Hon. C. C. Kingston: Your Colony at present is in a very prosperous condition? || Mr. Parker: I think so; yes. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Owing to the discovery and development of the mineral resources by visitors from other Colonies and other countries? || Mr. Parker: I do not admit that at all; I think it is owing principally to the great encouragement given to the development of this industry by the Government. The Government has spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds in following up the prospector, and giving him water, whithout which he could not have lived. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: And the Revenue returns, of course, have been very considerable augmented by this Government expenditure? || Mr. Parker: Exactly, || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: You say that it is very little you ask; what you do ask is the right to tax the goods of other States, is it not? || Mr. Parker: Pardon me, that tax is settled. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: You want to double the rate? || Mr. Parker: No, it is only a question of the amount. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Quite so. Have you calculated at all what it means. Mr. Parker: I have not. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: But the proposal contained in the Bill was assented to by the representatives of Western Australia in Convention three years ago, was it not? || Mr. Parker: I am not aware. I was not a member of the Convention, and I have not read the debates. | The Hon. E. Barton: I think in that Convention it was carried without a division. || The Hon. C. C. Kingston: It was agreed to by the representatives of Western Australia in Convention in 1897? Mr. Parker: I really do not know. || The Hon. E. Barton: 1898. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: No, was it not Adelaide? || The Hon. A. Deakin: No, it is Melbourne. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: You have laid some stress on the difficulty arising from the distance of your Colony from the others - your representatives attending the sittings of the Federal Parliament would not in a certain sense distance such as that afford some degree of protection to your producers from outside competition the distance and the consequent difference in price? || Mr. Parker: Certainly, yes, in a degree. You understand, Mr. Kingston, I am not asking anything now; I am not asking for a right to impose those duties; it is only a question of the amount. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: No, only a doubling of the rate. You speak as the representative, of course, of the Government of Western Australia. The Government was represented at the Federal Convention in 1897 and 1898? || Mr. Parker: I believe so. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: And I believe the Government was represented at the Premiers' meeting last year? || Mr. Parker: Sir John Forrest was present. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Do you know that - it was then agreed that steps should be taken for the reference of the Bill to the people of Western Australia? || Mr. Parker: I know from the memorandum I have seen on the subject. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: And that memorandum, of course, you know was signed by Sir John Forrest and the other Premiers? || Mr. Parker: Yes. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Is it not the fact that the majority of the Government have since voted against this reference? || Mr. Parker: I do not think so. There is only one member of the Government in the Upper House, and the Government in the Lower House carried a resolution referring the Bill to the people in two forms the Bill and the Bill as amended. || The Hon. E. Barton: The Bill and something else? || Mr. Parker: The Bill in two forms. || The Hon. C. C. Kingston: Is it not the fact that the majority of the Government of Western Australia voted against a carrying out of the Premiers' agreement after their Premiers had assented to it? || Mr. Parker: I do not think so. || The Hon. A. Deakin: As I understand, Mr. Parker the proposal is that if this amendment be made Western Australia joins as an Original State? || Mr. Parker: Yes. || The Hon. A. Deakin: She elects her representative to the Federal Government, and they necessarily under the Constitution possess equal rights and powers with all the other representatives, and that is to be for a period of five years after the passing of the uniform tariff? || Mr. Parker: That is so. The Hon. A. Deakin: Western Australia representatives would be members from the very inception, consequently they will be members from the time of the drafting and passing of the Commonwealth tariff, and this amendment which you propose says: During a period of five years following the imposition by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of uniform duties of Customs, the State of Western Australia may, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, continue to receive the same duties of Customs as are in force there at the passing of this Act." And that the Parliament of Western Australia may decrease during that period, repeal or alter, but may not increase any of such duties, consequently the representatives of Western Australia would be voting upon a tariff which would not apply to themselves or their country. Would not that be an extremely anomalous position? || Mr. Parker: Is not that position already created by the Bill? It is already provided that Western Australia retains its duties. || The Hon. A. Deakin: Those duties, as you are aware, disappear in the fifth year? || Mr. Parker: Yes. || The Hon. A. Deakin: And consequently, as you say, the difficulty exists in a minor degree, but you see that it exists in a much more serious degree in your proposal, which leaves them for five years absolutely un touched by duties for which they must have voted? | The Hon. E. Barton: That is so, they are to share in framing the tariff of the Commonwealth. || Mr. Parker: After all five years is a very brief period. After that they will be affected by these duties. || The Hon. A. Deakin: Do you not think it would be necessary if this were carried, in consequence of this proposed amendment of yours, to introduce some other amendment, some condition as to the part they would play in framing a tariff not to affect themselves? || Mr. Parker: I do not know if it would be advisable to make an amendment to that effect; I should offer no objection to it. || The Hon. J. R. Dickson: I would simply ask Mr. Reeves whether, regarding the Constitution, he does not consider there is a sufficiently open door provided for the admission of New Zealand at any future time. || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: No, sir; if we had thought that we should not now be appealing to Her Majesty's Government; we do not consider it sufficient. || The Hon. J. R. Dickson: Do you not think that whatever the feeling of Australia might be, the Federal Government would very favourably consider your application for admission to the Commonwealth at a future time. But New Zealand does not consider itself competent