What strikes me, Sir, in listening to this debate is the lack of any constructive criticism. Everybody must appreciate the difficulties; what I would ask people to do is to place themselves in the position of a responsible government and to try to appreciate the difficulties that face them. When I say that, I do not suggest that something should not be done. I do think that there are certain things that should be done. I support very strongly the plea for a National Government, thus getting the best brains to come together on this problem. The people I blame most for what I, advisedly, call inertia in this matter are the Government supporters. I do not like argument by comparison but I think we all admit that the pressure that brought about changes in Great Britain is due to the Government supporters who did not fail to criticise that Government and bring them to account for any shortcomings they saw.
I do not know what arise at any Party meetings but I cannot help feeling that if we had a resolute and independent Party behind the Government, they would before now have asked that political differences should cease and that the crisis should be met by the united efforts of the best brains we could find. I do not think I need pursue that matter any further. Even now it is not too late to ask that something should be done, something more than merely going on public platforms and showing unity on the hustings and co-operation in the council chamber. At the present moment I think we will all agree that matters of security are paramount to all others. I must confess that in this regard I am not happy. In so far as our neutrality in any way embarrasses or places obstacles in the way of full preparation for security, I say our neutrality is a source of danger and a disservice to the country. I would ask the Government to apply that test in every case. Is our security suffering, are our military operations suffering from any considerations of pure constitutional neutrality or sovereign status or academic considerations of that kind? I feel it is so. Though I appreciate the arguments in favour of neutrality, I also see clearly its dangers at the present time. It would be most unfortunate if things do not go as we wish them to go and we have to admit later on that our neutrality in any way embarrassed our military security. I could say more and put that into more positive language, but I do not think it would be wise to do so at present. Whatever some of us may feel—a minority I admit—as to the spirituality of the cause, I think there are some who would give their lives, even if it were of no avail, merely on the spiritual issues. I remember Lord Halifax saying in public that he would rather be dead than live under Nazi rule. I think a few of us feel that way, but not many. But, judging it on the pure basis of material self-interest and expediency, I very much doubt if we are pursuing the wisest course at the present moment. We have only to look at the fate of countries who tried to save themselves by neutrality to see how little it has availed them. Would they not have been probably saved if they had not sought protection in fictions of that kind?
Turning to economic matters, I listened with interest, but not with approval, perhaps because I know more about what is going on than he does, to Senator MacDermot suggesting that the Government were complacent on these questions of finance and economic protection. I could not accept that view. I, personally, have had rather close dealings with the Government of late in this matter, and I think they and the banks alike are fully alive to the dangers and difficulties of the situation. I think we may say that they have done all they reasonably can do, within the limitations that exist, to protect the values in currency and matters of that kind. Inevitably our currency is linked to that of a belligerent country and there is no escape from that at the present time. For that reason, our material interests, our mutual interests, are closely interlocked. There is no blinking the fact that, if Great Britain is to go down in this struggle, we must inevitably suffer with her. I do not think we would have been any better if we had adopted the suggestions which we heard in the past of alternative markets. If we had markets in neutral countries and in Germany that would not be of any help to us. I am afraid, therefore, that there is no use in recrimination. The only thing to do is to look to the future and to face it with courage and resolution. There is no method of juggling with values or currencies that is going to save us at the present time. Our material interests and our trade are closely bound up, and have been all down the years, with Great Britain, for good or bad, and they cannot be disentangled now.
I should also like to say—Senator MacDermot referred to the matter— that the bankers are also awake to the reality and gravity of the situation. I notice that Senator Counihan trotted out his well-worn plea for a moratorium on rates and annuities. I wonder how he would look at it if he was placed in the position of having to get revenue for the Government of the country. We could not possibly single out one class of the community and say that they should have a moratorium on certain payments without upsetting the whole basis on which the country is run and the whole of the revenue system.
There is one matter more, perhaps a little bit prosaic at the present time, which I should like to ask the Minister to consider again, and that is all the clogging effect of our tariff policy. It has now reached most complicated dimensions, and nobody but an expert could unravel all the interlocking of these duties. Although we have almost got used to it, and hardened to it, I suggest to the Minister that it has a terribly clogging effect on business, on our whole economy, and I might say on the spiritual life of the country. Is the Government prepared even at the present time to consider the matter, owing to the difficulty of getting raw materials, and with prices soaring, because there will be great difficulty in getting supplies delivered to home manufacturers? Can we not at this crisis have a certain amount of flexibility, or are we to remain at the mercy of industries that were never efficient, and which are not able to serve the community?
Looking at the question more closely, would the Minister examine, as a purely administrative question, customs delays? I often heard of these delays, but I had a personal experience the other day. I do not like taking up the time of the House with a personal experience at the present time, but it may be of interest to mention that I bought a heating boiler. Heating boilers are not subject to duty, but attached to this boiler was a flue brush that cost 3/3, and for six days it was held up because part of the flue brush was made of wood. It may be said that that was an unique experience, or that it was due to an accident. It was not. Every day manufacturers who have machinery have such experience, but they do not want to have an investigation. That is one of the worst features of these tariff entanglements. No one wants to get into the bad graces of the officials. If the matter goes to the Minister it may get some experienced officer, with whom the manufacturer may have to deal every day, into trouble. That is why we do not hear more of these matters.
Would it be possible for the Minister to have an inquiry by practical business men into the question of customs delays, because it can be said that in many cases the delays could be reduced and the adjustment of duty could take place afterwards? In some cases the amounts concerned are, I believe, insignificant, but because of some regulation, or some statute, or something which aims at 100 per cent. watertight control every one is held up. No business firm could work on that system. If business people dealing with customers were to adopt all the punctillio and red tape that the Government puts into the administration of the customs duties they would not get any business. But the Government has a monopoly, and if people do not like the position they must lump it and suffer. It does not meet the situation to say: "Let us know about the case." It does not pay to make complaints. It is much better to remain quiet and be on good terms with the officials. I do not blame the officials. They are tied by rigid regulations, which are reinforced by statute, and the whole thing is so rigid that all that happens is that the cost is passed on to the public, who suffer.
It almost makes me ask: Were we put into the world to be held up in this way, or was it to make life free and to endeavour to get along without even a fraction of irritation? It is in that spirit that I ask the Government to examine the question, to see if these regulations could not be made more elastic in the interests of those who are the Government's masters, the public. It seems hardly worth while referring to now. Since I became a member of this House I have been steadily protesting at the way that this doctrine of self-sufficiency has been preached. It has now reached such dimensions that we are used to it. It is going on and on until we hardly realise the burdens we are bearing, or how ordinary consumers are suffering in inconveniences of all kinds, and the increased prices that have to be paid for ordinary articles. The Government complains that the prices level is embarrassing their whole fiscal system, but they themselves are very largely to blame for the reckless manner in which they have gone on with their tariff policy, a policy that was reckless at any time, but that is doubly bad now that all raw materials are so restricted. I might end on a philosophical note by saying that I almost think this horrible war would be worth while, if it swept away entanglements and barriers all over Europe and the damnable doctrine of self-sufficiency, which has largely contributed to the war, and which, if not swept away, will make our lives miserable in the years to come.