8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon.T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 9934
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customswhether the Tariff which the Government introduced and passed in another -place is a scientific Protectionist Tariff?
– Yes.
page 9934
Position of Returned Soldiers.
. -(By leave.) - I wish to make a statement regarding the unemployment of returned soldiers at the present time. Whilst the Government fully appreciate and sympathize with the position in which the soldiers are placed owing to want of employment, and,as I shall subsequently indicate, are prepared to take steps to assist in alleviating this condition, it is necessary to point out most emphatically that this unemployment difficulty is not due to any failure on the part of the Repatriation Department to discharge- its obligations to the men concerned. When the repatriation scheme was submitted to Parliament, it was announced that it aimed at restoring men to . civil life, and, as far an possible, obtaining positions for them comparable to those previously held, and, until such re-establishment had occurred, to grant reasonable sustenance to the men. That pledge has been redeemed very fully. It was never intended that the Government should accept the responsibility of finding suitable employment for men in perpetuity; the aim of the Department was to restore men to civil life, and, this having been accomplished, the obligation ceased so. far as this phase of repatriation was concerned.
Many of the men who are now, unfortunately, unemployed have forsome years been re-established in civil avocations. Of those prominent in- recent demonstrations, some have been discharged from the Army for five years, others for four, and a still larger number for three and two years. They have, largely with the help of the Department, been found suitable occupations. It is not the fault of the Department, but is entirely due to the industrial depression which unfortunately prevails, that these men are out of work. Unless it is contended that, irrespective of time, the Department is to accept the responsibility of finding a place on every occasion upon which a returned soldier loses employment, it will be seen that the Department has fully and successfully discharged its obligations. The Governmentcannot see their way clear to accept the responsibility of finding employment without any limit of time after men have once been established in the civil life of the community.
The Government, however, recognise that in some of the Statesthere is a certain amount of distress due to unemployment.. This, it is hoped, is only temporary, and should soon be overcome. This unemployment is not confined to returned soldiers, but there are some returned soldiers amongst those citizens so situated. The . Commonwealth. Government have neither the necessary machinery nor the facilities for dealing with unemployment, which is more directly the obligation of the Governments of the States. But, in order to assist the unemployed returned soldiers, they propose to at once communicate to the State Governments their willingness to assist financially, within certain limits, in the relief of. necessitous cases, and also by provision of rail, and coach fares to assist in placing men in employment in the country. Such financial assistance will be contingent on similar provision being made by the State Governments, and, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, is primarily intended for the benefit of . unemployed returned soldiers.
In addition to this it is intended, and steps to. that end are being taken, to immediately appoint canvassers in the Capital cities for the purpose of. interviewing employers and endeavouring to see what positions can be obtained for men who are in need of . the same.
page 9935
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he has yet received a reply to questions I asked some time ago to the following effect: -
It would ‘be useful for the information of honorable senators if a reply were given to these questions before the Tariff is discussed in this Chamber.
– If the honorable senator will supply me with a copy of his questions, I shall, inthe course of the present sitting, endeavour to see how the matters to which they refer stand.
page 9935
Speech by Senator Bakhap
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he will have a reprint of the speech delivered by Senator Bakhap, on the subject of the renewal of the AngloJapanese Treaty and its effect upon China, carefully edited, if necessary, by the honorable senator, forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) at the present time?
– The request, is a somewhat unusual one. I assume that a copy of the Hansard in which the speech appears has been forwarded to London.
– I want the speech cabled, so that the Prime Minister may be in possession of it at a time when it may be of advantage to Australia.
– I cannot give the honorable senator a definite promise of that kind now, but I will direct the attention of the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Cook) to the suggestion contained in his question.
page 9935
The following papers were presented : -
Australian Imperial Force Canteens Fund
Act. - First Annual Report by the Trustees.
Cockatoo Island Dockyard, &c. - Report of Royal Commission.
Defence Act. - . Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 118- No. 119.
Final’ Report on the Administration of the National Relief Fund. (Paper” presented to British Parliament.)
Pillaging of Ships’ Cargoes - Report of Royal Commission.
Public Service Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 122.
Return of Officers employed in Great Britain in the Immigration Department.
War Service Homes Act. - Land acquired in New South Wales at - Auburn; Bathurst; North Bondi ; Orange.
ADJOURNMENT (Formal).
Telephone Service : Supply of Instruments .
– I have received from Senator Thomas ‘an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate in order to call attention to a matter of ‘ urgent public importance, namely, “ The lack of a sufficient supply of telephone instruments for use throughout the Commonwealth.”
.- I move-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 9.30 a.m. to-morrow.
Four honorable senators having risen in their places in support of the motion,
– This is the first time I have trespassed upon the time of honorable senators with a motion for the adjournment, and it is my intention to be as brief as possible. It was my purpose originally to move the adjournment in order to discuss the position with regard to telephone instruments in New South Wales alone, but I thought that possibly I might exclude other honorable senators who desired to speak of the conditions in their own State, and so I have submitted the question in its present form , though I trust I may be. pardoned if my remarks apply particularly to New SouthWales. . I understand that at the present moment there are 1,000 people in New South Wales - in Sydney chiefly - anxious to become telephone subscribers, but unable to secure connexions because of the inability of the Department to provide the instruments. In order to., show how congested the position is, I may point’ out that when coming over from Sydney in the train to-day I learned from Major Marr, a member of the House of Representatives, that he had ho less than sixty-four letters from constituents urging him to see what he could do to facilitate their requests for telephone connexion.. There are two kinds of telephones, the magneto and the automatic. My remarks will be chiefly concerned with the latter. A constituent of mine has written to say that he is extremely anxious to get an automatic telephone, and when I forwarded his letter to the Department, I was informed by the officials that it was impossible to supply a telephone.
– Does he know whether he is in the area served by the automatic telephone ?
– Yes. A fewdays ago, I happened to be at a gathering in Sydney, and in a conversation with the representative of a Chicago firm which has put in most of the automatic telephones in Australia, I jocularly reminded him that he was a nice sort of man, because, after he had put in the automatic telephones the people were now unable to obtain the instruments. In reply, he said to me, I have 1,000 automatic telephone instruments in Macquarie-street. You can have them to-morrow if you want them.”
– And yet the Department say they cannot get them.
– I thought the statement strange, and so I made further inquiries. In reply to a telephone message, he wrote me as follows: -
In reply to your inquiry by telephone, I wish to say that this company has on hand, unsold and in stores, for sale, a large number of automatic telephones, which can be delivered Immediately.
He added that there were 454 wall telephones and 1,453 desk instruments, or a total of 1,907. I believe that a large number of people prefer the wall telephone, because it is less expensive; but, on the other hand, many prefer the desk instruments as being more convenient. It is difficult to understand how the Government can say that they are unable to obtain instruments when, as I have shown, there are over 1,900 immediately available in Sydney. I may add that Mr. Burge, the representative of the Chicago firm referred to, did not approach me -with regard to this matter. I made the Overtures, and, as I have already shown, at first in a jocular manner. I understand that tenders were called for automatic telephones in August of last year, and that two tenders were, received - one from the Chicago firm, and the other from Siemens Brothers, a British firm. I be lieve that nearly the whole of the automatic telephone instruments have, up to the present, been supplied by the American firm; but last year Siemens Brothers got the contract at, I understand, £3 18s. 6d. for the wall pattern. The information I have does not disclose whether the accepted tender includes the calling device or not. The price of the automatic table telephone there is £5 19s. 6d. ; here it is £5 10s. equipped with the calling device, and £3 17s. 6d. without it. However, I am not going to argue that the price quoted by Messrs. Siemens Brothers is not cheaper. The American company,’ it must be remembered, has to pay an import duty of 10 per cent.
– Because of. our scientific Tariff?
– Yes. I take it that the Government went carefully into this matter and discovered that the instruments to be supplied by Messrs. Siemens Brothers were cheaper than those which could be obtained elsewhere.
– And they went into the question of exchange, too.
– I do not suggest that the instruments contracted for by Messrs. Siemens Brothers are not cheaper than those which can be purchased from the Chicago firm. But I take it that when the Government called for tenders’ for the supply of these instruments they at least adopted . the business precaution of imposing a time limit for the performance of the contract. Though I have not seen the contract itself, I understand that the Chicago firm undertook to deliver these instruments within some three or four months. The first shipment of Siemens Brothers, I understand, was to arrive here in May, and a portion of ‘ the second shipment was to be delivered in June. It is now July, but so far no consignment of telephones has yet arrived. In these circumstances, it is per-, tinent to inquire whether the Government intend to utterly disregard the period within which the company may deliver these instruments? If they cannot supply them within the specified time, the Government should be at liberty to purchase stocks from other people, and any loss thereby occasioned ought to be made good by the defaulting contractors. I know that there may be three very good reasons why persons who desire to be connected by telephone at the present time cannot have their wishes gratified. The first is that the requisite telephones are not available. Another is that the switchboards are -so crowded that there is no room upon them, to install fresh subscribers. In the third place, the necessary funds may not be forthcoming. Obviously, however, the third reason cannot be operative, because, in any case, the Minister would be obliged to pay for the telephones supplied by the contractors as they arrived. Further, I recollect thatsome time ago, when some of us here were advocating the adoption of penny postage, the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral pointed out that a sum of £3,000,000 bad been specially provided upon the Estimates to enable the Post Office to overtake arrears in this direction. Th at being so, it can scarcely be urged that the necessary telephones are not forthcoming owing to lack of funds. Seeing that there are nearly 2,000 telephones available, for purchase in Sydney, it seems to me that we ought not to ask the people of that city to wait for an indefinite period until telephones are supplied under the contract which has been entered into by the Government. The instruments to which I refer are in the hands of a reputable firm, which recently installed an automatic telephone exchange at Collingwood. Consequently, I would urge upon the Government the advisableness of taking the necessary action without further delay.
.- I am glad that Senator Thomas has provided us with an opportunity - to discuss the telephone service of the Commonwealth, and particularly the Sydney telephone service. It is quite appropriate that he, as ‘an ex-Postmaster-General, should direct our attention to the position which obtains at present. In justice to him, I may say that the telephone troubles which we are now experiencing did not commence until seme considerable time after he had vacated the office of Postmaster-General. In this Chamber the -question of the condition of our telephone service has been like King Charles’s head (during the past two or three years. As one who has devoted’ some attention to the matter, I would like to express my sympathy with the officials of the Telephone Branch of the Post and Telegraph Department. As far as I can understand, fundamentally the fault does not lie with them. Speaking from memory, the position is that up till about the year 1917 the telephone engineers of NewSouth Wale3 were accustomed to provide for telephonic developments a year or two ahead-. The first trouble which they experienced was when the then Treasurer (Mr. Watt) very drastically cut down the estimates of the then PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Webster) in regard to equipment for the telephone service. I believe that at that time an extreme protest was made by the then PostmasterGeneral against the cutting down of the vote for new equipment for telephones,, and certainly very substantial and reasonable objections were- raised by the telephone officers. As the result of the cutting down of the vote the provision for telephone services ahead could no longer be maintained, and with the rapid development that has gone on, particularly in. Sydney, the latest census figures showingthat it is now a city of, approximately, 750,000 people, it can easily be visualized that the provision which had been made for extensions, once stopped, would be very rapidly caught up with. The result was that in 1917 or 1918 the applications for telephones caught up with, and were in advance of, the service it was possible to give. Thanks to the largely Free Trade character of the then Tariff, there was no incentive to make telephone equipment in Australia, and we had to import nearly everything. Very little of such equipment could be obtained in the Commonwealth, and as the stress of the war went on, when money was available, material could not be obtained. I understand that- that position persisted for at least s year or two, so that whatever criticism; we have to offer regarding the inefficiency or shortage of the telephone service in Sydney or in New South Wales generally, I do not think the telephone officers, or even the late Postmaster-General, can be blamed. The fundamental fault was with the then Treasurer and with this Parliament for cutting down the Estimates of the Postmaster-General, the importance of which he so strongly stressed at that time. I say this in fairness to the telephone officers themselves and to the then Postmaster-General. This policy has been clearly proved to have been a false economy, because I am credibly informed that the material that should not have been cut down would have cost, if ordered about 1916, only half the amount that had afterwards to be paid for it, so that we have had practically a double expense over this delay, as well as a tremendous number of public and well-deserved complaints. There seems to be another feature of the telephone position in Sydney. In addition to the shortage of cables, wire, instruments, and exchange accommodation, brought about by the cutting down, five years ago, of the material that should have been ordered ahead, there is the human equation to be taken into consideration. So far as I can ascertain, the telephone service ten years ago was attractive to young women, and was well paid compared with services outside. In the course of time some of the best operators naturally would marry and leave the Service, but others would come on, and gradually, with the general rise in wages throughout Australia, the ,telephone service has become very much less attractive to female operatives, comparatively speaking, than it was then. The attention of the Postmaster-General should be called to this phase of the matter, because I do not think any reasonable amount is too much to pay for efficient service at the exchange.
– What do you say as a business man about 1,900 of those telephones being there, and the Government not buying them?
– I am not quite sure whether, if those telephones are bought, there are sufficient cables to attach them to the exchanges. I am prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible officers, who feel their position as keenly as honorable senators do here, with regard to the complaints that are being made. It must not be forgotten also that a good many of. the best of our Post Office engineers and electricians went to the war, and that owing to that fact the Service during war-time was to some extent disorganized. I do not think the Postmaster-General (Mr. Wise) or his officers can set up any argument with regard to. the cost of the telephones, because I gave some figures in the Senate during last session which clearly prove that the telephone services to-day, both for private houses and business establishments, are costing approximately double, or more, what the same services cost in 1913 or 1914. Owing to all the causes I ‘have enumerated, the efficiency of the telephone service in Sydney has been most seriously interfered with ; and, so far as I can ascertain, it will be a year or two yet before the Department can catch up the time they lost, owing to shortage of money in ordering materials ahead.
– Will they ever catch it up?
– I hope’ they will.
– They are a long way behind.
– I agree with the honorable senator. Senator Thomas mentioned a shortage of about 1,000, but if only 1,000 people are waiting for telephones to-day the Department are catching up very rapidly as compared with the position that obtained twelve months ago. I must say, too, in fairness to the Telephone Branch, that during the time of acute shortage first preference for new telephones was given to doctors, and second preference to returned soldiers who wished to go into business, and that the whole policy of the Branch, sp far as they were able to deal with the position, was quite fair and reasonable. There is another matter about which I shall not be able to be quite so eulogistic as I have been regarding the general policy of the Telephone Branch under extreme stress and difficulty. I refer to the question of recording telephone calls.
– They are good on that.
– They are too good.
– The honorable senator will not be in order in dealing with that matter, which would lead to a general discussion. A motion, for the adjournment of the Senate must be on a specific matter, and the debate must be confined to it. The specific matter now before the Senate is the lack of telephone instruments.
– Do you confine me, sir, to the question of telephone shortage in Sydney?
– It is the Standing Orders governing this kind of debate that confine the honorable senator. My duty is merely to administer them as
I find them. The subject to which the honorable senator is confined is the shortage of telephone instruments in Australia.
– I propose to try to prove, with regard to the argument I was, about to introduce, that if the present system of recording telephone calls continues, the shortage in the Commonwealth will soon be made up, because the extraordinary charges imposed will compel subscribers to discontinue using them.
– -It is strange how many people are anxious to be connected. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Marr) informed me that there were sixty- four in his constituency.
– The shortage can be made up by continuing the system of imposing charges for extraordinarily large numbers of calls that are never made. I have received a letter from the secretary of the Australian Mutual Provident Society - a society which I think honorable senators will admit is a credit to Australia - in which he directs attention to the extraordinary manner in which his society, has been charged for calls, and says that, if the present condition of affairs continues, serious consideration will have to be given to .the matter. I have also received a complaint from a constituent of mine - Captain “Vine Hall, of Chatswood - who states that owing to the extraordinary manner in. which he has been charged for calls - inconsistent altogether with the real amount of business he has transacted - he will have to discontinue the use of his telephone, and thus make available an instrument which may be a means of relieving the shortage. The secretary to the Australian Mutual Provident Society states that for the half year - from December, 1919, to May, 1920 - his society was charged £28 17s. 4d.
– I cannot allow the honorable senator to continue discussing charges for calls, because if he does so other honorable senators will seek a similar privilege, which will result in extraneous matter . being introduced. Senator Thomas’ motion was moved for the specific purpose of discussing the shortage of telephones, and the debate must be confined to that subject. Standing order No. 64 reads: -
A motion without notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate for the purpose of debating some matter of urgency, can only be made after Petitions have been presented, and Notices of Questions and Motions given, and before the Business- of the Day is proceeded with, and such motion can be made notwithstanding there be on the Paper a motion for adjournment to a time other than that of the next ordinary meeting. The senator so moving must make in writing, and hand in to the President, a statement, of the matter of urgency. Such motion must be supported by four senators rising in their places and indicating their approval thereof. Only the matter in respect of which such motion is made can be debated.
