House of Representatives
29 September 1908

3^rd Parliament · 3^rd Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- PORT PHILLIP SEARCHLIGHTS
CONTROL OF WARSHIPS
PAPER
NAVIGATION BILL
POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
- Railway’ Charges for Mails
QUESTION
- INTER-STATE COMMISSION
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- NEW PROTECTION
QUESTION
- TEMPORARY FITTERS, GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY
NON-BRITISH MAIL STEAMERS
DEFENCE BILL
- Second Reading
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 433

PETITION

Mr. FISHER presented a petition from W. H. Romanis, S. H. Romanis, and A. H. Romanis, natural born British subjects, born in Australia of Cingalese parents and resident near Maryborough, Queensland, protesting against the Immi gration Restriction Acts applying to them in greater degree than to other British subjects, and praying for an amendment of the Sugar Bounty Acts, as they find the greatest difficulty, because of their colour, in getting employment in the cane-fields.

Petition received and read.

page 433

QUESTION

PORT PHILLIP SEARCHLIGHTS

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– The following paragraph appeared in last Friday’s Melbourne Herald -

Last summer the sites for the new searchlight stations at Queenscliff and Point Nepean were decided upon, and the exact positions were surveyed and pegged out. It was anticipated at the time that the work of constructing the engine rooms and emplacements would be proceeded with almost immediately. It now transpires, however, that through some extraordinary oversight the ordering of the machinery was entirely overlooked, each of the officers concerned being apparently under the impression that this formality had already been complied with. It is now anticipated that it will be fully two years before the work is completed and the new searchlights are in action.

Can the Minister of Defence inform the House who is responsible for this alleged extraordinary blunder, or will he take steps to see that some one is made responsible for it?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I shall cause inquiries to be made into the matter, and, within a day or two, inform the honorable member as to the result.

page 433

CONTROL OF WARSHIPS

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister if the Government concurs in this doctrine, laid down in the Admiralty despatch of the 10th February, transmitted by Lord Elgin on the 14th February last -

In time of war . as under international’ law there is only one executive authority in the British Empire capable of being recognised by foreign States, Colonial ships of war cannot operate independently of the Royal Navy except to the limited extent referred to above.

The Executive power of the Crown, as the central authority of the British Empire, must be applied as regards foreigners in the same manner and under the same conditions wherever a military or naval force is in existence, and the same responsibility for any action taken by Colonial or Home ships of war will rest upon this central authority. It is essential, ‘ therefore, that officers commissioned ‘by His Majesty should have full power and responsibility in accordance with their rank, wherever they may happen to be serving. Accordingly, it follows that not only must the local force when associated with the Royal Navy recognise orders given by the

Admiralty or Naval Commander in Chief, but also that their officers must submit to the command of any senior naval officer during the time they are in company with him.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– That is a statement of the general Admiralty doctrine made at the date named, which, in its application to the future Australian flotilla, must be supplemented by the further statements on the same points set out in the last despatch received this month.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Seeing that the Prime Minister invited the Admiralty to send’ a precis of the despatch from which the honorable member for Coolgardie has quoted, so that its contents might be made known to the House, which was to meet in March, why did he suppress that despatch when at the beginning of March it arrived inextenso, instead of letting Parliament know its contents ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Such a question ought not to be asked without notice, but, speaking from memory, I can say at once that the honorable member’s suggestion is incorrect. I informed the House that I had received the despatch, but that it was not sufficiently complete to enable us to deal with our proposals, and therefore would be kept back until complete.

Mr Kelly:

– It seems pretty complete.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If the honorable member will read the latest despatch, he will see that the first was very far from complete.

page 434

PAPER

Mr,. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following paper -

Papua - Ordinance of 1908 - Arms Restriction.

page 434

NAVIGATION BILL

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice -

What is the reason for omitting from the present Navigation Bill the second proviso of Clause 279 and the whole of Clause 280 of the Bill as introduced by the Government in 1907, viz. : -

Second Proviso of Clause 279 of Bill of 1907, now omitted.

Carriage of ‘passengers from Western Australia. - Provided further that until the Railways of the State of Western Australia areconnected with the Railways of the State of South Australia, the carrying of passengers between a port in Western Australia and any other port in Australia By any British ship ordinarily carrying mails to or from the Commonwealth shall not be deemed engaging in the coasting trade.

Clause 280 of Bill of 1907, now omitted. 280. Exemption of certain ships. - If the Governor-General is satisfied that any British ship not registered in Australia trades or intends to trade between places on the west, north-west, and north coast of Australia, between Fremantle and Cape York, and that it is desirable in the interests of those places, or any one of them, for the ship so to trade, he may, by order, exempt the ship from all or any of the provisionsof this Part of this Act, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose, for any period not exceeding three years?

Does he consider the necessities of Western. Australia in regard to means of transit between that State and. the. rest of the Commonwealth sufficiently safeguarded by the third proviso of Clause 279 of the present Bill, which is capable of alteration from time to time by Order in Council ? 3’. Has he any fresh information which he can. give to the House as to the reasons why Western Australia is not worthy of as much consideration at the present time, on account of her remoteness and isolation from the rest of the Commonwealth, as was willingly conceded to her last year by the insertion of the clauses now deleted from the present Bill?
Will he again give (he matter consideration with a view of reinstating the clauses referred to?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are -

Ministers are advised that the provisions mentioned were, in view of recent decisionsof the High Court, of doubtful constitutionality. 2, 3, and 4. The matter will be open to full consideration and discussion when the Bill comes before the House.

page 434

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Railway’ Charges for Mails

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice -

What amounts have been paid to the Railways Commissioners of the several States for the conveyance of mails by rail, giving the amount paid’ to each State in each year since Federation?

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The Deputy PostmastersGeneral in the several States have furnished information as follows: -

Statement showing amounts’ paid to the Railways Commissioners in the several States by the Postmaster-General’s Department for conveyance of mails by rail for each year since Federation : -

These figures represent the full amount paid by the Melbourne office to the Railway Department without deducting any credits received from other States, which amount to about £3,000 per annum.

Queensland.

Years 1901 to 1907 inclusive, at the rate of £50,000 per annum.

Year 1908 up to 31st August, £38,780, at rate of £58,171 per annum. (Payments of £50,000 included concessions to Postal Departments, value of £4,000 per annum for carriage of stores, fares of officers, &c.)

Remarks : -

Annual rate £30,969, including concessions at the rate of £920 per annum recouped by Railway Department.
Annual rate of £1,111.

page 435

QUESTION

INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Sir JOHN FORREST:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

When is it proposed to introduce legislation to carry out the mandatory provisions of Section 101 of the Constitution, having reference to the appointment of an Inter-State Commission?
Will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation for vesting in the members of the Inter-State Commission, when appointed, under the Trade and Commerce clauses, the powers of a Board of Trade, with the object of Parliament being periodically informed of the working of the Tariff and the working and necessities of trade and commerce generally?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

During the present session.
Yes.

page 435

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Military Complaints : Horses for Military Service - Lieut. -Colonel, R.A.A. Corps

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether, in consequence of the Hawker Inquiry Board, the regulations directed that all members of the Defence Forces should have a right to complain in writing to the final military authority ?
Was a circular memo. issued 29th August, 1904, by the C.S.O. of the Defence Department, stating - “ I have already pointed out that I will not permit Warrant N.C.O.’s. and privates to minute papers, and thus assume powers reserved for officers,” and does this memo. have the effect of prohibiting personally noting or minuting any paper in any complaint or appeal initiated by a N.C.O., and does he consequently have to reserve the right to write any additional statement to an officer only ?
Is this practice still continued in the Department ?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

The regulation on the subject now reads as follows : - “ If he thinks himself wronged by the District Commandant, either in respect of his complaint not being redressed or in respect of any other matter, he may complain thereof, through the proper channel, to the Military Board.”

This does not debar a soldier from stating his complaint in writing, but to prevent any misunderstanding instructions are being issued that they are to be so permitted.

A circular was issued by the direction of Major-General Sir Edward Hutton, in August, 1904, reading as follows : - “ I have already pointed out that I will not permit Warrant, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Privates, or Civilians in the employ of the Defence Department, to minute papers, and thus assume powers reserved for Officers. “ Letters or representations from soldiers, other than Officers, and Civilians in the employ of the Military Department, should be separate documents when such procedure in correspondence is necessary.”

General Hutton evidently intended it to have the effect stated.

Not that I am aware of. Further inquiry will be made.

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether the acceptance of tenders on terms, announced in Gazette, No. 46, 12th September, 1908, for supply of draught and riding horses for the Australian Field Artillery Corps, the Australian Engineers, and Australian Army Medical Corps, from 1st July, 1908, to 30th June, 1909, are the most economical and efficient services that can be provided?
Does he not think that rates - £1 per day, 12s. 6d. to 15s. per half-day, 2s. 6d. per hour, for draughts; and 15s. to 17s. 6d. per day, 10s. to 15s. per half-day, 2s. 6d. per hour, for riding horses, are excessive?
How does he account for different rates, 10s. and 15s. per half-day, in Serial Nos. 431- 432, same class of horses?
What are considered regulation hours of labour per day, and half-day, for horses engaged by his Department?
How many days, half-days, and hours are these horses likely to be used annually ; and what will be the cost to his Department?
Has his Department any experience in the purchase and keeping of horses ; if so, does he not consider better economy and more efficiency would be obtained if horses were owned by the Department?
Were the animals ridden at the recent review, at Flemington, a sample of horses usually supplied by contractors?
Is it a fact that only £1 per year is allowed members of Light Horse for use of their horses for equal time of using as above?

Mr EWING:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The existing arrangements throughout the Commonwealth for the supply of draught and riding horses are not satisfactory.

By the difference in the numbers a contractor may be called upon to supply - i.e., 15s. rate 104 horses, 10s. rate 8 horses.
Ten hours for a whole day. Five hours for a half-day, and 24 hours for two or more consecutive days - such as the continuous training.
Five days, nine half days, 165 hours. Approximate cost, £4,432 for Victoria.
See reply to questions 1 and 2.
Yes.
Yes. Privates £1, other ranks in proportion.

The whole question is being gone into with a view of obtaining a more efficient and economical service.

I agree with the honorable member that the present state of things is most unsatisfactory.

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is there a vacancy on the Estimates for a Lieut. -Colonel of the R.A.A. Corps?
When will such appointment be made?
Is the appointment being delayed because some Majors of the Administrative Staff object?
Have not promotions of the two corps been independent of each other in the past, and is a new practice to be now instituted ?

Mr EWING:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
Probably after next meeting of the Promotion Board.
There has been delay. No meeting of the Promotion Board has been recently held. The point referred to in number 3 has arisen.
The answer to the first portion of the question is - Yes, and to the second portion - No.

page 436

QUESTION

NEW PROTECTION

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the decision of the High Court of Australia that the Excise Act (No. 16, 1906) is unconstitutional, and in consequence the schedule of wages laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins is inoperative, he will take proceedings under the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act (No. 9, 1906) against those persons who would have been bound to pay the wage in that schedule and who now pay a lower wage ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Inquiries will be instituted to see whether the facts are such as would call for the action indicated by the honorable and learned member.

page 436

QUESTION

TEMPORARY FITTERS, GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– On Thursday last the honorable member for Nepean asked these questions -

Will he state the number of men who have been employed during the past two years in the Sydney General Post Office as temporary fitters, and also the rate of pay they received, and their length of service?
Is it his intention to retain these men in a. permanent capacity; if not, could he say when” the positions at present held by these men will be occupied by men already in the service?

The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has now furnished the following information -

Number of men who have been employed during past two years in General Post Office,. Sydney, as temporary fitters is 41.
Rate of pay 7s. to10s. per diem. The ruling rate of pay at present for skilled fitters is9s. per diem, and instances where men are specially skilled in their work10s. per diem has been paid. There are at present 30 temporary fitters employed with pay as follows : - 1 at10s. per diem. 28 at9s. per diem. 1 at 7s. 3d. per diem.
Length of service, period varying from one week to sixteen months ; at present there are thirty temporary fitters employed with the following service, viz. : -

Retention of service of temporary fitters in permanent capacity. - This matter is now under special consideration with a view to a report being furnished as early as possible.
When the positions at present held by temporary fitters will be occupied by men already in service. - The present position of the work is such as to render it absolutely necessary to continue the services of these temporary men until the positions held by them are filled by permanent appointees, and until the latter have had time to acquire some knowledge of the work which will, it is estimated, take at least twelve months from the time the permanent fitters are appointed.

Steps are being taken to make these permanent appointments.

page 437

NON-BRITISH MAIL STEAMERS

Motion (by Mr. Crouch) agreed to-

That a Return be laid on the Table of the House showing the payment for Postal and all other services made by the Commonwealth, and (as far as same are ascertainable) by the States, to all non-British steam-ship lines for the years 1905, 1906, and 1907.

page 437

DEFENCE BILL

Bill presented by Mr. Ewing and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr EWING:
Richmond · Protectionist

.-I move by leave -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– Everything comesto those who wait. There are a few truisms which need only to be mentioned to secure the concurrence of the House. One of these is that war is a science. . One of the greatest mistakes made, and made frequently by enthusiastic and patriotic people, is that war can be successfully carried on by a man with a musket. There is as much room for brains, ability and training in war as there is in anything else. Training is necessary to enable a man to make boots, to engage in the work of a cabinet-maker, and in almost every vocation. The only work for which training is unnecessary - and this was said a long while ago - is that of the critic. Critics are ready made, but on general principles, even a critic would agree that war is a science, and that it will take many years to build up an army. It is as much a trade and a vocation as is anything else in the world, and requires brains and training. I have been much struck with statements made by some of my honorable friends opposite - not by all - with reference to this measure. They ask “Why do anything? Why not sit down and be quite comfortable, seeing that we have the British Navy to depend upon?” When one asks them why they depend on the British Navy, the reply is, “ See the magnificent Leviathans the ships are; their guns; the speed of the vessels.” Then they go a step further and say, “ We are not depending only on those things. We depend also on the men behind the guns ; upon the magnificent training that makes the navy of England the greatest fighting power in the world.” They say thatthey depend finally upon the training of the men, but. when it comes to a question of training the men of Australia, the building up of an army in the Commonwealth capable of carrying out its work with a training commensurate with its responsibilities, they say, “ You require no training in Australia. Australians can fight without training.” I can understand what a difficult problem honorable members who oppose this Bill are faced with.

It is incumbent upon those who value the British Navy because of the training and competence of the men who compose it to show that an army fit to do its work can possibly be obtained in Australia without preliminary training. Those honorable members say first that no training is required, and then assert that more is requisite. We can take it either way.

Mr Reid:

– Does any man seriously say that our Military Forces should have no training? Is it not very unfair to make such a. statement?

Mr EWING:

– I have seen it continually stated that there is no need whatever for training the great mass of the Australian people.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– Can the honorable member name one authority for that?

Mr EWING:

Mr EWING:

– Probably it should, But, if it had been, the honorable member would not have had the honour of helping us. We ha.ve in Australia 5,000 volunteers. The idea of an ordinary citizen who do;s not possess special knowledge of the subject is that our volunteers are a band of men who are gradually trained year after year until they approach in efficiency a regular force.

Colonel Foxton. - Is the Minister speaking only of volunteers, or does he include the militia?

Mr EWING:

– If the right honorable member will refer to the portion of my speech when numbers were under consideration, he will find that point has been dealt with. I propose now to test the present system from another stand-point - the stand-point of efficiency. I need not read to honorable members a statement of what is required to enable a member of the militia to become “efficient,” but will place it upon the table of the House. It is as follows -

Efficiency.

Militia.

An equivalent of twelve days made up as under : -

Continuous training and exercise for not less than four or more than eight days in camp or bivouac, at such time and place as may be ordered.

Whole-day, half-day, and night parades, as ordered, to make up twelve days, but not more than sixteen night parades to be allowed to count. District Commandants will determine the allotment of parades under this subsection.

Prescribed Course of Gunnery or Musketry.

Annual Inspection by Commandant, or his representative, which will be carried out at any parades mentioned in (a) or (b).

Volunteers.

Eight out of twelve or more half-day parades ordered for training, exer cise and instruction, at such times and places in any part of the district to which the corps or regiment belongs.

Ten out of sixteen or more night parades ordered as in (a).

Prescribed annual course of Musketry.

Attendances up to and not exceeding six at musketry may be counted as halfday parades..

– This was the reply-

– But he is a very highclass authority.

Mr EWING:

– He is, indeed. Le Temps, the great French newspaper, said that the territorial army was worthless as a fighting force. There is the result of the voluntary system under an able Minister in a strong Government. It has been stated that this was the last opportunity that Great Britain would have of trying’ the voluntary system; that if this attempt failed the country would have to face the only alternative. I come now to what some experts have said in regard to the matter. When a Minister quotes to Parliament what his experts say we are usually told that experts sometimes say the right and sometimes the wrong thing; but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying a word as to experts, because we shall have the opinions of experts more or less obscure quoted in opposition to the scheme of the Government. I ask honorable members to bear with me for a few moments to hear what the ablest experts in Great Britain have had to say in regard to the matter. It is not necessary to quote extensively from Lord Roberts, because every one knows what his views are. Everywhere, by means of pen or voice, he has insisted upon the necessity for what is sometimes called the compulsory system, or what we call the system of universal training. Standing next to him is Sir Evelyn Wood, Field Marshal, who says -

The time has come for instituting throughout the Empire a military system of universal service for Home (National) defence, and the Mother Country should set the example.

I desire to know what names my honorable friends on the other side will quote against Lord Roberts and Sir Evelyn Wood ?

Dr Liddell:

– Will not the honorable member let us know the views of Lord Roberts ?

Mr EWING:

– The honorable member can consult his book in the Library if he wishes. If any member of the Opposition expresses a desire, I shall get him a copy of it. I did not quote Lord Roberts, believing that even the members of the Opposition knew his views on the subject. Field-Marshal Viscount Wolseley says -

From the national point of view, I should like to see every man in England compelled to undergo a course of military training, even if I thought that no invasion of England was possible.

Mr Fisher:

– How long is it since that statement was made - thirty years ago?

Mr EWING:

– No; I have not gone back more than a few years, and can produce all these opinions. If honorable members knew the mass of congratulatory material from the press, and from literary and military men all over the Englishspeaking world, which has come to the Department, and also to the Prime Minister, they would be astounded.

Dr Liddell:

– Will the Minister publish it for our benefit?

Mr EWING:

– As much as is good for my honorable friends. Let me now give the views of some men who have recently been engaged in active operations. Lt.General Kelly-Kenny says -

I should put them all in one army - militia, volunteers, and yeomanry, and have obligatory service for the whole, making it one homogeneous army. I should like to see every single man in the country go through a good military training.

Sir John French and honorable members are aware of the position which he holds at the present time - says -

I am greatlyin favour of compulsory service in England - universal service. I do not think that the requirements of a possible military situation can be satisfied short of general) service, i.e., the liability of every one for service.

I will hear with interest the names my honorable friends will place against filenames I have quoted. Turning to the Navy, Admiral Sir E. Fremantle says -

I am impressed with the necessity for universal military training and service, in time of war.

Admiral Sir N. Bowden Smith supports Lord Roberts’ proposal for national training, and states that thirty Admirals are members of the National Service League. Turning to laymen, there is a layman whose views will be held in respect, and that is Lord Milner, who says -

What is causing the failure of the present system, and will always cause failure, is the error of supposing that the volunteer principle can ever provide a basis, broad and strong enough, to sustain the immense superstructure of a really effective modern army.

– The Bill is based upon the .Prime Minister’s speech. The military correspondent of The Times says -

The plan is broad and comprehensive,, sufficiently modern to meet the principal requirements of scientific organization in the present day.

He goes on to say that he is convinced that the Prime Minister’s solution is the right one. From those classes, I turn to literature, and take the view of the Hon. John Fortescue, an able writer, and the author of the History of the British Army.. He says -

It has never been denied that it is the duty of every able-bodied citizen to defend his country when it is in danger ; and if it be his duty to defend it, it is his duty to learn how to defend it….. If there be one lesson to be gleaned from British military history, it is the hopeless and irremediable inefficiency of the voluntary system.

Mr Johnson:

– No one has suggested that we should be content with cadets.

Mr EWING:

– I am glad that the honorable member agrees with me. But I can show him statements in leading newspapers, and refer him to the utterances of a large number of men who have expressed the opinion I have indicated. I now wish to refer to the question of the clothing of the forces, and to make it clear why this is most important. In the middle of last century, there was, in India, as honor able members will remember, with Lawrence and others whom I need not mention, a very able body of men which did great work in holding up the prestige of the Empire under circumstances that were well nigh appalling. In Younghusband’s book, The Story of the Guides, he points out one of the great troubles which the British forces had to combat there -

At a time when soldiers fought and marched, and lived in tight scarlet tunics, high stocks, trousers tightly strapped over Wellington boots, and shakos, which would now be looked on as certain death, Sir Henry evolved the startling heresy’ that to get the best work out of troops, and to enable them to undertake great exertions, it was necessary that the soldier should be loosely, comfortably, and suitably clad, that something more substantial than a pill box with a pocket handkerchief wrapped round it was requires as a protection from a tropical sun, and that footgear must be made for marching, and not for parading round a band stand.

Representations in regardto the clothing were made on behalf of the men ; and immediately the experts and a large number of people in Great Britain declared that, if a feather or a stripe were removed, the Army would be ruined - thatit was disloyal to propose such a thing. These experts and people asked how discipline could be preserved if those trappings were done away with, and declared that it would be a treacherous act to interfere with the then conditions. But those in favour of the reform persevered; and the result is that to-day khaki is the fighting costume for armies all over the world. It is obvious that the clothing of our forces must be of the simplest and cheapest character ; and I desire now to refer more particularly to the question of officers’ uniforms.

Mr Crouch:

– Is it proposed to make a change? Every change means expense.

Mr EWING:

– I do not wish to say anything disagreeable; but honorable members who had an opportunity of seeing the gorgeous spectacles on the occasion of the visit of the American Fleet, must have been struck by the view of decent, respectable, inoffensive gentlemen, appearing arrayed like escapees from the Mahdi’s harem. It is astounding to me that men should desire to get into such uniforms. I can understand men in China, in times gone by, assuming great masks in order to frighten the enemy, or gorgeous costumes being resorted to by savages, or the rain-makers of Africa ; but

I cannot conceive that any respectable, middle-aged man, who has “lost his waist, can desire any such costume. I am quite sure these men do not desire to wear such uniforms, but only do so because it is customary - they are just as sensible as any of us, and would not appear in costumes of the kind if it could be avoided.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

.- It would be a matter of convenience for the House to have some opportunity of considering the Bill and the very able speech of the Minister in introducing it. I therefore move -

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Ewing) proposed -

That the resumption of the debate be an Order of the Day for this day week.

Colonel FOXTON (Brisbane) [5.8].- Might I suggest to the Minister that, as the Bill is in the nature of an amending measure, and refers largely to the existing Act, it would be a great convenience if copies of the Act were circulated among honorable members?

Mr Ewing:

– That can be done.

Colonel FOXTON.- It would also be advisable, and tend to shorten the debate, if copies of the regulations were made available.

Mr Deakin:

– Certainly.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I have sent for a copy of the Act, but find that, contrary to an Act initiated, I think, by the Attorney-General, the Bill does not mention the amending sections of the Act of 1904. Copies of the alterations to regulations were distributed to honorable members about a week ago. Might I ask, further, that the Minister should allow his speech to be distributed largely throughout the community ?

Motion agreed to.

page 456

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL

Debate resumed from 25 th September (vide page 432), on motion by Mr. Groom -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– A considerable amount of heat has been shown by some honorable members over the question of the Capital site, and the delay in settling it. Personally, I cannot imagine why honorable members should get so heated in discussing any question, especially one of such great importance as this, or make so many accusations against one another, as has happened in this case. The Capital site question was decided some years ago by the last Parliament, and the delay has been caused through the opposition, not of the people of New South Wales, but of the Government of that State. Yet members of the Opposition in this Chamber are chiding the Government for the delay, stating that they have been four years in office and have done nothing. The leader of the Opposition was himself in power for some months after that Act was passed, yet, with all the knowledge which he and his Minister of Home Affairs brought to bear on the question, they could not make any advance owing to the opposition of the New South Wales Government. I do not blame the Reid Government, the Watson Government, or the Deakin Government in any way for the delay that has taken place. I put the whole of the blame on the Government of New South Wales, and not upon the people of that State, with whom I have no fault to find. We on this side have been accused of not allowing the representatives of New South Wales to speak without saying something derogatory about them. Personally, I do not blame any honorable member for speaking for his State, but I do not like unfair charges to be made against any Minister or member of this House. I resent some of the speeches made from the other side, in which the Government have been accused of doing nothing for the last four years. An arrangement was entered into, as the result of a conference between representatives of this Government and the Government of New South Wales, under which the present Bill has been brought forward. The Government have brought it in to give effect to that arrangement, and yet they are chided for delay extending over many years. I hope that, in dealing with this important matter, we shall get away from all .this party feeling, and not accuse any party of unfairness. I supported Dalgety on a previous occasion, and as a majority of the Parliament indorsed that view, it is only right that every honorable member should now be loyal to that decision. We have at present a system bv which we vote money for certain works, and any that is not spent at the end of the financial year lapses, and has to be re-voted. We are told that under the present system each Parliament can decide upon any position for a site for the Federal Capital, but what would be thought if this Parliament voted a sum pf money for a large building, such as the Melbourne General Post Office, and if then a new Parliament refused to vote money to complete the work? The responsibility rests upon one Parliament to carry out the decisions of a previous Parliament, especially on an important issue of this kind. We acted wisely in fixing the site at Dalgety. After considering the whole of the reports, I found that Dalgety was the only site that had what 1 considered a good water supply. One honorable member recently made the peculiar statement that the supply of water was only a minor matter; but water is the main requirement for man and beast, and is certainly, essential for a city of any size. An amendment has been circulated by the honorable member for Parkes, the effect of which will be to postpone the settlement of the matter for a number of years, and allow Parliament to meet at Sydney in the meantime. That idea, was indorsed by the honorable member for Batman. But where would we meet in Sydney if it were decided that we should go there in one or two years’ time? There is no building suitable for us there. Where should we find accommodation for our officers? Ten years, although a long time in the life of an individual, is but a small space in the history of a nation. Who would prepare offices and move whole departments from here to Sydney for only ten years ? No individual likes a temporary habitation of that description, and there are much greater objections to it in the case of large departments like ours, which must necessarily be permanently located somewhereThe sooner that is done the better. When 1 voted for Dalgety I hoped that we should go there immediately, or, at any rate, as quickly as possible, so that we might settle down. We have been accused by some honorable members on the other side of not being in earnest in the matter. I am very much in earnest in believing that we should be in our own Capital as soon as possible, and so carry out the will of the people, as expressed b them when they voted for the Constitution. We require in the Federal Capital a good supply of water for the people, and also a good force of water for electric light and power purposes. It was argued the other day that water power would be required only for trams and lighting purposes, and that the Capital would never become a manufacturing centre. But in a district like Dalgety, hundreds of miles from any large city, there is a fine opening for a woollen industry, for example, which would have the advantage of cheaper carriage than is the case now, when the wool has to be sent long distances.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– Does the honorable member think that the presence of a Parliament would start a commercial centre?

Mr STORRER:

– No, but the presence of power will help to establish factories. In Launceston we have over 2,000 horsepower coming through the tunnel continually, and it costs us nothing, except, of course, the interest on the money spent on the works. Yet one honorable member stated in the House recently that coal was cheaper than water as a source of power, and quoted an engineer in support of the assertion. The experience of Launceston is a proof to the contrary. At Dalgety we could get water power in the same way, and that could be used for woollen or other mills, as well as in the work of stone crushing for road-making, and other necessary undertakings for a city. I hope, therefore, that this Parliament will not go back on the vote of the last Parliament, but will adhere to Dalgety, and that then we shall have no further delay in taking up our position there. [ see that another amendment has been foreshadowed, to the effect that the Government should bring up a report every year, showing how the work is progressing, if Dalgety should be adopted as the site. But, as every honorable member knows, we can get a report from the Government whenever we wish, by asking a Minister for it, and so I see no necessity for that amendment. I hope to see the day when we shall assemble at Dalgety. Whether I am there or not, I hope that it will become a strong and flourishing city. I repeat that one of the main sources of the success of any city will always be found in an abundant water supply.

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

.- I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any length. The selection of the permanent Seat of Government is, however, a matter of considerable importance to the people of this country, and from the information in my possession I do not think that either Canberra or Dalgety should be chosen. I sympathize deeply with the representatives of New South Wales and with the people of that State in their desire to have this question definitely determined. Certainly we ought to be in a better position to decide it now than we were eight years ago. We are all aware that at the Premiers’ Conference, which took place in 1899, certain proposals regarding the permanent Seat of Government were put forward. To-day, it is urged that those proposals should’ be binding upon us, and should commit us to something which, in the light of experience, we know would be to the detriment of Australia. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the honorable member for Nepean, the honorable member for Coolgardie, the leader of the Opposition, and the Minister of Trade and Customs. When this measure was before Parliament last session, I took the precaution of consulting Mr. Speaker in regard to an amendment which I desired to move, and I was therefore surprised when I heard the leader of the Opposition say that no amendment to the Bill could be submitted. Surely common sense indicates that any honorable member is entitled to submit an amendment ?

Mr Reid:

– I said that no amendment could he moved which would have the effect of nullifying the object of the Bill.

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– I know exactly where I stand, and it is my intention to submit an amendment. But I first propose to deal with the position as it presents itself to-day. When we were discussing the question of Federation in 1899, infinitely more important questions were raised than the mere settlement of the site of the Federal Capital. Upon page 219 of the report of the proceedings of the Premiers’ Conference in 1899, is to be found the following -

It is considered that the fixing of the site of the Capital is a question which might well be left to the Parliament to decide, but in view of the strong expression of opinion in relation to this matter in New South Wales, the Premiers nave modified the clause so that while the Capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales, at a reasonable distance from that city.

I do not think that there is any reasonable man in this Chamber who desires for a moment to interfere with the absolute right of New South Wales under the Constitution to the possession of the Federal Capital. The report continues -

Accordingly, the request of New South Wales that the Capital should be in that Colony was granted, but with two conditions which Victoria insisted on.

– The line has been submitted to Parliament, and the proposal to carry the line 200 miles further than Bairnsdale has been referred to the Railways Committee.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– Parliament is constantly contradicting itself by repealing Acts passed in previous sessions. Why is this Bill submitted? Is it not in order to induce the House to say again what it said some years ago? Why is it considered necessary to ask honorable members whether they still hold the same opinion?

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– When the House adjourned for dinner, I had practically completed my speech, with the exception of one or two observations in the nature of a summary. The personnel of the House changes from time to time, and one is sometimes involved in repetitions in which, with a continuous audience, one would not indulge. Iri the course of my speech, some observations were made in the character of an inquiry as to what would be done by the people of Sydney to accommodate this Parliament, in the event of the Seat of Government being removed for a period to that city. I can only say. in answer, that the House might very well depend upon Bie people of Sydney to do justice to the occasion and the requirements. I am sure that in’ the event of the Seat of Government being removed to Sydney, the people of New South Wales would feel sufficiently honoured to make a great effort to equal, if not to surpass, the very great liberality which has characterized the Parliament of Victoria in accommodating the Federal Legislature here. I wish to assure the House, in conclusion - and I hope my past in this Parliament will entitle me to do so - that in taking this step, which is a diversion from ‘the subject of debate that has occupied the House for some days, my object is not in any way to frustrate the choice by the Federal Par liament of a Capital site which is not favorable to New South Wales. I think, as I have said, that the time is not ripe for the taking of so far-reaching a step. I have no feeling against Dalgety. I consider that under altered conditions, it would be in many respects an admirable site. But those conditions have not arisen. They may arise within the next ten or twelve years, and my desire is not to advocate any other site as preferable to it, but merely in the first place to lead to the postponement of a final choice under present conditions, and, in some way, to remove from the minds of the New South Wales people the idea that the representatives of Victoria have endeavoured to dominate the Commonwealth power. 5* wish further to give an opportunity in the future, under altered conditions, for a riper decision. I have pointed out, and point out again, that if Dalgety continues to enjoy the advantages that it is supposed to enjoy to-day, or if it increases them, there will still be an opportunity to select it for the purpose for which many honorable members desire to choose it now. I trust that the House will accept this assurance from me, and believe that my only desire is to induce the Parliament to hesitate to take a step which, to my mind, is premature, and may be taken possibly with greater justice and effect some twelve years hence. . I therefore beg to move the amendment of which I have given notice -

That all the words after the word “That” -be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words : - “In view of the wide difference of opinion in regard to the most suitable site for an Australian Federal Capital, the final choice be postponed until the year 1921, and that the Government shall forthwith prepare and introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for an alteration of the Constitution by which the city of Melbourne shall remain as the Seat of Government until the end of the year 1910, and that from the beginning of 1911 until the end of IQ20 the Seat of Government shall be fixed in the city of Sydney pending the final and permanent selection of a site for the Commonwealth Capital and Seat of Government, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– At first sight it would seem that the objection which I took just now to the amendment indicated by the honorable member for Indi might be taken to this. It appears to me, how-, ever, that whereas the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Indi dealt simply with an alternative site, and did not go to the root of the purpose of the Bill, the amendment now proposed by the honorable member for Parkes deals not with rival sites, but with a rival scheme for the whole settlement of the question.

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– So did mine, sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s proposal dealt with a purely alternative site. In the case of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parkes, however, there is no question of alternative sites. What is proposed is a radical change of the whole method of dealing with the Seat of Government, and I therefore feel bound to accept the amendment, provided that it be seconded.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

– I second the amendment.

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

.- It appears to me that much of the discussion to which we have listened has been quite beside the question. This is a Bill, not to select a site, but to more definitely define the site already selected by this House. This question was discussed, in the first place, in 1902, when the House of Representatives selected Tumut, and another place, Bombala. It was again discussed in 1904, when both Houses agreed to the selection of Dalgety, and the Bill passed. We are now asked merely to more definitely define that site. When the selection was made there was a fair fight to a finish, and the right honorable member for East Sydney then said -

I accept that decision as not brought about, as some other position might have been, by any unfair means, but as a fair and honest expression of the views of the majority. The decision is much against my own views, but I have at least the satisfaction of feeling that the selection which has been’ made does represent the honest conviction of the majority of the members of this House.

As the Minister of Trade and Customs has pointed out, the right honorable member, at a later stage, said that, so far as he’ was concerned, any proposal to rescind that decision would meet with his strongest opposition. We are asked now to re-open the question of sites. There seems to be only two reasons for that request : The one is to allow us to consider for the first time the claims of Canberra, and the other to enable representatives of New South Wales to level a charge against the representatives of other States, and particularly those of Victoria, of wanting to commit a breach of faith in not carrying out the spirit as well as the letter of the bond con tained in the Constitution. That charge is new made practically for the first time. In 1904, the question of “ reasonable distance ‘ ‘ was merely mentioned bv the honorable member for North Sydney, and it was not till last year that ‘the charge of breach of faith which arises out of it, and which has been repeated again this session, was made. The argument in support of that charge is based on the agreement alleged to have been entered into by the Premiers at the Conference at- the beginning of 1899. That agreement appears in the memorandum which the Premiers drew up. I know that these matters have been mentioned before, but since the charge has been repeated, it is just as well that we should consider the actual facts. The Premiers said -

It is considered that the fixing of the Site of Capital is a question which might be left to the Parliament to decide ; but, in view of the strong expression of opinion in relation to this matter in New South Wales, the Premiers have modified the clause, so that, while the Capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales at a reasonable distance from that city, and the Premiers have therefore agreed that in lieu of the original clause the following clause shall be substituted.

The first point that one notices in regard to this agreement is that it is in the nature of a prohibition. The words used are not within a reasonable distance “ of “ Sydney, but at a reasonable distance “ from “ Sydney. The Premiers then proceeded to state what that meant. That statement was followed by the words which were embodied in the Constitution, and were their own drafting, and not that of some one who might be said- to have misunderstood or wrongly carried out what they intended -

The Seat of Government shall be determined by the Parliament and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and if New South Wales be an original State shall be in that State, and be distant not less than 100 miles from Sydney.

If it was intended by the use of the words “at a reasonable distance from Sydney,” that a site should be selected as near Sydney as the 100-miles limit would allow, it seems to me that the Premiers would have fixed not only a minimum but a maximum. They would have said, “ Not less than 100 miles, but as near that limit as possible,” or “ Not less than 100 miles or more than 150 miles from Sydney.”

Instead of doing so, however, they simply made the prohibition that we should not select a site within 100 miles of Sydney. That is the interpretation they placed upon what they said the agreement was. We must remember that the Constitution, as first framed, gave to the Federal Parliament an absolutely free choice in respect of all Australia. That was accepted - unpopular as it was supposed to be- by a majority of those who voted at the New South Wales referendum. Why that referendum was ineffective it is unnecessary to repeat. We all know the reason, and it is not a matter that can be dealt with without making a charge of breach of faith. Then we had a meeting of the Premiers and the Constitution was amended. The original Constitution, we must not forget, was drawn up by delegates elected by the people to prepare such a document, whereas the amendment was prepared by Premiers who, as Premiers, might be said to represent the States for which they spoke, but who had no mandate from the people to prepare any amendment of the Constitution. Their agreement, therefore, was valueless until accepted by the people, and what the people of Australia accepted - what they voted on - was not the paragraph in the Premiers’ memorandum as to a reasonable distance, but a clause which provided that the Capital should be “not less than 100 miles from Sydney.” That is the whole point. It is interesting to note what was the meaning placed on that provision by the public men at the time. The honorable member for Nepean the other night quoted from a speech by Dr. Nash, in which he referred to the words of Mr. - now Mr. Justice - Barton and the right honorable member for East Sydney, immediately after the Premiers’ Conference. In neither case was anything said that would justify the charge that there was any bond or any spirit in the bond that the Capital should be close to the loo-miles limit. Mr. Barton said it would be their duty to see that the Capital was not placed too remotely from either Sydney or Melbourne. He certainly would not have said that, if it had been intended that the Capital should be as close as possible to the loo-miles limit. Then the right honorable member for East Sydney said -

In my opinion, if I may give it for anything it is worth, the Federal Capital, although in a country district, will be as near as possible to the I 00-miles limit.

On the day following that on which the Premiers’ ‘ memorandum was first published in the press, there appeared in the Age a telegram from its Albury correspondent to this effect -

The determination that the site of the Federal Capital shall be in New South Wales with a reservation that it must be situated not less than 100 miles from Sydney, is regarded as largely increasing the prospects of the selection of Albury.

They did not think that Albury would be debarred by the new clause. The people of Albury thought, as did every one in Victoria, that any place in New South Wales that was not less than 100 miles from Sydney was open to selection without any charge of breach of faith. It is still more interesting to note that a meeting of the Albury Federal Capital League was immediately called, and that the right honorable member for East Sydney, when returning to Sydney from the Premiers’ Conference, was waylaid at Albury and interviewed on the result of the Conference. In the Age of the 4th of February appeared the following from its Albury correspondent -

Before Mr. Reid was permitted to resume his midnight journey he was pressed to unbosom himself about the question which to the good townsfolk of Albury for the moment dwarfs all other questions, viz. : - Where is the Federal Capital to be located? “What of the Federal Capital”? Mr. Reid was asked. “Didn’t I get it settled in New South Wales? What more could I do? I suppose you Albury people wanted me to fix it right off for Albury ?” “ I do not know that there would be any strong local objections to that. But what do you think of Albury’s prospects now?” “ Don’t ask me that. I should say we’ll have it as near Sydney as we can get it. You may depend upon that. Don’t ask a Sydney man to give you the Capital at Albury. It isn’t human nature.” “ Don’t you think Victoria and South Australia will support Albury?” “ Oh, you can ask them to support you - they’ll probably do it - but don’t ask any Sydney man. It is too much to ask ordinary mortals. They can’t have it in Sydney or less than IOC miles from there, but you may depend upon it they’ll have it as near Sydney as they can get it. That means that it will be probably somewhere about Goulburn.”

If he had thought that the agreement was that the Federal, Capital should be located as nearly as possible to the I00-miles limit, the right honorable member would not have answered the Albury people in that way. He would have said, “ Albury cannot be chosen as the Capital site, because the Capital must be as near to the 100-miles limit as possible.” Just previous to the holding of the second referendum in Victoria, the Age and Argus published papers explanatory of the proposed amendments of the Constitution, for the guidance of the electors. The explanations published by the Argus were prepared by the honorable member for Bendigo, who said nothing about an agreement to have the Capital within a reasonable distance of Sydney. What he said was -

The amendment first in interest if not in importance is that relating to the site of the future Capital of the Commonwealth. Under the ]3ill as framed by the Convention it is provided that the Seat of Government should be determined by the Federal Parliament, and that it should be within Federal territory. The amendment now proposed is that the Seat of Government should be in New South Wales, and be distant not less than 100 miles from Sydney. In all probability, if the matter had been left in the hands of the Federal Parliament, the Capital would have been fixed somewhere in New South Wales; her strong claim, founded on seniority and the vast and suitable territory available for such a purpose would have told in her favour.

The memorandum published by the Age was prepared by Mr., now Mr. Justice, Isaacs and Mr. Mackey, now Minister of Lands in Victoria, and contained this statement on the subject -

With regard to the site of the Capital the Federal Parliament was previously unrestricted in its choice, provided the place selected was within territory vested in the Commonwealth. By the amendment the Parliament is limited to a selection within New South Wales, at a distance of at least too miles from Sydney. . . . The compact made must and will be honorably adhered to, and there will, it is hoped and believed, be not a moment’s unnecessary delay in the fulfilment of the intention of the parties in arriving at the agreement. But in making the concession sentiment has already had full weight given to it, and it will be the manifest duty of the Parliament within the limit assigned to it, to select, as the Seat of Government, whatever site it considers most in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.

It was upon those explanations, which were supported by the public speeches made at the time, that the people of Victoria voted. Later on, the See Government of New South Wales authorized a Commissioner to report on eligible sites, and he recommended, first, a Southern Monaro site, and, secondly, a site near Yass or one near Lyndhurst.

Mr Sampson:

– If there were anything in the contention, it should have been raised then.

Mr WISE:

– Yes, and it would have been raised. The Commissioner would have been told to confine his report to places as near to the 100-miles limit as possible. As a matter of fact, he had a free run of the whole State outside the 100-miles limit. Furthermore, the State Government offered the three recommended sites to the Federal Government, reserving the Crown lands round about them from further alienation. The matter was first dealt with in this chamber in 1902, when five of the six gentlemen who had formed the Premiers’ Conference were members. Of them, the right honorable member for Swan and the late Mr. C. C. Kingston voted for Bombala, while Sir George Turner voted for Tumut, all three ignoring the alleged compact, while the right honorable member for East Sydney, who was present, said nothing about a breach of faith. That circumstance shows that they did not consider themselves bound to select a site as near to the 100-miles limit as they could get one. It is impossible to think that any one of them would have broken a compact to which he was a party, or that the right honorable member for East Sydney would have allowed him to do so without challenge.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why was the 200-miles limit, which was proposed bySir George Turner, not agreed to by the Premiers?

Mr WISE:

– Because they thought the 100-miles limit sufficient. If it had been intended that the Capital should be as close to Sydney as possible, the agreement would have said that it should be not less than 100 miles, nor more, say, than 200 miles, from Sydney. The matter was discussed again in this chamber in 1904, and then the idea that the Capital should be near to the 100-miles limit was suggested by the honorable member for North Sydney. But the right honorable member for Swan and Sir George Turner voted for Dalgety, and, according to the Minister of Trade and Customs, the late Mr. C. C. Kingston paired by telegram for that site. Again there was no protest from the right honorable member for East Sydney. If further evidence that there never was the agreement which has been mentioned be necessary, I would add that the Lyndhurst site is 191 miles, and the Canberra site 204 miles from Sydney, and yet those who support the contention against which I am arguing are in favour of one of those sites being chosen. Furthermore, neither the Lyndhurst, Yass, nor

Tumut site, which have been offered to us by the present New South Wales Government, is within a reasonable distance of Sydney. Last week a Sydney newspaper was circulated amongst honorable members, in which there is an article referring to the- offer of these sites. The writer of that article says -

Of these Tumut foils more than Dalgety to comply with the limitation of section 125 as to distance from Sydney, as well as in other rei pec Ls.

Referring to Canberra, of whose beauties and advantages we have lately heard so much, the writer says - ‘

An effort is being made behind the back of the Slate Parliament to secure the selection of a ,llc on the Canberra area. The most meagre information has been published about it, nothing indeed to justify the choice. Like Dalgety^ this place is in an isolated corner of the Commonwealth, not by any means central or equidistant from the Capitals of the respective States, and there is an effort to justify the election as a “ Compromise between Sydney mil Melbourne.” But where does compromise come in ? Are these two cities the only great centres of population in the Commonwealth that ill others should be discarded for their convenience, or are Victoria and New South Wales the only States in the Federal Union that are *o be considered ?

Sir John Quick:

– Hear, hear; certainly.

Mr KELLY:

– Now we are faced with this position. If the honorable member for Parkes carries his amendment in this House, some one else will move an amendment which cannot fail to make Melbourne for all time the Capital of Australia. I ask any sane observer of the proceedings of this House for the last five or six years whether such a proposal on Melbourne’s behalf would not be likely to becarried. If the Constitution be once tinkered with in this respect, it is all over. For my part, I prefer to follow the only course which I think is now open to the New South Wales representatives, and that is : - having warned this House and the people of Australia of the entire unsuitability of

– Is that what Gertrude Atherton said about it?

Dr LIDDELL:

– No. I have been quoting from a book written by Mary Clemmer Ames, and entitled Ten years in Washington, or Life and Scenes in the National Capital as a woman sees them. I can strongly recommend to honorable members the volume, which contains a quantity of very useful information, and may be seen in the Library. The fact remains that it took years to build the city. After the Declaration of Independence, ten years passed before it was decided where the city was to be established. After the site of the city was definitely settled on the banks of the Potomac, another period of ten years passed before a single stone was laid. Then, at last, the building of the Capital was started, and even after the city was occupied, a considerable time elapsed before it became one which could be looked upon with any pride. It was not until 1 88 1 that the Capital of the United States became anything like the city which it is to-day- I followed very carefully the speech made by the Attorney-General when he moved the second reading of this Bill. Although it was a magnificent example of special pleading, still it did not convince me in the slightest degree. He divided his speech into four heads, namely, the constitutional question, the compact, the delay in acquiring the site, and the suitability of site. I do not intend to go very fully into the matter. I am not accustomed, as many of our leading members are, to dealing properly with nice points of law ; but, speaking as a layman, I can see no doubt on the question. Let me refer you, sir, to a report which was made at the request of the late Attorney-General for New South Wales, Mr. B. R. Wise, by Mr. Alexander Oliver, who was then President of its Land Appeal Court. The correspondence was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Sydney Daily Telegraph, on the 29th November, 1900. Mr. Wise asked Mr. Oliver to express his opinion -

As to the relation of the State which has to part with territory for the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth, which is empowered to acquire such territory, and particularly whether the Commonwealth can, constitutionally, acquire such territory without the concurrence of the State in which it is situated, and independently of the Parliament of that State.

I think that it is rather interesting, at this juncture, to quote Mr. Oliver, who offered his opinion “ without political bias or predilection of any kind.” - a perfectly unprejudiced lawyer, if such a thing is possible. He says -

It has been broadly contended by some who presumably have studied the subject that not only is the determination of the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth vested exclusively in the Federal Parliament, but that the Commonwealth is the authority constituted’ and empowered by statute to acquire, of its own motion, and without consulting or awaiting any offers by the Parliament of New South Wales, so much of the territory of that State as may be required for the establishment of the Seat of Government.

That is the argument which was advanced in this debate by the Attorney-General. Mr.

Oliver refers us to section 125 of the Constitution, which deals with the granting or acquiring of the territory. He points out that the framers of our Constitution were evidently guided by the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision -

The Congress /shall have power -

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be,’ for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and1 other buildings ; and

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the foregoing powers.

– He was a lawyer of eminence, and had been parliamentary draftsman for many years.

Dr LIDDELL:

- Mr. Oliver concludes in these terms -

Those who propose to thrust aside the Parliament of New South Wales in the determination of the site for the Seat of Government on the ground that the Federal Parliament has the exclusive and unconditional power of deciding, will certainly fail to discover in the Constitution any express grant of such an extraordinary power, and the contention based on “ necessary implication “ rests, as has been shown, on the frailest and most unsubstantial of foundations.

I should now like to quote the opinion of one who, I think honorable members will agree with me, is a still more eminent lawyer, and one before whom this matter may have ultimately to go.’ I allude to Mr. Justice Barton. When he spoke the words I am about to read, he had not become influenced by his Victorian surroundings, as, I regret to say, he did later.

As reported in Hansard, he said here on the 19th July, 1901 -

Honorable members will see from the way I have dealt with this matter that there is no prejudgment as to sites on the part of the Government. This territory is no doubt to be ultimately selected by the Federal Parliament from such land as shall be offered to it by New South Wales.

Mr Poynton:

– Was not the Dalgety site offered?

Dr LIDDELL:

– The only sites which have been offered to us by the New South Wales Parliament are the Tumut,Yass, and Lyndhurst sites. I admit that the Dalgety site was included in the Bombala area offered by the See Government.

Mr Poynton:

– Have not the Crown lands round it and the other sites named been reserved from alienation?

Dr LIDDELL:

– That may be so; but the only offer of which we can take notice is that of the Parliament of the State. Mr. Justice Barton continued -

I think the Constitution itself contemplates that the offer shall be made under any circumstances by New South Wales, and any action, beyond the acceptance of one of the offers made is not intended to be undertaken by the Commonwealth, except as a last resource. That I feel secure about. But I do not think we need fear great difficulties on that point, when we consider how ready that State has been, so they can see that the Government of New South Wales is willing to offer further areas beyond those mentioned in the Commissioner’s report. It has asked our opinion upon that subject, and we have replied that we think it is for New South Wales to make the offers in the first instance, and that we shall be ready to receive any such offers.

Is New South Wales being treated by us in the fair spirit in which the first Prime Minister of the Commonwealth thought she would be treated? Far from it. On the 29th April, 1899, speaking in Sydney, at a meeting at which the right honorable member for East Sydney was also present, he said -

I am perfectly satisfied that the Federal Capital will be fixed in such a place that Sydney will be the trading port. They should not lose any of their trade. If the Capital were an insignificant place, or if it were a growing place, attracting money and men from all parts of Australia, then Sydney as its port would get the benefit of that.

The leader of the Oppositionwas then fresh from the Premiers’ Conference, and what had transpired there was fixed firmly, in his mind. He said -

In my opinion, if I may give it for anything it is worth, the Federal Capital, although in a country district, will be as near as possible to the 100-miles limit.

Then, speaking in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, on the AddressinReply to the Governor’s speech, on the 21st February, 1899, when the right honorable member for East Sydney was Colonial Treasurer of the State, Mr. Justice, then Mr. Barton, said -

If the Capital is a little more than 100 miles from Sydney it will still be within a three hours’ rail journey, and I take it that it will be the endeavour, however Federal and however patriotic-minded they may be of a large number of the representatives of New South Wales, and most of them, so long as considerations of position and climate are faithfully observed, to see that that Capital is not placed too remotely from either Sydney or Melbourne.

Mr Fisher:

– That last phrase covers everything.

Dr LIDDELL:

– Any place near the 100-miles limit would be within reasonable distance from Melbourne. I shall not support the amendment of the honorable member for Parkes, because I believe the compact respecting the Capital to be part and parcel of the Constitution. It is that provision which brought about Federation, and we ‘have no right to submit to a referendum any proposed amendment of the fundamental conditions to which the people assented. I shall oppose any alteration of the provision which embodies the compact which induced the people of New South Wales to enter the Union. It was never supposed that the Capital would be located so far from Sydney as Dalgety is.

Mr Livingston:

– Does not the honorable member think that Sydney would be a better site?

Dr LIDDELL:

– I hold certain views as to the undesirability of the Capital being in one of the large cities. Besides, the compact having been made, we should give effect to it, whatever that may cost us, and I shall do my utmost to have it carried out. The Attorney-General spoke about the delays which have occurred. I am satisfied that if the present leader of the Opposition had remained Prime Minister, this question would have been settled. The right honorable gentleman showed that he had an open mind, and that, although he was not in favour of Dalgety, he, as Prime Minister, was prepared to abide by the decision of t.Parliament, and do his best to carry it into effect. And, because of that attitude, the Minister of Trade and Customs made a most unfair attack on him the other night. I ask the leader of the Labour

Party whether ha considers it fair on the part of the Minister of Trade and Customs to so attack the leader of the Opposition ?

Mr Fisher:

– I did not hear any attack.

Dr LIDDELL:

– The action of the Minister of Trade and Customs was most uncalled for, and most unjust ; and the only excuse I can find for him is that he was not in his usual health at the time. As to the suitability of the site, I may say that, when I visited Dalgety, it was summer, and the climate at the time was very pleasant. But I used my eyes, noting the nature and quality of the soil, and making inquiries as to the number of sheep the country carried; and I came to the conclusion that it was hardly a land flowing with milk and honey; but on the contrary, a somewhat barren territory. I noticed that a number ot the houses! were propped up, and that the trees sloped in one direction, indicating strong winds at certain seasons. A squatter of the district, who drove me round, informed me that his homestead was in a gully, where it could not be seen from the road ; and, as in New South Wales I had been accustomed to see homesteads on the slopes, and even on the tops of the -hills. I asked him the reason, The reply was, “It is very cold, and the winds are very strong, and we have to build in a sheltered position.” For various reasons, I came to the conclusion that Dalgety is not a place in which I should like to spend a winter, and, if that is so in the case of New South Wales members, like myself, how much more would Queensland members feel the severity of the climate? A good deal has been said about the healthiness of the district; but it may be that only healthy people can live there; it does not follow that because a man lives to a great age his place of residence is particularly healthy. It may simply show that he is a very strong man ; and the probability is that in Dalgety it is a case of the survival of the fittest. I should like to draw attention to the way in which the case for Dalgety has been bolstered up or “barracked” for - if I may be permitted to use the term - by the Sydney Bulletin. Some time ago, when the question was under discussion, I was favoured with a postcard, on which appeared the following

The Bulletin asks Mr. Liddell, M.P., to hesitate before giving a provincial vote against Dalgety, the only possible Australian Capital.

This bore the signature of Mr. J. Edmonds, the editor ; and I should like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the methods adopted by the conductors of this print. The postcard bears several photographs. The first is a photograph of Cotter Creek, and underneath appear the words -

The water supply of Premier Wade’s proposed Capital at Canberra. Taken in the middle of the stream quarter of a mile above the junction with the Murrumbidgee Compare this with any of the following views of the Snowy River at the source, the Snowy River above Dalgety.

– It is a roundabout method ; but it is the law of the State. If honorable members were not satisfied with

Newcastle, Port Stephens would be open to them, and it is certainly one of the finest harbors on the coast. There the navy to be constructed for the Commonwealth might lie in safety, and be well protected from foreign cruisers. If this question be not definitely settled now, I shall ask that a report be obtained as to the possibility of establishing the Capital somewhere near the banks of the Hunter, to the north of Newcastle.

Mr Hedges:

– It is a terrible place for mosquitoes.

Dr LIDDELL:

– There may be mosquitoes on the river, but the high lands can boast of a nice equable climate that should satisfy any one. I think that this question ought to be speedily settled. The people of New South Wales wish it to be dealt with finally at the earliest moment, and I am prepared to give my vote and to do all that I can to have it settled at the first opportunity.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

.- Although during the last seven years we have annually had a discussion on a Bill relating to the Federal Capital, I have possessed my soul in patience and have refrained from speaking on this question. But for the extraordinary development brought about bv the honorable member for Parkes I should not have spoken to-night. The honorable member desires to amend the terms of the bargain drawn up by the Premiers, and which did not suit the people of any State other than New South Wales. He is not satisfied that New South Wales should have all the ultimate advan.tages of the Federal Capital ; he desires that that very small part for which Victoria asked at the Conference - the fixing of the Seat of Government at Melbourne pending the establishment of the Federal Capital - shall be taken from her, and that the Constitution shall be so amended as to make Sydney the Seat of Government for the next ten years. If the honorable member desires to throw the whole Constitution into the melting pot I do not mind. But for the parochial feeling displayed, not by the people of New South Wales - a majority of those who voted at the first referendum having already accepted the Bill - but by the right honorable member for East Sydney, who was then Premier of that State, the Capital might have been established in any part of Australia, and in that event I should have been quite willing to agree to a proposal that the final decision should be left, as in the first Constitution Bill, to the GovernorGeneral. We have been told that hydatids are .prevalent at Dalgety, and that t the Hunter River site is afflicted with mosquitoes, whilst we know that Sydney is almost permanently infected with plague. That seems unfortunate for those three show places of New South Wales. I have no doubt that there are better places in Australia, which would be selected if it were open to the Australian people to decide, free from the restrictions imposed in the Constitution. If the honorable member for Parkes wants to go back on his bargain, and to take away from Victoria such small rights as she now has, so that instead of Melbourne being the Seat of Government until the Federal Capital is instituted, it shall only remain so for another two years, and Sydney be the Seat of Government for ten years after that, he may rest assured that the rest of the Australian people would be quite ready to go back to the original terms of the Constitution Bill, which all the States, including New South Wales itself, accepted, but which was unfortunately amended as the result of a secret Conference. That amendment the people in their desire for Federation had to accept, and so the site of the Capital was limited entirely to one State. The only justification which the honorable ‘ member for Parkes could have for his amendment would be if he had a clear indication that the people had changed their minds, because it must be remembered that Sydney was deliberately “decided against by a majority in every State.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– For permanent purposes.

Mr CROUCH:

– One part of the Constitution provides that for temporary purposes and for ever Sydney should not be the Seat of Government. That was agreed to by enormous majorities in the referenda in every State. Not only is that so; but when it was proposed in the Convention that Sydney should be selected, only three delegates voted for it, and twenty-nine against it. Amongst the twenty-nine were representatives even of New South Wales, who knew Sydney best. Consequently, not only did the people of Australia decide by referenda in every State that Sydney and the country for IOC miles around it should be debarred, but the representatives of Australia in the Federal

Convention also decided against that city. When I asked the honorable member for Parkes if he was ready to submit the question to the people to allow them to decide, and why, if he proposed Sydney, I should not propose Melbourne, he said he saw no objection.

Mr Bruce Smith:

– I said that the honorable member was at liberty to propose what he liked.

Mr CROUCH:

– I think I should have that liberty, even if the honorable member did not allow it- to me. Melbourne should have equal rights with Sydney in this matter, and, consequently, when the amendment is seriously before the House, I shall propose to leave out all the words after the words “ Seat of Government,” so as to make it read-1-

In view of the wide difference of opinion in regard to the most suitable site for an Australian Federal Capital, the final choice be postponed until the year 1921, and that the Government shall forthwith prepare and introduce into Parliament a .Bill providing for an alteration of the Constitution by which the city of Melbourne shall remain as” the Seat of Government.

The honorable member for Wide Bay, who is always a keen advocate and defender of the rights of Queensland, very properly suggests that if Sydney and Melbourne are to have their turn, Brisbane should have ito turn, and similarly, in time, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart would have a right to put in a claim, if we make any amendment of the Constitution in the way suggested. I believe that the honorable member for Parkes has made this proposal in good faith in the” interests of his State and against Victoria, and am not surprised at his action. But I am surprised at the honorable member for Echuca, who is a Victorian representative, seconding it, and subsequently speaking in favour of it. Victoria has given up her right to ever possess the Federal Capital, although she has done more to develop the Commonwealth than has any other State, she is the most centrally situated, the Federal idea received its most enthusiastic support within her borders, and she sent out’ missionaries to the other States to try to bring about Federation. Although Victoria, voluntarily gave up her chance of having the Federal Capital and agreed that all but New South Wales should betabooed, yet a Victorian member is so adverse to her interests and rights under the Constitution that he seconds and supports a proposal by which she will enjoy only for two years more the right which was secured to her in return for her great sacrifice. I am surprised at any Victorian being so anti- Victorian. If the amendment does not succeed, possibly another one will be submitted to provide that the Parliament shall remain in Melbourne until the year 5000. After that the honorable member for Parkes can move any amendment he likes. It has been said time after time that the arrangement which the Premiers of the States made in February, 1899, was that the Capital should be as near to Sydney as the 100-miles limit would permit. The then Premier of New South Wales - the, right honorable member for East Sydney - must have known the proposal that he made and the impression that it left on his mind. Yet in an interview published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 15th June, 1899 - within four months of the making of the agreement - he made a statement to the following effect : -

On the question of the Capital he pointed out what an advantage New South Wales had gained in securing it. It would be somewhere between Albury and Sydney, and therefore he did not see why Junee should not have a run for it.

Mr Johnson:

– Dees the honorable member seriously think that they mean business?

Mr HEDGES:

– I have not been taken into their confidence. They appear to be serious on some matters in respect of which I do not agree with them, but I am prepared to support them in this matter. I think they will be justified in pushing it forward to a conclusion. I hope that when we have given our decision on this occasion, all that we shall hear of the matter in future will be reports of progress made in the establishment of the Capital which will be satisfactory to the whole of the people of Australia.’ I believe that they desire to see the matter settled. In my opinion honorable members representing Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania are in a position to express a more unbiased opinion on this question than are representatives of either Victoria or New South Wales. I have every confidence that when this debate is concluded, the vote will be in- favour of Dalgety.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fuller) adjourned.

page 491

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that His Excellency the GovernorGeneral will to-morrow, in this building, at a quarter to three o’clock, receive the Address-in-Reply agreed to by this House. (louse adjourned at 10.25 P-m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 September 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19080929_reps_3_47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives29 September 1908

PETITION

QUESTION

PORT PHILLIP SEARCHLIGHTS

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

CONTROL OF WARSHIPS

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Kelly:

Mr DEAKIN:

PAPER

NAVIGATION BILL

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Railway’ Charges for Mails

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

INTER-STATE COMMISSION

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr CROUCH:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr EWING:

Mr CROUCH:

Mr EWING:

QUESTION

NEW PROTECTION

Mr HUGHES:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

TEMPORARY FITTERS, GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

NON-BRITISH MAIL STEAMERS

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Mr EWING:Richmond · Protectionist

Mr Reid:

Mr EWING:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr EWING:

Mr Kelly:

Mr EWING:

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

Mr EWING:

Mr Kelly:

Mr EWING:

Mr Reid:

Mr EWING:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr EWING:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr EWING:

Mr Reid:

Mr EWING:

Mr Reid:

Mr EWING:

Mr Crouch:

Mr EWING:

Mr Hughes:

Mr EWING:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr EWING:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr Kelly:

Mr EWING:

Mr EWING:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr EWING:

Mr Johnson:

Mr EWING:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr EWING:

House of Representatives
29 September 1908

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Richmond · Protectionist

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 EWING:
Protectionist

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