Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 4 June 1914

Senator READY (Tasmania) .- If there are two matters which are engaging the attention of the people of Australia more than anything else, those matters are the cost of living and industrial peace. If we consult the man in the street we shall find that Acts of Parliament, party government, the action of Federal and State Legislatures, have all been relegated to the background, and that these two questions overshadow everything else. My honorable friends opposite recognise that just as well as does the average elector. They recognised it at the last election when, seeing that the increased cost of living had spread to Australia, they issued that famous placard, which read, " Vote for the Liberal party and a reduction in the cost of living." That was the placard with which they attempted to tickle the ears of the electors, and in many instances it was used successfully to induce people to support them. They appealed to electors' pockets, and particularly the pockets of their supporters. We have not had even a shadow of an attempt on their part to face this vital and important problem. Although I do not profess to have the knowledge and experience of some of my honorable friends opposite, I have realized that in the Federal arena in the near future the problem of the cost of living must engage the attention of legislators. It is a problem which the average elector realises cannot be dealt with by one State, and, as Senator Pearce showed, there is a very great need for additional power to be given to this Parliament in order that the problem may be dealt with in the Federal arena, and not by means of varying and conflicting State legislation.

In studying the Federations of the world, I read the splendid work on Modern Constitutions, by Mr. W. F. Dodd, which contains a reprint of every Federal Constitution. In my endeavour to get what light I could from my stand-point as a student, I examined first the Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, and I found that, as regards the trade and commerce power, that Confederation has infinitely more power than this Parliament has. The Swiss legislators are net limited as we are. They have not had any experience, as far as I could gather from Dodd, of passing laws in excess of their power. They have not had the experience we had with the Trade Marks Act, which we clearly thought came within the purview of this Parliament as a subject of legislation. They have not had any experience of an Act like' the Seamen's Compensation Act, or any measure of that kind, which fell to the ground as far as it related to intra-State trade, because their Cantons correspond to a lesser degree with the States in our Federation.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - What powers has the Swiss Parliament itself ?

Senator READY - Article 64 of the Swiss Constitution reads -

The Confederation shall have power to make laws :

Upon civil capacity.

Upon legal questions relating to commerce and to transactions affecting personal property.

Upon copyright in literature and art.

Upon the protection of inventions applicable to industry, including designs and models.

Upon the collection of debts and bankruptcy.

Under that article, I take it, the Swiss legislators have almost complete power over trade and commerce. It is a remarkable thing that combines, as we understand them, are practically nonexistent in Switzerland. There are no complaints made by any writer whose work I have read of the Swiss Parliament being unable to deal with combines.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - Of what size is Switzerland ?

Senator READY - Its area is small, I admit.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - How many people are there ?

Senator READY - I admit that, in point of size and population, Switzerland can hardly be compared to Australia. But let us glance at the legislative powers of the Federal or Imperial Government of Germany. I find that the powers we ask for here as regards trade and commerce Germany has possessed for very many years, because article 4 of its Constitution reads -

The following matters shall be under the supervision of the Empire, and subject to Imperial legislation: -

1.   Regulations with respect to the freedom of migration; matters of domicile and settlement.: citizenship: passports; surveillance of foreigners; trade and industry, including insurance; so far as these matters are not already provided for by article 3 of this Constitution, in Bavaria, however, exclusive of matters relating to domicile and settlement; and likewise matters relating to colonization and emigration to foreign countries.

There it is clear that the central authority of Germany, which is one of the most important Federations in the world, and is not a Unification, has complete power over trade and industry - exactly what we are asking for by our proposal. I suppose that Senator Gould will not fall back on the statement that Germany is only a. very small nation.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - It is a great nation.

Senator READY - Years ago it was thought necessary to protect the people of Germany by giving the Federation complete power over trade and industry. South Africa I pass by, because it is a Unification, and I have no desire to compare a Federation with a Unification. Coming to the Constitution of Canada-

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - That is very like a Unification, too, because certain powers are given to the Provinces, and the rest remain with the Federation.

Senator READY - That is understood; but, except by party fanatics, who have been trying to deceive the electors, it has never been claimed seriously in any deliberative Assembly that Canada, is not a Federation.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - And the legislation of the Provinces is subject to the approval of the Executive Government of the Dominion.

Senator READY - That may be so., but Canada is clearly a Federation. Article 2 of the powers of its Parliament is brief and to the point -

Thu regulation of trade and commerce.

That is, complete power over trade and commerce inside that vast Dominion - not exclusive power, but concurrent power with the States. America and Australia are the only two Federations with a constitutional limitation over trade and commerce. The third clause of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States gives the trade and commerce power in these words -

The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

Practically the limited power that we have in our Constitution.

Senator McGregor - Except that we have left out the aborigines-.

Senator READY - The fact is clear that, in asking for these additional powers, we are not doing the strange and new thing which our honorable friends on the other side have alleged. At the first referendum they implied that we were asking for something which was unprecedented. They frightened the people with the Home Rule bogy. They told them all kinds of tales to scare them, but now the people are well educated. They have been awakened, and are taking an intelligent and concentrated interest in these matters, and, like Senator Rae, I have very little fear that at the next referendum the vote of last year will be turned from " No " into " Yes."

Let me revert to the question as to why we should have these additional powers. As regards the matter of the cost of living, I have noticed that honorable senators on the other side have climbed down from the platform they occupied at the referendum of two or three years -ago. At that time they said that there were no trusts and no combines. They alleged that the arguments we used in. reference to the prices of foodstuffs to corner all our staple commodities were exaggerations. They said that there was. no need (or the Federation, to have additionail power-. Already they have been, forced from that position to admit that some power over trusts is necessary, and we have foreshadowed in another place a Bill to deal with, trusts, showing that their opinion has had to be changed because the will of the people has made itself so manifest.

I am quite prepared to hear these statements of exaggeration when we deal with the profits made by monopolies, but we have been able by means of Royal Commissions and other methods of inquiry to obtain a good many particulars as to the huge profits during the last year or two. We have obtained particulars which cannot be refuted, and I propose- to quote some particulars that are revealed in a parliamentary document which I think it is in the interests of the people to know. We have heard that there are no big profits, that the Labour party are alarmists, that we exaggerate these things. I have not seen any quotations from this paper in Hansard.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - What paper is it?