That is specific.
– I quoted the case of a telephone subscriber who said that he would give up his instrument rather than agree to pay what he thought was an improper charge. If that person gave up his telephone some one else would be glad to accept it, and in that way the shortage would be relieved. I was merely giving an illustration of the complaints made in regard to telephone calls, an’d the justification some of my constituents have for discontinuing the service.
– The specific motion before the Senate is the alleged shortage of telephones in Australia, and it is not fair to Senator Thomas, and to other honorable senators, if the discussion is dragged away from the specific subject. I cannot allow the honorable senator to proceed to discuss the question of telephone calls, but the honorable senator can avail himself of the opportunity of bringing the matter forward under another motion if he so desires.
– I certainly shall obey your ruling, Mr. President, because I have every respect for the Chair; but I shall take another opportunity of placing the information at my disposal before the Department. In connexion with the shortage of -telephones, my colleagues in this Chamber, and iu another place who are representing New South Wales, have received scores of serious complaints during the last two; or three years regarding the lack of supplies; and I desired to show what, in my opinion, was the cause of the shortage. I have no desire to accuse the officers of the Department, because I believe the present situation has arisen owing to the short-sightedness of the Treasurer at the time, who reduced the amount that was necessary for keeping our telephone services up to date. If anything of this sort is attempted again, I trust the Postmaster-General willmake it public, so that attention may be directed to the possible consequences.
– It is not my intention, at this juncture, to deal with some of the complaints which have been made this afternoon, particularly in regard to the charges imposed, because in some instances where complaints have been made those lodging them have been compelled to beat a rapid retreat. It is patent to every one that many of the difficulties which now exist have arisen in consequence of the inability to obtain material during the war period. If, as Senator Thomas suggested, I said that it was the intention of the Government to spend £3,000,000 in twelve months, I must have made a very bad slip.
– The Minister made that statement, because I said at the time that he could not spend that sum during that period.
– I think the honorable senator is referring to a discussion on a Loan Bill. Senator Thomas has asked why the Department has not taken delivery of nearly 2,000 telephones which he says are available in Sydney, and I presume he suggests that these instruments should be secured irrespective of price. I have received the following statement from the Department in regard So this matter: - ,
There are, at the present time, 4,432 subscribers waiting for a telephone service in Syd- ney. In connexion with about 2,000 of these, applicants the Department is waiting for telephones only before service is given.
There are other reasons why applications are held up. I remember on one occasion trying to hurry up the installation of a telephone for a member of the Senate. I thought it was quite a simple matter and needed only to be mentioned. I found that the reason for delay was not a shortage of telephones or of wire, but that ‘ the underground cables serving the street were fully occupied, and it would be necessary to lay another cable to make provision ‘ for the new telephone. It will be seen that only 2,000 applications were delayed in Sydney because of the lack of telephones.
– That is twice as many as I mentioned, and it shows how moderate Iwas.
– That is so, but the -trouble arises not merely from a shortage in the supply of telephones. The statement continues: -
But there are other causes why the remaining applicants are kept waiting, namely, lack of telephone exchange switchboards, telephone underground cables, wire, &c. The Department has a large quantity of this class of material on order, and deliveries are coming to hand. You may rest assured that as soon as any material comes to hand steps are taken to place it in position at the. earliest possible moment, so as to satisfy members of the public, and at the same time earn revenue for the Department. The Department has over 8,000 automatic telephones on order for Sydney. They were ordered on 6th October, 1920, and deliveries are expected daily in Sydney. At the time this order was placed, tenders . had been received from certain firms.
– How long are they overdue?
– That I do not know, but the statement supplied to me continues–
At the time this order was placed, tenders had been received from certain firms quoting prices for telephones, including a quotation from Automatic Telephones’ (Australasia) Limited. The latter firm was unsuccessful in obtaining an order, as their price was considerably higher than that of the accepted tenderers, when allowance was made for adverse exchange rates and preference to British manufacturers.
-What was the difference in price?
– I have not that information. I did not know, nor could any one anticipate, what honorable senators would be likely to say on the motion before the Senate.
– I telegraphed across from Sydney yesterday . to inform the Minister of my intention to submit my motion.
– I thank the honorable senator for giving me notice, but I did not know what arguments would be used in support of the motion.
-isaw the departmental authorities in Sydney; and told them what I intended to do, and they might have used the telephone to see that the information required was obtained.
– I went to the Central Office for the information that has been supplied to me. The statement further continues -
It will be seen from the information contained inparagraph 3 that a large number of telephones is on ‘order.Furthermore,’ the -De:. partment has material on order for delivery during the current financial year which will more than absorb the amount at present “ granted by the Treasury.
I am sorry I am not in a position to supply Senator Thomas with a complete answer to his remarks, especially in regard to the difference in price between the two firms tendering for the supply of telephones. I shall obtain the information for the honorable senator, as well as information in reply to any other question which may be asked during the debate. I give the assurance that as fast as material is available the . Department is keen about placing it.
– My complaint is that there is some available which the Department will not’ use.
– Some material might be available at an unreasonable price.
– The Minister will admit that some time ago the trouble was not alack of material, but of money.
– It was both.. During the whole of the war period there was a shortage of both money and material.
– I admit that, but the material is available now and the Department will not use it. A business man would go acrossthe street and get it.
– Nearly all the British telephone manufacturers were engaged in war work, and during the war we could not get material from them. With regard to the number of telephones that are at present available in Sydney, I shall confer’ with the Department and see whether there ‘ are any conditions under which they could be taken over, but I am not prepared to guarantee that they will be availed of regardless of cost.
– I would not make so ridiculous a request.
– Were those telephones offered to the Department?
– Yes, by tender, but the firm offering them were not the lowest tenderers, and the Department accepted a. British tender.
– I should like to know when the material offered under the British tender should have been here. We should have that information; the departmental authorities should have known . that that is the crux of the question.
– I am assured in the statement I have quoted that. this, material is expected daily in Sydney, and that statement would not be made if it was not’ true that the material is in transit, and expected shortly to arrive.
– With all respect to* the departmental authorities, they have shirked the question.
– I have given the information supplied to me, and will have pleasure in asking for any further information that may be required.
– Are the successful tenderers unable to deliver the goods ?
– No; they are now about to be delivered.
– Is the Minister sure of that?
– I am relying upon the statement supplied to me by the Department.
– That would suggest that the Department has been advised that the goods have been forwarded.
– I assume that they are in course of transit, or the statement that they are expected daily would’ not have been made. I am giving honorable senators what I believe to be a reasonable interpretation of the statement supplied to me by the Department.
– The honorable senator accepts that; but it is not the first departmental paper that has come under my notice.
– I accept it until it is proved to be incorrect.
– I think it is high time that Senator Thomas supported the manufacture of this material here.
– I submitted a proposal long ago in this Parliament to bring that about.
– We shall give the honorable senator an opportunity very shortly to vote for protective duties which will enable this material to be manufactured in Australia.
– No matter what view honorable senators may take of the matter, there are a great many people . engaged in business in Sydney who will be most grateful to Senator Thomas for urging here that the business of the supply of telephones should be dealt with in a businesslike way. . I waited to hear what the Minister’s reply would be. He says that the Department is expecting telephones. but I know that there are thousands of business men who have been waiting for months for telephones which should long ago have been placed in position. The Department should be in a position to say whether the telephones required are on’ the way, and when they will be available. Two firms tendered for the supply of telephones. I believe that one lot of telephones had to be supplied last May and another in June. We are nearing the end of July now, and they are not yet here. If I went to a business- firm in Sydney for goods they were in the habit of supplying to me, they would not think of asking me to wait until a shipment arrived. They would get the goods I required, if necessary, from- an opposition firm, in order to supply my needs. The Government have, at their command now, nearly. 2,000 telephones, which would practically supply the immediate demands in- Sydney, and they should make use of those telephones. The price is quite unimportant, because, at the most, it might run to £5 10s. for each telephone, and the Government charge a rental of £4 a year for it.
– The price of calls is contingent on the cost of the telephone.
– It might be a matter of £10,000 . for 2,000 telephones which are available in Sydney for purchase. There are thousands of business men who want them, and they would be revenue-producing from the day they were installed. The Government, I suppose, in the interests of economy, are holding back to some distant date, when they will receive telephones that have been ordered under the contract. I do not speak on this matter altogether without information, because, in common with other members of the Senate, I have had interviews with people who have been waiting for months for telephones, and who believe, as many do, that if they make application to a member of Parliament they may get what they want a little earlier. What is the expenditure of~ a sum of £10,000 for a great city like Sydney where revenue from the expenditure ‘ would be immediately assured ? I should like to know how the contract with the British company was drawn up. I .take no exception to preference being given to a British company, but I say that, if the contract is not drawn up in such a way that if supplies .are not forthcoming within the prescribed time the
Government will be in a position to supply themselves at the cost of the contractors, then it ought to be.
– If the, contract is not drawn up in that way, then we’ do require a Board of Management in the Public Service.
– It is not the question of the delay of a month or two, because people have been waiting for months and for years for telephones. When the last tenders were called, one provision, to which, an ordinary man would have bound the contractors, would be to supply the telephones required at the earliest possible date, with penalties for failure. I have said that, from information I have received, some telephones were to be supplied in May and others in June, and although none have so far been delivered, the Government will not take advantage of telephones available in Sydney at the cost of the successful tenderers. I do not know anything about either of the tenderers. Senator Thomas has explained how he became aware of the splendid supply of telephones ‘ now available in Sydney by merely bantering one of the people whom he believed to be concerned in the contract.
– I met him at a function arranged by the American Consul. ‘
– It might expedite matters if the Government informed the successful tenderers that, failing immediate deliveries under their contract, they would purchase the telephones they require elsewhere. I venture to say that there is very little difference between the prices quoted by the two tenderers. Senator Russell has said that there is a difference due to exchange rates, but as these telephones are for sale in Sydney, there would be no difference in price due to exchange. If these telephone instruments can be obtained in Sydney at the present time, it should only be a matter of utilizing Australian cash and thus obviating the difficulties of exchange already referred .to.There need be no interference at all with the existing contract, but if the contract has been drafted so loosely that the company can deliver when they like, then the people of Sydney may go on expecting delivery daily, and yet be disappointed. If these instruments are not delivered within a reasonable time, it is clearly the duty of the Government to buy elsewhere, and an expenditure of £10,000 would purchase the instruments which, we have been told, are immediately available, and which could be utilized at. once. I understand that the Department have been aware all along that these telephone instruments were available in Sydney. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will do something in the matter. The charges to the subscribers is in excess of the cost.
– What about the lines, conduits, and other expenditure? The cost of the instrument is not the only item.
– I realize that other capital expenditure has to be provided for, but I may remind the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) that a return can only be expected when intending subscribers get their instruments. Only then do they begin to wipe off capital expenditure. Until then the Department can expect no revenue. In all friendliness to the Government, I say it is their duty to remedy at once this grievance, which has been such a source of annoyance to a very large number of people in Sydney for a considerable time. Like other honorable senators, I have been approached by intending subscribers who think that a member of Parliament can help them to get a telephone instrument more quickly, but I have been obliged to tell my friends that there is a shortage of telephones and that each man must come in the order of his application. If the terms of the contract are indefinite as to delivery, I would take the risk even of breaking the contract by purchasing the instruments that are available in order that the business people may have telephonic communication at the earliest possible moment. That, at all events, would be a step towards getting over the present difficulty; but if the Government cannot see their way to take such action, then, no doubt, stronger protests will be made a few months hence.
.- I should like to say a few words upon this subject. I am not so much concerned about the position of the individual as I am with the pioneer communities of returned soldiers settled on land in various parts of Victoria. I have had an opportunity recently of visiting some of these settlements, and I understand their position fairly well. In some places there is a railway siding which serves a settlement of 200 or 300 returned soldiers whose nearest point of telephonic communication is about 10 miles. This is a serious matter to them, especially if they want to get in touch with a doctor. There is an obligation on the Government to remove this disability at the’ earliest possible date.
– I desire to interpolate at this stage certain information which has reached -my colleague, the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell), who has already spoken, and who, therefore, is debarred from speaking again. Senator Russell has just received advice by telephone that a shipment of telephone instruments from the United Kingdom is expected within the next few days. He has also been advised that the Department did not buy the telephone instruments in Sydney, referred to by Senator Thomas, for two reasons: (1) The expected arrival within a few days of the telephone instruments ordered under the contract, and (2) The money voted by Parliament was ear-marked for the payment of those instruments on arrival. If the money were used for any other purchase, a further vote would be required.
– Could not the Treasurer’s Advance Account be utilized ?
– As we are getting Supply Bills, the Treasurer’s Advance Account has been kept short.
– By whom was the money ear-marked ?
– It was voted by Parliament in the ordinary way, and placed against the account for the telephone instruments ordered under contract. In that way, it was ear-marked to pay for the particular supply when it comes to hand. Senator Russell has been informed, further, that the number of people waiting for telephone connexion, and who cannot be supplied because of the shortage of instruments, is 1,000, not 2,000 as previously stated.
– Can you say how many people . are waiting for telephone connexions altogether?
– I understand, about 4,000.-
– Can you tell the Senate when these instruments were due under the contract?
– No; I have no information other than that I have already given. I may remind honorable senators, that during the war the whole of our telephone supplies were drawn from the United Kingdom and United States of America, and that all the factories in those countries were fully employed making telephone instruments for war purposes. After the war every country in the world was short of instruments. I remember the Postmaster-General (Mr. Wise) telling Cabinet that he had the greatest difficulty in getting any tenders at all, and that it would have been utterly useless to impose any conditions in a contract because the companies would not tender, for the simple reason that they could get orders sufficient to keep their factories going at full speed right next to their doors. There was a telephone hunger throughout the world, and naturally those countries nearest the source of supply got their requirements first. We might have made a perfect contract, as regards conditions, as has been suggested during the debate, but we would have got no telephones. The Postmaster-General has intimated that he is doing his best to get over the difficulty at the earliest possible moment.- It is believed that the famine in telephone instruments is about at an- end, so that we may expect shortly to get sufficient instruments for all our requirements.
– The aspect of this matter which I desire to bring before the Senate was referred to by Senator Bolton, namely, the position of returned-soldier settlements in different parts of the Commonwealth. The difficulty owing to the shortage of telephone instruments is just as great in the country as it is in the cities.
– And telephones are more essential in the country.
– We are always stressing the wisdom of land settlement, but, unfortunately, these necessary facilities are not readily provided to encourage people to go upon the land. The position at Frances, in South Australia, 25 or 30 miles distant from Naracoorte, is typical of that of many other places similarly situated. There is telephonic communication, but no provision is made to enable people to call ‘ up a Naracoorte doctor if one is required. In Victoria, distant about 14 miles from Frances, is another town, Minimay, which has no telephonic communication with Frances, and so it is impossible to get into communication with a doctor who may happen to be there. This matter has been brought under the notice of the Government from time to time. It emphasizes the difficulties experienced by people living in some country districts, so far as telephonic communication is concerned. In this connexion, we are not keeping abreast of requirements, and to that extent we are not encouraging land settlement.
– But is that not a matter which the Deputy PostmastersGeneral could -attend to themselves?
– Yes, but if the case I have mentioned, is’ brought before the Deputy Postmaster-General in Adelaide, he refers to the Deputy PostmasterGeneral in Victoria, and the latter’s comment is that there is already telephonic communication between Melbourne and Minimay, although, as I have shown, there is no telephone across to Frances. Thus the broken link in the chain renders the chain- quite useless. Telephone communication, I submit, should not be provided for our cities alone, but should be extended to country residents, who for years have been crying out for better facilities in this connexion. _ n
– I am pleased with the reply given by the Minister. I took the precaution to inform Senator Russell of my intention to move the adjournment of the Senate to-day for the purpose of pointedly directing attention to this matter. Yesterday I also telephoned certain postal officials in Sydney, to whom I intimated my intention, so that they might be prepared to supply the Minister representing the Postmaster-General with all the information “Bearing upon it which is in their possession. Of course, I quite recognise that to- provide complete telephone communication something more is required than the mere instrument itself. I did not ask that the Government should purchase the 1,900 telephones to which I’ had previously alluded if they are not required. But I have in my mind several cases in which only the telephone itself was required to complete the desired telephone connexion. Honorable senators are doubtless aware that if a man rents a house which is connected by telephone, and if that telephone is in his own name, when he quits the premises he is entitled to take it with him to his new place of abode. Thus it frequently happens that the ingoing and outgoing tenants of houses in Sydney fight for the possession of particular instruments. In cases in which only the telephone is required to complete the connexion, a private company would probably say to the incoming tenant. “If I can obtain elsewhere a telephone for you at a fair figure I will purchase it . and install it.” That is what the Government should do in similar cases. The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) stated by implication this afternoon that no conditions were inserted in the contract which has been entered into with the Commonwealth for the supply of telephone instruments because of the abnormal conditions which obtained at the time that contract was made. He argued that if arbitrary conditions had been insisted upon no tenders would have been forthcoming. I take it, however, that in their tenders tenderers were asked to say when they would be in a position to fulfil the. contract.
