House of Representatives
31 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
QUESTION
- LIGHT-HOUSE AT WEST POINT
INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
SELECT COMMITTEE ON COINAGE
EXCISE ON BEER BILL
CUSTOMS BILL
EXCISE ON BEER BILL
DEFENCE BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3273

PETITIONS

Mr. CLARKE presented a petition signed by 100,371. electors of the State of New South Wales, comprising ministers of religion, Ministers of the Crown, exMinisters of the Crown, members of both branches of the Legislature, members of the municipal bodies, of the various professions, and” of all classes of the community, praying that clauses 54 and 55 of the Post and Telegraph Bill may not be passed into law.

Petition received and read.

Mr. CLARKE presented a similar petition from386 electors of New South Wales.

Sir JOHN QUICK presented a petition from the National. Christian Citizens’ League, praying that clause 54 of the Post and Telegraph Bill may be passed into law.

Mr. PIESSE presented a petition from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of Tasmania, praying the House to consider the claims of the children of the State to protection against legalized gambling.

Sir WILLI AM McMILLAN presented a petition from the shipping firms of Sydney against the shipping clauses of the Interstate Commission Bill.

Petitions received.

page 3273

QUESTION

LIGHT-HOUSE AT WEST POINT

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

– In view of the importance of the passenger traffic between Cape Schanck and Tasmania, will the Prime Minister have a light-houseerected at West Point, where the Australia was lost?

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The Constitution Act provides for the taking over of the control of light-houses, light-ships, beacons, and buoys by the Commonwealth, upon proclamation being made ; but it is not thought that the time has yet arrived when that can be conveniently done. In the meanwhile, I think that an application such as the honorable member has made should be made to the authorities of the States concerned.

Mr O’Malley:

– They are too slow.

page 3273

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Do the Government intend to go on with the Interstate Commission Bill this session ? If it were shelved for the present - and I think that would be a very good thing to do with it- a great deal of agitation which is going on now would be allayed. If the Bill is not to be shelved, perhaps the right honorable gentleman will make a definite declaration as to when it is likely to be dealt with.

Mr.POYNTON.- Before the Minister replies, I. wish to remind him that, while it may suit the people of Victoria and. New South Wales to have this measure hung up, there are other States who are as much, if not more, interested in the matter with which it deals, and who wish the Bill to be dealt with and a settlement come to at an early date.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– There is no intention on the part of the Government to abandon the Bill, or to defer its consideration until another session. The Bill will be proceeded with this session. Its consideration has been delayed largely because of the absence simultaneously of the chief law adviser of the Government, and of the Minister of Home Affairs, who is in charge of it : but, as soon as possible after they are both again in their places, the second reading debate will be proceeded with.

page 3273

ADJOURNMENT

tenders for bicycles.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to intimate that I desire to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., “ the supply of bicycles to the Postal department.”

Joseph Cook. - This is a put-up job. ‘

I think the Minister in charge of the Postoffice should take steps to insure beyond all doubt that the bicycles required for his department are obtained in the cheapest possible way, consistent ; of course -with the payment of . fair rates to those employed, and also with the assurance that there is no doubt about the quality of . the machine, because I do not . think that there is anything more dangerous than to have a bicycle which cannot be relied on in cases of side slipping or other . peculiar circumstances. I trust that the matter will be considered by the Cabinet, with a view to their at least following the practice adopted in the other States if they cannot go to the full extent of initiating a factory for the building of Government bicycles. In New South Wales, although theydo not use as many bicycles as in Victoria, they bought the machines right out, and fitted up their own repairing shops, in which they are enabled to’ keep their bicycles in repair at a comparatively small cost each year. In South Australia, I am informed, the same practice is followed, and the Victorian system does seem at least a most unbusinesslike proceeding.

Mr.BATCHELOR. (South Australia).I am glad that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has brought this matter up, because, had he not done so, it was my intention to speak about it on the motion for the adjournment of the House. I brought this matter under the notice of the Postmaster-General some few weeks ago, and I was anxious to hear what his intentions were, as I had heard that what has now occurred was likely to happen. I was somewhat surprised to find that the Postal department had decided to call for tenders in such a very vague way without specifications, or without having any clause inserted in the contract that a minimum wage should be paid - in fact, without any details whatever. I was equally surprised at the proposal to call for the supply of bicycles throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. That means that only one company can possibly put in a tender, because there is only one company in all Australia which does business in all the States, and therefore there could be no competition. There are a number of reasons, some of which have been already urged,, why either there should be one Government workshop in which these bicycles could be made, or why they should be made by the Governments in the various States. It does not matter much which course is followed, but probably the cheaper plan would be to let each State make the bicycles necessary to meet its own requirements. There are enough bicycles in . use by the Commonwealth Postal . department ‘.to necessitate the employment of a sufficient number of hands to make the tiling a success, and the conditions in this respect would improve as time went on, because more bicycles are being usedevery year. The method that has been adopted of calling for tenders for the hire of bicycles is particularly objectionable. We learn that it costs some , £9 per year for the hiring and repairing of each bicycle in Victoria, and in the State of Queensland I believe it costs as much as £14 per year for the hire of a bicycle. In New South Wales they have bought their bicycles right out for , £14 each, and in South Australia we payprecisely’ the same amount for an entirely local machine : and I may mention that although we have a 25 per cent. duty, the price paid is just the same as in freetrade New South Wales.

Mr Conroy:

– For the same class of bicycle?

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The honorable and learned member for Werriwa would probably at once jump at the conclusion that the South Australian bicycles are not equal to those in New South Wales : but I think the honorable and learned member would find that they are quite equal to the imported articles, and that they give the Postal authorities every satisfaction. I am quite sure that the Postal authorities in South Australia would not throw up the local machine for any imported machine in existence, because the bicycles they have in use suit their conditions better. So far as the repairing of bicycles is concerned, it will be very much cheaper for the department to do the work instead of hiring it out. In South Australia the cost has been very small, although there area sufficient number of men employed to keep the bicycles continually in repair. The advantage of having their own workshops is that every time a machine comes in and requires the least bit of attention it is at once put in good order on the spot. On the other hand, if the repairingworkishired out, a machine is never sent into the workshop until it has some serious fault, and the damage done by using the machine when it is not in perfect order causes it to go completely out of use all’ the sooner. The working parts of a machine will last perhaps five or six years, and the Victorian method of hiring machines brings the price of a bicycle up to close upon £50, as compared with the £14 paid in New South Wales and South Australia. If it can be shown that the bicycles can be made more economically within the States by the department, I hope the Government will arrange for that being done, and that they will not hesitate to build the bicycles themselves, or certainly have them made within the States if they can. I do not believe in havingthem made within the States at any price, but at the same time I believe as, no doubt, every free-trader believes, that, other things being equal or nearly equal, the preference should be given to the local workmen and manufacturers. There is no advantage to Australia in having bicycles made in Canada, but there is a great advantage in having them made in our own States, and that could best be done in Government workshops.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I do not intend to refer to an interjection that was made by an honorable member for any purposes of discussing a question of order.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister has no right to.

Mr BARTON:

– I only desire to say this, that the honorable member for Parramatta cannot be be aware of this fact, that I was so little aware of any intention on the part of the honorable member who moved the adjournment, to take that course, that I have not had an opportunity of obtaining information from the Postmaster-General on the subject that has been referred to. I wrote to the Postmaster-General, but I found that he was engaged in moving the second reading of a Bill in another place, so that it was impossible for him to give me any help in replying to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. The House certainly should understand how entirely incorrect it is to suppose that there has been any attempt on the part of the Government to connect itself with something - I do not know what - that has been described as a “ put-up job.” In answer to the honorable member who has moved this motion, I may say that there is very great interest and importance attached to the statements he has made, if they are borne out on investigation. The question whether the

Government will construct its own bicycles is, to a great extent, a question of policy, and involvesvery much larger issues of policy, upon which it would be necessary to consult the Cabinet before any determination is come to on such a point. But if there are opportunities for the Government, whether by constructing the bicycles themselves, or giving the work to local manufacturers, to get their bicycles cheaper than at present, there is no man, whatever his fiscal opinion may be, who would not agree with that being done, because the free-trader who prefers to buy in the cheapest market, and theptotectionist who prefers to buy in his own, will be at one on that point. I can go no further than I have stated, but it must be fully understood that local industry bears a different meaning from that which it bore before the 1st of January. Local industry does not mean New South Wales, Victorian, or South Australian industry, but it means industry which has its home in the Commonwealth, and therefore anything that the Government might do on a subject of this kind would have to be based on a spirit of fair play, with equal opportunities to those who conduct these industries in whatever State they may be situated.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– I think the remarks of the Prime Minister go to show that it would be wise for memberswho intend to move the adjournment of the House to give the Minister notice of their intention. I think that in a case like this - where an important matter is to be submitted for consideration - notice should be given. Otherwise we shall get no information from the Minister. Of course, nobody can blame him for not having it.

Mr Batchelor:

– I brought the question up three weeks ago.

Mr.McDONALD. - But I do not think that the Postmaster-General thought this matter would be brought before the House to-day. We naturally expect, when the adjournment of the House is moved, that we are going to get some information inexchange for the trouble to which the House is put. But if we do not give the Minister in charge of the particular department interested, or the Government, an opportunity of gaining the required information, what is. the use of moving the adjournment? Unless notice has been given it is not a wise thing to move the adjournment at all. The wisest course to follow would be to give the Government notice. Then, if the Minister, who is chiefly concerned, comes down and is not able to give the House the information desired, he will have to be” responsible for his negligence.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– This motion was made up in a hurry.

Mr MCDONALD:

– I am sorry for that, because I understand that another motion of very much greater importance was likely to be submitted, and my remarks are equally applicable to the motion which it was intended to move.

Mr Barton:

– I suppose that I should have. received as little notice in the one case as in the other 1

Mr McDONALD:

– My remarks apply equally to every honorable member who moves the adjournment of the House. Occasionally I have moved similar motions in the State Parliament of Queensland,, but I have always taken the precaution of sending a letter to the Minister in charge of the department interested, notifying him of my intentions. Then he had a right to come clown fully prepared to meet any statement which I might make. Regarding this question of the hire of bicycles, I certainly think that there could be a great improvement made upon the system adopted by the various States. I hope that before any contract is entered into for the hiring or repairing of bicycles the fullest inquiry will be made. I have had some little experience of the bicycle. I suppose that there are very few men who do more rough riding upon bicycles than I do over the western part of Queensland. I know that the amount paid in Queensland for the hire of these machines is out of all proportion to their cost. The idea of asking £9 a year to keep them in repair is simple robbery. There is no other name that can be given to it. I have ridden a bicycle as much as 15,000 miles, and during the whole of that time it cost me only about £5 for repairs, and that outlay was principally for tyres. Surely upon the good roads to be found around the cities, cycling firms ought to be able to keep bicycles in repair for much less than £9 a year. I am pleased that the Government intend taking’ into consideration the remarks of the mover of this motion, and that before any contract is entered into the fullest possible consideration will be given to the whole subject.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think this is an opportune time to say that it is a great pity the Government have not their own supporters better in hand, because much of the delay which has been caused during this session has come from honorable members on the other side of the House. As far as this particular question is concerned, it could have been equally answered by having a series of questions put to the Minister in charge of the department, which questions could have been categorically replied to without any of this waste of time.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I certainly think that it is treating the Government . with very scant courtesy to move a motion af this kind without first having intimated to the Prime Minister or the Minister in charge of the Postal department that it was intended to submit it. Not only is it treating the Government unfairly, but it is practically wasting the time of’ the House, because honorable members who desire the best information on the matter are left in just the same position that they occupied before the discussion took place. It may be that the honorable member who moved the adjournment has a very good case, and is taking up a matter which requires urgent attention. But at least it is due to the Government that they should be afforded an opportunity of stating the whole facts of < the case to the House. I am inclined to think, on the brief statement of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, that the matter is one of considerable importance, and that if the facts were before us we should probably come to the conclusion that the Government could economically attend to their own repairs in such a large department as the Post-office, and perhaps could enter profitably upon the manufacture of the bicycles required for their own servants. I do not see that there is likely to be any difficulty in a matter of this kind, and I accept the assurance of the Prime Minister that he will give it very close consideration. If it is really found that this work can be conducted with economy to the State and with advantage to the service, .1 understand that he will seriously consider whether the Common.wealth cannot undertake the manufacture of their own machines. But I rose chiefly to point out - not with any view of finding fault with the mover of the motion for adjournment, but in fairness to the Government and the House - how undesirable it is to project discussions upon the House without having first given Ministers due notice of what is intended to be done. In such circumstances the Minister himself is not able to speak to the House and, the country -with the same authorityand. information as he would be able to do if he received something like reasonable notice. In the present instance we can only accept the Prime Minister’s statement that the matter will receive hisserious consideration. I am inclined to think that upon investigation it will be found that the honorable member who moved this motion has made out a case; although he said very little in support of it.

Mr Mauger:

– So as not to waste time.

Mr.F. E. McLEANS. - Exactly. I believe it will be found to the advantage of the Commonwealth to repair; if not to manufacture, these bicycles with their own labour.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa). - I think that the debate so far as it has proceeded is chiefly remarkable for two admissions. The first was made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and the second by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr Batchelor. A short time ago the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was good enough to tell us that the difference in the price of an article was of no account whatever, so long as the money spent upon it was still in the country. Now, however, we find him complaining that abicycle should cost £14 in one State as against £9 in the other. On the principle that he has laid down I do not see why he should object to the price being £ 1 4 in the one case. A rental of £9 a year for five or six years would amount to £40 or £50. I hope the honorable member will carry out the principle which he has enunciated, and double the wages of his workmen. Upon his own theory the result will not matter, because the money will still be in the country. The honorable- member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, pointed out that under a Tariff of 25 per cent. prices would be lowered. I do trust that as the imposition of duty will make the prices of articles lower, the’ honorable member will not vote ‘ for any principle which will compel’ the manufacturers of Aus tralia to accept a far lower price than they have hitherto had to accept. If the imposition of a duty lowers the price of bicycles, so also will it lower the price of other articles. I hope that the honorable member will carry out the principle which he has enunciated. There is another point upon which the Prime Minister might give the House some information. He mighttell honorable members whether allowances come under the heading, of bicycles, and whether, when an officer is allowed £2, 2s. a week - : -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member is travelling beyond the subject.

