Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 - 1933), Monday 5 September 1892, page 4


the 'Mtmmiz damage

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1892.

The reports of the late debate on the Address in the New South Wales Assembly fully support the conclusion prompted by the telegraphic summary that the DibbsBarton Ministry has fallen upon troublous times. The protective tariff passed last year has proved disappointing to the protectionists themselves, and their party bonds have been slackened by the exigencies connected with other important questions. The fact is undeniable that the Ministry last year took advantage of adventitious circumstances to reverse the fiscal policy of the colony, and that the tariff, as so consistent a protectionist as Mr. Traill complains, while containing duties protective in their incidence imposes heavy burdens upon those least able to bear them. That hon. member yearns for a " scientificallyframed and courageously-designed tariff"as though it were possible to carry a tariff so framed and designed through a Committee of Ways and Means. It is well known that in the construction of every

tariff concessions have to be made to revenue exigencies, and to the practical difficulties encountered in imposing and collecting duties. And it is forgotten by tariff-mongers that the inherent principle of the protective duty is to make goods artificially

dear to the consumer in order that importation may be discouraged and coal production stimulated. Take the case of flour as it has within the past week been presented to the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. If there be any truth in the assurance that we have illimitable areas of land adapted to the growth of prime wheat, and also a favourable climate, is it not in the highest degree desirable from a protectionist standpoint that wheat-growing and flour manufacturing should be encouraged in the colony and is it not

absurd for protectionists to complain that a -fixed duty, equivalent at the present time ! to only eight and a-half per cent of the, market value of wheat or flour, imposes j burdens upon the people which they cannot i well bear? A protectionist duty that did not enhance prices of commodities would give no protection at all for, whatever the encouragement offered, farms in full cultiva-

tion and mills or factories equipped! for useful work cannot be created in' a day. Again, a protectionist tariff must be " sprung suddenly upon Parliament, for otherwise its operation for a year at least would be neutralised by duties paid in anticipation of the increased imposts. And another of its inevitable effects is to

put money into the pockets of traders by the enhanced value given to their stocks. This last, indeed, is the consideration that sugars the protectionist pill, and keeps so many interested mouths closely shut while defenders are being placed upon the importer or vendor of merchandise. But this temporary advantage to the trader is soon forgotten when the volume of business diminishes in consequence of advanced prices, and when for additions to his stock the merchant has to pay duties in advance, in some cases months or even years before the goods are sold. In Queensland the people are submitting to a heavy protectionist tariff because they know an increased revenue is imperative; but the protectionist Government of New South Wales had last year no such commanding excuse for augmenting the burdens of its people. With an ample public revenue at their command it was pure folly on the part of the Dibbs Barton Ministry to impose new taxation through the Custom-house, at any rate without easing the pressure felt from other sources of the public revenue. The effect of the new tariff in the parent colony has been not only to disorganise and

restrict trade and deepen the industrial depression, but also to stimulate extravagance in the public service, especially in the great spending departments. It is not therefore surprising that the Ministry have become unpopular, that several by-elections have gone against them, and that some of their best friends are looking askance at their impossible programme of the session. There are also amongst the protectionists men who regard the weakness of the Ministry in dealing with the disastrous Broken Hill strike with profound dissatisfaction, rightly holding that the preservation of law and order is of even more importance than an experimental and unscientific protective policy.

But perhaps the most damaging event to the Ministry has been the ostentatious junketing tour of the Premier. Now that it is all over, and the glamour shed upon the trip by daily cable messages flashing the news of his achievements has vanished, the people required to pay for those demonstra-tions are asking what the flattered subject of them has really achieved. The awkward fact stands out that Sir George Dibbs brings back with his title no promise of further supplies of borrowed money and his warmest political friends are obliged to give voice to the suspicion that "if the Premier has not

succeeded in the announce,! object of his mission

there is reason to believe he has succeeded in the unannounced object of it." It is quite clear that Sir George has not succeeded in placating his political opponents in the colony by his tour, and that he has furnished them with a new and powerful weapon wherewith to make destructive attacks upon his administration. For the unauthorised mission to England, like a revolution, can only be justified by success in promoting some great public object not otherwise possible of attainment. And, so far from the fiscal objects of the mission having been attained, there seems reason to fear that, despite the advance which his advocacy is alleged to have caused in the price of New South "Wales securities, the position of the public Treasury has been actually prejudiced by Sir George's inopportune advertisement of the fiscal strength of the colony ; while the expectation that his advocacy would un-seal English money bags must have presumably made his colleagues loss careful than they would otherwise have been in incurring new fiscal responsibilities. It was alleged that the late Ministry of Sir Henry Parkes only retired when all the available money had been spent, but the

accusation will come with additional force against their successors who are in an equally impecunious situation although they have imposed new taxation to the extent of about a million sterling a year. And if it should appear that the Opposition party led by Sir Henry Parkes for Mr. Reid is a more stop-gap are willing again to take office with its grave responsibilities, it may be assumed that the doom of the DibbsBarton Ministry is virtually sealed.