– There must have been some provision of that kind in the contract.
-Not necessarily. I understand, however, that the Chicago company undertook to deliver instruments within a specified time. As Siemens Brothers have not done so, I hold that the Government should be ‘at liberty to purchase telephones which . are available in Macquarie-street, Sydney, assuming that they can do so at a reasonable price.
– At what price can they be purchased ?
– I asked the gentleman who represents the firm in question whether he was prepared to sell instruments ‘tothe Commonwealth at the same price as that at which he had tendered for their supply, and he assured me that he was. If the price is a reasonable one, and the shipment of telephones to which reference has been made does not speedily arrive to afford relief to the public, I hope that applicants for telephone . connexionwill not’ be longer denied the f acilitieswhichthey seek., I ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, bv leave, withdrawn.
page 9945
Use of Swords
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The replies to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 9946
Retiring Age
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Is it the intention of the Government to reinstate officers of the Civil Service who are on furlough prior to retirement at the statutory age, and who are, in terms of the recent finding of the High Court, still officers of the Civil Service, and liable to be called upon to resume service ?
– The matters arising but of the recent decision of the High Court in the case brought before it by a Commonwealth public servant in South Australia are at present receiving consideration.
page 9946
Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with amendments.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended and message ordered to be taken into consideration in Committee forthwith.
In Committee:
Clause 3 -
Any appointment of James Michael Semmens as Acting War Service Homes Commissioner under the War Service Homes Act 1918- 1920 is hereby declared to he, and to have been at all times, valid and effectual under the said Act, and each act done, before the commencement of this Act, by the said James Michael Sommens, purporting to act in the capacity of Acting War Service Homes Commissioner, is hereby declared to be, and to have ‘been at all times, as valid and effectual as if the said James Michael Semmens had been, at the time of the doing of such act, duly appointed Acting War Service Homes Commissioner under the said Act.
House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After the word “ Commissioner”, lines 2-‘3, insert the words “ purporting to be, or to have been, made.”
– This amendment introduces certain words the insertion of which has been suggested by the Crown Law Officers to remove a possible doubt which exists as to the verbiage of the clause. The words “ purporting to be, or to have been, made “ are inserted after the word “Commissioner,” and before the words “ under the War Service Homes Act.” The lawyers have suggested that amendment to remove a slight doubt and give full effect to the Bill as a validating measure. I move. -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mouse of Representatives’ Amendment. - Insert the following new clause : - “ 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920 or in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920, James Michael Semmens shall not, by reason only of his employment as Acting War Service Homes Commissioner, be deemed to have vacated his office as a member of the Repatriation Commission, and shall not, by reason only of his employment as a member of the Repatriation Commission, be deemed to have vacated his office as Acting War Service Homes Commissioner.”
– The necessity for this amendment arises in this way : Under the Repatriation Act a Commissioner is forbidden to take any employment outside his office for pay, while under the War Service Homes Act the Commissioner is forbidden to take employment outside his office, paid or honorary. Doubt has arisen whether, with the same gentleman occupying the two positions, although one of themonly temporarily, it might not be contended that as War Service Homes Commissioner he was accepting other employment for pay, and, as Commissioner under the Repatriation Act, invalidating his position by taking employment under the War Service Homes Act. I move) -
That the amendment be agreed to.
SenatorROWELL (South Australia) [4.38]. - Is it the intention of the Government to keep Colonel Semmens in this position very long, or do they propose to fill the Repatriation Commissionership ?
– It is the desire and intention of the Government to release Colonel Semmens from the position which he is temporarily occupying at the earliest possible date. I anticipate that it will be only a few days before the whole position is disclosed to Parliament and thecountry by the Government.
– As we are permitting this gentleman to occupy two positions, a thing which each Act expressly forbids, I hope that, when the Bill is through, the Minister will recollect that it is most undesirable to have one man filling two positions -of this nature, especially if there are quite a number of other people equally competent to fill either of them.
– It is not only undesirable for the position itself, but it represents a tremendously heavy strain on Colonel Semmens, and to the extent of that strain must diminish the efficiency of the work proper to his own Department.
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported; report adopted.
page 9947
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
– -May I be permitted to ask the Minister-
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) . -There is no question before the Senate yet.
– I wish to ask the Minister, as this is the first Tariff that has been before at least two Parliaments, what is the exact position of the Senate with regard to requests that it may make, and with regard to other matters in connexion with the Bill 1
– I move-
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the. Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
I have not the slightest idea of taking all consequent action to-day, because I am not optimist enough to believe that that will be physically possible ; but the debate on the first reading may conclude this evening early enough to permit the Minister (Senator Russell) to make his second-reading speech before we adjourn. It will be of advantage to the Senate if the Minister can make that speech early, so that -honorable senators may have longer to consider it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
– On a question of privilege.
– The honorable senator had better wait until I put the question.
A Scientific Tariff - Protection and Free Trade - Industrial Conditions -. Unemployment - Cost of Production and Prices - Progress in New South
Wales’ and Victoria - Attitude of Labour Party: a Master ClassTrade Combines : Iron Industry - Indirect Effect of Protective Duties: Raw Material: Box Making - Protection and Wages-Primary and secondary industries: Centralization - Duty on Bananas and Trade with Fiji - Yield per Acre of Primary products -sugarindustry - Colonial Sugar Refining Company : contribution to electoral fundsThe Nationalist Government and the Empire - Price of Boots - Population and Cost of Government - Protection of Consumers: Waste in Distribution - Capital and Labour: Russia - Loss through Labour Disputes - The Tariff and Rates of Exchange - Tariff Board - Hospital Requirements - Scarcity of Skilled Artisans and Mechanics : Apprentices - Preferential Duties : France - Development of Woollen Industry.
Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -
That this Bill be now read a first time.
– I understand that this is one of those Bills on the first reading of which we can discuss any subject.
– One of those Bills on which the more irrelevant you are, the more you are in order.
– Yes ; and as it will te delightful for me to be- continually in order, I shall say practically all I have to say on this Bill on the first reading. I stand here as a Free Trader,with an absolute belief that Free Trade is the best policy for a country like Australia. I was delighted to have the assurance of the Minister . (Senator Russell) in answer to the question I addressed to him, that this is a scientific Tariff. On and off I have been in the public life of this country for thirty years, and whenever the Protectionists were up against an argument, or put in a corner, they would say they never had a scientific Tariff. Now they have one, and, as an opponent of the policy of Protection, I welcome its appearance for the first time in the public life of Australia. I understand that Protection is a policy for the improvement of the community and the employment of the individuals in it. If the Protectionist argues that it will give mora work, I am prepared to concede that it will, with this addition, that it will give more work and more labour for less return ‘than will a Free Trade policy. Thus, under a policy ofProtection, to - get the same amount . of production and the - same results there must be longer hours and more labour. Otherwise there will be less return. For fifty years Victoria has had a policy of Protection. If I wanted to show what that had brought about, I would quote from the speech delivered by Senator Pearce in the first Tariff debate in this chamber. In any references of that kind I am not going to try to prove inconsistency on the part of Ministers like Senator Pearce, Senator E. D. Millen, Mr. Hughes, ‘Sir Joseph Cook, or Sir Granville Ryrie and other Free Traders who are introducing this Tariff, because I admit candidly that, if I were occupying a position on the Government bench with the party I now belong to, it would possibly be this or a similar Tariff that I would be asked to introduce. Therefore, when I make any reference to the known views of the Government on fiscal questions, I am not doing so to emphasize their inconsistency. I was- not present when Senator Pearce made hia speech on the first Tariff, but I have read it .
– It was t.h« finest speech, from the Labour standpoint, ever made in defence of Free Trade.
– I am pleased to hear that eulogy of it. It was an excellent speech, ‘and if it proved conclusively one thing more- than another it was that Victoria, the home of Protection for thirty years, .was not only, with all its Protection, in no better position than the Free Trade States, but in a worse one. Senator .Pearce .proved that over and over again. I need not quote from that speech, because it is easily accessible to honorable senators, although I could do so with advantage. All I need say -is that, quoting; from the experiences of the States which had bean working under Free Trade, and of Victoria, which had been working under Protection, Senator Pearce made, what Senator Millen has well called, the finest Free Trade speech ever made from the Labour stand-point. The case for Free Trade is just as good to-day as . it was twenty years ago, and just as strong, and, I think, . even stronger.
– You are out of step with your colleagues.
Senator- GARDINER.- Absolutely. I face that position most candidly. I am out of step with my colleagues and with, my movement, but if I got in with the other party I would have to run downhill,and that I refuse to do. I realize that in the Australian Labour movement we have a modified form of Protection as part of our policy. ‘While we agree to a Protective Tariff, we also desire that it shall provide for the protection of the consumers ,qf the protected goods in the matter of price, and for the protection of the workmen in the protected industriesThe policy of Protection works against the interests of the people, and that is what we must consider. It does not matter whether we modify it or make the dose sweeter, if the thing is wrong it is wrong altogether, and the attempt to holster -up industries in a . country by a Protective Tariff is an absolute fallacy. It is so absurd that, although the country may survive under it,- it . will crush almost out of existence thousands upon thousands of deserving people. Other countries, -I know, hav<» been - burdened with a Protective Tariff, and have laboured on. But the present Governmental am ‘ not making this statement as one of their opponents - above all other sections of the community, have boasted of their loyalty to -the” Empire, and in endeavouring to do what- they consider right in the interests of the Empire, have deliberately laid themselves ont to strike a blow at its progress, and one that could not be more effectively dealt in any other way.
This Tariff has been in operation
Bin de March of last year, and what is the result up to the present ? We are now only beginning to notice unemployment on every hand. The war is over. I admit that its disastrous effects have been felt everywhere. We have heard some saying that during the war period we have been shown that a Protective Tariff, such as this, is absolutely essential. What is the position in Great Britain, which has had a Free Trade policy for a period of seventy years? It has not only carried the financial burdens of the war, but it was mainly owing to its industrial organization that Free Trade England was responsible for the successful termination of the great conflict.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that unemployment has been created by the Tariff introduced fifteen months ago?
– The Tariff has” added considerably to unemployment during the past fifteen months, and it will continue to do so. Let me give an illustration which may indicate exactly what I mean. Two neighbours possessed very nice gardens, and as the footpath in front of their residences was in a bad state of disrepair, they ‘ petitioned the municipal council to lay down an asphalt path, and it was done. From that day the plants in the gardens began to wither and die, until a man with some knowledge of the matter waa consulted, and during the discussion reference was made to an escape of gas. The occupants of the dwellings said that gas had’ been detected, and asked why it had not affected the plants before. ‘ They were informed that the escaping gas had been allowed to penetrate through the footpath, but as an asphalt track had been made, it had been forced into the gardens, with the result that the plants were killed by the fumes. That is exactly what is happening under a Protective Tariff. We have an’ asphalt Protective Tariff in operation, which is slowly but surely causing unemployment and considerable hardship. Can a Protectionist show where a high Tariff can remedy half of the evils which have been created, or where it has been the means of increasing employment in -our industries as has been suggested? Protection is the essence of selfishness, and is advocated by those who say it will be the means of creating increased employment.- I can recall the names of many prominent statesmen who have favoured Protection, and I do not suggest that I have more information upon this subject than they had, but looking at the question as an earnest man should look at it, I oan see nothing but disaster confronting the people of Australia if excessively high duties are imposed,- because they will only be the means of increasing the already heavy burdens which are at present placed upon the shoulders of the people. I realize that Tariffs are not a cure for all evils, but a high Tariff is an obstruction to trade, and if we can grapple with the question, and remove the obstructions which now exist and allow trade to travel in its natural channels, I can foresee a period of progress which would da more for the people of this country than anything else. Row can we protect our people-
– The honorable senator is very courageous, at all events, in. advocating Free Trade at this late hour.
– I am showing how Protection leads to unemployment, and let us see how it works out. I take it that a logical Protectionist, if he had his way, would absolutely prohibit the importation of all articles which we can manufacture in Australia.
– How many millions are unemployed in Great Britain at present? ‘
– Quite a large number.
– Due to Protection ?
– No. But those ‘ little islands in the north are at present carrying nine times our population, and they have faced the financing of their war debts better than any other country in the world. They have called up more money than any other country.
– And they have had centuries in which to build up their population.
– I know that Protectionists will always go far afield in an’ endeavour to. make unreasonable comparisons. But let us look at the question and see what is the result of refusing to trade with the other fellow, and doing the work ourselves, with the idea of giving more employment to our own people. That is the essence of the Protectionist argument. I assume that Australia, under Free Trade, could exchange products to the extent of £20,000,000 per annum - I use that amount merely as a convenient basis - with Japan, China, India, America, Great Britain, France, Italy, Austria, Germany, Russia, quite apart from other smaller countries.
– But Russia has no products.
– I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that Australia could exchange products to the value of £20,000,000 with each of ten different countries, which would mean, in the aggregate, £200,000,000 a year. The Protectionist says that the . policy he advocates gives employment to our own people-
– What could we exchange with China?
– Honorable senators who had the opportunity a few weeks ago of listening to a gentleman who has spent many years in China know the possibilities there are of trade with that great country.
– China has been forced into being a Free Trade country. She has not the independence to have a Protective Tariff.
– I am assuming that under a Free Trade policy exchange of products to the amount of £20,000,000 could be effected with ten important countries, but by adopting a Protective Tariff and drawing a circle round our own country we are ceasing to trade with these people in the mistaken belief that we shall manufacture all we require. But as soon as we do that we throw out of employment all the people engaged in producing the £200,000,000 worth of trade with the ten countries I have mentioned, and we naturally have to ask what is to be done to replace that labour. Is it to be done by the 5,000,000 persons in this isolated position? What is the answer to that? It is to be. found in the newspapers every day. Although the Tariff has been in existence for only fifteen months, ships are lying idle everywhere. Why is that so? Because we have a Tariff that has so enhanced the price of goods that the merchants in the Commonwealth are ceasing to purchase.
– The importations during the last twelve months have been higher than ever.
– I realize that.
– The values are higher, but the quantity is smaller.
– One-third of the world’s shipping is at present idle.
– Senator Pratten is following on true Protectionist lines when he makes such a misleading interjection. Why are importations larger? Because we have had. four or five years during which trade was practically at a stand-still, and in consequence the warehouses became empty. When the war was over an effort was made to replenish stocks.
– There are many people who are wishing that the warehouses were empty now.
– During the four years of war the importations were only a little below normal.
– Order! I ask honorable senators to allow Senator Gardiner to proceed without interruption.
– It is quite possible that during the war period importations were a little below normal ; but, as Senator Drake-Brockman suggests, the values were considerably higher, and this increased the figures to a serious extent. We have possibly the richest country in the world, and when we consider the position in its true aspects and realize what it is capable of producing, we must admit that we possess advantages which are not enjoyed by such countries as Canada or the United States of America. We have a country so favorably circumstanced that it is capable of producing almost anything that the mind of man can conceive if it is given a free opportunity to develop. But, instead of every opportunity being given for its free development, restrictions are imposed by means of a high Tariff.
– You had that freedom long enough in New South Wales, and you made a mess of it.
– Apart from Queensland, New South Wales is, perhaps, the richest portion of the Commonwealth, and it is ridiculous to suggest that under Free Trade New South Wales did not progress to the same extent as other parts of the Commonwealth.
Victoria’s Protective policy can be dated from about 1870, when, by some means, a Protectionist Government came into being, and from that year until 1900 New South Wales was practically operating under a Free Trade policy. During those years Victoria was operating under Protection, and what was the result of the growth in these two States? Victoria was leading in population by many thousands in 1870, but after a race of thirty years side by side, New South Wales progressed to such an extent that she has not only made up her deficiency in population, but out-distanced Victoria by many thousands.
– Because, so far as we know, New South Wales possesses the best coal in Australia.
– I agree that New South Wales is immensely rich in coal. If Victoria was not rich in coal, it was rich in other resources. It had the advantage of a Protectionist Tariff. I say this because the Victorian people had to pay for it, and they should certainly have derived some benefit from it. My honorable friend will not contend that Victoria, during the time to which I have referred, fell behind in the race with New South Wales merely because New South Wales was rich in coal?
– Undoubtedly, that was the great advantage New South Wales had.
