than the imported ore, and that they are thoroughly satisfied with it.
– How does the honorable senator account for the difference in price ?
– These men would not take the ore unless the price was suitable. They are rather inclined to freetrade than protection, and with them it is only a question of price and quality.
– It seems remarkable that Hoskins and Company should ask for a bounty if they are turning out a material which is giving greater satisfaction to people in Australia than is the imported material.
– That is the case. We are told that unless this Bill is passed, 600 men will be thrown out of work. Senator de Largie says that if it is passed it will simply be the means of putting money into the pockets of capitalists. Does he know that 1,000 men are dependent upon the industry, and that probably three or four persons are dependent upon the earnings of each of these thousand employed? In their circular, Hoskins and Company say that it is impossible to carryon the industry as it is, working up the raw ore as they do, unless assistance in the form of a bounty is given. They state that unless it is given the number of their hands will fall to 300, who will be simply used in working up scrap iron. Are we prepared by our action to bring about the destruction of the industry? A large responsibility is placed upon each of us. It should also be remembered that it is not proposed to put this money into the pockets of Hoskins and Company. It is to be paid on approved material being placed on the market. The firm will have to incur great expense in getting the ore and putting approved material on the market before a single penny can be put in their pockets. We all know the difficulties the firm have had to encounter. There have been difficulties in regard to wages. Some time ago the men were asked to accept a reduction. This they declined to do, and the matter was referred to a Wages Board. At the re quest of the Wages Board, an independent accountant was asked to go into the business, and he reported in these terms -
The Board sat for a few days and then adjourned pending the investigation of the financial position of the concern by an independent accountant. This report has now been presented, and, although we think it open to criticism in some respects, the general conclusion that wages must be considerably reduced if the industry is to be continued on its present basis, is very difficult to answer. With our full knowledge of the industry of the concern we think that the present wages will be maintained by the Wages Board, and the industry will expand considerably, and employ a much larger number of men, if the proposed bonus on pig-iron, steel ingots, and puddled bars, is granted.
If the output increases, the cost of working the business will decrease with every additional ton which is put out. The men say that they have secured a minimum wage of 7s. per day, and are prepared to leave the determination of the wages Ito the Wages Board, and to abide by whatever decision may be come to. It has been stated that only ninety or ninety-five men are employed in the industry. But it must be remembered that, apart from the families of those men, there are other persons whose prosperity depends upon the continuation ot the iron works. It is stated here -
The closing down of the blast, steel, and puddle furnaces would mean the dismissal of over 600 men. The remainder would be kept on in the rolling mill, working up scrap iron, but their employment would be very precarious.
They also say that they are turning out about 700 tons per week, and that the output could be increased to 1,000 tons without an increase of plant, which would lead to a reduction in the cost of. the iron produced. They refer to the subject of nationalization, of which they approve. They say, “We admit the wisdom of nationalization of monopolies but they do not think that that policy will be carried out at present, whereas the firm establishment of the iron industry in private hands, and under fair conditions, will not hinder the future nationalization of the works. They consider that the industry has passed the experimental stage, and that, with the assistance to be given, it will become permanent. They point out that the cessation of operations now would be disastrous, and that the men would lose their employment. There are over 600 men directly or indirectly engaged in the works who would be discharged. We ought to put aside any small differences we may nave as to this measure, and if we can, conformably with our platform pledges, support the Bill, we should do so. The amount involved is not very large, but the expenditure will probably encourage others to establish iron industries in other parts of Australia. We can afford to put aside non-essentials, and the forces of those who are in favour of the principle should not be divided, because the loss of this measure would undoubtedly be the means of throwing a large number of men out of work.
