View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
7 July 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

SUPPLY BILL (No.1)
BUDGET
PAPERS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
- Policy of New Administration

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 865

SUPPLY BILL (No.1)

Assent reported.

page 865

BUDGET

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the, leader of the Senate, without notice, if there is any accuracy in a statement which appeared in aLaunceston newspaper of Monday last, to the effect that it is not now the intention of the Treasurer to introduce his Budget until October?

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– I have not seen the statement referred to. I shall be glad if the honorable senator will bring it under my notice, or give notice of a question in the usual way.

page 865

PAPERS

Senator MILLEN laid upon the table the following papers : -

Post and Telegraph Act 1901 - Cancellation of General Postal Regulation 3 and substitution of new Regulation in lieu thereof. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 70.

Census and Statistics Act1905 -

Trade, Shipping, Oversea Migration, and Finance of the Commonwealth of Australia for the month of April, 1909.- Bulletin No. 28.

Population and Vital Statistics : Commonwealth Demography, 1908, and previous years. - Bulletin No. 13.

Defence Acts 1903-1904 - Regulation (Provisional) for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - New Regulation 60A, and Amendment of Regulation 106. - Statutory Rules 1909, No. 66.

page 865

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Policy of New Administration

Debate resumed from 30th June (vide page 591), on motion by Senator Millen -

That the paper (Further correspondence regarding Imperial Naval and Military Conference) be printed.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In discussing the programme submitted by the present Government one is particularly struck with the fact that it contains little or nothing which gives any hope to the great masses of the people. It distinctly shows a desire to help all classes in Australia save the working classes. There. seems to be hardly any wish on the part of Ministers to even go to the extent of promising that something shall be done in that direction.

Senator Gray:

– The Labour party say that this programme is merely a copy of what they proposed.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am not aware that the Labour party have made that statement, but it is certainly true that the programme includes matters which are common to all parties. I do not, however, propose to occupy time in discussing those items of a national character which are common to all parties and to all persons who desire to see the development of the nation of Australia. I want to discuss more particularly the points wherein parties differ. The programme of the Government has been dividedunder three heads, namely, “ Industrial,” “ Defence,” and “ Finance.” In the first place I find something in the nature of a promise to the workers that there shall be established a Board of Trade, which will be the pivot of several industrial measures or powers. It must be distinctly understood that a clear promise was given to the workers that, whatever party might be in power, they should be allowed to participate in the protection given at the Customs House to manufacturers in the form of receiving increased wages in very many industries. But what do we find? The present Prims Minister had no hesitation whatever in stating that it was a simple question, and was merely a matter of levying an Excise duty or granting a rebate to those manufacturers who observed certain conditions. A little later, however, we found that he was not only willing, but . anxious, to provide new Protection for the workers by an amendment to the Constitution. What do we find to-day ? The workers are promised a levelling up,’ but there is no suggestion to empower the proposed Board of Trade to increase the rate of wages in any industry extending throughout Australia. In this programme it is proposed that wherever there is a conflict between the wages ruling in two States, or in one State and other States, there may be a levelling up, but where a sweating rate exists in any industry’ in all the States no levelling up is even suggested. I could name many industries which are not only receiving protection at the Customs House, but which could not possibly be dealt with under this programme. It contains an item which is of promise to the workers! Referring to the Inter-State Commission, we are told that -

Among its duties will be those of a Federal Labour Bureau, comprising a study of unemployment and of a scheme for insurance against unemployment.

Whilst I shall not be found voting against any scheme to provide for insurance against unemployment, I, as a representative of the working classes, have no enthusiasm to waste on a proposal bf this character. What does that paragraph’ mean ? It is an admission that under the existing system the governing powers of Australia are incompetent to abolish unemployment. The idea of a Government in the twentieth century admitting the fact that .it is beyond their power to provide employment for the men and women of the country is certainly some- thing’ new, and very significant. Why do men work ? They toil to produce wealth. In turn, the distribution of that wealth means material comfort to the workers. The value to the Commonwealth of ti worker in regular employment has been variously estimated. It should be the duty of every Government in Australia to see that the whole of the workers are given employment by .which they may be able to maintain themselves and their families, and add to the material prosperity of the country. However, in spite of the numbers behind them, the present Government apparently confess that it is quite impossible, under any proposal they are able to submit, to abolish unemployment. That may be satisfactory to workers of the class whom Senator Walker lias referred to ; but it will not be satisfactory to the thousands of unemployed in Australia to-day. I regret that the Government should be so hopeless of satisfactory results from their programme. It will not give any satisfaction to those who are unemployed in Australia to-day- to learn that the Government confess their inability to abolish the causes of unemployment.

Senator Turley:

– How is the casual labourer to be provided for under the Government’s scheme?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of details. I merely say that the present Coalition Government hold out no hope to the workers that they will be able to abolish unemployment. The confession is somewhat unlike the Leader of the present Government, who, in the past, whatever pro’posals he may have submitted, has always been prepared with plenty of promises calculated to delude the people. Wherever in the Ministerial statement there is a reference to the appointment of a Board of Trade, the development of markets, the appointment of a High Commissioner, or to any matter affecting the interests of the trading and manufacturing sections of the community, the Government say, distinctly, that they are going to do something. But in every reference to a matter affecting the workers, they say that they are going to. study it. No doubt they will continue to promise and go on studying measures which would be of advantage to the workers who, in the meantime, will be permitted to starve. Side by side with the admission by the Government that ‘they are unable to suggest anything which will abolish unemployment, the unemployed will derive little satisfaction from the’ following statement : -

An active policy of immigration will be undertaken, and will be expanded in the light of the knowledge made available by the Commission and the Bureau, and with, it is .hoped, the co; operation of all the States.

The Fisher programme, enunciated at Gympie, was. described by the present Prime Minister as “a pious aspiration.” What sort of a pious aspiration is it to express a hope that the State Governments, who have hitherto refused to co-operate with the Federal authorities in the matter of immigra- lion, will now do so by making lands available for persons who might be induced to come to Australia. So far, the State Governments have shown little desire to make lands available, not merely for immigrants, but for those who are in Australia at the present time. Only yesterday, in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, Mr. Cotter, the. honorable member for Richmond, brought under the notice of that body the case of a man who was deluded into coming to this country by statements made by a responsible officer in the employ of the Victorian Government. That man, apparently, is now to be left by the same State Government to starve in Melbourne. This is the kind of thing which the present Federal Government is going to propose for the benefit of the workers of Australia. Under the heading of “ Industrial,” I also find reference to some measures, which would have been proceeded with had there been no change of Government. No matter what Government may be in power, I hope that the measure proposed to reduce the qualification of residents for obtaining a,n old-age pension from twenty-five to twenty years, will be carried. I can safely say that had the Fisher Government remained in office, such a measure would have teen amongst the very first introduced this session. Some little time ago, the present Minister of Trade and Customs, as Leader of the Government ‘in- the Senate, introduced the Australian Industries Preservation Bill. At that time, there was no doubt in the mind of Mr. Deakin, or in the mind of Senator Best, that the proposed law would be effective. Some of us raised such doubt, and we were told that there was not the slightest doubt that the : measure, if passed, would prevent the development of trusts in Australia. Since that time the Australian Industries Preservation Act has been tested and found wanting. What is the position of the Government to-day? Do the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Customs undertake, as they did twelve months ago, to abolish, trusts and prevent their development in Australia? No, today they propose the introduction of a Bill providing for the prohibition of inequitable rebates by trusts and combines. What does this mean? It means that the Government acknowledge to-day that they are unable to prevent the development of trusts. Instead of amending the existing Act, or introducing a new and more drastic measure to prevent the development of trusts in Australia, the Government are going to permit the existence of trusts, and will merely prevent them from granting rebates.