– I have shown what were the results of the two policies in New South Wales and in Victoria over a term of thirty years. I need not quote actual facts, for the reason that twenty years ago Senator Pearce did this when Senator de Largie was here,and showed in a most effective way that the workers were better off in Free Trade New South Wales than in Protective Victoria.. I could point to the Australian Workers Union, with which I have been associated. I might produce agreements entered into during all those years to show that members of that union were able to arrive. at amicable arrangements with the pastoralists, fixing the rate of wages to be paid for the shearing of 100 sheep in New South Wales at a certain price, and in Victoria at 5s. less than that price. When it came to the wages to be paid to rouseabouts or general labourers, the same principle operated, and we could readily induce pastoralists to agree to pay £1 per week and keep in Free Trade New South Wales, though under the same agreement pastoralists in Victoria were, called upon to pay only 15s. per week and keep. In no matter what direction a comparison is instituted between conditions in New South Wales and in Victoria during the thirty years to which I have referred, it can be shown that better conditions prevailed in New South Wales.
-Bkockman. - Was not the cost of living higher in New South Wales?
– On the contrary,it was lower than in Victoria. I take, for instance, the cost, of one of the staple foods. At that time, Victoria was encouraging her farmers to grow beef, and her people were called upon to pay £1 per head for every beast that was taken across the Murray River, whether from Queensland, New South Wales, or South Australia. This represented about half the price of the beast at the time. The people of New South Wales were getting cheap meat, and the people of Victoria had to pay for dear meat. The same might be said with respect to almost every other staple food. This may be readily understood when it is remembered that the ports of New South Wales were open to the free admission of foods from other, countries, including her neighbour States. Tasmanian fruits and potatoes were admitted free to New South Wales, but they had to pay duty in Victoria, while that State was building up her local industries. Consequently, living was cheaper in New South Wales than in Victoria ; wages were higher there, the people were better off, and commercial businesses and interests advanced with strides ahead of those in Victoria.
I describe the effect of a Protectionist Tariff in this way. The Parliament of a country, with a view to the establishment of a master class, decides that if any of the masters consent to put money into a business they will tax the people of the community sufficiently high to make that business profitable. - Itake it that that represents the whole of the . argument in support of Protection. When I speak of the establishment of a master class,I have to recognise that that policy is supported by some ‘ of the representatives of the party of which I am a member. I should like’ to say something with regard to the party aspect of the matter. I have been a member of’ the Labour party for a great many years.’ During all that time I have never felt bound to refrain from expressing the views which I conscientiously hold. I have often found % myself out of touch with other members of the party on the question of Protection, but I have never found the party generally take any exception to the honest expression of my views.
– The honorable senator’s party believes in a master class.
– -The honorable senator may be excused for holding that view in the light of debates which have recently taken place elsewhere. There are some great men in our party, and some great Victorians amongst them. I will instance three men who are typical Labour men, honest, and straightforward. Two of these are members of the Labour party, and the third is a little too extreme to belong to it. It will be agreed that Mr. Fenton is quite a typical and very creditable Victorian Labour representative. He is one of the lions of the Labour movement. I next take Mr. Anstey, and when’ we read his books The Kingdom of Shi/lock, Money Power, and Red Europe, we may reasonably assume that he is also a lion of the Labour movement. Then there is Mr. Considine, who is not actually within the Labour movement, because it is not extreme enough and does not go fast enough for him.
– He is a lion that will not lie down with the lamb.
– He is another lion of the movement, a member of an extreme section who will not’ walk side by side with mild and peaceable persons like myself. When these lions roar at the master class the very air around them vibrates, and persons are led to imagine how, if they had the power, they would ride roughshod over the rest of the community. But when we come to the consideration of a Tariff like this, what is the attitude of these gentlemen, judging, if not by their words, at least by their votes ? They practically say that by inducing a master class to put money into industries, and by taxing the rest of the community to induce’ them to do so, they may be looked to to find employment, to use their own term, “ for the proletariat.” That is what certain lions of the Labour movement are saying with regard to a Tariff like this. I am not one of those lions.’ I do not roar very much about the master class. I say that until the Labour movement is prepared, to employ its own people without establishing a master class- to find employment for them, those conducting it have not begun to consider the possibilities of ‘the movement, though they may write books and make eloquent speeches on the subject.
– What does the honorable senator mean by that, exactly ?
– -I mean that foremost men, lions of the movement, who write books and make speeches, when it comes to a matter of constructive statesmanship are found able only to suggest the taxing of millions of people in order to induce a few of the master class to put money into industries to give employment to the rest. I say that until they can suggest better constructive statesmanship than this, they will not begin to realize the possibilities of. the Labour movement.
– Is there not a master class in Free Trade England ?
– I do not honestly believe that my remarks can have led any one to think that I regard either Free Trade or Protection as the be-all and end-all of the labour question. My reference to Free Trade Britain must be that, while she has often been referred to by Protectionists as poor, old, and decrepit, it was found by the test of war that she was financially rich enough and industrially sufficiently well organized to win the war, and, at the same time, support half of the staggering Protectionist countries and keep them up to the collar by financing them while they were fighting. That may be referred to as an illustration to show that seventy years of Free Trade did not impoverish Great Britain, and did not prevent the establishment of her industries.
– What about Protectionist Germany?
– I am glad that in the honorable senator we have a man who is capable of making a fair comparison. Protectionist Germany was not able to compete with Free Trade England.
– Was it never a marvel to the honorable senator how long she kept going ?
– It was, until 1 became closely associated in this chamber with some of the generals.’ who led our Army. I do not marvel about’ it any longer. I was referring to1 a section of the Labour movement whose members roar like lions, but when it comes to a question of constructive statesmanship, want to establish a master class to enable us to employ our own people. If I thought that Protection would give employment, and make things better for the people, I should favour it. Perhaps we are what we are because of our environment, and I may be a Free Trader because at the time I reached the age at which young men begin to think I became saturated with the’ literature of the “Prophet of San Francisco,” Henry George. I read his Progress and Poverty, Free Trade and Protection^ and all that I could lay hands on that he had written. I believed it, and I looked upon him as a philosopher with a doctrine for theenefit of mankind. Possibly, absorbing that literature at that particular period made me a Free Trader. During all the years I have ‘been in public life in this country, I have never had occasion to alter the opinions I then formed.
– Henry George’s theory, of Free Trade was based on the adoption of the single tax-. ‘
– The man who can see only the single tax in Henry George’s writings, cannot see very much-.
– It was his one big principle.
– His treatment of the , question of Free Trade was so con:vincingly true that ‘ I have never, heard or read anything which, has caused me to alter the opinions I formed upon it. I considered his theory calculated to build up the greatness, especially of a country like Australia, which is blessed with con*ditions and resources possessed by no other country iri the world. For the rearing of stock our climate in winter is as good as that of the summers of other countries. ,
If we could expend as much in developing Australia each year, as we .spend in the development of secondary industries, . we should not need , Protection to encourage investments in industries.. W,e.-. should have such an influx, of population -that in a short time, our population , would be ten times what it. is to-day.,. . We- have, a country which, if developed,, is capable qf absorbing a great -population .and .main taining its ‘people in conditions of richness ‘ undreamt of by people in other countries. Last year the revenue from Customs duties was £31,928,000. . We may assume that the prices of our manufactures were increased to within a margin of the cost of similar imported articles, and in some cases to a margin above the cost of importations. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to estimate that the cost of the Tariff to the people of Australia runs into not less than £50,000,000 a year. The people cannot have Protection without paying for it. That is” why I object to it.
– Think of the other good things you can have.
– The difference between the two policies is this : . Free Trade costs the public nothing, Protection costs 5,000,000 of people £50,000,000 per annum, and the bulk of this burden is laid on the shoulders of the people least able to bear it. With Protection costing us millions of pounds, I- should say we want, something a good deal better than the equivalent of Free Trade to compensate the people.
– Will the honorable senator admit that if we had been manufacturing some of the things we imported during the -wax we would have got them cheaper.?’ ,
– Yes ; I admit that’ if we had been manufacturing certain articles when the war started we would have got them cheaper, during the war if the Government had taken control of the industries ‘and regulated prices. That was the only way we could have expected to get cheap commodities from the protected industries of this country during the war. I was .for1 fifteen months associated with the ‘Defence Department during the war period, and I had as good an insight into trading’ conditions in this country as any other man. No’ firm was doing the business.’ of ‘ the Department at that time, and I .can say . that in ‘ almost every case the1 price charged the Department was not a fair margin above cost of production, but the very highest price the protected manufacturers could squeeze from the Governni.ent,,; notwithstanding that these industries had been nurtured and paid for by the.’ people. When war came the protected industries, of Australia, almost without exception, charged the highest possible price for their products.
– Did not the Department itself fix the price for many articles?
– Yes.
– Right!
– The same conditions obtained in Free Trade countries during the war.
– Two interjections on the same lines. My argument is that Protection is costing, this country £50,000,000 per annum, while Free Trade would cost us nothing. I go further, and say that as population increases so will the burden of taxation through the Customs increase, and, therefore, we want something better than the equal of Free Trade.
– The honorable senator is assuming that the protected industries have drawn more revenue from the people than is being obtained through the Customs.
– I am not assuming anything of the kind. . I am speaking from the experience of many years. When we cease to collect duties through the ‘ Customs we reach the stage when the country might get some benefit from Protection. The output of our protected adult industries is not becoming any cheaper.
When I was a lad people used to talk about the need to protect our native and infant industries. It was only a question of establishing ‘ these industries, so we were told then, and before long we would get our commodities at a cheaper rate as the result of internal competition. I need not ask honorable senators if they believe that now. They know there is no competition in these days between the big trading concerns of this country. At Lithgow there is a protected iron industry, in the hands of Hoskins Brothers, to whom this country has paid, by way of bonus or bounties, over £209,000, notwithstanding that there is an enormous duty upon iron. To illustrate my argument that we get no benefit from protected industries, I quote the iron industry of Lithgow as a case in point. This country, as I have said, has paid £209,000 on account of this industry, and at the same time has given it a handsome duty, but if I were a resident of Bourke at the present time, and endeavoured to purchase direct from the manufacturers, say, 1 ton or 20 tons of iron, they would refer me to a Sydney merchant, and the Sydney merchant would record my order, charge me freight on the product from Lithgow to Sydney, and again from Sydney to Bourke.
– Are you quite sure of your facts?
– Quite sure. The honorable senator ought to know that. He ought to know that before I offer a statement on a matter like this I make myself acquainted with all the details. I say it is impossible to buy direct from the manufacturers, and, therefore, people in the western district of New South Wales have to bear the burden of rail freights to and from Sydney on some manufactured products.
– Have the special railway freights for distribution been abolished ?
– I do not know what special freights there are unless for the conveyance of the raw material.
Before the Government introduced this Tariff they should have called the masters of industries together to ascertain what class of Tariff would benefit them. I do not know whether ‘other honorable senators have the same experience as I have, but I know that every increase of duty that was imposed- by the House of Representatives affected some industry in my State, and representations were’ made to me pointing out that because of the increase in the duty on their raw material they could not manufacture as cheaply as formerly. And because of this they put it to me this way: “Well, even if you are a Free Trader, you ought to put up a fight in our interests so that we may be on the same level as the other fellow.” We have- protected industries in Sydney as well as in Melbourne, and when the duty on timber for box -making was imposed, in another place, our box manufacturers were obliged to increase their prices, with the result that certain business concerns sent their orders to America, Sweden, or Norway, or anywhere else, where they could get boxes made up more cheaply. Sydney employers now tell me that their men must go out of employment.
– They have been at me, too.
– My experience, throughout the entire debate, confirms me in my Free Trade views, that even if an industry is getting protection to the extent of 60 per cent. by way of duty, it is probably losing 10, 20. 30, and even up to 60 per cent. through increased duties on the raw materials. Very few industries can benefit by a general Protective Tariff. We can build up our industries if we Tike” in this way, and delude ourselves into the belief that higher wages are being paid. I suppose that if I were to suggest that Protection reduced wages, my Protectionist friends would declare at once that I had a bad case. .As a matter of fact, I do claim that wages are reduced by Protection. Wages are reduced when they cease to purchase. in proportion to their value. Let me try to make myself clear. If I, as a carpenter, twenty years ago could earn £3 per week, and at present got £5 a week, but if this £5 would not buy me more in the way of house covering, clothing, groceries, and other necessaries of life, it would not be a higher wage than £3 per week. Protection creates a false impression in the matter of wages. And it is intended that this should be so. The purpose is to increase the cost of manufactured products in order to induce the local master class to invest their capital in new industries, and so provide employment . for the people, who, all the time, are being called upon to pay higher prices for the commodities.
This policy hits Australia in the place where it hurts the most. It hits Australia’s primary producing interests. “ Build up your secondary industries,” say the Protectionists, “ and your country will progress.” That, of course, is a most desirable doctrine . to preach, but I contend that the secondary industries should not be fostered at the expense of our primary industries. Nine out of every ten men to-day will admit that the greatest curse at the present time is the crowding of our people into the big cities and towns, and this infernal doctrine of Protection is specially designed to bring about that undesirable state of affairs. What is its purpose but to insure the establishment of secondary industries, and where can they be established but in the great cities, where labour is easily obtainable and, in our seaports, where the raw products may be most readily secured ? Of course, in a Democracy like ours, the organized workers will, in the long run, secure their share by an increase in .wages, chargeable against the industry and passed on to the consumer.
– And a very big share, too.
– The honorable senator may think so. I am sorry to say that I have not been long enough away from the bench, nor am I sufficiently safeguarded against a return to the bench, to share his belief. I do not think that £5 per’ week to-day for a carpenter is out of the way, especially when a four or fiveroomed house will cost’ at least 25s. ai week, and other articles are high in proportion. It cannot.be said that this is a big wage.
– It is the unskilled worker, not the mechanic, who is receiving the biggest wage to-day.
– I do not wish to be drawn off my main argument by these side issues, but, at the same time, I do not think any honorable senator will say that the unskilled labourer of this country has ever got too much for the work he has been called upon to do.
– He gets more in proportion than the skilled artisan in Australia.
– Even if that is so, I do not think Senator de Largie would say he is getting too much. The wage for the unskilled man ranges from £3 to £5 a week. Probably the average is below £4 a week, and so we cannot say that he is getting too much. But what is happening iri this country? We are taxing the general community in order to build up our secondary industries. We are taxing tens of thousands of workmen who cannot themselves be protected. Can we protect the coal miners or the miners at Broken Hill by a Tariff ? Can we give any protection to the public servants of this country by a Tariff? Can we give protection to any of those trades and occupations in Sydney and other capital cities that are not concerned in the- actual production of protected commodities?
– Or the poor pastoralists ?
– Yes, or the pastoral industry, which is the very foundation of our prosperity. Take the great wool industry. What, protection can we give the pastoralists or the men they employ ? None whatever. Can we protect our wheat-grower ? In this-Tariff the Government have done something for the wheat-grower by providing that his implements shall cost him more than ever before! The wool-grower- and the wheatgrower are going to get some benefit at a distant date from this scientific Protectionist Tariff, which heralds the dawn of the millennium. What protection can we afford, by means of this Tariff, to. the metalliferous miners generally ? We cannot, of course, give them any! By this Tariff we are driving employees from our primary industries to the great cities, where our secondary industries ; are, protected at the cost of the people generally. People ask why the country is becoming more sparsely populated whilst our cities are becoming overcrowded.
– Suppose that we were producing ten times as much copper as we are, what could we do with it?
– A portion of it might profitably be devoted to supplying the needs of those people in Australia who are crying out for telephone communication. When the honorable senator asks what we could do with an increased supply of copper, I would recommend him to go into a store and endeavour to purchase such a simple little article as a copper kettle. He will then find that there are ample uses towhich copper may be put.
If we will only consent to trade with the world we shall get . the riches of other countries in return for the riches of our own. But to do that we must abandon the extremely selfish policy which some honorable senators opposite so vigorously, advocate. When I mention the possibilities of trade with Japan and China, I shall probably be met by some Protectionists with the insinuation that I desire to trade- with cheap labour countries. But, if those countries will take what we can produce, I am prepared to take what they can produce in exchange for it. I am content to leave the whole business of exchange to the people who are engaged in it, and who will see that they get a square deal. Of course, I have no wish to imply that the Government are out to strike a blow at the Empire. But let us take as an illustration our attitude towards some of the Mandated . Territories. Or, better still, let me point to our recent action in regard to Fiji. As everybody is aware, we recently imposed upon Fijian bananas a duty which has the effect of preventing our own people from eating those bananas. Why did we do that? Was it because our own banana-growers upon the north coast of New South Wales,- and in Queensland are not doing sufficiently well out of the industry ?
– The duty was. imposed to maintain the present standard of living.
– And good bananas are a luxury.
– And the little toddlers about the miserable alleys in Sydney are to be denied the right to get that fruit because of the action of this Parliament.
– Sydney is not ‘ the only city in the Commonwealth.