Mr CONROY:

– The price of bicycles is extremely high,, and, therefore, if a man wanted to hire half-a-dozen or more, I suppose it might be found quite necessary for him to receive an allowance - a large allowance, which is not given to Members of Parliament. Possibly the Government may be able at another time to explain thatthere will be a very large allowance- needed for officers who ride bicycles. I think that this question ought not- to have been brought forward to-day. I must confess that I am rather surprised that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports should have- introduced this matter to the notice of the House. It may have been a nice strategic move, and possibly the honorable member has prevented the House from discussing some other matter. Possibly that is the reason why he has taken this action. I notice that the Minister for Customs does not quite agree with it. I would ask the Minister for Customs whether he is quite sure that no notice of the motion for adjournment was given?

Mr Kingston:

– I knew that the motion was going to be moved a couple of’ minutes before it was submitted, and I asked that it should not be so moved.

Question- resolved in the negative;

page 3278

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COINAGE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received the following message from the Senate : -

The Semite acquaints theHouseof Representatives that leavehas beengranted to Senator J. T. Walker to give evidence before the select committee of the House of Representatives on coinage if he thinks fit.

page 3278

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

InCommittee:

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Kingston) -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purpose of a Bill relating to excise on beer.

Resolution reported.

page 3279

CUSTOMS BILL

Consideration resumed (from 30 July, videpage 3170).

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

-.- I do not know whether this is the right time to bring the matter forward, but the Minister for Trades and Customs, during the discussion in committee, said- that he would give me an opportunity later on of movingtheinsertrionof anew sub-clause to clause 49. Is this the proper stage at which to submit, the sub-clause?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I did give the promise, and if the honorable and learned member so desiresI will assist him to deal with the matter now.

Resolved (motion by Mr. Kingston) -

That the Bill be recommitted for the furtherconsideration of clause49.

In Committee (recommittal) :

Clause 49 (Prohibited imports)..

Mr. ISAACS (Indi).- I move-

That the following newsub-clausebe added : - ‘ Infected cattle, sheep, or other animals, andhides, skins, horns, hoofs, or any other part of cattle or other animals, the importation of which may introduce any infectiousor contagious distemper or disease.”

The effect of that amendment, which I suggested when the Bill was originally in committee, would be to make such imports absolutely prohibited, and place it beyond the power of any Minister to permit the introduction, either by accident or otherwise, of any cattle which were actually infected with disease, or any parts of those cattle which might introduce any infectious or contagious distemper or disease. At the time the Minister asked me to withdraw my amendment in order that it might be considered, he promised to give me another opportunity to -bring it forward, and this -he has been good enough to give me now. I say again that I know of nothing more important than this which ought to be put into the list of prohibited imports. We have absolutely prohibited works which infringe copyright, manufactures by prison labour, exhausted tea, oleomargarine, butterine, and so on.. But surety there is no comparison in regard to the importance of the matter to the pastoral and farming interests of Australia between the tilings which I. have mentioned or most of them, and those which I now desire to add . to the list of prohibited imports. Under the Victorian Customs Act there is an absolute prohibition of such imports.

Mr Kingston:

– Not quite.

Mr ISAACS:

– Some articles are left to the discretion of the Governor in Council, but infected cattle or sheep, or any other animals, or portions of them ares absolutely prohibited. I want to see that by no possible chance will that protection be taken away. I am not quite sure whether the Minister is opposed to the suggestion that the goods I have mentioned shall be prohibited, but I do not see any ground, on which he ought to be opposed to it. There- are provisions in the ‘Victorian Act which remain, or may remain, giving power under certain limited circumstances to prohibit these imports. But that power is not so full as this - not so complete or so strong - being a certain limited authority in certain limited cases. I do not want any possible protection to be taken away, and I ask the Minister not to oppose the introduction of this new sub-clause. No possible harm could be done by its introduction, and a great deal of good might be done by it. I want to make sure that our flocks and herds are kept free from the introduction of disease, and I cannot understand that there can be any possible objection to the proposed sub-clause.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).The proposed sub-clause is important, but the Government ought to go further. I intend shortly to give honorable members an opportunity of discussing a matter which I regard as of great importance, not only as affecting stock, but also as affecting, fruit trees,, diseases in fruit, and so on. This is a matter of great importance to the producing interests of the country, and I think the Minister can accept the amendment proposed, which can do no harm, and may do a great deal of good. I hope, however; that at the same time the Minister will not lose sight of the important question of quarantine. I know that according to the opinion of some honorable members we have no power to deal with the quarantine laws as affecting stock. I differ with honorable members who take that view, because I think that under the Constitution we have full power to do so. The proposed amendment will deal with the matter in an incomplete way, but at the same time, as I have said, it will do no harm, and may do good until the Government have had an opportunity of dealing, with the question in the way in which its ought to be dealt with.

Mr. KINGSTON (South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs). - The idea of the Government is not to restrict the powers which are possessed by the proper authorities for the prevention of the introduction of disease. At the same time we are disposed to think that, if a clause of this, sort be put into the Bill, we may be laying down a rule which is not really required, and which may in some cases operate to the disadvantage of the community.

Mr Isaacs:

– Why did the Government insert oleomargarine and those other things in the list of prohibited imports?

– I do not think it is.

Mr Isaacs:

– It must be.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am inclined to think it is all governed by the exercise of thepow er of the Privy Council in relation to the prohibition of the importation of these particular goods. Here is the Victorian Act -

Infected cattle, sheep, or other animals, and hides, skins, horns, hoofs, or any other parts of cattle or other animals which the Governor in Council may prohibit in order to prevent the introduction of any infectious or contagious disease or distemper. .

I take the true construction of that section - I think in the whole, and I am sure in part - to be that in order to prohibit the importation of these particular goods there must be an Order in Council. As I say, the power being so limited it seems to me that we do not want the proposed new sub-clause at all, because we have under sub-clause (g) a general power to prohibit - a power which is not contained in the Acts to which I have called attention. I venture to think that so long as there is sufficient power for dealingwith the matter we should not lay down a hard-and-fast rule. Under the proposed sub-clause we could not subject the cattle to quarantine, and that seems to me to be a most mischievous thing.

Mr Thomson:

– There might be a temporary infection.

Mr KINGSTON:

– There might be a temporary infection, and we could not let the cattle in subject to quarantine. I go further, and call attention to the fact that in the Bill there is ample provision for the protection of State legislation in connexion with matters of this sort. We have, for instance, byclause 27 thrown the duty on the Customs officers of executing the laws relating to the inspecting or testing of imported goods. Then in clause 51 we read -

All goods lawfully prohibited to be imported into any State shall, as regards that State, be prohibited imports for the purposes of this Act.

I would point out to honorable members that here we have made sufficient provision for recognising anything a State may do in this connexion. I go further and say that these matters are much better and more effectually dealt with by general legislation as regards quarantine than by the insertion of an arbitrary sub-clause such as is proposed, and which would be incapable of relaxation. In support of that, I may mention that I have looked into the matter more particularly in reference to the law of Victoria, seeing that that is the State which the honorable and learned member has in his mind. But the Victorian legislation does not go much further than does the legislation of the other

States. It absolutely sufficiently provides for all matters of this sort. I allude first to the Health Act of 1890, section 267 of which reads -

The Governor in Council may from time to time make, alter, and repeal such orders as may seem to he necessary for the purpose of prohibiting or regulating the introduction into Victoria from any country or colony, or part of a country or colony (in which respectively any disease in sheep, cattle, horses, dogs, swine, or other animals of the same or any other kind or kinds whatsoever is known to exist), and for the detention in quarantine in such place, and for such period, as the Governor in Council by such order appoints or directs of all sheep, cattle, horses, clogs, swine, or other animals of the same or any other kind or kinds whatsoever, or of meat, skins, hides, horns, hoofs, or other parts of any animals, or of hay, straw, fodder, or other articles -

It is rather amusing to observe how the clause runs on - likely to propagate amongst men or other animals any infectious or contagious disease whatsoever.

– Yes-; I have full power to do it, and in addition to the provision in paragraph (g) of clause 49 there is the provision of clause 51 that -

All goods lawfully prohibited to be imported into any State shall, as regards that State, be prohibited imports for the purposes of this Act.

Then we have the Victorian Stock Diseases Act which provides that -

The Governor in Council may from time to time make such regulations …. as may be expedient …. for prohibiting the introduction into Victoria, either by sea or land, of any stock found to be diseased …. for the inspection of newly-introduced stock …. for the seizure and destruction of any diseased stock - and contains other similar provisions giving full power to the State Government to deal with this matter. The position I take with regard to the amendment is this : If we put in the proposed new sub-clause we fix an arbitrary fine. If it is necessary to make a proclamation, the Government have already full power to make it, and the State legislation is preserved intact. The State legislation more adequately provides for regulations in matters of this sort than we can provide for them in this Bill ; and I think, therefore, that it is better to allow the matter to be dealt with by provisions of the character to which I have already referred, and the general legislation to be found in all the States, supplemented if necessary by proclamation, than to lay down the hard and fast line here proposed. Such a provision is not to be found in any other Customs Act, although it has, in whole or in part, attached to its enforcement the condition of a proclamation. ‘

Mr MANIFOLD:
Corangamite

– I hope that the committee will not insert a clause of this kind in the Bill, because I donot think that this is the right measure for such a provision, and that the subject could be better dealt with in a Quarantine Act. If a slightly infected animal could not be quarantined, it would have to be destroyed immediately. In the past the Victorian regulations dealing with this matter have worked against the importation of stock from the other States. Supposing it happened that a disease similar to the cattle tick disease developed in New Zealand, and an animal very slightly affected with that disease arrived in Sydney or Melbourne, I understand that, under the provision of the honorable and learned memberfor Indi, it would have to be destroyed. The sub-clause would not allow such a beast to be sent into quarantine until it got rid of the disease. A great many animals arrive” here from the old country which may be suspected of disease, or which may have some disease in a very mild form.

Mr Thomson:

– A disease of a curable nature.

Mr MANIFOLD:

– Yes. But if the proposed sub-clause were put into the Act, such animals would have to be destroyed.

Mr.A. McLEAN (Gippsland). - I do not think that the honorable and learned member for Indi intends to go quite as far as the Minister seems to apprehend. I understand that he desires to prevent the importationof imported stock which are: infected or the parts of animals which may be infected with disease. I am sure that he would not desire the destruction ofstock which were found to be only slightly infected, if the disease could begot rid of by quarantining, them.

Mr Harper:

– But what does the honorable and learned member’s sub-clause say ?

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– If an . alteration of the proposed sub-clause is necessary, we can amend it. This question is a very important one. I goas far as honorable, members in my desire that stock should be imported, because if we fail to import fresh blood,, we deprive ourselves of the means of improving the breed of our flocks and herds. We should not place any restriction upon the importation of healthy stock.

Mr Kingston:

-Does not the honorable member think that the existing legislation is ample ?

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I have not looked into the question lately, but I do not think we can go too far in the way of preventing the importation of animalswhich are known to be diseased. I have had a great deal to dp with the eradication of disease amongst stock, and I know that when disease is introduced it is a very costly, matter to get rid of it. In Victoria, it has cost tens of thousands of pounds to eradicate scab, and a very great expense has also been gone to to deal with such disease as pleuro-pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other diseases of stock. I agree, too, with the honorable member f or Macquaire that we should do all we can to prevent the- introduction of fruit pests, because such pests seriously menace the interests of our orchardists and vignerons. It is difficult to realize the extent of the loss occasioned by the introduction of either animal or vegetable diseases. I suggest that the proposed ne w sub-clausemight beamended so as to make provision for quarantine in certain cases instead of total prohibition. The provisionfor total prohibition might be made to apply where an animal is seriously diseased, or where the disease is a very infectious one ; but where the disease is one that might be got rid of by quarantine, provision shouldbe made for quarantining, It very often happens that stock which have passed a most careful inspection develop disease when travelling, and that whatwere perhaps clean stock when they started are diseased stock upon arrival at their destination.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I should like to understand the practical effect of the proposal of the: honorable and learned member for Indi. I understand that it is his: opinion that as there are a great many State laws, known or unknown, dealing with the subject of the. importation of stock, which may or may not conflict, it is necessary, now that the Commonwealth have taken over the control of the Customs, to insert in this Bill a clause which will give the Commonwealth G overnment power to carry into effect the regulations of the various States.

Mr Isaacs:

– The proposed new sub-clause goes further than that.

Mr Kingston:

– It is a rigid provision.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Isaacs:

– We do not want to put diseased meat into human beings.

Mr RONALD:

– We find that there are inconsistencies in the various States Acts dealing with these matters, and I think that the opportunity at present presented of securing uniformity should be availed of. No one can deny that something ought to be done in this direction, and if, as the Minister says, provision is already made it will make assurance doubly sure if we carry out the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Indi.

Mr Kingston:

– I say it is best done under some other Act.

Mr RONALD:

– We might as well have no quarantine whatever if we are not going to adopt every means of restricting the importation of articles which constitute a direct menace to the public health.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).Even admitting the claims of the honorable and learned member for Indi - and we all admit that it is desirable by every proper means to prohibit the importation of disease in stock - I do not see that we should follow his suggestion. The objection which I took long ago to the insertion of special classes of articles in this clause is shown to have been correct, as it is now considered necessary to introduce other items which are equally objectionable. I would point out that, as with the human animal, cattle,’ sheep, and dogs may have infectious or contagious diseases which may be curable, and whilst it may be very objectionable to allow these animals to go among their fellows with the disease and communicate it to them, it is just possible that during two or three months quarantine the whole of the objectionable features might be removed. The provision now proposed, however, absolutely prohibits the landing of any such stock.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– The honorable member does not desire to prohibit the landing as far as quarantine is concerned. He says that the sub-clause would not prevent them from being quarantined.