– The last speaker is responsible tor my rising to say a few words with regard to this Bill. It is customary for Senator McColl in nearly all his speeches to cry “ Down with the Labour Party.” I am getting sick of it. It is disgusting to hear the same tale from the honorable senator so frequently. I am in rather an awkward position. I have been studying this matter very carefully in the light of my hustings pledges, and also in the light of our financial position, having regard to the other obligations which have to be met. 1 am concerned with the question how we are to find the money for the proposed bounty. I have received no reply to that question. I believe that even Senator Pulsford is not prepared with a reply. No party in this Parliament has a policy in that respect. But the moment a policy that would meet the situation is introduced, Senator McColl and others cry, “ Down with the Labour Party.” . I should regret it very much indeed if a number of men were thrown out of employment. But at the same time, we must be careful of the finances of the Commonwealth. If we are to pay £30,000 a year for the benefit of the Lithgow works - where will it end? At the expiration of the five years influences will still be exerted, and we cannot realize the total that will have to be paid before we have done with the business. I am not afraid of a monopoly, as Senator Findley is. But I consider that if the company in question requires £30,000 a year for five years, they are just as likely to require a similar amount at the end of that period. If I were to receive an advance from a Bank, the institution would want a mortgage to the amount of twice the value received. If the Commonwealth Parliament is to advance £150,000, what is it to get by way of security? Senator McColl has referred to the Labour Party as blocking progress. I have turned up the report of the Royal Commission which inquired into this subject in 1904. I intend to quote from it. I have an object in view. One-half ‘ the members of the Commission were opposed to a bounty, and the other half were in favour of it. If Senator McColl would study the report of one-half the members of the Commission, he would find that not only the Labour Party, but also some of those who once were Labour men, but who now lead the Tory Party” in another place, were opposed to a bounty for the production of iron. The report says -
We recognise that the Commonwealth possess vast deposits of iron-ore of high grade, coal, Sc., for iron works. Ample evidence has beer* given to satisfy us on that point. Furthermore, we believe it would be a considerable advantage to have the industry in operation in a flourishing condition, and on a proper basis. In our opinion, however, such a desirable result would not be best promoted by the Bill we have been asked to consider.
The Bill provides for the payment of ^324,000 of the people’s money to private individuals engaged in an enterprise for their private gain. There can be no guarantee that the bonuses proposed would permanently establish the industry, though it is probable the inducements offered might be instrumental in forming speculative companies.
One of the witnesses, Mr. Sandford, managing director of the Eskbank Iron Works, New South Wales, stated that he had made an agreement with an English syndicate to spend ^’250,000 in extending the Lithgow works if the Bill passed. In answer to another question, Mr. Sandford said that to make pig-iron he wanted a plant involving an expenditure of from ^100,000 to £125,000. This estimate is less than half the sum proposed to be paid in bonuses.
The Canadian experience is not encouraging. The bonus system for iron production was first instituted there in 1S83. Subsequently a Bill was passed in 1897 further continuing the system. Another Bill was carried in 1899, providing for the diminution of the bounties by a sliding scale expiring in 1907. In July of this year the Dominion Government decided to postpone the operation of this sliding scale for one year, which practically means a further increase in the bounties paid. Nearly all the witnesses examined before the Commission agreed that the payment of bonuses would he useless unless followed by a duty.
Are the representatives of New South Wales prepared to grant the necessary protection? The bounties must be continued unless there is a protective duty. As a protectionist, I -see quite clearly that the wayout of the difficulty is the imposition of a duty. If we merely give a bounty! what is to prevent the Americans from sending in ship-loads of iron and steel and* selling it at a loss, perhaps for a vear or two, in order to crush the Lithgow industry? Hence, if this Bill be passed, and £30,000 paid, we may be no nearer to the establishment of a permanent industry than we are at present. It is to be observed, by the way, that the representative in another place of the district which includes Lithgow is an out-and out free-trader - or, rather, he is, like the Western Australians, a “ geographical protectionist “ occasionally. The report of this one-half of the Royal Commission states, further -
Experience shows that if the payment of bonuses be commenced the liability of the Commonwealth will not be limited to the sum proposed under the Bill, but that further Govern; ment aid will be sought.