– I do not speak for Brisbane, because it has so many able representatives here; nor do I speak for Melbourne, which is similarly represented ; but’ I do speak for Sydney, the queen city of the south, of which I have the honour to be a representative.
– The honorable senator has just told us about its miserable little alleys which have been created under Free Trade.
– I admit that Sydney has its depressing places, as well as its beauty spots; and I am just as earnest to-day in wiping out those black spots as I was thirty years ago.
– I thought that Lambert was doing that pretty well now.
– It’ is not so many years ago when people were saying much the same thing about William Morris Hughes that they are saying today about Mr. Lambert, the Lord Mayor of Sydney. Reverting to the fiscal question, I hold that even a Protectionist will admit that Protection ought not to be extended to an industry which does not require it. I hold in my hand an auctioneer’s advertisement in . a Tweed daily newspaper of the 24th May last. It is instructive, because it throws a considerable light upon the value of banana plantations. It reads-
Auctioneers.
Lease of ten acres, choice banana land, beau tiful soil, north-easterly aspect, overlooking ocean; nine years’ lease, at £3 per acre; eight acres in full bearing, first crop being cut now; one acre bunching, another planted about six months; balance ready to plant;,. packing shed, plough, and scuffler; comfortable dwelling of four rooms and kitchen, verandah on three sides, which tenant has right to remove on termination of lease. £1,750. Terms can be’ arranged. This is a handy place, close to school, and we can confidently recommend any one in search of a good banana proposition to make an early inspection.
The lessee is thus required to pay a rental of £3 per acre, in addition to the sum of £1,750, and his only assets are the cottage, which is already there, and which he may pull down and carry away-
– There is the crop.
– Nobody will accuse me of saying that the owner of the land may take away the crop. He is willing to sell the crop for a period of nine years. But what price is he asking for it? It amounts to £200 an acre or more.
– The house would cost nearly £1,000 at the present time.
– I would not mind meeting my honorable friend upon that argument. As a carpenter, I know that very little can be gained by pulling down and removing a house. But my point is that 10 acres of banana land, with a four-roomed cottage upon, it, is worth an annual rental of £200 per acre.
– The purchaser would be buying the owner’s crop, which is worth some hundreds of pounds.
– That is my point. If the honorable senator had been following my remarks he would know that what I desire to make clear is that the man who is working a small banana holding, at the present time, obtains an ample return for his labour, and that, consequently, there is no occasion for us to provide him with a bigger market.
– It cost many hundreds of pounds to bring that property into the condition which is describedin the advertisement. At Mildura orangeries are worth £700 per acre, and a similar position obtains at Gosford.
– I would like my honorable friends’ who do not know from experience anything about the growing of bananas, not to hurriedly institute a comparison between a banana plantation and an apple orchard. In the case of the former, during the first year one gets a crop of some sort. During the second year he gets a better crop, and during the third year his plantation arrives at maturity. The banana plant will stand for only three years. It is not like a plum tree, an apple tree, a pear tree, or a cherry tree, which, if . properly looked af ter, may live for centuries. The banana must be planted every three years. I just read an auctioneer’s advertisement, in which 10 acres of banana growing land are offered upon lease for £1,750, with an additional £3 per acre annually by way of rental. If the profits from banana culture are so large, do the growers require higher prices?
– Most of the growers who took up land ‘ at the price indicated in the advertisement would go under because it would be too heavy a burden for them to carry.
– Will Senator Gardiner give us an instance of an actual sale of banana land ?
– I could do so. The advertisement which I have quoted was forwarded to me by my old friend exSenator McDougall, who states that as the Government are obtaining some pictures to exhibit at Australia House they ought to, send a man up to the Tweed to obtain photographs of theChinese who are engaged in the banana industry there. He also suggests that they should secure other photographs of the firms in Hay Street, Sydney, who handle the bananas.
– Of what place is the honorable senator speaking?
– Of the Tweed River.
– Does the honorable senator mean to say that Chinese upon the Tweed River grow bananas to the extent that he has suggested ?
– I have not the slightest objection to Chinese making a profit out of bananas. When once they set their! feet upon our shores they have every right to become full citizens of this country.’But I can imagine somebody interjecting “What about the men who grow bananas in Fiji?” Fortunately I have a first-hand knowledge of them, because I worked there for twelve months. I found that during recent years the coolies from India are taking up land there wherever they can get it. The Fijians themselves, too, are experts in the cultivation of bananas. In passing, I may mention that one of their number is the equal of our best strike leaders. Not so long ago he engineered an industrial disturbance which had for its object the shipping of only Fijian bananas. Unfortunately the Government of the Island broke down the strike by landing him in gaol upon some trivial charge. I understand that he has since been released.-
Who are the people who grow bananas in Fiji? They are British subjects. The flag about which some honorable senators talk in such a way as to suggest that they alone have a right to praise it, floats over them. Now, Fiji offers a splendid opening for trade to the people of the Commonwealth. Its very climate lends itself to this.
– Did the honorable senator like it ?
– When I went there I weighed 14 st. 10 lbs.-, but though I speedily lost nearly a stone, I returned to’ Australia after twelve months of work still weighing 14 st. 10 lbs. Owing to its moist, wet climate, it is impossible to store things in Fiji in the same way that they are stored here.. Flour itself quickly becomes mildewed. Consequently there is a constant call for the things which the island produces.’ If we refuse to take the bananas they grow, we lose the trade we would otherwise secure by having a complete line of steam-ships running regularly between their country and Australia - a most important consideration to the Australian people. During the period I spent there, which was over twenty years ago, I found that New Zealand was twice as alert as Australia to obtain the Fijian trade. Its commercial travellers were always on the look-out to ascertain exactly what the people of Suva and other centres required, and took very fine care to supply them with it. The labour on the banana plantations in Fiji consists of coolies and other coloured people, who are sometimes controlled by white proprietors and sometimes not. The coolies, although they were the poorest paid workers I ever saw, somehow managed to pool their funds, and, by picking up small pieces of land as they became available, were rapidly becoming land-owners, and organized their trade in a wayquite equal, if not superior, to our trade organization. Are we going to refuse to trade with these people because they are of a different colour from ourselves? How would we apply that principle to the banana trade in Australia? Our policy is that once a man is legally entitled to come here, he can go into business here, and we do not care of what colour he is. There is a constant demand for this fruit in Australia, and it has not been supplied at a high price, yet it is to be shut out by means of an exorbitant duty.
– Bananas are eighteen for 6d. in Melbourne to-day. Every barrow was loaded up with them yesterday.
– That may happen . at times from the way the fruit ripens on the bunch. Once decay sets in, they have to be sold immediately, or they are worth nothing. We have put on a duty of1d. per lb., or about 3d. per dozen, which is really 100 per cent. of the value. The quotation I have read shows that the banana-growers in Australia haveone of the finest businesses possible. If a man can earn in nine years enough to pay £2,000 in rent, and the right to go in, it must be an exceptionally fine business ‘ to get into. The wheat-grower cannot do that: We have no import duty on wool, but wool brings -in the biggest share of the wealth that keeps this country moving. Wheat finds a huge share, also.
– Every industry finds its share. .
– Then why not give every industry a free run ? We cannot protect wheat, wool, and minerals. Why, then, make those industries pay for protecting a few people?
– Ifwe are to have Protection, let it apply ‘ equally to the products of all the States.
– Although the Minister says this is a scientific Protective Tariff, I do not think he will claim that it applies equally to all the States. How can it be made to apply equally to industries whose market is the world ?
– Then, make it apply equally to those whose market is in Australia.
– If ever there was a fruit that is a fruit of the poor, it is the banana, yet we put a duty of 3d. a dozen on them, and, according to the people of Fiji, shut out their product altogether. The banana industry of Fiji interferes very little with the banana industry of Australia. Fiji has an earlier and warmer climate, and the bulk of their trade is done at a time when the Australian fruit is not on the market.
– Bananas bear the whole year round. ‘
– Yes; but they ripen in one particular season of the year. In the warm tropical islands of the Pacific, the ripening season comes earlier than on the northern coast of - New South Wales, or on the Queensland coast. If their season is earlier, the bulk of their fruit is earlier, so that it is not a serious competitor with the Australian fruit.
– The conditions on the north coast of Queensland are exactly the same as iri Fiji.
– That may be so a long way up north, but most of the banana-growers of Queensland are much further south.
I have here a list of the products of the land in Australia, and their average yield per acre. I have not been able to ascertain the value of raw sugar cane at the mill, and shall be glad if Senator Crawford can tell me.
– You might say about 45s. to 50s. per ton.
– The statement of the productivity of the different crops shows the following results : - For a tenyear period ending in 1919, oats averaged 17.02 bushels to the acre for the whole of Australia, and the value per acre’ was £2 6s. 10d. Sugar, for a five-year period - the best I could get from Knibbs - showed a return of about 30 tons of cane to the acre for the northern coast of New South Wales, and about 20 tons to the acre for Queensland.
– New South Wales has a two-year crop.
– What has Queensland ?
– A one-year crop in the centre and north, and a two-year crop in the south on the average.
– The higher return in New South Wales is due to the fact that sugar cane is grown there in much smaller quantities. Those figures give a return from sugar cane in New South Wales of £67 10s. per acre, and £45 per acre in Queensland, for the fiveyear period I have taken. In potatoes, the average crop over ten years was 2.59 tons, at a value of £14 8s. 3d’. per acre. In wheat, the average return was 11.17 bushels, with a value of £2 6s. 5d. per acre. In maize, the return was 26.35 bushels, of a value of about £5 per acre on the a’verage. In hay, the return was 1.23 tons, or a value of £4 2s. 6d. to the acre.
– Can you give us the cost of production per acre?
– That will not affect my argument. I only want to show the difference in the return per acre from the rich cane lands of Queensland and northern New South Wales - the richest cane lands in the world - and the return from’ the lands of Western Australia, South Australia., Victoria, Tasmania, and southern New South Wales, where oats, wheat, maize, potatoes, and other crops are grown. The people there put quite as much labour into those crops as is put into cane-growing in Queensland.
– It is absurd to say that it takes as much labour to grow an acre.of oats as to grow an acre of cane.
Why not make the comparison complete ?
– Time will not permit me to argue all the details, but I invite the honorable senator, .who is the champion of the cane-growers, to disprove my statement.
– It will cost £10 per acre to harvest the cane.
– Even if it cost him £20 per acre, the Queensland canegrower would still have a return of £25 per acre, as against an average return of about £2 per acre” for the grower of wheat and oats in the other States. Those who occupy the richest lands in Australia call upon the men on the wheat, oat, and potato lands of the other States to keep them in their business by paying an exorbitant duty on sugar.
– Is it not according to the classics that you always grease the fatted pig ?
– That original quotation was too vulgar for me to use. I have shown that for a five-year period the cane-grower of New South Wales would average a return of over £60 per acre.
– You do not get five crops in five years in New South Wales.
– Not from the one planting,, but the business is going on all the time. If the honorable senator tries to exaggerate the cost of production in .the sugar industry, I shall be forced, later on, to read from the reports of a Commission giving all these costs. . What happens with regard to the duty on sugar, which the sugar industry has demanded for many years? The producer of sugar sells it for what it costs him to produce, plus the duty; that is, he sells it at the price at which an outsider must sell to compete with him. Taking the figures since 1901, I find that the workers of Australia have paid to the sugar industry no less than £21,000,000, if my assumption is correct.
– During the war Australia was selling sugar at half the world’s price.
– I know we secured it at a reasonable price.
– And New Zealand was selling it at. ?6 per ton less than we were.
– That may be so. During the period I have mentioned we paid ?21,574,213, which represents the increased cost incurred by the . people of Australia, to support the great sugar industry. How has this large sum been expended? As the workers of Australia taxed themselves to build up this industry, they should know where and how the money was used and if it was employed for the benefit of the industry. I have a statement, made on oath, which practically proves that some of the money derived from the people’s earnings by the master class in the sugar industry was paid to a fund to defeat the ends of Labour during a campaign which was in progress. I shall quote the questions asked before the Royal Commission on the sugar industry and which arose from the statements made by the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney), who, when advocating an amendment of the Constitution which was submitted to the people by means of a referendum, said that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company had paid ?50,000 into a fund to secure the defeat of the Labour party.- Some time after, when the Royal Commission on the sugar industry was sitting, Mr. Hinchcliffe questioned Mr. Knox, the director of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, in this way -
– When was that?
– On the 17th October, 1912. The evidence reads -
By Mr. Hinchcliffe. ; I want to put this question to yon, in addition: Did the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited contribute money out of its undistributed profits or out of any other fund belonging to the company, to support the opposition to the proposed law to alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth relating to monopolies, which proposed law was submitted to the electors on 26th April, 1911?
Mr. E. W. Knox. ; You ask, did we contribute anything?
Mr. Hinchcliffe. ; Yes, did, you contribute anything?
Mr. E. W. Knox. ; That is a matter I am not. prepared to give you any information on. We have not done’ anything in that matter,. or in connexion with anything else, or relating to the business of the company, which is not strictly legal.
Mr. Hinchcliffe. ; You do not deny such a contribution was made?
Mr. E. W. Knox. ; I do not say anything about it, one way or the other. You have no right to ask the question.
– We have a right to ask the question; but no right to compel an answer.
Mr. Hinchcliffe. ; I thought I was giving the company an opportunity to repudiate it.
Mr. E. W. Knox. ; When you began about Mr. Parker Moloney I thought you were going to’ suggest, if we had paid the ?50,000, that is where . it had gone. I do not say that it would have gone with’ a very good object. But we did not make that contribution.
Mr. Hinchcliffe. ; You did not make the contribution ?
Mr. E.W. Knox. ; I do not say we did not make the contribution; we did not make that contribution.
Here is a highly-protected product on which the workers of Australia pay ?6 per ton duty, and the money is used to create the master class by whom they are employed. But as soon as a question arises affecting the industry and the whole of the people of Australia, funds are contributed by this industry ; but for what purpose? To prevent an amendment of the Constitution. I strongly object to money being paid to the master class of employers to assist them in such a purpose. The people controlling this industry are exploiting the richest sugar lands in the world; but the men in the wheat areas, in the coal mines, and on the wharfs cannot get any such protection, and to enrich this class they have to pay. Under this Tariff the workers of the community will have to contribute still more, and will continue to assist in establishing a master class to employ our Australian people. Some honorable senators may take exception to the term “ master class,” but I am not using it in a disrespectful way to employers, but simply as an opponent of theirsystem. I suppose the employing class in Australia is just as good as in any other country in the world; but in a Democracy such as this we are able to compel the employing class to give . some measure of justice to their employee. Very often when the employing class have said that they would be harassed and injuredby the demands of the workers, experience has shown that in nine cases out of ten the dangers which were supposed to be threatening did not arise. The predictions as to what would follow the demands made by the em- ployees have never resulted in any injury to the employing class. They may have been the means of reducing their profits, but better conditions have resulted, and in the end the employers have been satisfied.
This is unquestionably the most important measure we shall have to consider during this or perhaps any other session, as it enters into the ramifications of trade and employment throughout Australia. Coming back to where I commenced, I am opposing this Tariff because it will not do what the Protectionists think it will. It will not be the means of creating additional employment; it has never been shown that high protective duties produce that result. It is difficult to understand why such excessive duties should have been imposed twelve months ago when Great Britain and her Dependencies, as well as other countries, were staggering out of the ring in a battered state looking for every means of recovering their former position, and, as far as Australia was concerned, this is the most disastrous stroke that could have been dealt to Britain’s trade. During the war period the operatives of Great Britain were engaged only on war work, and when an attempt was made to return, to normal conditions this loyalist Government - and whose professions of loyalty no one can doubt– submitted a measure such as this. It is more remarkable still when we consider that the Ministry consists of a majority of Free Traders, or who were at one time Free Traders, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), the Assistant Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Ryrie), the Treasurer (&ir Joseph Cook), the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen), and the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), and, in saying that they also possess a majority of the intellect, I do not wish the statement to be regarded as offensive to their colleagues. I know that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) does not think I am reflecting upon his intellect in any way. A Government composed of such members, striking such a blow at the Em, pire through the medium of this Tariff, is beyond my comprehension.
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired. ‘
– On a question of privilege. I understand that the time of an honorable senator is limited to one hour and a half. .
– Yes, on the first reading of the Bill.
– Should net the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the honorable senator to. proceed? -
– No; the Standing Orders provide that an additional thirty minutes may be granted on motion ; but a longer extension could not be granted without suspending the Standing Orders.