Mr THOMSON:

– The honorable and learned member said that importation meant being landed on the soil of the Commonwealth.

Mr Ronald:

– Nothing is landed whilst it is in quarantine.

Mr THOMSON:

– If we take the reading of the honorable and learned member, which is a common-sense reading, the effect of this provision will be to prohibit the landing of stock even at a quarantine station, and if the proposal of the honorable member does not intend to go that far, it is clear that this is not the proper place to deal with the matter. There would be no other way of dealing with such stock as is contemplated except destruction, and yet the drastic provisions of the clause would apply with full force to valuable stud cattle, which might be very useful and beneficial to the farmers and breeders of the Commonwealth if they were treated for a time in quarantine. For these reasons apart from any others I think it is undesirable that we should attempt in a paragraph that is not constituted to deal with such cases to regulate matters which can only be thoroughly and effectively provided for under our quarantine laws, when we take them in hand. In the meantime, the different Acts of the States will continue in force and will prove an effective protection against the introduction of diseased stock.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable member who has moved this amendment has the good wishes of every member of the House as far as his intentions are concerned, but it occurs to me that even if his efforts were successful the words ho proposes would be only declaratory, and could have no effect apart from the quarantine laws and health laws of the States. Moreover, since the Minister already has the power to prohibit imports, and since we have already made ample provision in the Bill to cover all cases, I feel that there is no object to be gained by burdening the Bill with clauses that can be carried into effect only by the Customs authorities acting in conjunction with the quarantine and health authorities. We know perfectly well that in practice the Government will prohibit the importation of everything that is contrary to the laws of the State, or is likely to introduce infection or disease, and I do not see any necessity whatever for any f further words in the clause. The - > honorable and learned member for Indi is simply clamouring to have something put into the clause so ‘that there shall be no mistake about the power of the Minister, when there is actually no mistake on that point at all. If the amendment were passed, it would not give the Minister a single power beyond those he has already, but, in order to be logical, it might- be necessary to follow it up by providing against the importation of a number of other articles, including fruit and vines.

Mr Kingston:

– -Which should be dealt with by special legislation.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Yes; we have that kind of legislation in every State, and the importation of undesirable goods is effectually prevented under it.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

– I must confess that, personally, I am in sympathy with the addition which has been suggested by the honorable and learned member for Indi. At the same time I do not think that he has done himself sufficient justice by making it clear that he wishes proper provision to be made in regard to the introduction of stock as to which there may be some doubt whether it is diseased or not. If he will undertake to provide that stock in regard to which there is any such doubt shall be landed in a quarantined area, I think the committee will be with him, and I am disposed to think that the Minister in charge of the Bill will give way, on the ground that the Supreme concern of honorable members is the public health. Not- withstanding that thismatter may be provided for in State legislation, the repetition of such a necessary provision in this Bill, in order that it may have Commonwealth effect,will not be inappropriate.It will not be doing any distinct harm, and cannot be taken in any way to interfere with the existing laws so long as it ‘accomplishes the object which is intended to be attained. My own impression is that, viewed from that standpoint, and as another safeguard to the public health, it would be well for the Minister to give way, so long as there is this qualification : that cattle about which there is any doubt shall not be destroyed without first undergoing proper supervision and proper inspection.

– The honorable and learned member is quite mistaken. All the States have their Stock departments, their Stock Importation Acts, and their stock inspectors..

– We ought to help the ‘State laws.

Mr.HARPER. -We have power to do so under sub-clause (g).

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– How is it thatwe cannot get ahorse from South Africa? They are absolutely prohibited.

Mr HARPER:

– They are absolutely prohibited by virtueof the Statelaws.

Mr Isaacs:

– The honorable member will notice the complications.

Mr HARPER:

– I am not a lawyer, and I do not understand the complications to which the honorable and learned member refers. The proposal of the Government is calculated to simplify matters by providing a latent power which can be exercised in any case where it is desirable to exercise it.

Mr. HENRY WILLIS (Robertson).I certainly think that the honorable and learned member for Indi has gone out of his way to give publicity to the view that honorable members opposed to his amendment are in favour of allowing the importation of diseased meat and cattle into the State’s.

Mr Isaacs:

– Surely not.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– Indeed, the honorable and learned member made an interjection to the effect that we would close the door after the steed was stolen. In other words, he implies that if wedo not accept his proposed amendmentwe shall be precluded from the opportunity of prohibiting the importation of diseased meat andstock. But one does not require to be a lawyer to exercise a little common sense, and to know what is the usage in the several States. We know that there are Acts in all the States which will prevent the importation of diseased animals of every kind. I do not think there is an Act which will prevent the importation of hoofs and skins that may come from diseased cattle; but the Minister for Customs has taken precautions against that condition of things in sub-clause (g), and in order to satisfy the contention of the honorable and learned member for Indi - who has had a very great deal to say upon this sub-clause on several occasions - has come down with a special clause which is now numbered 51a. That clause gives an interpretation to subclause (g), so that any article or any animal which is brought into this country and infected with disease may be. prohibited by proclamation. I take it that honorable members will not submit to a further waste of timeupon clause 49, because it has been before the committee on three or four different occasions for four or five hours each time. The honorable memberswho are now making so much fuss about this proposed amendment are the very members who occupied so much time in discussing these matters unnecessarily.

Mr.WINTER COOKE (Wannon). - I hope that the committee will accept the proposed amendment in the form suggested by the honorable member for Corangamite. The Minister for Customs relies upon the power given by sub-clause (g).

Mr Kingston:

– And upon the State Acts, which make ample provision for everything.

Mr WINTER COOKE:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– One support upon which the Minister relied was subclause (g). But if he relies upon that subclause, why does he also insert subclause (f)? He might equally have left the power to prevent the introduction of oleomargarine, butterine, &c., to proclamation. He did not do so, however, and he prefers now to rely upon sub-clause (g) to prevent the importation of infected cattle. This matter is so urgent that we should, at the very establishment of the Commonwealth, show to Australia that we wish to prevent the introduction of infected goods by the insertion in some Bill of a provision of this kind. It is true that all the States have Acts prohibiting the introduction of diseased stock; but, personally, I do not know the extent to which those Acts go. In Victoria the Act is pretty stringent, but no harm can be done by the insertion of the proposed amendment here. I should not have voted for the amendment as it was originally drawn, but with the addition which is now proposed to it, I can take no other course. It simply provides that all cattle will have to be quarantined, that though they are not infected when they land, they may be kept in a quarantine station under regulation. Surely no harm can result from the adoption of that course. On the principle that oleomargarine was included in the list of prohibited imports, I think that infected cattle should also be included.

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

– If this sub-clause is pressed to a division I shall have to vote against it ; not because I do not sympathize with the proposal, but simply because I think there is a place for everything, and that everything should go in its proper place.

Mr Conroy:

– Is the Minister accepting this amendment ?

Mr Kingston:

– I am accepting the amendment of the amendment.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - I understand that an amendment of the amendment has been proposed, and I would suggest that we allow the amendment on the amendment to pass, and then vote on the whole question.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I fancy there would be no objection if the honorable and learned member for Indi submitted his amendment in the amended shape, without troubling the Chairman to put the amendment of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the better way would be to submit the amendment on the amendment first.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Question. - That the sub-clauseas amended be inserted - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 14

Noes … … … 36

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported without further amendment.

Report adopted.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I hope honorable members will be prepared to assist the Government in passing the final stages of this Bill now. Under the circumstances I move -

That the standing orders ‘ be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I object to the standing orders being suspended in this House so often as they have been. We are setting up one of the very worst precedents possible. Even when proposed by my own side, when it might have been to our advantage, I objected to any suspension of the standing orders being allowed this afternoon, and I certainly object now. I hope we shall not fall into the habit of suspending the standing orders. If Ministers are not able to conduct the business of the House, there are gentlemen on this side and on the other side who will be quite ready to ease them of their duties. We ought not to allow Ministers to ask for the suspension of the standing orders so frequently, and I for one most decidedly object.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– It would have been well had the Minister explained to the House in a few words the reason for his proposal to suspend the standing orders. I understand the Bill has been again under review this afternoon simply to discuss one sub-clause, and that that was clone out of courtesy to the honorable and learned member for Indi.

Mr Kingston:

– It was a promise.

– That occurred because the Minister in charge of the Inter-State Commission Bill had delayed its consideration by his unavoidable absence.

Mr Barton:

– It was a distinct concession to the leader of the Opposition, at his own request. He wanted to speak upon both measures, and we willingly gave him the opportunity as a matter of courtesy, although it threw the Government business out of order.

Mr KINGSTON:

– No doubt if we had persisted in going on with the Customs Bill on that occasion we should have made such progress that it would have long since left this House. “We thought that the course which we are now proposing would have been concurred in, but as it is not. I withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 3292

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

Report adopted

page 3292

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (from 30th July, vide page 3214) on motion by Sir John Forrest -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I desire to say a word or two upon this Bill, which I regard as a measure providing for one of the most important, if not the most important, function that the Commonwealth is called upon to exercise. I think there has been, if not a general expression, at any rate a general feeling of regret at the inadequacy of the Bill. The honorable member for Bland last night, in saying that there was nothing new in the measure, did not quite describe its deficiencies It is an olla podrida a jumble of clauses and provisions extracted from the various Defence Acts of the Commonwealth, without any regard to symmetry, or to the important nature of the question. The Minister of Defence, who introduced the Bill, seems, as the honorable member for Bland said last night, to have been quite satisfied with things as they were, because they were so. He apparently has learned nothing from the recent cataclysm in the military history of Great Britain. The South African war has passed over his head and has taught him nothing. He is quite satisfied with the organization of our forces as they exist at present, unrefformed, unaffected by anything that we have lately learned, but which the very much more conservative country of Great Britain has to an extent profited by. The Minister apparently has made, and contemplates making, no provision with regard to obsolete weapons, no provision for the abolition of what may be termed the tinsel and glitter of military life. In fact, it is a matter upon which we may heartily congratulate ourselves that the discovery of gunpowder was made prior to the Minister’s time, otherwise I am firmly persuaded he would have been an ardent advocate of the primitive bow and arrow. He seems absolutely to belong to the neolithic or prehistoric period, to have dwelt iri a cave of his own - hitherto successfully keeping out any crawling or prowling marauder, and now, whether’ driven out or simply crawling out of his own accord, he obtrudes ideas admirably adapted to the cave into the more extended sphere of federal life. What does the Bill provide? It has been asserted, both in the press and in the House, that there are some new features in this Bill ; that there is at any rate one new feature. The Bill provides for a permanent force, a partially-paid force, a volunteer force, a cadet system, rifle clubs, and for a levy en masse. Now I decline to recognise the levy en masse as being a new feature at all. It is true that it is asserted in so many words in the Bill, but it is no new power conferred on the Government, for every Government has, by the very nature of government, the power to ‘ call out its citizens in a defence of the country Therefore the Minister, who, by a supreme effort has inserted in the Bill provision for this last and rare resort to the power of Governments, is entirely wrong in imagining that it gives any power to the Government that it does not already possess. I do not know whether the Minister or the Government thoroughly realize the position so far as it affects us to-day. We might regard it first of all from the stand-point of a possible bombardment of our ports, and secondly, from the stand-point of a possible invasion. On all hands men are ready to realize and recognise the possibility - nay, even the probability of a bombardment of our ports. Now, what provision does this Bill make, other than that already in existence, and which is notoriously ineffective and inadequate for repelling such a bombardment 1 - absolutely none. We may look in vain throughout the Bill for any indication even that the Commonwealth is an island continent. One would imagine that one was living in the mountain recesses of Switzerland, where the sea can never come within two or three hundred miles of the limitations of the territory. There is absolutely no sort of indication to be found in the Bill that we are a maritime nation, any more than as the Swiss have lakes, and possibly boats thereon, so there is found an indication that we also may, at some time or other, have to take, if not to the sea, at any rate to the water. Now, perhaps it would Dot be tiring the House if I reminded honorable members of the very great necessity for the improvement of the conditions under which the auxiliary squadron is maintained in these waters. In the Articles of Agreement under which the squadron is here and at our service, we find the following -. -

Clause 2, Art. VII. The colonies shall pay the Imperial Government interest at 5 per cent, on the first prime cost of these vessels, such payment not to exceed the annual sum of £35,000.

Clause 3, Art. VUE. The colonies shall, in addition, bear the actual charge for maintaining from year to year the three fast cruisers and one torpedo gun-bout which are to be kept in commission in time of peace, and also of the three other vessels which are to remain in reserve, including the liability on account of retired pay to officers, pensions to men, and the charge of relief craws ; provided always that the claim made by the Imperial Government under this head does not exceed the annual payment of £91,000.

Clause 3, Art. IX. On the termination of this agreement these vessels to remain the property of the Imperial Government.

Now, for the last ten years we have been paying the sum of £126,000 per annum as our contribution towards the maintenance of the squadron. In the aggregate this amounts to £1,260,000. The prime cost of the squadron was as follows : - H.M.S. Mildura, £116,062-; H.M.S. Tauranga, £128,101 ; Ringarooma, £128,076;

H.M.S. Wallaroo, £115,995; and H.M.S. Katoomba, £116,719, making a total for the cruisers of £604,953. The H.M.S. Boomerang and the H.M.S. Karrakatta, gun-boats, together are valued at £97,611, making a grand total of £702,564. Now we have, as J. have said, paid for the use of these boats and their crews during the last ten years £1,260,000 ; and it is notorious that, with the exception of the flagship, H.M.S. Royal

Arthur, the vessels of the squadron are obsolete, and that they would be quite inadequate to meet anything like an attack by up-to-date cruisers, such as would obviously be sent here in case of attempted invasion. We have been paying £126,000 a year for these ships, and had a businesslike provision or contract been entered into, rather than a sentimental one, we should now have been in a position to own these vessels, and should have seen our way fairly clear, at any rate, to man them.

