Senator DOBSON (Tasmania) . - I am not prepared to discuss the details of the Bill. We have been so busy of late that I cannot possibly do justice to its subject-matter. However, there seems to be a probability of finishing the debate on. the second reading before 4 o'clock, when I hope that mv honorable friend, the
Minister of Defence, will give effect to his promise.
Senator Playford - I made no promise. I said that 1 would sit right on until I finished with the Bill if I could keep a quorum.
Senator DOBSON - I understand thai: an arrangement of some kind was made.
Senator Lt Col Gould - My best wish is that the Minister will not be able to keep a quorum.
Senator Playford - I cannot help that. I have shown my desire to meet honorable senators.
Senator DOBSON - I certainly understood that an arrangement of that kind was to be made.
Senator Playford - It fell through because honorable senators would not allow me to go on with the Bill until if was finished with.
Senator DOBSON - The importance of a system of preferential trade between the Empire and its various branches cannot be exaggerated. I have always been very much in favour of the principle. I am a follower of Mr. Chamberlain. I cannot understand why free-traders should object to a policy of that kind because it appears to me that if it were properly managed it would make for inter-Imperial free-trade. I think that the right plan to adopt in the case of the mother country would be to lower some of the duties in favour of British goods because it would tend to establish revenue duties, and bring about some day Imperial free-trade throughout the Empire. If, however, we are to understand that, in the opinion of the Government of the Commonwealth, preferential trade simply means piling on the duties against foreigners, giving Australian manufacturers more protection, bolstering up their industries in every possible way by means of enormous and almost prohibitive duties, and making no sacrifice in favour of Great Britain, then that is not a policy of which I can approve. It is not a policy which would ever tend to bind the parts of the Empire together, or to make for that fuller and freer trade between those parts in the best way. I am most anxious to vote for any scheme of preference, even if it be only a beginning. But I am in very great doubt as to whether I ought to vote for this Bill. I shall make a suggestion to the Minister, and according to the nature of his answer I shall make up my mind. Mr. Chamberlain has warned us, above all other things, not to give a preference to the mother country which would be merely mockery. He has hinted that we might pile up our duties against foreigners as much as we like, but if we. still kept up a high Tariff wall against the mother country, that would not be what he understood as preferential trade. He has explained over and over again that he quite understands that a protectionist policy is favoured throughout Australia, that the Government of the Commonwealth would have to study the interests of its own people, and arrange that its own manufacturers should have a fair and reasonable protection. But I think he recognises, as many of us do, that we can maintain a policy of reasonable protection for Australia, and at the same time give a preference to the mother country which would embody a modicum of self-sacrifice. I am very glad to hear the Minister of Defence laugh, because I desire to accentuate that point in every way I can.
Senator Playford - I am laughing at the idea of self-sacrifice.
Senator DOBSON - I am going to deal with that matter. The Government seem to think that? we can build up a system of preferential trade, consolidate the Empire, and carry out their ideas without making any sacrifice, but I do not hold that belief. There must always be give and take in this world. There have to be some sacrifices. I should be very sorry to have to present to the British Government this Bill as it stands, and say, " This is our idea of preferential trade between Australia and the mother country." Only recently the Prime Minister, in making a speech on defence, reminded us that our share of Imperial naval defence, if we contributed a proportionate amount of the cost, would be between ,£5,000,000 and £6,000,000. But instead of paying that amount we contribute the paltry sum of £200,000. Great Britain is making, an enormous sacrifice for the defence of the trade, not only of the mother country, but of the Empire. But when we set to work to make the bonds tighter we are prepared to make no sacrifice whatever. The proposal for reciprocal trade between New Zealand and Australia has fallen through, because, I presume, the Parliament of New Zealand thought that the sacrifice was all on the part of that country. If we desire to have a reciprocal treaty with New Zealand we must do our share in sacrificing something. I do not know whether that treaty was fair or otherwise, but evidently New Zealand thought that Australia had the best of the bargain ; and I am equally sure that if this Bill is ever presented to the people of Great Britain they will think that Australia is taking very good care of her own interests, and paying very little attention to those of the mother country. The Bill is, indeed, practically a mockery. After the Bill is passed, British manufacturers will still have to pay 30 per cent, on boots, 30 per cent, on hats, and 25 per cent, on many articles of manufacture. Do we imagine that we are giving any assistance to British trade because we impose an extra 10 per cent, against foreign countries? The whole area of trade covered by this preferential scheme amounts to about £800,000. That is to say, foreigners now have a trade with Australia to that extent, .and the Bill gives Great Britain the chance to capture some of it. Suppose that British manufacturers take from the foreigner part of this £800,000 worth of trade. Suppose they get £150,000 or £200,000 worth of it. Considering that the trade of the British Empire amounts to something like £800,000,000 per annum, what is the value of a preference which enables the mother country to get extra trade to the amount of no more than £200,000 a year. How much of that trade does my honorable friend expect that Great Britain will acquire by virtue of this preference Bill ?