– I thank honorable senators for the courtesy extended to me. This question exceeds in importance any other matter I have ever addressed myself to in the Senate, and as my time is limited under the Standing Orders, it makes it absolutely impossible for me to place my views before honorable senators. After much labour and investigation, I have collected a good deal of information concerning the industries of Australia to ascertain the value of their production, and the number of men they employ. The schedule consists of hundreds of items, embracing thousands of articles, and honorable senators will readily admit that it is impossible in the limited time at my disposal to deal with the matter in’ a proper way. I know I will be told that these items can be discussed in Committee, but I think it would be better on a matter of this sort if I exhausted the
Subject - if that were possible - at this juncture.*
– The honorable sena. tor will have another opportunity on the second reading. -
– I am not seeking that opportunity, and that is why I am speaking on the first reading. What is important to me to-day will, I am sure, be important to other honorable senators later on. It is unwise to have one’s time limited to a number of minutes when questions of this magnitude have to be considered.
Senator Rowell__ You gave us nine hours on one occasion, and we do not want that again.
– Perhaps- not. I have not as yet touched the basis of this matter.
The Tariff proposals of the Government affect’ the whole business of the Commonwealth, and I would like the Government and the Senate, even at this late hour, to delay the passage of the Bill. They could then call together the manufacturers of Australia and place this Tariff before them, so they may have an opportunity of saying whether it will injure their businesses or what benefits, if any, will result from its operations.
– Many of them have been clamouring for it, as the honorable senator knows.
– I do not know that. I know that people engaged in the manufacture of artificial flowers complain that the Tariff interferes with them most seriously by imposing duties on materials which they use. They say that they may be compelled to cease manufacturing in Sydney and in Melbourne because of the Tariff. I might refer honorable members to the box-makers. One of these, in conversation with me, said that certain big companies - I shall not mention their names, since I have had no opportunity of testing the truth of his statement - who use his boxes, as soon as increased duties were imposed on timber immediately cabled orders to other places for boxes already made, because the Tariff would make the locally-manufactured boxes more costly. I have shown how we protected the sugar industry to the extent of £21,000,000 in twenty years, or over £1,000,000 in a year. I ask honorable senators to say whether that has been any help to the fruit-growers in Tasmania or the makers of jam in this country? I am aware that the makers of jam are given a rebate on the sugar exported in their jam. They do not obtain any rebate on sugar used in the manufacture of jam for consumption in Australia. We have imposed Customs duties for the benefit of the users of rich sugar lands and the richer sugar companies, but what are we doing for those . who are carrying on businesses that are not nearly so profitable, but which require sugar ?
– The honorable senator’s arguments are especially directed against the industries of Queensland.
– I hope the honorable senator will not be biased against me.
-i promise’ not to be as biased as Senator Gardiner has been.
– I hope that we can discuss this question without bias.
– I wish the honorable senator would do so.
– I dealt with bananas and sugar because they were the first products of primary production that are given protection under the Tariff. If time- permitted I might show that there is not a single industry which has been given protection which has on this account been of benefit to the people. Senator Crawford should be prepared to admit that a man who reaps a crop worth £45 an acre receives very handsome protection as against another whose crop is worth no more than £2 5s. per acre. No one can question that sugar is a very fine food, but I do not see why we should impose duties for the benefit of the ownersof rich sugar lands in Queensland and in the north, of New South Wales, who make moreout of primary production than do those engaged in fruit-growing, wheatgrowing, and the production of other articles of food.
– Was not the protection of sugar due to members of the party to which the honorable senator belonged, preventing the introduction of indented labour to Queensland ?
– Perhaps the most laudable thing for which the party to which I belong can claim credit was the prevention of the admission of indentured labour, which was but another name for slavery.
– I can inform the honorable senator that Queensland would be very glad, of the opportunity to get out of the Federation,, even though she should lose the benefit of the duty on sugar.
– The honorable senator had better get behind the Country party, who, apparently, desire to create a number of small . States in the Federation.
I have already mentioned that twenty years ago Senator . Pearce proved conclusively that Victorian workmen worked under worse conditions and for poorer pay than did those of the other States. Let us see what Protection has done for the building up of industry. Take, for instance, the manufacture of boots. I have to-day to pay for a pair of boots double the price for which I could have obtained them forty years ‘ ago from the old shoemaker, who made them, on his knee.
– And they are of inferior quality to-day, also.
– There can be no comparison in the matter of quality. The old time hand-made boot, I suppose, lasted as many years as the machinemade boot of to-day will last months. That is what Protection has done for the manufacture of boots.
– The price of unprotected commodities has risen in the same degree.
-Then’, what need is there for a Tariff?
– What were the wages of the bootmaker thirty years ago compared to those now paid in the trade?
– I suppose that the labour cost of a pair of boots to-day is about 3s. Machinery does the rest. I remind Senator Glasgow that wages depend upon their purchasing value. Thirty years ago ls. would purchase 5 lbs. of beef j to-day, ls. will not purchase more than 1 lb. Considering the purchasing value of wages, the wages paid thirty years ago are about equal to the wages paid to-day. The manufacture of boots has been protected in Victoria for fifty years. Protectionists have constantly said, “ Let us build up our industries by protective duties, and then local competition will settle the prices.” Yet, after fifty years of Protection in Victoria, the boot manufacturing industry is apparently as much in need of propping up by Protection as it ever was.
– Is it not a fact that boots are cheaper in Melbourne than they are in the Old Country ?
– I do not think it is. In the old days it was the custom of Protectionists to say that it was necessary to protect local industries from the products of cheap labour in all the countries of the world, and we were often reminded of the cheap labour of Great Britain. One result of the war was to increase wages in Great Britain, and there is not nearly the same difference today between the wages of the bootmaker in Australia and in Great Britain as there was thirty years ago.
Sitting suspended from 6. SO to 8 p.m.
– I shall conclude my remarks with some figures dealing with the statement made by Senator de Largie as to the relative progress of Victoria and New South Wales during the 30 years from 1871 to 1901, with Victoria under Protection, and New South Wales under a Free Trade policy, the figures in each case being taken from the Census returns. In .1871 the population of Victoria was 730,198, and of New South Wales 502,998, the difference in favour of Victoria being 227,200. In 1901, after New South Wales had enjoyed 30 years of Free Trade, and Victoria. 30 years of Protection, the population’^ New South Wales was 1,354,846, and of Victoria 1,201,070, the difference in favour of New South -Wales being 153,776. During the 30 years- 1871 to 1901 - the population of the two States increased as follows: - Victoria by 470,872; New South Wales by 851,848.
– Would it not have been strange if New South Wales had not increased her population to that extent?
– Here are two States populated with the same class of people, one imbued with the ideals of Protection which is indorsed by honorable senators opposite, and the other living under a system of Free Trade, particularly in the closing years of the period; and as we have seen New South Wales outpaced the Protectionist State.
– -What about the difference in the area of the two States?
– Can it be said that Victoria, with a population of 1,000,000 people, is overcrowded?
– What is the population per square mile?
– I know honorable senators opposite can find an answer if they wish to do so, but the plain fact is. that New South Wales under a system of Free Trade increased her population at a much greater rate than Victoria, and the people are the best judges of the conditions under which they live. I had no intention of endeavouring to place Queensland at a disadvantage. My purpose -was to ‘ deal with every industry affected by the Tariff, commencing with that of primary production. When we reach the Committee stages on the Tariff, I trust that we shall do something to knock out the duties on all motor tractors and implements required by the farming community, and also on motor cars and motor cycles used for the convenience of the people.
– I am pleased to have the opportunity of making a few remarks on the first reading of this measure. The speech to which I have just listened came as a surprise to me. I did not know that there was such a pronouncedFree Trader in Australia. I could not conceive that there was anything so paradoxical as a pronounced and consistent Labour representative in this Parliament subscribing to Free Trade views. It is inconceivable to me that a man who believes in a White Australia, who will not allow Asiatics to enter this country, a man who believes in good conditions for the workers, reasonable hours of employment, good wages, good factory conditions, would allow the product of black labour to enter this country.A great deal has been said about the master class, but I do not care very much about this clamour.
– Senator Gardiner did not say much about the alternative - the political boss.
– I am going to suggest that the workers of Australia, should be their own master class, and thus be able to enjoy the benefits of Protection. Senator Gardiner and I are like two men who are building an edifice. We have the foundations in, but the superstructure does not please either of us. Senator Gardiner’s idea is to pull out the foundation altogether, while I contend that we must, keep it intact and improve the superstructure. It is impossible to build up a young nation in Australia unless we protect our industries against the cheap labour of the outside world. The question of Protection is one of farreaching importance. Its success leads, to the creation of new industries, to the introduction of more people, more taxpayers, more consumers of the farmers’ products, and more carriers of the gun to defend Australia if ever the necessity arises. “ Senator Gardiner’s idea is to rely absolutely upon the development of our primary industries; but, as about threefifths of . our population are not employed in the primary industries, we must realize that without Protection our population would be considerably reduced, and our position as a growing nation be very much worse than it is to-day. By its failure to protect, a Customs Tariff becomes a very agreeable method for production of revenue. It is a peculiar trait of human nature that, as a people, we are prepared to pay by way of indirect taxation double the amount we are disposed to render in the fairer way of direct taxation. By means of Customs duties you may tax me to the extent of £10 per year on the necessaries and luxuries of life, and I would willingly pay it, but attempt to extract from me £5 by a direct tax for the upkeep of the nation, and see how I shall protest. As with me, so it is with others. And so, I say, Protection becomes an easy method of revenue production.
– But if we obtain revenue through the Customs, the Tariff is not protective.
– I think it may be. There is distinction between the operation of a protective and a revenue Tariff ; but still a revenue Tariff can also be protective to a certain extent. We must face the fact that a successful Protective Tariff, insuring the manufacture of all the commodities we require, will destroy an important source of revenue; and, therefore, Government will have to seek other avenues for the carrying on of governmental functions. This should not be a very difficult matter, for besides manufacturing sufficient for our own consumption, we shall, I hope, build up an export trade in manufactured goods, as well as in raw materials, and as wo progress we shall have more people upon whom we may levy the necessary taxation to carry on the government of the country. The high cost of government is causing much concern to a large number of people outside, as well as inside, the Legislature. We have the machinery to govern 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 of . people; and, therefore, if we had that number, the cost of government would be but very slightly increased. These remarks also apply to the national debt and other governmental responsibilities. I have given very careful consideration to this problem, and I cannot see where any material reduction may be made. It is obvious, however, that if our population be doubled or quadrupled the cost per capita must be very substantially reduced. Although the Free Trader dies hard, I do not think there will be found in Australia any one with sufficient virility to dispute the soundness of this argument, unless it be an importer interested only in his own business. If we are agreed on this point, we must apply ourselves to the problem of perfecting a system of Protection which will produce the desired results and be equitable in its incidence.
The principle of Protection versus Free Trade, as generally considered, recognises only two sides, namely, the manufacturer with dear goods and the importer with cheap goods. If this were all that there is in Protection, I think that I should be a Free Trader. If it were merely a matter of benefiting the manufacturer by allowing him to charge high prices for his goods, or of benefiting the importer by permitting him to import .cheap goods, I should say, “ Let them all come in.” If we adopt Protection without the qualifying provision that the benefits derivable from it shall be equitably divided between the workman, the manufacturer, and the consumer, we certainly shall accomplish more harm than good. Under such conditions, the manufacturer will pay the lowest wage that the worker, by the exigencies of circumstances, is compelled to accept, while he will sell his manufactured goods at the highest price that the people can be induced to pay, owing to the absence of competition from the outside world. In such conditions, the manufacturer may grow rich, but the worker and consumer will become poor indeed. Of these evils, the most important has been removed during recent years by the establishment of workers’ unions, of Arbitration Courts, and Wages Boards. By means of these institutions, the worker invariably gets a fair deal. But if he be the father of a family, the trouble is that he finds that more than he has gained as a “worker as the result of Protection is being filched from him in his capacity as a consumer. In this case, the difference between Free Trade and Protection becomes microscopical. But hard though the case of the worker who is engaged in protected industries may be, how much worse is that of the worker in industries which cannot be protected ? Take the case of the auriferous miner. No Wages Board, no Arbitration Court, no union or Customs duty can get for him more than a fair percentage of the value of the gold which is won from the mine. Whether the mine be rich or poor, he has to take his place upon equal terms with the rest of the consumers. The wonder is that in this rather selfish age the whole of these men are not Free Traders. Directly, they have nothing to gain from Protection. They are en- gaged in the production of raw material from the earth, and although Protection may give them the local market for the manufacture of that raw material, invariably such material can be exported. Consequently, .they are directly no better off under Protection than they would be under Free Trade.
– I always understood that the locally-manufactured article was made cheaper by means of Protection.
– That will be the ultimate result. If the honorable senator chooses to look up statistics, he will see that, in countries where certain articles are admitted free because they are not manufactured locally, those articles are dearer than they are in those .countries in which they are manufactured and protected. In this connexion I refer him to the prices of agricultural implements in New Zealand. The wonder, I repeat, is that the whole of these men are npt Free Traders. To their credit be it said that the vast majority of them are Protectionists.
– -Except when it comes to a duty upon explosives.
– I am not sure that they were truly represented when, that great protest in another place was put up in opposition to the duty upon explosives. My own experience “of miners - and I have had a pretty long one - is that the vast majority of them believe in festering local industries. I admit that it is difficult to see how these men can be directly given their fair share of the benefits of Protection. But that difficulty does not relieve this Parliament of its responsibility to protect the consumers generally. It is admitted that the prices charged to the consumer are altogether’ out of proportion to the cost of production, and it is reasonable to suppose that this evil will be intensified with a more complete system of Protection.
I am not blind to the fact that a great many of the commercial evils which afflict Australia to-day are the result of lack of system in distribution. If honora’ble senators could only make an estimate of the enormous waste which is being incurred in distribution to-day, they would, be appalled. We have enough boot and shoe shops in Melbourne to supply the requirements of
New York or London. We have enough drapers’ shops in Sydney- to supply tie needs of the whole of Australia.
– Why, the people could not get into *them.
– Under a proper system of organization it is not necessary that all who wish to purchase should enter a shop.
– The more business establishments there are the better.
– The more business establishments there are, the more the people have to pay.
– The more competition there is the better.
– The honorable senator would rob the women of Australia of half their pleasure.
– That is all right so long as they are prepared to pay for it. This waste in distribution applies, not only to our secondary commodities, but also to our primary products. I suppose that honorable senators have had the experience of at least half-a-dozen milk carts following one another down a particular street where one cart was sufficient to supply the requirements of the whole neighbourhood.
– That is competition.
– The honorable senator is absolutely wrong. Let him endeavour to purchase a quart of milk from any one of those carts cheaper than from another, and he will find that there is no competition between them except for the privilege of serving customers. For -that very doubtful privilege of being served by half-a-dozen men instead of one, the consumer has to pay from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, more for the necessaries of life.
– The honorable senatar would put all the profits into the pockets of one man.
– I want honorable senators to make suggestions with a view -to overcoming these difficulties. It is idle for us to be merely destructive in our criticism. We must -endeavour to be constructive. When we recognise that an evil exists, it is surely our duty to attempt to remedy it. S. have already said that the idea that there is competition between these tradespeople has been exploded for many years. They have long ago given up the homicidal policy of cutting each other’s throats.
– I am afraid that the honorable senator is not one of those tradespeople. «
– I have had a good deal of experience in this connexion. In my own town a baker, who served me upon an average with a loaf of bread per day, has been in the habit of travelling over half-a-mile to deliver it. I had to pay for that waste. If the people of Australia require a dozen men to dance attendance upon them when one would be sufficient, they must expect to pay for it.
– >The honorable sena-= tor is in favour of monopolies ?
– Under proper conditions, yes.
– The honorable senator is assuming that one milk cart could carry all the milk required for one street.
– So it could. Of course, I admit that the power to remedy this condition of affairs does not rest’ with this Parliament. It is not desirable that it should rest with us if the State Parliaments will do their duty to the people. But if they will not take a hand in this very great problem, the sooner our Commonwealth Constitution is amended so as to give this Parliament the power to remedy the evil of which I speak, the better it will be for Australia and its people. Depend upon it, if we cannot protect the consumer, Protection will be a lamentable failure. Take our present experience by way- of Illustration. A duty has been imposed upon manufactured woollen goode. With what object? To create -a home market for the wool which is supplied by our farmers and pastoralists, to allow our manufacturers to pay good wages to their artisans, and to enable our people to be supplied with goods manufactured locally from Australian wool. But have we achieved that object? Honorable senators know perfectly well that to-day the cost of the wool to the manufacturer is about as low as it ever was. .
– Oh, no!
– I have it from men of experience that to-day average quality wool has to be sold, if not below its cost of production, at a very narrow margin in excess of it. Although that is so, the manufactured goods are anything over 100 per cent, more than the actual value of the wool. That will not do.
– Does not the honorable senator know that Australian tweeds during the war were sold at half the price of the imported ?