Senator READY - It is a parliamentary paper for 1912, entitled " Secret remedies: what they cost and what they contain." I suppose that my honorable friend will not challenge the authenticity of this document, considering that it is a reprint of two publications issued by the British Medical Association.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - I have seen both number one and number two.

Senator READY - Even the- honorable senator, with his legal knowledge, cannot contradict or deny the statements contained in this paper.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - We always realized that the manufacture of patent medicines was a moneymaking game.

Senator READY - This is the new attitude. The old attitude was that the big profits were exaggerated. Let us look at the particulars of a few patent proprietary medicines, and in dealing with this matter let me say that I am a Protectionist. In my opinion our legitimate chemists, who have had to pass a rather stiff and necessary examination to become qualified, should be protected.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - They do very well out of patent medicines, too, remember.

Senator READY - They do not, and; that is the point. Both the patient and the chemist want to be protected. The profits on patent medicines to a chemist are not 10 per cent, as a rule, and not 5 per cent, in some cases. Take, for instance, Doan's Backache and Kidney Pills, which, it is claimed, will cure everything except corns. The wholesale price is 2/9 a box.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - Yes, but consider what you can import them for if you choose to box them here.

Senator READY - That is so, and I wish to show how these people are robbing the citizens of the Commonwealth. All that a chemist makes on a box of these pills is 3d. The rest goes to the patent medicine people, who have their head-quarters in the principal States.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - The newspapers get a fair cut in, too.

Senator READY - Certainly a large amount is spent in advertising, but the chemist is in the position of having to sell a widely-advertised drug because the public demand it. He gets nothing out of the sale beyond from 5 to 10 per cent., which is not fair to him, especially as he has to give credit sometimes. Let me supplement the argument of Senator Pearce, who stated that it was necessary, and showed that the Premiers thought it was necessary, to have a uniform Food and Drugs Act, by which all over the Commonwealth the conditions for the control of these medicines would be similar. I will take a dozen proprietary medicines to show the need for increased powers being given to this Parliament. Stearne's Headache Cure, which is very commonly used, is sold in the Commonwealth for1s. per box of twelve wafers. The drugs are very cheap, being acetanilide, caffeine, and sugar of milk, and the estimated cost of the drugs in a packet (118 grains) is a little under a halfpenny. That, I think, proves the contention often put forward by the Labour party that big profits are being made throughout the Commonwealth by these means, and that there is need to check them.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. What would the honorable senator do? Would he have Stearne's headache wafers made here, or have the price reduced, or what?

Senator READY - If we had the power to enforce a uniform Food and Drugs Act we could do as was done in Western Australia - compel the makers to put the formula on the bottle so that any man who was taking a patent medicine could go to a chemist and say, " What can you make me up that formula for?" He would know what he was getting, and if the chemist made up the formula for half the price both the chemist and the public would benefit. I find also the following information: -

Clarke's world-famed blood mixture, price, 2s.9d. a bottle, contains 81/4 fluid ounces, composed of four or live simple drugs: estimated cost of the ingredients, lid.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - Would the honorable senator limit a chemist's charges for making up a medical man's prescription?

Senator READY - I would if there was no competition and the chemists were exploiting the public; but I have yet to learn that there is no competition among them.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - The chemist makes a good profit.

Senator READY - The chemist is more entitled to get profits, being legally registered and having passed an examination, than are those people who are exploiting the public -

Doan's Backache KidneyPills, 2s.9d.a box, containing forty "kidney pills" and four dinner pills."' The following formula gives a similar pill: - Oil of juniper, 1 drop: hemlock pitch, 10 grains: potassium nitrate, 5 grains: powdered fenugreek. 17 grains; wheat Hour, 4 grains: maize" starch, 2 grains. The estimated, cost of the materials of the forty kidney pills and four dinner pills,1/2d.

It would take a lot of advertising to bring that cost up to 2s. 9d. -

Warner's"Safe" Cure, sold at 2s.9d. a bottle, made of simple drugs: estimated cost, 51/4d.

Allan's Anti-fat, 61/2 fluid ounces, price, 6s. 6d.; estimated cost of the four simple drugs, 3d.-'

Zambiik. price1s. l1/2d. per box, containing 3-5ths ounce; ingredients, oil of eucalyptus, vaseline, and resin; estimated cost,1/4d.

Here, again, we see the need for Commonwealth intervention -

Stedman's Teething Powders,4s.6d. per box of sixty, powders, composed of calomel and sugar of milk: estimated cost,1/4d.

Steedman's Soothing Powders, 2s.9d. per packet of twenty-four powders, composed of calomel, sugar of milk, maize starch, and ash; estimated cost, id.

The formula for Beecham's Pills is given as consisting of aloes, powdered ginger, and soap, but the cost is not given. In the case of Pink Pills for Pale People, which are sold at 2s. 9d. a box, the estimated cost of the ingredients of thirty pills is one-tenth of a penny. Mother Seigel's Syrup, sold at 3s. 6d. a bottle, is made up from another simple formula, the estimated cost of the ingredients for three fluid ounces being one-third of a penny. Phosferine, another largely-advertised quack remedy, consists principally of quinine and phosphoric acid, with a little sulphuric acid, and the estimated cost of the ingredients of a 2s. 9d. bottle is id. Mexican Hair Restorer is sold at 3s. 6d. a bottle, the estimated cost of the ingredients being 2d. I have quoted sufficient to show that reform along these lines is very necessary. Western Australia is the only State that has attempted to approach the matter, and I understand that even she has had very serious trouble with the proprietors of quack medicines, because, being very wealthy, they try by every means in their power to defy the Government and prevent them putting into force the Act which directs that the formula shall be printed on the bottle.

Senator Blakey - A so-called cancer cure was recently prohibited from being imported into Australia, and yet works have been established in the direction of South Melbourne to manufacture it.

Senator READY - That will, I suppose, be another cure of the same kidney ; another quack medicine to exploit the public.

I wish now to deal with the important decision given by the Privy Council in the Colonial Sugar Refining Company's case so far as it affects our constitutional position. Mr. Knox, of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, refused to answer certain questions put to him by the Sugar Commission. The Commonwealth instituted a prosecution, and secured a fine; but the company appealed to the Privy Council, who, in their judgment, used the following words -

Until the Commonwealth Parliamenthas intrusted aRoyal Commission with statutory duty to inquire into a specific subject, legislation regarding which has been assigned to the Parliament by the Federal Constitution, that Parliament cannot confer such powers as the Acts contain on the footing that they are incidental to inquiries which it may some day direct.

The Attorney-General, when the decision was cabled out, said it was impossible to exaggerate its importance. It means that we have not only no power to legislate, but are limited to such an extent that we have no power even to inquire.

Senator O'LOGHLIN (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) -Colonel Sir AlbertGould. - Except into matters within the Constitution.

Senator READY - But, as most of the matters into which we wish to inquire are intra-State, particularly those concerning trade and commerce, we are absolutely blocked from asking questions concerning them. When the Fruit Commission were in Tasmania, we had another instance of this. Mr. W. D. Peacock, of Peacock and Company - which is part of another combine operating very successfully from their own point of view, but in many cases detrimentally to the fruitgrowers - was asked certain questions connected with his interests in the parent or investment company controlling the subsidiary companies, and also his shares in the subsidiary companies. He refused to answer the questions, and the Commission was powerless to elicit the facts that it wanted. He took his cue from Mr. Knox.

The present Government, frightened by public clamour, have promised to institute an inquiry into the Beef Trust; but what will happen if those gentlemen take the same stand as Mr. Knox and Mr. Peacock, as they certainly will ? What will the Government do ? What will be the use of the Commonwealth spending its money, or what will be the use of deluding the public into the belief that Mr. Justice Street will make an effective inquiry into the operations of the Beef Trust, if certain persons will not answer questions? The whole thing is farcical, and until we have complete power over trade and commerce it will be of no use for us to move in the direction of an inquiry into any industry.

The question of industrial unrest and industrial peace is of the greatest importance to the Commonwealth. We have in Tasmania a system of Wages Boards. Our smaller, or State Right, politicians have always declaimed, and always will, against Arbitration Courts. A little while ago- and this will show why Wages Boards were introduced into Tasmania. - at the annual meeting and conference of the Tasmanian Rural Producers Association, in Launceston, the dreaded bogy of the rural workers' log came up for consideration, and the Hon. John Hope, M.L.C., a very old and prominent representative of the Liberal party, made a most interesting statement. His position gives his words a good deal of weight when we are considering the right of the Arbitration

Court to interfere in the rural workers' dispute. As reported in the Examiner of 9th October, 1913, he said that " the Wages Board was brought into the Tas- manian Parliament for the purpose of blocking the Federal Court from imposing any of its fads on Tasmania." That is a very candid statement, meaning that the Wages Boards were granted, not to help the worker to secure better conditions for himself, but in order that the Federal Arbitration Court should be prevented from interfering in Tasmanian disputes. I do not think that can be denied by any Government supporter, hence their advocacy of Wages Boards-. We have heard it said more than once that a Wages Board is a better method of settling disputes than an Arbitration Court, and yet, in the debate in this Chamber on this very Bill two years ago, it was said by more than one honorable senator that the delay and waste of time and cost in connexion with Wages Boards had been considerably greater than in connexion with Arbitration Courts. Until there -is one central authority competent to deal with industrial disputes, the Wages Board system must inevitably break down. We are accused, in voicing that opinion, of promulgating merely the opinion of our own particular party, but that that is not so is shown by an extract from a report issued by Mr. A. B. Piddington, now Chairman of the Inter-State Commission, on " Industrial Methods in New South Wales." Mr. Piddington is admitted to be an unbiased gentleman, and should be competent, knowing the various ramifications of the Wages Boards and arbitration systems, to determine which is the better for the settlement of such disputes. After dealing with the matter fairly exhaustively, Mr. A. B. Piddington declared unhesitatingly in favour of arbitration. I propose to quote from the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 10th November, 1913, the views he expressed on the subject of arbitration and Wages Boards.

The machinery suffers from very serious deficiency. .lt is a prime requisite of all justice .that decisions be arrived at speedily and certainly, and it is difficult to believe that industrial peace can be secured by any form of industrial justice which involves intricate litigation, long delay, tedious investigation, and, in many cases, hope so long deferred that suitors grow sick of waiting, and break through the artificial fetters which, in the interests of industrial peace, the law has placed upon their freedom of action.

After lengthy reference to the intermittency of the sitting of the Boards, delays in the making of awards, the multiplicity of Boards, and the consequent inevitable friction, the Commission declares that all parties are agreed that it is now essential that those who preside over arbitration tribunals shall be permanent salaried officers of the State.

That is what we have been maintaining for many years past.

One award alone in the railway group had added charges to the Service of no less a sum than £00.000 per annum. Sums of this magnitude were very rarely at stake in eases before the Supreme Court. It seemed, therefore, imperative that, for the decision of such questions and of others, sometimes of the highest general importance to employers and employes, the State should employ men of very high judicial qualities. Such a tribunal should be the Court of first instance, and, except in a very restricted class of cases, the final Court. The Industrial Registrar, Mr. .T. B. Holme, on a careful computation, found that twu additional Judges, constituting or presid ing over tribunals of first instance, would be able to cope with all the business likely to be brought forward.

Senator Needham - Was the £60,000 the cost of the arbitration proceedings?

Senator READY - No; the increased expense following upon the award. Mr. Piddington argued that a matter involving so much expense should not be decided by representatives of the employers and employes, with a lay chairman. He said that such a matter should be dealt with by a highly qualified Judge. In condemning Wages Boards generally, he made the following statement in reference to strikes and lock-outs: -

Mr.Piddington does not think any good object would bc served by attempting to put compulsion on a union by. taking a ballot of its members before striking.

He controverts the attitude adopted by the Liberals in this regard -

As to preference to unionists, he suggests that power should be given to Boards to declare in their awards what duties shall be undertaken by employers, in order to provide unions with reasonable opportunities for securing the operation in their favour of the .normal preference clause.