The evidence failed to show that there was any commercial necessity for the bonuses proposed. Mr. Sandford said he could produce pig-iron at Lithgow under 35s. a ton. Allowing for freight to Sydney, Melbourne, and other parts of the Commonwealth, he could, on this showing, compete favorably with any imported pig-iron. Other witnesses, who, however, had ess experience than Mr. Sandford, doubted the correctness of his estimate of cost. But, on the supposition of his having made an underestimate, he would still, even without a bonus, be in an excellent position as compared with the, imported commodity.
No effort was made to bring forward witnesses against the Bill. Notwithstanding that fact, the evidence given failed to establish a case in its favour. Several witnesses thought the establishment of iron works in the Commonwealth premature^ and much of the evidence was strongly against any attempt by the Government to establish the iron industry by the payment of bonuses.
I am making these quotations largely for the benefit of Senator McColl, who never loses an opportunity of throwing stones at the Labour Party. But he should be careful that in his stone-throwing he does not injure some of his own leaders. The names appended are “ W. M. Hughes,” who, I understand, is our present AttorneyGeneral, “ Samuel Winter Cooke, J. W. Kirwan, G. W. Fuller, J.Chris. Watson.” Where is Senator Stewart now? The honorable senator has clearly strayed from the fold. And now let me tell my Tory friends, who have been blaming labour for blocking progress, that the next name I have to quote is that cf Mr. Joseph Cook, the leader of the Opposition, newly elected at the caucus meeting the party held yesterday. How is it possible to classify members in the way honorable members here have so frequently attempted to classify them? Yesterday the Labour Government were accused of not having the courage of their convictions ; of not sticking to their platform, and Labour members who supported them were accused of departing from the straight path. Our principles in this matter are well known. We believe in the nationalization of monopolies. Some go a little further and say that we de’sire to nationalize all industries. Nothing of the kind. We believe in the nationalization of monopolies, and though there is perhaps one way in which it can be explained ; I am astonished to find a Labour Government introducing a Bill of “this kind.
– They are introducing a Bill to create a monopoly, though we are always condemning monopolies.
– That is so. But let me suggest to Senator Findley that there is an excuse for them. This Bill had reached the Senate when the last Government were in power. Whatever Government may be in power there is involved in this measure a question of principle, and we cannot afford to ignore it. I should like if it were possible to nationalize the industry at once?
– We do not know what we can do till we try.
– I am a Scotchman, and I always like, to know where the money is to come from. As representatives of the various States - I shall not mention New South Wales, as Senator Findley did, I keep that in the background - we are here to conserve the interests of the Commonwealth, and to see that a fair deal is made. Those who are prepared to give away money in this and in similar directions should be prepared, when the time comes, to provide the funds necessary for other purposes. The President will not call me to order if incidentally I say that money will be required for the payment of oldage pensions, for defence, and many other purposes.
– For the Northern Territory, for instance.
– For the Northern Territory, and for the Federal Capital j I have not forgotten that either. Thinking of all these things it is better for us to go slowly. I have no doubt that the second reading of this Bill will be carried. The Government intend to submit amendments which will overcome some of the difficulties in the’ way. I shall support those amendments, but if we should fail to secure an alteration of the measure my conscience will prevent me from supporting it.
– A politician should not have a conscience.
– I cannot’ help it. I was born with one, and I am cultivating it, and even if differing with Senator Givens, I should fall under his denunciations that will have no effect whatever upon me. We have to consider a very serious question, and the electors will want to know more about it. I think they will be a little surprised when they read the speech of Senator Pearce, the Minister of Defence, in introducing this Bill. I felt great sympathy for the honorable senator because of the expressions he had to use. But with the honorable senator the task was a duty, and not a pleasure.
– What was a duty ?
– The reason why, yesterday and to-day, I have been so outspoken is that honorable senators opposite have said that, in common with others like me, I have got my instructions and must do what I am told. I say that so far as I am concerned, and I believe most of my Labour colleagues can say the same, whatever Government may occupy the Treasury bench I shall be prepared to vote for the Labour and Socialist platform.