Senator Playford - It would be impossible to say. If she gets the whole, it will be worth £1,000,000 to her.
Senator DOBSON - Does mv honorable friend mean to say that there is any possibility of Great Britain getting the whole of it? This really is the crux of the position.
Senator Playford - She can get the whole of it if she likes'.
Senator DOBSON - How can she possibly do so? Would a preference of 10 per cent, enable any country in the world to get the whole of any trade ? My honorable friend does not know what he is talking about. With all respect to Kim I tell him that he is talking nonsense. I venture to say that, if Mr. Chamberlain reads the Minister's speech, he will say, " Good gracious me ! Is this the Minister they put up in the Australian Senate to move the second reading of a British Preference
Bill?" If Great Britain secures one-half of that trade she will do splendidly, and if she gets one-third of it she will do very well indeed.
Senator Pulsford - She will not get anything like one-third.
Senator DOBSON - Honorable senators, hearing that remark from Senator Pulsford, who has gone into the whole question fully, will realize what a sham the whole thing is. I use Mr. Chamberlain's own words in saying that.
Senator Playford - He was looking out especially for the English manufacturer and his profits. We have to look after our manufacturers.
Senator DOBSON - If the Minister looks at the subject from a protectionist point of view only, and wishes to make this Bill a weapon for securing more protection, I am very sorry. Mr. Chamberlain|s policy was intended, first of all, to consolidate the Empire, .and, secondly, to develop its trade. I have no hesitation in saying that no step towards the consolidation of the Empire will be taken by a sham scheme like this. There are good reasons why the Empire should be consolidated. Canada is an important part of the Empire, and she occupies a very dangerous position with regard to the United States. There was a movement some years ago for a kind of Union between Canada and the United States. There is always on the tapis a question of reciprocity between the two countries. But Canada adopted the policy of preferential trade with England. First she lowered duties in favour of Great Britain by one-fourth, and subsequently she increased the preference to one-third. Although the trading between the United Spates and Canada has since increased owing to the propinquity of the two countries, the policy of preference has also increased the trade with Great Britain.
Senator Playford - From £31,000,000 to £61,000,000.
Senator DOBSON - Those figures prove that by a scientific system of preference trade can be increased between parts of the Empire. A glance at what Canada has done shows that this Bill is a sham. The preference given by Canada to British trade extends to an enormous area, as compared with the paltry little area over which the proposals of the Commonwealth Government extend. The two cannot be compared.
Senator Playford - We have not got a Tariff like the Canadian. Give us the Canadian Tariff, and we could do what Canada is doing.
Senator DOBSON - The Minister knows that the Australian Tariff was a compromise arrived at after nine months of struggle. I am not complaining so much about the amount of the preference. Ten per cent, is a very fair thing. But I am complaining of the area of commerce affected by the proposals of the Government.
Senator Playford - Then the honorable senator can move to ask the other House to put a number of other lines in the schedule.
Senator DOBSON - I want to see the area considerably increased. I should be satisfied if there were four items in the Bill as to which duties were reduced by 5 per cent, in favour of Great Britain. Take the case of boots. Our duty is 30- per cent. It is proposed to make it 40- per cent, against the foreigner, leaving it at 30 per cent, against Great Britain. Why not make the duty 40 per cent, against the foreigner, and reduce the dutv on British goods to 25 per cent. ?
Senator Playford - We have to consider our own manufacturers.
