Senate
28 May 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

CUSTOMS TARIFFBILL

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

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AT MARTINIQUE AND ST. VINCENT.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD. - About a week ago the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in reply to a question of mine, said that the Government were taking into consideration the question of showing some substantial sympathy with the sufferers by the volcanic eruptions in Martinique and St. Vincent. I desire to know whether they have come to any conclusion?

Senator O’CONNOR.- The Government have found themselves unable to ask for the grant of any pecuniary aid for the sufferers in question.

COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL.

Senator McGREGOR. - I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he will bring on the Commonwealth

Franchise Bill soon? Very little alteration has been made in the Bill by the other House, and it would pass very quickly if it were brought on.

Senator O’CONNOR. - It is the intention of the Government to. bring on the Bill, I hope to-morrow, after the Supply Bill has been dealt with.

CUSTOMS OFFICERS.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Referring to the answer given by him on the 15th inst. to Senator Neild, that none of the 22 Customs officers transferred from border stations to Sydney had received increases of pay, is it not a fact that sixteen of such officers have received increases asunder : - One at £6, nine at £10, four at £20, and two at £30 per annum from the 1st inst. ?
Why were not increases given to the other six officers transferred?

Senator O’CONNOR. - The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows : -

No. The honorable senator is entirely misinformed. Further, the answer given was not as stated, but it was that none of the 22 officers hod received increases of pay “ consequent upon their transfer.” This Whs the only point the question raised. The transfer of the 22 officers was in September and October, 1901, and no officer had his salary increased consequent upon the transfer. Subsequently, during the present yean, the State collector was directed to nominate sixteen officers as lockers, having due regard to efficiency and seniority, and, in so doing, to consider claims of officers in all the States. His selection was approved, and included three only of the 22 border officers. These then, consequent upon their promotion to the post of lockers, each received an annual increase of £10 as from the 1st May inst. The remaining nineteen are to-day receiving thesame salary that they received when they were stationed on the border.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

Ordered (on motion by Senator Stani- forth Smith) : -

That a return be prepared and laid upon the table of the Senate, snowing -

What officers have been appointed to the Commonwealth Civil Service from the State Civil Services since the inauguration of the Commonwealth, exclusive of the officers transferred with the Departments.
What new appointments have been made to the Commonwealth Civil Service from outside the State Civil Services.
From what States of the Commonwealth have these officers been appointed, and the number from eachState.

page 12898

CUSTOMS TARIFFBILL

In Committee : (Consideration resumed from 27th November, vide page 1 2848).

Division IV. - Agricultural products and groceries.

Item 22. - Grain and pulse, n.e.i., per cental, 1s.6d.

Upon ‘which Senator Sir Josiah Symon had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 22 by adding the words “and on and after 1st July,” 1902, tree”

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It ought to be admitted by honorable senators that grain, more especially wheat, cannot be protected by a customs duty. Indeed, the great organ of the protectionist party in Victoria has long ago admitted this. So far back as the year 1 888 the Age, in an article, used this expression: -

The wheat trade has long since overtopped the level where it could be helped by this means.

That is a very simple statement of the facts. It is a truth which might very properly be remembered, not occasionally but at all times - not only by free-traders, but also by protectionists. The principle is recognised even in this Tariff, and it is recognised in the Tariffs of various countries, that when an article has reached an exporting point, especially when it has considerably exceeded that point, it cannot receiveprotection in the ordinary sense of the term from a customs duty. When the Tariff was introduced in the other Houseit was proposed that there should be a duty on cattle, sheep, poultry, pigs, and so on. It was treated by honorable members with ridicule as being a duty that was non-protective and could produce no revenue, and the result was that the Government let it go. The same thing occurred when the item of fresh meat was considered. A duty was proposed, and ultimately it was agreed that the article should be put on the exemption list. The Government did not deem it necessary, at any rate they did not have the temerity, to propose customs duties on articles like wool, tallow, hides, and coal. In the Victorian Tariff, hay and chaff were on the free list. ‘ Straw was on the free list, not only in Victoria, but also in Queensland, and New Zealand. In New Zealand, butter and cheese were on the free list. Grain and pulse, having passed the exporting stage, ought to be recognised as non-protective by a customs duty, and ought in consequence to be put on the free list. In the season of 1900-1, thetotal production of grain in the Commonwealth was 72,000,000 bushels,of which 48,000,000 bushels represented wheat. The consumption of Australia was about 30,000,000 bushels, leaving generally in that year, at any rate, an exportable surplus of about 20,000,000 bushels. The production of wheat is an increasing one, and this year we should not be in the position of appearing to have a shortage but for the expectation formed some four or five months ago that we would have a very large surplus. In the earlier months of the harvest, I think, some 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 bushels were exported. When the harvest was completed the drought had told its tale, and reduced the total ; so that it seems to be now a question whether we have sufficient left to tide us over the season. But there never was any doubt at that time of the yield being more than sufficient for the consumption of Australia. It is quite by a strange anomaly - the exports which ought not to have taken place - that the great advance in the value of wheat has ocurred. I shall give the committee some information which I think is valuable as showing that a protective duty can do no good, and in this present year is of no advantage to farmers. In its market report the Sydney Morning Herald of the 10th of May says -

Wheat very firm, taken principally for stockbreeding purposes,

It reports several large sales, and. then makes these comments -

Surplus stocks of wheat are pretty well concentrated in two hands. The demand in the country is much greater than in the town. It is anticipated that most of the country millers will be short of wheat by the end of June.

That statement indicates that the rise in the value ofwheat isdoing nothing for the farmers, butis doinga good deal for certain speculators who have got possession of the remaining stocks. Two days later the Sydney Daily Telegraph had the following passage in its market report : -

The whole situation of the grain trade, indeed it may be added that the complete environment of the produce market, has become so totally dissimilar to any former experience, that it is considerably difficult to gauge conditions from day to day much less to forecast values. To see the State almost entirely clear of grain in first hands before the advent of Whitsuntide is an experience without precedent, and the trade are consequently in a, dilemma as to the best mode of procedure to adjust supply and demand during the interval between this and the next harvest.

There is another statement showing that the advance in the value of wheat during the past few months is not doing the farmers of Australia any good. It is benefiting certain speculators, who, under the cover of the Tariff, have been able to buy up stocks, and defy importations from abroad.

Senator Higgs:

– Did they not do that under free-trade ?

Senator PULSFORD:

– Speculators will always take advantage of prices, especially if a Tariff is ‘provided to prevent outside competition. In both “Victoria and New South Wales before the Tariff was introduced in October last the value of wheat was about 2s. lOd. per bushel, and after its introduction it remained the same both in New South Wales, where there had been no duty, and in Victoria, where there had been a duty ; showing that the protective incidence, if there was any - as alleged by the Government - was of no avail, the price of wheat being uninfluenced in New South Wales. And it would have remained uninfluenced there but for the circumstance to which I have referred. At the same time, in London, the value of wheat was about 3s. 6d. per bushel, and it is 3s. 8d. per bushel there now. At the present time wheat is worth more in Australia than in London, showing that the conditions have become entirely changed, not to the advantage of the farmer, but to the disadvantage of the consumer here. The position of a farmer, in an importing country, is always better than the position of the farmer in an exporting country, because the exporting country has to sell its wheat at the price offered in the great buying markets, minus the freight there. If, on the other hand, wheat has to be imported, the importers can get more for it. Consequently, should, at anytime, an overwhelming trouble come over the land, should there be a great shortage, the natural conditions under which trade is carried on, would at once increase the bushel value of wheat and give the producers a distinct gain. It is worth while noticing that in New South Wales, without a customs duty within the last twenty years, the increase of production has been enormous, and that the increase of production during the last four or five years has been more marked than in any other special period. Two years ago a return was laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly of the State showing the exports of wheat from the States now forming the Commonwealth for the period from 1890 to 1899 inclusive. That return showed that the total trade of the twenty years resulted, in the export of 127,000,000 bushels. If that is not enough to show that Australia has passed the stage at which farmers can be benefited by a duty on wheat I do not know what would show it. It is necessary to bear in mind, that we freetraders object to this duty on the ground that it obscures the true issue, and that it may also be used as an argument against granting those real concessions to farmers which we, at a later stage, shall have to ask for.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– To a great extent the arguments that have been used in regard to this item are the same as have been applied to other items in the Tariff. But we are told by Senator Pulsford that we have now arrived at a period when protection is inoperative with regard to grain. If that be so, what objection is there to this duty remaining? Senator Pulsford says that it puts things on a false basis. I cannot see how that is so. As a matter of fact, we know that this duty not only produces revenue, but is also incidentally protective, and carries out the policy of the Government with regard to the Tariff. If the duty is lowered the effect will be to increase importations, and to the extent that that is done Australian producers are injured. Why is it that we have been able to export wheat 1 Is it not because the industry has been built up? And has not that happened in every State, including New South Wales, under some system of protection? In many ways the agriculturists have been protected and assisted in New South Wales as well as the other ‘States. The freetraders say, “ As we can produce wheat in sufficient quantities to export it, abolish the duty, and then, except in times of scarcity, when Australia is not able to produce up to the level of ordinary years, . we shall have & large surplus production.” But how could any country expect to have a large surplus for exportation if it were dependent upon importation for its own wants ? We must adopt the policy of becoming selfsupporting first, and then we can export our surplus. The only object that the free-traders can possibly have in view in desiring to reduce the duty is to facilitate importation ; and to the extent that imported grain takes the place of grain produced locally it must have a depressing effect upon the agricultural industry. Senator Symon gave us as a reason for adopting his motion, the argument that the result of reducing the duty will be to facilitate and increase importation, and that owing to the drought and the exceptional circumstances of this particular season we should allow foreign grain to come in.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What I said was that it is a duty which will only operate in times of scarcity when there are famine prices.

