House of Representatives
13 October 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

QUESTION
- VOTING MACHINES
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
PAPERS
QUESTION
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- NEWCASTLE COAL VEND
DEFENCE BILL
- Second Reading
TELEGRAPH (EMERGENCY) BILL

Mr. Speaker took thechairat 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4453

QUESTION

VOTING MACHINES

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister of Home Affairs say when he is likely to submit to the House the report of the officials of his Department on the voting machines which they are examining?

Mr FULLER:
Minister for Home Affairs · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– As soon as the Board has had an opportunity to examine an improvement which is now being perfected, it will report on the machines which have been brought under its notice, and the report will be laid on the table.

page 4453

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to be represented . at the Conference to be convened by the President of the United States to consider the conservation of the national resources of the world?

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– No greater proposal has vet been submitted, or is likely to be submitted, to any Conference. The Government is considering the representation of Australia.

page 4453

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Leprosy - Report by Dr. Bull respecting tbe International Conference held at Bergen, Norway,16th19th August, 1909.

Transcontinental Railway, Kalgoorlie to Fort Augusta - Instructions to the Engineers-in-Chief in connexion with the Trial Surveys; Ministerial Approval of the sum of , £20,000, adoption of route, viâ Tarcoola, &c. ; Report by the Engineers-in-Chief.

Ordered to be printed.

page 4453

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

TelephoneBranch : Instruments : Complaints re Service : Ora Banda Connexion : Erection of Lines, New South Wales : Perth Post Office.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is stated in this morning’s newspapers that the PostmasterGeneral has asked for tenders for the supply of 20,000 telephone instruments. Dees the honorablegentleman propose to inquire thatthe instruments shall have fixed transmitters?

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– There are no rigid conditions regarding form or pattern. Tenderers may offer the best machines which they are in a position to supply.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Has a report yet been submitted by the Departmental Commitee appointed to inquire into the question of a new post-office for Perth; and, if so, what conclusions, if any, have been come to?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The apswer to the honorable member’s question is -

Yes. A report has been furnished by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of a new post-office for Perth, recommending that the General Post Office be removed to a new building specially designed for the purpose on a suitable site to be acquired, apart from the Telephone and Stores Branches (which it is suggested should be in separate buildings). These recommendations are subject to the State Government agreeing to accept retransfer of the existing premises.

As some considerable time must necessarily elapse in securing a site and erecting the new building, the Committee has suggested various alterations and re-arrangements of rooms in the meantime, involving an expenditure of between £200 and £300.

These recommendations have been approved by me, and referred to the Department of Home Affairs.

page 4454

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE COAL VEND

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

With further reference to the operations of the Newcastle Coal Vend in restriction of trade - 1. Has he seen statements in the press to the effect that-

Only a short time ago the s.s. Beulah was refused a cargo of coal ?

That the “colliery proprietors of Australia charge ns. per ton f.o.b. Newcastle for their coal for consumption in the Commonwealth and New Zealand,” while they are “ selling for foreign shipment at about 8s. per ton f.o.b. Newcastle, under the cloak of a c.i.f. price.”?

That a “ gentleman from England (controlling a large fleet of steamers), whose arrival in Sydney was recently heralded in the newspapers, is now here with the object, in conjunction with a Newcastle firm, of obtaining the sole right to charter for and sell the coals from the collieries controlled by the’ Vend ‘ for foreign shipment. Thus, if the agreement is consummated, it will be done at the expense of the consumers of coal in Australia “ ?

Will he endeavour to ascertain the truth or otherwise of these published statements, with a view to taking such steps as may be necessary to protect the public from being victimized by unnecessarily high prices for theircoal, and insuring that there shall be no interference by the “ Vend” with the trading rights of any member of the community?

Mr GLYNN:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are

Yes. The honorable member has shown me the statements referred to.
Information with regard to the whole question is now being obtained, with a view to ascertaining whether offences against the Australian Industries Preservation Act are being committed.

page 4454

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from21st September (vide page 3630), on motion by Mr. Joseph Cook -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- Happily, before the end of the third Parliament, defence, which was considered one of the important questions to be dealt with, by the Commonwealth, is being undertaken seriously. It is not a partymatter, and will not be made so by the Opposition. My remarks will be exceedingly brief, but, at the outset, I should like to say that the present position of affairs is largely due to the honorable member for West Sydney. Those who remember the first Parliament will recollect that, like a voice crying in the wilderness, he then declared that our defence system was inadequate, and so faulty in principle that it must in the long run fail. He advocated the establishment of a citizen defence force, which is practically what the Government now propose.

Sir John Forrest:

– That was provided for in the Act of 1902.

Mr FISHER:

– The Treasurer will not get much support if he endeavours to discredit what the honorable member for West Sydney has done in this matter. It is true that the members of the first Parliament were generally in favour of the creation of a citizen defence force, but the Minister of Defence, when moving the second reading of this Bill, declared that we have no real defence system. Had the existing legislation been effective, there would be no need for the Bill.

Sir John Forrest:

– Parliament cut down the Defence Estimates’ at the start.

Mr FISHER:

– The right honorable gentleman claimed that the existing Act would be effective if we had plenty of money to ‘expend on defence. I do not agree with that contention. I should be glad to be able to agree with the honorable gentleman. Nothing would delight me more than to know that we could defend Australia effectively by the adoption of a volunteer system. That has always been my hope and desire, but the military experts have told one Federal Government after another that the volunteer system has absolutely failed. It is no longer a matter of money, but a question of principle. It is now a question’ whether every citizen of the Commonwealth should not undertake the first duty of a citizen of any country, and be prepared to protect its honour and its interests.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The loud hum of conversation must be distressing to the honorable member addressing the House, and it makes it difficult for me to hear what he is saying. I trust that honorable members will not continue to carry on conversations in such a loud tone as to interfere with the honorable member addressing the Chair.

Mr FISHER:

– I intend to say what I have to say despite the conversation. Speaking generally, the principle of this Bill is not in question, and any contentious features of it can be discussed in Committee. However, the proposed departure is one of such importance that it will not be entirely out of place at the present moment to give it some attention. Speaking for the party I have the honour to lead in this House, I should like to say . that it must be understood that in supporting a measure of this kind we have no desire whatever to assail, in any way, the interests of people of other countries. I should like it to be understood that we regard the measure as making provision only for defence. Undoubtedly, the fate of the

Mr FISHER:

– What can be said of honorable members who obtain seats in this House and can hold such ideas? No national progress can be made when men have minds of that kind. Honorable members upon this side could in many instances attack the Bill submitted by the present Government because it is not upon all fours with their ideas, but they con-

Rider the national defence of Australia as of far more importance than mere differences of opinion regarding details. It is for that reason that we accept the principle of the Bill, because we believe the scheme will work out ultimately for the good of Australia, and, if passed into law, help to safeguard the best interests of the Empire. I am entitled, in those circumstances, to draw attention to statements made by honorable members. I thought at first that there was only one man in this House who could lower himself to make such an assertion as that made by the honorable member for Lang, and yet we find it repeated by another honorable member. Do the principles of a scheme alter simply because they are brought in by another Ministry? Let me read our proposals. On the 30th March the programme of the late Government was announced as follows : -

– As an individual citizen, I am glad that this measure has been brought forward, and I am sorry that it was not introduced earlier. Its administration will involve a large expenditure, but the Commonwealth is capable of providing for it. In my opinion, the physical training of our youth, and the teaching of our young men the arts of war, fitting them for the defence of their country, instead of making them aggressive will make them even more desirous of peace than they are now. Lord Roberts has stated that his ex- perience of war has taught him the value of peace. A great many of my friends have said to me that, had our people been trained to arms, and been armed, when the Dreadnought scare occurred, they would have been ready to enter upon a war, but, in my opinion, that is not so. I think that military training will teach them, as it has taught Lord Roberts, the value of peace, and that -they will not be unduly desirous of coming into conflict with other nations though ready to accept the responsibility of resisting offence. The Opposition will not make this a party measure, our desire being to promote the defence of the country, with a view to the protection of the best interests of the Empire, and the securing of the continued peace of the world.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

.- The Leader of the Opposition has congratulated the Government upon the Bill, and I think that the House and the country were with him in doing so. He has also congratulated the Ministry, and particularly the Minister of Defence, on their conversion. When I contrast the present views of the Minister with his past utterances, I am convinced that no differences of opinion can permanently separate one man from another. I cannot recall a case in which, in so short a time, an honorable member has so completely altered his views as the Minister has done. I am glad that he has been converted, but I could have wished that in his speech he had given some indication of the fact, and of his recognition of the fact. Reading his speech, as I have done, very carefully, I find not the slightest indication of this monumental change of opinion on the part of the honorable gentleman. I should rather say’ that the speech appears to be the utterance of a man who from childhood upwards held to his belief with unwavering consistency and enthusiasm. When I remember that it was only a few months since . at the outside that the views set forth in his speech on this Bill were denounced most unsparingly, and that during the past six years there has scarcely been an occasion on which the honorable gentleman and myself have been uttering opinions on one side in this matter, I cannot help calling the attention of the House and the country to this extraordinary conversion. It is the more extraordinary by reason of its silent and unostentatious character. The honorable gentleman makes no boast about his conversion at all. He does not ask us to look at the effect of the climate on the Ministerial benches. He does not invite us to consider that a man holding, when on the Opposition benches, opinions heterodox to those he has now- expressed, has in the space of four months contrived to acquire an entirely new set much more congenial, much more useful, .and, circumstanced as he is, much more convenient than those which he has abandoned. The honorable gentleman does not say that. He is not a boastful man. He simply- goes on his way rejoicing, and I admit that he has every reason to do so. I congratulate him upon having adopted the principle of compulsory service. I do not propose to expatiate upon that principle to-day, because it is useless to speak of the excellence of that which most men now accept. But I cannot call to mind any proposal of such a revolutionary character which has so speedily’ found acceptance by the people. When we remember that on many occasions we have been told by the honorable gentleman, and by his late leader, the right honorable member for East Sydney, that this compulsion is repugnant to the genius of the British people- r-whatever . that may mean - and that the Minister of Defence, only last October, declared himself the implacable enemy of the compulsory system, and of the proposal that we should establish an Australian Navy, and when we see the one gentleman having, at least, the candour’ to declare his recantation on. the floor of the House, and the other, without such a preface, making a direct appeal on behalf of this policy, we cannot refrain from noticing and marvelling at the change. There must be a cause for this conversion, and we axe forced to attribute it to the wave of feeling outside.. Whatever may be said of the right honorable member for East Sydney, or the honorable member for Parramatta, no one has ever accused them of being fools. I suppose that no man has a more precise idea, or keeps a more lifting eye on the shifting wind of public opinion, than the right honorable member for East Sydney. And although the two honorable gentlemen referred to are not alike in many respects, I do not think the honorable member for Parramatta is much behind the right honorable member for East Sydney in this particular. We must therefore assume that we have converted, not only the members of this House, but the people of the country, to an opinion which six years ago could hardly find two supporters- in this