Mr Conroy:

– What has been the cost of keeping them up ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I am not in a position to say what has been the actual cost of the maintenance of the crews as they now are on the station, but I do say that it would have been possible with skeleton crews, and the expenditure of say, £70,000 a year to a sinking fund, and the payment of so much a year for interest on the prime cost, to have fully manned these boats.

Mr Conroy:

– I thought we did not even contribute enough for their bare maintenance.

Mr HUGHES:

– I realize that that lias been asserted, but at the same time it must be borne in mind that we have by no means the exclusive right to these cruisers. We have only the first call, which, in a time of danger, would become the last call. There is no sort of doubt whatever in the minds of any reasonable men that when the hour strikes that the Empire of Great Britain shall really be in danger, not from a handful of farmers, but from an assault by a great and powerful combination of the nations, the auxiliary squadron will be detailed perhaps to China or elsewhere, to guard the places where the Empire is naturally most vulnerable to attack. One may read in Lord Brassey’s Naval Annual the clearest evidence of the fact that in spite of monumental efforts on the part of Great Britain to keep up the “two nations” strength of the navy of the Empire, she is year by year falling back in that effort, and, therefore, we have nothing more than the use of this squadron in time of peace, when it does absolutely nothing but police duties round our coasts and among the islands. We shall soon have to make another agreement, when vessels of a more up-to-date character will have to be contracted for. Is there any mention of anything of this kind in the Bill - is there any hint of there being any necessity for vessels of a superior kind 1 The

Minister has apparently retired into the recesses of his cavern; and not even- the remotest echo can be heard from him as to the necessity o£ replacing the obsolete vessels of the auxiliary squadron by up-to-date warships. Now, since our chief danger to Australia must take the form of- a bombardment, we have a- right to demand that- the first feature of our defence scheme should be to provide complete and satisfactory menus for protecting us from that possible and even probable contingency. I want honorable members to realize that this question of a bombardment, or of an attack from a marauding expedition, or whatever you. may please to term it, is by no means a chimerical idea, but it is tlie. one thing which has made federation- possible in these States. For what reasons, other than a Customs union and union for- defence, had we to federate at all? And after having federated, and after: in our various States, having given up so much, we are met face to face with a scheme of defence which is notoriously inadequate, and wretchedly obsolete in every particular and every detail. Now, I have said so, much, on the question of a marauding expedition or bombardment, and, so far, I believe honorable, members will agree with me, as every man, I think, realizes that we- are peculiarly open, to attack from the sea. We have- a coastline so prodigious in its extent that it is almost hopeless for us to guard it in any other way than by means of a fleet ; but there is also the ever, present danger- of an invasion. Now, it can- hardly be said that men who hold my particular opinions are likely to exaggerate the danger of an invasion ; but I think there is too much tendency to regard it as absolutely outside the pale of possibility, to regard it as something to talk about but not to prepare against. Obviously no: preparation is made in this Bill for any such contingency. It will be easy for me to show that. So long as it is conceived that Great Britain holds command of the sea all will be well. But on the very first day that her empire of- the -sea. is challenged, our first means of defence, will be withdrawn. Of course I mean our fleet. Possibly it may not be wholly withdrawn, but it certainly will be weakened. But it is even not a. matter of- whether it is withdrawn, or weakened, because we. know that it is notoriously inadequate to repel any such projected invasion. 1 know; of course, that many people regard the idea of invasion as chimerical. Why ? First of all it is said that no nation would, ever-.dream- of attempting such a task. It is. urged that we are a harmless, peaceful community^ or,- as one philosopher said of the Boers, who have cer’tainly belied Iris dictum, “a peaceful and a pastoral nation.” Well, we may be. But peaceful and pastoral as’ we are, there are not wanting nations to-day who are ready to pounce down upon us directly there is an opportunity. What provision do. we make to repel such an attack ? It is said that no nation- in Europe would undertake- the task; that the. Council of Nations would rise and protest against such, an outrage on civilization. Yes - if any one nation did so - I agree with those who say that. But if we asked ourselves what has been the his.tory of the last 50 years, we. should find that it has been a sharing of the spoils of the weaker nations amongst the great, powers of- Europe. We have seen India fall like a ripe plum into the hands of Great Britain; - we have- seen spheres- of influence extended into protectorates, pro: ‘tectorates extended into colonies, and colonies extended into empires and nations. We have seen, and we continue to see, day after day this process of eating up the unoccupied or weakly defended portions of the world, and are we to suppose that if ever Great Britain’s power- is broken one of the first and primal things that will occur to the nations will not be a division of the spoils of that empire? Will not India fall into the hands of that nation whose claws are the most powerful and whose might is the most resistless ? As a matter of fact, does any man believe that Australia - since she has elected to take the part, for good or for ill, of standing by the mother-land - will ever- be permitted to .stand out as though she were an indifferent, factor, entirely unconnected with the great British Empire? I do not think so. For good or for evil, she- has allied, herself to. the fortunes of Great Britain, and she must- share, alike, in her glories and in her defeats. Whenever the time ta which I refer comes, whether it be soon or late; we shall have to rely upon, ourselves^ When that day dawns, if we> have, such a scheme of defence as is outlined in this Bill, it does not require one to be much of a prophet, to foretell the result. What is our main line of defence, apart from the coastal defences; many of which are very, far from being complete, besides being officered in many cases by men who, I regret to say, have not so. much knowledge of gunnery as the rawest recruit in gunnery under- their command ? We have obsolete guns, which in any case are quite inadequate to deal with an invader who may elect to come to a port or to some, other place. For, as the honorable member for Illawarra .pointed out the other night, Port Kembla extends an open invitation to the enemy to enter. Does any one suppose that if we fortify Port Jackson or Port Phillip an enemy is1 going to come in there? Will he not rather-select the weakest point in our armour? That being so, the question arises - “ What are our land defences “ ? There is our permanent force, our militia or partially-paid men, and our volunteers. Then under this Bill there will be our cadets and rifle clubs, and the levy en masse. Regarding, the permanent force, I have nothing to say, except that they are too few in number to do any good.. If they could be all massed with the militia at one particular point it would be very well, but it has been the continued complaint of the . commandants of the States- that the break of railway gauge- and other things render the rapid transport of troops with:pro.visions almost an impossible and. hopeless task. To concentrate the available forces of the Commonwealth at one particular place, nay, to concentrate them in, any conceivable place, is certainly something which cannot be accomplished with the means at our disposal. The Bill provides, in addition to the militia and the permanent force, for the volunteer system and for. rifle clubs. The honorable member for Bland and one or two others who seem particularly partial to the volunteer system.,, appear to derive considerable satisfaction from the idea that we now rest securely under the aegis of the volunteers of this- country. Well, “a volunteer,” the- maxim goes, “is worth a dozen pressed men.” Yet the volunteer is very like snow in the summer. He melts away when the glamour and the- novelty of the thing has worn off, when he realizes that after all there is in military tactics and pre<paration a good deal of hard work .to be done. The volunteer, unless he be an .enthusiast, such as these shores do npt contain a large proportion of, melts away in such circumstances. Take the- case, of the men who volunteered for service in.- South Africa. They were largely composed of men who never belonged to any volunteer force at all.

If any- man can sit easily- down under the volunteer forces -of this country, and believe that with all their virtues and enthusiasm they constitute a sufficient force to repel an invasion from a European or. Asiatic source he is easily content.. For my part, I think that they are quite inadequate for the purpose indicated. I have spoken of an invasion on the part of European powers and of the- partition of Australia. Would it -be a profitable thing, for the Great Powers to do? I think that it obviously would. That they would regard it as a, profitable thing is obvious from the sacrifices which the nations make in. pushing: their trade in Africa, , and China. What is the object of the combination, of powers which is today hammering at the gates, of China ? Is there not under the surface. a desire to extend their sphere of operations and to make possible greater opportunities for trade- in short, to extend both their influence and their commercial opportunities. That will be done here, if the day ever comes when it can be done safely. I have no desire to sit down under the- dominance of any power other- than that which now rules us so- lightly. Some may. say that there is one easy way out of these difficulties, namely, by separating ourselves from Great Britain. I would remind those -who say so that we should by so doing render ourselves- a still more easy prey to the very enemies to which I now allude. Therefore, it appears to me that there is no sort of security in time of danger, but that which comes from an efficiently drilled, adequately paid, and sufficiently numerous body of men in our own country. This Bill does not provide for that. None of the qualifications of an efficient defence force are there to be found. But there is one thing winch. I do see. The Bill’ provides for a military establishment which I distrust. It provides for a military establishment on a permanent, footing, which, while it is wretchedly inadequate- to repel a foreign invader, is sufficiently strong . to overawe on some occasions- perhaps on many - the citizen in. his pursuit o£ constitutional reform op in. the maintenance of civil liberty and right. This is a Defence Bill which, upon being, analyzed and laid bare- does nothing- to, provide for that which is the. very essence and corner stone o£ a Defence Bill, namely, our defence in our time of need.. But it does, indeed - so far as there is any. power in it so to do - raise up a military power which can, and, nay, will - if history goes for anything - in time to come overawe the citizen if he wishes to do anything in the direction of resorting to otherthan constitutional methods to achieve his liberties. It has been th custom for Englishmen who have enjoyed liberty so long to regard democracy as being the culminating effort of mankind - the culminating effort in the art of government. Beyond that, they think there is nothing except that we climb ever upward and upward towards the now invisible peaks of a perfect system of democratic government. But if history has any lesson to teach, it is this, that of all forms of government there is none so unstable, none so evanescent, as democracy itself. I have in my hand an extract from one whose word upon this matter is worthy of credence. Maine, writing upon popular government, points out that although it is customary - as I have said - to regard democracy as being settled on the firm and broad basis of the people’s will, and, as therefore permanent and enduring, it is, nevertheless - tried by the standard and the light of history - a government which, in no case has endured for any considerable period. He says -

The opinion that democracy was irresistible and inevitable and probably perpetual, would, only a century ago, have appeared a wild paradox. There had been more than 2,000 years of tolerably well-ascertained political history, and at its outset, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy were all plainly discernible. The result of a long experience was that some monarchies and some aristocracies had shown themselves extremely tenacious of life. The French monarchy and the Venetian oligarchy were in particular of great antiquity, and the .Roman Empire was not even then quite dead. But the democracies which had arisen and flourished, or had fallen into Extreme insignificance, seemed to show that this form of Government was of rare occurrence in political history, and was characterized by an extreme fragility.

He goes on to point out that for over 1,700 years there had been, prior to the beginning qf this century, a continuous and almost uninterrupted tendency towards kingship rather than towards democracy, and that democracies, both .in the early days and later, have always, without any exception, been overwhelmed and swept out of existence by military despotism. If honorable members will cast their minds back over the teachings of history from the time of the overthrow of the Roman Republic down to the fall of the French Government under the despotism of Napoleon, they will fmd, right from Cesar downwards, that without any exception democracies have been short-lived, , and have always perished beneath a military despotism. A democracy has, first of all, abandoned the care of its territory, its country, and its liberties to the hired soldiery, and then it has gone down, and gone down willingly, kissing the hand of the nian who was to cut its throat.

Mr Higgins:

– Will that happen to America 1

Mr HUGHES:

– To America ? America is a creation of yesterday. If you ask me, America is a country where, although democracy is based upon the broad basis of manhood suffrage, yet, nevertheless is tied by such rigid bonds constitutionally, that we see there to-day the most extraordinary division between those who nominally are equal. We see there power vested really in the hands of men who, although they are not distinguished by aristocratic titles, have nevertheless very real and actual possession of that power. We see too that America has already known what it is to quail beneath a military despotism. We saw not very long ago that a hired band of soldiers - or detectives, no matter what you call them - were called out hired by private individuals and permitted to shoot men down because of a difference of opinion as to what should be or should not be done in a question of industrial dispute. Such a thing would never be possible in this country - at least I hope not. Such a thing has’ never been done in Great Britain, and, in any case, we may leave it alone, and say, granting that America is all that the honorable and learned member would have it to be, England, which at any rate has enjoyed her liberties for a longer period, and whose progress, although not so rapid, has been more continuous and more steady, stands in no way as a contradiction to the statement that I put forward, namely, that, first of all, democracies are short lived, and, secondly, that all have perished under the heel of military despotism. I know, of course, that some, people do not regard the teachings of history as worthy of too much consideration. Yet, if there is any light by which we are to guide the infant footsteps of our nation, it is by the teachings of history. If honorable members imagine for a moment that it is impossible that the existence of the proposed military force could in any way imperil our liberties, I would remind them that in every case, as I said before, it has been with the will of the people that they have embraced a military dictatorship. The coup d ‘elat of the third Napoleon was achieved by a plebiscite. It is through the medium, and by the shibboleths, of democracy that liberty is stolen from democracy. I have no fear of an open declaration of hostilities to the ideas of democracy, but it is by those insidious methods that have been employed from time immemorial, that I fear attack on this, our hardly -won Constitution. What is the remedy 1 The remedy appears to me very simple, though I realize that it is one which will with difficulty be accepted by honorable members. I have indicated that democracy becomes imperilled when it hands over to other people the custody of its liberties - when it fights not its own battles, but hands them over to a section, either of its own people, or, as in the case of the mediaeval Italians, hired mercenaries, lt appears to me that the responsibility of citizenship carries with it the right of defending one’s country.

Mr Knox:

– Hear, hear ; that is the basis of it all.