Senator DRAKE:

– And this particular time has been referred to as a time when this duty should be reduced in order to facilitate the importation of foreign grain. Look at the absurdity of it if we treat that as the real reason for reducing the duty.We are framing a Tariff, I hope, for a considerable number of years, but we are told that we should frame it to meet the exigencies of the particular moment. That would lead us to consider what are the prospects of the drought breaking up. I received just recently a note stating that a prophet in Sydney has declared that there is going to be a copious fall of rain during next month, not only in New South Wales, but throughout the whole of the States of the Commonwealth. The drought is to be broken up. If it is a good argument that on account of the existence of the drought we should reduce the duty, it is an equally good argument that in anticipation of the drought breaking up next month the Tariff should not be altered in this respect. But we should be reduced to a ridiculous position if, in framing a Tariff for a ‘number of years, we discussed amongst ourselves the probable meteorological conditions of the next few months. That shows that the argument I refer to is not a good one to consider in the framing of a Tariff which is to operate for years to come, and is not merely intended to meet the exigencies of a particular period. I therefore trust that no honorable senator will be misled into voting for Senator

Australia than from New South Wales, and there are portions of the northern part of New South Wales that will also be more conveniently supplied from the Queensland granary of the Darling Downs than from the wheat districts of New South Wales. It is simply a question of cheapness of carriage. It would be absurd to take wheat hundreds of miles from Sydney to South Australia, and then take it by rail to Broken Hill - I do not know how many hundreds of miles - for the purpose of feeding a few thousand people. But the protectionists seize upon the fact that grain has been imported into New South Wales as a reason for alleging, that New South Wales has to import. These arguments ore. very convenient to fill up time and to achieve the “stone- walling” tactics that the Government organ disclosed yesterday morning, but as for showing evidence of mental capacity on the part of those who utter them - well, all I can say is - “ God help the mental capacity !” I have a cutting here that it would be very appropriate to read in connexion with this question of a duty upon grain. I am not in the habit of reading newspaper extracts here; but I am now going to quote something that was not written in any shape or way respecting this debate. It was written and published in the Age without any reference to the debate upon the Tariff, and it shows the condition of the farming industry of Victoria under the benign influence of protection. This is what is said -

There has been during the last twenty years an increase of our rural population, and a multiplication of agencies for dealing with the products of the country, but has there been a corresponding development of production ? Agricultural statistics give us a startlingly unsatisfactory answer to this question. As comparatively little is possible in the way of. taking up new lands, expansion depends to a great extent upon securing larger returns from those already under occupation, lt is precisely this kind of agricultural improvement that there is no evidence of in our statistical returns. On the contrary, startling proofs are available of a retrograde movement. Of the 38,500,000 acres of land under occupation in Victoria, only 3,824,898 acres is cultivated. In 1881 the area* was 1,997,943 acres, so that we have taken twenty years to double the area of culti vation. That we have now reached a period, of still slower progress is shown by the fact that the cultivated area waa 3,S77,922 acres three years ago. While the acreage increased last year,, there was a falling off of 329 in the number of cultivated holdings.

That is where “ the poor farmer” comes in ! The “poor farmers” have had to give up their lands in Victoria under the benign influence of protection to the extent of no less than 329 holdings. The Age in this instance is telling the truth baldheaded, and in a manner that is highly honorable to itself ! It just shows how superior facts are to all other considerations.

The returns of lust season showed an increase of oats to the extent of 91,409 acres, and hay to the extent of 6.1,916 acres; but there were decreases on all other important crops : - Wheat, 148,372 acres; barley, 20,715 acres; maize, 1 ,648 acres ; peas and beans, 4,421 acres ; potatoes, 10,992 acres; onions, 1,621* acres; with a falling off also in rye, mangols, beet, other roots, hops, and tobacco.

That is under the benign influence of a protective Tariff, which has been in existence for 30 years ! With the greatest possible regard for the opinions of those who hold different views to those which I entertain, I cannot possibly see that such figures as these, coming from the source they do, and being authoritative - not published for the purpose of influencing, parliamentary controversy, but taken from the published records of the State - -can by any process of self-confusion be taken to lead to the conclusion that protection benefits the “poor farmer.” The figures show that there has been a deplorable falling-off in agriculture in Victoria, a State that certainly enjoys a better rainfall than perhaps any other State in Australia. If, with a greater rainfall, and all. the blessings of protection for 30 years, we find a falling off of between 300 and 400 in the smaller homesteads, and a deplorable falling off of the acreage ih cultivation as compared with the acreage cultivated three years ago, and that in spite of the prospect of a wider market under federation, what can we say of a proposal, such as that submitted, to place upon the whole of the agriculturists of Australia the blighting, and not the beneficent, influence of protection 1 Senator O’Connor had a great deal to say about New South Wales importing a few bushels of wheat to meet geographical exigencies in that State. But supposing New South Wales does import a few bushels of wheat for a central population, she has been in the habit of doing so because she consumes a very much larger percentage of bread-stuffs per head of her population than is consumed in the flourishing State of Victoria. I do not mean to allege that the inhabitants of Victoria are starved - God forbid ! - -but they eat less meat and bread-stuffs, and more potatoes. I find that the consumption per head of potatoes in New South Wales is 195 lbs., while the consumption per head of potatoes in Victoria runs up to 258 lbs. I point this out .simply to show that production, exportation, and importation of some particular article need not be brought into a discussion of this kind with the hope of proving anything conclusively. Each country produces that which it requires, or upon which its producers make the most profit. It is only reasonable to suppose that the farmers of the different States produce that which pays best, and therefore to say that a greater or lesser production of a particular article makes one State prosperous and another poor is a mere wasting of time. This is the first occasion upon which I have introduced an Inter-State question of this character in this way, and it is only because the evil communications of the Government have corrupted my “good manners.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I should like to say, in reference to Senator Neild’s observations about Victorian farming land going out of cultivation, that a reason for that may probably be found in the fact that a number of Victorian farmers have lately gone over to Queensland.

Senator Pulsford:

– And to New South Wales.

