| Commonwealth | £11,879,343 |
| States | 23,820,439 |
| ———— | |
| £35,699,782 | |
| ======= | |
| Direct taxation | £3,200,000 |
| Indirect taxation; customs and excise | 8,999,485 |
| Land revenue | 3,500,000 |
| Post-office and telegraphs | 2,824,182 |
| Railways, &c. | 13,650,000 |
| Other service | 3,526,115 |
The revenue from direct taxation is equal to 15s. 10d. per inhabitant, from indirect taxation £2 : 4 : 6, and the total revenue from all sources £35,699,782, equal to £8 : 16 : 2 per inhabitant. The federal government has no public debt, but each of the six states has contracted debts which aggregate £237,000,000, equal to about £58, 8s. per inhabitant. The bulk of this indebtedness has been contracted for the purpose of constructing railways, tramways, water-supplies, and other revenue-producing works and services, and it is estimated that only 8% of the total indebtedness can be set down for unproductive services.
Information regarding Australian state finance will be found under the heading of each state.
(T. A. C.)
Aborigines
The origin of the natives of Australia presents a difficult problem. The chief difficulty in deciding their ethnical relations is their remarkable physical difference from the neighbouring peoples. And if one turns from physical criteria to their manners and customs it is only to find fresh evidence of their isolation. While their neighbours, the Malays, Papuans and Polynesians, all cultivate the soil, and build substantial huts and houses, the Australian natives do neither. Pottery, common to Malays and Papuans, the bows and arrows of the latter, and the elaborate canoes of all three races, are unknown to the Australians. They then must be considered as representing an extremely primitive type of mankind, and it is necessary to look far afield for their prehistoric home.
Wherever they came from, there is abundant evidence that their first occupation of the Australian continent must have been at a time so remote as to permit of no traditions. No record, no folk tales, as in the case of the Maoris Origin. of New Zealand, of their migration, are preserved by the Australians. True, there are legends and tales of tribal migrations and early tribal history, but nothing, as A.W. Howitt points out, which can be twisted into referring even indirectly to their first arrival. It is almost incredible there should be none, if the date of their arrival is to be reckoned as only dating back some centuries. Again, while they differ physically from neighbouring races, while there is practically nothing in common between them and the Malays, the Polynesians, or the Papuan Melanesians, they agree in type so closely among themselves that they must be regarded as forming one race. Yet it is noteworthy that the languages of their several tribes are different. The occurrence of a large number of common roots proves them to be derived from one source, but the great variety of dialects—sometimes unintelligible between tribes separated by only a few miles—cannot be explained except by supposing a vast period to have elapsed since their first settlement. There is evidence in the languages, too, which supports the physical separation from their New Zealand neighbours and, therefore, from the Polynesian family of races. The numerals in use were limited. In some tribes there were only three in use, in most four. For the number “five” a word meaning “many” was employed. This linguistic poverty proves that the Australian tongue has no affinity to the Polynesian group of languages, where denary enumeration prevails: the nearest Polynesians, the Maoris, counting in thousands. Further evidence of the antiquity of Australian man is to be found in the strict observance of tribal boundaries, which would seem to show that the tribes must have been settled a long time in one place.
A further difficulty is created by a consideration of the Tasmanian people, extinct since 1876. For the Tasmanians in many ways closely approximated to the Papuan type. They had coarse, short, woolly hair and Papuan features. They clearly had no racial affinities with the Australians. They did not possess the boomerang or woomerah, and they had no boats. When they were discovered, a mere raft of reeds in which they could scarcely venture a mile from shore was their only means of navigation. Yet while the Tasmanians are so distinctly separated in physique and customs from the Australians, the fauna and flora of Tasmania and Australia prove that at one time the two formed one continent, and it would take an enormous time for the formation of Bass Strait. How did the Tasmanians with their Papuan affinities get so far south on a continent inhabited by a race so differing from Papuans? Did they get to Tasmania before or after its separation from the main continent? If before, why were they only found in the south? It would have been reasonable to expect to find them sporadically all over Australia. If after, how did they get there at all? For it is impossible to accept the theory of one writer that they sailed or rowed round the continent—a journey requiring enormous maritime skill, which, according to the theory, they must have promptly lost.
Four points are clear: (1) the Australians represent a distinct race; (2) they have no kinsfolk among the neighbouring races; (3) they have occupied the continent for a very long period; (4) it would seem that the Tasmanians must represent a still earlier occupation of Australia, perhaps before the Bass Strait existed.
Several theories have been propounded by ethnologists. An attempt has been made to show that the Australians have close affinities with the African negro peoples, and certain resemblances in language and in customs have been relied on. Sorcery, the scars raised on the body, the knocking out of teeth, circumcision and rules as to marriage have been quoted; but many such customs are found among savage peoples far distant from each other and entirely unrelated. The alleged language similarities have broken down on close examination. A.R. Wallace is of the opinion that the Australians “are really of Caucasian type and are more nearly allied to ourselves than to the civilized Japanese or the brave and intelligent Zulus.” He finds near kinsmen for them in the Ainus of Japan, the Khmers and Chams of Cambodia and among some of the Micronesian islanders who, in spite of much crossing, still exhibit marked Caucasic types. He regards the Australians as representing the lowest and most primitive examples of this primitive Caucasic type, and he urges that they must have arrived in Australia at a time when their ancestors had no pottery, knew no agriculture, domesticated no animals, had no houses and used no bows and arrows. This theory has been supported by the investigations of Dr Klaatsch, of the university of Heidelberg, who would, however, date Australian ancestry still farther back, for his studies on the spot have convinced him that the Australians are “a generalized, not a specialized, type of humanity—that is to say, they are a very primitive people, with more of the common undeveloped characteristics of man, and less of the qualities of the specialized races of civilization.” Dr Klaatsch’s view is that they are survivals of a primitive race which inhabited a vast Antarctic continent of which South America, South Africa and Australia once formed a part, as evidenced by the identity of many species of birds and fish. He urges that the similarities of some of the primitive races of India and Africa to the aborigines of Australia are indications that they were peopled from one common stock. This theory, plausible and attractive as it is, and fitting in, as it does, with the acknowledged primitive character of the Australian blackfellow, overlooks, nevertheless, the Tasmanian difficulty. Why should a Papuan type be found in what was certainly once a portion of the Australian continent? The theory which meets this difficulty is that which has in its favour the greatest weight of evidence, viz. that the continent was first inhabited by a Papuan type of man who made his way thither from Flores and Timor, New Guinea and the Coral Sea. That in days so remote as to be undateable, a Dravidian people driven from their primitive home in the hills of the Indian Deccan made their way south via Ceylon (where they may to-day be regarded as represented by the Veddahs) and eventually sailed and drifted in their bark boats to the western and north-western shores of Australia. It is difficult to believe that they at first arrived in such numbers as at once to overwhelm the Papuan population. There were probably several migrations. What seems certain, if this theory is adopted, is that they did at last accumulate to an extent which permitted of their mastering the former occupiers of the soil, who were probably in very scattered and defenceless communities.