In Queensland we have had illustrations of the perilous and unsatisfactory nature of semi-official tours to England by Premiers of the colony. Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith's experience in this way was so unhappy that, when four years ago ill-health necessitated his prolonged absence, he refused to go as Premier to Japan, and insisted upon Mr. Morehead assuming the responsibilities of the leadership. The effect was perhaps not less disastrous to the Ministry, but Sir Thomas McIlwraith escaped the responsibility for measures adopted in his absence. It was unfortunate for the colony that ill-health compelled the abandonment of his arduous post, but the results would probably have been still worse had his colleagues been left for six months without a recognised leader. Sir Samuel Griffith's experience was not less discouraging. For he rashly committed his Ministry to the Defence Scheme at the London Conference, and after his return his relations with his colleagues were never restored to their old footing. Events had been marching rapidly in the colony during his absence, and if rumour at the time was well founded the deputy-Premier's opinions on certain matters of policy had become too pronounced to permit of the Cabinet continuing to work haraionionsly'^tfjgether. At any rate a rupture, and reconstruction

not long, afterwards occurred in the Ministry, and the Liberal Party became disorganised in the constituencies. The chief functions of the Premiership, although undefined by law, are really incapable of delegation. A deputy Premier cannot authoritatively confer with the Governor in matters of importance or difficulty, nor can such deputy control his colleagues, or compel an insubordinate Minister to retire. It is imperative under our system that a Cabinet should have a recognised head to whom the representative of the Queen, the Parliament, and the public of the colony shall at all times be able to look as the leader responsible for the policy and the official competence of the Ministry. It may be true that the Cabinet collectively can and must be held responsible in any case, but where no single will is paramount increases of difference trouble must inevitably ensue. Italo now pretty evident that Sir George Dibbs's colleagues committed a huge blunder in con-vening Parliament before he had returned

and resumed the reins of government.

It will be remembered that considerable dissatisfaction arose over the meeting of subscribers to the General Hospital held three months ago on the ground that no representation was permitted to the con-tributors to the Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund. The matter was brought under the notice of the committee of the hospital, and a promise was given that it should be considered. After on incubation of three months under the united wisdom of the committee their report has soon the light and to put it mildly the findings are not of a kind to repel the insinuations that have been freely made as to the unfitness of the committee for the grave responsibilities with which they are charged. It was or should have been the primary object of the committee to decide in the line of encouraging the public contributions on which the hospital is mainly dependent. Yet they have so decided that the first person to come forward in condemnation of their decision is the honorary secretary of the Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund. That gentleman's criticism of the committee's report states it hip and thigh as ill-advised, illogical, and unjust. It is ill-advised because its direct tendency is to discourage public contributions. " Representation say the committee, " through the Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund, is unnecessary." Unnecessary for what? Possibly for the self-satisfaction of the committee, but certainly not for the liberal public support of the hospital. The committee in their last annual report exhibited a financial condition which renders the institution dependent upon special effort to conciliate the good-will and elicit the contributions of the public; and when an opportunity of doing so is put before them, they block it with an ungracious negative and set it aside as unnecessary. And they do this in the face of the fact that Hospital Sunday has not yielded the usual amount, and that Hospital Saturday is due in another mouth. But the resolution, as Mr. Poole has shown, is as illogical as it is unfortunate. The committee erect a distinc-tion between subscriptions and the contributions of Hospital Saturday and Sunday on the ground that the latter are " spontaneous" and "bona-fide free gifts." Do ordinary subscribers then contribute by compulsion ? And if there be anything specially spontaneous and bona-fide in the church and public contributions is that a reason why they should receive the smaller acknowledgment and carry the loss weight? The committee excuse themselves further on the ground that churches and other bodies and individuals

can secure representation on the roll of the institution by subscribing directly the sum of £1 per annum. , Do they really mean that £1 subscribed directly is better and more meritorious than £20 - and there are churches from which the hospital has received more than that sum - subscribed indirectly ? Possibly they do not; but that is the inference from their language; and they cannot be surprised if they find " churches and other bodies and individuals" who have hitherto been and are still to be excluded from the roll of subscribers notwithstand-ing their indirect £10 or £20 dropping to the direct £1 in order to have a voice in the conduct of affairs. And it has still to be said that the decision of the committee is palpably unjust. representation in the management of the hospital should go by interest as expressed in contribution. Mr. Poole states that during the last four years the hospitals have benefited to the extent of £4000, exclusive of Government subsidy, from the Saturday and Sunday Fund. Is it just that the donors of this money should be denied representation ? Last year's report showed contributions to the extent of £1800 from about 800 subscribers, each of whom therefore has a vote' for the average payment of a little over £2. The same report showed over £1100 of an income from the Hospital Saturday and Sunday Fund. Is it just that this great gift should not carry with it a single vote ? To say that it would be difficult to arrange a method of representation is no answer. The committee were there to do the right and just and wise thing, and it was their duty to find a method of doing it-or give place to others who would find it. Nor does it seem so difficult to provide that churches, firms, and public works should be entitled to a representative on the roll for every £1 or £2 coming to the General Hospital from their contributions, and that the general public should have the privilege of electing representatives in the same proportion to their offerings. If the committee do not deliberately contemplate a serious aggrava-tion of their pecuniary difficulties it were well for them to reconsider and rescind this obnoxious and objectionable resolution.