House. The Minister of Defence, like all converts, is very enthusiastic. But yesterday, and everything went well with the, Defence Department, or, at any rate, the defects disclosed in it were of a character not inherent, but only accidental. They could easily .be remedied without recourse to this system, which was in its very nature repugnant to the genius of the British race, and imposed an intolerable thrall upon the people. But when the honorable member for Parramatta gets into office, he declares, in the most positive way, that we are in a parlous state. He declares this to the House in a manner which would lead honorable members and the country to believe that it was something in the nature of a revelation - a revelation, I mean, vouchsafed to him only - that before his time it was unknown and that he has been selected as the vehicle to declare to the people of this country the views of the Imperial authorities in this respect. He says that he proposes to tell us that, so far from this country being open only to danger from a raid, it is open to danger of a very different kind altogether. He proposes to quote the opinions of Imperial authorities, so that the people and the members of this House may become aware of the gravity of the situation. It is doubtless a very good thing that the honorable gentleman should inform this House in any way of matters that have come to his knowledge for the first time, but I cannot help directing the attention of honorable members to the fact that, in October of last year-a time well in advance of that period of temporary hysteria in March or February of this year, that arose in connexion with the proposed offer of a Dreadnought - I pointed out, at considerable length, the position of Great Britain in the matter of naval supremacy as compared with Germany. I quoted from authorities as widely separated as Mr. Hyndman, the Socialist, Mr. Blatchford, the editor of The Clarion, the correspondent of the London Times, Lieutenant Dewar and men of that type, and Lord Roberts, to show conclusively that, at that time, it was perfectly well known to those in authority in Great Britain that this danger did exist, and that if no notice was taken of it. it was because the exigencies of the political situation did not then demand it. When this was declared in this House at that time, the right honorable member for East Sydney and the present Minister of Defence pooh-poohed the matter and de- clared there was nothing in it. Now the Minister of Defence accepts it as gospel, without any inquiry - and it is a curious feature of the honorable gentleman’s attitude that a man whose very nature is opposed to accepting anything without argument, and without plunging through a very world of waters, should accept now, without question, anything the Imperial authorities may say with regard to naval or military defence. I shall have something to say about his pliability in regard to naval defence in a moment. The Empire is in a bad way, but, thank Heaven, the honorable gentleman has arrived in time to at least insure its stability on this side of the world. He contemplates now the possibility of an invasion of this country of a very serious kind, and, being an eminently peaceful character - peaceful to such a degree that he is impelled to destroy everything within reasonable distance if he cannot secure peace in any other way - he has inquired into the matter carefully and has come down with a scheme for land defence. But the honorable gentleman has not had time even to familiarize himself with the question of naval defence, and has taken his policy on this subject, in the most obliging way, entirely from the Imperial Defence Conference, and, as he admits, without in the least degree knowing what it is. I think that is a most extraordinary admission, and it is an admission which was extorted from the honorable gentleman in so many words in reply to an interjection by the honorable member for Adelaide. Being asked to what we were committed, the Minister of Defence replied, that he did not know precisely what we were committed to, but that to what we were committed he was perfectly willing to agree. I shall now very briefly review the position with regard to naval defence. Contrasting the Government’s scheme - if it be a scheme at all, which I venture to question - with the Fisher scheme, these salient points of difference emerge. The Fisher scheme was a scheme for the defence of Australia. It was the first concrete scheme for the purpose that was put before the country. It was a scheme which recognised the unity ,of the Empire, and Australia’s duty as an integral part of it. It declared that the most effective way in which Australia could defend the Empire was by defending herself, and thus liberating the rest of the forces of the Empire for service in other directions. I thought then, and I think now, that that was an excellent plan. It was Imperial in its nature and yet patriotic. It appealed to the patriotic fervour of the Australian, which sadly needs kindling, and which, I venture to believe, this dampening of Imperialism which the honorable, gentleman contemplates will check rather than fan into flame. We proposed to establish what the honorable gentleman described as “ a tin-pot navy.” Nothing could have been further from the honorable gentleman’s thoughts at that time than the advocacy of such a scheme as this. Curiously enough, the Minister did not confine his criticism to the nature of our navy, but extended it to the proposed locale. He said the battle of the future was to be fought in the North Sea, and all our puny efforts in the Pacific Ocean would be thrown away. There was only one place in which a battle could be fought on which the welfare of the Empire would depend, and that was in the waters round about Great Britain. I feel sure the honorable member will not deny that he said that. Very well, what are the facts? The facts are that it is perfectly true, as 1 pointed out last October, that the Fleets of Great Britain have, owing, to the emergence of Germany as a great naval power, been withdrawn from the outer seas and concentrated in Home waters. But, while that is a fact, it does not at all lessen the responsibility of <-he Empire to its outermost portions, nor the danger from attack to those portions. We can see clearly enough that the equilibrium of Empire and Imperial interests is slowly shifting. The Pacific is now - or will soon be - a centre no less important than the North Sea. To-day, according to the honorable gentleman’s own showing, the Pacific is policed and guarded by fifteen battleships of Japan, by, I think, one battleship of the United States, by a number of armoured cruisers of Japan and of the United States, and by four armoured cruisers of Great Britain. Obviously, save for our alliance with Japan, never were people in such a parlous position as we. But that state of things is not a new one. It has not arisen since the honorable gentleman took office. It was equally, aye, it was more true last November, because at that time trie relations between the United States and Japan were so strained that, had it not been, for the statesmanship and diplomacy of the President of the United States, and some restraint exercised in high quarters upon both sides, there was likely to be precipitated in the Pacific a struggle the ripples of which would have washed these shores. The present position of things in the Pacific is as I have stated, and the Imperial Defence Conference has recognised the necessity for stationing a fleet in those waters. The honorable gentleman then has gone back first on his opposition to compulsory service, and secondly on the necessity for centering the whole of the naval power of the Empire in the North Sea. I can conceive of no two opinions more important than those, nor recall one occasion where there has been such a complete abandonment of opinions equally important in so short a period. With regard to the Navy proposed by the Government, one or two things may be said. The honorable gentleman quotes the dictum of the Imperial Defence Conference of 1906 to the effect that the influence of sea-power can not by itself decide the issue of a war for national existence. As that opinion was uttered in 1906, it was perfectly open to the honorable gentleman to have noticed it before, but he never did so. There is no policy with regard to the cost of this Navy. None has been declared and none has been formulated. There is no principle underlying it. We do not know who is to control the Navy; we do not know where it is to be located, nor the sphere of its operations. We do not know even whether the men who are to be drafted into it are to be provided on a volunteer or a compulsory basis, or partly on both. We do not know what they are to be paid, or whether they are liable to be taken from these ships and transferred willy-nilly to British ships in another .part of the world. We do not know whether the ships of the squadron, which are called Australian ships, are to be liable tobe transferred toother parts of the world. We do not know whether the fleet is to be partly reinforced by a British squadron in these waters. We do not know whether, if that is the case, the British Vice-Admiral will have command of the whole squadron, including the Australian ships. In “fact, we know nothing at all about it. But we are told in the honorable member’s speech - and perhaps the honorable member will tell us to what extent the information is reliable - that it is proposed to exchange men as opportunity may arise for the purpose of affording them facilities for instruction, and that it is proposed further to interchange ships. When that was said, it was remarked by interjection that it was a very serious thing, and I think it is very serious. To take an Australian vessel, into which men volunteer for service; and transfer it to the China or the Atlantic station, or to the Home Fleet, is in effect to make this a contribution in kind to the British Navy. That may be good or bad, but I say that the Government cannot, under cover of creating an Australian Navy, ‘ impose upon the people of this country an increased subsidy. The fleet as at present proposed - and the honorable gentleman does not know whether we are to have any more vessels, but says that if we are to have any more we shall have to get them - is to cost .£3,750,000 foi construction, and £750,000 per annum for up-keep. Of the latter amount Great Britain is to pay £250,000 per annum during the currency of the subsidy, and we are to pay her a subsidy of £200,000 per annum. Consequently for a certain number of years the fleet is to cost us £700,000, and afterwards £750,000, per annum. This proposal then contemplates the borrowing of a sufficient amount of money to pay for building the fleet. The interest’ upon £3,750,000 will not fall far. short of ,£150,000 per annum. Adding that to the cost of upkeep gives- us £900,000.- Therefore, the sum necessary to keep up the fleet and pay the interest upon the cost of construction is £900,000 per annum. If the fleet is at any’ time likely to be transferred as a whole, and it can always be transferred in part, to different parts of the world, it is to be in effect a contribution in kind to the British Navy, towards the cost of which we shall, therefore, pay to the tune practically of £1, 000,000 per annum. I say nothing at all about that. It may be an excellent idea. I am not going to say that it is not worth while to pay £1,000,000 per annum to Great Britain, or, if we look at it in that light, that £1,000,000 is not a fair quota for us to pay. Do not run away with the idea that I am quarrelling as to the amount, or with the thing itself. But the Imperial Defence Conference was called together to formulate a system of Imperial defence to proceed along these lines : the raising by each local semi-independent State of a naval force which would be sufficient as far as possible to maintain its own integrity. Take the proposals of Canada, of New Zealand, and of Australia, and you ‘ will see clearly how much depended upon what the delegate from Australia said, and how we can see most plainly what he did say. Canada insisted on a navy under local control. It was a sine qua non also that it should be built locally. I am sure the honorable member has read the opinions of Mr. Amery, as expressed in the National Defence Magazine for, I think, May of this year. In fact, I know he has read them, because he quoted them here. Mr. Amery is a man of first class standing, and the author of the Times History of the South African War. He pointed out that it was an essential of Imperial Defence, viewed as a whole, that there should be dockyards, means of repairing vessels, and men trained to build and re- ‘ pair them, all over the Empire, and % that it was as essential to have dockyards and trained men in Australia, South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand, as it was to have ships upon the water in the North Sea and elsewhere. Now, how does the Minister of Defence view this question? Apparently as if it were a scheme concerning people living in this workaday world only in some vague and uncertain way. He speaks about war being the one indeterminate science. Of course the honorable gentleman is no more a warrior than I am, but he might at least have made himself familiar with a few facts of history. If he had, he would have found that between a battle fought under Alexander, a battle fought under Wellington, and a battle fought under Roberts, there are minor differences, but that certain essentials remain unchanged. You must have discipline, you must have sufficient numbers trained in the use of arms and inured to fatigue; you must have the guiding brain, and you must have a reasonable degree of equality in weapons. All the strategy and tactics - all the science of war - have been fixed. I do not deny that a new invention may compel an alteration in tactics. For instance, you no longer proceed in close order. The way to defend a country may vary, but the question of organization remains always the same. Now what does the honorable gentleman say in regard to naval defence? He has no coherent policy. He does not say, as the Fisher Government did, that we must have an Australian navy, built in Australia,- recruited by Australians, and appealing to Australian patriotism. Never was there a more effective, and, at the same time, more sensible, way of doing that than the one proceed by the Fisher Government.

One of the essentials of the successful naval defence of Australia is that the ships should be built here, and that the men should be here who are able to build and repair them. A ship is like an army. An army marches on its belly. It cannot get very far from the commissariat. When its lines of communication are cut, it is done. So a ship cannot get far from a dockyard or a coal hulk. If it does, it becomes helpless. Its radius is limited. The radius of half the honorable gentleman’s fleet is severely limited, and it is absolutely essential that the boats should be built here; for they will have to be coaled here, and repaired here. But the proposal of the Government is apparently to borrow the money from Great Britain, to have the ships built in Great Britain, and to pay to Great Britain every year an amount which will not be far short, both in money and in kind, of £1,000,000. I will now leave the naval defence question, because, although the honorable gentleman said a great deal about it, there is no reference to it in the measure. I assume, quite properly no doubt, that it was perfectly in order for him not to refer to a matter which does not appear in the Bill, and I shall look forward, as I am sure the House will, with considerable interest to the introduction of a measure to give effect to whatever policy the Government have regarding naval defence. I come now to land defence. I shall not weary the House with much detail, but shall deal briefly with one or two of the main features of the scheme. The Minister, being clothed with much responsibility, and feeling it weighing somewhat heavily upon him, wanted to see for himself exactly how things stood with us in Australia if we should- be attacked. He said -

We want a homogeneous organization in which every part shall fit into its appointed place, and Parliament will require to back that army, as I am sure it will, generously and fairly. The question arises, “ Have we such an army to-day ?” I do not know that I . need ask it, but the answer is that we have not. Indeed, we have nothing like it.