– I think that the Labour Government may be congratulated upon having achieved something which it is scarcely possible for them to achieve again during the existence of the present Parliament. In fathering the Bill of another Government, and submitting it for the consideration of the Senate, they have succeeded in cementing almost all the discordant elements, of the Opposition, and bringing them over to their side.
– No.
– I said almost all the discordant elements of the Opposition. I do not believe that Senator Clemons has gone over yet.
– No, I have not.
– I am satisfied that most of the honorable senator’s colleagues have hopelessly surrendered on this question. The strongest free-traders of the party opposite are apparently now convinced bounty-givers.
– The steel rails party.
– On steel rails some of them made a tremendous slip ; but that was nothing to the slip they have made on this occasion. Here we find the freetraders, who have always been crying out against what they deem the confiscatory policy of the Socialists combining with a section of the Labour Party to confiscate some £30,000 per annum belonging to the people of the Commonwealth in order to devote it to the assistance of the impecunious private enterprise advocates in Australia.
– Poor Senator Givens.
– I am aware that Senator Givens sometimes loses his head. As a rule the honorable senator is a cool and calm reasoner, and nineteen times out of twenty he gets upon the right track. Apparently, however, we have now arrived at the twentieth time, and the honorable senator is found just as far in the mire as are the free-traders and anti.Socialists who have combined with a section of the Labour Socialists on this side.
– What about the Government ?
– Like other Governments, they have in their weakness accepted a position which seemed to be forced upon them, with a desire to placate the anti-Socialists, and, for once, to accomplish something which, in ordinary circumstances they could never be expected to accomplish, and that is to bring the Millens, the Pulsfords, and the Grays side by side with the Pearces and McGregors to do something in the interests of what? Labour ? Yes. They have endeavoured, in their speeches, to use the argument most recently put forward by Senator Macfarlane that if this industry is not given something out of the pockets of the people 600 men will be thrown put of work. I have known industries in this country in which as many thousands of men have been engaged as there are hundreds in this industry, and yet those men have been deliberately thrown out of. work in order that, from a given date, the people employing them might increase the amount of the profits they were receiving. I do not, for a moment, infer that this is the case at Lithgow. But I say, unhesitatingly, that, although we have discussed this question from time to time, we have never yet had any evidence submitted to show that this Parliament would have one iota of justification in passing this Bill. I have heard honorable senators opposite argue that when a question arises affecting a particular State, it is the duty of the representatives of that State especially, to look after the interests of the people of the State. For a considerable time I have been pledged to a platform which has been circulated throughout Australia, and which emphatically declares my opposition to the creation and building up of private monopolies. Upon the present occasion, however, we find a section of the Labour Party, and the whole of the anti-Social- ists, banded together for the purpose of assisting an existing monopoly to grow wealthy at the expense of the public. During the whole of the discussion upon this Bill not a tittle of evidence has been adduced to show that if we approve the measure, a monopoly in the iron industry will not exist for the next half century. I question very much whether even at the end of that time there will be the remotest chance of the industry being other than a monopoly. One ironworks in Australia will be sufficient to supply our requirements for the next half century. Consequently, if this Bill came before us in an honest’ form it would be entitled “A Bill for an Act to present the sum of ,£30,000 per annum to the proprietors of the Lithgow Ironworks.” We are asked to make this annual contribution to a private firm in which we have no proprietary rights whatever. I know that my honorable friends opposite will say that I am an advocate of the rights of the working man. Most decidedly I am, and if I thought for a moment that the employe’s in this industry would get anything other than a bare subsistence out of it-
– The proprietors will take the meat and the workmen will be given the bones.