Senator St Ledger:

– The power to grant rebates is the most powerful weapon in the hands of the trusts.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Whatever may be the most powerful weapon In the hands of the trusts, Mr. Deakin was quite confident, and Senator Best was absolutely sure, that the Australian Industries Preservation Act would be effective to prevent the development of trusts.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– I hope the honorable senator will quote exactly what I said, and will not give merely his own free translation of what I said.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– At all events, the Government have ceased to administer the Act, believing it to be unconstitutional.

Senator Turley:

– And the wages have been reduced.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In some cases they have been, but the wages have not gone back to the figure at which they previously stood, when the mein worked very long hours for very small remuneration. It may interest honorable senators if I’ read ‘the following letter which I have received from Dr. Wollaston, the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs -

All instructions issued under the Excise Tariff Aci 1906 relating to wages paid by distillers were withdrawn on the 7th July, 1908. At the same time, I believe these wages are still being paid by Joshua’s, and, I fancy, other ‘ distillers.

Senator Trenwith:

– Yes, that was last session.

Senator Turley:

– But the statement is notcorrect all the same.

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Trenwith:

– I have done that before. I co-operated with Mr. Bruce Smith when he was Chairman of the Employers’ Federation to initiate arbitration proposals that, were adopted by the Trades Hall Council, and that operated effectively for some years.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If I were in the position of adviser to the honorable senator, I should ask him not to tell the electors of Victoria that he was cooperating with Mr. Bruce Smith to secure for them the benefits of the new Protection. Speaking of the division which took place in the caucus of the Deakin party, the honorable senator said -

If the division on which I voted in the minority had been taken in this chamber I should have been sitting on the other side of the House when the vote was taken.

– Does it mean that Senator Trenwith has become fused ?

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am glad to hear that. I do not think that on any occasion I have ever been very much troubled about a name. It is the thing itself which concerns us. The thing itself here is the Ministry. There are two things in relation to the Ministry that are important; its -personnel and its policy. I do not think that ft is possible, I’ do not think it would be just, to dissociate the one from the other; because while there may be offers of policy, still, as the honorable senator who has just sat down indicated, a great deal depends upon the confidence or trust which you repose in those who put forward these promises as to whether or not you can have any faith in their carrying them out. In neither aspect does this fusion commend itself to me. It does not inspire me with that confidence, that trust, or that enthusiasm which some of my friends may - each of us must exercise his own judgment - feel upon the subject. But I wish to express my view of it ; and I think that it is due “thaW I should), seeing .that !my, esteemed friends, Senator Walker and Senator Pulsford, have paid me the compliment to which I have referred. I shall recall, I hope without any personal feeling of any sort or description, a few facts to show why I do not myself regard the fusion with a friendly eye. These are facts which I respectfully, and in all humility, submit for the consideration of my honorable friends, as to whether they should not with me pause before giving a whole-hearted and undivided allegiance to a leader whom, ever since the establishment of this Commonwealth, they have opposed whenever he has been in office-Mo a leader to whom they have been opposed during, at least, seven years - to a leader who yesterday spurned and insulted us as the wreckage of causes which some of my honorable friends may hold dear. Now, I am going to recall plainly one or two facts, and to invite my honorable friends to reason with me about them. Let us reason together for a moment as to whether or not we are going to be suddenly inspired with faith in the wrecker. Now we have a record of what took place and of what was said on the 20th October, 1908. At that time my respected and esteemed friend, the Right Honorable G. H. Reid, was the leader of the party to which I considered it an honour to belong. He was the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives; and, in my judgment, it was a misfortune to this country when he retired from the leadership. The present Prime Minister then said, Mr. Reid being present -

At the present time the right honorable member has behind him only the wreckage of ]Blfadozen old sections. He has behind him the wreckage of the free importing party ; myself and other Free Traders - the wreckage of the individualist party ; to which Mr. Deakin appears tr> have been steadily opposed - the wreckage of the anti-Socialist party ; he is now the Leader of the anti-Socialist party - and the wreckage of the coloured labour party - all are to be found on that side of the House.

Senator Trenwith:

– Is not that something to be glad of?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend has not much to be glad of in the position he now occupies. Mr. Reid thereupon said -

That is untrue; that is absolutely false.

It was not a very parliamentary interposition perhaps, but 1 honour Mr. Reid for absolutely repudiating these base slanders. Mr. Reid also said -

The honorable member has made a dastardly statement.

Was it not dastardly? A discussion then took place, and, of course, Mr. Deakin qualified his accusation as to Mr. Reid on that right honorable gentleman pointing out that he was the first to introduce the* White Australia policy. But Mr. Deakin went on -

What I have said is - and it is true - that he has behind him the wreckage of the coloured labour party. . .

The Opposition side of the House is the refuge of the defeated.

That is why naturally on the Opposition benches are clustered the wreckage of tlie parties that have failed in this House. They will always gather there while we have an Opposition like the present linked together, not so much by what it agrees with, as by what it disagrees with.

Having stigmatized the party to which we considered it an honour to belong in that way, he proceeded to undertake, in effect, that never on earth would he join with such a crew, that never on earth would he have anything to do with such wreckage. He continued -

I see in this House many gentlemen with whom it would be a privilege for us to act_ some with whom we have acted, and others with whom we may act again -

God forbid - but we also see here the remnants I have spoken of, with whom we cannot act.

The wreckage, my honorable friends and myself, following our leader, Mr. Reid. What is he doing now? But that is not all-

I speak of some with whomit is impossible for us to act -

One might think that he is only dealing with the then emergency, but he is pledging himself as to the future -

I speak of some with whom it is impossible for us to act, either now or at any future time.

Senator Walker:

– He has changed his opinion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– He has, and it is not the first time he has done so. My honorable friend may think, “ Can the leopard change his spots?” Oh, yes; if the leopard is Mr. Deakin.

Why is it impossible? he asks. I am commending these things to my honorable friends perfectly dispassionately, and interspersed with a few inferences which I suggest for their consideration.

Why is it impossible ? It is because we have a distinctly different line of policy,

Nothing to be fused, “ a distinctly different line of policy.” because we have different ideals. “ Ideals “ is a very favorite word with Mr. Deakin. Mr. Kelly interjected, though I do not know what he meant by the interjection, “ But the honorable gentleman used the stiletto.” Mr. Deakin said -

We cannot be associated with reactionaries.

What next will he say about us? Mr. Reid then, in a deprecating way, asked : “ Is this from the gentleman who signed an agreement with me,” and Mr. Deakin replied -

On the contrary, this is from one of those who have learned the consequences of entering into an agreement with the right honorable member.

A more gross insult, it seems to me, could not have been offered, not merely to the party to which we belonged, but to our leader, by whom it was our duty to stand. In face of that, is it unreasonable that we should ask ourselves, shall we take the wrecker at his word ? Shall we abandon such of these causes as we agree with, such of them as have been dear tous, such of them as haveled us tooppose Mr.

Deakin during all these years? Have the fragments he refers to of these wrecked causes been gathered up and jettisoned because of this condemnation and in order to bring about this fusion, I would like to know ?

Senatorpearce. - He says that they have all adopted his policy.