The honorable gentleman asked what would happen supposing a raid were announced to-morrow and an immediate mobilization had to be made. The position, he declared, would be practically one of helplessness. In forming that opinion, the honorable gentleman has had the advantage of expert advice, exhausting, I suppose, every channel of information, and covering the latest details at the disposal of his

Department. He made a plain declaration of the fact that Australia to-day stands like a ripe plum ready for the first predatory hand to pluck. The honorable member has been rather long in making this discovery. It has been said that every - member of Parliament ought to travel in order to broaden his knowledge, and if I thought that the effect of going from this to the Government side of the House would be to work so great a change of opinion on the part of other honorable members as has resulted from the honorable gentleman’s occupation of the front Treasury bench, I should suggest that all honorable members in turn should sit there. There is nothing more effective in assisting a man to realize that which the honorable member was quite unable to discover until he crossed the floor of the House. I confess that when I was over there I never saw anything different.

Mr Roberts:

– How would the honorable member provide for stability ? They change again when they leave the Government side of the House.

Mr HUGHES:

– I shall not linger over such a frightful hint of backsliding as that which the honorable member suggests. What may happen after the Minister of Defence returns to this side of the House I do not know ; tout anything is possible. The Minister of Defence said that -

We have about 10,000 garrison troops; that is to say the establishment provides for that number, though they are usually about 1,000 short. We should require at once an additional 6,000 for the manning of the garrisons on a war footing; and we should have to obtain them from the Field Force until they could be supplied in some other way. Those 16,000 men organized on a war footing would have to defend nine separate fortresses and defended ports.

He proposes to increase the Militia Forces from 23,000 to 29,000 by recruiting, and also to increase the garrison troops, although he has failed utterly to bring them up to their normal strength. The honorable member .has got hold of the idea of compulsory training without having in any sense assimilated the facts of the position. His words are self -condemnatory, but he does not realize that, having stated that this country is now helpless and undefended, he has failed to put forward a proposal that will place it in a more favorable position.

He went on to show upon what facts he based his opinions -

I was greatly influenced in coming to a decision on this most essential point by my recollection of the soldierly manner in which the C.I.V. did their work in South Africa, but only after they had been given an adequate amount of training.

The C.I.V. were volunteers, who, I assume, had had a degree of training extending over probably not less than two months, although it may have been spread over several years. They were all menover twenty-one or thereabouts. They were men of at least average intelligence. The volunteer per se is likely to gain knowledge more quickly than the pressed man. These were real volunteers. They did not join the service, as a man joins the regular army, under the lash of hunger. But after they had been in the force for some time, and had had the further advantage of drill during the voyage to South Africa, they were regarded as unfit for active service when they landed there. To continue my quotation -

The total strength was1,550 of all ranks, taken chiefly from Volunteer Corps in and around London, and comprising men of all classes of society, and of almost every profession and trade. Nine Regular Officers served with the C.I.V., and what was a very important addition - a second Colour-Sergeant of the Regular Army was attached to each company.

Perhaps honorable members do not realize what that meant. The Bill contains no provision for an instructional staff. As it stands, it is like an educational measure requiring children to attend school, and making no provision for their instruction -

Notwithstanding these great advantages, I think that everyone belonging to the corps will bear me out when I say that, on account of their want of practice and skill in shooting, and lack of training generally, the C.I.V. were not in a state to take the field when they first landed in Cape Town, even against an enemy so lightly trained as the Boers.

Where would they have been if brought face to face with regular troops ? -

Accordingly, I arranged for the corps to be encamped on a suitable site on the Orange River, where it remained for more than a month drilling and practising shooting. There was nothing to distract the men’s attention - it was work, work, work, all day, and this continued, as far as was practicable, throughout the next two months whilst on the march towards Pretoria, with the result that when the C.I.V. were for the first time seriously engaged all ranks acquitted themselves most creditably.

– No; but the Minister of Defence, who makes no provision for training them, says that we shall have enough. We have not enough now to deal with 23,000 men, yet in some mysterious way he is going to secure a sufficient number to deal with 206,000 men.- If we are to take one step at a time the first step we should take is to secure an instructional staff. If this is a Bill to do something and not to talk about it, the first move we make will be to increase the number of persons to be instructed. If the Bill is introduced merely as. a placard I admit that there will be nc necessity for an instructional staff at all. The Minister said something about appointing permanent adjutants. That may be a very good thing; but, after all, the instruction is done by the instructional staff. The men who really do the work are the noncommissioned, and warrant officers; but, so far as I can see, the honorable member makes absolutely no preparation for them at all. He provides in his Bill that this is to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. According, to him, the matter is very urgent, and ought not to be delayed for a moment. Yet it would appear - although I admit that it is susceptible of quite another interpretation - that it will be eight years before the first line, the young men from eighteen to twenty, can be called up. The honorable member said it would be eight years before we obtained the total of 206,000 well-drilled and thoroughly trained men. On the face of it, that is absurd. We shall not get them in 8,000 years under this scheme. The honorable member, of course, is wiser now than he was six months ago, only by this one little fact, that somebody has told him that the compulsory service scheme is absolutely necessary for his political salvation. Beyond that, it is a dream. I have every right to point out to the honorable member that it is not on paper, or in eight years’ time, that we want 206,000 men. We want them immediately, or as soon as may be. Yet his Bill does not propose to start at any definite time, but is to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. Let us suppose that the Bill passes this session - I do not know how the honorable member’s pulse is when I say that - and the proclamation issues directly after the session closes. Then, in June next, something would happen - the Act would start. But which part of it would start ? Would the honorable member start with the junior cadets, the senior cadets, the eighteen to twenty years’ trainees, or the rest of the proposals ; or are they to follow one after the other? Is the proposal for junior cadets to run its course before the course for senior cadets begins? If it is not, then what the honorable member said on page 3623 about 206,000 men is not true, even to the extent that he meant it. If he is to start with the eighteen to twenty years’ men next year, then ineight years we shall not get the number that he speaks of, because he is counting all those who have been through their junior and senior cadet training. If we are going to take a man next year and turn him out as a soldier, he will not have been through the senior cadet training at all. He will go in without any preparatory training. He will have eight days in one line and eight days in another, and that will be the beginning and the end of him. Consequently, what the honorable member has said in regard to the matter needs qualification in one way or the other. Either his Bill starts with the compulsory training of the eighteen to twenty-year old men, or it does not. If it starts with them, then they will not enjoy the advantages of cadet training, junior or senior. They will have whatever advantages are to be obtained from eight days’ training only. That is to say, one day for putting up the camp, one day for taking it down, and a Sunday in between, leaving four or five days. With four days’ training in each of two years, therefore, we are going to create an army to enable us to defend our shores and defy the world. The honorable gentleman said that registration would take place for the first time at the beginning ot 191 1. That is nearly two years from now. Registration for whom ? Is it for those who are then of the age of from twelve to fourteen, or those from fourteen to eighteen, or those from eighteen to twenty? Supposing that a person is seventeen years of age in 1911, which class is he to register in? Will he obtain any benefit from the senior cadet training? If so, he will get, presumably, one year. In three years from now, those persons who are at present fourteen years of age will pass into the first fighting line, and will have had four days’ training as senior cadets and eight days as members of the citizen defence force. In five years from now, they will constitute the Force upon which we shall have to rely. According to the honorable gentleman’s statement, there will be 18,500 of them in five years’ time, in addition to the 23,000 men now available. That is a very hopeful state of affairs ; and I sincerelv trust that the people who are contemplating the invasion of Australia will take note of it, and do the chivalric thing by waiting until we are ready, or until the honorable gentleman alters his mind again. In his speech, at page 3623 of Hansard, the honorable gentleman epitomises his proposals. I am quoting from the printed report, to show that these were his well-matured views. He said -

A striking force would be provided, consisting of a field force and garrison troops, immediately ready for war, and that is the thing I am aiming at in all the preparations I hope to undertake. We provide for a reinforcement of the field force, namely, a second line, -

He does not say what the second line is - which could be mobilized in equal numbers, in from one to two weeks later. That is another of our objects. Both lines will have a full complement of officers and non-commissioned officers, and both will be equipped for war.

I have looked through the Bill, and I have read the honorable member’s speech ; but I fail to find in the Bill a solitary paragraph or hint of any means whereby all this is to be effected -

Half of the first* line will have had over six years’ training ; -

When the honorable member said that, it must have occurred to you, sir, to ask how all these divergencies arose between his scheme and the results that he said that his scheme would produce. The Defence Department prepared a sane, business-like scheme for him. He digested it, made certain suggestions, ‘and this is the result. I absolutely decline to believe that the experts of the Defence De>partment could be guilty of fathering the statements that are put forward in that speech. The army of a South American Republic in a comic opera could not be more farcical.

Mr Hutchison:

-The expert that would father those statements should not be in the service.

Mr HUGHES:

– I should not like to say where he should be. The honorable gentleman added - the other half over five years; and the second line will have had over four years’ training. The officers and sergeants will be men of over seven years’ service.

That is a gigantic joke. There is not the slightest hint of preparation for sergeants.

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

– I agree with the honorable member that it is a joke - I mean his criticism.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the honorable member admits that his proposals are a joke, it is about the only thing in which he does agree with me. He further said -

The training of the first line will be on wai establishments; and I again emphasize the necessity for that, and the advantage of it, so far as concerns the ability of the men to meet any emergency. You cannot train men in a skeleton force as efficiently as you can train them if the force is on a war strength. Con. sequently, the training of- the first line, I say again, will be on war establishments.

What is the first line? According to the honorable member, it is to consist of the Militia Force of 20,000. and the first line of 19 to 20 years’ old men to the number of 18,500. On his own showing, he is 6,000 short on his first line in the militia, while of the 18,500 trainees between the ages of 18 and 20 not one can do anything until four years from now. Instead of half of them having six years’ training, and the other half five, as the honorable member said, they will have had only one year’s training, and that of eight days, as the honorable member knew perfectly well. Then he goes on with his second and third lines, his rifle clubs, and the various other means whereby - he swells his force. I shall not follow hire in detail any further, but shall content myself with pointing out these matters, and do my best to remedy them in Committee. The honorable member must not suppose that, because I have been critical of the measure, I shall treat it in any way in a hostile sense. I have a perfect right to criticise it, and shall always exercise that right. Beyond that I shall not go. No measure can demand greater criticism than one which concerns the defence of Australia.

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

– And no measure is entitled to fairer or more impartial criticism.

Mr HUGHES:

– If the honorable member’s career in connexion with defence were as free from party blemish as mine has been, he might say that with more justice. Since I have taken up this question, I have been absolutely free from any suspicion of party bias. I wish the honorable member no worse fate than that his position with regard to the general principle of defence - I do not mean as to details - may always remain as it is now. One more phase of the question, and 1 have done. The honorable member has not grasped now that the basic principle of compulsory training is that it shall be for home defence only. I do not know whether he realizes that he contemplates such a departure from it, not only in this country-

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

– Will it help” the honorable member if I confess my absolute ignorance of everything? If so, I shall satisfy him.

Mr HUGHES:

– I propose to quote what the honorable gentleman said on 21st September last -

The Bill will provide us also if necessary - I hope we may never have to do it, but one aim of this organization will be to provide an expeditionary force for immediate despatch oversea or elsewhere whenever the Government of the day feel themselves under an obligation to send a force.

The Leader of the Opposition interjected -

Does the honorable gentleman mean that the men could be sent abroad without being resworn ?

The Minister of Defence replied -

I tell the honorable member candidly that if these men are wanted for oversea service in the defence of the Empire, no Government of the Commonwealth worthy of the name would hesitate to send them.

This Bill, so far as it amends the existing law, is one to add to the militia a citizen defence force. The Minister of Defence speaks of an effective organization, and the first line of that effective organization will consist of 29,000 militia and a citizen defence force of 18,500 men compulsorily trained. It is that force - the first line - which will be eligible to be sent abroad if any men are to be sent. If that statement on the part of the honorable member stood alone, I should say that it was susceptible of explanation; but standing, as it does, alongside the further statement by him that he proposes to interchange our naval men with those from other parts of the Empire, and to send our ships to other seas, it bears a very sinister complexion. Any proposal of that sort ought to be strongly opposed. Does the honorable gentleman realize that Germany, France, and Switzerland, whose forces consist entirely of compulsorily trained men, find the greatest difficulty in obtaining expeditionary forces ? Germany, which has the most perfect military organization in the world, always finds itself at the greatest possible disadvantage in obtaining expeditionary forces for oversea. The men evade service abroad, and the law is, therefore, that they are to be compulsorily trained solely for home defence. If the honorable gentleman does not intend the statement which I have read to apply to compulsorily trained citizen defence forces, he owes it to the system- which he seeks to introduce to make that fact abundantly clear. I spea”k as one who has taken a great interest in this question, and I do not want the system to be burdened with objections other than those that properly apply to it. While it is right to compel a man to fit himself to defend his country, it is not proper to compel him to fight beyond it. If it is, I can only say that I am not a convert to the principle. Lord Roberts makes it perfectly clear that his scheme is solely for home defence. The French Army, the German Army, and also that of Switzerland, which we are seeking to copy, are all for home defence. I subscribe to a sane Imperialism involved in the necessity of preserving the integrity of the British Empire. I shall not permit even the Minister of Defence to declare himself a greater believer than I am in the might and value of the Empire ; but that Empire is not to be defended bypressed men. The press gang no longer exists, and the principle of compulsory training, in which compulsion is resorted to only because it is absolutely necessary, is not compatible with that love and admiration for peace which ought to be, and I hope, someday, will be, the characteristic of civilization. I do not deny that sometimes the surest defence is to be ready to take the offensive. We provide for that, however, by our Navy. As to our Army, such a thing, I hope, is not in contemplation. T do not think it expedient or right, and

I hope that the Minister will make it perfectly clear that this scheme does not contemplate the utilization of compulsorily trained citizens for oversea expeditions of any kind. I had intended to allude to some general features of the measure, but I shall refer to them when we are in Committee. I have, perhaps, detained the House at undue length; if so, I hope that I may be pardoned, because I feel that this measure is of the utmost importance. I regret extremely that the Minister of Defence did not introduce it earlier, but the responsibility for the delay must rest upon his shoulders, and not with the House. I trust that he will not think that he has exhausted the possibilities of military knowledge, and that he may look, perhaps, with lenient eye upon some of the amendments I have outlined, and which I shall put forward in Committee. I hope that he will believe that everything I, and, indeed, every honorable member, will do in regard to this measure, is free from the suspicion of party motives. I ‘opposed the Deakin Defence Bill for the same reasons that I oppose this. I declared,, when it was introduced, as I do now, that I should support the second reading, and should do my utmost in Committee to make it an effective measure. If it failed to be effective then I should cast upon the Ministry and the Minister the responsibility for -that failure, believing that I had endeavoured to mould it into as effective a form as possible. I congratulate the honorable gentleman on his conversion to the principal of compulsory training. I regret that he has been unable to realize that between an effective organization and the existing system there are yawning chasms, and that he has only spanned one of them by adopting this principle. It is not sufficient to compel a man to train. We must compel him to train in a certain way for a sufficient period, and, having trained him, we must provide an organization in which he will fit as a component part. The Government must bring in their measure, not five years hence, but at the earliest possible moment. They must bring it in at once, because if anything is urgent, it certainly is. To propose to start out in 19 11, when the only- excuse for the introduction of a system of compulsory training is that Australia is in dire peril, is at once to confess that this is a mere placard instead of an earnest proposal. I ask the Minister of Defence to view the matter in that light.

There are many in this country who regard with suspicion the principle of compulsory training, and to those I should like, by way of conclusion, to quote a few words spoken by a Swiss soldier to his comrades - citizen soldiers like himself - duringa period of annual training in Switzerland this year -

Soldiers ! Before the flag ofour regiment, which reminds us of the six centuries of our history, which will be a witness to our descendants, and to which, if need be, we will sacrifice our lives, before this battle-field of Grandson, upon which more than four centuries ago our ancestors fell on their knees asking the Almighty to give them victory in order that we, their descendants, might live free, let us swear to become still better men, of progress, of will, and especially of conscience and abhor the use of force; to put our energies of citizen soldiers to holy causes and to be entitled thereby to live in the most beautiful country in the world.

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– The honorable member will admit that we must bow to public opinion. The individual must sink his opinion to that of the majority of the people. I have had no military training, but I have read the history of Great Britain, and am imbued with the warlike spirit of the race. If my services were required I do not think that I should be slow to do anything I could in defence of my country, even on the field of battle. But I do not ‘ believe in compulsion. I think that we have the spirit to act upon suggestion. We have always shown that we possessed it in the past, and I think that we shall be ready to show it to the end of time. I am opposed to compulsory training and service on principle, and I am also opposed to the launching, without any necessity, of a great scheme such as this. I say that it is unnecessary, and that the people of Australia will be found to be unable to finance it.

Mr COON:
Batman

– I desire in the first place to congratulate the Minis0ter of Defence upon the very able speech with which he introduced this measure. I think that every member of the House will agree with me that the speech was one of which the honorable gentleman has reason to be proud. I should like also to refer to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable member spoke in a most sympathetic way of the proposals of the Government. I think that he might have condensed his remarks by quoting a few words which he uttered on the 13th

December, 1907, in connexion, with a speech delivered by the Prime Minister on the same question. The honorable gentleman said on that occasion -

I do not presume that it is intended to debate this matter at the present stage, but I think we ought not to enter upon the Christmas vacation without offering the Prime Minister our congratulations on , the speech he has just delivered. The subject is a big one, and I do not think I have ever heard the honorable member to greater advantage. With such a subject and with such a speaker I have no doubt that when the time comes for the people of this, country to defend themselves they will respond as he desires. I offer the Prime Minister my congratulations upon the manner in which he has set forth the defence policy of the Government.

– Those figures are taken from T. A. Brassey’s The Naval Annual. The competition in naval expenditure and naval construction is to-day keener than ever, and between no nations is the competition for the supremacy of the sea keener than it is between Great Britain and Germany. The honorable member for

Wide Bay in his opening remarks, and the honorable member for Robertson generally, expressed the opinion that there was nothing much to trouble us in the growth of the naval power of Germany. But the agitation which took place this year in Great Britain owing to the speed with which Germany was constructing battleships caused the House of Commons to take action, with the result that, including the extra battleships which Great Britain now proposes to construct, she will have fifty-six battleships in 1912, as against the United States twenty-seven, Germany thirty, France fifteen, and Japan fourteen. The Naval Annual, for this year, observes that it will be seen that, at the end of 1912, Germany and the United States combined will have fifty-seven battleships to Great Britain’s fifty-six. Before the new programme was announced there was provision for the construction of only one large battleship, so that, instead of having fifty-six at the end of 1912, if the new programme had not been brought forward Great Britain would have had only forty-eight. Germany proposes to increase the personnel of her Navy this year to a total of 53,769 officers and men, as compared with 50,323 last year. That total is reached as follows: - Officers 2,631, warrant officers 2,308, petty officers 10,975, men 36,205, and boys 1,650, or 53,769 in all. How do those figures compare with those of other nations? The numbers are as follow : - Great Britain 128,000 officers and men; United States 60,703 officers and men. The Naval Annual adds -

The cost of manning for the British Navy, as compared with the German figures, affords a striking example of the difference in cost between voluntary and compulsory service.

I should like to draw the attention of the honorable member for Robertson to these figures : - The wages paid in Great Britain for the Navy for 1908 totalled £7,129,700; half pay £868,800, and. pensions £1, 334,600, making a grand total of £9,333,100. Germany paid £1,533,196 all told; and, therefore, the excess of expenditure on personnel by Great Britain was . £7,799,904. Those figures clearly show the advantage of compulsory training.

Mr Henry Willis:

– The figures show what a number of powerful ships Great Britain has in addition to Dreadnoughts.

Mr COON:

– Two years ago there was not a slip in Germany that would take a Dreadnought, whereas to-day Germany has over fourteen of them. The amount voted for new construction and armaments for 1909-10 by Germany is £10,751,466; whereas Great Britain provided only £9,600,000 for that purpose in 1908-9, showing again the great progress that Germany is making. Let me quote in connexion with this subject the following extract from a speech made in the House of Commons by Mr. McKenna on German construction on the 16th March, 1909-

We may stop here and pay a tribute to the extraordinary growth of the power of constructing ships of the largest size in Germany. Two years ago, 1 believe, there were in Germany, with the possible exception of one or two ships in private yards, no slip ‘capable of carrying a Dreadnought. To-day they have no less than fourteen such slips, and three more under construction. And what is true of the hull of the ships is true also of the guns, armour, and mountings. Two years ago any one familiar with the capacity of Krupps and other German firms would have ridiculed the possibility of their undertaking the supply of all the component parts of eight battleships in a single year. To-day this productive power is a realized fact, and it will tax the resources of our own great firms if we are to retain the supremacy in rapidity and volume of construction.

That clearly answers the objection of the honorable member for Robertson that there was no hurry for this scheme, that Australia was perfectly safe, and that the expenditure proposed by the Government was too great. When he realizes the progress which another nation, is making, I think he will agree with me that delay would be dangerous, and that the proper time to act is how. On the 7th July of this year, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain made the following statement in- the House of Commons - *

As long as the naval supremacy of this country is assured, invasion on a large scale is an absolutely impracticable operation. On the other hand, if we were permanently to lose the command of the sea, whatever might be the strength or the organization of your military forces here at home, even though you had an army like that of Germany - indeed, whatever might be its strength and organization - not only would it be impossible for this country to escape invasion . . . but the subjection of this country by the enemy would be inevitable.

Lord Roberts, speaking in the House of Lords on the 18th May last, on a motion for a special inquiry into the condition of the Army in Great Britain, made the following statement : -

There was neither an army to defend the country nor an army to send abroad. It was a marvel to him how anybody could see what was going on in Europe and rest content with the army as it was.

Marching before the Lord Mayor would not make an army. Trained men were necessary. The. number of officers was thousands upon thousands short. Since 1905 nothing had been done to improve matters.

The motion was carried on division by seventy-three votes to twenty-two. Commenting on this division, the London Spectator of 22nd May last wrote -

We detest the role of alarmists, but we have no option but to express our belief that Lord Roberts’ warnings are well founded.

– I raid three or four unarmoured cruisers, quoting the opinion of the Imperial Defence Committee.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– The Minister should tell us why the Imperial authorities have, within a few weeks only, come to think that the danger is so* much greater than they believed it to be a short time ago. The honorable member for Brisbane, who has recently attended the Imperial Defence Conference as the mouthpiece of the Government, reiterated, in his place here, the statement that Australia would not be invaded during the lifetime of this or the next generation. If these statements are correct, why should we commit the country to the expenditure of millions of pounds merely to enable the honorable member for Brisbane and others to strut about in gaudy uniforms? I am in favour of naval and military preparation only because I regard it as necessary. The Treasurer told us a short time ago that we should not adopt compulsory training, because the Mother Country has not done so. But she has not adopted adult suffrage, nor are the railways of the United Kingdom under Government control. To say that we are not to do a thing because Great Britain has not done it, is absurd. But why has the right honorable gentleman changed his opinion? Our Defence Act compels every man between the ages of eighteen and sixty years to serve as a soldier should the emergency require it, and those who are called out should be properly trained and armed, so that they may give a good account of themselves, and not go like lambs to the slaughter. Speaking on the 17th September, of last year, the Minister of Defence said that there was no danger from the East -

It may be that in the course of years - I think it will take centuries - there may develop a terrible menace in the East.

If that is his %’iew, why does he now propose an enormous expenditure on warlike preparations? He added -

I ask the Prime Minister not to stop, but to materially increase, our present naval contribution.

I have always advocated an Australian Navy, but not a larger contribution to the British Navy. We ought to have a clearer explanation as to why it is proposed that Great Britain shall subsidize our Navy to the extent of £250,000 a year. If the subsidy is to enable Great Britain to control the ships at any time, and to order them to any place, I am opposed to its acceptance. The. Minister has adopted many of the provisions embodied in a Bill drafted by Senator Pearce, and I am sorry that he has not taken more. The honorable member for Richmond was knighted because he introduced a Defence scheme, and if he earned a knighthood, Senator Pearce is deserving of a peerage. I agree with the main principles of the Bill, although many Democrats do not see eye to eye with me in this matter. I am not a new convert to the principle of compulsory military training. Twenty years ago I moved a resolution in favour of it, when a member of the body from which the South Australian branch of the Labour party ultimately sprang. Sir John Cockburn, one of the framers of the Constitution, attempted to dissuade me from doing so, and the motion was ruled out of order, on the ground that the meeting could not deal with political questions. Those facts show how fast the process of evolution has been. Then, in 1900, in company with Senator Sir Josiah Symon, addressing a meeting in the Town Hall, Adelaide, convened with the object of raising a corps of Scotch volunteers, I again stated that I was in favour of compulsory training, expressing the view that it would be a good thing for the country if every young man was trained to the use of arms, and accustomed to discipline. It must not be thought that I am thirsting for war. No one has a greater horror of it than I have, or would be more glad to see the nations of the earth fling down their arms, and enter into a bond of everlasting brotherhood. But until the democracies rule the councils of the civilized nations, that will be impossible. Therefore, it is the duty of every man to prepare himself for the defence of his country. I have no sympathy with those who say that they would not bear arms because they do not believe in war,nor with those who declare that they have nothing to protect, and assert that it is only propertyowners who should fight. In no country do the people enjoy greater freedom than we do, or have a larger share in its government than we have. Whether we do or do not possess property, there is not one of us who would like to part with the liberties which we enjoy. Our hearths and homes, and our children, are surely worth defending. The time is approaching when the democracies will have a larger “ say “ in the government of the world, and then wars may be prevented. I have no faith in the settlement of International quarrels by arbitration. Until the people rule in the councils of the nations, or the engines of war become so horribly destructive that they must cause the annihilation of those who employ them - until that time comes, we must make the best preparations that we can to defend ourselves. The proposal of the Government is to have a vessel similar to a Dreadnought, to cost £1,800,000.

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

– The latest estimate is £2,000,000.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– In addition, there are to be three armoured cruisers of the Bristol class, six destroyers of the improved River class, and three submarines. I ask the Minister why submarines are proposed? This is what Sir George Sydenham Clarke, one of the greatest naval authorities of the day, has to say regarding their effectiveness -

The efforts that are being made by several Powers to develop submarines and submersibles are the natural result of the fact that torpedo craft cannot attack well-armed vessels in daylight with a reasonable chance of success.
Before adopting these experimental adjuncts of defence for Australia, it is essential to consider two main points : -
1. What functions are they capable of discharging in Australian waters?
2. Are they suitable to Australian conditions and policy ?
Submarines, when able to run as surface boats, have a speed of about 12 knots; but when submerged or “ closed down “ their speed is reduced to about 7.

When the boat is running on the surface, the field of vision, owing to the small height above the water, is very limited. When submerged or “closed down” the means of observation are greatly reduced, and in a rough sea the difficulties are considerable in either case. The heavy seas which prevail off the Australian coasts are, therefore, most unfavorable to the employment of submarines outside the harbors.

The theoretical radius of action for surface running depends on the fuel carried, and will doubtless be increased, but, when submerged, the boats must rely entirely on storage batteries which, for a run of 30 miles, weigh about 100 tons. Thus the sphere of action is largely a question of favorable conditions of weather, enabling the -boats to cruise without being closed down.
Even in calm weather, the chance of successfully attacking an enemy’s vessels at a distance from the port must evidently be remote. The most that can be expected is that the knowledge of the presence of these crafts in an Australian port would deter an enemy’s ship from approaching thatport in daylight. The effect would be, therefore, to extend the area of protection provided by the gun armament.
On the other hand, there seems no reason to believe that an enemy would be prevented from observing a port with a view to ascertaining if any large ship was approaching or departing, and the object is much more likely to be to effect captures, and thus to bring the commerce of Australia to a stop, than to deliver an attack on any port provided with gun defence. If hostile war vessels were believed to be in the vicinity, shipping would doubtless go to sea and obtain a good offing after night fall, and if bound for another Australian harbor would make a detour well outside the ordinary route and. close to the land again at night.
It is therefore difficult to understand how the submarine would play any effective part in protecting commerce in Australian waters. Narrow waters, such as exist elsewhere, in which large fleet movements may occur, are evidently the natural field for the operations of the submarine.
Experience up to the present time has been confined to boats handled by officers and men selected from large, highly-trained Navies, kept for a long period at this special work and highly paid. Even so, there have been many serious accidents. Australia is not yet in a position to supply such crews. Moreover, a submarine would not be a substitute for a destroyer, and the introduction of this narrowly technical element would not confer the general advantages which are claimed for the policy of an Australian naval force. I, therefore, greatly doubt whether the maintenance ofa highly-trained body of permanent specialists, if it were possible, would commend itself to the Australian Parliament.
On these grounds, I strongly advise that no money should be expended on submarines in the present circumstances.

On whose advice is the Government acting in proposing to employ submarines?

Mr.Joseph Cook. - On that of the Imperial Defence Conference.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I should like to know what officers suggested their use. The only naval expert, so far as I am aware, who thinks that we should employ submarines is Lord Brassey.

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

– We are not now considering a Bill to provide for a naval scheme. Revised naval proposals are very possible.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I am glad to hear that.

Sitting suspended from 6. 28 to 7.45 p.m.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Before making the report which I have read, Sir George Sydenham Clarke sent to the late Captain Colquhoun the following letter : -

The conditions of life on board these boats in bad weather are exceedingly trying, and I do not believe that they can take extended cruises. They must be tethered pretty close to a port, and must be constantly overhauled, as they are bags of tricks.

It might be said that if Australia has submarines, they would be able to deter attack on her undefended ports, but -

The undefended ports of Australia do not greatly tempt attack.
Then undefended ports would not be likely to be made the bases for submarines.
If they were used for submarines, the ports though otherwise undefended would be liable to bombardment. 1 am dwelling at some length upon this importantmatter, because we know so little about whattranspired at the Imperial Defence Conference. If our fleet is to form part of the Imperial Fleet - to which I strongly object - it will, of course, be wise for us to have submarines. They are too large to carry on board our war vessels, and they travel so slowly that it would be necessary to have them stationed in all parts of the world where they would be likely to be used as adjuncts to the fleet. If they had to travel with the fleet they would seriously retard its progress, because its speed would always he regulated by that of the slowest vessel. I could, therefore, understand submarines being brought here as part of the Imperial Navy stationed in the Pacific. That is what makes me fear that we are about to commit ourselves to taking part in all the naval battles of the British Empire, whether we desire to do so or not, or whether it is necessary for us to interfere or not. The cost is going to be quite heavy enough without our building useless vessels, and dangerous vessels at that. It will be much heavier than the Minister has estimated. The honorable member for West Sydney demonstrated that the annual up-keep of the proposed Australian unit would be much more than £750,000. Before we go further we ought to know more about the proposed control of the fleet. It has been the policy of the Prime Minister throughout that Australia should have complete control of its own fleet. It has certainly been a part of the programme of the Opposition to have an Australian owned and controlled navy, and no honorable member upon this side of the House could support anything else. The total capital cost ot the unit is to amount to the large sum of £3,750,000 and the Minister states that in three or four years the annual cost of the Army and Navy will be £2,500,000. Even that, as he rightly pointed out, will be only about half the amount spent upon defence per head by the leading powers. I would remind the Prime Minister, however, that, as the honorable member for Robertson stated, there is not a whisper of. where the money is to come from. Has the Minister realized that an extensive scheme of this kind will be utterly useless unless we provide a great deal more money? He says we are to keep our fleet up to the standard of the Imperial Navy, but I wonder if he knows what that standard is. We in Australia, without a single training college, talk about keeping ourselves up to the British standard, but let me tell the House what a lieutenant in the British Navy has to do. As a boy he istaught to use a marlinespike, and the use of Stockholm and ordinary tar. He has to go through everything that an able-bodied seaman has to go through. He has not to instruct some one to do work, but he has to take his coat off and learn to do it himself. He does not don a frock coat and order others to do what he cannot do himself, as some of our naval officers do in Australia. We have had officers connected with our naval forces telling men how to work a gun, about the practical part of the working of which they themselves were ignorant. That sort pf thing cannot happen in the British Navy. After eight years’ training the British naval officer is sent to a naval college, and then he becomes only a sub-lieutenant. We have therefore in front of us a considerable task if we intend to keep our Navy up to the standard of the British Navy, unless the Minister is prepared to expend extraordinary sums which have not been provided for up to the present. A British naval officer learns to work the gun, from the position of powder man right up to that of captain. He has to do everything that has to be done from one grade to the other. I hope the Minister will see that the same system is adopted here, but it can only be carried out at great expense. The Government scheme will undoubtedly necessitate the establishment of docks for repairs, because it is of no use to have a navy without them. 1 fear, therefore, that the cost has been enormously under-estimated. If we are to do anything like what the Minister proposes, it will cost us two or three times the amount proposed for preparation. I know that the Minister’s scheme can not be put into -operation at once. He must have time to spend money on the necessary preliminary equipment, and even if we pass the Bill this session I do not expect to see the scheme put into full operation for a considerable time to come. It is remarkable that a number of honorable members on the Government side who have sneered at the proposal for an Australian Navy are now so unanimously supporting it. Except the honorable member for Robertson and the honorable member for Batman, however, none of them has attempted this afternoon to explain why he has changed his views. In fact, the Bill would have been taken into Committee after only four speeches had been’ delivered on it if I ha( not stepped into the breach, although ii contains the principle of compulsory train ing, which is one of the most important ever introduced in the British Empire. Only the other day the honorable member for Nepean told us that we were proposing to create “a twopenny-halfpenny navy,” and the Minister of Defence and others characterized it as “a tin-pot navy.” I am glad that they have come round to our way of thinking, but, while they say that they have done so, I think I shall be able to demonstrate that there are some not altogether satisfactory reasons for their change of attitude. To those who were inclined to sneer at the smallness of the proposed navy, and to assert that it was utterly impossible to do much good with it, I should like to quote the words of Admiral Penrose Fitzgerald as published in the National Review -

Let it be granted, then, that for some years to come no navy which Australia or any of the Colonies could form or maintain would be of fighting value ; that it would be a mere water baby - a sea urchin, perhaps - yet that did not appear to be a valid argument against starting such navies, for the same might be used against all babies. But if there were to be no more babies there would soon be no more men.

– I am sure the Minister of Defence must be delighted to have colleagues who agree to whatever he proposes without knowing what it is. The Minister of Defence should tell us how the Prime Minister has been induced to agree to reduce the training proposed by his previous Minister of Defence to such a ridiculous limit. I could have understood the present Minister, after coming into office, going a little further than the last Bill did and bringing in an effective measure providing for a great deal more training, but he has not done so. The Gympie speech shows’ that the Fisher Government proposed, in the Bill drawn up by Senator Pearce, that the cadets should be trained from the ages of ten to fourteen for two hours weekly, from fourteen to eighteen for twelve half-days and twenty-four night drills, while from eighteen to twenty for all corps twelve half-days and twenty-four night drills, as well as sixteen days continuous training in camps, was necessary.

– I trust that when the Bill is in Committee the Minister will prove that he is. Drill is, after all, a matter of evolution. If we are going to train boys and turn them adrift when they reach the age of twenty years, two years later they will know nothing about drill. When, after the transfer of the Department to the Commonwealth a new drill was- instituted in South Australia, our officers knew nothing about it. It was painful indeed to notice how little some of them knew of the old drill. Some of them had such a scanty knowledge of it that they refused to turn out with the noncommissioned officers for practice drill, notwithstanding that they had been in the forces for twenty years. And yet the Minister of Defence talks of turning out a welltrained soldier in two years ! The honorable member for West Sydney quoted the opinion of Lord Roberts in regard to the making of soldiers, and I propose to quote the views of equally important- authorities in regard to the experiences of the American Civil War. One of the greatest military authorities of modern times, Colonel Henderson, in his Life of Stonewall Jackson, wrote -

War is not merely a blind struggle between mobs of individuals, without guidance or coherence, but a conflict of well-organized masses, moving with a view to intelligent cooperation, acting under the influence of a single will, and directed against a definite objective.

He is supported in this opinion by FieldMarshal Lord Roberts, and indeed by every experienced soldier. Describing the Federal irregular troops in his Life of Stonewall Jackson, this distinguished author wrote -

Excitement died away, and, unbroken to the monotonous exertion of the march, the threemonths’ recruits lost all semblance of subordination. The compact array of the columns was gradually lost, and a trail of laggards, rapidly increasing, brought up the rear. Regiment mingled with regiment. By each roadside brook the men fell out in numbers.

Of what happened before the Battle of Bull Run, when action was imminent, Colonel Henderson writes -

Already, in forming the line of march, there had been much confusion. The divisions had bivouacked in loose order, without any regard for the morrow’s movements, and their concentration previous to the advance was very tedious. The brigades crossed each other’s route ; the march was slow ; and the turning column was delayed for nearly three hours. … At four o’clock in the afternoon there were more than 12,000 volunteers on the battle-field of Bull Run who had entirely lost their regimental organization.

These men had undergone a much longer training than is proposed in this Bill. Lord Wolseley, another eminent authority, writing of the same war, said -

From first to last, the co-operation of even one army corps of regular troops would have given complete victory to whichever side it fought on.

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

– Are lads to be regarded as mere children when they are twenty, and as fully experienced men when they reach the age of twenty-one?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Under the Minister’s scheme, the only adults in the Army will be the militiamen. He has provided for a skeleton force of boys. He speaks of a stiffening of 29,000 militia men, but, quoting Colonel .Legge on the 17th September, of last year, he said -

We have an authorization for 25,000, but only 22,000 are enrolled. One-fourth of that 22,000 are recruits. A further -proportion is physically unfit, and not more than 10,000 are fit for war.

– The honorable member is very clever.

Mr HUTCHISON:

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

– The one determines the other.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Did the Minister find in his Department a draft showing from where these 75,000 men were to be drawn? I am certain that he did not, but he is anxious, in order to screen himself; to show that this proposal was made by the late Ministry. I know that it was not ; it was certainly never mentioned nor discussed in my hearing. I come now to the question of promotions concerning which no information has been given. One of my first acts as a member of this Parliament was to interview the then Minister of Defence - the honorable member for EdenMonaro - with a view of urging that no man should be promoted to the rank of officer unless he had passed through the ranks. I still hold that view, and trust that it will be adopted by this Government.

Promotion should be by competitive examination; a man who passes the prescribed examination, no matter what his social qualifications may be, should receive promotion. No man can be a thorough officer unless he has been trained in the ranks, and it will be a good thing for the Old Country when that rule is observed in connexion with the British Army. The reason why the British Navy has reached such a magnificent stage of efficiency as against the comparatively disorganized state which the Army is in, is that every naval officer has had to do that which the sailors do. He must have worked as afireman, assisted to tar a ship, spliced ropes, and, in short, have clone all that a sailor is required to do. I repeat that promotion should be by competitive examination, but that is a matter of detail. As to the cadets, I feel that we cannot begin too early with their physical training. Sir John Gorst, in his magnificent work The Children of the Nation, trenchantly writes -

Millions are spent in providing ships and rifles and guns for wars that will never take place : the smallest outlay is grudged towards providing the men to man those ships and fire those guns should the occasion ever arise for the people to defend their country.

That is obviously true. We have been, so to speak, wasting our youth to an extent that can scarcely be imagined. The earlier we begin the work of having our children medically examined the better. The result of such an examination may be the discovery of defects that may be easily cured, but which if left untreated, may lead to their becoming chronic During the Boer war, according to Sir John Gorst, no less than 3,000 men were invalided because of bad teeth, notwithstanding that they had been examined at the base in South Africa and before they left for the scene of operations. This shows how necessary it is that we should begin early with the work of medical examination in order that our children may be healthy. A workman in London once said that we have either to pay at the beginning or the end, and that it is cheaper to pay in the beginning. I indorse that sentiment. There is no reason why, if we do not adopt this course, the unfortunate condition of affairs which prevails in. the Old Country should not obtain here. Mr. F. D. Acland, of the War Office, has supplied some alarming figures in regard to the physique of the men who offered for enlistment last year.

In London and the large towns of the Kingdom from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the would-be recruits were rejected ! The figures are as follows : -

Mr Batchelor:

-Why were they rejected ?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– Because they were physically unfit. The position is explained in a letter which the Age published from its London correspondent in October last -

Nothing has been done since the South African war to secure men of a higher type for the regular forces. It is officially admitted that “ average British recruits are, on enlistment, not only the youngest, but are in the poorest physical condition of those in any civilised army. They cannot stand work which would not injure well fed conscripts of 20 years of age.” The army is being maintained by the enlistment of unemployed physical degenerates - youths who have to be carefully developed for at least two years before they can rank as even fairly efficient soldiers.

Even those whom they do accept have often to be trained and fed for two years before they become effective soldiers-

Experienced recruiting agents estimate that as high a proportion as 95 per cent. of the boys accepted last year were out of work when they offered themselves for enlistment. Out of 59,393 inspected 16,906 were set aside at once, the chief causes of their rejection being meagre ches’t measurement, heart diseases and derangements, defective sight, and bad teeth. Heart troubles are increasing among the youth of the country as a result of excessive cigarette smoking. But the army must make the best of the material available to it. “The soldier is, as a rule,” says the Director-General of the Medical department, “ in poor physical condition when he begins to train. . . . Since 1904 some of the gymnastic exercises have been modified, and in 1906 many of the more arduous ones were made less trying or were given up.”

– We have ample reason for believing that it is true. Certain utterances delivered in public by the section I refer to, make any other conclusion impossible. During the visit of the American Fleet, statements were made which showed that thinly veiled hostility to Great Britain underlay the welcome of a certain section of the community which is closely associated, on the political side, with the Labour party. The Fleet was welcomed by that section, not as representative of an English-speaking nation in close friendship with the British people, but because - so they publicly declared - we should have to look rather to America than to Great Britain as our ally, should there be difficulty with a foreign country.

Mr Roberts:

– Can the honorable member quote one authority?

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks strictly to the question before the Chair.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I do not propose to do anything else. What I am saying is pertinent to the subject-matter of the Bill. I submit that .1 am perfectly in order in disclaiming statements which have been at tributed to’ me, and in justifying other statements which I have made regarding the desire of certain persons to have an Australian Navy, entirely independent of British control in time of war, and the motives underlying it. In speaking of the Labour party, I refer, not to the Federal Labour party only, but to the Labour party as a whole, both inside and outside of Parliament. I do not charge the party as a whole with disloyalty, but individual members have certainly shown themselves disloyal on various occasions. One has only to read some of their speeches, for example, on the Naval Agreement. Some of the official organs of the party, have been outspokenly disloyal in their utterances regarding Great Britain. In this connexion, let me quote some paragraphs from a criticism by the Queensland Worker of the 13th February, on the proposal of the Fisher Government to establish an Australian Navy. It must be remembered that that newspaper is the official organ of the Labour party. According to the writer -

One of the first steps towards the effective defence of any country is to make that country worth defending. For half the people ofGreat Britain, where most of us come from, it really would not matter if the country fell into the hands of the Germans to-morrow.

That is a fine, healthy, British sentiment-

This question is one which must be considered free of the cant of patriotism, and we say in all seriousness that to the 13,000,000 inhabitants of Great Britain who never have enough to eat, and to the additional millions who live continuously on the poverty line, a successful German invasion would mean nothing .deplorable, and might even mean .an improvement in their lot.

Mr Batchelor:

– There is no disloyalty in that statement. To the starving poor, it would not matter who held the country.

Mr JOHNSON:

– If it is loyal to say that they would probably be better under German rule, I make a present of ‘ such loyal and patriotic sentiments to the party whose official organ is responsible for them. Again the article declares that -

To half the British population, then, there would be nothing to lose, there might be something to gain, by the setting up of a German Government to match the German dynasty on the throne.

This is on a par with the declarations of some members of the party in connexion with the proposal to offer a Dreadnought to Great Britain, when co-operation was refused on the ground that any other rule would be preferred by them to British rule.

Referring to the naval policy of the Fisher Government, the article continued -

Australia is going to have a navy. Only, it is true, a little bit of a thing that Australia will be able to carry about in its lunch bag, and amuse itself with floating in a basin, but the beginning of a, navy, nevertheless. The Federal Government has decided to spend £250,000 in the inauguration of this noble project, and two destroyers are to be ordered forthwith, to protect the coast and commerce of Australia, and strike terror into that little brown beast, Japan, to say nothing of incidentally acting as a warning to Kaiser Bill te be very careful, and mind what he is about in the future.

Mr Fisher:

– The quotation shows that the Worker and the honorable member were of the same opinion regarding our proposals.

Mr JOHNSON:

– It is a strange thing that the official organ of the party should indulge in a criticism of the scheme of the late Government which is more scathing than anything that has been said on this side of the House. To resume the quotation -

The heart of Fat is rejoiced. He has wanted a navy all along. He is always in favour of spending the national wealth in the protection of his wealth. Not, however, that he is wolfish in the matter. He is anxious to preserve the homes of the people from foreign foes. What a dreadful thing it would be if the, Japs or the Germans came over here and invaded the sanctity of our slums. … To the “Worker,” on the contrary, the whole business seems at once so pitiful and so absurd that it knows not whether jeers or tears are more expressive of its feelings on the subject.

The allusion to “Fat” is, I suppose, to wealthy persons who are not wealthy members of the Labour party, and not to those Labour members who hold shares in millionaire mines. The term “Fat,” apparently, is confined to property owners who are not members of the Labour party -

Fat also, no doubt, is thoroughly sincere in his motives, and no one can blame the iron shipbuilders for proceeding, perceiving in the prospect of a billet an imperative national duty.

The reference is to those ironworkers who are desirous of having the destroyers built here. Omitting some paragraphs, I come to this statement -

It all adds to the costliness of the system which the workers, by their labour, have to maintain. There is no luxury on earth so expensive as a navy. You have to be continually renewing it, or it will grow out of date while you are looking at it. Battleships are like eggs, they need to be fresh laid every morning.

Australia is getting two destroyers for £250,000. If it waited a few years - perhaps only a few months - it might be able to buy a whole fleet second-hand, for very little more.

In another paragraph, it is stated that -

Australia does not require a navy at all. She has less excuse for a navy than any other seawashed country in the world. Her extensive coastline cannot be guarded by fleets. If she had as many ships as half-a-dozen Powers together, they could not guarantee her against the landing of a hostile force on her shores.

The people of Great Britain - a little bit of a place about the size of Tasmania, or a decent-sized mudbank, surrounded by water, with the biggest collection of vessels of war ever known, lives in a constant agony of fear that some enemy will be able to slip through with an invading army, and capture the country before its fleet become aware of the fact that something has happened not mentioned in the programme.

Then a defence programme is laid down as follows -

Australia must be protected on shore. Give us an armed and trained population, and the greatest Power, or the greatest possible combination of Powers, will think several times before attempting to cross pur door-mat without leave.

An armed and trained and courageous population, with a million able-bodied men ready to shoot, is invincible. It can afford to dispense with destroyers and battleships.

The primary use of a navy, in the hands of a nation that has no burglarious designs on its neighbour’s goods, is to prevent a foreign foe from landing on its shores.

An enormous navy - such a navy as never yet has floated on the deep - could not insure us against such a thing happening to Australia, with its 12,000 miles of coast. We can never hope to have a naval force competent to protect the vast seaboard of this continent. Nor is it necessary. Drill the people, put rifles into their hands, and the prospects of invasion will not be enticing enough to tempt the greatest glutton for conquest.

– I want to show the difference in the attitude of the Labour party towards the question of military defence now and a little while ago, and to point out that they are not free from the charge of changing their views. In the beginning the Labour party were in favour of purely voluntary training. They wanted to abolish compulsory military service. Clause 12 of the original platform of the

Labour party of New South Wales in 1891 was as follows : -

The Federation of the Australian Colonies on a National as opposed to an Imperial basis; the abolition of the present Defence Force, and the establishment of our military system upon a purely voluntary basis.

The honorable member for West Sydney was a member of that party and assisted to draft the platform, if he did not actually draw it up himself, and was pledged to support that principle. If it is objected that that was only the platform of a State party, I would point out that in their speeches honorable members opposite claim that the party is one and indivisible, whether State or Federal, and, therefore, what affects one affects the whole. On that question the Labour party have turned a complete volte face. They have gone from one extreme to the other, and no amount of compulsion is now too great for them.

Mr Roberts:

– The honorable member has merely quoted the declaration of policy of the partv in one State.

Mr JOHNSON:

– It was the State in which the party originated, and the views given in that platform were the views of the honorable member for West Sydney at the time. The Labour party now repudiate entirely the principle which they enunciated then, and advocate a principle which is in every respect diametrically opposed to it. The honorable member for Hindmarsh, in criticising the scheme of the Minister, referred to the shortness of the training proposed. In dealing with the question of defence the honorable member for West Sydney said in this House, on the1st August, 1907 -

Every youth on reaching the age of eighteen years should, if physically fit, be liable to undergo within the year forty days’ continuous training and twenty-one detached drills, to perfect him in rifle shooting, discipline, and drill. This training should continue, with such modifications as particular cases might call for, until he reached the age of 21 years.

The honorable member’s proposal then was to train the youths only from the ages of eighteen to twenty-one, but the Minister’s proposal is to start with boys at school from twelve years of age, and to continue it until they reach twenty, when they are to become members of the citizen defence force until the age of twenty-six. The honorable member for West Sydney also said in the same speech -

A man having reached the age of 21 years, and having attained efficiency -

Surely he should attain some measure of efficiency if he is in continual training from the age of twelve? Certainly he will acquire a greater measure of efficiency in that way than if he begins bis training at eighteen, as the honorable member proposed - seven days of continuous training -a year would be sufficient to keep him efficient. The time so spent would be an enjoyable holiday, beneficial alike to the men and to their fellow citizens. The system I advocate is neither more nor less than the revival of the ancient and salutory legislation that made the name of England respected throughout the known world.

We have had it described ‘by the honorable member for Hindmarsh as a terrible hardship, but according to the honorable member for West Sydney it would be a species of recreation for any youth to engage in those eight days’ camp work. He did not propose even eight days. He suggested only seven. There is, therefore, so little to choose between the proposal of the present Minister and that of the honorable member for West Sydney in 1907, that the criticism of the honorable member for Hindmarsh falls very flat.

Mr Poynton:

– Did not the honorable member for West Sydney propose forty days’ training in each year?

Mr JOHNSON:

– That was to begin only at the age of eighteen. After the age of twenty-one, seven days were to be sufficient. In this case the training commences at twelve years of age, six years earlier than the honorable member for West Sydney proposed. Surely in those extra six years a correspondingly greater degree of efficiency will be acquired, and therefore a correspondingly less amount of actual annual training in camp will afterwards be necessary. Yet the Government scheme proposes to give not less training, but one day more, than the honorable member for West Sydney regarded as sufficient. I have always expressed the opinion .that destroyers as a means of defence, apart from their use as adjuncts to cruiser and battleship fleets, were not a very valuable arm of the Navy. Honorable members in this House, the majority of whom are laymen so far as naval questions are concerned, seem to have the idea that the purpose and general use of destroyers is to defend the coast line, to make occasional darts out, and harry cruisers that may be infesting the coast. Cruisers cannot afford the risk of infesting the coast when it is so much safer to raid the mercantile marine in the security of the open ocean ; and in any case, destroyers are not used for that purpose at all. Their main purpose whether they are of the River “ or any other class, is to be attached to a sea-going fleet. The term ‘ River ‘ ‘ applied to destroyers is not intended to indicate that their purpose is to defend rivers, small inlets, and harbors. It was given to them because that class of destroyers were named after certain rivers. As a matter of fact they are ocean-going destroyers of a very powerful class. The defence of coasts and ports can be much more effectively undertaken by shore batteries, and the real purpose of the destroyers is to be attached to squadrons, not to take part in battles at sea, but to finish off vessels that have been crippled by the fire of battleships and cruisers. The Leader of the Opposition, in the course of a speech in Queensland, referred to the part that had been played by the torpedo boats at Port Arthur, in the RussoJapanese war. He seemed to contemplate that the Australian Navy should be mainly, if not wholly, composed of that type of vessel, and to have the idea that they were responsible for doing a tremendous amount of damage at -Port Arthur. They did a certain amount of damage there, but under what conditions? War had not been declared at the time they attacked, the vessels in Port Arthur. The’ Russian officers and crews were ashore, not suspecting any danger. Their vessels were not in. fighting trim, and were unable to offer effective” resistance. Those who have read the account of that war in Captain Semenoff’s book will know what happened afterwards. The author describes the operations of the fleet at the battle of Tsu-shima. The torpedo flotilla were kept entirely out of sight, as well as out of range, of the opposing vessels. The battle was carried on bv the battleships and cruisers, and the destroyers were only called up afterwards to attack disabled opponents, and chase them to their ports.

Mr Roberts:

– The various classes of boats have their separate uses.

Mr.- JOHNSON. - I am pointing out that destroyers are useless for the protection of our coasts, although the honorable member for Wide Bay, when speaking on platforms throughout the country, built up his naval defence proposals mainly on the assumption that they were necessary for protecting our coasts and harbors, and really constituted a serviceable Australian Navy. Evidently that was the idea in his mind and in the minds of his Government when they ordered destroyers. Instead of effecting that purpose, the destroyers would be so much waste material, and the money might just- as well have been thrown into the sea.

Mr Wilks:

– Does the honorable member favour the idea of fortifications for coast and harbor defence? The British authorities have dropped it.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Some of the highest military and naval authorities regard properly constructed and equipped land batteries as the best possible means of port defence. I shall presently quote Colonel Foster’s opinion on that point, but I wish first to show the part that the destroyers played in the Japanese war. Captain Klado, late Flag Captain of Admiral Rozjestvensky, in his account of the battle of Tu-shima, speaking of torpedo craft, said -

Such attacks on ships unharmed by gun fire and having room to manoeuvre have little chance of success. This was proved in the battle.

Again, he states -

The torpedo craft of the enemy played the role assigned to them - to attack and sink ships already damaged by artillery. This they effected and under most favorable circumstances. At night, when the sea became calm, they sunk four or five ships amongst those which were the worst battered by gun fire during the day. . . . Our (these) vessels could neither see the approaching_ vessels nor fire upon them ; and in addition to this unenviable state they were already half full of water through the damage caused by the enemy’s guns. … In my opinion, if the Japanese really had from 70 to 100 torpedo boats they should have destroyed more ships - the situation was so favorable to them. This though did not happen and the difficulty of attacking a ship (by torpedo craft) which has preserved its power of repelling attack was fully demonstrated by the fact that those of our ships that were saved from destruction were the ones least damaged by gun fire during the day.

The Japanese account of that battle tallies with that given by the Russian officer. Captain Semenoff also states -

The Suvoroff drove off a fleet of hostile torpedo craft at 4.20 p.m. though she was motionless, and had only one .75 millimetre gun to defend herself with.

The Japanese account concludes thus -

In the dusk, when our cruisers were driving the enemy northward, we came upon the Suvoroff alone, heeling over badly and enveloped in flames and smoke. The division of our torpedo boats was, with the cruisers, at once sent to attack her. Although much burned and still on fire - although she had been subjected to so many attacks, having been fired at -by all the fleet - although she had only one serviceable gun, she still opened fire. … At length, about 7 p.m.. after our torpedo boats twice attacked her, she went to the bottom.

Here was a disabled battleship, lying motionless upon the water, scarcely capable of resisting an attack, helpless and unworkable, with most of her crew either dead or wounded, with her search-lights destroyed, and the greater portion of her hull exposed, and only a few people to man her one available gun. Yet, from twenty minutes past 4 until 7 o’clock in the evening, she was able to repel the attack of the whole of the fleet of torpedo boats, and to drive them off ; so that it was only when she “was absolutely in a sinking condition that the torpedo-boat destroyers were able to steam up and finish her off when darkness came on. Another remarkable fact is that, out of some 150 shots, which were fired by the torpedo-boats under most favorable circumstances- under cover . of darkness, and with no search-lights revealing them to the enemy’s vessels - they were only able to make seven or eight hits. This does not look very much as if this arm of the service is going to be a very useful one; even under the most favorable conditions, and when the vessels are manned with crews highly trained, such as were those of the Japanese ships. Sir George Sydenham Clarke, in his preface to Captain Semenoff s book, says -

A few isolated successes obtained by torpedoes in exceptional circumstances have given rue to exaggerated claims on behalf of this weapon, which can only end in disappointment.

The Admiral in command of the British Fleet in the China Seas at that time was Sir Cyprian Bridge, who is not altogether unknown in Australia. He wrote concerning the engagement -

It was now more apparent than ever that torpedo crafts had little value in war.

I think that these statements from experienced officers in the vicinity of the battle, as well as from those actually concerned in the engagement, must carry weight. Yet this v.’as the arm of the naval service which the late. Labour Government was prepared to depend upon for the defence of Australia. They did not want the British Fleet to protect this country. They wanted a navy of their own. A torpedo flotilla was to protect Australia from invasion. The people of this country ought to go down on their knees every night and thank God that they have not to rely entirely upon the Labour party for their naval defence. If anything happened to the British fleet, and Australia became a prize worth taking by an enemy possessed of a fleet of vessels and a sufficiency of transports, I do not think that our little flotilla of torpedo destroyers would keep them away. It has been argued that the great advantage of having vessels of this kind was that they could travel at a tremendous rate of speed and strike an enemy’s ship before she had time to repel an attack. But I venture to say that the search-lights on board a modern battleship would be able to pick up a torpedo craft at night quite easily, long before she could get within striking distance, especially with the aid of a new invention which the Germans have recently adopted. It was stated in a cablegram published on the 28th June of this year that -

The German Government has under construction a new type of non-rigid airship by the Siemens Schuckert Company. It is. of 500-horse power; and will carry 54 persons. The same company has patented a searchlight of180,000,000candle power for detecting torpedoboats at distances from seven to nine miles.

In view of that information I do not think that torpedo crafts could’ be relied upon to repel such cruisers as might descend upon our coasts in time of war. The presence of torpedo vessels would be discovered at a distance of from seven to eight miles by the search-lights, and a single shot from a battle-ship would send such a boat to the bottom. They are very lightly constructed in their hulls, and they have to carrya large amount of machinery. Even their speed cannot be relied upon. Their bunkers will not hold a large quantity of coal, and consequently they are unable to be away from their base for a considerable time. Those who are much enamoured of torpedo craft will probably be disappointed to learn, from an extract which I shall read, that these vessels, even under the most favorable circumstances, cannot be depended upon to maintain a high rate of speed for any length of time. Last year a test was made of the speed of the latest torpedo boats constructed for the American Navy. The result is very instructive. Six of the vessels ran from Sandy Hook to Cape Charles, a distance of 240 miles. It was anticipated that they would develop 75 per cent. of their trial speed; but an account in the Scientific American of 15th June last year shows the following results : -

The Whiffle in her speed trials developed 28.24 knots, but over this short distance in. absolutely smooth water she developed only 11 knots. The Stewart, a similar vessel, on her speed trials developed 29.69 knots, but in her run over, this short distance she developed only11½ knots. The Hull did somewhat better. On a trial trip, she developed a speed of 28.04 knots, but in this race developed only 15 knots. The highest record for the trip was secured by the Worden, which developed a speed of 21.6 knots. On her trial trip, however, she developed nearly 30 knots. It is proposed to use these vessels over a radius of 1,000 miles, but in the comparatively short run of 240 miles, in. perfectly calm weather, the speed of the Worden fell from practically 30 knots an hour to 21 knots; that of the Hull from 28.04 knots to 15 knots; the Stewart from 29.69 knots to11½ knots; and the Truxton from 29.58 knots to11 knots. Another vessel did not complete the distance, as she became disabled. The average speed under fair-weather conditions was - Worden, 21.6 knots; Hull, 15 knots; Stewart,11½ knots; and Truxton,11 knots. Compared with the speed developed on their trial trips, the failing-off was remarkable, being in some casesmore than 50 per cent. The speed of vessels of that class, therefore, cannot be relied upon to enable them to quickly get within range of an enemy, or, if the necessity arises, to promptly get out of range. I referred earlier in my remarks to the advantage of land batteries as compared with torpedo craft as a means of harbor, coastal, and river defence, and, whilst I do not pretend to have had practical experience, I advance the views at which I have arrived on these questions as the result of reading the accounts of various battles, and the opinions expressed by naval and military experts who have had experience of actual warfare. Colonel H. Foster, Director of Military Studies at the Sydney University, in a paper which was presented to this House in December, 1908, wrote of this -aspect of the defence question -

When we proceed to inquire what the landing party could do, if it did get ashore, we find that the game would not be worth the candle. A few hundred men landed for a short space might perhaps take coast batteries from the rear, but could do little more, than effect some hasty destruction of docks, shipping, or stores, or obtain coal and supplies. Their operations ought to be impeded gravely by any small local forces that could assemble. They would certainly not move far from their ships, running risk of being cut off, and would avoid entering towns and getting entangled in street fighting, which even a considerable organized military force would avoid. Landing parties from ships are thus seen to be an overrated danger to coasts and coast towns.

As to using ships’ guns against coast batteries, this is an operation which naval men never consider as desirable, however much soldiers may dwell on its likelihood. Ships are built to fight other ships, and not shore batteries, which are difficult to hit, and less vulnerable when hit, with safe magazines underground, and bombproof .cover for men. A ship, on the other hand, presents a large, well-defined, vulnerable target, whose range can be accurately found from the shore gun. History is full of instances of the insignificant damage done to shore works by ships, even in modern days of large guns. The small’ effect produced by a whole fleet on the defences of Alexandria in 1882, or by the United States fleet on weak Cuban batteries in i8g8, may be mentioned. There is no doubt but that a very few medium guns in suitable works, fought by trained and brave gunners, will keep any cruiser squadron from entering a harbor whose entrance they command.

As to bombardment, this may be definitely passed over as a bugbear of popular imagination. The difficulty of finding the range and of noting the effect of the fire is great, the waste of ammunition, of which ships carry but a small supply, enormous, and the result absurdly disproportionate to the expenditure involved. In 1870 the Parisians grew to laugh at the German shells, and the bombardment of Ladysmith and Kimberley was very ineffective ; although land batteries have a great advantage in shelling a town compared to ships. Naval men are not prepared to waste precious ammunition, which they will want badly when the inevitable encounter with an enemy’s squadron occurs, in firing into the thick of a large area, where the effect of the fire cannot be judged, and must be limited. But, in addition, no bombardment, however damaging, can have any effect on the war, and is, therefore, a waste of time, effect, and ammunition, and a weakening of naval strength to little purpose.

A little further on in his report, he points out that -

The risk and difficulty of moving troops oversea have made expeditions . rare, except when made by the superior naval power. The weaker has seldom made the attempt, and when it has the result has been disastrous. These considerations lead to the conclusion that no enemy will be unwise enough to send a large force in transports against Australia, or that if he does he will suffer for it. That the navy is, and will be, strong enough to act correctly may be taken as certain.

I do not propose to quote the whole of this report, although it is undoubtedly useful and instructive, but, at page 6, the writer points out that -

Command of the sea confers on Great Britain the power to move forces to any part of the world, in order to attack and embarrass her foes. This has been exhibited in her past history, and will form her most ready means of defending her daughter dominions in the future. It was never shown on such a scale as in the South African war, where 250,000 men were moved 6,000 miles over sea at an average rate of 1,000 a day, a rate not exceeded by the Russians over their Siberian railway.

In such expeditions Australia will certainly find it to the advantage of her security from attack to join. To begin with, their seizure of any possible footholds for the enemy within reach will deprive him of the advantage of harbors which might be converted- into extemporized bases for his attack on Australia. Many foreign Powers have such harbors near Australia, all open to her attack, and, in case of war with any of those Powers, forming objectives for the employment of her forces towards her de-1 fence. The enemy’s coaling stations scattered about the ocean would especially form a desirable object of attack, as their capture would help to guard Australian trade afloat by depriving the enemy of places where his cruisers could coal or refit.

The cruisers of the Indomitable class and the three unarmoured cruisers of the Bristol class will probably form an important Australian addition to the British Fleet in Australian waters, and the chief recommendation of the proposal that they shall form part of our Navy is that in time of war they will pass automatically under the control of the one authority, that of the British Admiralty. They may be of signal service in attacking and rendering powerless any naval base or coaling station in the Pacific in the occupation of an enemy. In that way they may be able to render Australia a service which could not be expected of torpedoboat destroyers. Whilst I do not think that the cruisers are actually necessary for the defence of Australia at the present time, still, if the general sentiment is- in favour of the creation of an Australian Navy, pro- vided that it is to work in conjunction with the British Navy in time of war, it will be far better to devote the bulk of our expenditure to the construction of such vessels rather than to the construction of a large number of vessels of the destroyer class. That we may have a few vessels of the latter class, to act in conjunction .with a local fleet of battleships, is in accordance with the accepted conditions under which such vessels form part of the navies of the world. When we employ destroyers only as adjuncts to vessels of that kind, we are simply falling into line with the British naval, policy, and that of other nations, and, in that respect, the ‘ Government are taking a course for which they are to be commended. If our financial position will enable us, some years hence, to add to that branch of the Australian Navy, we may possibly be able to render real assistance to the Mother Country in time of war. I have already referred briefly to the military side of defence, and do not propose to deal with it in detail, since it has already been discussed by other honorable members. I have directed my attention for the most part to the naval side of the question, because little attention has been’ given to it during this debate

Debate (on motion by Mr. Roberts) adjourned.

page 4503

TELEGRAPH (EMERGENCY) BILL

Report adopted.

Bill, by leave, read a third time.

House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 October 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1909/19091013_reps_3_52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 October 1909

QUESTION

VOTING MACHINES

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FULLER:Minister for Home Affairs · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr BOWDEN:NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

PAPERS

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr THOMAS BROWN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir JOHN QUICK:Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr WATKINS:for Mr. Mahon

Sir JOHN QUICK:

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

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr FOWLER:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir JOHN QUICK:

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE COAL VEND

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr GLYNN:

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Mr FISHER:Wide Bay

Sir John Forrest:

Mr FISHER:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr FISHER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

Mr Deakin:

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr Roberts:

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

Mr Roberts:

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

Dr Liddell:

Mr FISHER:

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

Mr FISHER:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Bruce Smith:

Mr FISHER:

Mr McDonald:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Wilks:

Mr FISHER:

Sir William Lyne:

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

House of Representatives
13 October 1909

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr FULLER:
Minister for Home Affairs · ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Prime Minister · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Postmaster-General · BENDIGO, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATKINS:
for Mr. Mahon

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

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

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

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

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

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

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

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

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

Mr COON:
Batman

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