– Exactly. In common with other honorable senators, I recognise the grave position which will be created if the 600 employes at Lithgow are thrown out of employment and supplies to their wives and families are thus unceremoniously cut off. But whilst my humanitarian instincts are sufficiently strong to prevent me overlooking that consideration, I cannot forget that I owe a duty to the people of Australia and to my constituents, Having pledged myself time and again not to countenance the establishment of monopolies unless they are nationalized, I feel - that if I voted for this Bill I should be under an obligation to resign my position and to make way for some representative who had a greater regard for his pledges. I frankly admit that there is one column in the papers which have been circulated for the information of honorable senators which I do not understand. It is either incomplete or its arrangement is very complex. From the documents which are before us I gather that in 1908, from January to May inclusive, the firm of G. C. Hoskins and Company supplied the Government of New South Wales with iron at £4 10s. per ton, and that during the whole of these months the prices charged to other consumersthat is to good old private- enterpriseranged from £3 4s. 3d. to £3 5s. 1 id. per ton. In other words, a difference of 25s. per ton was made in favour of private enterprise. There is no evidence - even in the testimony of Mr. Hoskins himself - to show that the works at Lithgow are other than a one-horse show, and that they will continue to remain so. All that the’ Bill asks us to do is to sanction the Commonwealth handing over £30,000 per annum to a private firm in return for the mere knowledge that a certain quantity of iron has been produced. The bounty will amount, approximately, lo £1 per ton. At the end of the period covered by the Bill the iron industry will occupy exactly the same position that it occupies to-day Then those who are interested in it will again be heard clamouring for Parliament to grant another £30,000 per annum to them in order to avert the summary dismissal of their employes and the closing down of their works.
– That claim can be made by hundreds of employers in Australia.
– It might be made with a great deal more righteousness by several industries with which I am familiar. The whole of the circumstances surrounding this Bill are such as will compel me to vote against its second reading.
– - I admit that this Bill is an attractive one. From one stand-point it is dangerously attractive. If it be represented to us that by the payment of a certain sum by way of bounty we can provide employment under good conditions to a fairly large number of men, we are bound to consider the matter. To that extent the measure attracts me. But, on the other hand, I can see more points against it than I can see in its favour. I recognize that by passing it we are likely to create- a monopoly.
– Cannot we nationalize the industry ?
– If we authorize the payment of the proposed bounty we shall incur a very great risk of creating a monopoly, which will be of no value whatever to the Commonwealth. It will not be a monopoly which will accomplish anything apart from providing employment for a number of men at a decent rate of wages. Nothing else can be urged in its favour. From another point of view - and one in respect of which I do not expect to get any sympathy from a. good many senators on the other side - this Bill will represent an economic waste. In the first instance it will represent the deliberate expenditure of so much money, and we have not too much of it to spend at the present time. When the bonus system ends it is to be followed by the imposition of a duty, which from my point of view will represent an increased cost to the users of iron.- Feeling as I do that we are going first to waste money by giving a bonus, and, secondly, when the bonus system is ended, if it ever should end, to penalize the users of iron in the Commonwealth, I cannot bring myself to vote for the second reading of the Bill, in spite of the fact that it has, as I have mentioned, one redeeming feature, and that is that it may give employment to a number of men for a. certain time at a good rate of wages. I have said more than once, here and elsewhere, that I prefer the bonus- system to the imposition of duties; for this reason, that the community pays the money and a certain industrial result is secured. But I have always said, and I shall continue tobelieve, that, on the balance we shall not do much good to the Commonwealth by the artificial creation of industries which in the result will penalize all. users of the articles with which they are dealing. I cannot believe that in this case any result will arise from the operation,, first of the bounty, and next, of the duty, except that it will represent economic waste. For that reason I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill, and oppose its passage in every way I can. I am not going to vote against the second reading for the reason which may induce many honorable senators to do so, and that is in order to nationalize the industry. I am as much against nationalizing the industry as against wasting public money in this way. For the reasons I have given I find myself compelled to vote against every part of the Bill - against nationalization and against the preliminary waste.
Debate (on motion by Senator Pulsford) adjourned.
page 2378
MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers-
Papua - Ordinances of 1908 -
No. 8. - Supplementary Appropriation of 1906-7, No. 3.
No. 9.- Supplementary Appropriation of 1908-9.
No. 10. - Supplementary Appropriation of 1908-9, No. 2.
Military Offences - Number and Nature of, 1901-1907.
Senate adjourned at 3.49 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 November 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19081127_senate_3_48/>.