Senator HIGGS:

– If they have gone to New South Wales it was, no doubt, because they knew that under the Commonwealth there would be a reversal of the fiscal policy of that State, and that they would still get the benefit of protection. A very large number of farmers from Victoria and from, the other States have gone to Queensland during the past year or two, and it must be remembered also that in Victoria many farmers did what farmers do elsewhere : they took everything they possibly could out of the land without bothering about manuring it, and when the land was of no use without manure they tried . to get fresh land. I should like to know whether honorable senators who are . so anxious to serve die interests of the working, classes intend to propose that we should put an export duty upon food products. How much, for instance, have the people of the Commonwealth to pay for meat at the present time, when we know that hundreds of tons of meat are being exported to places outside of the Commonwealth because a better price, it is thought, Can be obtained for it elsewhere 1 Honorable senators have said in regard to wheat that certain rings are taking advantage of the Tariff, but I pointed out in answer to Senator Pulsford that rings in just the same way take advantage of the farmer in freetrade states. The honorable senator’s reply that there are speculators who are always ready to take advantage of the farmer is no argument against the imposition of a duty, when it is shown that rings are formed in free-trade States. Referring to the State of Western Australia, I desire to point out that under the influence of protection a very great advance has been made in that State in agriculture. I find that for the year 1897 there were 31,489 acres under wheat; 30 acres under maize; 1,753 acres under oats; 1,903 under barley, and 340 acres under other crops. But in 1901 the areas” under cultivation had greatly increased, and I find that there wore 74,308 acres under wheat; 91 acres under maize; 4,790 acres under oats-; 2,536 acres under barley, and 844 under other crops. “Without a doubt the agricultural industry has been built up in Western Australia under the influence of protection. I would appeal to honorable senators, from that State who, with the exception of Senator De Largie, have cast their votes in favour of free-trade, to consider the people engaged in this primary industry, with whom a compact was made in order that they might enter .the Federation. A compact was made that they should keep on their own duties for five years against the other States as well as against countries outside the Commonwealth.

Senator Ewing:

– There was no compact that they should be kept on for five years.

Senator HIGGS:

– I appealed to a Western Australian representative to say why the free-trade Government of that State has not reduced the Inter-State duties, and he informed me that it was on account of the compact made with the farmers of Western Australia. I consider this proposal to be another of the blows which Senator Symon has delivered against the primary industries. No doubt the honorable and learned senator does not mean to hurt the farmers, but he is doing it, and I think his action displays great want df thought upon his part. I would say that it does not show very much constructive ability, and I believe that the people of the Commonwealth will hesitate before they surrender its destinies into his hands. We have had the argument used upon every item in the Tariff that the moment local production exceeds local consumption a duty is inoperative, but we desire to keep these duties on because there are several parts of the world in which grain and pulse, which may at any time come into competition with ourselves, can be produced in very great quantities. If, as honorable senators say, these duties are inoperative, it will not cost very much to leave the line in the schedule. I believe that the Argentine, is a place which will soon come into competition with us, and it is certainly a great competitor of ours already in pastoral products. I find that the area of land under cultivation in the Argentine in 1895, in the fourteen provinces and ten national territories, was 15,000,000, or about 6-2 per cent, of the total area available for cultivation, which is put at 240,000,000 acres. The chief imports into the United Kingdom from the Argentine in 1900 were wheat to the value of £6,088,923; maize to the value of £1,514,313. Who knows what may happen during the next few years if a considerably greater area is put under cultivation in the Argentine? But another competitor may be British India, with its population of 231,000,000, consisting principally of black and slave labour. I find that that country sent into the United Kingdom a considerable quantity of wheat during the year 1900. But I think a competitor that is more likely to be successful than either of these is Russia. From what we have read of the privations and sufferings of prisoners in Siberia, we might assume that it is not suitable for settlement or agriculture. But we know that during the past few years a considerable area of land has been put under cultivation in that country. I find that in 1900 the exports from European Russia included wheat, 37,628,256 cwts.; rye, 30,051,015 cwts.; barley, 17,282,558 cwts.; oats, 25,794,862 cwts.; maize, 6,158,523 cwts.; and other grain products,,18,120,891 cwts. - or a total of 135,036,105 cwts. of -grain and pulSe. I remind honorable senators that a very large number of Chinese are settling in Siberia, and undoubtedly they will come into competition with the Australian States before very long. We have in Queensland succeeded in building up our agricultural industry under the influence of protection, and there is a very great future in agriculture before our State. I direct the attention of honorable senators to a passage in Mr. Weedeon’s book, Queensland Past and Present, for 1S97. At page 283 he says -

When it is considered how large an area of the colony is suited by its soil and climate for the production of this grain, there can be little doubt us to the future of Queensland as a wheat country. In a pamphlet dealing with this subject, Professor Shelton, the instructor in agriculture, and now principal of the Agricultural College at Gatton, says - “ It is much more than probable that the area of land suited for the growth of wheat in Queensland is greater than the aggregate of all the present wheat fields of the contnen t. “ Some time since the department of Agriculture issued circulars to a number of wheat growers, asking a series of questions as to their crops. From 21 3 of them .replies were obtained and recorded. To the question - Do you reckon the crop a profitable one ? - 137 replied with a distinct yes, 47 said no, whilst the remainder did not answer the query, or gave a qualified expression of opinion. Of the 47 who asserted that the crop was not a profitable one to grow, about 30, strangely enough, showed a good profit in their returns for the year in question. Most of these replies necessarily came from the Barling Downs, where the great bulk of the wheat is produced. .Although some related to farms in the Maranoa and West Moreton’ districts, with a few exceptions the crops realized about the same price - namely, just under 4s. par bushel, except in the Maranoa, where the average was about Is. better ; and as the conditions of soil, climate, labour, freight would at least on the Downs be about equal, it would appear difficult to account for the difference of opinion as to the profitable nature of the crop but for the additional information furnished by the returns.

We have some 420,000,000 acres of land in Queensland, and many millions of acres besides the Darling Downs, which district is mentioned as specially adapted for agriculture, suitable for the production of wheat, and other grain crops. If we keep these duties on our industries will undoubtedly flourish, and if we remove them they will suffer to a very large extent: Though we may not import a large quantity of grain at the present time honorable senators must realize that in the course of years we may have very successful competitors from abroad if we reduce these duties. I wish to emphasize the point I have been making all along, that for the sake of getting something like a 25 per cent, duty knocked off machinery later on in the interest.; of the farmer, Senator Symon is striking blow after blow at the duties which protect the productions of the farmer. 36 t

Of course he declares that he is acting in the interest of the farmers, but I submit that it is in the interest of the great importing industry - two men and a boy.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– Of all the proposals that the leader of the Opposition has submitted, this is certainly the most serious, and the one that most indicates the absence of the desire, which he has so often expressed, to benefit the primary producer. If this motionwere passed and acted upon in anotherplace, the primary producers in Tasmania-, would feel that, in entering the Federation, they did the worst thing they had”, ever done in their lives. I speak without any hesitation on this subject, becauseI have had considerable communication with our primary producers. Until the last few years in Tasmania, 30 per cent, of-‘ the land under cultivation was under wheat.. Our farmers recognised that if they lost the benefit of the duty on wheat they wouldbe unable to compete with the wheat producers on the mainland ; but, notwithstanding that fact, they entered the union’ believing that the cereal products for which* Tasmania was eminently adapted would have the open market of the Commonwealth,, with some protection against their most formidable and nearest competitor, New Zealand. It is in consequence of their having entered the union that they have, to a certain extent, modified their original intention, and taken much of their land fromunder wheat, and put it under barley, oats,, and similar crops. If this motion were- carried, and acted upon in the other House,, it would mean that although the Tasmanian. farmers re-arranged their business to meet what they considered their altered circum- - stances, they would be in a worse position-, than ever they were in before, because a good! deal of the competition between Tasmania-, and New Zealand in the free port of Sydney in the past has been fraught with very serious consequences to our primary producers. Does the leader of the Opposition seriously think that the removal of this duty will cause a bigger local sale of these commodities in the Commonwealth for the purpose of cattle and sheep feed 1 What is the circumstance that to a great extent has caused the comparatively high prices of these products of late years ? It is the new market at hand in South Africa. Does Senator Symon think that by removing the duty the wheat and other grain produced in

Australia will be kept here, or that the producers of New Zealand will send their grain into Australia to be sold for cattle and sheep feed, instead of sending it to South Africa, a trade for which they are catering to such a large extent that their Government is calling for tenders for a special line of steamers to take grain there? If Senator Symon is actuated solely by the motives he has expressed, why does he not propose an export duty on these products, and so give some inducement to the growers to sell their products in the Commonwealth ?