Senator DOBSON - ,Are we to be told,. every time we try to draw closer the bonds of union closer, that we shall injure some persons if we reduce duties even to- a small extent? My honorable friend must be aware that the 30 per cent, duty on boots was only carried by a very small majority. I believe Parliament would agree to reduce the duty in favour of Great Britain. It is a blot upon the scheme that it is not proposed to reduce a single duty in favour of the mother country. That is what Mr. Chamberlain meant by using the words " a mockery and a sham." I repeat that if I can get a 5 per cent, reduction on four articles I shall vote for the Bill with some pleasure. We might go through the Tariff to discover items in connexion with which that could be done. The statistics published since the adoption of our compromise Tariff show that trade and manufactures have increased wonderfully. How inaccurate and false, then, are the statements made that industries are starving and dying, and that we are injuring our own people? I do not see how it is possible for a real system of preferential trade to be established by a community that takes up that position. I do not believe that Mr. Deakin, with his ideas of protection for breakfast, dinner, and tea, can ever negotiate a real treaty of preferential trade with Great Britain.
Senator Playford - We cannot negotiate with a free-trade country.
Senator Sir William Zeal - Then the Bill is a farce.
Senator Keating - What about Canada which has a very much higher protective Tariff than we have?
Senator DOBSON - Canada has a very much larger volume of commerce to which the preference applies. There is no opportunity offered her for any increase of trade. The thing is too small to be permitted to pass.
Senator Best - But is it not a valuable declaration ?
Senator DOBSON - The Minister says that we cannot negotiate for preferential trade with a free-trade country, and Senator Best asks, " Is this not a valuable declaration ?" It is a declaration that we are prepared to enter into a preferential treaty without reducing the Tariff we have raised against our own people by so much as is.
Senator Playford - With such a moderate Tariff we could not afford to do so.
Senator DOBSON - I wonder what Mr. Chamberlain will think when he reads this proposal.
Senator Playford - What would he think of the honorable senator's proposal to give him 5 per cent, on boots?
Senator DOBSON - He would say that it was the beginning of some measure of justice.
Senator Playford - We give 10 per cent., and we think we are doing something.
Senator DOBSON - The Minister .does not dare to say " we are doing something." He says only that he " thinks, we are doing something," and Senator Best "thinks" that the Government are making a valuable declaration. The whole thing is absolutely laughable. I was trying to suggest what Mr. Chamberlain's thoughts would be when he read this Bill, but let us, see what the English newspapers think of it.
Senator Best - Mr. Chamberlain has expressed his thoughts on the subject, and they are much in accord with the proposal.
Senator Keating - The latest figures from Canada show that the increase in trade since the year before the adoption of preference, and the year just ended, amounts to 138 per cent.
Senator Lt Col NEILD -Col. Gould. - What has been the increase in trade with foreign countries ?
Senator Keating - It has dropped. Senator Lt.-Col. Gould. - Trade with the United States has not dropped.
Senator DOBSON - What does Senator Keating mean to infer?
Senator Keating - I have here an extract from the leading free-trade newspaper of the Dominion. It is from an article which appeared in the issue of 15th August, headed "Foreign Trade Grows Mighty. Results of Preference. Imports from Great Britain show Great Increase. German Trade falls from $1.2,000,000 to $7,000,000."
Senator Pulsford - That is only dollars.
Senator Keating - The 138 per cent, is not dollars.
Senator DOBSON - Senator Keating is trying to answer my specific argument by giving us figures which we all know. I am in favour of preference, and believe that it will result in increased trade.
Senator Playford - But the honorable senator wishes to do it in some other way.
Senator DOBSON - I wish to reduce the duties in favour of Great Britain. The greatest objection to this Bill is that the area covered by the proposed preference is so small. The figures quoted by Senator Keating are valuable as showing that preference is a right policy to adopt.
Senator Keating - I have no wish to make a disconcerting interjection, but I should like to say that reference has been made to the United States, and, still quoting from the authority to which I have just referred, I find that the gain in imports from Great Britain was 13 per cent., and from the United States 8 per cent., for the previous year.
Senator DOBSON - How can our importations from Great Britain increase in any way worth mentioning when the volume of trade covered by the proposed preference is so small. The figures quoted by 'Senator Keating are very satisfactory, and they justify the belief I have always had that any preference worthy the name would lead to increased trade. My complaint is that the area covered bv the preferential duties under this scheme is absolutely infinitesimal. Speaking of this scheme, the London Daily Chronicle says -
The essence of Mr. Deakin's proposal is a further instalment of protection to Australian manufacturers.
They hat the nail on the head in one sentence -
In most of the lines affected by the offer the great bulk of the trade is already in British hands. The return will be small and of doubtful benefit. Great Britain is asked to alter the whole of her fiscal system, and to tax the bulk of her trade in order to give preference to a smaller part.