– I am not dealing with any special incident which may have happened before, during,, or since the war, but with the principle of Protection as it is going to affect the Australian nation. I base my forecast of what is going to happen on our experience up to the present.- The same applies to boots and shoes. Hides to-day are as cheap as ever they were; but what have we to pay for our boots and shoes? What is the use of honorable senators saying that they are going to make a success of Protection if they do not take some steps to protect the consumer? It cannot be done. We must fail. We shall, become a laughing-stock if we go on as we are going. We may place duties on imported goods, which make it impossible to import; but the producers of the local article will continue to levy a toll upon the consumer which it is not possible for him to meet. I am not arguing that the same condition of affairs could not occur under Free Trade. It could, and would. If we had Free Trade, we should have the same imposition by the importers that we have now by the. manufacturers, or by the men who buy from the manufacturers - I do not know which is the more responsible. Therefore, to abandon Protection is certainly no remedy. I believe the remedy at present is with the States.- What I recommend as a remedy is, first, the licensing of trades to the necessary number for the supply of the different commodities, thereby eliminating the wasteful and ridiculous competition which is going on now; and then the fixation of prices to protect the consumer against exploitation. Honorable senators probably had during the war some rather unpleasant experiences in the matter of price fixing ; but if they do not recognise the absolute imperativeness of doing something of the kind, their idea of Protection will be just as paradoxical as Senator Gardiner’s advocacy of Free Trade.
– When the honorable senator talks about licensing trades, does he allude to the distributing trades, and not to the manufacturing trades?
– I refer distinctly to the distributing trades. We licence some trades now. In my own State, chemists and hotelkeepers are licensed.
– So are sweep promoters.
– There is only one of them there.
– It is the leading industry of Tasmania.
– It is not protected as the banana and sugar trades are.- In fact, it has been treated rather cruelly by this Parliament.
It must not be inferred from my expression of these thoughts that I am in any way weakening on the policy of Protection. I am not. I am a Protectionist because I believe that no other policy is of any use to Australia. Even if Protection were in the experimental stage, and we had no guarantee of its future success, we must recognise that if under. Protection we build up new industries, and those industries cannot be controlled or compelled to give the Australian consumer* a fair deal, this Parliament can, by practically a stroke of the pen, and perhaps- by less than that after a certain Bill has been passed, remove that Protection and subject those industries to the cold, and in such a case, cleansing, influence of world competition. But if, through Free Trade, we prevent the establishment of any industry and the importer will not play the game, we leave ourselves helpless. Therefore, even if we were only experimenting, it would be far better to take on Protection than to launch out into Free Trade. I should like to impress on those gentlemen in another branch of the Legislature, who claim to represent the farming interests of Australia, the necessity for earnestly considering this fact: If -there are no industries in Australia for the manufacture of any particular product, we are then at the mercy of the importer, and experience all over the world shows that if there is no local competition the price of an article, whether it is agricultural machinery or anything else, is a great deal higher than in those countries which have their own local industries.
I wish specially to stress the attitude of the workers towards industry. I said earlier that I was going to suggest that the workers should become their own master class. I shall show how, if they only exercised their brains and the judgment which they undoubtedly possess, instead of following the lead of irresponsible people, they could quite easily become their own employers, and certainly be better off than they are now. Whether those who claim the responsibility of directing the industrial destinies of the workers of Australia are correctly representing them or not, we find that even so late as the holding of a great Labour Congress in the Trades Hall, Melbourne, only a few weeks ago, the very same doctrine was put up tb the intelligent workers of Australia, and adopted by them as was put up to the ignorant peasants of Russia. That is a lamentable state of affairs. I am quoting from the World of Saturday, 25th June, which published an official report, which it says was ‘ ‘ presented to Congress and adopted.” Speaking of what they call the capitalist class and the working class, they say -
Between these two classes the struggle must continue until capitalism is abolished. Capitalism can only be abolished by the workers united in one class-conscious economic organization to take and hold the means of production by revolutionary industrial and political action, to secure a complete change, mainly the abolition of capitalistic ownership of the means of production, whether privately or through the State, and the establishment in its place of social ownership by the whole community.
That is exactly the doctrine that was put up by the advocates of the Bolshevik revolution to the people in Russia. We have had recently quite a number of most reliable reports on conditions in Russia. There was one from Dr. Haden Guest, a Labour member of the London County Council and secretary to a Labour delegation to Russia, who, in October, 1920, wrote a series of articles to the London Times, in which, in a clear and most emphatic manner, he explained that the condition of Russia to-day was absolutely, hopeless. There is also Emil Vandervelt the Socialist representative from Belgium, who writes in the same strain. I have, too, a quotation from Mr. H. G. Wells, a man who is as well known to the workers of Australia as any other English writer. His contributions to the English Clarion and his many pamphlets and books, written for the benefit and welfare of the workers of England, place him amongst the most honoured advocates of the cause of the “ bottom dog “ in the Old Country. My quotation is from. his Russia in the Shadows. Surely those people who attend the Labour Congress read those books and know what has happened in Russia? Yet they are trying to force upon the workers of Australia the adoption of doctrines which brought about ruin in Russia. I do not say that a revolution was not necessary in Russia, but I do say that the doctrines that followed the revolution brought about the damnation of the Russian people.
– The honorable senator then prefers the old system of the Czar.
– No, I certainly do not. No doubt the Russian people weredriven to very extreme action.
– Because the honorable senator does not believe in a Czar,, it does not follow that he must necessarily believe in Lenin.
– That is so. I cannot conceive any person living in free,, democratic Australia giving consideration for a moment to the policy which has brought about the chaos, ruin, and! desolation of Russia to-day. H. G. Wells says, in his Russia in the Shadows -
If it goes on for a year or so more, the process of collapse will be complete. Nothing will be left of Russia but a country of peasants;-, the towns will be practically deserted and in ruins, the railways will he rusting in disuse; with the railways goes the last vestige of any general government. The peasants are absolutely illiterate; and, collectively, stupid, capable of resisting interference, hut incapable of comprehensive foreseeing and. organization. They will become a sort of human swamp in a state of division, petty civil wars and political squalor, with a famine whenever the harvests are bad; and they will be breeding epidemics for the rest of Europe.
– When was that written ‘i
– Last year.
– Since then they have introduced capitalists from Germany and elsewhere to organize things.
– I met a Finn a week or two ago, who was in Petrograd within tho last three months, and described it as a city of the dead.
– I do not suppose that many of the leaders of the workers to.day will take much notice of what I say, but I believe a large number of the workers themselves will do so, and I want’ to impress upon them that if we are to have any chance of making Australia industrially a success, we must abolish all this kind of business, get to work, and cooperate for the good of the nation, otherwise Protection will not be of any use to us.
A great deal has been said of the master class. We have been told repeatedly that the object of some of the leaders of certain industrial unions, is to obliterate the profits accruing to employers from the labour of their employees. That has been advocated over and over again. It has been contended that, by bringing up the cost of producing an article to practically its value, there will be no profit left for the capitalist class, and that will result in the abolition of capitalism. So far as capitalism is represented by the master class, there is nothing to prevent its abolition by the workers now. They can become their own master class without following the doctrines taught by their so-called leaders.
– They have gone one better in Queensland, where all State enterprises are run at a loss.
– I wish to mention a few figures to illustrate what I am saying. In 1913 there were in Australia 451 unions, with 232,716 members. In 1920 there were 449 unions, with a membership of 343,144 - a diminution in the number of unions, with an increase in the membership. During those eight years the workers in New South Wales lost through industrial disputes 12,340,339 days, valued at £7,569,217. In Victoria they lost 2,937,938 days, valued at £1,578,544. In Queensland they lost 1,462,086 days, valued at £845,592. In South Australia they lost 567,103 days, valued at £314,987. In Western Australia they lost 897,196 days, valued at £546,509. In Tasmania they lost 178,428 days, valued at £87,321. These figures represent a total for the Commonwealth of 18,383,090 days lost by the workers of Australia, valued at £10,942,160. This loss was incurred during a period when there were Arbitration Courts, Wages Boards, and all the machinery that could practically be suggested for the settlement of industrial disputes between employer and employee. The workers possess “brains and organizing ability, and I ask, what would have been the effect in Australia if they had put the time and money which they lost in those eight years into some manufacturing concern of their own ?
– They would have lost their money.
– Any fool might make’ such an interjection, though I do not wish to - suggest that the honorable senator is a fool.
– If Senator Earle had ever been a member of a co-operative concern such as he suggests, he would know what would happen.
– Honorable senators will admit that to the workers of Australia this time and money represented a dead loss. If their contention that the employing classes are getting more than their fair share from the products of the labour of the worker is correct, it is surely reasonablefor me to contend that if the workers spent the money they lost in strikes in the organization of industries of their own, they would have done better than by wasting it in the way they did.
I have spoken longer than I intended. I shall, speakinggenerally, support the duties as brought to us from another branch of the Legislature. There are one or two that I consider rather high. We must, in giving effect to a Protectionist policy, have regard to the purchasing power of the community. If by Protection we create for an article of manufacture a fictitious value higher than the community generally is inclined to pay for it, the industry concerned must be injured. In some cases where I believe the protection proposed goes to that extreme, I shall probably oppose the duties provided for in the Tariff ; but, generally speaking, I am convinced that no other policy is of any use to Australia. We must have a Protective policy so qualified that its benefits shall be equitably distributed amongst all the people. If we secure that, Australia will become not only self-contained, as we desire, but one of the exporting countries of the British Dominions.
– Having gone through a very arduous Tariff discussion in another place, it is not my intention to-night to argue at length the question of Free Trade and Protection. . I think I am known tobe a fair Protectionist, and I will let matters stand at that. The Tariff can be far better dealt with when we come to deal with the schedule than in any general debate on the Bill. When
I was debating a previous Tariff, I recollect that when honorable members had been speaking for some time their fellow members used to ask how they were going to vote. That is what they wanted to get at. When I was in Cambridge, I attended a class in economics, and the professor was secretary to the great Cobden. Naturally, when I arrived here as a callow youth, I was a decided Free frailer. When I found my father engaged in an industry which but for Protection would have ruined him, I saw that there were arguments which- might be used on the other side.
– Then how is the honorable senator going to vote?
– I am going to vote in the best interests of this country. I want a fair deal for the primary producers, and also for the manufacturers of Australia. I am one of those who believe that a great deal of manufacturing can be profitably done here ; but I am not prepared to support extreme protective duties which might injure our great primary producers. That will give honorable senators some indication of the way in which I intend to vote. - Senator Russell, who is in charge of the Bill, claimed that in the present proposals we have at last reached a scientific Protectionist Tariff. I think I can show the honorable senator that it is not quite a scientific Protectionist Tariff.
– That was a joke between Senator Gardiner and myself. The honorable senator wanted to know whether this was a “scientific” Protectionist Tariff, and I answered him with the one word, “ Yes.”
– There are several matters which, in my opinion, might be profitably considered before we tackle the Tariff. The first to which I shall refer is the question of exchange. - We cannot have a scientific Tariff when, if we buy £1 worth of goods in France, we must pay £2 for it because of the adverse rate of exchange, whilst if we spend £1 on goods in the United States of America, we shall only receive 15s. worth of goods for it. It will be seen that the Tariff must apply very unequally to imports from those two countries owing to the difference in the rate of exchange. I should like to give a short resume to show how the matter of exchange has been dealt with. The practice of the Trade and Customs Department was to base the value for duty on the mint par rate of exchange. Before the war that was all right, because the mint rate was the ruling rate of exchange. The war altered all that, and in France to-day the mint rate is 25 francs to the £1, whereas the bank rate is nearly 50 francs to the £1. This makes an immense difference in regard to the Customs rates as applied to French and American goods. The Government ought to have adopted the course taken by the New Zealand Government in this matter, because our present procedure penalizes French and Italian manufacturers to a considerable extent. Some time ago, pressure was brought to bear upon the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene), with the result that a Bill was hurriedly passed enabling him to refer such matters to the Board of Trade for advice; but before this was done a decision in the High Court had a very important bearing upon the whole position. The plaintiff in the case sued the Department for an- amount which he claimed had been overpaid, and the High Court decided in his favour. The main Customs Act provides that the duty is to be ascertained by taking the value of goods in the country of origin plus 10 per cent, to cover the cost of shipment to this country. That procedure was all right before the war, but the rate of exchange completely altered that position; and, therefore, to make this Tariff purely scientific in its incidence we should follow the New Zealand practice. Whatever may be the merits of the High Court judgment, it must be obeyed Until the law is altered. In effect, the High Court, decision is that the Customs authorities must levy duty according to the bank rate of exchange. It was hoped by all interested that as soon as Parliament met this year legislation would be introduced to deal with the matter, which is very important, involving, as it does, a tremendous amount of. money. Imports from the United States of America for the year ending 30th June, 1919, totalled £27,183,792, and for the year ending 30th June, 1920, £23,826.313. From France, where the exchange rate had depreciated, imports for the year ending 30th June, 1919, amounted to £1,651,833, and for the year ending 30th June, 1920, £2,422,304.
It will be seen that imports were very much greater from the United States of America, where the exchange had greatly appreciated; and there is no doubt that if we want a really scientific Tariff we must levy duty on goods from that country on the same basis as in New Zealand. I hope that even now some action will be taken to remedy the existing defects -in administration, so that the position between the United States of America and France may be equalized.
– A Bill is being debated in the other House dealing with that aspect of the problem.
– Under the New Zealand Act the practice is to use the mint par rate in computing the value of imports from countries with an appreciated exchange, whereas the bank Tate is used for countries with a depreciated currency. If this procedure were adopted in the administration of our Customs Act, I think our Tariff would be on scientific lines. This would place imports from those countries in a position of equality. I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister that this question is receiving attention in another place.
Another matter which I think should be dealt with is the new Bills that have been brought forward. I observe that the Government propose to appoint a Tariff Board of three members, one to be chosen from the Customs Department, to assist the Minister in the administration of the Act. I am altogether opposed to the creation of new Boards. And I put this objection from three points of view; firstly, that of the public; secondly, that of the Ministers themselves; and, thirdly, that of the Public Service. It is contended that this Board will be specially charged with the duty of seeing that no manufacturer makes too much money, and that the consumer gets the manufactured product at the right price. Why cannot this be done by the Department as at present constituted ? What need is there for a fresh Department ?
– There is no such intention.
– Does the Minister mean to say that, with the creation of this Board, it will not be necessary to have officers and a staff ?
– Not if I had my way.
– I am afraid the Minister will not get his way, and, therefore, the Senate will have to see that this needless expenditure is not involved.
– The chairman is to be an officer of the Customs Department.
– That is one objection I have to the proposed Board. Another is that this Board is to be a . price-fixing Department, regulating the prices to be charged by the manufacturer for his goods. We all know perfectly well that, except with Labour Governments, the principle of price-fixing is absolutely dead. It was tried in Victoria and some of the other States, and abandoned; but it is being kept going in Queensland and New South Wales, although I think that even there the Labour Governments are getting tired of it. This proposed new Board will always be harassing manufacturers. It is suggested that we want scientific evidence as to the incidence of these Tariff duties, but we have already had a Tariff Commission, presided over by Sir John Quick. That body gave us splendid information on almost every Tariff item, but its recommendations were absolutely disregarded. Subsequently, the Inter-State Commission made inquiries into Tariff matters, and its recommendations met the same fate. It appears to me to be impossible to deal with the Tariff on these lines, because the interests are so conflicting. What may be the finished article for one form of manufacture is the raw material for another, and, therefore, I do not think this new Board will be of very much assistance. It may, of course, help the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) somewhat, and we all know what a difficult position” he has to fill ; but I think that if he set apart some of his own officials they could advise him just as well in the administration of the Department.
– As the Bill stands, the Board need’ not defer to Parliament at all.
– Up to a certain extent that may be so, but I think that eventually the Minister would consult Parliament.
– -Not as the Bill stands.
– I do not think that any honorable senator would consent to such power- being given to any Board.
– Recently the Senate assented to similar power being given to the Public Service Arbitrator.
– Why not deal with this matter when the Bill comes up ?
– I think it ought to have been dealt with before. When the Tariff was under consideration in another place, one of the main arguments used was that if any manufacturer, by means of the Tariff, was making undue profits, the Board would advise the Minister. Probably quite a number of the duties would not have been passed but for this assurance. That is why I think the measure in question should be discussed before we are called upon to deal with this Tariff. When it comes before us I shall certainly oppose the Bill upon that ground.
– If I thought that it would be approved by Parliament, I would oppose the whole of the duties setout in the schedule to this Bill.
– I do not think that the Senate will sanction the creation of any fresh Departments.
– Hear, hear ! The entire Opposition will be with the honorable senator upon that point.