Senator Major Gould:

– The growers would not thank us for an export duty.

Senator KEATING:

– Will the growers thank us for this motion ? It is not the gratitude of the growers, but the gratitude of the pastoralists, that Senator Symon or Senator Gould is looking for.

Senator Major Gould:

– The gratitude of the people of the Commonwealth ; not of a section of them.

Senator KEATING:

– The honorable and learned senator will not get the gratitude of the people of the Commonwealth, and certainly not that of the growers. There has been no instance, I believe, in the- Commonwealth where any farmers, individually or collectively, have taken any steps to induce a revision of the duties as passed by the other House. Individually and collectively we have been flooded with literature from -all sources to induce us to alter duties or to modify them, if possible, in the interests of the community as a whole, and more particularly in the interests of those immediately connected with the industries. But have the farmers asked us to do. anything of the kind ? Shall we get any thanks from the producers if we accept this motion? We may get some thanks from the pastoralists. We have not been moved very much from outside, even by the pastoralists, to take the course Senator Symon asks us to take. From Sydney; which has been a free port, we in Tasmania have derived some advantages. Of barley, Tasmania, in 1900, exported to Victoria 3,288 bushels, and to New South Wales 1,160 bushels. Notwithstanding the fact that Tasmania, California, and New Zealand are practically the only constant barley-growing countries from which New South Wales can be supplied, and notwithstanding the fact that Tasmania grows as bright a barley as is grown in either of the other countries, they have been able to swamp the Tasmanian barley out of the

Sydney market. New Zealand and California barley has been sold in New South Wales at 3s. and 3s. 6d. per bushel,’ but as soon sis Tasmanian barley was imported it was swamped out of the market, and the price that the Tasmanian growers got did not exceed ls. 9d. to 2s. per bushel, with the result that they discontinued sending the article to Sydney. In one exceptional year, when New Zealand barley realized as much as 5s. 6d. per bushel, the Tasmanian growers sent barley there again, but as soon as it arrived New Zealand growers sent in so much that they got the price down to 4s. per bushel and kept the Tasmanian article out of the market. Of oats, Tasmania in 1900, sent to protectionist Victoria 235,332 bushels, to free-trade New South Wales 110,277 bushels, to South Australia 12,464 bushels, and to South Africa 37.19S bushels. If the growers in Tasmania are capable of prO.ducing these requirements I claim that the Tariff should be framed in such a way as to induce consumers to look for these products to come from that State rather than from New Zealand or California. With regard to peas and beans, an attempt was made by the Tasmanian producers some years ago to get ‘a good’ market in New South Wales. The* swamping procedure adopted by the New Zealand producers) and the shipping facilities that they had, resulted in the Tasmanian producers getting no more than 2s. 6d. per bushel, although it cost from 3s. 6d. to 4s. per bushel to produce the cereal. What is the result ? Six shillings per bushel is the price to-day - and the Tasmanian producer has been relying on the possibility of getting that fair price - but if you open the door to the -New Zealand growers do you think that the Tasmania producer will get the real market rates? Certainly not. They will be brought down again to 2s. 6d. per bushel, because in the initial stages the Tasmanian producer can send only small shipments, but if he has the open market through out the Commonwealth, and a fair protection against the growers in New Zealand, who have been producing for many years from larger areas, he will be enabled to supply the requirements of the Commonwealth. The Tasmanian producer has turned his attention from wheat to barley more than he did in the past; but in 1900 we sent as much as 48.S52 bushels to Victoria, 2,147. bushels to New

South Wales, 1,008, bushels to South Africa, and 78,753 bushels to the United Kingdom. It has been said here that Tasmania is not a manufacturing State, and that she has nothing to protect. I submit that her natural products are entitled to protection. In the case of barley, oats, peas, and beans the New Zealand producer - the producer from larger areas - has been enabled to stifle the efforts of the Tasmanian producer to place his products in the New South Wales market profitably, and the result has been that in each instance Tasmania has exported more to protectionist Victoria than to free-trade New South Wales. Peculiar climatic conditions enable Tasmania to produce barley, oats, peas, and beans, not intermittently, but every year. If Senator Symon desires to benefit the pastoralist I ask him again to adopt the suggestion which was made by Senator McGregor, and propose an export duty.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I shall not adopt that suggestion.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– In framing this Tariff the Government apparently could see only one industry at a time, and they decided that this industry must be protected. They did not study the effect of the protective duty on other industries. The duty on grain and pulse, we are told, was imposed in order that the farmer might be protected. The Government have admitted, and every one of their supporters has admitted, that it cannot he of any service to the farmer in normal conditions, and that fact was very well illustrated by a reference to South Australia.We had a duty of 2s. per cental, and when in a time of drought we found that it was very difficult to obtain sufficient wheat to meet our requirements, how did we try to meet the situation ? A representative of an agricultural district -Newcastle - moved that the duty on wheat and grain be suspended for twelve months. That led to a discussion, and then it; was shown that the Government in order to meet difficulties arising from the duty being imposed, allowed millers to grind wheat in bond. That shows that the moment a duty of this kind becomes operative in the interests of the farmer, the effect of it will be destroyed by an Executive act. This duty, if imposed, will oppress other industries to a very great extent. Take the millers for instance. They will be burdened to the extent of having- not only to pay freight and importing charges, but they will also have to pay £1 10s. per ton upon imported wheat. That will make the cost of their flour so great that they will be unable to compete in the markets of the world against other countries in which wheat is not so heavily taxed. Even to-day our millers are put to great straits in order to keep their flour market in South Africa. Every year they have been’ striving to put their brands upon the market in face of great difficulties, and they have at last established a reputation for their flour. Now they are to be handicapped to such an extent as will prevent them from sending flour to the markets they have secured, unless at a very great sacrifice. If they are unable to meet that loss, they will be deprived of their markets, and their foreign trade will probably be destroyed. Farmers who in times of drought are fortunate enough to get a crop, are advantaged to the extent of the freight and the importing charges on foreign wheat. Surely that is avery great advantage. But if we impose this extra duty of£1 10s. a ton the unfortunate farmers who have to buy seed wheat will be burdened to that extent. We shall be oppressing them at the very time when we ought rather to come to their assistance. We hear a great deal about the competition of New Zealand. Protectionists usually cry out against cheap labour, but now a cry is raised against the products of countries where people live under similar conditions to ourselves. We must also, it is said, protect our ignorance against the scientific knowledge of other countries. If New Zealand, as we had hoped would be the case, had come into the Federation, those who support this duty would have had no ground for argument, but because she didnot enter the Federation the New Zealand people are feared by the protectionists, and we are told that we must protect ourselves against them. It is true that New Zealand charges duties against our produce, but I hope we shall not enter on a policy of retaliation. What led to the barriers being placed between the various States in the past was the very spirit of retaliation which is now urging the imposition of duties against New Zealand. Federation has secured for Tasmania, Queensland, and the other States, instead of the limited market of their own population, the extended market of the whole

Commonwealth. That is a very great gain to the producers of any kind of commodity. Senator Styles has referred to thinking men. He seems to me to regard this and every other question that comes before us from the point of view of his immediate surroundings only. I trust that we shall speedily arriveat a decision, and that Senator Symon’s motion will be carried.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– As far as I can gather from the opening remarks of Senator Charleston, he has got himself into a complete fog over this question. He states that protectionists agree that a duty of this kind is never operative except in bad seasons. We have not agreed to that at all, except so far as wheat may be concerned. We certainly do not agree to the proposition so far as concerns barley, oats, and various other products affected by the grain duties. It is only in abnormal seasons that there is any chance of importations of wheat coming from abroad, except, perhaps, an odd cargo under some peculiar circumstances. But with regard to other cereals, we do not grow enough for ourselves and have to import from New Zealand and other places. Senator Charleston went on to argue that the unfortunate miller would not be able to get wheat to grind, after having acknowledged in * the most unmistakable manner that we grow more wheat than we can consume.