Senator Playford - We do not ask Great Britain for anything.
Senator DOBSON - The Daily Chronicle further says -
It is unreasonable to ask a price out of all proportion to the benefit received.
I find that the Manchester Guardian states that -
Australia gives away nothing. Of colonial sacrifice there is not the faintest trace in the offer.
Senator Playford - That is the honorable senator's text all along.
Senator DOBSON - And it is a very proper! text. The Minister seems to think that nations can be brought together in the way suggested without any sacrifices. We are in possession of Australia only as the result of sacrifices made by our forefathers in the mother country. We owe our freedom and our Constitution to the generous gift and sacrifice of the mother country. All the Minister can say in reply is that the Government think they are doing something under this proposal, and we see that they are not prepared to make any sacrifice whatever.
Senator Playford - Great Britain has never, proposed to make any sacrifice.
Senator DOBSON - How can the honorable senator say that when he knows that she opens her doors to all the commerce of the world.
Senator Playford - -That is no sacrifice in our favour.
Senator DOBSON - Mr. Chamberlain is prepared to give a real preference to our wine, corn, fruit, and butter, and is prepared even to ;put a small tax on the food supplies of the 40,000,000 of people of Great Britain in order to secure a measure of preferential trade.
Senator Playford - Great Britain is not prepared to do that.
Senator DOBSON - Mr. Chamberlain and those who think with him are prepared to do that.
Senator Playford - But apparently the country is not.
Senator DOBSON - I never heard of a more selfish, narrow-minded protectionist than Senator Playford. If this is the Government's idea of preference to Great Britain, then God help us ! How can we expect to make a reciprocal treatment on these lines. Ministers propose that we shall shake hands with New Zealand, and offer to make a reciprocal treaty, but they say at the same time, " You must understand beforehand that the preference is not to apply to a single thing that is produced by Australian manufacturers or farmers."
Senator Keating - The honorable and learned senator was worried over the Tasmanian farmers in connexion with the matter.
Senator DOBSON - We are not discussing my policy; if we were it would be something very different from this. We are now discussing the sham measure of the Government. The Manchester Guardian says -
Disappointment is expressed in "Canada to the Australian proposals, as they place the products of the Dominion on the same footing as those of America.
Senator Playford - The honorable and learned senator calls this a sham measure, but we know what sort of a sham he was when the Tariff was on. He was a freetrader on everything but potatoes and hops.
The PRESIDENT - I ask the Minister not to interrupt.
Senator DOBSON - The Minister is misrepresenting me in the endeavour to set aside the arguments I am using. In dealing with the Tariff, I adopted the policy of revenue without destruction. The whole question of preferential trade was discussed at the Imperial Conference in 1897, and if I recollect rightly the whole of the Premiers of the British Colonies attending that Conference expressed a belief in the policy. Some' have already passed Acts to give effect to it, and the Premiers of the Australian Colonies agreed on their return to nsk their Parliaments to adopt some scheme of preferential trade. It is eight or nine years since that Conference was held, and those promises were made, and it is therefore no wonder that Ministers should be anxious to carry some scheme. It is deplorable that after eight or nine years' consideration of the matter such a sham scheme of preference should be proposed. I trust that the Senate will never dream of passing the clause in this Bill requiring goods entitled to the preference to be carried by ships manned only by white sailors. There is a very wide difference between a "White Australia" and a "White Ocean." We have shown our belief in a " White Australia" by the legislation we have passed, but' it is merely madness to insist that we must also have ai " White Ocean," that the Iascar must go out of the stoke-holds of our mail-boats, and no coloured man must be employed on any ship bringing goods to Australia that are to receive the benefit of the small preference proposed in this Bill. The proposal is an insult to the Empire. There are 30,000 or 40,000 foreigners, and as many coloured men in the British mercantile marine. The reason for that is that Great Britain cannot supply a sufficient number of British sailors to carry on the commerce of the country. Why ? Because the shipping of Great Britain is 50 per cent, or 51 per cent, of the whole shipping of the world, and the requisite number of men who take to a seafaring life is not forthcoming. In the British mercantile marine there are 40,000 foreigners and coloured men. Many of the latter are citizens of the Empire; and yet British goods carried in a vessel on which there is employed a coloured cook will be denied the benefits of this miserable preference. We have heard something about the " stinking fish party," and of the complaints made at Home of the selfishness of Australians. I undertake to say that, if this Bill passes in its present form, we shall be criticised from one end of Great Britain to the other. We shall have what some honorable senators would describe as slanders, but which I should regard as true Statements; and the criticism hurled at us must, to some extent, prejudice our financial credit. In the face of legislation of this kind, how can we hope that the credit of the, Commonwealth will stand higher than that of the States ? Everything we do goes to the making of the character of the nation, just as in the case of the individual. The ideas and sentiments of a people are embodied in a statute-book, and if our laws are selfish, and ' ' Australia for the Australians " is written on every page - if there be found injustice and wrong-doing against our fellow-men, with no sign of true liberty - we shall inevitably excite hostile criticism. Can we expect that men will invest money in a country where there are laws of this description? When
I was interrupted by Senator Playford, I was about to deal with, the relations of Canada with the United States. If Canada and Great Britain had not been brought closer together by means of preferential trade, there would have been every possibility of a reciprocal treaty between the two trans-Atlantic countries. I do not see how it would have been possible to prevent Canada and the United States from entering into a fiscal arrangement, if Great Britain had continued to be absolutely free-trade and Canada absolutely prohibitive. ' As I understand history, I believe that, in almost every instance, fiscal relationship precedes political relationship. If we desire to draw the bonds of Empire closer - to have an Imperial Council, and a voice in the foreign policy, and even in the defence of the Empire - the true means is a fiscal scheme. I deeply regret if the intention is to push the Bill through, this session. Having waited from 1897 to 1906 without anything whatever being done, it would be much better for the Government to confer with the authorities in Great Britain before submitting a scheme to this Parliament. I agree with Senator Best that the Bill will show our friends at Home that we are willing to make a start, provided that start be reasonable and fair.
Senator Best - The Bill shows that we are ready to negotiate - that is all it means.
Senator DOBSON - We do not want to make such a beginning as will set the press and politicians of Great Britain against us. We do not desire to convey the impression that we are never prepared to make a sacrifice in order to bring about some substantial scheme of preferential trade. Therefore, it is a great pity that the Prime Minister, before introducing this Bill, did not wait until he had met the Premiers in Conference, in March or April next, when the whole matter could have been fully discussed. There could then have been presented to Great Britain a far more acceptable scheme than that now under consideration. I never could quite understand the enormous majority that the Liberal Party gained- in Great Britain at the last general election. I cannot realize that that victory was solely that of free-trade over Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, which amounted to a modicum of protection.
Senator Sir William Zeal - There was the Education Bill.
Senator DOBSON - There were many other important issues besides the fiscal question, and Mr. Chamberlain's scheme versus free-trade was never properly fought. I am fortified in that opinion by the action of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of Great Britain. Some months ago, by a majority of three to one, those delegates from the various Chambers of Commerce decided in favour of preferential trade. These are men, appointed to safeguard the commercial interests of the places in which they live, and who, having devoted their lives to trade and commerce, must, above all others, have thought out the various schemes for preferential trade. It appears to me that if England were polled to-morrow on this one issue, the result would be absolutely different from that when the Liberal Party and the Labour Party gave the Conservative and Unionist Parties such a beating. The world generally is trending in favour of reciprocal agreements, and the . British Empire is leaning towards, consolidation ; and these ends can be brought about by trade relationship better than in any other way. I absolutely differ from those who think that it is quite enough to have the Empire bound together in ties of sentiment. If you can add to ties of sentiment, community of commercial, industrial, and political interests, much more can be done towards consolidating the Empire. I am very sorry that, owing to over-work and want of time, I have not been able to show more fully and clearly what a miserable sham this Bill is. I hope, however, that the scheme will not be allowed to pass until it bears on its face some evidence of self-sacrifice on our part. I utterly repudiate the idea of the Minister, who seems to think that we can bind the Empire together without mutual sacrifice.
Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania) £12.55]. - I feel strongly that the reason urged for the introduction of this measure just now is fallacious. We are told that the Bill is to form a basis for negotiation, but how can we negotiate when we are prepared to give nothing? It appears to me that the prevailing idea seems to be to give nothing while trying to get something. It is a matter of history that Mr. Chamberlain asked the Commonwealth to allow British manufactures to enter this country under some scheme of preference; and the reply we give is this Bill. Briefly we say, " We will allow goods, which are not imported in great quantities, to come in at a preference of 10 per cent., but your steamers must not carry a single coloured person."
Senator Guthrie - Not only steamers, but other vessels are included.