Senator NEWLANDS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) - Then he favours preference '.to unionists.

Senator READY - He 'does, and considers that Wages 'Boards should be abolished, and that in their place there should be a highly qualified Judge. That is the contention we have raised in favor of Federal control of arbitration. I-n these matters we are often accused of supporting arbitration, because it favours our own particular party. Honorable senators are aware that in this connexion Mr. Justice Higgins has been made the target of all the press of Australia because of his awards. In his award in the case of the Rural Workers Union at Mildura, he made a statement which supports the views to which we have given utterance, in favor of arbitration as against the strike. There are politicians on the other side like Mr. Conroy, who would go back to the barbarous method of the strike. We have to fight these gentlemen as well as the red rag Socialists in the unions, who also prefer the adoption of that method for the settlement of industrial disputes. Were it not for the efforts of such men as Mr. Hughes, Mr. Laird Smith, Senator de Largie, Senator Guthrie, and other gentlemen prominent in the industrial world on this side, there would have been many more industrial upheavals in the Commonwealth than we have had. We have only to remember what took place in connexion with the recent difficulty with the Waterside Workers Union to know that these gentlemen actually prevented one of the most disastrous maritime strikes that have ever occurred in Australia from .being brought about. The members of the Labour party have always been on the side of industrial peace, whilst honorable senators opposite have always tended to foment industrial disturbances until they become so serious that they break out. To show that we are in favor of industrial peace, and are sincere in advocating arbitration, I quote this short statement from Mr. Justice Higgins' award in the case to which I have referred -

Hero I may say incidentally that in every case in my experience, except in the case of the United Labourers Union, the leaders of the labour organizations arc always found to exert their influence in favour of peace; and, as one of their chief arguments, they hold out the prospect of relief from this Court or some Wages Board. This statement, based on actual and careful investigation made by an impartial tribunal, is contrary to the statements so often made by d priori theorists, who fancy that they know without inquiry that all labour troubles are due to " agitators," misleading unfortunate workers for their own ends. T. do not hope to convince these theorists; but I think it well to let the public know what I find on close scrutiny of actual facts.

The members of the Labour party in these proposals for the amendment of the Constitution suggest measures which would do more for the stability of trade and commerce, and to promote the progress of Australia, than anything else that could be done in connexion with industrial matters. Leaving industrial matters for the moment, and coming to trusts and combines, we have often heard it said from the other side that it is impossible to fix the prices of commodities by an Act of Parliament. A good deal of criticism has been directed against socialistic undertakings and State enterprises having for their object the checking of the depredations of trusts. Our friends particularly refer in this connexion to the report of the Sugar Commission, and their refusal to recommend the nationalization of the sugar monopoly. Throughout Tasmania during the last referenda campaign our opponents confidently quoted from the Sugar Commission's report to meet the views expressed by members of the Labour party, but they quoted only a portion of the report. I propose to read a short extract from the report of the Commission to show that they advocated something which we should require increased Federal powers to accomplish. While they did not go to the length of recommending the nationalization of the sugar industry, they proposed that the Commonwealth Parliament should fix the price of sugar to the public of Australia. They deal with the financial position of the company, and show that its capital is approximately £6,000,000, and then they go on to say -

This means that £2.375.000 has yielded investors generous dividends distributed halfyearly, and reserves (inner and distributed) of £3,025.000. We think it fair to conclude from these figures, supplied by a company whose expansions of business have been built on a basis of milling and refining profits, that the milling and refining industries in Australia are conducted, as a matter of fact, under conditions which admit of high profits.

19.   Unfortunately, when we come to the growers, we find a very different story. While "the millers and refiners make handsome profits, the profits of the growers, as a class, are quite inadequate.

Then I come to their recommendation, which is where they advocate the fixation of prices, and is as follows: -

4.   The price of raw sugar could not be fixed by any one State, since the refineries are established in several States. The absurdity of invoking legislation and accessory machinery in four States when the same object can be achieved by Commonwealth action must be apparent.

5.   Assuming, and we see no other con clusion possible, that Commonwealth authority should control the price of raw sugar, it follows by inevitable sequence that the same authority should control the price of sugar-cane. We do not wish to call in question for a moment the claims of the States to selfgovernment in matters of purely local concern, but we are quite unable to resist the conclusions that what is imperatively needed in the case of the sugar industry is a single controlling ultimate authority, and that such authority must, in the very nature of things, derive from the Commonwealth. If sugar-cane " were produced only in Queensland, the conclusions just suggested would follow with less force than they do. But sugar-cane is already produced in New South Wales on the northern rivers; and, in time to come, it may be produced in the Northern Territory.

36.   We are aware that an amendment of the Constitution may be necessary. But we believe that the passing of such an amendment should not be difficult, in view of the national importance of the sugar industry, the burden imposed upon the Australian consumers by the continuance of the sugar policy, and the various reasons which we have urged for securing by Commonwealth authority a just distribution of the profits which accrue in the sugar industry as a result of the protective policy.

That" is a part of the report of the Sugar Commission, which members of the Liberal party were careful not to refer to in the addresses they delivered on the subject. The Commission recommended, in fact, that the Commonwealth should take over and control that huge industry for the benefit of the whole people. Yet because they did not definitely recommend the nationalization of the industry, our friends on the other side were careful on their platform throughout the Commonwealth to refer only to a portion of the Commission's report.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould - The honorable senator should know that the price of sugar in the Common-' wealth is regulated by the price outside of Australia.

Senator READY - It is regulated by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and if we had the power which Senator Gould persists in refusing to this Parliament, we should be able to do what was done in New Zealand. I have here a copy of the judgment in the case against the Colonial Sugar Refining Company in that Dominion. The company was convicted in New Zealand of an offence under sub-section 3, sub-section d of the AntiTrust Act, and fined for that offence £250. It was convicted under another section, and fined another £250. Certain members of the Merchants Association Levin and Company, Ballantyne and Company, and Nathan and Company, were each convicted under section 9 of the Act of aiding and abetting the sugar company in connexion with the offences for which the company was fined, and they were each fined £500.

Senator Guthrie - Are these all criminals ?

Senator READY - They are a class of people holding the opinions which are held by honorable senators on the other side. They appealed against these convictions, and I propose to quote a short extract from a judgment of the Court to show how the Judges of the New Zealand Court viewed the operations in New Zealand of the great trusts which our friends opposite defend -

In the present case the sugar company have clearly a monopoly in the manufacture of refined sugar in New Zealand, and practically a complete monopoly in the sale of it, as the amount of imported refined sugar, so far as regards competition, was negligible. The company wished to preserve that monopoly, and to exclude foreign competition. It also wished to secure the co-operation of the merchants as a distributing agency. The object of the merchants was to secure the exclusive control of the sugar trade, keep the distribution of sugar in their own hands, and to prevent competition. The company and the merchants combined to carry out their objects, and, in order to carry them out, committed the offences which we have already dealt with. So far as can be judged from the evidence, to carry out these objects necessarily involved the commission of these offences. If the monopoly or control sought to be obtained can only be obtained by breaches of the law, it is, in our opinion, of such a nature as to be contrary to the public interest, although if it could have been obtained without breaches of the law, it might not have been contrary to the public interest. Apart, however, from the above consideration, it appears to us that the monopoly or control sought to be established was of such a nature as to be contrary to the public interest. It is not necessary, as in the Coal Vend case, to prove an intent to control the supply or price to the detriment of the public, or to show that any detriment has happened to the public. All that the Court has to consider is the nature of the monopoly or control, and whether such nature is contrary to the public interest. The effect of the monopoly and control sought to be obtained by the merchants was to keep up the price of sugar to sub-purchasers, which, had it not been for the monopoly, would be reduced, and to make it impossible for the public to get the benefit of such reduction. Prima facie, such a monopoly would, in our opinion, be of a nature contrary to the public interest. There may, however, be other considerations which negative this conclusion. Thus, if the monopoly is reasonably necessary in order to prevent the destruction or crippling of an important local industry, or if it is reasonably necessary in order to secure the efficient and economical distribution of the product of that industry the monopoly might not be contrary to the public interest, although it tended to keep up prices. In the present case, however, it appears to us that there is no justification for the contention that a monopoly of distribution by the merchants is necessary to protect the sugar company from foreign competition. Nor is there any reason to believe that the monopoly is necessary in order to secure efficient and economical distribution of the manufactured article. Mr. Fairbairn's evidence shows that, so far as sugar is concerned - and that is the only article we have to consider - the distribution can be satisfactorily carried out without the necessity of levying so heavy a toll upon it as the merchants combined to levy. No evidence was called by any of the defendants to contradict Mr. Fairbairn. A considerable number of purchasers of sugar were content to work under the second scale. The effect of the third scale, coupled with the condition that they should not give away the discount, was to give these persons an additional profit which they had not asked for, and which they had done nothing to earn. We think, therefore, that the conviction under this charge must be affirmed.

There is the position which obtains in New Zealand, where they were tried and convicted by the highest Court in the land, and where, upon appeal, their conviction was upheld. Yet honorable senators opposite defend them, and go round the country declaring that there is no monopoly. When we advocate the control of these monopolies, either by the fixation of prices or by nationalization, we are met not merely with the argument that prices cannot be fixed, but with the statement that the Government cannot make a success of anything.In reply to the argument that prices cannot be fixed,I have here a little evidence, taken by the Fruit Commission, at Mildura, where a little Dried Fruit Trust exists - a Trust which has been instituted in the interests of the growers themselves. Mr. de Garis, secretary of the Trust, was asked by me the following question: -

You have not found it difficult for your association to fix the prices for the last few years?

His reply was -


Previously he had advocated that an Act of Parliament should be passed for the purpose of fixing the retail prices. I therefore asked him -

When you mentioned an Act of Parliament to fix the retail prices, you evidently have faith that an Act of Parliament could fix the retail prices. What provision would be in the Act so far as the retailer is concerned? - That the fruit should be Australian fruit; that the price at which the buyer should buyshould be the price at which he could buy imported fruit from the distributor. These would be the two main conditions.

Then you suggest that an Act of Parliament should be passed to prohibit the retailer selling Australian fruit under a certain price? - Above a certain price.

In other words, you want to limit his price? - Exactly; in his own interest, as he would see later on, when he sold more fruit.

They not only succeeded in fixing the prices of that dried fruit throughout the Commonwealth, but went to the length of suggesting that the consumer should not be called upon to pay more than a certain price for his raisins, his sultanas, his currants, &c.

I come now to the assertion that the Government cannot successfully run any enterprise. Considering that the Government are successfully conducting many Socialistic institutions to-day, I am indeed surprised that such a statement should be trotted out. The Vice-President of the Executive Council was very jubilant when he told the Senate that the shipping venture of the Western Australian Government had proved a failure. He said that it had resulted in a loss of so many thousands of pounds. Of course, be misquoted the amount; but as he is so often guilty of misquoting I did not attach any particular significance to that. Further, he overstated the loss, as I shall prove from an official document in a moment. But his great argument was that because there had been a loss, ergo,thisGovernment enterprise had proved a failure. I wonder if he would apply that argument to the Postal Service. In the Postal Department there will, I understand, be a loss for the current year of, approximately, £500,000. Will Senator McColl say that because there has been that loss the Post Office has been a failure?

Senator O'Keefe - T - That loss means a benefit to the people.

Senator READY - Of course, it does. It means a saving to the people. Yet

Senator McCollsays that because a loss has been incurred by the Western Australian Government in instituting a line of steamers which ply along its coast the undertaking cannot be any good. May I point out to him that many of our railways when first built, especially agricultural railways, are run at a loss, and are expected to be run at a loss? But let me deal with the line of steamers established by the Western Australian Government, the working of which Senator McColl said has resulted in a loss of £30,000 or £40,000 annually. In the first place, his figures are not correct; and, in the second, his statement is not one of fact. Taking as I do a deep interest in this matter, I adopted the precaution of keeping in touch with the Hon. Thomas Bath, Minister of Lands in Western Australia, who promised to keep me informed of the work of these vessels. Quite recently he sent me along the following document in connexion with them : -

Four vessels are owned by the Government - the Kwinana, the Western Australia, the Eucla, and the Una.

The Kwinana and the Western Australia were purchased with a twofold object, (1) to assist the producers in the north-west of Western Australia, and (2) to reduce the price of moat to the consumers in the metropolitan area. Both objects have been attained.

Before the State steamers entered into competition, the small cattle-owners in the Kimberley district were at the mercy of the Shipping Combine and Meat Ring.' The latter chartered steamers from the former - cornered the space, as it were - and then bought cattle from the small owners at their own price. The Government themselves felt the effects of this combination. We had cattle to sell off the Government station established in the interests of the aborigines, and because we would not sell to the charterers of the ship for 5s. a head less than was offered by another purchaser, they refused to bring down the stock from Wyndham for less than £4 a head, although £3 had been the charge previously. It is not unfair, therefore, to fix the freight as being £4, when our ships came along.

When we bought the steamers, we brought down the freight to £2 10s. a head. The steamers provided facilities for all the small owners to send their stock to market, and, in consequence, the price of cattle at Wyndham went up 10s. a head. It brought down the freight £l 10s. a head from the figure it had reached immediately before we had entered into competition.

Thus, with 30s. saving in freight and 10s. better price, the producer benefited to the extent of £1,200 on each shipment of 600 head of cattle. As the steamers have carried about 15,000 head to date, the gain to the producer represents something like £30,000.

That Senator McColl left entirely out of his calculation. The letter proceeds -

One certain effect must be the advancement of the pastoral industry and the utilization in the near future of vast areas of grazing land not now taken up.

The consumer has also benefited materially. The Government opened cash meat stalls in Perth, Fremantle, and Subiaco, reducing the price of meat on an average by 3d. a pound. These stalls have been extensively patronized, and have shown a fair profit. They have had a wonderful effect in steadying and regulating the price of meat. More than this it is not the desire of the Government to do.

The Eucla was purchased to provide the south coast with shipping facilities. Owing to an enormously increased amount being demanded by the Adelaide Steam-ship Company for the conveyance of the mails after the termination of their last contract, the Federal Government contemplated putting on a motor car for the performance of the service; but the State Government agreed to do the work with the Eucla for the sum previously paid the Adelaide Steam-ship Company. There is a small loss on the Eucla, taking interest and sinking fund into account; but the service is needed in the interests of the development of that part of the State.

The steamers were run at a loss of £19,354 7s. lid. for the first year. This includes interest, depreciation, and displacement. The loss on each ship is as follows: -


The Una, which is a very small boat, and used principally for short trips, showed a profit.

It was not expected that the vessels would pay in the first year. The cattle shipping season lasts during only six months (the coot portion) of the year. This season was half over when the Kwinana was purchased, and had concluded when the Western Australia commenced operations. We were then faced with the " off " season, with little time to fix up freights on a satisfactory basis. All the difficulties incidental to the establishment of the service had also to be overcome, with the powerful competition of the shipping companies and their sympathizers against us.

These obstacles have now been successfully surmounted, and the acting shipping manager is confident that the Kwinana will show a substantial profit to the end of next September.

The Eucla is not expected to show a profit until the copper mines at Ravensthorpe are developed. These, with the encouragement of the Government, will soon be in full operation.

With regard to the Western Australia, she has proved to be not the class of ship suitable for the north-west coast. She is one of the best sea-going boats in Australia. She is also one of the fastest, and has excellent accommodation for passengers; in fact, she was built more for passengers than for freight, and, consequently, is not the kind of ship likely to prove remunerative to the State. The

Government, however, wish to dispose of her, if a satisfactory price is forthcoming, and acquire a vessel of the Kwinana type.

With another vessel like the Kwinana, our manager is confident that there would be an annual profit of something like £30,000.

We are in no way daunted by the result of our enterprise, and when we are able to accomplish what we have in mind, we shall see bright prospects ahead. We feci that the State steamers have come to stay, no matter what Government may be in power. The northwest and southern parts of the State would bo in revolt if they were taken off.

That is an effective reply to the statement made by Senator McColl. When Mr. Troy, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia, was here the other day he told me that when Mr. J. J. Holmes, Liberal candidate for the Legislative Council, who had condemned the Administration and asked for a commission 'of inquiry into this enterprise, visited the north-western province of the State, he made the chief plank in his platform the continuance of this line of steamers.

Senator Pearce - Every Liberal did the same thing.

Senator READY - Mr. Troy told me that in opening up that great State a loss of over £60,000 annually was incurred on agricultural railways.

Senator Blakey - Quite recently I received a letter from a big station owner near Hall's Creek in Western Australia, iri which he stated that the best thing that the Labour Government of that State had done was to establish this line of steamers, and that it meant a substantial profit to him.

Senator READY - Nobody in Western Australia would advocate the discontinuance of this line of steamers. The position reminds me very much of the attitude taken up by honorable senators opposite towards the Maternity Allowance Act and the Land Tax Act. When they were in opposition, these measures were anathema to them. But now that they are on the Treasury bench they do not attempt to repeal them.

I had a chat, too, with Mr. Troy regarding another venture on the part of the Western Australian Government, and that gentleman was also good enough to give me a fine booklet on the State agricultural implement factory which has been established there. Evidence has been given before a Royal Commission that the stripper harvester has been selling for £81 in Adelaide, £80 in Brisbane, £74 in Sydney, and £81 in Tasmania, with from 15£ to 27 ner cent, for interest added on time payment terms, and that the cost of production in the case of the McKay harvester is £45, and in that of the imported harvester only £35. The Western Australian Government have taken some action in this regard.

Senator Pearce - These harvesters have been sold for £105 in Western Australia.

Senator READY - That is so. I received the figures from Mr. Troy. Perhaps Senator McColl, who poses as a friend of the farming industry, will complain because the Government have taken a hand in reducing the exorbitant profits revealed to the Commission and helping the farmer. Mr. Troy is a farmer, and, therefore, is qualified to speak.

Senator de Largie - So is Senator McColl.

Senator READY - That is so - a dry farmer. Mr. Troy told me that a plough which was sold by private enterprise for £40, with 8 per cent, interest if terms were wanted, is being sold by the State implement works for £25, with three years to pay for the article, at 5 per cent, interest.