Senator Charleston:

– Except in times of drought.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Such times occur perhaps once in 50 years, and the lawyers have a maxim that “ Hard cases make bad laws.” The honorable senator alluded to a special case in South Australia, and tried to make out that there was a very strong public feeling amongst all classes of the community, in consequence of a drought, in favour of the suspension of the grain duties, and permitting Californian wheat to be imported free. What is true, is that a certain member of the House of Assembly moved that the wheat duty should not be enforced. But Parliament would not agree to it. Of course, individual members can be got to bring forward motions on all kinds of subjects.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The House of Assembly did agree to it, but the Government refused to be bound by it. They allowed gristing in bond in defiance of the House.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– What is the use of one House passing a resolution ? It does not bind Parliament. Certainly the movement did not proceed from the farmers throughout South Australia, who were in favour of the duty being retained. Although some time later Parliament made alterations in the South Australian Tariff, no desire was expressed to repeal the duty on grain.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Did not the Government allow gristing in bond 1

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator GLASSEY:

– We are now asked not to mind how the removal of these duties will affect the interests of the Commonwealth, and Senator Charleston appeals to us on behalf of the people of New Zealand, who he tells us are people of our own race. If New Zealand had entered into the union with us, the position would have been different, but so long as New Zealand is not in the union, our first consideration must be for the people of the Commonwealth. It is on their behalf that I appeal to honorable senators opposite. If, after we have considered their interests, we can confer a benefit upon our own countrymen wherever they may be situated, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, we should do so. I repeat that our first consideration should be for ourselves, and by striking fatal blows at our industries we will be creating nothing but a feeling of despair and of dissatisfaction at the union, which may grow into, an agitation for secession, or for a dissolution of the union, which many of us would deplore.

– In discussing the item, I am pointing out that the course Senator O’Keefe proposes is exactly the right course, and that if it were not allowed to be taken the committee would be placed in a most extraordinary position in regard to items of this kind. Therefore I would suggest to my honorable and learned friend, Senator Fraser, that it would be a most dangerous thing to wait until there is a recommittal, because there may never be a recommittal. No one is bound to move for a recommittal, and if it is moved, no one can say whether the motion will be carried. If the honorable senator wishes to place on record his opinion as to these items in the way he has indicated, there is only one way to do it, and that is by a motion such as Senator O’Keefe has suggested. I would suggest that the form of that motion should be to strike all the words after “that” with the view of substituting the words “wheat be placed on the free list.” If we simply say, “except wheat,” it would be difficult to determine whether other grain would be liable to duty or not, or whether wheat would be on the free list, but if we put the motion in the form I suggest, wheat would be distinctly on the free list, and the other grain would be subject to a duty of ls. 6d. I have said that because it is only right that I should do what I can to assist any honorable senator who wishes to move a request for an amendment, particularly as the effect of carrying the suggestion would be to adopt, to some extent, the item as proposed by the Tariff. But I should like to say, in order that there may be no mistake about the attitude of the Government, that I shall vote against any motion which proposes to put any of these articles on the free list.

Senator Fraser:

-i-Will the honorable and learned senator oppose a recommittal ?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I shall oppose any recommittal, and shall also oppose any motion. With regard to the main question, we are all very much indebted to Senator Fraser for the flood of light he has thrown upon the subject. We were led to believe by honorable senators opposite that there . were two grounds upon which the motion to put these articles on the free list rested. One was that urged by Senator Pulsford . He said, “ There is nothing in this duty ; it means nothing, and we do not want to have it in the Tariff as an argument to be used against us when we come to deal with other items.” That is a perfectly straightforward argument, but it is not substantial enough for some honorable senators opposite. Their argument is that it is only in times of drought that this duty becomes effective, and that therefore in times of drought the price will be raised to the consumer, which will do a great deal of injustice and inflict considerable hardship upon people who have to feed sheep with grain. But it has been clearly shown that, although there are a number’ of people who feed sheep with grain, it really does not matter much one way or the other whether the duty is passed or not from that point of view. I could quite understand the argument if we were dealing with some such article as hay. But, after all, what is the value of this argument in the light of the statement made by Senator Fraser % In addition to that, honorable senators opposite have referred to the drought as though any considerable number of persons in Australia were feeding their starving stock with grain. We know perfectly well that there are a large number. T. quite admit that ; and I hope it will be understood that anything I say in answering the arguments which have been used, is not to be taken as indicating any want of sympathy with the suffering that is going on all over the country. But, as I have already said, we have not to legislate. - and it would be dangerous and misleading to legislate - for exceptional circumstances. How many persons are interested in the use of grain for feeding stock in times of drought ? There are not many throughout Australia. It is only the large stationholders and those who are wealthy and who have valuable stock to preserve who are, to any great extent, using artificial food of this kind. Why ? Because as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, it does not pay to feed sheep on grain. It would pay the stockowner better to allow the sheep to die than to spend a large sum of money in feeding them on grain to keep them alive. I know it is a terrible position for men to be in, but it is a simple matter of calculation whether it would not pay better to allow the sheep to die, or to sell them for what they would fetch, rather than feed them artificially on grain. I do not say that there are not very strong reasons why wheat should not be protected as well as other kinds of grain ; but I am bound to admit that there is this difference : That the probabilities are that the duty operates more certainly in the case of wheat, particularly in times of drought and scarcity, than is the case with barley, oats, and other kinds of grain. This question particularly affects Tasmania. I certainly cannot understand any honorable senator who represents that State taking the view that Tasmania should be deprived of one of the few chances she will have of making money for her primary producers.

Senator Millen:

– Out of the distress prevailing in other States.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– But the honorable senator must admit that the whole question of making profits in any business depends upon obtaining the highest price a man can get for his goods. In selling any article, profit is made by inducing the purchaser to pay more than he wants to give. We do not legislate specially for times of distress, and there is no reason why the farmer in Tasmania, or other parts of Australia, should lose the effects of his enterprise in order to be generous to other persons who are suffering. We do not legislate on such grounds. If Tasmania is to get her share out ofthis Tariff it is necessary to impose duties that will enable her to have some chance against the competition of New Zealand, and other countries. I think I have made my position definite. I shall’ vote against any amendment proposed ; but, if Senators O’Keefe and Fraser wish to move an amendment, I suggest that they should do so in the form I have mentioned.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– Senator O’Connor has suggested a very ingenious way out of the difficulty. He suggests to those honorable senators who are opposed to a duty on wheat, but are in favour of a duty on barley, oats, and other grain, that, in the first place, he will oppose any motion for a recommittal if it is determined that these articles shall be made duty free. In the next place, he suggests a way out of the difficulty, but intimates that he, his colleague, and his supporters will vote against any motion that is proposed. It is evident that Senator O’Connor has made up his mind to fight every proposal that is made upon the Tariff. The suggestion he has made is like a forlorn hope. He appears to think that by the carrying of an amendment with regard to a portion of the duty he will be able to carry the rest of it by means of a side-wind. But, of course, if Senator Symon’s motion were carried, it would be open to the committee to recommit the item for the purpose of making some slight amendment, such as has been indicated by Senator O’Keefe. Senator O’Connor has told us that it is very important that Tasmania should have a chance not simply to dispose of her products in the markets of the Commonwealth under ordinary circumstances, but to take advantage of these duties in order to put money into the pockets of her producers. Is it in accordance with the federal idea that the Government should tell us that they advocate such a system as that? Has it not been pointed out over and over again that the object we wish to attain is not to press unduly upon any individual or any State? There ought surely to be some means by which, when a time of difficulty and distress comes, we may be able to relieve it so fat as concerns the majority of the people. I am glad that the VicePresident of the Executive Council has satisfied himself of the correctness of Senator

Fraser’s statement, and that of other senators, that a large number of the stockowners are feeding their sheep with grain. Let me point out the extent to which this has been done. This passage has already been quoted by another honorable senator but it is so pertinent that I make no excuse for quoting it again. The Sydney Morning Herald, of Saturday last, says in its market report, under the heading of “Breadstuffs “ : -

Wheat was very firm. On Thursday wheat sold in the country at 4s. 3d. onthe trucks, equal to 4s. 9d.,Darling Harbour rates. It was taken, principally for stock -feeding purposes. This morn - ing a parcel of over 5,000 bags sold in Sydney at 4s.4¼d., Darling Harbor rates. Since then a parcel of 10,000 bags sold at 4s.5¼d., same rates’, the market at the close being very firm at 4s. 6d. The surplus stocks of wheat are pretty well concentrated in two hands, the demand in the country being much greater than it is in the town. It is anticipatedthat most of the country millers will be short of wheat by the end of June.