Senator Trenwith:

– Hear, hear.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am very glad to get that cheer, because no one better understands the inner history of this business, I believe, than does Senator Trenwith, and that “ Hear, hear,” whilst it is explanatory, is distinctly distressing for the wreckage’ to hear. Is it not reasonable that we should consider why we should be in such haste to go over to the enemy ? Why should we fly so fast into the bosom of the gentleman who has so insulted us ? Why should we go so fast into the bosom of our traducer ? Why should we not at least have had a withdrawal ? Why should he not have explained that this was all a mistake, made in the heat of the moment? As Confucius, whose precepts are almost equal to those of the Christian religion, once said : “ The danger of allowing a man to spit in your face without resenting it, is that he may be tempted to do it again.” So far as the Opposition led by Mr. Reid was concerned, none of us were so poor - I mean politically, because I have always had as great a liking for Mr. Deakin personally as any man can have - as to do him reverence. Are we now to begin and continue shouting ‘ Hosanna, ‘ ‘ without explanation, withoutone word being said to bridge over, so far as I can see, the immense gulf that existed and that was intensified on the occasion to which I referred ? Has he magnetized the people? Has he over-persuaded them ? Like every one else, I recognise his marvellous gifts of speech ; they are, I think, beyond compare. I remember well an historic occasion when our very good friend, Sir George Turner, stood in the House of Representatives, a living protest to the treachery of which he was the subject at the hands of Mr. Deakin. He said -

My honorable friend always uses an avalanche of words, and it takes some little time to ascertain exactly what is his meaning.

A little later on - and this perhaps explains the extraordinary influence which Mr. Deakin may have - Sir George Turner said -

No man is better capable of persuading any one to do anything. Many a time he has sat in the Ministerial corner, and has by means of one magnetic look persuaded me to give way.

A greater man than even Sir George Turner long ago described Mr. Deakin, a roan called John Bunyan. In that wonderful allegory of his with which you, sir, are acquainted, he wrote a description which is very much to the effect of Sir George Turner’s, but infinitely finer. He must have looked down the vista of the centuries and conceived of such a situation as we have in Commonwealth politics to-day.

Senator Walker:

– Does the honorable senator refer to Mr. Facing-both-ways?

Senator St Ledger:

– Why does Senator Walker anticipate?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It was not Mr. Facing-both-ways. My honorable friend may apply such a term to Mr. Deakin; I would npt. The character was not a Cabinet Minister; he was not even a member of Parliament. His name was Talkative, who came upon those two pilgrims, Christian and Faithful, just as they were entering the city of Vanity Fair. He wanted to associate himself with them, to have a fusion, and so he went up to Faithful, who’ was afterwards done to death in that place, and said -

I will talk of things heavenly or things earthly : things sacred or things profane : things past or things to come : things foreign or things at home : things essential or things circumstantial : provided that all be done to our own profit.

No wonder Faithful said, “ What a brave companion have we got ! He will make a very excellent pilgrim.’” But Christian said, “ This man with whom you are so taken will beguile you with that tongue of his, will beguile with that tongue of his twenty of them that know him not.” Faithful asked, “ Do you know him, then?” “Yes,” replied Christian, “better than he knows himself.” As Sir George Turner said, Mr. Deakin’s capacity of persuasion is great. We all feel it when it is brought to bear. I beseech honorable senators most respectfully to join with me in endeavouring to resist the persuasion which, at least temporarily, has led to a dominant majority in Opposition laving down their arms, and not merely ignominiously surrendering to the enemy, but selecting and accepting the General as theirs. I refrained from interposing earlier in this debate, because it seemed to me that the Labour party had a

– I do not know about that, but I have no sympathy with them on that score, because I think it serves them right for leaning on so broken a reed as they did. But I give them this consolation that Mr. Deakin has treated them in respect to the matter they complain of not a bit worse than he has treated others; not a bit worse than he treated another Ministry and its leaders. What causes me considerable perplexity as to the present situation is that I object to be content now to sit in ostensible support of a politician who, as I think, betrayed my own leader and my own friends only so very short a time ago. Now, what is the case of the Labour party? I should not have referred to this except that it seems to me that frequently the blame is thrown on the wrong shoulders. The Labour party are called to account for daring to have a grievance. Here I wish to agree with what Senator Millen said in regard to the party.

In November last year when a considerable change took place, Senator Millen said -

Honorable senators on this side have no quarrel with labour, and are certainly not in opposition to anything which makes for the progress, social, economical, and political, of the whole community.

I think we all agree with that. I have myself said in this Senate very emphatically that the terms “Socialist” and “Anti-Socialist” are extremely misleading. The honorable gentleman now at the head of the Government has declared himself, as he and a great many other people must do, to be a Socialist. The members of the present Opposition have no objection to being called “ Socialists.” The term “Anti-Socialist” is much more misleading than is the term “ Socialist.” But as there seems to be no objection on that score, it is convenient to speak of “ Socialists,” and, if honorable senators like, of “ AntiSocialists.” What Senator Millen said was -

All that we are in opposition to are those social extremists who mistake reckless experiment fo’r progress, who build castles in the air and imagine they are solid edifices, and who being merely iconoclasts, are pleased to regard themselves as social reformers.

– What were the conditions of his support?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– There were no conditions at all, so far as I know. I propose to read just one or two sentences which Mr. Deakin uttered in this connexion, so late as November of last year. The ideas therein expressed are clothed with a great wealth of language, which makes portions of them rather ambiguous. Mr. Deakin said -

It can be dealt with henceforward only by some other Government which in the same way will have a general or particular understanding with some party outside itself. It may be that a change in the men upon whom devolves the task of holding the helm, will enable this House to transact the business which passes from our hands.

Senator St Ledger:

– Were these statements made by Mr. Deakin on the occasion of his defeat?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– They were made when the little arrangement was arrived at by which Mr. Deakin was to stand aside and allow the members of the Labour party to assume office. The words I have quoted were uttered before the amendment determining the fate of his Government was submitted. Perhaps, if it had not been for this expression on the part of Mr. Deakin, Mr. Fisher might not have moved that amendment. Mr. Deakin continued -

It is our duty when laying down the official conduct of business to endeavour to strengthen the hands of those who will take it up while the conduct of that business by them does not conflict either with the principles on which we were returned, or with the interests of the Commonwealth.

He then proceeded to amplify what might otherwise have been ambiguous -

No matter into whose hands that policy may fall, it will be both our privilege and our duty to support it. This can be accomplished, as my honorable friends in the Corner have shown for the past three years. *

His honorable friends in the Corner were the members of the Labour party -

With their fixed and decided platform, remaining without amendment from Parliament to Parliament, they have been able to lend us support, without breach of, or departure from, it or the obligations which they have assumed. So much at least is possible from us under similar circumstances.

– But surely my honorable friend would not hand over the destinies of Australia to the keeping of a man who would betray them? That is the question that has been perplexing me. How am I, in the face of these things, to take to my bosom a man who has traduced my party and my leader ? But I say, again, that if Mr. Deakin knew and felt that the Labour Ministry was incompetent, what was to justify him., in the face of the country, in putting them in office? What is there to justify him in giving these interlopers six months’ pay but of the taxpayers’ purse for doing nothing? But the man who is the greatest culprit is the man who ought to have known better, Mr. Deakin. If, on the other hand, he honestly believed that the Labour party were worthy of office and of power at all’, as I am quite willing to assume that he did, then he did them a cruel wrong in immediately beginning to intrigue against them, and what is more, to use Mr. Cook’s expression, in booting them out of office without a hearing. That is one part of the story. The second part is, that Mr. Fisher and his Ministry were entitled to rely on Mr. Deakin’s support; not always, not eternally, but until, on some point of policy or some point of administration, clearly defined, they were arraigned and defeated. I confess I shall be glad to hear that action justified. Having put them in office, and having declared in the passage I have read, contrasting the two, that they had supported him for three years, and that he and his party were prepared to do as much for them, I cannot understand how he could be a party to turning them out of office without giving them an opportunity of being heard in their own defence. Mr. Cook, who expressed himself exceedingly well, as he always does, on the 26th November, tried to extract some information about the situation. He said -

I fancy that the Labour party had a friend at court -

Of course he meant to suggest that not merely the arrangement had been carried into effect, but that a suggestion had been made to the Governor- General - who consulted the Governor-General for them, and that friend is sitting by them to-day, staunch for the present.

Now that reminds me of a little story that I heard some time ago. A lady was complaining to her old gardener that he was a little the worse for liquor, and she said to him, “ Now, John, when you came to me you know you said you were a staunch teetotaller.” The gardener replied, “Not staunch, ma’am, not staunch !” My friend, Mr. Cook, must, I think, have seen that story when he said, “ Staunch for the present.” He went on to complain, as Senator Millen did most justly and with great emphasis in the Senate, that a change of Government had taken place without a scintilla of reason. But is not that exactly what has happened now ? Isthere any difference? Is it not a fact that, under the circumstances I have recalled to the attention of the Senate, the Labour Government were, to again use an expression of Mr. Cook’s, ignominiously booted out by the present Prime Minister, who had put them in? As Sir George Turner declared on the occasion that I have already referred to, the hand that made them was the hand to unmake them. It was done without a scintilla of reason, under circumstances which required at least some reason, some indictment.It was different in that respect from the previous occasion, when Mr. Deakin changed portfolios with them. Then, Mr. Deakin could make no complaint, because it was under an arrangement that he had himself made. This ignominious booting out of office of the Labour party was performed by the politician who had assisted to put them into office, as they had supported him during a long period when he enjoyed the emolu- ments of office at their hands. Well might they say -

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Senator Givens:

– The application would be correct except for the fact that we never did trust him.

Senator Walker:

– The honorable senator is giving himself and his party away.

Senator Turley:

– No ; »ve always said so.

Senator Needham:

– We were watching him all the time.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– In that respect, I think, my honorable friend is right in saying that he is going to watch Mr. Deakin. That, at all events, is satisfactory. What I have related is the position according to the records as they are before us. But there is one other little thing that I would like to mention. On the 20th October, when the little arrangement I have detailed took place, Mr. Deakin apologized for having been a party to turning out the Labour Government, and, to show that there was no fleck in the sea of their smooth relations, he explained that he had not intended to do them any harm when he voted them out of office in 1.904. He said this -

Some of us, and I was one, found ourselves trapped -

That was when Mi. Reid came in, into voting a Government out of office that ought to have been allowed to stay there longer.

Is there any assurance that he will not say the same thing again, if it suits him to extricate himself from the present situation and to seek again a fresh alliance with’ those with whom he has hitherto been associated ? I ask those honorable senators who took a strong view of the transaction last November, whether they think that with this record Mr. Deakin is exactly the gentleman who ought to be Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia at this juncture? But there is, as I have said, aworse case. My honorable friend, Senator Pulsford, sought to palliate the fusion by recalling one in New South Wales. That was no fusion at all, but simply an agreement to banish for the moment the fiscal differences for the sake of Federal union. That was honorably kept for one specific purpose. What is the specific purpose here?

Senator Guthrie:

– To “ down “ the Labour party.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Is panic-fear of a party who have done nothing a kind of justification? The great difference is that that arrangement was .not made by Mr. Deakin. I thank my honorable friend for the reference, because I recollect that it was then a case of national union in this country or nothing. It was a specific issue, and no more. But I also remember, and recall to his recollection if he will permit me, with all deference, another coalition which was with Mr. Deakin. It was more nearly the kind of thing than that in New South Wales. It involved the sinking of the fiscal issue for a time. We have often heard of the fiscal issue. I do not know where it is now, under the language of this Ministerial statement. But at that time, let it be remembered, we had just passed a Tariff, and the sole object of the sinking of the fiscal issue was to secure fiscal peace for that Parliament. Apparently we were all going on comfortably. Our friend Mr. Deakin, who put us in office, went quietly to Ballarat; and having on a previous occasion at that place denounced in no measured terms the Labour party, he made a speech. I quote, not from Hansard, but from a most excellent pamphlet by my friend Mr. Bruce Smith. Referring to the Labour party, Mr. Deakin said, in 1904 -

It was a leading member of that party, and one of its ablest members, who told us three years ago that the party was up for sale to the highest bidder between other parties. “ Here are our votes,” it said, “ for your legislation. We don’t believe in you or your policy, but if you give us the legislation we want, we will support you.”

Is not that exactly the position in which Mr. Deakin was for three solid years? Can anybody doubt it? What does he think of it when he is not enjoying the fruits of office? Mr. Bruce Smith prints in italics this passage “in the speech -

Could a more demoralising bargain be ‘proposed in any public body or institution?

Mr. Deakin went to Ballarat, and held himself up for sale. He said, in effect - If the Labour leagues adopt Protection, we will assist them. If the Anti-Socialist leagues put Protection in their platform, we will assist them.

Senator Walker:

Senator Gray:

– And I believe it just as strongly now.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The honorable senator said -

Mr Deakin has created a precedent which, I contend, will lower the political and moral life of the community.

Is a politician who has lowered the political and moral life of the community to be the leader of it ?

I believe that he will live to regret the manner in which he has brought about this situation. Speaking politically, Mr. Deakin has absolutely dishonoured the cheque that he gave to Mr. Reid. If I were to describe him as I regard him I would rather speak of him as a political jelly fish. When I say that, of course, I am only speaking of him politically. To my mind, this conduct says very little for Mr. Deakin as a practical politician. We should like to think of Mr. Deakin personally as the estimable man that we have all believed him to be hitherto.

That, I think, is a plain narrative of facts. The only additional fact’ which I think it is well to bear in mind, is that at the election which followed shortly afterwards, Mr. Deakin, to show his friendship for Mr. McLean, went up Gippsland and most vehemently opposed him. I do not’ like very much the expression I am going to use, but with a slight alteration I will quote what Sir Thomas Ewing said of the Labour party, and ask whether it might not be said of the present Prime Minister by some of those concerned in these incidents -

An alliance with the present Prime Minister is like an alliance with an American Indian. He may fight on your side, but pretty soon after the fight is over he will get your” scalp if he gets the chance.

We are now being told that the issue is one of Socialism against anti-Socialism, but that issue is no longer concrete or practical?

What becomes of it ? Is it to be Socialism or anti- Socialism?

It has been removed to the realm of theory and opinion. It is something vague and indefinite instead of being precise. It is a question which no two public men define in the same fashion.

He ridicules the whole thing, and he goes on to say -

What prospect is there that a definitive answer can be given when an issue is to be submitted in that cloudy, nebulous fashion?

He is pouring cold water on the issue of Socialism against anti-Socialism. This is worthy of consideration -

What is the anti-Socialism programme to be? What anti-Socialistic legislation is to be proposed ? What legislation considered Socialistic is to be repealed?

Is he going now to repeal all these measures of Socialism that are on the statute-book, and which we have so continuously opposed?

Senator Pearce:

– Like the Sea Carriage of Goods Act ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not consider that Socialistic. But is he going to repeal the section in the Post and Telegraph Act which Sir John Forrest described as wicked and dishonest? Is he going to repeal the Anti-Trusts Act, which in another speech he asked if Mr. Reid was going to repeal? That is what I call antiSocialism. If there is to be a leader of anti-Socialism surely it should be his business to purge, or try to purge, the statutebook of these Socialistic measures?

Senator Walker:

– We shall prevent them from being carried further.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Then my friends are going to leave those on the statute-book where they are? Mr. Deakin further said -

These are questions which the electors of Australia are entitled to have answered before they vote in favour of anti-Socialism. It must take a form, it must take a shape, it must be something tangible whose effects an endeavour can be made to trace out.

Then he goes on to enumerate the things I have mentioned.

Mr. Reid has declared two clauses in the existing legislation, the contract labour clauses of the Immigration Act, and the clause in the Postal Act, should be amended, but he has not said what other clauses are to be substituted for them, or if any are to be substituted. Answers to these questions will be required before this issue can become direct or practicable.

Now we are told that the present Government is an anti-Socialist Government. What did Mr. Deakin tell us upon this point ?

On this question we are entitled to press for a reply.

I think Mr. Deakin was absolutely right in that -

We have anti-Socialistic leagues in a neighbouring State, springing into existence in every electorate, yet there is no programme announced to which any one or more of these leagues is committed.

– I wish to make no comments at all. To make it abundantly clear, Mr. Deakin’s views were declared to be -

Both the interest of his party and the public interest required the severance from the Labour party which he had effected.

Senator Walker:

– I have never called myself anything else but a Liberal.

– I am rather encouraged to hear that.I am always glad to reflect that we have the High Court when these Acts turn out to be failures. But it was not Mr. Deakin’s fault that the union label ‘proved to be a failure. Has any other man been in one sense so faithless to Federation by placing so many unconstitutional measures on the statute-book in defiance - and this is the whole point of my contention - of the Opposition? And are we still going to trust him with the Constitution? We have the Australian Industries Preservation Act, the Commerce Act, and the Trade Descriptions Act: - all of which were opposed by us - upon the statute-book, and we have also that monstrous fiasco, the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act - that delightful excursion into the realms of new Protection - and the Excise Tariff (Spirits) Act. Yet we are asked to pledge our fealty to a Minister who is responsible for all these measures, the greater number of which were passed despite our strenuous opposition.- At any rate, we did not consider them part of the programme to which we ought to give our assent. No manager of a business would be engaged without his credentials being first examined, and yet we are asked to accept Mr. Deakin as Prime Minister in the face of the damaging record, from our point of view, which the whole statute-book presents. I am sorry that that should be the position to-day. But whatever our regard for Mr. Deakin may be- - and, personally, I hold him in the highest esteem - we must -look at his political acts. I think it was a distinct misfortune that he did not adhere to his earliest intention to stand aside upon the occasion when the negotiations for the fusion of parties took place. Had he done so, he would have felt a happier man, and more confident of his position in the country than he can possibly feel to-day. The negotiations for the fusion were of a very curious character, and I propose to read just one or two sentences from the cablegrams transmitted to- the English newspapers. As early as the ctb March the political campaign had begun, and the Times stated -

Mr. Deakin cannot seriously attack the Labour party which agrees with and has helped him to carry through more than half his policy.

That was a very sensible thing to say.

Mr. Cook, whose chief theme in past years has been the shortcomings of Mr. Deakin, is under orders not to touch that subject again.

On the 18th May the following appeared -

Mr. Deakin refuses office in any Ministry not pledged to his full programme -

I should like to know if that statement is true - and, consequently, the coalition negotiations have been transferred to Sir John Forrest and Mr. Cook, who are now quarrelling over the leadership.

On the 26th May the following cablegram was published -

The terms of the coalition practically are as follow : Mr. Cook accepts Mr. Deakin’s platform on condition of the postponement on one excuse or another of all the principal planks.

– But my honorable friends are not to interfere with the Protectionist policy of the Tariff, “or in rectifying of anomalies.”

Senator Vardon:

– Did the honorable senator read what Mr. Reid said about it?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am coming to that. The Argus reported the basis of the fusion to be -

No interference with the Protectionist policy of the present Customs Tariff in rectifying anomalies.

That is worse. That is to say, we are not to touch the Tariff except on a Protectionist basis.

Senator Walker:

– It may be less Protectionist after a rectification of anomalies. The honorable senator knows that sometimes one has to submit to the inevitable.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am asking for’ information. The Age, in a leader on the 5th June, said -

The basis of union is that Free Traders have acknowledged that the -fiscal issue is -

What? Not in abeyance; not suspended; but - is settled.

– I am showing the beautiful harmony that exists as to the fusion, so far as regards the fiscal issue. Mr. Reid takes quite a different view. This is what he says -

Before the fusion the Free Traders in the direct Opposition requested Mr. Cook to make our position perfectly clear to Mr. Deakin. We pointed out that if any alteration in the Tariff were proposed which raised the fiscal issue as between Free Traders and Protectionists, we Free Traders held ourselves perfectly free to hold to our convictions.

The most complex series of measures to be submitted includes those affecting the industrial interests of the Commonwealth. The pivot of some of these will be found in a Bill for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission; which, in addition to exercising the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution,

The first tiling that this Government proposes to do is to seek an ‘amendment of the Constitution, which I think every Federalist ought to resist. In the Constitution we have an Inter-State Commission defined, and the object is to enlarge ifs powers and give it the extraordinary function of a. Federal Labour Bureau.” Its members are, I suppose, to employ their leisure in making a study of unemployment. When they get into their offices they are to make a study of unemployment, and also a scheme for insurance against it. It is to be a kind of roving Commission, I suppose, to find out for a future Government a policy on unemployment and insurance. But it is not to be merely that. Of course it is to undertake many valuable functions. It is to have - a general oversight of production and exchange, supplying information in respect to markets and openings for trade, abroad, and for the improvement and extension of Australian industries within our borders.

What does it mean? But that is not all which is proposed in this sort of dragnet.

The Commission will also assist in supervising the working of the existing Customs Tariff in its operation -

Are we going to delegate to the Commission the working of the Customs Tariff? Are we going to abolish the present Customs administration? What does it all mean? The Commission is to supervise the working of the existing Tariff in its operation - on what ? Not its general working but its operation - upon the investment of Australian capital and labour in Australian industries.

What does that mean? Not merely is it to do that, but it is to advise - the removal of any inconsistencies in its schedules.

And as if that were not enough for the Commission it is also to ‘advise - with the further view of developing preferential and other trade relations within the Empire.

But it is -to do more than that.

Any divergencies between industrial conditions in the several States which occasion an unjust competition between Australian industries in different States will be adjusted by the Inter-State Commission, with of course, due regard to all the interests affected -

That is to say, the condition of the manufacturer, and the condition of the workman will be in a far more parlous state than they are in now, because no one knows how the Inter-State Commission will be constituted. If it is to have plenary power without appeal, except on questions of law, as is the case under the Constitution, then the industrial interests of Australia will be intrusted to a power that will be absolutely beyond control, and will exercise an autocratic and untrammelled influence in all probability to the disaster of those interests’ in some form or other. We are told that any divergencies will be adjusted - with of course due regard to all the interests affected, whether or not the unjustly competitive rates exist under the authority of local industrial tribunals.

But that is not all which is proposed. An agricultural bureau is to be associated with the Inter-State Commission. Did any one ever hear of such preposterous nonsense as that? The agricultural bureau is to be established - in order to employ the latest scientific, means of co-ordinating -

I like all these big words very much- and extending the good work of the State Departments.

But that is not all which is proposed-

An active policy of immigration -

Away from the control of Parliament- will be undertaken and will be expanded in the light of the knowledge made available by the Commission, and the Bureau, and with it is hoped the co-operation of all the States.

In the middle of this part of the statement we find this little paragraph thrown in -

In the meantime, any. anomalies that may be discovered in the Customs Tariff Act lately passed by this Parliament will be examined, classified, and dealt with in due course.

There is the footprint, there is the significant thing. What does it mean? Is the whole basis of this coalition to disappear, and is everybody to vote as he likes, when these questions come up, or are the Free Traders pledged, as the Age says, to deal with the anomalies on the basis of and in accordance with the principles of Protection? That is all I propose to say with regard to this policy statement. I want to deal with another matter which is allied with that statement, and that is the question of naval defence. On that question Senator Dobson - who I am sure spoke in an unguarded moment - in answer to a statement made in debate, that Great Britain will he well able to uphold her supremacy of the seas without our assistance, said -

I doubt if she will be in time to come.

Senator Dobson:

– Hear, hear.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am sorry to hear that. I know my honorable friend’s patriotism, but think that if he had reflected he would have seen that very few men, with a spark of real patriotic feeling in their breasts, and not carried away by the excitement of the moment, could fairly and justly come to such a conclusion as that. I believe that Great Britain is supreme, that she possesses the mightiest fleet that has ever been in the world. If so terrible an occasion should arise as that her interest, her integrity, and her life were assailed, I believe that that little isle set in the silver sea would rise, as she has done before over and over again, in the magnitude of her might, and successfully face Europe itself in arms. I prefer to accept Sir John Forrest’s statement, made at a meeting inPerth, about the time when this fusion wastaking place. In March last he said -

He did not believe that there was any real” crisis, because Great Britain could afford ai hundred Dreadnoughts if she wanted them.

That I believe, too. At the same time I think that there are one or two things which require to be made clear. So far as my honorable friend made them clear I am at one with him. Every man of British blood must regard it as an axiomthat British supremacy of the seas must be maintained. It was said a couple of hundred years ago that -

The Royal Navy of England has ever been its greatest defence and ornament. It is its ancient and natural strength, a floating bulwark of the island.

– Thai was not the cause of the scare.

– They did not say that Germany had taken them by surprise, but that they were surprised at the progress made under what was called the accelerated programme of German shipbuilding. I shall say in a moment what that meant. I am not speaking with a. view to vindicate the policy of the Liberal Government in Great Britain.I ammentioning facts in order to lead up to an observation I propose to make with regard to what was done here. Sir William White went on to say, and Senator Dobson will probably agree with this also -

But for the important issues involved the spectacle would have been amusing when politicians innocent of technical knowledge like the Prime Minister, Mr. Balfour, the First Lord -

The reference is not to the First Sea Lord, Admiral Fisher, who, of course, knew what he was about - and many others attempted in. public debate to make estimates of the number of new ships which would be “necessary” at various dates, or to fix “danger periods” likely to occur during the next three or four years.

– I am not venturing to suggest blame at all. I am merely stating the facts as they existed when the offer was made to show that not merely is the censure motion absolutely conclusive to indicate that the Opposition in the Imperial Parliament attempted to make a party question out of the Government proposal, but that a party question was made of that, which we all declare ought not to have been made a party question. For instance, the Morning ‘Post said -

The point, and the sole point which is now at issue between our critics and ourselves, is whether we should bind ourselves to order the four extra ships at once or leave the question to be determined later in the year.

That is to say, these self-appointed critics declared that the Imperial Government were Wrong, and that eight extra battleships ought to be constructed at once. The Government Whip, Sir Alexander Acland Hood, said-

The Unionist party demanded eight Dreadnoughts to be laid down during the year. The country supported the demand, and the Government would either have to accept it or go.

What could be worse than the attempt which was made - as might have been foreseen here - by Mr. Balfour and the Conservative Opposition to use the offer of a Dreadnought from New Zealand as an argument in favour of preferential trade? This is how the matter was treated in Wellington, New Zealand - I quote from the correspondent of the Morning Post, of 21 st May -

Mr. Balfour’s attempt to convert New Zealand offer of a Dreadnought into another argument for fiscal preference has not given much satisfaction here. Of course, we like to be “ cracked up,” and Mr Balfour’s declaration in his speech at the Agricultural Hall, briefly reported to us by cable a week ago, that “ nothing was more moving and magnificent than the unsolicited response made” by New Zealand,” has naturally been well received.

The embarrassment caused to the Imperial Government must have been tremendous, because they could not refuse to accept the offer. The cablegram proceeds -

It has, indeed, been particularly welcome at a time when (he first exuberance of our emotion has had time to cool, and the questioning and critical spirit has begun to raise doubts and difficulties which, were unheard of when the proposal was first mooted. But most of us are quite unable to see the relevance of the incident to the fiscal question, with which Mr. Balfour seeks to connect it.

That is what the offer of a Dreadnought from the Commonwealth would have intensified. Free Traders and Protectionists alike would have been playing -into the hands of the Tariff reformers, the Conservative Opposition, of the Old Country -

If such gifts are accepted, “ our cablegram reports him as saying,” Britain cannot refuse preference to the over-seas States. A fiscal change is now inevitable. The new system must grant what the whole constellation of sister States have steadily, persistently, and patiently asked for, year after year.

Are we not justified in saying that this great national question upon which the Government of the Mother Country were quite as alive as was the Conservative Opposition, was dragged down to the level of partisan politics, and that the offer of a Dreadnought from New Zealand was used to further the purposes of the Tariff Reform party in England ?

Senator Pulsford:

– Admitting that statement, which is undoubtedly true, will not the honorable senator agree that the official news which has since reached us” week by week has shown that the original feeling in England was justified?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The scare? Certainly not.

Senator Pulsford:

– The honorable senator has read the speech of Lord Rosebery ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I have. Nothing could be more delightful than Lord Rosebery ‘s -speech. I wish to read one or two quotations in support of the conclusion at which I have arrived that this scare was unjustified, and, being unjustified, was utterly mischievous. Upon pages 542-3 of the Nineteenth Century and After, Sir William White says -

Meantime it is desirable to avoid any disposition to create a naval scare for which there is absolutely no justification, and the creation of which could only make us ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

Again, at page 542, he says -

The nation is united in the resolve to maintain that supremacy at all costs, and only harm is done by exaggerated statements or by the hysterical inquiry which has been made in some quarters, “ Can our sea power be saved ?”

Again, he says that upon this question journalists have lost their heads. I would also remind honorable senators that, apart from the number of ships in any’ navy, a good deal depends upon power and efficiency. The efficiency of the British Fleet, apart from the number of ships which it contains, is absolutely unrivalled. Upon that point we have .the testimony of no less an authority than Lord Roberts, who, in the alarmist speech which he made the other day in the House of Lords, declared that the Army was a sham Army, but that the Fleet - owing to the fact that it had not been made a party question - was efficient. He deplored the tendency which has been exhibited during the past month or- two to make the Fleet a party question. There were 300 vessels, each as full of machinery as a watch, manoeuvring in the North Sea for three weeks last year - I note that this year there were 350 vessels so engaged - and the fact that they returned to their respective rendezvous without a single accident, is the most marvellous testimony to the efficiency of the British Fleet as a war machine. An American Admiral who witnessed the manoeuvres said -

The British Navy is impressive, not merely because of its overwhelming size, but chiefly because of the shining efficiency which we seldom associate with bulk. It is the pride of the Briton and of every man in whose veins runs Anglo-Saxon blood.

That is the spirit which we ought to encourage just as we ought to oppose the tendency to accept scares which are created purely for party purposes. I ask the forgiveness of honorable senators for reminding them of a very admirable Lord Nelson story. When Nelson originally set out in search of the French Fleet he had only ten sail of the line, although he was pursuing eighteen sail of the line with a steady determination to bring them to battle. At Barbadoes his fleet “was strengthened by two other sail of the line. When he arrived off Trinidad he thought that the French Fleet under Villeneuve was there. Accordingly he summoned all his captains to a council on the deck of the old Victory. The following is all that took place at that council : - -.He said to the captains : “ The French Fleet is probably there. They have eighteen sail of the line. The Victory will take three, the Canopus, the Spartiate, and the Belleisle, will take two each, and the rest of you will take one apiece. Now’, gentlemen, the fleets are equal.” That is the kind of spirit in which we ought to approach the consideration of the question of the comparative strength of fleets.

Senator Stewart:

– Have we a Nelson now ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I believe that we have. I believe that there are admirals in the British Navy who will rise to the occasion should an emergency ever demand it. I deplore the tendency which exists - and it is also deplored by the officers of the Navy whom I met in England - to broadcast these scares and to depreciate the power and sterling efficiency of the British Fleet. Moreover, the strength of that Navy is not to be calculated merely in Dreadnoughts and Invincibles. Upon page 545 of the Nineteenth Century and After, Sir William White says -

Mr. McKenna admitted that this method of calculating in Dreadnoughts and Invincibles alone may seem unsatisfactory, and even unfair, to some persons; and he declared that the British Navy built before the Dreadnought era still constituted a mighty fleet.

Again, on page 546 he says -

Dr. Macnamara might have added that many naval officers consider the King Edward to be superior to the Dreadnought in offensive and defensive power. Mr. Asquith, like Mr. McKenna. confined the .numerical comparisons he put forward to British and German Dreadnoughts, but was careful to explain that while he agreed that vessels of new types will gradually exclude vessels of earlier type from effective competition, he considered the magnificent fleet of forty battleships we now possess to be “ the finest fleet which has ever been seen in the history of the world.” He added, that “ up to the year 1912-13 it will be still the most powerful and most efficient and most formidable fighting fleet.”

Senator St Ledger:

– Is he thinking of the two- power standard still?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Of course he is.

Again, on page 550, he says -

Viewed in the light of the latest information it will be seen that a programme which provides for effectively commencing two new British battleships in July, and two others in November next, and for completing each ship in two years, should give us 16 completed vessels of the Dreadnought and Invincible classes before the end of 1911, at which time Germany would possess nine similar vessels ready for service, two others approaching completion, and two well advanced, but not expected to be ready for service until the autumn of 1912.

Senator Millen:

– The figures which the honorable senator has quoted are, I presume, based on the assumption that the German Naval Bill is not expedited.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No, they are on the assumption that all kinds of expedition are used ; that the Germans use as much expedition as they can.

Senator Millen:

– Sir Edward Grey does not bear that out.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend will pardon me, but Sir Edward Grey does bear it out -

Further, if orders are placed for four additional British battleships so that their actual erection can be commenced in April, 1910, these also should be available before the summer of 1912, and we should then have twenty battleships and cruisers of modern types as against 13 German ships.

All this is on. the assumption that the German difficulties as to finance, of which we read every day in the newspapers, will be overcome. But I deprecate this continual bringing of Germany into our discussions. It may be that we shall some time have enough trouble with Germany ; but this constant comparison of Germany with Great Britain, this constant denouncing of Germany in the press, and the rhetorical efforts that are made by the Conservative Opposition on the platform in England to arouse feeling about Germany, are to be deprecated. Again, on page 560, Sir William White says this -

Suggestions have been made that we should match programme with programme, or “ lay down two keels to one” laid by Germany, or make a supreme effort and decide on the simultaneous construction of such an overwhelming force as would convince the German Government that it is hopeless to attempt a competition with Great Britain.

Some people go as far as to say that England should declare war at once with Germany, and smash her growing fleet forthwith

All these proposals appear to miss the essential point that we already possess an overwhelming force, taking into account the two navies as they exist, while in Dreadnoughts alone we have maintained (as shown above) a considerable lead, shall continue to maintain it for three or four years if the new programme is carried out, and can maintain it without any special programme on lines similar to the German Acts.

Again, on page 561, Sir William White says -

Mr. Asquith has declared repeatedly that the Government fully recognises this duty, and will fulfil it. The programme of ship-building for T909-10, in the judgment of the Government, is sufficient for that purpose.

On the same page he writes -

The assumption that underlies’ the alleged acceleration is that Germany sees an opportunity of overtaking or surpassing Great Britain in the number of Dreadnoughts- available for service at particular dates during the next three years, and that this superiority in Dreadnoughts alone would be fatal to our naval supremacy, because Dreadnoughts have rendered all earlier types obsolescent and of little fighting value.

That is what he points out as the fallacy underlying the whole of this scare -

The latter doctrine has been preached so long and loudly in this country during the last four years that it has found many converts here, and possibly also in Germ any j but the naval authorities of that Empire are not among the believers - in that fallacy, and have given evidence again and again that they are not. They cherish no illusions, but fully recognise the enormous preponderance in power of the British Fleet, and it is folly to attribute to them the desire to provoke a conflict in the near future. We have reason to be ashamed of the wild talk which has been indulged in by some writers during the last few days, and for an assertion that “ Unless the Government can be induced or forced …. to lay down eight ships in the next few months, and to order that those vessels shall be pushed on day and night, our naval supremacy is doomed, and our national life, our Imperial existence, are worth little more than two years’ purchase.”

Now, Mr. President, can anything be more conclusive than that? There may be differences of opinion - if so I have not been able to find them - as to whether, in three or four years, our fighting fleet ought not to be strengthened. It is the business of the Imperial Government to see that no doubt shall exist as to the preponderance of our Navy. But when we find the Imperial Government saying that they are doing everything that is possible, and when we are satisfied that that is the case, they ought not to be embarrassed,, not merely by the Conservative Opposition, whom they have to light, and who a.re making this a party question, but by some people in Australia who, it may be in moments of praiseworthy emotion, say that not only ought eight Dreadnoughts to be built by Great

Britain, but that another Dreadnought or two ought to be given by Australia.

Senator Gray:

– Has any reason been given as to why Germany is making these extraordinary efforts ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not know. I suppose she is making them for the same reason as actuates England. I am somewhat apprehensive, like every one else, but I am one of those who suppose - and I saw that an Ambassador said the same thing a little while ago - that Germany is increasing her naval strength because she wants to be in the front rank as a naval power, and to protect her enormously in.creasing sea trade. She probably sees that her interests require to be protected. But I admit fully that it is the duty of the Empire to maintain the British Fleet, to preserve our supremacy upon the seas, whatever Germany may do, and whatever her ulterior object may be. I will come to another passage in Sir William White’s article, which gives the absolute figures as to the mighty Fleet possessed by England at this very moment as compared with Germany -

And he adds this - .

A considerable number of the British armoured cruisers are distinctly superior to some German battleships in offensive and defensive power. The British battleships have 152 12 inch guns in their armaments; the German battleships 40 n inch. British cruisers carry 6S 9.2 inch guns as against 6 9.4 guns carried by the German cruisers. When it is remembered that this mighty fleet will be supplanted in 1912 by at least 16 completed Dreadnoughts, and that 20 such vessels will be ready if the four contingent Dreadnoughts are laid down, while Germany anticipates the completion of 13 ships only by the autumn of 191 2, it must be admitted that no true reason exists for anxiety as to our naval strength three years hence in comparison with Germany ; or that the accelerated completion in that country of any possible number of Dreadnoughts by that date can threaten our superiority sinGe we can build as fast and probably faster.

-I should have held my hand and my tongue. Let me see what happened not knowing the facts, and I always take that into account. In New Zealand, Sir Joseph Ward offered a Dreadnought, or two, if necessary, just as though he had a cupboard full of them and could hand them out at a moment’s notice. Knowing that a Dreadnought could not be constructed for two or three years, and certainly could not be manned by Australians at all, obviously the first thing to do was to consider the best way of rendering that immediate assistance which, if required, it was desirable should be furnished. If immediate assistance was Avanted surely their proposal was not merely futile, but perfectly absurd? That it was not the proper way is shown - I do not propose to express my own opinion about it - by three quotations which I will make. The first is from Sir John Colomb, an admiral who is just dead, but who for years in the House of Commons, took the deepest interest inthe progress of the Navy and whom I heard speak at the Royal Colonial Institute, which was so infected with party spirit that they must needs take a hand in this business in England. The second quotation is from Lord Charles Beresford, and the third from the late Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Unionist Government. In a letter dealing with a communication signed by, I think, the Labour members of the House of Commons, and therefore a critical letter on what they had said, Sir John Colomb wrote -

Now, my close observation - extending over forty years - compels me to assert that great mischief and great waste of money has resulted from action taken in spasm; of alarm uncontrolled by any principles and unguided by any settled businesslike purposes.

In the speech which he made at the Australasian banquet, Lord Charles Beresford said -

Before spending a large sum of money it is always well to look at what the result will be. The proposal is an offer from many of the Dominions-

He is given to nautical exaggeration. We all remember the letter he wrote to a clergyman, saying, that if the people knew certain facts as to the state of the Navy there would be a panic all over the place.

Senator Clemons:

– He is a little difficult to manage.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Yes; one does not know which way he is going to speak. He afterwards suggested that he had never so written to anybody. The unfortunate clergyman in his own vindication produced the letter, and then Lord Charles Beresford said that it wasa private letter.

The proposal is an offer from many of the Dominions, that two millions should be presented to this country for the purpose of laying down battleships, to serve in the Home waters. Well, my view of the situation is this, that all these great Dominions can best help us by making proposals for defending themselves. Now let me take the proposal for spending from any one Dominion two millions on a battleship. Will that really help the object in view?

I am not reflecting at all upon the spontaneity and so forth of that aftersuggestion. Lord Charles Beresford continues : -

Now let me take the proposal for spending from any one Dominion two millions on a battleship. Will that really help the object in view ? There is one point that the English-speaking nations are very determined upon, and they will argue upon it considerably, and that is that whenever they spend money they like to have control of it. I think that is a most reasonable suggestion.

I am one who does not regard it as a reasonable suggestion. I think that if Australia does her duty in contributing to the Imperial burden in connexion with the Navy, she should hand the control over to the Imperial authorities. I do not think that you will ever have an efficient Navy if there is divided control.

Senator Walker:

– What about the local Navy ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– We are not talking about the local Navy, whichI think ought to be under local control, unless Imperial interest requires otherwise. Lord Charles Beresford continues -

It is one that we have often heard argued, and in which I myself have the most perfect sympathy. Let us suppose two millions is going to be spent on a battleship. The battleship is to be in these waters, because you would not like to have it different. Battleships by themselves are not of much use ; they have to be in fleets. Imagine there was a war, and imagine that the Dominion’s battleship was in these waters, and the danger that will occur to the Dominions does occur. That is the question of trade routes. I do not think it would add to the sympathy of these Dominions if, after having paid this large sum of money, that this, I won’t call it accident, this circumstance did occur to them, when the money they had invested was defending the shores of this country. I think that might provoke recriminations. The only way the Dominions can be hurt is by their trade routes being cut.

He goes on to talk about trade routes, but I shall not trouble to quote further what he says on the subject. Then I come to the Right Honorable Alfred Lyttelton, because later on we find that the Conservative Opposition were coming to see that this was a national question, and one not to be dealt with as a matter of party politics. At a dinner - I forget whether it was on the same occasion or not - he said -

I myself am convinced the true way to get a great Imperial Navy is not in any sense to check, but, on the contrary, to foster, the national spirit in the Dominions overseas. You cannot have national existence unless you have at the same time the will and the desire to make sacrifices by maintaining national existence by arms, and I am therefore absolutely in accord with Canada and Australia, who desire to form their own Navy and their own Army, and to make that Navy and that Army an essential part of the defences of those great nations and States. I thoroughly believe in that. Speaking purely from the point of view of the Motherland, I am certain we shall derive greater assistance and greater power from the efforts made in that direction than from anv idea of the States of the Empire booming merely contributory to the Mother-Power, and I believe, so far as I have been able to follow it, that is very much the view of His Majesty’s present advisers.

Then we hear it said that the little flotilla of destroyers is to be characterised as a tin-pot Navy. Well, upon that, as I have said, Sir Joseph Ward made that proposal. On the 22nd March, the Fisher Government sent a cablegram which I. believe was the first response from Australia to the situation in England, and which was amplified on the 1 6th April. Quoting from memory, because I have not the cablegram at hand, it was to the effect that, in the event of stress, or the existence of a difficulty, the entire resources of this Commonwealth would be placed at the disposal of the Mother Country. That was a statesman- like response to the situation which was supposed to have arisen in England. If Australia says that whenever the Mother Country is in trouble, I am proud of her, because everv one of us would desire that the whole life’s blood and treasure of Australia should be at the disposal of the Mother Country. I cannot understand, except that the word Dreadnought was used, why a cablegram of that kind should not be as reassuring to England, and as effective a warning to the hostile nations, if they may be called hostile, as the offer of a Dreadnought.

Senator Pulsford:

– But is not something specific always better than something general ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Something specific if we have it to give.

Senator Pulsford:

– So we have.

Senator Givens:

– We would have to borrow , £2,000,000.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not care about that. We might as well offer the Old Country an armoured motor car. What is the good of the offer when we have not the money or the ship ?

Senator Walker:

– We tried to do it, but Mr. Deakin would not let us.

Senator WALKER:

– We intend to improve upon the honorable senator’s experience.” Mr. Deakin has now discovered his true friends, and they are not honorable senators opposite. I feel ashamed to sit here day after day listening to honorable senators vilifying Mr. Deakin because of his faults. What good does it do? It merely irritates him. I now propose to advance two or three reasons why

– I do not ‘object to being called a member of the antiSocialist party, although I am not unfavorable to one kind of Socialism. It is a peculiar kind, because it is voluntary. I refer to Christian Socialism. As soon as you make Socialism compulsory it is no longer Christian. My impression is that the Labour party in Australia has touched high-water mark. The election in South Australia quite lately, confirms that belief. Singularly enough some of mv Protectionist friends consider that the present Government has practically nobbled the Protectionist party in the interests of Free Trade, while Senator Symon seems to be under the impression that the Protectionists have nobbled the Free Trade party. Probably neither’ statement is true. Both parties are maintaining their fiscal principles, but for the time being have agreed upon a common platform for the benefit of the country. We put country above party. Some of my honorable friends strike me as being something like the person referred to in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, as Mr. Facing-both-ways. We, while supporting the Government, know where we are. Senator Symon referred to Confucius, who, he told us, said that if you allow a man to spit in your face and do not resent it, he will very likely do it again. Some time ago,’ however, I was reading Waterton’s Travels in South America, when I was surprised to come across an instance to the opposite effect. Waterton, with his comrades, met an uncivilized party of aboriginals in the northern part of South America. He walked up to the chief unarmed, seeing that .the man’s face was kindly in expression. When, he got near, the chief forthwith spat in his face. Wa terton saw that he did it with kindly feeling, and spat back. They were good friends at once. That incident shows that such treatment as Senator Symon has referred to is in some parts of the world regarded as a compliment. Every one here knows I have always, been an individualist in politics. I am still. I think that if a man has the ability which enables him to rise he has a right to what he earns. Allusion has been made to the “tart shop.” Whatever my faults may be, no one can truthfully say that since I have been in Parliament I have shown any desire to secure anything for myself. I do not like these continual allusions to the desire of politicians to secure billets, f take it that we are sent to Parliament to look after the interests of the country. 1 If a politician is offered office and can take it honorably, he has a right to do so, and ought not to be aspersed. I admired the members of the Labour Government in many respects. I admired much of their administration, and never spoke a word in disparagement of them personally in their private capacity. But rr,y good opinion of them has been considerably modified by their extraordinary conduct in opposition. It looks as if they would have liked to remain in office a little longer. They have none but unkind remarks to make concerning those who put them out. But those who ejected the late Ministry did so in the interests of the country, according to their own and my belief. It is not a personal matter. There is not a senator with whom I am not pleased to shake hands. I do not consider that Mr. Deakin is the ne plus ultra of a political leader, but’ under the circumstances we are quite justified in meeting him and his party on a common ground of action for the best interests of Australia, as we conceive them to be.

Debate (on motion by Senator Clemons) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.23 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 July 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090707_senate_3_49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 7 July 1909

SUPPLY BILL (No.1)

BUDGET

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Policy of New Administration

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Gray:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Turley:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Needham:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Walker:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Findley:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Millen:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Findley:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Turley:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator St Ledger:

Senator E J RUSSELL:VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Trenwith:

Senate
7 July 1909

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917