to assent, or whether the Constitution could be jeopar dised by delay. There has been considerable trouble so far. That dec sion should be made simply on the hypothesis of what a considerable proportion of Australasia desire. || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I have stated already that as far as it may be possible to avoid delay and expense that we should welcome any means avoiding that, provided we retain the right of coming into Federation. As regards Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion, I say clearly that the „open door" amendment would be a very proper thing to put into a covering Bill. I have tried, sir, to explain why New Zealand has shown a reluctance to join the Federa tion. It has been absolutely necessary to proceed with caution. If I have failed to show that, I have failed to justify our action. || The Hon. Sir P. Fysh: I want to emphasise one point, Mr. Parker. Your Revenue is about 3000 000 a year just now? || Mr. Parker: I believe for the year ending 31st March it was £2890 000. || Sir P. Fysh: That is near enough for my purpose. And you state that the loss of Revenue, or rather the portions of Revenue that you gather from the duty upon eastern products, amount to £ 300 000 a year? || Mr. Parker: More than that. || Sir P. Fysh: I took your words down. || Mr. Parker: It is the loss we shall sustain by Federation by this Bill which is estimated at 300 000 a year. || Sir P. Fysh: Well, the actual loss of Revenue; you are gathering at the present moment by duties upon eastern products 800 000 a year. These figures are from a return from yourselves. It is the intention to take one-fifth off that each year, so that out of £3000 000 Revenue £ 150 000 a year would be the loss by coming in under this Convention. Now as to the people who are to be benefited, I should like you further to tell us, if you can, as nearly as possible the numbers you would divide as the goldfields population and the city and surburban populations, taking 160 000 people now as your population, and give us something like a fair division? || Mr. Parker: It is difficult to say. There has been no census of the Colony for some years, and it is almost impossible to estimate the somewhat migratory goldfields population, but I think that probably we might take it there are 100 000 people in the settled districts and 70 000 in the goldfields. || Sir P. Fysh: You say your settled districts would be represented by about 45 000 people, who eight years ago were the numbers of your census; and since then you say that 120 000 who have come in by the reasonable advantages offered by the larger population, and chiefly by the attraction of the goldfields: however, put in your own way, it is a question between 100 000 and 70000 100 000 in the settled places and 70 000 in the goldfields therefore the protection with respect to the products of your people would be considerably limited so far as the number of the population is concerned. The greater portion of your population would be those who have to pay the extra price by reason of this tariff which you propose to impose. That is what I wish to make out? | Mr. Parker: Probably. Sir P. Fysh: You accept that? | Mr. Parker: The portions, but you must bear in mind although it is the greater portion of the population it is not the best portion of the population of the Colony, because, after all, it is those who settle, those who produce, who are the most desirable Colonists. That is why we desire if possible to encourage those engaged in agricultural and industrial pursuits. || Sir P. Fysh: Yes; I will not pursue that. That is all I wish to say. || The AttorneyGeneral: I might just ask; it would, I suppose, be for the Government to decide, Mr. Barton, would it not? But, assuming any amendment were necessary, everything could be done easily within the period of a year, mentioned in your Bill as the time in which it should be proclaimed; on a question of time. The Hon. E. Barton: If a second referendum were required? || The Attorney-General: I mean assuming it was required. || The Hon. E. Barton: It would need an Act of Parliament in each Colony. | The Attorney-General: I was only asking for the time. I did not assume myself it would be necessary, but assuming it is necessary, is a year not long enough? || The Hon. E. Barton: That largely depends on the time of meeting of the various Houses. I take it these Acts might be passed in a very few months. On the other hand it might take six months to pass them. It is quite possible that even then the year would suffice. || The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain: I think we have only to thank these gentlemen. || The Hon. E. Barton: I wish to ask Mr. Parker this question. Am I to understand that, if this amendment necessitates a consequential amendment, the Government of Western Australia are willing that such an amendment should be put into this Constitution as a consequence of what is suggested by you? The representatives of Western Australia in the Federal Parliament have no right to discuss, or vote upon, the Federal Tariff. || The Hon. A. Deakin: During the ,,five years" interregnum? || The Hon. E. Barton: During the „five years“ interregnum, yes. || Mr. Parker: I have no instructions on the subject, but I have no doubt they would assent to any such proposal. - The Hon. A. Deakin: Do you attach importance to the difference which exists between your proposed amendment and the clause in the Bill? The clause in the Bill requires that after uniform duties and customs have been imposed by the Federal Parliament, then the Parliament of the State of Western Australia shall determine the duties to be levied that probably means an appeal to the people, certainly an appeal to Parliament, before the passing of a new tariff. Now your amendment carries on whatever duties and customs may be in force in Western Australia at the time of the passing of the Act, giving neither Parliament nor the electors an opportunity of considering what, under the altered circumstances of the case, as for instance the Federal Tariff, they would wish to do. Do you attach importance to that part of the amendment? || Mr. Parker: Of course there is some importance to be attached to that. There is no occasion under the amendment that I propose to re-enact the duties. The electors of the Colony would have it in their power to abrogate duties. That, they consider important. || The Hon. A. Deakin: Do you attach importance to the difference to which I have referred? you say you do attach some; have you any objections to the amendment being considered in the first form instead of the second, so that your Parliament, with the Federal tariff before it, shall be required to reconsider the position, and pass a fresh tariff? || Mr. Parker: I should recommend my Government to agree to that suggestion. || The Hon. A. Deakin: To accept the first form instead of the second? || Mr. Parker: To accept the first form. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: New Zealand, I think, was represented at the Federal Convention in Sydney in 1891? The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: Yes. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: |