Let honorable senators bear in mind that this statement is made in the money article of the SydneyMorning Herald, and that it is confirmed by the statements of Senator Fraser and others who have personal knowledge. There can be no question as to the correctness of the statement. The VicePresident of the Executive Council has asked how many people are feeding stock on grain, and he attempted to argue first, that this was only done to preserve valuable stock, and in the second place, that it was only done by the more wealthy station owners. But letit be borne in mind that ifwe wipe out our station holders, we wipe out an immense portion of the wealth of the States, and an enormous amount of work that is given to the labouring classes.

SenatorFraser. - All the selectors and farmers are equally interested.

Senator Major GOULD:

– All these men are equally interested, because they must have recourse to the same means to save their stock. At such a time as this, the proposal submitted by the Government is wrong in the interests of the. country. I know that stock-owners may buy fodder day after day, and week after week, and after a time may come to the end of their tether and be unable to buy more, and then their stock must die. But we know thatit is the duty of every individual to maintain his stock as long as he can. Senator Higgs complained about stock and fodder being carried at ruinous rates on the railways to help thepastoralists, but that is done because we do not wish to lose the wealth of the country, and because we desire to keep our stock I say that the Governments of the States have done a wise and a good thing in enabling men to remove their stock from one district to another when that has become necessary, and also in carrying fodder at cheap rates. If it is admitted that it is fair that the States should do this in a time of difficulty like the present, it is also fair that the Commonwealth should provide opportunities to enable starving stock to be fed at reduced rates. On the contrary, the Commonwealth is attempting to nullify the concessions which the State Governments have made, instead of working in harmony with them as it ought to do. It has been contended that it is immaterial at the present time whether the duty is taken off or not, so far as stock are concerned. I recognise with Senator Eraser that men are not likely to send orders to a great distance which they know cannot be executed in less than two or three months, but we have New Zealand close at hand, and orders sent there could be executed within seven days. When it is said that there will be no advantage in giving an opportunity to deal with a matter of this kind at the present time, I remind honorable senators that we may have to face similar circumstances in the future. We cannot say that this will be the only lean yeal”, or that this will be the only period we shall have of drought and depression. We know that these droughts are periodical in Australia, and we hope to be prepared to meet similar difficulties in future. We can do so by dealing with the Tariff in a proper manner at the present time, and then we shall know that our stock will not again be decimated to such an extent as they have been in consequence of the present drought. Senator Playford delivered a vigorous and earnest speech, from his point of view, but it was a speech such as we have all heard over and over again in the State Parliaments. I have no doubt that the honorable senator made a similar speech regarding Victoria when he desired to protect South Australia against imports from that State. It was a provincial speech, and a speech of retaliation, such as used to be made year after year to the farmers in the different States. Many of the farmers were protectionists in the old days, when they could not get their produce sent into Victoria free, while the Victorian farmers could send their produce into New South Wales free, and they agreed that if we had freetrade between the States they would be satisfied. I claim that the farmers are not the strong protectionists which Senator O’Connor would have us believe. We have only to look at the representation in the Federal Parliament to discover that. The honorable and learned senator represents fi State in which he attempts to persuade us the farmers are protectionists, but in that State men who ran -on free-trade lines, as they are known in New South Wales, received overwhelming majorities, not only in the cities, but in the country towns, where the farmers themselves voted. We know, also, what happened in the State of South Australia. Honorable senators in the earlier stages of the debate spoke of the great advantage which the farmei-3 of Victoria derived from these duties upon wheat. But it is a remarkable thing that the freetrade State of New South Wales at the same time increased her area under cultivation and her wheat production.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable and learned senator knows the reason for that. Fifteen million acres of land were thrown open for settlement.

Senator Major GOULD:

– Yes, but I point out to the honorable senator that they were settled by men who found it better to work under free-trade conditions than to open up additional land under protectionist conditions in’ Victoria. Taking the year 1895, when the system of free-trade came into existence in New South Wales, I find that there were 1,325,000 acres under cultivation, and that area was increased by 1 , 000, 000 acres during the succeeding five years under a free-trade Tariff. During that time the production of wheat also increased most materially. The acreage under wheat in 1895 in New South Wales amounted to nearly 600,000 acres, and in 1900 it amounted to upwards of 1,500,000 acres. The production of wheat increased under absolutely free-trade conditions, and it was grown to a large extent by farmers recruiting from Victoria, who had given up their holdings in that State in order to come into New South Wales where they found freer and better markets. I say that we can do more for the farmers by remitting duties upon articles they require to use in connexion with their farms than we can do by imposing artificial duties upon articles which they produce, and which are being over produced, and are being exported year after year from the two great States of Victoria and New SouthWales. Is it not a repugnant thing to impose a duty upon breadstuffs, and the food of the people even though those duties may benefit a few farmers? Senator O’Keefe recognises that, although he believes in protectionist principles. The honorable senator represents a large community of miners, who do not produce wheat, but consume it. We know that the bulk of the people of the Commonwealth are consumers, and they should be considered in the first instance. I do not say. that we ought to wipe out the farmer to benefit the consumer. I believe that their interests are really identical, and that the prosperity of one means the prosperity of the other. I hope that honorable senators will see their way to vote for the motion submitted by Senator Symon, and that even those who would like to see a duty placed upon oats, to meet the competition of New Zealand, will support the motion, trusting to have an opportunity upon recommittal to impose a duty upon oats. ‘ I am personally willing to give every honorable senator an opportunity of having his views considered by the committee. I do not desire that there should be a snatch division, and that we should then turn round and say to some honorable senator-“ We have caught your vote in this division, and you will now have no opportunity of dealing with the Tariff in the manner you desire.”

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I should like to say that Senator Gould’s last remarks do not describe the position I intend to take up. I do not desire to get a snatch vote. The leader of the Opposition has moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 22 by adding the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902, free.”

I submit that I am in order in moving an amendment upon that motion, and I propose to move -

That the motion be amended by the insertion after the figures “1902” of the word “wheat.”

That amendment, if carried, will only affect wheat, and not the whole of the item. I believe that wheat should be free. I have been impressed by the figures which have been put before the committee this afternoon, and seeing that we are exporting wheat so largely that the duty must be inoperative, I think that in a time of drought like the present it is hardly fair to impose this duty, and the poorer classes of the community would, I think, be better off if wheat were free.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - Senator O’Keefe has suggested a very fair amendment. But I venture to submit that it is really not an amendment upon my motion at all. At the same time I am most desirous of facilitating theconsideration of any matters which honorable senators desire to submit to the committee. I point out that the proposed insertion of the word “ wheat “ will only raise the issue as to whether wheat should he free. It will have the same effect as would a substantive motion by Senator O’Keefe declaring that wheat shall be free. If it is carried it will be perfectly competent for any other honorable senator to move that any of the other produce under this heading be admitted free. I have proposed to deal with them all collectively, and if my proposition is carried, there is an end of it. If it is negatived, other items can be taken separately. I submit that the proposed amendment is not quite regular upon my motion, but I raise no difficulties upon that score, because those who wish that there should he a duty upon other grain than wheat should, I think, have an opportunity of submitting their proposals.

Senator Higgs:

– Before the Chairman gives a decision upon this subject I should like to say that Senator Symon has moved a comprehensive. motion. If the honorable and learned senator was anxious to split up grain and pulse into wheat, maize, barley, and so forth, he should have done so, and his proposals would have taken priority over the proposal submitted by Senator O’Keefe. Since the honorable and learned senator wishes that the duty upon grain and pulse should be put as one motion, and no one else has desired to split them up, Senator O’Keefe’s amendment is perfectly in order, and it must come first ; and I submit that it will dispose of the whole question if it is carried.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I indicated at the outset my anxiety to put every question submitted to the Chair in the form of a substantive motion. Senator Symon has moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 22 by adding the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902, free.”

That has been discussed at length. Then Senator O’Keefe moves an amendment to insert the word “wheat” before free. It is not competent for any other substantive motion to be moved by Senator O’Keefe unless Senator Symon consents to withdraw his motion. Without for the moment deciding the question raised, I would point out that if I were to receive Senator O’Keefe’s amendment, and it was carried, the effect would be that the committee would decide that wheat should be free, but no opportunity would be given to vote on the balance of Senator Symon’s motion, which seeks to make grain and pulse, which include other articles than wheat, free. I have to protect as far as I can the right of honorable senators to move other amendments. Honorable senators will know that my only anxiety is to facilitate their wishes, and I suggest to Senator Symon that the proper way in which to deal with the matter is that for the moment he should withdraw his motion. Then Senator O’Keefe should move that wheat be free. If that is carried, Senator Symon will have an opportunity of moving an amendment affecting the balance of the item grain and pulse, and we shall have a substantive motion in regard to that. I therefore suggest that Senator Symon should withdraw his motion, and that we should then put Senator O’Keefe’s motion. Then Senator Symon will be able to move a substantive motion dealing with the balance of the item.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I propose, sir, to adopt your suggestion that I should temporarily withdraw my motion in order to enable Senator O’Keefe to move his motion.

Senator Millen:

– In the event of Senator O’Keefe’s motion to make wheat duty free being defeated, will it be competent for Senator Symon to move that all grain and pulse be placed on the free list ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The proper form of motion for Senator O’Keefe to move will be that wheat be transferred to the special exemption list. If it is defeated it means that wheat, is to remain liable to duty, but, of course, it will be competent for any honorable senator to move that all other kinds of grain and pulse be duty free.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I desire to express my appreciation of the action of

Senator Symon in withdrawing his motion. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to add to the list of special exemptions, “ Wheat, on and after 1st July, 1902.”

Senator EWING:

Senator HIGGS:

– Then I will only speak of wobblers, such as those who went to Western Australia as protectionists, but come here as free-traders, and are- quite anxious to vote for the reduction of the duty on wheat because they know their own farmers are protected in Western Australia to the extent of 4d. and 6d. per bushel. Who are fooling the general public, now, I should like to know ? Where could there be a greater act of folly than to attack- this Tariff upon every item which concerns an article the farmer produces? Honorable senators opposite will say - “ We will give the farmer his machinery free,” when his land has gone out of cultivation and his plant is laid up because of the stress of foreign competition. Senator Dobson has been jeered and sneered at because he ventured to explain the vote he is going to give, and because he said that- the Tariff would be a very good one if half a dozen items were amended. If the Opposition generally were not anxious to appear to shine before the country as the great political saviours, and as those who have challenged the Tariff in every direction- rwhether they have any show of their suggestions being adopted by another place or not - they would take up Senator Dobson’s position instead of moving motions upon every little item and wasting time as they are doing. We should have been two days further ahead with our work if Senator Symon had refrained fro’m unnecessarily taking up the time of the country. I object to the duty on wheat being removed, because the people of Australia are waiting for this Tariff to be settled one way or the other, and because honorable senators opposite, in attacking such duties, are wasting time over matters concerning which they have no hope of sue; cess. They do not contemplate going to the country at all. They dare not attempt such a thing. The last thing in the world they would desire would be that their leaders - Mr. Reid and Senator Symon - should have the responsibility of framing a Tariff of their own.

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - If we followed out Senator Higgs’ argument to its logical conclusion, we might as well go home and let the Government carry the Tariff as it stands. I rose principally to refer to some remarks made ‘ Senator Downer. I utterly repudiate many of the statements made by him as to any compact having been in existence between the federated States as to what the Tariff’ should be like. It is perfectly true that five or six States had protective duties, but it is equally correct that the leaders of the federal movement, at any rate in New South Wales, said distinctly before the electors of that State that they would never be debarred from fighting for their principles upon this great question. Sir Henry Parkes, who was in the forefront of the federal battle, stated distinctly in New South Wales, that while he knew that federation would cause New South Wales to go hand-in-hand with the other States who had protective duties, nevertheless he would not be debarred from fighting for his free-trade principles. He regarded it as one of the objects of going into the Federation, that he would be able to fight to apply those principles to all Australia. This Senate not merely represents the States asStates; also represents the electors. Though an honorable senator may be sent here by a protectionist State, he is not debarred from expounding his principles from the free-trade point of view. Why have free-trade senators been returned, not only for New South Wales, but also for the ether States ? Because it has been recognised by many of the electors of those States that free-trade is a right and proper fiscal system to adopt. Many of the duties imposed by the States in the past were really of a retaliatory nature, and one of that kind was the duty on wheat. The farmers realize that, so far as they were concerned, it was merely a sham, and only inserted in the Tariff in order that they may be imposed upon by means of other duties for the benefit of a handful of manufacturers in the cities. It is said that the duty on wheat will please the farmer. Certainly it is regarded as a good protectionist argument to the farmers to say - “ You are getting this benefit, andyou must give a similar benefit to those who are manufacturing the implements which you use.” The whole thing is a farce. I am no abstract free - trader. My vote will certainly be given in the interests of the great masses of the people for freeing their food from taxation, and I trust that the committee will support Senator O’Keefe’s motion. I have no ground to find fault with him for moving it. On the contrary, I congratulate him, and shall follow him.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Will the honorable and learned senator follow me with regard to the next item ?

Senator Major GOULD:

– If the honorable senator goes right I will follow him. I hope honorable senators will realize the fact that this is not an accidental majority, and that whatever majorities have hitherto voted have been increased by representatives from protectionist States, who have desired to assist the free-trade State of New South Wales in fighting the battle of fiscal freedom for the benefit of the whole of the people of the Commonwealth.

Question - That the Houseof Representatives be requested to add to the list of special exemptions “ Wheat, on and after 1st July, 1902”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … …16

Noes … … … 10

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I propose to advance a few reasons in opposition to the duties upon the remaining articles covered by this item. Many honorable senators, in dealing with the motion just carried, have attempted to set up a distinction between a duty on wheat and upon other lines of farm produce. But the purport of my remarks will be to show that, particularly in view of the critical position which -prevails throughout pastoral Australia, there is an infinitely stronger reason for removing duties from lines of produce which may be classed as “fodder.” It has been admitted with regard to wheat that the duty would be inoperative. It cannot be contended that it would be inoperative in regard to the lines to which I refer. I desire to make no more than a passing reference to the extremely critical position of the pastoral industry in New South Wales. I refer to that State only, because I am more familiar with the facts and figures illustrating the condition of affairs there than I am with the circumstances of the adjoining States. But we know that the position is equally acute in Queensland. Senator Higgs and other honorable senators in dealing with this matter have spoken as if these duties on fodder affected only the individual to whom they refer as the “ squatter.” Senator O’Connor, to my extreme astonishment, asked the committee to believe that they would affect only a comparatively small number of individuals who are in a large way of business. I venture to say that that is the most ad captandum appeal that has ever been addressed to honorable senators. The argument is not only worthless, but incorrect. If the honorable and learned senator only thought for a moment he would remember that even in the locality in which his own home is situated there are a number of small dairy farmers who are at present obliged to import fodder to enable them to carry on their industry. Not far from Moss Vale itself stalls may be seen built up close . to the railway fence, because dairy farmers who have to buy food and carry it along the railway line find it cheaper to bring their cattle to the railway fence and feed them there, as the fodder is brought along in the trucks. I know that at one time to raise the cry of “squatter” was to condemn any proposal which it was thought would benefit him, but I hesitate to believe that members of this committee will be swayed b)r a prejudice of this kind. I venture to say that there is not a selector in New South Wales who has not been punished by the imposition of these duties. Not only the men who have large quantities of sheep to feed, but almost every selector is more or less under the necessity of buying fodder to feed his working horses. I could give actual instances which have come under my own notice within the last few weeks ; but without going into details of the kind, I invite the attention of the Senate to this telegram from Sydney, which appears in the Mel bourne papers to-day -

The Pastoral and Agricultural Societies’ Union to-day resolved to join the Stock Boards’ Council and Stock Owners’ Association in petitioning the Federal Parliament to urgently consider the deplorable position, and to temporarily suspend the collection of fodder duties until the drought crisis is over.

– It would be about 9d. per bushel on oats.

SenatorFraser. - There is 3d. to be added for freight and charges.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Taking the value of oats at 3s. per bushel, it means an increase of 25 per cent. straight away. I do not know the present value of peas, but on peas I assume that the increase would be even more than 25 per cent. An increase of 9d. on a bushel does not look much, but when you come to consider the bushels by thousands or tens of thousands, as is unfortunately necessary, you will see that every £100 is increased by £25, every £1,000 by £250. Is not that a serious consideration to people who are trembling in the very balance of bankruptcy under a calamity of this kind for which they are not responsible? It is the wildest want of generosity to propose to utilise the distress of a great communityand a great industry as a means of gathering any tax from which the Government know perfectly well a shilling per week cannot be gathered for the rest of the year. Is this the kind of taxation which is to be brought on the people of Australia under the guise of a beneficent federation - a scandalous impost that was never dreamt of by anybody who was fool enough to vote for the Constitution which is bringing this trouble upon him?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

-We have done very good work in making wheatf ree. We have not gone so far as I should have liked, and I join very heartily in the protest which has been made. But I do not propose to move any further motion.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I shall he glad if Senator O’Connor will give the committee an assurance that he will bring before the Cabinet the state of the live stock of Australia, and the absolute need for the free admission of any food that can be obtained. I recognise that if we were to pass suggestions to-night, even if adopted by the other House, they would have no effect during the trouble which is being experienced. But if the Government step in, and order that the duties be not collected during the continuance of the drought, they will have done something to relieve the great pastoral industry from the terrible calamity which is now weighing it down.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I should like to add a few words to what Senator Pulsford has said. Senator Millen has mentioned to-night the result of a meeting in Sydney with regard to this very project. I am aware that it is intended to call other meetings inSydney with the view of urging upon the Government the imperative need to allow fodder to come induty free. The Government cannot be blind to the fact that a very great crisis exists not only in New South Wales, but practically in all the States. It would give great relief and help to very many persons in the community whom, I am sure, the Government are just as honestly anxious to serve as we on this side are, if they could- adopt some means by which we might get from other countries the produce which is absolutely necessary to keep alive our stock.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– I am within the mark when I say that such a position as we now occupy has never been approached before in Australia. I am interested in pastoral properties on the Flinders, at Mackinley, within 250 miles of the Gulf, on the Barcoo, in South Warrigao, in the southern part of Queensland, and also in the Riverina. Such a drought as the present one has never before been known in Australia. It means utter ruination. I tell gentlemen’s servants, coachmen, gardeners, and petty storekeepers who are engaged in the towns, that if it continues it will precipitate such a crash as has never yet occurred here. In a few weeks longer all the produce may be exhausted ; it is rising rapidly in value. I bought months ago with a view of selling in Melbourne and making a loss by the sale. All my purchases have been exhausted, for I never dreamt that the drought would last from the beginning of January till the end of May. Should it last for a couple of months longer, then this industry will get such a blow as it has never experienced before. It would be wise on the part of Senators O’Connor and Drake to urge the Cabinet to admit any fodder for live stock. J t cannot come from any place but New Zealand. A merchant would not be mad enough to order stuff from California or elsewhere, because if two inches of rain should fall before it arrived it would not be worth one-fourth of its cost price. I am not speaking exactly on behalf of New Zealand. I do not know whether they have very much fodder to spare, but I know that it is getting desperately scarce in Victoria. From the Murray to the Gulf, except on the eastern coast, sheep are being fed. This is not confined to wellbred sheep. At Kerang, in Victoria, I have 4000 wethers fed on hay. I am prepared to feed them on wheat if the hay gives out. I have been feeding sheep on wheat, oats, maize, in fact, anything. I have a telegram in my pocket from my manager saying that he has bought some barley, and very good feed it is. Anything in the shape of barley, wheat, oats, or maize is good for sheep. Some persons think that maize requires to be crushed, but that is not so. The sheep chew their cud, and they do better on maize than on almost anything else, because they can pick it up from the ground. It would be a proper act for the Government to temporarily suspend the collection of these duties, with the view of enabling the pastoralists to import wheat and oats, particularly oats, from New Zealand. I pray every, morning that this drought may cease, and if it does not the strong men will come down and the weak men will die.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I sympathize very deeply with the representatives of other States in their endeavours to get the Government to assist those persons who require assistance. The Government might as well extend this consideration all round, and assist some of the starved out farmers up in the mallee country. Senator Fraser is not the only one who is feeding sheep or carting water in the mallee country.- In some cases small mallee farmers have to cart water for a distance of twenty miles. Time after time the State Government have run water trains for, I think, months at a stretch, to supply the farmers with drinking water. Surely if the Commonwealth Government are going to assist “one State in this direction, they might as well assist all the States. I should like all the citizens of the Commonwealth to be treated alike. Why should the people in Victoria, who are in dire need, be overlooked any more than the people in Queensland, New South Wales, or Western Australia ? I only ask that all the States shall be placed on the same footing.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I hope that Senator O’Connor will be able to say whether he will consult the Cabinet as to allowing these duties to remain inoperative during the present critical situation. I wish to remind him of a plan which has been worked in New South Wales, and also in Victoria, with regard to concessions in railway freights. The system there has been to charge the full freight, and to allow a rebate when it has been shown that the fodder sent over the railways has been sent for feeding starving stock. The Government might consider the expediency of adopting such a policy as that. They might collect the duty at the Custom-house and allow a rebate where it oan be shown that the fodder has been used for feeding the starving stock.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I am sure honorable senators will realize that the attitude which the Government have been obliged to take up in dealing with the question in reference to the drought, has arisen out of no want of sympathy with the suffering that exists all over Australia at the present time. I have felt all along very much pressed with the necessity for the Government doing everything within their power to make things easier for those who are suffering. But, at the same time, I must admit that at present I do not see any way by which the Government may remit taxation, which I understand is the proposal that has been made; for the reason that this taxation is imposed by law, that the money belongs to the States, and that the Federal Government is in rather a different position from a State Government in relation to the collection of taxation. Senator Millen has made a suggestion about . rebates. I am not prepared to say anything about that at present. But I can tell him that the Government are now considering the whole question. The Minister for Trade and Customs has considered it before, but I spoke to him about it this evening in reference to a communication I had from a deputation from New South Wales. The whole subject will be very fully considered. I do not hold out any hope of being able to deal with the matter as suggested under the existing condition of things, but the honorable senator may rest assured that the Government will do everything that lies in their power to bring some kind of relief to those who suffer, if it can be done. I. should not like honorable senators to suppose, however, that, although I express this deep sympathy, and pur intention of looking into the matter ‘ very thoroughly, I myself hold out the hope that we shall, do anything. But certainly we shall leave no stone unturned to see what can be done.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). -In view of that statement, I think honorable senators will be with me when I say that I do not now propose to move any motion on the item. I prefer to see the action which the Government propose to take before doing sp. The statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council will be appreciated very much in the country.

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Notwithstanding what I have said, I wish to make it clear that I intend to vote for a duty on oats. It might have been inferred that I did not mean to do so. My statement was made with the view of influencing the Government to relieve distress temporarily, or to make a refund in cases of duties being paid upon oats and similar foods.

Item agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020528_senate_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 May 1902

CUSTOMS TARIFFBILL

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator Higgs:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator STYLES:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Charleston:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Charleston:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator Higgs:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Glassey:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Pulsford:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Ewing:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Major Gould:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:South Australia

Senator Charleston:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator FRASER:Victoria

Senator Higgs:

Senator FRASER:

Senator Glassey:

Senator FRASER:

Senator GLASSEY:Queensland

Senator Fraser:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Fraser:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Fraser:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Millen:

Senate
28 May 1902

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia