Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Wednesday, 22 May 1901
Page: 0

Go To First Hit

Mr GLYNN (South Australia) - Mr. Speaker,it is difficult, even for one whose sensibilities have been somewhat hardened by political debate not to feel a little trepidation in catching your eye for the first time. I only hope I may find it as easy to catch your approbation. At all events, I will endeavour to merit it, by yielding a willing obedience to what I know will be your impartial rule. The occasion is indeed an impressive one. It is the opening of the first parliament of a continent that ever met, a continent which is itself but a part of a great Imperial system, whose limits are co-extensive with the paths of the vasty deep. What a splendid subject for contemplation is it that here, 13,000 miles from the seat of the Empire, we have founded a political system, which, while complete in itself, is yet but one of several co-ordinate parts that constitute through the connecting link of the Crown, a world-wide Imperial whole. I do not make any reference to the tie of blood, for I regard blood as by no means the strongest thread which enters into the texture of our alliance. Blood contains the principle of repulsion as well as of attraction ; we have too often found latterly that our brotherly solicitudes are tempered by the spirit of Cain. Besides Australians must be regarded as a composite race ; a race through whose veins flow the blending bloods of Saxon, Celt, and Teuton - a race whose capabilities, perhaps, are all the finer, whose capacity for sustained energy, whose dash, vigour and imagination, may be all the greater, from the mixture of many stocks. I believe that the true principles of our alliance are interest and respect - the interest that springs from the consciousness that we are the sharers in a common heritage and destiny,' and the respect that arises from a sense that into our connexion or alliance there now enters no principle of subordination, a sense that the greatness of the whole is due to the play of the unfettered energies of each. I hope - though perhaps the opinion may not be altogether a popular one - referring to the statement made last night by the member for Corio, that we will never attempt a policy which may succeed in weakening the strength of the Imperial links, namely, the policy of substituting political bonds for the ties of affection, interest, and respect. My opinion is that, the moment the politician takes the place of the patriot, the ties of the Empire will begin to strain. In connexion with that, I may be allowed to refer to the policy set forth at Maitland by the Prime Minister, a policy of reciprocal preference within the empire, and a beginning of a Customs union based, not as in Canada, on an advance towards freetrade, but on the inception of Imperial protection.

Mr Higgins - They are getting sick of it in Canada already.

Mr GLYNN - The honorable member's reading has not been comprehensive enough. So far from being sick of it in Canada their position is really this : the member for Darling Downs, whom I speak of as the father» «of» «the» «House with the very greatest respect, referred to Canada last night, and it struck me at the time what a wonderful coincidence of policy and almost coincidence of expression existed between the resolution which Sir John McDonald put into the hands of Mr. Tilley, when he moved the Tariff of 1879, and the present proposals. The people of Canada were then told that there was necessity for a national policy, and we are told by the Attorney-General that we are to have an Australian policy in the matter of the Tariff. That is practically the same thing. The people of Canada were then told that in order to prevent an exodus of their population, and to stimulate the manufacturing, mining, and particularly agricultural, industries, a national policy of protection should be brought about. As a matter of fact, we find the editor of the Toronto Globe, on some date in October last year, stating that the results of twenty years' experience of the policy which was to develop agriculture, was that owing to the burden on their energies, due to the Tariff, the exports of the natural produce at the end of the period were no greater than at the beginning. The honorable member for Northern Melbourne has mentioned that the people in Canada are getting sick of it already ; it is an extraordinary case of a sickness which developes an appetite. They began with the remission of 12^- per cent, in the duties in 1897, and that was increased to 25 per cent, in 1898, the remission now being 33^ per cent, rebate on the duties in connexion with English imports. That is an instalment of free-trade. It is so because there is no condition of reciprocity in the matter; it being simply stated that throughout the empire where free-trade exists, where Canadian imports flow in unrestricted, Canada grants a reduction of duty, on the ground that the policy of such places is entitled to encouragement.

Mr Deakin - Then it is not reciprocal.

Mr GLYNN - It is an advance towards free-trade, they having asked for no condition on the remission of the duties. Now let me deal with the Ministerial policy, from which I have been led aside by interruptions.

Mr Isaacs - It is not protection, -so far as English goods are concerned ?

Mr GLYNN - A remission of 33^ per cent, is not protection. Does the honorable member think the diminution of protection is an advance towards protection 1 The rates on imports in Canada were approaching an average of 30 per cent, but since the Laurier Government have taken the Tariff in hand they are proceeding towards free-trade gradually, and have gone down to 19 per cent., which I acknowledge is pretty high.

Mr Mauger - n is an average of 19 per cent. ?

Mr GLYNN - That is the comparative test applied by Mulhall, and I think it represents taxation equal to an average on imports of 19 per cent. The Prime Minister, in explaining the Ministerial policy at Maitland, said : -

Where reciprocity is possible we shall be only too happy to adopt it.

That is protection of course, straight out. Then he proceeded -

As for preferential treatment, apart from reciprocity, we strongly favour it, but that is a subject which demands much careful consideration, and whilst we would be very much happier to see our way to adopt it, we should have to give consideration to it before final action could be taken.

I really cannot understand the attitude of the Prime Minister. He first says that he favours reciprocity, and he afterwards says he favours preferential treatment apart from reciprocity. It seems to me he possesses the nebulous clearness of the Frenchman who said exactly what he wanted to say, and that was nothing. If, however, his statement means anything it hints at the beginning of free-trade within the empire, with protection against the world. An Imperial Zollverein, based upon preferences against the foreigner, would be' the beginning of the end of British commercial supremacy. Let honorable members by glancing at the statistics see what this policy - and it is only the beginning of et Customs union of the Empire - would really land us in. I find that the trade of England last year to the extent of 75 per cent, was with foreign countries. The British trade with Australia was only 8 per cent, of its total, and the trade with Canada only 4 per cent, of its total. Not only is this so, but the foreign trade of England is an increasing one, whilst the trade with British possessions is proportionately declining. With America, notwithstanding its vicious system of exclusion in the matter of trade, England still has an increasing trade. Within the last 30 years the increase of English trade with America has amounted to 146 per cent., whilst the increase with British possessions has been less than 60 per cent. Take Australia also, and we find that during a period of twenty years the Australian trade with foreign countries has gone up from being one-ninth of the total of her trade to being now onefourth of its total. We export proportionately more to, and import less from, the United Kingdom than we did ten years ago. As a matter of fact, our trade with England is one we cannot beneficially touch by any dabbling with the Tariff. The bulk of our export trade goes to England. Out of every £58 worth of our trade, £43 value of it goes to England, because it goes along the line of the people's necessities. No wonder that we find Mulhall and others stating that any attempt at an Imperial customs union would mean ruin to the colonies, and practically involve the disintegration of the Empire. I would point out also that this idea of Imperial federation, which is becoming a little in the air again - it was a good deal in the air in 1891 - is closely bound up with an attempt on the part of English politicians to drag us into the net of Imperial defence. Sir John McDonald was, I think; the father of it, so far as colonial statesmen are concerned. His idea was that we must begin a system of protection within the Empire and that the consequent return should be applied towards clef raying the cost of naval expenditure. But an Imperial customs union would strike at the foreign trade of England, upon which its commercial supremacy, so hard in these times to maintain, is based.Is it not an extraordinary thing that all the attempts to interfere with the splendid fiscal policy of England have come from the conservatives ? Salisbury was the idol of Sir John McDonald, who, himself, in local politics, was a conservative. He was opposed to the extension of the franchise for instance.

Mr Mauger - So was John Bright.

Mr GLYNN - I donot think so.

Mr Mauger - Was not Cobden opposed to factory legislation ?

Mr GLYNN - I am not going to be led into the ancient history of the speech of John Bright on the 10 hours' question. I know what the facts are, but they are not relevant to my speech. The failure of protection is marked by the necessity for factory legislation in these States. The very need for such legislation is an evidence that the working classes have not got what then statesmen told them they would get from the policy of restricting trade. On this question of defence the figures are these In 1891, when I wrote a pamphlet on this very question, the navy expenditure of the empire was £14,000,000 sterling. In 1898, it was £26,000,000; in 1900, £29,000,000; and in 1901-2, £32,000,000 sterling. The naval estimates now are equal to the sum of the naval estimates of four naval powers of Europe. Is there any likelihood of these naval estimates diminishing? We hear a good deal about international ethics, but I am afraid that the relations of the States of Europe at the present time could scarcely be carried on without the continual suspension of the standing orders of Christianity. The spectacle presented to us of their mutual greed and aggression, commercial and military, especially in connexion with their attempts to raise the level of the yellow man's civilization, almost justifies the cynicism of Voltaire in sending his compliments to the devil as the apparent ruler of humanity. The Times, on February 8, 1901, thinking, I suppose, . as Pitt did, that -

Modest doubt is . . . the beacon of the wise, The tent that searches to the bottom of the worst. put the position thus -

It is abundantly evident that we must relax none of our efforts, and must shrink from no expenditure which may be required now or hereafter to place and maintain our supremacy at sea beyond all reasonable possibility of doubt.

Then some of the members of the House of Commons on 21st March last, in the debate on the budget and the naval estimates, asked that the colonies should be made to contribute an adequate share of the naval expenditure. Do honorable members ever seriously consider what that means ? I find from the Board of Trade returns that the total contributions of India and the colonies towards the navy was in 1898 and 1899 £523,422, or about one-sixtieth of the contribution of the United Kingdom. Let us suppose we were pledged to contribute on some proportional basis such as would have to be struck if we entered this union, say on the basis of population, or wealth, or capacity to pay. Let us take a rate, for example, based upon population and trade combined, and immediately the States entered this union their contribution with India and the other selfgoverning British possessions, instead of being one-sixtieth, would be something like one-sixth of the total. Our contribution - I speak subject to correction as regards a few thousands - is, I believe, something like £160,000. On the basis of trade and population, our contribution instead of being £160,000 a year, would have become three and a-half millions sterling,or have been multiplied 22 times. We ought, therefore, to be very careful not to allow ourselves to be deluded by wide and fetching generalties of an Imperial character. And, instead of being desirous of taking a hand, which must be a weak one, in the game of foreign politics, or basing our commercial policy upon reciprocal preferences - the method of the political sceptic who has lost faith in protection without having the courage to abandon it-we ought to look seriously to our position, and give greater scope to the principle of freedom by widening the area of its .application. The leader of the Opposition has effectually dealt with the composition of the Ministry. At Maitland the Prime Minister said he was buoyed up with the consciousness that, whilst he might have some personal deficiencies, still he had brought together a body of colleagues who, for their administrative capacity and their ability, are such as have never been before brought together in Australia, certainly agree with the latter portion of that statement. They are a body of colleagues such as have never been brought together in Australia. When we consider their previous differences of opinion, not only on vital matters of State policy, but also as regards the expediency and the character of the federation, their union seems a unique instance of the subordination of personal conviction to the exigencies of office. Is it not something to strike us with wonder that that arch protectionist and advocate of a form of union which we cannot describe as federal - the Minister for Home Affairs - is now wedded to the protagonist of federal union and the preacher of neutrality in fiscal matters, the Prime Minister % Is it not a manifestation of new-born sympathy to find a gentleman who qualified for the position of Federal Minister of Defence, by displaying during the fight for federation in Western Australia a Boer-like mobility of attitude now in the same ranks with that longstanding advocate of federation, the AttorneyGeneral. I remember a little monograph by Lord Rosebery upon Sir Robert Peel, in which he mentions that the duty of a Prime Minister is to masticate the pledges of his colleagues given before he joined them. He has to fuse their public' utterances, and to blend them to the policy of the Ministry, so that their various records may be glossed over, or reconciled or obliterated. If that has to be done by the Prime Minister, he has a somewhat large task, and I must extend to him my personal sympathy. I remember what conflicting utterances upon vital matters of federal policy we had during the elections from the various Ministers. We had the Treasurer stating, on February 18, that the fight was between free-trade and protection. The Vice-President of the Executive Council told us that the politicians were raising this wretched fiscal issue which divides our parties, and we had the AttorneyGeneral telling us that, if we never had protection before, now that the union of the colonies was consummated it was time for protection bo begin.

Mr Watkins - Even the leader of the Opposition said that.

Mr GLYNN - I do not think I can remember a speech of his in which he said it, although I have read a good many of his speeches. It is a peculiarity of protection that it is always about to commence. In 1789 protection commenced in America under a somewhat similar pretext. It commenced there with rates of duty which varied from 5 to 7£, and 10 and 15 per cent. At the time it was stated by Madison that the duties were imposed simply to give a start to industries which would afterwards approach such perfection that they would no longer require adventitious aid - I am quoting almost his exact words. At the end of 21 years - the period upon the expiration of which most people, except women, attain their majority - that is, in 1812, they asked for an increased dose of protection, and they got an increase of 100 per cent. In 1816, instead of a diminution of the duties there was a still further increase; but a promise was given that rates would be imposed on a declining scale, to take effect during a number of years. Was that promise kept 1 Between 1816 and 1824 the rates of duties in America were lower than they were between 1824 and 1828, and in 1828, after a fight on the fiscal question which almost rent the Union, and nearly caused the loss of the allegiance of South Carolina; and Virginia,' the duties were enormously increased. In 1870, nearly a century after the introduction of so-called temporary protection into America, the rates averaged 40 per cent, ad valorem, and to-day the average rate of duties imposed upon goods imported into America, that is the total taxation through the Customs, expressed in terms of ad valorem duties, is equal to 33 per cent.

Mr Higgins - Does the honorable member include the free list ?

Mr GLYNN - No, I do not ; but that does not matter much, because the rates are comparative.. It is a fallacy to think that, because you may have a bigger free list in Victoria than you have in some other protective State, Victoria is therefore less protected than that State. As a matter of fact, you give incidental protection sometimes to your already over-protected manufacturing industries by putting certain articles on the free list. In Victoria, while you will not allow a general free list, sticking for revenue purely to revenue lines, and have heavy import duties, you put on the free list, wherever you can, such articles as enter into the manufacture of protected commodities.

Mr Higgins - Then the honorable member argues that we protect by taking off duties?

Mr GLYNN - - Decidedly.

Mr Higgins - - In that case New South Wales is a very heavily protected State 1

Mr GLYNN - You give protection when you take off duties from the raw materials which enter into the manufacture of protected articles, while you impose import duties upon the manufactured article.

Mr McMillan - It is the discrimination which protects.

Mr GLYNN - Yes. It is incidental protection, and in this way Victoria may be able to claim a larger free list than perhaps South Australia has. But what does the historical analogy which I have drawn point to? However much the people of Australia may be duped now by the statement that the proposed protection is only temporary, or that it is only going to begin, the fact remains that it is not likely to come to an end. I do not think that a period will ever be reached when the remission of protective duties is likely to be asked for by the manufacturers. Coming now to the question of Ministerial inconsistency, I wonder what the position of the Prime Minister is in regard to the proposed Western Australia railway. In one,of his Speeches he pointed out that he would support the construction of that railway on the ground of national defence and of revenue production, if it was likely to pay; but it must be a paying concern before he would support it.

Sir John Forrest - When did the right honorable member say that?

Mr GLYNN - In a speech delivered at Maitland he said -

The proposal will receive close consideration as to its financial bearing upon the States of the Commonwealth, and will not, of course, be adopted unless we see that the returns will outweigh the expenditure to be incurred.

Mr GLYNN - Does the Minister of Defence think that the returns from the proposed line are likely for some years after its construction to exceed the expenditure incurred in making it ?

Sir John Forrest - Yes.

Mr GLYNN - Then the honorable member must be more hopeful than many other honorable members are.

Sir John Forrest - I know more about the matter perhaps.

Mr GLYNN - I think that the right honorable member may know more about it, but there is not much chance of the revenue from that line outstripping or even catching up to the expenditure for many years after its construction. The only reason for the construction of the line is on the ground of national advantage. I admit that the federalists of Western Australia relied upon the substantial sympathy of the representatives from the other States for the construction of a line to connect South Australia with Kalgoorlie. I had a good deal to do with the fight against the Premier in that state, and I know that strongencouragement was given by members of Parliament in some of the smaller states to the idea of connecting the capitals of Western Australia and South Australia byrailway. But if we have to wait, as the~ Prime Minister says we must wait, until the line is likely to be a paying line-

Sir John Forrest - The right honorable member did not mean that.

Mr GLYNN - Then what did he mean ? He said, in a recent speech, that, like the project of taking over the Northern Territory of South Australia, the construction of the proposed West Australian railway was a matter which could be shelved, that, is, consideration of it might be postponed as not being of immediate necessity. The project, in his opinion, was too nebulous to bes looked at at the present time.

Sir William Lyne - We scarcely ever, in any of the States, build a railway that will pay from the start.

Mr GLYNN - I advocate the construction of the proposed railway ; but the Maitland policy was not to construct it until the Ministry first saw that its revenue would outstrip its cost. If that is the encouragement which has been held out to the representatives of Western Australia, they will have to wait for half a generation before the line is constructed.

Sir John Forrest - I do not think so.

Mr GLYNN - We shall see. Perhaps the stimulus to expedition may be supplied from this side of the House. With regard to the question of customs, I remember that the Minister of Customs stated in one of the speeches which he delivered in Adelaide that, although not a rabid protectionist, he was a fair and reasonable protectionist, but that he would not pay too much for his whistle. In Hobart, however, when pressed for a clear statement on the point, he said that he meant that he leaned towards the Victorian Tariff. How can one reconcile those utterances ?

Mr Kingston - I did not say anything of the sort, although I know that the honorable member has repeatedly attributed the statement to me.

Mr GLYNN - I have not repeatedly attributed the statement to the right honorable member.

Mr Kingston - The honorable member, during the late electoral campaign, repeatedly attributed the statement to me, but it is not a fact that I made it.

Mr GLYNN - Even one who can bluff as much as the Minister of Customs, sometimes does occasionally takes too big a risk, and the right honorable member has done so on this occasion. He will not find any report of a speech in which I attribute that statement to him,

Mr Kingston - It was published in some country rag.

Sir Edward Braddon - Was it prepared by one of the right honorable member's reporters ?

Mr Kingston - Is that what the right honorable member does in Tasmania?

Mr GLYNN - What I said was said in a speech which was not reported.

Mr Kingston - But the honorable member did attribute the statement to me. He kept his speech out of the principal newspapers, but it appeared in a country rag.

Mr SPEAKER - The honorable member's speech is being somewhat interfered with by these frequent interjections.

Mr GLYNN - Personally I do not mind, though I do not want to trespass too far on the good nature of the House in replying to them. If the report to which I allude is correct, the Minister of Customs has expressed his preference for the Victorian Tariff.

Mr Kingston - I never did so.

Mr GLYNN - Then I must leave it to the right honorable member to reconcile his remarks with the report which appeared in the press. We have heard from the honorable member for Gippsland that there was a wonderful exodus of people from Victoria to become farmers in other states ; but how could there be an exodus of manufacturers from Victoria to become farmers elsewhere ? Between 1889 and 1893, 18,000 persons left the factories of Victoria ; but did they go to the other States to become farmers ?

Mr A McLEAN (GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA) - -There are many farmers in Victoria who commenced their career by working in factories.

Mr GLYNN - Are we to believe that the 18,000 persons who left the factories of Victoria were not sufficiently protected by the policy of this State, and therefore gave up manufacturing in order to become farmers ? As a matter of fact, 18,000 persons left the factories of Victoria within a period of four years, and of them 1 7,000 were men. I defy honorable members to reconcile that fact with the success of the policy of protection. I do not think that one would be justified, on the general discussion upon the Address in Reply, in going elaborately into the question of the Tariff ; but when Ministers talk of the financial exigencies of the States being bound up with protection, they ignore what has happened in England, and what has happened in New South Wales. England has not six leading lines upon its Tariff list. It gets £55,000,000 from customs and excise on about five lines, and £50,000,000 of this from two lines. In New South Wales there are no ad valorem rates, and I believe that there are only fifteen - certainly less than twenty - lines upon the list of specific duties.

An Honorable Member. - And they have had six years' experience of that Tariff.

Mr GLYNN - About fifteen items were taxed in the specific list, and producing about £1,726,194 per year. Victoria, with its 400 specific lines and ad valorem rates, equal to about 36 per cent, on half its imports, less narcotics and stimulants, has only ti little over £2,200,000. So that it ought to be plain that a slight re-adjustment of the New South Wales Tariff will satisfy all the financial needs of the Commonwealth and its States. We are sometimes told, as indicated by the leader of the labour party to-day, that there is nothing to fight about, and that there is after all very little distinction between free-trade and protection one way or the other. Well, look at France. Is there no distinction between the system of France and the system of England ? You have 720 lines taxed in France. If we did what they do in England, countervail the import duties on revenue lines with a corresponding excise, there need not be the slightest fear of adequate returns not being obtained. Our excise on the whole does not amount tei a third of the excise of the United Kingdom. It is less in Victoria on some lines than in New South Wales, and I believe with a slight re-adjustment of duties the needs of the States and of the Commonwealth can easily be met. I am not at present going to labour this point of protection and free-trade. As regards the appointment of Executive Councillors, I wish to say that I can hardly understand how, with a population of 4,000,000 and seven Ministers of State, the Prime Minister should have thought it necessary to add to the number of advisers of the GovernorGeneral, and make a total of nine Ministers. In England, with 40,000,000 of people, whose local affairs are under the authority of the Imperial Parliament, with vast Imperial responsibilities extending almost throughout the civilized globe, there are only sixteen or seventeen Ministers. But here, at the start of our Australian government, we must have nine Ministers. I take it that the extension of the number was owing to an inability to conciliate Tasmania by giving that State a Minister with a department. That led to the appointment of a Minister in the person of Mr. Lewis. Now, is it expedient that we should add to the Ministry men who are not responsible to the House ? There is no obligation upon them with regard to their relations to this House. There is no constitutional obligation for an Executive Councillor to have a seat in the House. He need not go out if the Ministry goes out. Yet he is capable under the Constitution of advising the Governor-General as to the appointment of officers to the Common wealth equally with the Ministers of State. I strongly believe that if you look strictly into the Constitution, you will find that it was illegal to appoint these additional Ministers. I believe that the opinion given in the commentary of Messrs. Quick and Garran on the Constitution, that there were to be seven Ministers of State and no Executive Councillors, is the correct one. And I am sorry that at the beginning of our federal life the Ministry should have made an appointment which seems to savour too much of the old party method of getting majorities. The Government ought to have set an example to the members of the House in the matter of singleness of purpose. In regard to the Supreme Court, I believe that the suggestion I made at the Convention, that in the beginning we should study economy, by manning that court with local judges, was the correct one. What does the Ministry expect will be the business of the Supreme Court at the beginning? We have not, as honorable members know, abolished the power of appeal to the Privy Council. We have left that appeal open and free. The experience in Canada is that about two-thirds of the appeals go direct from the State courts to the Privy Council. What likelihood is there, then, considering that for the last 50 years the total appeals to the Privy Council from the States in the Union _ did not amount to more than an average of one, or one and a half from each State per annum, that there will be adequate business to occupy the Supreme Court of Australia? The jurisdiction of the court is to be appellate and original. I have dealt with the appellate powers. Is there any likelihood of the original jurisdiction of the court giving it business ? It can only be given by an encroachment on the powers of the State courts. The Constitution gives an original jurisdiction in a few matters which are not likely to give much business. There is power also in four other matters to vest original jurisdiction in the High Court. But if honorable members look at those matters they will see that very little legislation in regard to them can result for a generation or two.

Mr Higgins - I think the appeals average about 20 a year from all the States.

Mr GLYNN - Not from the Australian States alone, I think. I have endeavoured to give the correct figures and according to the list given by Tarrant in his book on the colonies, the appeals in 50 years to 1893 have not averaged more than one for each State.

Mr Higgins - Each Australian State ?

Mr GLYNN - Yes ; but I do not speak with absolute certainty on that point. I speak subject to the correction of the honorable and learned member as to the proportions since 1893, which, nevertheless, cannot bring the average much beyond one and a half. It would be a mistake by investing the original jurisdiction in the High Court to centralize justice. Why should you take away the jurisdiction of the States? Would it not be a better system to appoint, say, the Judges of the Supreme Court from the Chief Justices of the various States ? They would be easily accessible, in many of the difficult matters preliminary to the hearing of a case their services would be quickly and cheaply availed of, and we should not have the ridiculous exhibition of five Judges probably sitting until people gave them work to do. In America, in the beginning there was very little work for the High Court. There were only nine cases on the list in 1801, and for years afterwards the cases did not average fifteen per annum. If there is much more business now it is largely owing to the fact that jurisdiction in many federal matters has been taken from the State Courts by Act of Parliament. I speak on the authority of Willoughby, in his book on the United States' Courts. Then, again, the Inter-State relations of the- 70,000,000 of people of 46 States, crossed as they are by telegraph lines and private railways, give rise to a tremendous amount of litigation. Further, the patent and copyright laws in America also involve an enormous quantity of litigation. Besides that, in the last twenty years there have been many actions arising out of the Court of Claims, actions which cannot affect these Australian States, which are only six in number, whereas in America the Court has the rights of 46 States, with somewhat aggressive and complex interests, to conserve. I recommend that at the beginning the Supreme Court should be manned by the Judges of the State Courts. Power is given to do that, and there is no obligation to make any outside appointments. I hope that the will consider this suggestion, and I believe that in making it I have the sympathy of the Minister for Trade and Customs. On the ground of economy, we should remember that the total indebtedness of the States is about £200,000,000, equal to about £54 per head of the population, and involving interest claims to the amount of £8,000,000 per annum. What hope is there for the working people of these States if we indulge in extravagance ? We are told by the Ministry that they do not intend to impose direct taxation. That means that extravagance will add to the Customs duties. Are we to rely upon the most disproportionate method of levying taxation, a system that respects the full purse, but preys on the empty stomach - Customs taxation - for the necessary requirements of the Commonwealth? I would urge care in this matter. I venture to say that it will be many years before the population will develop sufficiently to find work for a Supreme Court. Of course, the Customs houses will have to make such returns as will justify some of the projects of the Ministry. Oldage pensions have been mentioned simply for the purpose of knocking the proposal on the head. The honorable member for Darling Downs recommended a contributory scheme! I do not think that is possible under the Constitution. It is not possible under the implied powers which are relied upon, because federal State insurance, which would be involved, is negatived by the terms of the Constitution. This proposal will, I fear, if we rush into it, mean an expenditureof over £1,000,000 per annum. I am sorry that the Ministry have omitted all reference to the Northern Territory. Surely the heroic self-denial of South Australia in respect to the Northern Territory should be considered. It is due to South Australian management of that territory that we to some extent have kept Australia white, or free from a large influx of foreign races.

Sir John FORREST - There are Chinamen there.

Mr GLYNN - They are all over Australia. But if South Australia managed the Northern Territory in order to make it a payable asset, it might and certainly could be done by the importation of some cheap coloured labour. We have an annual loss of £70,000 a year on the Northern Territory. But it is a well-known fact, Mr. Speaker, as you have stated from your former place in the Parliament Of South Australia, that offers were made to the Government in connexion with the Northern Territory which, if accepted, would have wiped out the whole of the Northern Territory debt, and have left over a considerable sum. But recognising the desire and expediency of keeping

South Australia white we have exercised the virtue of self-denial in this matter. About five or six millions of the loan expenditure of South Australia has been either directly or indirectly incurred in connexion with the Northern Territory. Our telegraph line ; part of the line running north ; the railway in the Northern Territory ; the accumulated annual deficits in the Territorial accounts - these have all been built as part of or are due to an Australian pOliCy Under the circumstances it is to be regretted that the Federal Ministry should, perhaps, force the State of South Australia to consider the policy of asking the Imperial Government to relieve them of some of the expense incurred. I did not advocate that policy myself, but if the Federation does not care to assume an actual as well as a moral responsibility, the power of petitioning the Imperial Government to take over the Northern Territory may at least be considered.

Mr O'malley - The Federal Government will have to take it up.

Mr GLYNN - I do not wish to further trespass on the patience of the House. If I have spoken at greater length than I intended it may perhaps be that a preliminary reference to some measures of policy will facilitate rather than retard the work of specific legislation. We have a great responsibility before us, the responsibility of justifying the union. The surrender of a portion of the legislative independence of the States was a serious step, taken with reluctance by some, and if with final confidence by many, yet only after half a century of hesitancy and diminishing doubt. It now rests with us to prove by the character of our legislation that the step taken was a wise one. If, as the guardians of administrative purity and popular rights, we fail to set a splendid example of honour and competence to our successors, the union will have to await its justification from men more worthy of unique opportunities; but if, on the other hand, by the display of a delicate sense for the reputation, and a generous solicitude for the welfare, of the people of this young nation, we raise a lofty standard for those who come after us, the union will soon be by all accepted for its promise and welcomed for its beneficence.

Suggest corrections