- Senator Duncan has clearly intimated by interjection that if the Bill for the creation of a Tariff Board be passed, %he will vote for the imposition of lower duties than those which are set out in the schedule to the measure which we are now considering. Surely we do not desire Ministers to be still further harassed with new Departments ! Look at the Prime Minister’s Department. It is an enormous one. Yet, where is the right honorable gentleman (Mr. Hughes) now ? He is upon the other side of the world. Quite recently, too, the erstwhile official head of that Department (Mr. Shepherd) was sent to the High Commissioner’s Office in London. How can the enormous enterprises which are controlled by the Prime Minister’s Department be conducted upon those lines ? If a company were to change its manager every few months, what would happen to it? Then, there is the Repatriation Department, which is presided over by Senator E. D. Millen. It controls an expenditure of many million pounds per annum. Yet suddenly the head of that Department was sent away to Geneva, and another officer had tol be placed in charge of it. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that we hear of scandals connected with our Departments. Very shortly, I understand, a new Health Department is to be constituted - a Department which is to be administered by Mr. Greene, who is already palpably overworked.
There is just one other matter to which I desire to address myself. Many of the items enumerated in the schedule to this Bill are used in our hospitals all over Australia. As one who takes a very great interest in the welfare of those institutions, I can inform the Minister that at the present time they are experiencing the greatest difficulty in carrying on operations successfully. The Alfred Hospital, of which I am president, used to be run for an expenditure of £15,000 per annum. To-day it is costing £24,000 per annum. The increase is entirely due to the enhanced cost of living, to the rise in wages, and to the increased cost of medical supplies. I would like the Minister to promise that we shall have absolute Free Trade in regard to medical necessities which have to be imported for these hospitals. I am sorry to say that the chloroform which is manufactured locally is of such a character that our doctors are afraid to use it.
– Does the honorable senator limit his request to medicines ?
– No. Already alcohol for use in hospitals is free, and a great quantity of it is used in those institutions in a variety of ways, though.-, not as medical comforts. I understandthat Mr. Greene is sympathetic with my suggestion. There are, however, a number of special items which I think Senator Elliott, who is also a member of anotherHospital Board, will assist me to bring, under the notice of the Minister, with a. view to the remission of the duties which have been imposed upon them. Weknow that the people for whom these hospitals cater are unable to afford much for themselves. The general public areunable to subscribe to them in the waythat they have hitherto done, and I fear that if the existin g duties upon these - articles are retained the State. Governments will be required to heavily subsidize them. I hope that the Minister - will favorably consider my request, whichis made in the interests of those who are : least able to help themselves.
– A few days ago, in reading a publication in which. I take a very great interest, I found that its leading article commenced by saying that every honorable senator was an avowed Protectionist. Consequently I was very much surprised when I learned to-day that Senator Gardiner is not a Protectionist. In his opening remarks the honorable senator stated that the enormous amount of unemployment which has been in evidence in Australia for many years is the outcome of the Tariff. Such an allegation cannot carry much weight in the absence of corroborative details. The honorable senator knows perfectly well that the great bulk of the unemployment in Australia during the past five or six years has been the result of a refusal by those who are unemployed to take advantage of the machinery which has been created to render their employment continuous. Certainly this fact explains the large amount of unemployment which is so noticeable in our metropolitan areas. Only last year a strike occurred which meant the cessation of some of our city industries. Those industries have not yet recovered from the blow which they then received. I am referring, of course, to the strike which took place in connexion with the shipping industry. For Senator Gardiner to suggest that the Tariff which has been operative for some years has adversely affected employment is ridiculous.
– This Tariff has been operative only during the past twelve months.
– What brought about the acute unemployment of last year? The annual strike which dislocated shipping at a time when it was absolutely necessary that the industry should be kept going.
– The time was chosen when the strike would cause most inconvenience and loss.
– No section of workmen can strike without seriously affecting those who are employed in other industries, because every industry is practically dependent upon another industry.
Before addressing myself to the Bill, I desire to quote an authority who is justi fied in making a statement concerning the Tariff. He says -
It is quite clear that the two greater parties numerically in the Federal Parliament have made a definite promise to the country to give an effective Protection.
That is so. But what a great many of us are wondering is, What is meant by “an effective Tariff”? Effective for what, and effective for whom? That is the matter which we have to consider. This gentleman continues -
Australia has long ago made up its mind that it is not going to be a dumping ground for the over-production of other countries, and that it is going definitely to establish industries of its own which will enable it to employ its own citizens and as far as possible, keep the money within our own borders.
That is a very laudable statement to emanate from anybody. But we need to analyze it with a view to seeing how far this Tariff will be “ an effective Tariff” - that is to say, a Tariff which will be effective in the best interests of Australia. We must recognise that no Tariff can be effective in the interests of Australia if it will be effective only in building up certain industries. But if by means of a Tariff we can improve the conditions of the people as a whole, then it will be an effective Tariff. Upon the other hand, if it will play into the hands of a favoured few in Australia whilst imposing a burden upon the many, it cannot be called an “ effective “ Tariff. I am not suggesting that that will be the outcome of this Tariff. On the first reading of a measure of this sort, we should consider what is necessary to build up Australia and make it as far as possible self-contained under fair conditions. Honorable senators may be wondering whether I am a Protectionist or a Free Trader. I believe one can be a Protectionist with out being a high-wall Tarriffite. I can claim to be a Protectionist, inasmuch as I want to see every industry possible established in the Commonwealth; but it must be established on a reasonable basis. I do not believe it would be for the welfare of the Australian community to establish at any cost all the industries that it is possible to establish in any country. What Australia needs to-day is a Tariff which will give it an opportunity to develop industries which are suitable to it, and which can be reasonably developed. We do not want a Tariff that will enable industries to be established in which, through the high Protection that may be afforded, it will not be necessary for. those engaged to do their very best. We do not want in Australia a jelly-fish, spineless class of people. We want men and women of character, prepared to do their very best, and always to put their shoulder to the wheel in advancing the interests of the country in which they live.
There is one feature of Australian industrial life which is very noticeable. We talk about adding to our industries, and extending those already established. Is it possible for us to considerably extend our existing industries, or inaugurate new ones with any chance of success, unless we have available the men who will be necessary to carry them on as they should be carried on? We all know the condition of some of our trades and industries in Aus. tralia. One of the greatest difficulties we have been labouring under for some years past is the lack of skilled artisans and mechanics; I want to see our young people become the men of Australia, on whom we can depend for the maintenance and continuance of any industry that is established. I dp not want to see a position . created which will necessitate our drawing from oversea countries our artisans and skilled mechanics, while our own young Australians become merely the unskilled labourers of industry. Unfortunately, a practice has grown up in Australia whereby the great majority of our growing lads, on leaving school and desiring to enter the industry for which they are fitted, are denied admission to it. This is due to the legislation on the statute-books of the various States, which provides that there shall be only a certain proportion of apprentices to adult workers. In the large majority of cases, the proportion is fixed at one to three*. That is the reason why, in many Australian indus-‘ tries the cost of production of certain items is very much higher than it ought to be. In the building trade, the cost of building is Very much greater than it should be. Any architect or master builder will tell you that the greatest difficulty he has had to contend with in the last few years is the lack of skilled workmen. This is one of the most serious problems we have to deal with, and it is time appeals were made in every State
Parliament by the representatives of the people for such an amendment , of theState legislation as will give every boy a fair deal, realizing that that boy is to become one of the burden-bearers of the Commonwealth in the future. If the present policy is continued, it will not be many years before the proportion of skilled artisans and mechanics throughout Australia will become so infinitesimal that they will practically die out, and we shall have to rely on importations. That should not be so. We claim to be proud of Australia, and spend scores of thousands of pounds per year on technical education from the extreme north to the extreme south of the Continent, in order to enable our lads to find the callings for which they are most suited, but when the time arrives, for a boy to enter the trade which he has chosen, he finds in the great majority of cases that he is debarred by the legislation to which 1 have referred.
In considering the Tariff, I hope honorable senators will recognise ‘that we cannot afford to adopt in Australia a policy of splendid isolation. As other countries are dependent on us, so we are dependent on them. We have one of the finest countries in the world* but we must not be so conceited as to believe that we are the only people on the face of the earth - that we are the chosen people. When we read that “Australia has long ago made up its mind that it is not going to be made the dumping ground for the overproduction of other countries,” we must in all fairness to ourselves realize that we have to dispose of our surplus products outside of Australia. We may talk as much as we like about being self-contained, but it is not sufficient to be self-contained. We must produce more and more each year if we are going to grow, and as we pro-‘ duce more, we shall find that our surplus products are on the increase year by year, and that we must find a market for therm in other, countries. We cannot frame a Tariff in Australia without it being known in other parts of the world, especially in those countries with which we have been trading for years. I make these remarks, not to suggest that we should make Free Trade the policy of Australia, but because I believe that in framing a Tariff we ought to consider what is reasonable and fair. We must ascertain what is reasonable protection to afford to the industries which /we have already commenced, and to those which we are anxious to establish here, and in doing so we must take into consideration not only the Tariff rates, but the natural protection which is afforded to Australia. Not only has the price of commodities increased in . Australia, but it has increased throughout the whole world. The cost of packing for the ordinary class of merchandise coming to Australia has increased by 200 per cent., while freights from the Old Land to Australia are just about double what they were before the war. The rates on ordinary merchandise before the war was 52s. 6d. per ton; to-day it is £5; and during the war period it was £10. I understand that it is likely to remain at £5 for some time.
Every one recognises the fairness of preference to Great Britain, because we belong to the British family. Any one who, suggests that preference should not be extended to British goods does not recognise the true relationship between Australia and Great Britain. Great Britain, being the Mother Country, must always have preference against any other country in Tariff matters. Whilst giving preference to Great Britain, we should recognise that there ought not to be too great a difference between the duties charged on British goods as compared with those charged on imports from other countries. We have passed through a very terrible war during the last few years. The Ally upon whom we had cause to look with most love and affection during the war - wasFrance. She stood between us and annihilation, and perhaps also between Great Britain and annihilation, and we ought to remember the debt that we owe to that country. France has been for many years a splendid customer of Australia, and the people of Australia have been accustomed for many years to- use articles of French manufacture. Consequently I say that if it is possible, in dealing with the Tariff, to recognize the debt we owe to France, we should do so.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that French imports should be placed in the same ‘ category as British imports?
– No. But I say that the discrimination between them should not be too marked. We are in the Tariff placing France on the same footing as-
– The United States?
– I was. going to say on the same basis as Holland.
– Or Sweden.
– Yes, or Sweden and Norway, and that is not right.
– The honorable senator thinks that we should discriminate between them?
– I do.
– I think there may be developments which will bring imports from France under the duties of the Intermediate column.
– I am very glad to hear that. We should recognize the awful struggle, in which France is engaged to-day in the effort to repair the damage and wastage caused by the war. Big as the task of Great Britain is in this direction,- the task of France is bigger still.
– Does the honorable senator not think that the preference might be mutual, and that France should give us some preference if we extend a preference to her ?
– Exactly, and I have not the slightest doubt that France will be prepared to do so.
– The preference should be mutual also so far as Australia and Great Britain are concerned.
– I agree with the honorable senator. I do not know what steps; if any, are being taken by the Government to secure a preference for Australia where we are prepared to give a preference.
-We ask British makers to pay £40 before they can import a motor car into Australia.
– It is not my intention to-night to refer to the separate items of the Tariff. That can be better done when we are dealing, with the schedule to the Bill. .
In the course of his remarks, Senator. Earle made some comments upon the action of Australian manufacturers engaged in the production of woollen goods. I felt . inclined to say hear, hear, to his strictures upon that section of our commercial community. We have,f or many years, been producing wool, whilst we have manufactured a small proportion of it. into clothing and textiles necessary for the comfort and maintenance of the people of Australia. The great bulk of our wool has been sent overseas, and. a proportion of it has been returned to us in the shape of clothing and textile fabrics. From the point df view of quality of production, and the profits of manufacture, our secondary woollen industry has been eminently satisfactory. I have never been able to understand why, before the war period, there was not a considerable expansion of this industry. Referring to a period ten years preceding .the war, the majority of the mills in Australia had been established on a sound basis. There was always a market for their products, and they could not supply anything like the local demand for them. I say advisedly, that with regard to quality and price, their products compared more than favorably with similar goods turned out elsewhere in the world. But what do we find today? We find that flannel, which is the commonest woollen article produced in Australia, and one that is an absolute necessity to the people, especially to older people and children, is practically unobtainable by the poorer people in Australia. The price charged for it is beyond them. That is a disgrace to Australian manufacturers of flannel. I say this without hesitation, having looked into the matter most thoroughly. Before the war all-wool flannel was produced in Australia at 1A. per .yard. That was the minimum price to the distributor. To-day the same flannel, less 25 per cent, in quality, is being charged for. by the mills to the distributors at 2s. 6d. per yard. This represents an advance of 150 per cent.° in price, with a reduction of 25 per cent, in quality. Is that fair to the people of Australia ? If I find in this Tariff a proposal to increase the duties on woollen textile fabrics, how can I be expected to support them ? So far as I can ascertain, there has been no increase in the cost of production of the finished article in Australian mills, and this year, when everyone reasonably expected that the price of this commodity would be reduced, we find that there is an all-round average increase in price over last year’s prices of 5d. per yard. Is that a reasonable thing? Everyone knows what wool is worth in Australia to-day, and that merino wool is not used in the production of flannel. I say that this article, for which the mills now charge the distributor 2s. 6d. per yard, can be produced, of the quality now turned- out, at from le. 6d. to ls. 8d. per yard, and still show a much larger proportion of profit than was earned by the industry before the war. If I mention another item, blankets, which are absolutely essential, we shall find that practically the same objections apply. The distribution of surplus military blankets, let me say, has been a veritable God-send to the people of Australia. But for it, hundreds and, probably, thousands of children would have had to go cold this winter. How Could parents afford to pay the prices asked for blankets manufactured in Australia to-day ?
I did not intend to refer to particular articles covered by the Tariff, but I have mentioned these produced by the industry specially referred to by Senator Earle. In deference to Senator Crawford, I shall not touch on bananas to-night.
– The honorable senator might tell us about the cost of carbide.
– I wish to make a reference to a suggestion made by Senator ..Earle which appeared extraordinary to me. He said that in his opinion a great deal of our trouble in connexion with the high cost of living is due to the fact that we have so many distributors. He suggested that the cost of distribution might be materially reduced if, for instance, there was one large emporium established to supply one section of Melbourne rather than a great many small ones. f
– Has the honorable senator seen a statement made by a very influential authority that in the United Kingdom the war disclosed the fact that distribution is a much more intricate problem to solve than is production ‘
– I think there is a great deal in the statement, because the distributor is brought into close contact with the individual who uses the commodity, and much more discrimination is needed in the distributing than in the manufacturing section.
– What power has this Parliament over distribution ?
– We have no control over distribution. Senator Earle made that very clear. He suggested that things would be much better if, instead of having thirty or forty emporiums in which people could select the goods they required, we had one large emporium, because the cost of distribution would then be so much less. As a matter of fact, it would not. A large retail establishment - and only such establishments .can cope with individual purchasers because their requirements are so varied - may have a turnover of about £1,000 per week, but its percentage of overhead expenditure would be quite on a par proportionately with that of a smaller establishment doing a business of only £600 per week. After all, a human being oan only do a certain amount of work in - a day. One individual oan attend to only so many individual requirements. If the number of individual requirements is doubled, the staff must be doubled to attend to them. Senator Earle was, therefore, entirely wrong in bis supposition that the trouble in connexion with the high cost of commodities can be met by the abolition of the middleman or distributor. No matter what kind of system is adopted, there must be some class of middleman or distributor employed, in order that the varying needs of individual purchasers may be met. Honorable senators who listened to my earlier remarks will be aware that I believe in competition. It is the soul ofbusiness. Without it, the general public cannot expect to secure the advantages obtainable under the competitive system. Competition will compel a manufacturer to give of his best. If half-a-dozen persons are likely customers for a particular commodity, the manufacturers of that article will naturally be competitors for the particular trade, although, of course, they will not be able to go below a certain line in regard to price. I am afraid that if we create a monopoly, such as was suggested by Senator Earle, we shall fmd that, instead of helping the consumer, we shall bo doing the very opposite.
In conclusion, I want to say that in dealing with this Tariff it will be my duty, while helping the commercial section of the community to the fullest extent possible, to see that the people themselves get a fair deal. I want Australia to be made an attractive proposition, so attractive, indeed, as to induce people from other countries to come here with every prospect of being able to live at a reasonable cost, and make some provision for their old age. I do .not want Australia _ to be regarded as an expensive place in which to live. We have opportunities second to none in. the world for the development of this country. I be lieve we oan develop it oh reasonable lines while giving our industries all the protection they need to enable them to become successful, but no more.
Debate (on motion by Senator Bakhap) adjourned.
page 9977
Bill received from the House of ‘Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Russell) read a first time.
Senate adjourned at 10.4 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 July 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210713_senate_8_96/>.