Senator de Largie - I do not know that it is fair to let the farmers of the eastern States learn these things, because they will become very dissatisfied.

Senator READY - The publication of this information will make the farmers of the eastern States realize their mistake in voting " no " at the previous referenda, and convert some of them into voting "yes " on the next occasion. Mr. Troy also informed me that, whereas £105 was the price charged for a harvester by private enterprise in Western Australia, the State works are now turning out a harvester for £65 - that is, for £40 less. This will horrify my honorable friends opposite, who, of course, have nothing to say on the matter.

Senator Pearce - And the State works are paying very much higher wages - 25 per cent, more than McKay is paying.

Senator READY - I am reminded by the honorable senator that the wages paid are higher, but that is not everything. Those who have had any connexion with the sale of agricultural machinery know that the biggest profits are derived from the sale of duplicate parts. When a man. buys a plough or an agricultural implement, and a part breaks, the manufacturer charges about five or six times the cost price for a duplicate part, and in that way fleeces the farmer. In Western Australia, however, duplicate parts of State agricultural machinery are sold at 50 per cent, less than the prices charged by private enterprise, so that the farmer not only obtains his machines at a cheaper price, and receives better treatment, but gets any duplicate part for 50 per cent, less than he formerly did from private enterprise. This is practical Socialism, and it is helping the farmer.

Senator PEARCE - The Liberals who represent farming constituencies have nothing to say against the State works. It is only the town Liberals who oppose the works.

Senator READY - That is precisely the same stand as our honorable friends opposite take in regard to legislation introduced by the Labour party which they formerly opposed. They now tacitly support the legislation, and have to admit that they do. These facts go to show that if we had sufficient power, and Senator Rae put the case very clearly. It might not be incumbent on us to use the power in all cases; but if we felt called upon to use it in regard to the necessaries of life and commodities generally, we could nationalize and run the industries. There is a number of industries to which we would do well to turn our attention, and which materially affects the cost of living. I refer, not only to sugar and coal, but also to tobacco. Many other nations have set us. an example in regard to the tobacco business. For over a quarter of a century the manufacture of tobacco in France has been under governmental control. So it is, too, in Austria and Italy. During the last decade Japan took over the manufacture of tobacco as a Government monopoly. What has been the result there? According to the latest figures obtainable, Japan is not making the big profit which contimental countries make. France is making as high a profit as £16,000,000 a year, but Japan is making a profit of £2,000,000, and the monopoly has not been established more than ten years. During the big war with Russia the tobacco monopoly was regarded by the financiers as such a profitable industry that Japan floated a war loan of £60,000,000 on the security of the national tobacco works.

Senator Pearce - And the Japanese are almost a non-smoking race.

Senator READY - That is so. Statistics show that the Japanese use less tobacco per head than do the people of any other nation. There is ample opportunity for Australia to move in this direction. If the people pass the referendum proposals on the next occasion, as I believe they will do, we can help to build up here a nation of people who will control the conditions under which they live through Governmental agencies, who will have a say in the fixation of prices, and who through national undertakings will be able to show to the world that Australia is able to provide by the people, and for the people, a sufficient supply to meet the demand. I think it is about time that I quoted a statement which was made by a gentleman who is associated with the party on the other side. I know that it will be welcomed. We find that our honorable friends opposite, when it suits them, can be just as loud in the denunciation of trusts as we are.

Senator Oakes - Hear, hear. That is right !

Senator READY - I am glad that Senator Oakes says, " Hear, hear," because in' Hansard of the 3rd December, 1912, I find a record of a statement made by a prominent Liberal, which deals with a very big combine and trust in Australia. He is rather a distinguished representative of Tasmania, and I am sure that my honorable friends on the other side will agree with what he said- about the Shipping Combine.

Senator Oakes - Give us his name.

Senator READY - Mr. W.J. Mcwilliams, M.H.R.

Senator McColl - A good man.

Senator READY - That is so, and I hope that the Minister will agree with the following statement of Mr. Mcwilliams in the other House -

I have only to say that, although all the representatives of Tasmania, including members of the Labour and of the Liberal parties, urged the Postmaster-General not to give a joint mail contract to the two shipping companies trading there, since by doing so he would only bc assisting in building up a combine^ -

He objected because the Labour Government gave a contract to the shipping firms for two years only, with the idea of es- tablishing a Commonwealth-owned service after that time, and this was his protest. Dealing with the PostmasterGeneral, he said -

He accepted a joint tender from the two companies, so that there is no chance of any competition in the shipping trade between here and Tasmania. If any action taken by the Government since the original contract was signed - a contract which I opposed - has tended more than any other to strengthen a combine, it is that of the Minister in giving the mail contract to joint tenderers for a further period of two years.

He must be very pleased, indeed, to know that the Liberal Government not only did what the Labour Government did, because it was only a local arrangement that the Labour Government made, and for two years only, but gave the Shipping Combine a contract for seven years - that is, until 1920.

Senator McColl - A splendid arrangement, too.

Senator READY - A splendid arrangement, too ! But listen to Mr. McWilliams on it -

He has thus bolstered up and buttressed the combine, and destroyed all possibility of competition. There are two shipping companies trading between Australia and Tasmania, and I do not hesitate to say that there is a combination between them. I do not state that there is a written agreement, but I do say very distinctly that there is what is called an understanding between the two companies, and that there is practically no competition between them.

Senator McCollwants proof that there is a combine.

Senator Oakes - Senator Guthrie has admitted it.

Senator READY - I asked a question on the subject of steamer freights, and Senator McColl said, in reply, " If the honorable gentleman will give me proof of a combine we may take action." I am now giving the proof. Continuing, said Mr. McWilliams -

Mr.Laird Smith. - How could we prove the existence of a combine to the satisfaction of the Court where there was no written agreement?

Mr. McWILLIAMS.Hosts of witnesses could be called to prove that there is such a similarity in the rates and conditions observed by the two companies as to suggest the existence of a combine. Evidence could be given as to the similarity of conditions that would be the strongest possible proof of the existence of a combine.

Senator Oakes - Do you think that competition should exist between the shipping companies ?

Senator READY - It would be much healthier for Australia if it did. Mr. McWilliams further said -

I believe that there is no case in regard to which the Government could prove the existence of a combination so clearly as they could in connexion with the Shipping Combine, if they would institute a general prosecution instead of confining their attention to the combination in shipping in relation only to the Coal Vend. The action of the Government in extending the joint contract, to which I have referred, for two years has made it utterly impossible for the people of Tasmania to bring competition into the field. Yet honorable members opposite talk about their desire to fight these combinations. I ask - and it is a question which will be asked from every platform in Australia during the next six months - What have the Government done to fight these combinations and trusts, which they say, and which I say, are injurious to the people of Australia? Honorable members in this House, and most of those who know me outside, are aware how strongly I am opposed to the Shipping Combine.

This gentleman, who held the balance of power, was in a position to hold up his little finger and force the Government to take action against the Shipping Combine. But what did he do ? He sat quietly by - my honorable friends opposite are silent now - while the Government gave a contract, and thus bolsters and buttresses the combine, to use his own words, until 1920 in secure and solid possession of the trade of Tasmania, and with power to exploit the people for the next seven years. That is what has been done.

There is another subject with which I should like to deal, and that is the failure of the Government to attempt any kind of prosecution as recommended by Mr. McWilliams against this trust. When it suits them, as I said before, we find honorable senators on the other side quite ready to oppose and denounce combinations, but they are not in that mood now, nor do they bring forward any practical proposal to deal with these combinations. It is very patent to the people that combines may go on just as long as they like, committing what depredations they like on the pockets of the citizens, and force up the cost of living to any extent before the present Government will take action. That is very evident indeed, and, consequently, the people are now turning their attention to a party who will honestly attempt to do something. Until we get additional powers for this Parliament, however, we cannot attempt, even in the slightest degree, to control a trust. My honorable friends on the other side are bringing forward an AntiTrust Bill, which I suppose they will claim they can do under the Constitution. I feel sure that there will be no disposition shown on this side to oppose it, although we are of opinion that it will be useless under our present constitutional powers.

Sitting suspended from G.SO to 8 p.m.

Senator READY - If the Labour party had sought merely their own party advantage thesereferenda Bills would not be before the Senate to-night. It would be easier for us to win at the coming appeal to the people untrammelled by any constitutional alteration proposals. We should have a clearer-cut issue, and no constitutional questions to explain on the platform, and we could make the fight more of a personal one. We might easily have secured a tactical advantage by not bringing the Bills forward at this juncture; but I am proud to say that the party unanimously decided that, if possible, when the next appeal to the people came, they should be asked, not only to return the Labour party to power, but to consider the greater, wider, and grander question of giving this Parliament power to check the depredations of a small minority who are in a position to extort from the public a greater share of the wealth of the country than they are entitled to. The people will therefore realize that we have been entirely unselfish in the matter. We have placed principles before party, and have honestly tried to put in the hands of the people themselves the opportunity to work out their own economic emancipation. Today's Argus publishes an interesting interview on the subject of trusts with Mr. Elwood Mead, the eminent irrigation expert who recently returned from America. Among other things, he says -

That the disclosures of the Muckrakers, as the group of investigators are called, is shaping public opinion is shown by the recent legislation for the control of trust and transportation. The doctrine that the Government should do nothing which the individual would undertake, and should leave business alone, worked fairly well so long as there was still land and mines to give away, and the moans of production were simple and widelydistributed, but badly when capital began to centralize industry in great factories, and stifle competition by secret rebates of the privatelyowned railway. Freedom from Government interference gives individual liberty only to those whocontrol capital, while it places wage-earners and the owners of small factories under an irresponsible domination that makes the claim of individual industrial freedom a farce. When at last an attempt is made to adjust the Government to modern conditions, the rigid character of the State and Federal Constitutions is found to be the safeguard of wealth and privilege. The initiative and referendum are revolutionary expedients to evade the checks and balances of the regular law-making channels. Growing discontent with American methods and making laws is certain to lead to radical changes in the near future.

Thatplain statement from so eminent a gentleman must carry a good deal of weight, particularly as in the same issue of the paper appears a column headed " Typothetae," " A Power for Mischief," " Inter- State Commission's Report," "Matter for the State." This article shows that similar conditions prevail in Australia, as revealed by a report from that greatest of all authorities, the InterState Commission. It is stated -

In August, 1912, Mr. William Brooks, the president of the Master Printers' Association of Sydney, proposed to the Melbourne Master Printers' Association that they should ally themselves with the paper houses in a scheme involving a 25 per cent, loading of the charges for material to non-conformers. This proposition was recorded in the minutes of the Master Printers' Association, and was under debate and negotiation till March, 1913.

Senator Story - Is that preference to unionists?

Senator READY - It is preference to their own particular union, which was formed, not only to exploit the public, but to penalize the members of the trade who will not come in and join the exploiters. As Senator Guthrie remarks, the arrangement stifles the opposition of those who stand out, and eventually kills them, so far as business is concerned.

Although the instigation to the formation of the second combine came from Sydney, there was no evidence that any Sydney trader had agreed to assist, or had assisted, the Melbourne Typothetae in its operations in restraint of trade.It is therefore probable that the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act could not be successfully invoked. This was evidently known to Typothetae witnesses, who, though reminded that they need not answer questions tending to incriminate them, and reminded of the Commonwealth Act, gave their evidence quite freely. The large suppliers in the paper trade have their branches in Sydney, as well as in Melbourne, but non-Typothetae men, if they inquired for supplies at the Sydney branches, would, in the ordinary course of business, be referred to the Melbourne branch, so 'that the combine got practically all the advantage of sealing off the Sydney market without any risk of such overt acts of co-operation in the system ot monopoly as would bring them within the mischief of the existing Act.

It is clear that the conditions of which Mr. Mead speaks are already in our midst. It rests with the people by voting for the referenda, to insure that any such combine shall be effectually checked in the future. Like Senator Bae and Senator Pearce, I am sanguine of the result of the submission of these Bills to the people. I believe they will be passed with an overwhelming majority, and that thus we shall take one of the most forward steps yet taken in the history of the Federation.

Suggest corrections