Mr HUGHES:

– It is in return for the privileges we enjoy in a free country that we should do something - do everything that lies in our power to defend it in the hour of need. It may be urged that the happy thought of the Minister for Defence in respect of the levy en masse provides us with that power. But what is the difference between a mob and a trained soldiery t Only that one is disciplined and the other is not. If the hour strikes, and the invader is here, and a proclamation is issued, and the citizens are mustered, how much do they differ, or in what do they differ, from an ordinary mob 1 In nothing. They have neither discipline, nor ideas, nor skill. It is very well to take comfort in the stubborn, and in some measure successful, defence made by the Boers. But we must remember that the Boers are a people who live largely in the country, while we, unhappily for us, find that our civilization locates us principally in towns, and that the Boers are all admirable shots, while we unfortunately are not. Therefore to rely on what they relied on would be a mistake, and would be to rest in a fool’s paradise. Yet the Boers are all subject, and not only subject, but actually subjected to regular and periodical drilling. It appears to me that the only remedy, the only sure and certain method of defence, is a scheme, if you like to call it so, of a national militia. ‘ I believe that every man should do what is done in Switzerland, that particularlyfavored country, so far as liberty is concerned. Every man there, from the ages of eighteen or nineteen to 60, has at periodic intervals to undergo training in the use of. arms and drill. Honorable members may say if they like that that is conscription. But if honorable members’ idea, when they use that term, is an idea based on European conscription, then I say that such, an explanation does not clearly or well ex plain what I mean. In Switzerland, forinstance, a man is not called out, nor ‘has-., he to serve for three years, two years,, or one year. He serves a certain number - of days in alternate years. There are a. number of rifle clubs, and every manmay attach himself to one of those, which: are open to all citizens. Instead of being tha intolerable burden that Europe imposes on her population and her people by the system of conscription, the Swiss method is a mere summer holiday. But whether it be a summer holiday or not, the Swiss have found it to their advantage and to the safety of their liberties to adopt the system. Yet Switzerland is safeguarded by a. specific, treaty on the part of the powers that she* shall not be interfered with. While.Switzerland may not interfere with theEuropean powers or make war on them, on the other hand the European powers may not declare war agains.t her. But, in spite of this, the Swiss have never rested on th empty declaration of a parchment treaty, but have armed their citizens and have been at all times ready. In the war of 1870, when the French army were driven over the border, or rather went over the border into Switzerland, and the Germans were preparing t6 follow and make war on Swiss territory, 80,000 Frenchmen werecompelled by the Swiss militia to laydown their arms, and the Germans werecompelled to refrain from crossing the frontier. As to efficiency, the history of Switzerland proves conclusively that the Swiss is as able a soldier as any. He was for centuries almost the able infantryman in Europe. What I propose is simply this -that every adult male in this country from the age of 18 to 60 should undergo a period of training. I propose that from 18 years of age to 21 every man should put in a period of six weeks training, of which three weeks should he continuous, and three weeks isolated drill: that from the age of 21 years to 30 years each man should put in a period of six weeks of which ten days should be continuous and the rest isolated drill; that from the age of 31 years to 40 or 45, every man should put in a period of six weeks training of which seven days should be continuous and the rest spread over isolated drill. When I Speak of drill, what I mean is perfecting himself in everything that goes to make an efficient soldier at the present day. I entirely agree with the honorable and learned member for Corinella who last night said that too much time was spent in merely formal and parade drill, and that too little time was spent in making a useful soldier on the field of battle. Therefore I say that the prime necessity is to make our citizens good rifle shots. If that can be done in less than three weeks continuous training in each year, very good. But at the same time that it is necessary to make a man a good rifle shot, it is also necessary that he should be subjected, and should subject himself, to discipline and to order - that he should know, when he is called on to fall into line, where to fall in and whom to obey. 1 have heard incidentally from gentlemen very many objections to the scheme I propose. It is said that it will interfere in business j that it will be distasteful to the people, and that it is opposed to the British ideal. Taking the sentimental idea first - -the objection that ‘the scheme is opposed to sentiments - I would say that the question we have to deal with is not one of sentiment, but one of common sense. Is the scheme opposed to common sense 1 I do not think so. Is it not a natural corollary of citizenship - of the privileges of citizenship - that a man should, as incidental to those privileges, defend his country ? Are we to consider what is or what is not at the present time the sentimental desire of the people 1 Are we not rather to consider what is the only sure and safe method by which we may secure’ that which we have obtained with so much difficulty and so much loss ? I distrust a military despotism, I distrust an army, because of that inherent dislike to militarism which stamps every Britisher. England to-day is distrustful of its soldier : until the present war a soldier in uniform was not allowed to go into many places of amusement, and it is notorious that he was regarded as a pariah and an outcast. The law of England provides that the army shall be a yearly institution which may be disbanded at the will of the Commons. The history of England has taught Englishmen that their only safety lies in the supremacy of the civil law. Here there is no excuse, because there is no necessity for a standing army. A standing army is necessary to G reat Britain for the protection of her enormous possessions in India, in the colonies here and elsewhere. But we are not called upon to do more than defend the shores of Australia. It is not an army of offence but an army of defence that I have spoken of - an army which will be exclusively confined to the defence of the shores of this country from an invader. Therefore there seems no good and sufficient reason why the citizens of Australia should not themselves* perform this duty. If it be said that an employer would find it insuperably difficult to allow his employe to take his place in the defence force, my reply is that under the proposition which I am making all employers would bo on the same level. An honorable gentleman said last night that one of the reasons why the partially-paid men could not get three weeks’ continuous drilling each year was that it was found to interfere too much with the business of employers. That may be an excellent reason while one employer has a militiaman in his employ and another has not. But when all employers are subjected to the same conditions no greater hardship can be inflicted upon one than is inflicted upon another. I would not compel any man to serve in the militia who is desirous of evading service, if he chooses to pay a tax for the maintenance of some one to serve in his place. Any man who, because of religious scruples, business interests, or any other reason was unwilling to serve, should be exempted from service, provided he paid a “capitation tax. Whether it meets with the approval of honorable gentlemen here, or of the people of the Country or not, I lay it down as a basic pro.position that it is the first duty of every man to defend his country, and if he is not willing to do so he should pay some one else for doing it. Under the present system a volunteer may train himself to the best of Ms ability for the defence of his country, and he must also pay a tax to meet the expenses of some one else defending it. Other individuals pay that tax but do nothing else foi: the defence of their country. Some citizens seem to think that they have done enough for the country that has done everything for them when they put their hands into their pockets and contribute something towards the happy despatch of troops to South Africa. But the beginning and the end of the responsibility of citizenship is not there. It should begin with his readiness to defend his country, and it should end only in making himself effective for that defence. I do not know that I care to amplify my remarks at greater length. I am content to think that I have put forward, however inadequately, what I conceive to be the only true and certain method by which this country and the people in it may be safeguarded against a foreign invader and the domestic tyrant, against the open enemy and the insidious friend. I believe that, as a nation, we may extend the right hand of fellowship to all civilized people. We may welcome all that they bring us, and all the benefits which flow in the train of commercial relations ; at .the same time we should be ready to present to an enemy such a firm, undaunted and formidable front that no nation would dare to attack us. I am persuaded that the Bill affords us no reasonable insurance ‘or provision against the risks of our position. I conceive it to be a measure devoid alike of originality and of merit. It is, as I have said, a measure which is essentially pregnant .with the spirit of the neolithic period - of the man in the cave. It makes no sort of provision for the imminent dangers from which, according to those who are now loud in their support of it, federation would give us a sure and certain defence. I ask any reasonable man, is this sure and certain defence to be found within the four corners of the Bill? Is it not rather a jumble, a scissors and paste compilation - and a most unhappy one - of the provisions of the existing State Acts - something, in short, that is just, enough to create a militarism which may overawe our civil liberties, and at the same time be utterly inadequate to repel the foreign invader.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– It is with some hesitation that I rise to address the House on the second reading of this Bill, because I feel that we have a right to conserve our time as much as possible, having so large an amount of work before us, and because a great many of the points to which I intended to refer have been touched upon by honorable members who are far more conversant with this subject than I am. I cannot help feeling that this is one of the most important Bills that could be brought before this Parliament. I do not mean to say that it is an all-important measure, because I think that the most important Bills with which we shall have to deal will be those which will tend to build up, to mould, and as far as we can, to assist the great industrial civilization of the Australian continent. But we must conserve that great industrial fabric that four millions of men have built up. to the wonder of the world. We must preserve our shores inviolate against every swashbuckling foreigner who attempts to invade them. The defence of Australia is of even more vital importance at this stage of our career than it may be in years to come. We have an island continent with 8,000 miles of foreshores, a large portion of which is now practically uninhabited. In the course of years, as population grows, almost the whole of the littoral of Australia will be occupied by enterprising people, and it will be impossible for a foreigner to invade it. We are now in the most dangerous period of our existence, and no doubt we must i depend to a large extent upon Great Britain for our real line of defence. . I feel that the Bill will be debated at great length in committee, and no doubt it is a measure which requires the closest scrutiny and the utmost criticism.. At the same time, it must be in its structure a mere skeleton, and we must intrust the clothing of the flesh and the impenetration of the spirit to a just, vigorous, and patriotic administration if it is to be made effective. It will be well therefore for us to consider the different points of this administration. At the head of it stands the Minister of Defence. When the present Ministry was formed it was absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister to take into his Cabinet men who had occupied prominent positions in the different. States, and no doubt in the allocation of offices it was very difficult to put the right man in the right place in every instance. Every honorable member must be” glad that the prominent man who did so much for Western Australia in the earlier period of responsible Government there holds a portfolio in the first administration of the Cabinet. But the portfolio of the Minister for Defence is essentially one which should not be bandied about and placed in the hands of a mere chance

Minister. I do not say that the Minister of Defence should be a professional soldier, and indeed I hope that he will always be essentially a civilian ; but if we are to have a citizen soldiery, if every man is to be a volunteer, I think it will be well if in the future the portfolio is placed in the hands of a man who understands the technology of a volunteer system of defence. “We want at the head of this great department a man who has a certain knowledge of soldiership, and one who is imbued with an enthusiasm which will send its current right through the Commonwealth. Standing next to the Minister will be the officer commanding the forces, who will control the whole of the troops. He must be a man of large military experience, a. man who has seen active service, and who is a good organizer. But besides all this, in a territory comprising the large area which the Commonwealth comprises, we want .a man of magnetic influence who will make himself felt throughout the length and breadth of Australia. I think that one of the most responsible tasks that will fall to the Government and those who advise them will be the selection of a general officer for this most important position. I take it that although we may have to bring to this country officers who are special experts in particular branches of the service, we shall lay down at once the principle that practically the only officer we shall take from the Imperial Government is the one man who will be placed over the whole of the Australian forces, because I think it is absolutely necessary that we should do nothing in any way to discourage the Australian soldiers in the path of promotion. In this Bill some restrictions are placed upon the commandants of the different districts, which districts, I suppose, will be coterminous with the different States for the present, although I think we should abolish as much as possible those arbitrary divisions. Now the position of commandant will be the blue ribbon of the Australian army, and I think we ought to do everything to encourage those who occupy that position, because we may depend upon it that the success of our Australian forces, whatever it may be, will to a large extent depend upon the skilled officers who command the troops. The next important branch is the civil administration, and I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important point, upon which depends the success or failure of the whole of this system. There has been a sort of feeling - and perhaps a very natural feeling - that the civil authority ought to be supreme, and no doubt the civil authority will be supreme in the person of the responsible Minister ; but anything like an absolute line of divorce in administration between the General in command, the whole of the forces, and the civil administration would be a fatal thing. I remember some years ago when a distinguished officer, whose name 1 need, not mention, came out to Australia, 1 had an interview with him, in the course of which he represented to me some of his difficulties. I told him that, at any rate in our then stage of military development, where one of the great essentials was not merely effectiveness but economy, he ought to make himself as thoroughly conversant with all matters connected with expenditure as the Treasurer himself. I do hope, therefore, that when this administration comes into operation, we shall have no unnecessary friction between the officer in command and the civil administration, because after all it is the nian at the head of affairs who will, by his magnetic influence, if he possesses it, give life and vigour and create an esprit de corps throughout the whole of the branches of the service. Then the next question that naturally arises is that of the training of officers. I agree with those honorable members who say that it is absolutely necessary that we should have a military training college. Affterall military business, like everything else, is continually developing, and besides the ordinary branches of military knowledge, which almost any man can learn in a short time, we shall have to deal with the scientific improvements which are made from time to time, and with which we must be entirely conversant if we are to keep pace with the rest of the world. Therefore, we must give every opportunity to every man in Australia who may be anxious to serve his country as an officer, to accomplish his mill.tary education. I believe there are many men of independent means who would readily place their services at our disposal. I do not mean to infer for one moment that anything but merit should be the test of progress, but if we have a number of men of independent means, who will not take the position of professional soldiers because there may be no avenue of promotion open ‘ to them here, but who wish to make themselves thoroughly capable officers in the citizen army of Australia, we are bound to give them the opportunity - if they like to give up years of their time to the training necessary - to make them thoroughly efficient. After all, everything in warfare depends upon the skill of the officer. The men, if they have confidence in their officers, will follow them to the very death, whereas, if we have an army in which, by any loose system, one man is practically as good as another, and there is no confidence in the skill and science and knowledge of the officers, that army, under many circumstances, will be simply a rabble. According to this Bill, the foundation of our military system is to be the cadet corps. I do not at the present moment see how we are going to interfere with the cadet arrangements of the different States. I do not see how, as a Commonwealth, while we can exercise power over the volunteers and the permanent forces and the militia, we are also going to actively interfere with the cadets, because the drilling that the cadets undergo is part of the educational system which iscarried out under State laws.

Mr Mauger:

– Unfortunately it is only sectional.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I am coming to that. I think that if every man is to be a citizen soldier, he ought to be trained in the schools of Australia. I think, moreover, that, in the first place, it ought to be compulsory in our public schools to undergo a military training, and that, in the second place, there ought to be an effort made by the different States - possibly by the Commonwealth - to induce every school, whether public or private, to make drill instruction part of its curriculum. Furthermore, I would go so far as to debar from certain civil privileges any man who could not show a certificate that he had gone through a certain course of drill at school. It seems to me that we must begin right at the very beginning of the system, because it is, after all, at that period of life when the mind and the body are supple that we can lay the groundwork of that training and discipline which are absolutely necessary to bring an efficient army into existence. The next matter I have to deal with is the permanent force. I have heard a great deal about the necessity of keeping the permanent force within very limited bounds. I would, however, point out that the permanent force is not required entirely for the manning of our batteries. There is something in the military business besides the firing of a gun from a battery. There is a certain amount of military training, including engineering and other matters, in regard to which men must be thoroughly instructed if we are to have the nucleus of an array. Some honorable members have made a very strong stand against the militia as a system. I am not sufficiently versed in military affairs to give a decided opinion on this question, but if we do not have a considerable number of militia as practically our second line of defence, as men practically trained up to a certain point, we must increase our permanent force or give more training to our volunteers. There is no doubt that it is impossible to have an army without a large nucleus of really trained men, and we must recollect that we have an enormous field of operations, which will cover the whole of Australia, and that when we divide up our 1,400 or 1,500 men in the permanent force by 6, the number of absolutely trained permanent men in each State will be infinitesimal. I feel myself that 100 men properly trained are better than 1,000 men with very little training.

Mr Conroy:

– Not for the fighting there would be here, though.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr KNOX:

– The Bill contains very vital principles, ‘ as the honorable member interjects, and perhaps I may be able to deal with some of those principles. Underlying the measure is reliance on our citizens’ life - reliance on it because we may probably have to defend this Constitution for which all of us have worked so hard, and have believed in so much in the past because of its privileges and obligations. I am one of those who believe that an eager people throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth are asking for some indication from Parliament as to what those privileges are. They are getting practical information day by day that the obligations are very great. It seems to me that we shall have to be careful and cautious in the measures that are passing this House, and in this measure in particular, in order that the citizens of the Commonwealth who have been expecting so much from the Constitution may not be disappointed, and led to believe the undertaking is a more expensive one and a more cumbersome one than they ever imagined. When I read the speech of the Minister for Defence in introducing the Bill, I was satisfied that he took a broad and proper view of the situation, recognising our privileges, and the responsibility we have of protecting those, privileges ; and am prepared in the main to support the measure. The Minister intimated that as the first line of defence, he desired there should be a permanent force. I cannot agree with the position taken up earlier in the evening by the honorable member for West Sydney, that such a force is unnecessary and a menace to the democracy of this country. On the contrary, I believe ‘that such a force is absolutely necessary as an instructive centre for the defence forces that are to be organized in connexion with the Commonwealth. A permanent force is also necessary as a protection to the democracy against those who would do it harm and mislead it into injurious ways, and bring about its destruction in1 the way that was so ably demonstrated by the honorable member who advocated that we should have no permanent nucleus of this character. In my judgment, the honorable member contradicted himself in a most able speech. I unquestionably believe that one of our necessities is a permanent force as a nucleus or centre round which all the other forces will gather for the protection of this land against a foreign foe. As a second line of defence I believe in a paid militia. But behind that permanent force and a paid militia, is the great force on which the protection of this Commonwealth depends, namely, the citizens themselves.

However important these first and second lines of defence are, I heartily agreed with the honorable member for West Sydney when he demonstrated that we have to look for support and help in times of trouble to our own people and to our own citizen soldiers. It has been well pointed out that these citizen soldiers must be systematically and regularly instructed. If they are not to have, as we desire, officers whose whole time is employed in learning their professional work, we shall have ineffective instruction which will be detrimental to the whole service of the Commonwealth. As probably some honorable members are aware, I have consistently and strongly advocated the extension of rifle clubs. I believe that no man should have a right to citizenship unless he is able to show that he can defend his country by the use of his rifle. Every man should be able to show that for a certain period of each year he has practised with the gun and is able to use that necessary weapon in defence of his country. I recognise the truth of what the honorable member for Wentworth said, namely, that at the very basis of the whole system are the cadets. .1 have already in my humble way tried to urge strongly and consistently that it ought to be compulsory upon every boy who is physically fit, to learn the elements of drill and the use of the ordinary Francotte rifle. I use the word “compulsory” advisedly, not in the sense that a child is to be taken away from an unwilling parent, but in the sense that at this period of a boy’s life he may be instructed in the elements of drill and in the use of his rifle. in such a way that he will never forget, no matter to what age he may attain. I use the word “ compulsory “ in the same sense that I would apply it to the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Every boy who is physically capable, and whose parents have no objection on the ground of religious or other scruples, ought to be compelled to learn what I have indicated. The youth, growing into manhood, should be accustomed to the military habit. I do not for a moment desire that this or any other measure which passes this House, should spread throughout the country the bombastic- idea that, because we have raised ourselves to Commonwealth level, we are going to start a big military system. I do not wish to do anything of that kind. What I desire is that each man should feel an individual obligation and an individual wish to make himself competent and to gain sufficient experience and knowledge to be able to defend his home and his hearth in the time of his .country’s need. That must be the basis of all this legislation : and if we once depart from that basis it seems to me that we shall drift into something which will be so unwieldy and so large that I question whether the resources of , this Commonwealth would be able to carry the burden without resentment on the port of the people, because of its undue weight. I feel that I cannot too strongly urge the need of impressing on the Bill the principle of giving assistance to rifle clubs. Unless the Minister for Defence is prepared to give the rifle clubs the means of practice in the shape of ranges, and unless he is prepared to put into their hands up-to-date weapons, it will be quite idle for him to give them rifles at all. The equipment must be complete ; and if I have any complaint at all in regard to this measure, it is that we have no adequate intimation from the Minister of what the general proposals and intentions of the department are in regard to the personal equipment of the military, the militia, the volunteers, and the rifle clubs. I do not wish to weary the House with the statement of well-known facts, but we have here weapons which are utterly out of date, and which, if an attack were made upon Sydney or upon Melbourne, would be demolished by the more modern and superior weapons of the enemy. All these obsolete guns ought to be properly replaced, and yet the Minister gives us no explanation of his general intentions in this direction.

Mr Poynton:

– How much does the honorable member think it would cost to do what he suggests 1

Mr KNOX:

– I ani not in a position to answer that question, and it could be answered properly only b)’ the officer who will be in command of the forces, after he has obtained the best advice on the subject. We might, however, expect from the Minister for Defence a statement which would supply us with some information on the subject. In my opinion one of the most just causes for the borrowing of money by the Commonwealth will be the equipment of our land forces and the putting of our fortifications into proper condition. I believe that not less than £500,000 will be required for this work, and so large a sum will require careful and judicious consideration in its disbursement. The Minister for Home Affairs has informed me that the militaryequipment of New South Wales is much better than that of the other States. In Victoria our forces have been absolutely starved in the matter of equipment, during some years past. Recently there appeared to be some justification for a not too precipitate expenditure, since the deportment was about to be taken over by the Commonwealth, and as there would naturally be re-organization it was thought undesirable to deal with our forces in a piecemeal fashion. It has been stated that the Bill makes no provision for naval defence. I am perfectly satisfied that the more honorable members consider the enormous expense which would be necessary to create a fleet at all adequate to our requirements of coastal defence, the more they will be inclined to agree that the Minister has acted wisely in deciding that for many a long year to come we must depend upon the mother country to assist us. It is important that we should have her to depend upon, and, as one honorable member interjected, what would be our position if we had not the protection of Great Britain ? Another honorable member stated that if we stood alone we should be less liable to attack. I hold that if we stood alone it would not be long before envious eyes would be cast upon this continent, and we should have very little strength to resist the great forces that might be brought against us. I regard any suggestion that we should attempt to organize a naval defence of our own as utterly beyond the possibility of realization. The matter is- one which cannot be brought within the range of practical politics for many years to come. We must continue to look to the old motherland for assistance and help in time of need, and we know that we shall not look in vain. I think, however, that the time is not far distant when it will be necessary for us to contribute more than we are now paying for the protection which we receive from the mother country. We have taken upon us the privileges and the responsibilities of nationhood. Our brothers and our sons have gone to South Africa, and they have done their duty there well, so that the eyes of the civilized world have been fixed upon us. But while we have been brought into prominence, and have obtained the advantages of nationhood, we must not forget that we have also its responsibilities to face, and must meet the risks which our prominence has brought us. While it will be impossible for us to organize a naval force which will to any extent be adequate for our protection, we should have a service which will be useful for the protection of our harbors and fortifications. Such a force would provide means for the absorption of a large number of our youths who at present have no regular employment. In it they would be disciplined and be given occupation, and they would be made serviceable citizens and defenders of the Commonwealth, should occasion arise. It will also be necessary to have a school of military instruction established within the Commonwealth. Inasmuch as we are an island continent, we should have within us the resources necessary for the instruction and education of those who are to take command of the various divisions of our military service. I hold, too that all small arms and ammunition should be manufactured within the Commonwealth, and that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to cast our own ordnance and large guns. Now that our defence forces are to be organized on broad lines, there is no reason why we should not make them complete. While I hope that we shall be for ever associated with the mother country, . I trust that we shall be a unit, capable of standing by ourselves, and of doing all that is possible for our own defence. There has been considerable dispute as to what the classification of the service which is made in the Bill really means. I sun disposed to think that the Minister placed it in the Bill to indicate what men would be required in the case of national emergency to come forward to defend their country; but in my opinion, if the country were ever in danger, no compulsion would be necessary to obtain defenders. The difficulty would be to hold our people back. The Minister wisely and well indicated that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the experts who advised him, the classification in the Bill should be the order of those who would take their places in the line of battle should emergency arise. I hold the view that there is an inviolable and unbreakable obligation on every man to respond to the call of duty,- and to defend his country when necessity arises. His rights of citizenship are bound up with that duty, and he is unworthy of citizenship if he is not prepared to perform it. In this democratic age, I say that no man should have the rights of citizenshipno right to record his vote as a citizen until he had shown *a qualification in his ability _ to protect his country in case of need. With regard to the question of national emergency, I think “that probably some amendment might be inserted which would make it clear that what is referred to is an emergency of national disaster or of invasion by a foreign foe. I think that the desire of the House is that this should not be an aggressive measure, but purely a Defence Bill. Therefore I do not see any necessity for the power which is proposed to be given for sending our forces outside the limits of the Commonwealth. Unless it is shown that it is necessary for our defence, our forces should never be sent outside the limits of the Commonwealth without the sanction of Parliament, which ina real emergency would not be difficult to secure. I have read all the penal clauses which take up so large a portion of the concluding part of the Bill. I. am disposed to think that unless the motive for service rests in the hearts of the people, and in their love and respect for the Commonwealth, and their affection for the land in which they were born, very many of these penal clauses will be inoperative and ineffective at a “time of disaster. Doubtless, however, many of them are necessary, but other honorable members will probably agree with me that some of them will require from the Minister an explanation, which he will no doubt be ready to give. I say this with considerable diffidence, because I am aware that this Bill is the outcome of careful consideration by a body of men whose lives have been spent in military pursuits, and who have had not only their own experience, but the history of war to guide them. Still I apprehend that it will be competent for every one of us to do as we have had to do in legal matters - namely, while respecting the technical opinion of those thoroughly trained to the subject, to hold ourselves at liberty to take a common-sense view of the situation. I strongly feel that the foundation of our whole defence syStem is to be found in our cadet corps, and that if we implant in our cadets the necessity of having instruction in elementary drill and the use of the rifle, our lines of defence will always be adequately filled. Whilst it may be necessary for us to retain the power, irrespective of any mention in this Bill, of calling upon every man who is physically capable to come forward and defend his country in case of necessity, I hold that we shall find in any case of national emergency that our men are ready to defend their country. They must, however, be led properly, and they must have proper instruction and equip- ment. I feel, therefore, that tlie whole measure is one of such importance that it fully deserves that careful consideration which I am sure every honorable member will give it. We should, however, keep constantly before our eyes the one fact upon which we can and must rely - that our citizens will come to our aid voluntarily in hundreds of thousands in’ any case of national necessity.

Mr MANIFOLD:
Corangamite

– I think this is one of the most important measures that we could have before us. It deals with the question that has perhaps more than any other . brought Australia together, because the States separately could not deal with the defence of our shores in the same way, or with the same effect as can the Federal Parliament. Now that we have become a united people we must remember that what we do will be looked upon by the. outside world in a different light altogether from that in which our actions .as States Iia ve been regarded in the past. We are going to be brought into closer connexion with the old country, and perhaps it may be our privilege to have, a voice in f;he external affairs of the British nation. It has been argued by some honorable members on the other side of the House that this Bill is too indefinite, too much of a skeleton, and the honorable member for West Sydney has stated that there is nothing new in the proposal, and has expressed a wish that the Government should come down with a new proposal, i would, however, ask those honorable members who argue in that -way what they would have said if the Government had come down with a scheme involving a very large expenditure for naval or military purposes. We are asked to deal with this Bill only in order to regulate the forces at present in existence, but I have not the slightest doubt that in’ the future the Government will have to spend a great deal more money in the defence of the Commonwealth than they have done in the past. It is unquestionable that the day will come when we shall be called upon to take our share in the wars of the world - unless some system of arbitration is adopted under which all war will cease. That is what we should all strive for, but it seems almost impossible to bring about any such condition of affairs at present. The Bill deals almost entirely with the military forces, and to a very small degree with the naval forces, but this is owing to the fact that we have practically jio navy, whereas we have a considerable number of soldiers, and principally citizen soldiers. I should have liked to see more attention paid to the naval side of our defences in the Bill. We have in the past contributed a certain amount of money to the British Government towards the maintenance of certain war vessels on “the Australian station, but I believe we shall, in a short time, have to increase that subsidy, and I hope that we shall then insist upon it that these vessels shall not be taken away from the Australian station. Some honorable members have stated that in a case of emergency the vessels forming the Australian squadron would be taken away to China or elsewhere, but I think that when we contribute a larger amount towards the expenditure of the navy we should insist upon the assurance that these vessels will be used for our defence, and our defence only. It is impossible for us at the present time to think of having a navy of our own, because we know the cost of battleships, and that to obtain only two or three of a first-class type would absorb a very large amount of our revenue, and would impose on us a heavier tax than wo could Dear. W e must, therefore, rely upon the .assistance of the British Government, and we should certainly take a hand in helping that Government to maintain its navy. If we do increase the amount of our subsidy towards the Australian squadron, we should endeavour to obtain a larger number of vessels on this station. Some honorable members have contended that it will be impossible to do any good with our fleet unless we have vessels of the very first class ; but I would point out that it is improbable that any of the first-class men-of-war would be sent out to attack Australia, as their heavy coal consumption would almost prohibit them from taking such a long voyage. They do not carry a very large quantity of coal ; and it is very probable that no ship beyond the rating of a second-class cruiser would be sent out to molest us. The reserve ships we have at the present time remain in Sydney, and rightly so, because Sydney is the naval depot of the station, but we should, endeavour to increase our naval brigades, or what might be called our naval reserves, and endeavour to have the warships forming our squadron distributed over various important centres throughout the Commonwealth. It would be useless to have naval reserves unless we had ships upon which we could train them, and ,1 .think it would be a great improvement if the ships that are in reserve were not. entirely retained in Sydney but sent where there would be sufficient forces to man them. It would not be necessary to have the most improved class of ships for this purpose, because, as I said before, it is improbable that first-class battleships would be sent out to this station. Another matter that might receive attention is the desirability of always having a sufficient number of guns on hand in the Commonwealth so that some of our merchantmen might be fitted up in case of emergency. We know that the British Government subsidizes merchant steamers in order that she may have the call upon them and equip them for service in time of war if she should think it necessary. A merchantman would not of course be so good as a man-of-war, but what we have particularly to dread in the event of difficulties in which Great Britain might be involved, is that our commerce, both- Inter-State and with parts beyond the sea, might be practically, destroyed by an enemy. Honorable members can very well imagine what would happen if a fast cruiser - even a merchantman - were. sent into these waters. She could capture practically the whole of our merchant steamers, and we should not only suffer the loss of our vessels, but we should give the enemy facilities for replenishing his coal supply, and so enable him to cause us a great deal more trouble than would otherwise be possible. In the future I hope that all the principal ports of the Commonwealth will, wherever practicable, be fortified. This, of course, will involve a very much greater expenditure of money than we have hitherto incurred. We should have a sufficient number of men to man all our forts, but I do not think it is necessary to have our forts fully garrisoned by permanent men. We should have a sufficient number of permanent men to work the guns and man the forts with the assistance of members of our militia forces in the neighbourhood. It would be impossible to get members of the militia force down to the forts from a distance in time to assist the permanent men in meeting an attack, which would probably be made very suddenly ; but we should take care that all the men required from the militia forces are always ready to assist those who are permanently employed in the forts. It would assist a foreign power very much in making an attack upon us, if we left certain ports open which the enemy’s menofwar could enter and make coal depots of. They would then be able to run into these harbors without any opposition at all, and replenish their bunkers whenever required.

Mr Conroy:

An Honorable Member. - What sort of council does the honorable member suggest?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I would suggest a council, partly civil and partly military, but my suggestion in this regard may go for very little. I do not pose as an expert in matters of defence, and I am not here to say what are the right sort of proposals for the defence of Australia, because I know very little about the matter. I am speaking rather with regard to my apprehensions as to the amount of expenditure that will be involved in the proposals under the Bill. That being so, I rather support the suggestion for a Council of Defence as being a safeguard against undue and lavish expenditure. I am the more inclined to support that proposal because I hear it suggested in several quarters that there ought to be a military college established in connexion with the Commonwealth. These proposals are all very fine and large, but they involve huge sums of money, and I do not know that the practical result to be obtained from the establishment of such a college would justify the expenditure. Our principal purpose is defence. We are not a predatory nation - we are not about to seize on other territories, or to add to our material possessions in other parts of the world. We are asked simply to defend what we have had given to us. A military college, while it might afford an opportunity for training certain men whose business and profession will be connected with military affairs in the future, might not be, and in my judgment would not be, such a sound undertaking as the sending of some of our men to the more up-to-date military establishments on the Continent or in the old land, where they would learn the latest developments in the art of war. It might pay us much better to send some of the promising Australians who have elected to follow the military profession to English or other colleges on the Continent.

Mr O’Malley:

– To America.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

All war, and therefore all preparation for war, is opposed to the spirit and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wecannot, therefore, take uparms or otherwise engage in any occupation directly or indirectly concerned in preparation for or prosecution of war, and we appeal to you to protect us, and all who believe with us, in the due observance of our religious principles in this respect.

I am always wiling to concede a great deal to any one who has religious scruples upon any subject. I have one or two scruples myself, religious or otherwise. I do not like to give way upon them, but I like other people to have the same liberty as I have myself-.’ There will be some little difficulty, perhaps, if we lay it down that everybody shall be liable for service, seeing that the Quakers objectupon principle. They are not a very numerous body of the community.

Mr Mauger:

Mr MAUGER:

– Those advices must be very recent then, because it was only in January last that the Congress and Senate of the United States of America passed the clause which I have just read. 1 have here testimony received by the last mail from man)’ of the leading officers in America, who have pointed out the absolute necessity for such a clause as this. I am not going to press my own personal views upon honorable members, but if you want a strong man, if you want a reliable soldier, you must have a steady man. We are responsible if we put temptation in the way of these men. These, briefly stated, are my views on the Bill. I sincerely hope that the result of our deliberations in committee will be that we shall produce ah infinitely better Bill than the Government has placed on the table of this House. I also hope that we will set our faces against anything in the form of conscription. I trust we will rely upon the loyalty and dutifulness of our own citizens. Make this a national home. Give every individual an opportunity of developing his physical, mental, and moral life. Let him rear good and loving children, and when the hour of crisis comes we shall find tens of thousands of volunteers ready to fight for home and country.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa.

– I do not know whether honorable members will regard me as an authority on the Defence Bill. I saw a little service in South Africa during five or six years, though I was not an officer. I only held the rank of gunner, and I intend to give the House the benefit of my experience from a soldier’s point of view.

We in Queensland, and in Western Queensland particularly, expected great things of this Defence Bill ; but I must say, from my own point of view, its general principles are bad and misleading. They are purely military from one end to the other. My honorable friend, the member for Melbourne Ports, has told us that there was a conference of military commandants. If that conference wanted to make Australia a military nation more than any other country they could not have done better than have made the proposal contained in this Bill. If we had sent to France for a Bill on French lines providing for conscription, we could not have got a better one than this. If we are not going to start the new nation with a spirit of militarism, the sooner we knock these proposals on the head the better. Militarism is the danger which I fear, knowing the feeling that was aroused in my breast when men started volunteering for South Africa. Like an old war-horse 1 could smell the battle from afar, but I was told by the Premier of Queensland that I would do better if I stayed at home. Little did that gentleman think at that time that I would be returned as the very first federal member for Queensland. I took his advice, and here I am to-day, speaking against the principle I advocated in Queensland at the beginning of the Boer war, when the spirit of militarism was rampant within me, and I volunteered to go to South Africa. I remembered those beautiful lines -

Breathes there a man with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said :

This is my own, my native land- and when I thought the old country was in danger, I threw everything on one side to go andhelp her. I would do the same tomorrow, and there’ are thousands of others imbued with the same spirit as that which animated me then and animates me now. So far as the conscription clauses of this Bill are concerned, there is no need for them in Australia. I am entirely in sympathy with the rifle club movement, and if honorable members knew of the good work that they are doing in Queensland, they would never be afraid of an invasion. Every one of the members of these rifle clubs are making themselves perfect in shooting, and I am very pleased to say that an officer like Lord Roberts has shown himself prepared to admit that the Australians know how to fight. I was in South Africa in 1881, when I passed through a very similar experience to that which befell the troops under General Buller on the banks of the Tugela, at Colenso. I was at Laing’s Nek, Ingogo, and Majuba Hill, and we passed th rough the same experience there. The men were brave and gallant, and. would go wherever they were told to go, and I have seen men, especially at the Battle of Isandula, where the Zulus cut up the main column of our force, sent to their certain death. I saw 250 men sent to their death in trying to turn the flank of 30,000 men.I t was an officer who told the men to do that, and yet they talk about not taking men from the ranks. These men did as they were bid, and were slaughtered back to back, and found six months afterwards by Lord Chelmsford in the positions in which they had fallen. As far as the rifle clubs are concerned, they are going to be the backbone of the Commonwealth defences. The men belonging to these clubs are being taught the first principles of defence - that is, how to shoot. I am at one with the honorable and learned member for Bendigo when he says that we should have an efficient navy, but the question is whether we are in a position to raise one, and I maintain that we are not. The leader of the Opposition, however, made a very wise suggestion when he pointed out that the ships belonging to the Australian auxiliary squadron might be available as training vessels, and that they might be manned by’ the men whom we have here, who are willing and capable of following a seafaring life, and who might prove a valuable reserve in the event of Britain being placed in a position of necessity. 1 do not believe in taking the men of our defence forces beyond the Commonwealth. When the rifle clubs were formed in Queensland, one of the features of the legislation that was passed was that the men should enrol themselves for defence against invasion only, and I venture to say that if the members of these rifle clubs knew that they were to be taken out of Queensland for service abroad there would not be one of these clubs to-morrow. Many of these men hold good positions in business, and in professions, and their whole life interests are bound up in the localities in which they live. However loyal they might be, and however they might wish to assist the Empire, they would not consent to render themselves liable to be ordered beyond the limits of the

Commonwealth for military service. As the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has pointed out, our forces here might be called upon to quell a rebellion in Ireland, and I should certainly vote against a clause that would permit anything of the kind being done. The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has also pointed out the very wide definition that might begiven to the term “ emergency,” and I am perfectly sure that if any attempt were to be made to take any members of the rifle clubs beyond the shores of Australia they would refuse. That would amount to an actof mutiny, which would render the men liable to trial by drumhead court-martial, and to be shot. One honorable member suggested that the men might in such a case appeal to the High Court. But what would be the use of appealing to the High Court after they were dead. I am quite sure that we should have plenty of dead riflemen, because the authorities would probably take out the irreconcilables and shoot them for the purpose of overawing the rest. If this provision in the Bill is not altered, I am afraid that the rifle club movement will become a failure, and such a result would be a disaster to the Commonwealth. Even supposing it were to cost a little more to make every member of these rifle clubs effective as riflemen, I think the money would be well spent. It has been remarked that Members of Parliament are to be exempt from military service, and on that point I would like to say that if we are going to exempt Members of Parliament from service they should also be prevented from becoming military officers. Why should they be allowed to act as military officers on a fine day and find a substitute and stop inside on a wet day. It seems to me that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.With regard to the cadets, I may say that I did not know that Victoria had such a system as she has until I came down to the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament, and if there is one thing that Victoria deserves credit for - and I am now speaking as a military man - it is her cadet force. My eyes were opened when I saw the boys drilling on the Exhibition grounds, for they went through their movements with a precision that would have done credit to older men, and at the military review at Flemington the schoolboys were par excellence from a military point of view. If we train our youngsters how to shoot, and give them proper military training, when they attain the. age of manhood they will be imbued with exactly the same spirit as I was, and will want to join the ranks again. They will thus form the nucleus of a real good army; and when wehave this nucleus, I. am certain that we shall be perfectly safe from aggression. Some honorable members object to permanent forces, but I would point out. that it is eminently necessary that we should have a certain number of trained men. When I joined the Royal Horse Artillery I went through two courses of training, first in the laboratory and then through a course of rough-riding, in order to become an efficient remount officer, which secures an extra shilling a day and immunity from a good deal of manual drill. There are many men who offer themselves, but few are chosen”. The consequence is that theyget experts, and I assure honorable members that they take very great care of these experts, and do not put themin anyposition where they are likely to get shot, and although there were many of my comrades who did get shot, I escaped. There is another point in connexion with the gunnery course. Special inducements were held out by the Royal Artillery Institution to the men to go through a course of gunnery at Shoeburyness,with the object of their qualifying for engagement as gunnery instructors to some of the colonial forces, at the highrate of £91 per year and found. The soldier who. gets that rate of pay at home considers himself well remunerated. In connexion with this course of gunnery the men have to make themselves proficient in the laboratory work, which consistsin obtaining knowledge as to the composition ofshells and timefuses, and so on, so that when they go out to the various colonies they are very effective men. We want a permanent force of that description in the Commonwealth, to form a skeleton for the different corpsthat are to be raised in connexion with our citizen soldiery scheme under this Bill.

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth Officers’ Allowances : Federal Capital :

Allowance to Governor-General :

Revenue Contribution of South Australia:

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

In submittingthis motion Iwould remind honorable members that last night I said I would obtain some information with respect to a question whichwas raised in debate as, to sundry living allowances, and as to journeys to Sydney. I find that in regard to the Department for External Affairs I made a slip. There have been allowances for living from two guineas down to £1, and I apologize for having made a mistake, in saying the minimum allowance was ten shillings ; it was defective recollection on my part. I sent for the information since the House adjourned last night, and I find that these allowances begin with the secretary and go down to the chief messenger, who alone has on any occasion been to Sydney as a messenger. Thetotal amount of these allowances amongst the seven persons engaged in the department would be £10 7s. per week, or in the case of a six months’ session about £260. I find also that a similar allowance of £2 has been made to the secretary of the VicePresident of the Council. I am not aware how often he has been to Sydney, but I think that he has been very seldom or scarcely ever since the sittings of Parliament began. I am told that allowances are also granted in the Department for Home Affairs, and in the Post-office. As to the Post-office, I have no official information, but I will get it if necessary to-morrow. So far as the Department for Home Affairs is concerned, there have been very few officers appointed yet. In the newspaper paragraphs which were published yesterday a great many things appear to have been assumed as the intention of the Government without any warrant or authority. The Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has an allowance of £2 a week, and a typist and shorthand writer has had an allowance of £1 10s, while a messenger has had an allowance of £1 in the same way as the messenger in my department. As to railway passes, the Secretary in the Department for External Affairs has a pass over the Victorian and New South Wales railways given by the Railway Commissioners of the respective States, in each case temporarily, pending permanent arrangements. Honorable members will recall to memory that with regard to the . federal service definite and permanent arrangements have not been made as to the terms of business with the Railway Commissioners. That is particularly so with regard to the civil servants. Honorable members will also remember that in the civil services of the States the principal officers hold railway passes and travel on them constantly or very frequently..

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Only a few of them.

Mr BARTON:

– I say the prominent officers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not all the prominent officers, but only -a -very Jew.

Mr BARTON:

– If the honorable member will allow mie I will say most of the prominent officers. We meed not bicker about this. I “will give the honorable member all information, if he will kindly allow me to ‘go on. No Other officers in the department of External Affairs have passes. Tickets have been obtained when required, and the visits have been so -few that I think that that has cost almost as little as if- they had had passes. The secretary has been to Sydney twice without me. ‘On those occasions, I am ‘bound to say, he did so for Urgent domestic reasons. On each occasion he was commissioned by me to transact important business ‘by interview with persons “whom it was preferable to consult personally rather than by letter, and I will vouch for the fact that the business he did was of great ‘advantage to the public service. Further, I ‘should add that my own secretary has not been to Sydney since “his appointment without me. My visits, which will cover his visits, amount to these : I -<came to Melbourne on the ‘10th April for the purpose of holding Cabinet meetings. I held a series of Cabinet meetings, and on the 19th I went back to Sydney for a couple of days, - and returned on the 22nd or 23rd ; at any rate after two or three days. I was not at Sydney again until I left on the 31st May to attend the celebrations at - Sydney. I went to Sydney again on the 5th July until the 8th, ‘and again from the 26th until the 29th. There was an interval between my visits after April of four or five “weeks until the end of May. Then’ there was a lapse of five weeks (until the 5th July, and then again after my -return there was a lapse of more than three weeks until the 26th July, and I expect my next visit will’ be about the 6th September, or six weeks hence. Honorable members from these facts - -and I promised to give them the full facts - will -be enabled to judge of the enormous charge on the country entailed by these visits. On each occasion, I cannot help confessing, the whole of the Sunday was occupied by me and mv secretary -with departmental papers. It will be seen that I did mot go to Sydney for a holiday on any occasion,

As to the Home department, I have already said there are three officers receiving living allowances. The following further information has been given : -

Orders for -railway tickets have only been issued to officers Of this department when travelling on duty - coming to Melbourne to take up work, &c.

It being found that it would be necessary for an -officer and a messenger to frequently visit Sydney to carry on the work when the Minister was there (no officer being permanently stationed in Sydney), and the system of taking out tickets each time proving expensive, it was decided to take out two half -yearly tickets, by which a large saving was effected.

That was natural, because ‘the visits of the -Minister of the Home department have to be ‘more frequent than in the case of my department.

In connexion with Mr. Pollock’s-

He is the under-secretary to the New South Wales Attorney-General - service with this department, a condition was made by the State in lending him that he should return twice a month and it was found more economical to take out a monthly ticket between Melbourne and Albury ; for the rest of the journey he used, his pass as an under-secretary of the State of

New-South Wales

There, Mr. Speaker, is .the whole of the information of which I am possessed on the subject. A great deal of information has been conveyed to honorable members by the newspaper comment that has taken place. I said last night that I would endeavour to obtain a comparison of the rates of the salaries paid to Commonwealth officers with those paid to the officers of the two principal States.

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; LP from 1913

– That was a misleading rate given this morning.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– That rate was not given by me. I have given no authority whatever for any statement in the newspapers on this subject. I want to say that I will have this information ‘prepared and laid before honorable -members in order that they may judge if there is anything whatever in this charge of extravagance.

Mr Watson:

– Will the right honorable gentleman say -what are the intentions of the Government in reference to these allowances t

Mr BARTON:

– The subject, of these allowances will dead -me to something presently which I think is rather interesting. I am of opinion, and I think those who have made a study of the Constitution are also of opinion, that two things are a fact - first, that it is not intended that the seat of Government shall be fixed in any particular place pending the choice of’ the- federal capital. Of course, while Parliament is in session the administrative work must be carried on in Victoria, -and for that time Victoria is the seat of Government. There is no provision as to what shall ‘be the seat of Government when Parliament is not sitting ; and, as I said before, it is to my mind .clear that under the Constitution the - object is that, there being no fixed seat-.of Government, it shall tee carried on ‘wherever the public convenience is most suited. In the absence of express provision, it seems to me that that is a necessary consequence. I .fixed those rates, for which Lam concerned, om the assumption that .Parliament .was not to sit permanently in Victoria, and . that the duty of the Governor-General would probably be to distribute his residence. ‘to -a.large extent between the principal States.and-such other States as he could find it possible to visit. For the greater port of the year, the parliamentary session, he must reside in Victoria, and for .a large part of the remaining Mme in a State which is -more populous than Victoria. Before coming to the question .of what will be done -with these allowances, I want to say most .positively that I .do not subscribe to the contention that it ‘is a necessary or a , proper thing that the whole of the business of .the Government, ;and residence of every one connected with it, should be in Melbourne .all the year round. I did not come to Melbourne with that -view in my mind, -nor did I ever know ;any public man to .advance that view That being so, these allowances were granted on the assumption that this was but a temporary occupation, ,and that it would not be necessary for these -men to uproot their homes .and disturb their ‘families. What follows upon that? Anyone who has read these newspaper comments - comments made by very able newspapers, which I view with every respect that is due ‘to them - cannot fail to observe their object. Beading between the lines it is ‘plainly seen that their object is that the entire Government shall be directed to Victoria, and ‘maintained .there till the federal capital is chosen and occupied. No one can read these paragraphs, especially those which appeared in the Age, without coming to that “conclusion. As it is not. wrong for newspapers to impute motives to -public men, I may surely say that I believe the object in view in this case is - perhaps a natural and patriotic one on the part of the newspapers - to make it impossible to carry on ^except in Melbourne, at any rate until the federal capital is chosen, , and Ave can go into .occupation of it. I am not going to descant on that at this late hour. I will recall to the minds of honorable members what they have read and I want them ito ;understand -what is -the object of the criticism in the newspapers. As to that object I have not the remotest doubt in my mind. Honorable members will recognise that I have at .’all -times taken the federal ..side in politics that I have endeavoured to clear my mind of any provincial views, and the question is now whether an eminently provincial object should receive too much attention at : the hands of a -national Legislature. Lr the meantime, , until the Cabinet has considered this matter-‘-and there is a Cabinet meeting to-morrow, at which several important matters will be considered- r-these allowances are suspended. The whole matter will be considered to-morrow. That I undertake. In my. own view, it is better that. everything which is to come .to a- public servant should come to him -by way of-.salary, and not by way of allowance. I have always held that view in .politics and I hold it mow. These ^allowances, .however, were granted at a time when the salaries were unsettled ; when, if Parliament had been summoned, it was not to meet for some time. They have now existed for -some three months, and, so far as my own,de.partment is .concerned, the cost will be about £120.

Mr Poynton:

– Why did the PrimeMinister not take us into his confidence when -we were discussing these salaries 1

Mr BARTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Mc. F. E. MCLEAN (Lang). - I do not intend to speak on- the question of allowances which the, Prime Minister has referred to; because- another opportunity will be afforded for discussing the matter. The Prime Minister has referred to the question of the temporary capital, and some exception has been taken to his- remarks by honorable members on bis. own side of the House. i. think that the right honorable gentleman was justified in these remarks, in view of certain articles that have appeared in the newspapers, and particularly in an evening paper, in which it was clearly indicated that the Constitution provides that the seat of Government shall be in Melbourne until the federal capital site is chosen. I do not think the Prime Minister or any member of the Government would put that interpretation upon the Constitution, and I think that he has a perfect right, while acquitting the members of this House of any intention of- keeping the Government permanently located in Melbourne, to put before the House and the country the true position in- regard to the seat of Government. It has been stated in this evening’s paper that there are grave objections to the suggestion of the Government, that the departments sholl be transferred to Sydney or other places, when the parliamentary session is. over. I take it that the facts that the Prime Minister himself formed his Government, that the Ministers andthe Governor-General’ himself were- sworn in in the adjoining capital, are all arguments why the temporary capital should not be located- for any undue length of time - in one State. The State Of Victoria is getting all the advantage of a very hard-driven bargain in regard, to the Parliament meeting in Melbourne.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I think that the people of New South Wales should be the last to complain, seeing that they have secured the permanent capital site.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– There is no necessity to complain, as we are all very happy together, but I say that the State, of Victoria has received all the advantages that come from the parliamentary session being held here for the present, and I quite accept the statement of the honorable mem-, ber for Gippsland and other members who have spoken, that they will’ respect to the letter the compact laid down in. the Constitution.. In view, however, of the very- emphatic statements contained in the newspaper paragraphs, I contend that the Prime Minister was, perfectly justified in making a statement as,, to the actual position of the question in relation to the seat of Government. I think that so far from causing the slightest dissatisfaction on his own side of the House, or on any side of the House, a statement of the kind should be received with every satisfaction. I do not intend to touch upon the question of allowances, beyond saying that the sooner all allowances to public servants are- dispensed* with: fund sufficient salaries, are provided to pay for the services rendered, the better it will be.

Sir Langdon Bonython:

– I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consult this House before he takes any action with respect to the Governor-General’s allowance 1

Mr Barton:

– Most decidedly. It could only be done by Act of Parliament.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– As a sup* porter of the Government,. I have felt some misgivings as to the statement which has been published with reference to allowances. I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion upon the question of the site of the federal capital. It is not necessary that that matter should be debated- at. the present stage. It is only obscuring the real issue, which is-“ Under what circumstances have these allowances been paid, and under what authority “ ? By. what authority has the’ Treasurer signed the necessary documents to make these allowances payable 1

Mr McCay:

– They come under, the contingency vote, I suppose.,

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– “Contingencies “are not intended to deal with the remuneration or payment of public servants. I contend’ that if it were intended that any moneys should be- paid to public servants in the shape of allowances, provision of an express character ought to have been made upon the Estimates, so that it could be openly discussed. I tell the Ministry that they are. treading upon very dangerous ground in taking action of this kind. It is calculated to injure them in the country and to place their supporters in a false position. It is impossible for us to sit here and hear statements of the character that have been made without entering a protest. I think it behoves the supporters of the Ministry to speak plainly upon this occasion, feeling sure that what has been done has been rather through an error of judgment than through any wilful constitutional wrongdoing. I do hope that the Prime Minister will take this matter into serious consideration. It may be that he has received advice from the heads of departments which has led him astray. I hope that he will take the precautionhereafter of considering the. constitutional aspect of these matters, and not regard it as a matter of sentiment to deal generously with the public servants. I am glad to have had the assurance that no allowances will be paid after to-day. If any allowances are to be paid as a matter of right, express provision ought to be made for them upon the Estimates. No payments of this kind should be made in an indirect way, because such an action places the House and the Government in a false position.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– We have the assurance of the Prime Minister that this question of allowances will be considered to-morrow. Until that consideration is given, I think that we might hold over this discussion. Some reference, however, has been made to the site of the federal capital. I should like to say that the people of New South Wales are thoroughly satisfied with the action taken by the Commonwealth Government in this connexion. I do not believe that they have any fault whatever to find with the people of Victoria or with the members of this House in regard to their attitude upon the question. But we have very grave cause of complaint against the Government of New South Wales for not taking action in the matter, and for neglecting to give proper attention to the correspondence relating to it which has passed between the Federal Government and themselves. This fact should be given publicity to, because if, through the medium of the press, the neglect of the New South Wales Government is made known, they will be brought to account, and forced to give that attention to the matter which its importance deserves.

Sir William McMillan:

– What does the honorable member refer to ?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I refer to thefact that certain correspondence is alleged to have passed between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales, and the latter have been dilatory in attending to that correspondence. If the Government of that State will not take action in the matter, the onus of the responsibility will rest upon them.

Mr Barton:

– I am not making any complaint against the Government of New South Wales.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– It is rumoured that they have not attended to correspondence on the subject. Is that so?

Mr.Barton. - I think that they have fairly attended to it.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I believe that 1 am in order in asking the Treasurer a question. From the report of the South Australian parliamentary doings published in to-day’s papers, I find that the Treasurer of that State has said that the Federal Treasurer had received from South Australiaduring the past half-year £479,967, and had retained £147,728 of that amount. So as to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of the electors of the State referred to, I wish to ask how much of the amount retained comes under the heading of what may be termed the new expenditure of the Commonwealth.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · Balaclava · Protectionist

– My honorable friend was good enough to mention to me early in the evening that he proposed to ask this question. I am glad that he has done so, because it might appear to any one reading the paragraph without a full knowledge of the facts that the Federal Government was spending a very large amount of money. So far as the State of South Australia is concerned 1. may say that out of £147,728 received by me the sum of £135,214 was for transferred expenditure - for the payment of moneys which the State would have had to pay if the departments had not been transferred. South Australia’s proportion of the new expenditure for the six months wa s £12,514.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at11.7 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010731_reps_1_3/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives31 July 1901

PETITIONS

QUESTION

LIGHT-HOUSE AT WEST POINT

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr O’Malley:

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

ADJOURNMENT

Mr MAUGER:Melbourne Ports

Mr MAUGER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Conroy:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Barton:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr CONROY:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr WATSON:Bland

Mr Watkins:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Mauger:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BATCHELOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BARTON:

Mr McDONALD:Kennedy

Mr Batchelor:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr Barton:

Mr McDONALD:

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr F E McLEAN:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr CONROY:

Mr Kingston:

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COINAGE

Mr SPEAKER:

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

CUSTOMS BILL

Mr ISAACS:Indi

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

Mr Kingston:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Piesse:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr MANIFOLD:Corangamite

Mr Thomson:

Mr MANIFOLD:

Mr Harper:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Kingston:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

House of Representatives
31 July 1901

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr MANIFOLD:
Corangamite

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr RONALD:
Southern Melbourne

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WINTER COOKE:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa