4th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 206
– Has the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive
page 206
Senator CHATAWAY. desire to ask the Minister of Defence whether he can have prepared a map showing the boundaries of the station of the Australian Naval Unit. I think, sir, that if you were to have such a map hung in the club-room it would be very useful to honorable senators.
– T shall be pleased to have a map sent to the President for that purpose.
page 206
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Customs, upon notice -
Has the Customs Department succeeded in preventing unframed crayon enlargements coming to Australia through the post office from M. Tanqueray, Rue de Turin, Paris, without paying any duty?
– The crayon enlargements referred to are not liable to duty under our present Tariff.
page 207
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
Does the Government propose to introduce an amendment of the Service and Execution of Process Act of 1901 to make its provisions apply to the desertion of women and children?
– The answer to the question is -
The Act does apply to legal process in relation to deserted wives and children. Amendments of the Act to extend its usefulness are under consideration.
– Arising out of the answer, is the Minister aware that in 1903 the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused to apply the Act to deserted wives and children, and is it not also true that the Crown Law officers of Queensland have advised that the Act does not so apply?
– The reply I have received from our law officers is that the Act does apply, though there may be some points on which opinions differ.
page 207
Senator PEARCE laid upon the table the following paper : -
Tariff revision - Form of application forwarded by the Minister for Trade and Customs to be filled in by manufacturers.
page 207
Debate resumed from 6th September (vide page 103), on motion by Senator W. Russell -
That the following Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General’s opening Speech be agreed to -
To His Excellency the Governor-General : May it Please Your Excellency :
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
– The Governor-General’s Speech has been described by a leading morning newspaper as a pretentious programme, but I think that a better arid more just term would be a progressive programme. I recognise that it is somewhat comprehensive in its scope, but I anticipate that, time and His Majesty’s Opposition permitting, the majority if not all of the measures outlined in the programme will reach the statute-book before this session is closed. A great deal of noise has been made about the lateness of the reassembling of this Parliament. Many of the leading newspapers of Australia have condemned the length of the recess, I admit at once that the recess was longer than usual, and also that we have reassembled at a later period of the year than has been the practice. At the same time, I contend that there were good and valid reasons for the length of the recess and the lateness of our reassembling. These leading, or, as Senator de Largie interjects, misleading, newspapers cannot have things all their own way. Even if members of Parliament had a long recess, they were called upon to perform some very arduous labour. It should be remembered that- in the last session we -passed certain measures which had to be submitted to the people for approval or rejection. I venture to say that every member of this Parliament who took part in the referenda campaign found it a somewhat arduous task in order to give the people of Australia a chance of understanding what was meant by the proposals of this Parliament. Then, again, kings will die. Like other persons, they have no lease of life, and other kings must be crowned, at any rate under the present condition of affairs. Imperial Conferences, too will be held. Surely at the last Imperial Conference, where matters affecting every portion of the British Dominions, and, I think, more particularly, Australia, had to be considered, it was essential that this Parliament and the people of the country should be represented. Again, if some of our Ministers had not been present at the Coronation of King George V. how intensified would have become that howl of disloyalty which for a few days rang throughout this land ! Whilst I regret the length of the recess, and admit that much useful legislative work could have been done in this Parliament during many of the extra months we had in retirement, still I submit that it was impossible, under the conditions I have mentioned, to avoid the length of the recess.
– Has any person objected?
– The honorable senator has read, if he has not heard, of objections.
– No, I do not understand anything about an objection.
– Then the honorable senator must have been asleep during the whole of the recess.
– I heard persons say that it would be a good job if we did not meet at .all.
– In my opinion, the best act which this Parliament has ever performed was to send to London these three Ministers of the King in Australia.
– Hear, hear; I agree with the honorable senator.
– I have heard my honorable friend, and those who are associated with him on the other side - there is only himself there just now - say time and again that this Parliament ought to spend money in order to advertise the resources of Australia. But I think that Australia never received so good an advertisement as it received from the presence of those Ministers in London at the Imperial Conference, and at the ceremonies in connexion with the Coronation. The Leader of the Opposition - who I regret to see is not in his place - sets a very bad example when, after he has occupied the time of the Chamber for two hours and twenty minutes, he does not condescend to remain to hear any honorable senator reply. I cannot tender to him the usual compliment of saying that he made a good and logical speech. He appeared to be at a loss to find anything to condemn. The principal feature of his attack was that the Prime Minister had accepted a title from the Imperial Government.
– What harm was there in that ?
– There was a great lot of harm in the eyes of Senator Millen. Whilst Mr. Fisher, he said, had accepted a title he had not attempted to get for other citizens of Australia titles of a similar or higher character. That was all playing to the gallery. Senator Vardon also complained of this title being accepted by the Prime Minister. Let us consider what the title is. It simply means the inclusion of a statesman of an oversea Dominion in the councils of the nation. I admit that it carries with it the prefix of Right Honorable, but there is nothing in that.
– Oh, yes, there is.
– We prate about loyalty to the Throne, some of us. We talk about Imperial unity. We talk about making the white races of the world domi nant, and keeping them so. We know, if we have watched the trend of the world’s politics to-day, that there is a great danger that the position we take up will be challenged, and that, perhaps, in the very near future. It may be necessary in dealing with that event to call together the Privy Council in order to determine what shall be done, if not to preserve the peace of the world, at least to preserve this white race of ours and the Imperial unity, this Imperial federation which so many are desirous of bringing about. Therefore, it was only right that the gentleman who is Prime Minister of Australia to-day, and who. I sincerely hope, will retain that position for a considerable time, should accept a seat in the inner councils of the Empire. Whilst I am adverse to the use of the titles of Sir, and Lord and Duke, for which I know there is no room in Democratic Australia-
– Do you object to be called “ Senator”?
– I do not; but that title was given to me by the people of Australia - not by a King or a King’s Minister. That is why I do not object to be called “ Senator.” I take this opportunity of referring to the fact that Mr. Fisher was most scandalously attacked for a statement he was alleged lo have made at an interview in London. Certain public men in Australia eagerly grasped the opportunity which they thought they had to mercilessly attack and castigate him without having before them the slightest proof of what really took place at the interview. I am one of those who, if Mr. Fisher had been guilty of making the statement attributed to him, would have been amongst the first to condemn him. I find that a member of another place, Sir John Quick - a man whose word, no doubt, carries weight in other parts of the world as well as in Australia - jumped at once to the conclusion that Mr. Fisher had said what was attributed to him by the interviewer. We might, I think, have looked for something better from a man of Sir John Quick’s intelligence and ability. In my own State of Western Australia, the Acting Premier, Mr. Gregory, and the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Nanson, eagerly seized the report of the interview, and on the strength of it endeavoured to point the finger of scorn at Mr. Fisher and the party he leads. I have said that if Mr. Fisher really made the statement attributed to him the criticism passed might have been justified, but after his emphatic denial of the statement was published not one of the gentlemen to whom I have referred had the manliness to retract or apologize for what he had said.
– No one ever looked for it from them.
– Perhaps it was impossible for any of these men to display such manliness.
– They accepted the press reports of the alleged interview with Mr. Fisher, although they had to correct the reports of interviews with themselves.
– That is so. It is consoling to know that one result of the attack upon Mr. Fisher is that the Prime Minister of Australia stands higher to-day in the estimation, not only of the Australian people, but of the British Empire, than he did before. Senator Millen, in the course of his speech on the Address-in-Reply, tried to father the acts of commission and omission of the State Labour parties on to the Federal Labour party. I wish to tell the honorable senator that, although it is true that labour in Australia is united, and the ideals of Federal and State Labour parties as to the legislation which should be passed are very similar, each State Labour party is prepared to accept the praise or blame for its own acts, as is the Federal Labour party. It struck me that Senator Millen was very hard up for argument, or to discover weaknesses in the present Federal Administration, when he had to fall back upon the action of State Labour parties. Reference was made to the Australian Notes Act. I remember that Senator Vardon, in the debate which took place when the Bill was before us, attempted prophecy, and, as usual in such cases, he failed. He practically prophesied that before five months elapsed the face value of an Australian Minore would be about five shillings. He failed in his prophecy, because, not only has the Australian Notes Act been a great success, but it has been of considerable assistance to the States, since it has enabled the Federal Treasurer to lend certain moneys to the State Governments.
– They had to pay for it. I suppose?
– I thought Senator Walker would jump at that, but he should remember that the money lent by* the Federal Treasurer to the State Governments has been the means of saving the
Australian taxpayers many thousands of pounds in interest. If the State Governments had gone to London or to the private banks, of which the honorable senator is an esteemed representative, they would have had to pay a higher rate of interest for the money than they are called upon to pay to the Federal Government.
– What are they paying?
– They pay 3! per cent., but it should be remembered that if they had gone to London for the money there would have been an additional expense for commission, brokerage, and underwriting.
– And they would not have got the money at par.
– That is so; and if all these things are taken into account it will be seen that the lending of this money by the Federal Treasurer means the saving of thousands of pounds to the taxpayers.
– Is the honorable senator aware that the State Governments lose the revenue which they used to derive from the tax upon the note circulation?
– Senator Walker forgets for the moment that the people of the Commonwealth and the States are the same. I come now to another part of the Governor-General’s Speech* dealing with the Tariff. On the question whether we should review entirely the protective incidence of the Tariff or confine ourselves to the rectification of any anomalies that may exist in it, I wish to say that I am not now prepared to assist in a general increase of the present Tariff rates. I speak as a pronounced Protectionist, and one who during the consideration of the present Tariff always voted for the highest protective duty proposed. When I found that an article could be made in Australia. I voted in every instance and I think I missed only three or four divisions, for a high protective duty. I admit that the protective incidence of the Tariff as it exists to-day is not as high as I should like to see it, but notwithstanding that, no vote of mine will be given in this Chamber to increase that Protection until such time as the National Parliament of Australia is clothed with those powers which’ we sought to obtain from the people to give effect to the principles of new Protection. A leading newspaper published in this State has contended that it is foolish* to take up such” a position, and that we must have first the old Protection before we can get the new.
– The honorable senator need not worry about that newspaper. Its influence is dead.
– I am not worrying about it, but that is a line of reasoning that I cannot follow. It should not be forgotten that the present Tariff was passed with the co-operation and assistance of a number of honorable senators of pronounced Free Trade views, relying upon the promise of the Deakin Ministry to assist in bringing into being the era of new Protection. They laid aside for the time their Free Trade views and voted for a protective Tariff.
– Why stop short now ?
– I shall tell the honorable senator in a moment. I repeat that several Free Trade- members of this Parliament supported a protective Tariff in view of the promises made that the workers in protected industries would be secured fair and reasonable wages and the consumer protected from the merciless demands of the unscrupulous trader. Not only did Free Traders assist in passing the Tariff as it stands to-day, but the manufacturers of Australia besieged the lobbies of this Parliament and almost on their bended knees prayed members to pass it, asserting that if they did so they would assist in giving effect to the new Protection. What was the result? As soon as an opportunity arose to test the validity of our first instalment of new Protection legislation, the manufacturers paid the cost of the test, and were in great glee when the High Court decided that our legislation was unconstitutional. Subsequently the present Government submitted proposals to this Parliament, which were afterwards to be submitted to the people for adoption or rejection, and I sincerely regret that they were rejected. One of the additional powers for which we sought at the referenda was the power to give effect to the principle of new Protection-
– Honorable senators were warned beforehand that the policy was unconstitutional, but they went on all the same.
– I take the stand that, in the circumstances, I cannot buttress up the old Protection which, in its present shape, creates and fosters monopolies, as it has done in America.
– And sweating.
– I cannot do so until Parliament is given the power to protect the worker in protected industries, and the consumer. That is why I stop short. If this Parliament could give effect to the principles of the new Protection to-morrow, I should be prepared to support the highest protective Tariff that could be introduced. One of the cries raised by honorable senators opposite during the referenda campaign was that the Labour party of Australia wanted these powers, and the people should therefore beware. No statement of the case could have been further from the truth. It is true that the Labour Government, supported by the Labour party, brought the proposal before Parliament, but if at the next election the pendulum swung the other way, the power, if agreed to, would have been vested, not in the Labour party, but in the National Parliament. That is where our friends opposite misled the electors. I am glad to say that, despite all the misrepresentations of the position by various journals throughout Australia, the electors of Western Australia rose to the occasion, and that was the only State which gave a majority vote in favour of the referenda proposals. So much for the Tariff. I come now to the proposal to establish a Commonwealth bank. So far, that proposal has not received any serious condemnation from honorable members opposite. Personally, I recognise that it marks a very progressive step. Although State banks have been established in other countries, I believe that when the Bill dealing with this question is submitted to Parliament, it will be found that we propose to take many steps in advance of other legislation in that direction. At any rate, we shall be able to give the people cheaper money than they have had a chance of obtaining hitherto.
– Will it be a bank of issue?
– It will be a bank of issue, deposit, and exchange.
– Upon what security will it trade?
– I am not discussing the details of the measure at the present time, but the only security which will be necessary for my honorable friend if he wishes to do business with the bank will be that of the Australian Commonwealth, and that is the security which we give to the foreign bondholder to-day. It is also proposed to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I believe that the adoption of that course is necessary. The measure has already been twice amended; but, nevertheless, we find that it is not exactly the workable measure that we desire. Time and again, when cases come before the Court, the President finds himself on the horns of a dilemma, or the parties to the dispute do not know where they are.
– Does the honorable member say that the Court does not know where it is?
– The President himself admitted on one occasion that he was in a Serbonian bog.
– The honorable member is mistaking the Conciliation and Arbitration Court for the High Court.
– No. We thought that the amending Act of last session would have relieved the situation somewhat, but further experience has shown the necessity which exists for again amending it. It ought to be the aim of every honorable member, irrespective of his political views, to make the Act as workable as possible because we do not desire to see industrial upheavals in Australia. We wish to prevent disastrous strikes. So far as Australia is concerned, the days of strikes should have long since passed away.
– Does the honorable member think that strikes will cease no matter what we may do?
– I do not say that they will absolutely cease, but I do say that if we make the Act as perfect as possible, the possibility of strikes will be minimized. The next proposal on the Government programme is to connect the east and the west by an iron rail.
– Will that railway be built out of loan funds or out of revenue?
– I do not happen to be the Treasurer of the Commonwealth just now. But I welcome the proposal to connect Western Australia by rail with the eastern States. That step will do only tardy justice to the State which I represent.
– She was promised the railway.
– What constituted authority promised it?
– The honorable senator has read the debates which took place at the Federal Convention, I suppose?
– I have.
– Then they will supply an answer to the honorable member’s question.
– To me it looked more like a bribe.
– I did not accept’ it in that sense. But, irrespective of whether or not a promise was made that the line would be constructed, it is absolutely essential for the safety of Australia that the west and east should be connected. No honorable senator dare deny that statement. I am glad that the Government have had the courage to tackle this matter at the earliest opportunity, and I hope that before many months have elapsed picks and shovels will be at work on the line from both ends of it.
– It would be very comforting if the honorable senator could suggest how the Government are going to find the money for it.
– I would ask my honorable friend to stay his anxiety until the Bill has been submitted for our consideration. I shall then have no hesitation whatever in telling him my opinion as to how the money should be obtained. I am pleased that the Department of External Affairs has taken some very progressive steps towards developing the Northern Territory as it should be developed.
– Does the honorable senator think that it can be developed except by men who have large command of capital?
– I dare say trial the officers in the Territory will be vested with a great amount of discretion.
– Does not the honorable senator think that it is necessary to induce persons with large capital to go there?
– I know that we must have people there to develop it.
– And people with capital, too.
– People are capital always. Every Australian who is possessed of health and strength represents so much capital.
– What special inducements can we offer persons to go there?
– I do not know that I can single out any special inducements ; but, with the aid of science, I know that the Government will be able to offer splendid inducements. I am aware, too, that the Northern Territory lends itself to development on such lines. I have been there; I spent two months in a portion of the Territory. Senator St. Ledger was a member of the party. I admit that we did not traverse a great deal of the country, but from what I saw I was very favorably impressed with its potentialities, and also with the fact that it can be successfully developed by white labour. That is the policy of the present Government. The Vice- Regal speech also states that it is intended to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. There was one amendment of that Act which, at one time, I thought could be effected with advantage. But I know now that there is a constitutional difficulty which prevents it. I did think at one time that in Western Australia and Queensland, where the cost of living is higher than it is in the other States, a proportionate increase in the invalid and old-age pensions rates should be made.
– There is a difference between the cost of living which obtains in various portions of some of the States.
– Exactly.
– That difference represents as much as 25 per cent, in Tasmania.
– And as rauch as 50 per cent, in some instances in Western Australia.
– Then the honorable senator would make the minimum rate less?
– No. I would like to have seen an increase in the pension proportionate to the increase in the cost of living. But I think the Constitution prevents that being done. We know that we could not grant an increase in the rates to Western Australia and Queensland without extending it to the other four States. But I think that a very little expenditure of public money would relieve some of those who are suffering disadvantage to-day. Of course, like all legislation, the more experience we have of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, the more we discover its defects. Under the Act a regulation has been framed which provides that my invalid suffering from tuberculosis must remain in an institution, otherwise he or she is not eligible for the pension. I admit that for the preservation of the public health that is a wise regulation. But there is another disease from which men suffer - I refer to miners’ phthisis - which some medical men declare is not contagious in the same way as is ordinary consumption. Some doctors have informed me that it is not contagious at all, while others have affirmed that it is contagious only in a mild form. That being so, I hold that persons suffering from this complaint ought to be permitted to remain outside an institution and to receive the pension, provided that they adopt all proper precautions for the protection of the public health. I know of a man at Day Dawn who is suffering from this disease, and who was an inmate of a public institution for nine months. Whilst there he was taught what precautions he ought to observe, and he does observe them religiously. Since he left the institution. I am glad to say that he has received the pension. When the amending Bill is under consideration: this question should be carefully inquired into. I come now to the proposed amendment of the Electoral Act. I quite agree that it is absolutely necessary that that measure should be amended in a very drastic fashion. When the Fusion Government were in power they certainly brought forward an amending Bill, but, like many other measures which they introduced, it had the taint of Fusion about it. It was neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. Upon that occasion the members of the Labour party in this Chamber made a vigorous attempt to abolish postal voting.
– I don’t think it was a very vigorous attempt, if my recollection serves me rightly.
– Then the honorable senator’s recollection must be very dim. A very vigorous fight was made by the members of our party to abolish postal voting.
– What is wrong with’ postal voting?
–Everything is wrong with it. It is the finest vehicle for bringing about corrupt- practices in the conduct of elections that could possibly be devised. I hope that the Bill will provide for the total abolition of postal voting, and believe that it will do so.
– The postal voting provisions are mostly used by women. Does the honorable senator insinuate that women are more liable to corruption than men ?
– I make no such insinuation. God forbid that I should t
It is not against those who voted that corruption is alleged, but against those who induced them to vote.
– Punish them.
– The difficulty is to prove such a charge. I sincerely hope that the provisions for absent voting will be extended, and that we shall exercise some kind of control over advertisements and other matter appearing in the press when elections are pending.
– Suppose a woman was in a certain state of health, would the honorable senator deprive her of the right of voting by post?
– No, I would not ; but it would be possible to extend the absent voting provisions to meet such cases. My honorable friend may rest assured that I would be no party to the robbing of any person of his or her right to vote. I am well aware that there are times when women cannot easily go to the’ polling booth; but surely we can overcome such difficulties. I come to another law that is about to be amendedthe Commonwealth Public Service Act It is welcome news to me that the Government intend to bring in such a measure as will improve the administration of the Public Service, especially in one direction. I refer particularly to the powers exercised by the Public Service Commissioner. I do not desire to make any attack upon Mr. McLaughlin. I prefer to discuss the instrument which created the Commissioner rather than the officer himself.
– That instrument was Parliament.
– The Public Service Act as at present framed gives absolute and autocratic powers to the Commissioner, whoever he may be.
– It gives more power to the Commissioner than I, for one, ever contemplated when I supported the Act.
– I do not reflect on any member of Parliament who voted for the Public Service Act, but I am speaking of things as they exist to-day. The Public Service Commissioner exercises such autocratic powers that Parliament itself is powerless in certain directions.
– Cannot Parliament repeal those autocratic powers?
– That is just what Parliament is going to do.
– The Government ;are going to propose to transfer powers ex ercised by the Commissioner to an outside tribunal.
– How does the honorable senator know that? To-day Ministers controlling Departments are powerless. When Parliament passed the Act of 1902, it simply handed over the whole control of the service to a manager and gave him absolute power.
– I do not think the powers are absolute.
– I myself know of a Minister who has made a request for more money for his Department, and has been told by the Public Service Commissioner that he could not get it. I have no desire to see the Public Service of Australia revert to conditions of political influence. I do not believe iri that at all; but I do believe in such an amendment of the Act as, while not abolishing the office of Commissioner, will clip his wings, and take away from him some of the autocratic powers which he at present possesses.
– Cannot we exercise control over him as well as an outside tribunal if we choose to do so?
– I will satisfy my honorable friend’s anxiety about an outside tribunal. I suppose he refers to the intention to give public servants the right of appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. I am strongly in favour of that. I am not prepared to nurse Or foster a privileged class, and I say that if the right of appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court is good enough for the worker outside the Commonwealth service, it is good enough for the workers within the service. What fairer provision can we bring about? At present the Commonwealth public servant, who is asking for what he believes to be justice, can appeal to the Commissioner, and if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner he must put up with the consequences. What is wrong with giving him an appeal to the highest tribunal that we can create?
– Why not have a Public Service Board ? “ Senator NEEDHAM.- There is a Board of Appeal at present. The system is this : The public servant with a grievance can appeal from Caesar to Caesar. We should avoid that by giving him the right to appeal to a Court.
– The only distinct complaint that »T have heard is not against the Public Service Act itself, or the Commissioner, but that the mode of appeal is too restrictive, and that the tribunal is not impartial.
– I have heard that complaint, and others. I know that there are many public servants in the Commonwealth who are desirous of having the right of appeal to a Court.
– There are many who are not.
– Many are not so desirous. But, strange to say, the greater number known to me who are in that condition are in the clerical division, whilst those who desire a right of appeal are in the general division. The point that I desire to impress upon the Senate and the Public Service is that members of the service will be doing themselves a good turn if they reconcile themselves to this contemplated light of appeal.
– What is to happen in the case of a public servant who is not satisfied with the award of the Court? Is there anything to prevent public servants from striking, or will the party opposite make provision against that?
– In the event of a public servant not being satisfied with the award of the Court he will be subject to the ordinary provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, just as is the case with other workers. He will have to abide by the law.
– Other workers will not obey the award of the Court.
– The honorable senator cannot point to any case of refusal to obey an award of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court. As to the argument about transferring the powers of the Parliament to another tribunal, I say that if it be wrong to transfer to the Court the power of dealing with appeals from public servants, it must also have been wrong to transfer such powers in connexion with disputes in other industries. The members of this Parliament do not represent the Public Service only. They represent the citizens of the Commonwealth. Surely, if we provide a tribunal for a certain section, it ought to be good enough for another .section. At any rate, I pin my faith to the proposed amendment, and hope that it will become law. If that be the case, I feel sure that in a little while the Commonwealth public servants will be satisfied with their right of appeal. As to the High Commissioner’s office, I think that the time has arrived when some progressive step should be taken to have simply one officer representing Australia in London. I trust that I am not trespassing upon the sacred ground of State rights by suggesting that the Agents-General should be abolished. I think it would be wise for the Federal Government to enter into communication with the State authorities with a view of abolishing the Agents-General and having one representative of Australia in one office.
– Do the AgentsGeneral hamper the High Commissioner in any way?
– I do not say that they hamper the High Commissioner, but that at present Australia is speaking with a divided voice.
– Only one voice in London can speak for Australia, and that is the voice of the High Commissioner.
– At present seven are speaking for Australia. Senator Millen, referring to immigration, said - I took down his words - that in spite of the declaration of die Labour party, they had no desire to encourage an added population. When we tried to pin him down to any definite statement by any member of the Labour party, he ignominiously failed to attempt to prove his statement. I challenge any member of the Senate to name any member of the Australian Labour party who has made such a statement. Let me tell honorable senators opposite what the policy of this party has been. We have argued that the taxation of unimproved land values, defence, arid immigration are three indissoluble questions, and that it was utterly futile to attempt to deal with them separately. We realize that if we are to hold Australia for the white race, it must be populated. But we also realize that before we could ask population to come here, we should have more land available on which to put them, and help them to bring forth the fruits of the soil.
– The whole of the Northern Territory is available.
– It has been, under certain conditions, which I hope will be removed. There was a great quantity of land in the Western District of Victoria, but there we had the spectacle of eleven people occupying 1,500,000 acres. Is that the way to attract population to a country? We can only defend this country by means of manhood, and to have manhood we must have land. The result of the land tax has been to compel many land-owners to disgorge the vast estates which many of them Iia ve been holding up. When more land is available, population will come, and there will be a chance of obtaining that citizen yeomanry which we require to defend the great trust we have in our possession.
– Our complaint is that the Labour party is riding this immigration horse with the crupper, and not with the reins.
– At any rate, we have not fallen off ! What is the result of this land tax policy of ours? In the first and most essential place, it has been the means of breaking up some large estates, and, secondly, it has been the means of enriching the national exchequer to the tune of about ^4,750,000. I do not place much value on that mere monetary assistance to the national exchequer; I scarcely place any value on it. What I do place value on is the disgorging of the land, and the chance to bring it into cultivation, when the pounds I spoke of will be increased a thousandfold as the result of that natural wealth. It is not the Federal Government which controls immigration, but the State Governments. Where we step in is in preventing any person from entering Australia under contract, except subject to certain conditions. With the general system of immigration we have nothing to do. Not long ago I heard a great cry about the scarcity of artisans, and Senator Findley, as Acting Minister for External Affairs, was continually approached for permission to bring in this man, that man, and the other man. A like cry obtained in Western Australia, and I was able to assist the Minister in sending six unemployed moulders from that State to Queensland. Twenty-four of these men had been walking the streets for about four or five months, and could not obtain work at a satisfactory wage. When it was pointed out to me that a Queensland firm desired permission from the Acting Minister to import six moulders, six boilermakers, and, I think, six blacksmiths, I at once communicated with him, and stated that six moulders were available in Western Australia. Whilst under the present, financial arrangement that State has lost six sums of twenty-five shillings, Australia retains these six men, and they and their families are able to live. I now come to the question of the report of the Postal Commission. The Government has assured us that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the report. I hope that it will be given to us at the earliest possible moment. I also hope that the report will be adopted by this Parliament, and placed in operation as soon as that can conveniently be done with the money at our disposal. I would point out that the result of the report so far has been beneficial to the postal service. A great many of its recommendations have already been put into operation. Members of the postal service to-day are receiving better wages that they used to get. Whilst I admit that they are still labouring under grievances, an honest attempt is being made to remove them. It is impossible, notwithstanding the practicability of the report, to expect this or any other Government to remove, in a few brief months, all the evils which have accumulated in the course of years. I think that an honest effort has been made to improve the situation. In connexion with the recent referenda, my honorable friends on the other side have gloated over the defeat of our proposals, but I think that we might well remind them of the old saying that “ he who laughs last laughs best. ‘ The proposals will come again, and I venture to say that those who voted “No” on the 26th April will, by the time they are re-submitted, be sadder, and, I dare say, wiser individuals than they were then. It is a well-known fact that the combinations, the rings, the monopolies, spent a very large amount of money - and were prepared to spend any amount - in order to defeat the proposals. That statement was made on the platform, and has not been denied. They were successful, I regret to say, and one of the best indications of their confidence in their ability to defeat the proposals was the fact that on the morning of the 26th April the shipping combine raised its passenger rates on the Queensland coast, not to first and second class passengers, but to third class only.
– No; it was done a fortnight before the date of the referenda.
– That only shows the greater confidence which they had in their ability to defeat the proposals. As news takes a long time to reach Western Australia from Queensland, it was only on the morning of the referenda day that I saw the announcement in the Press. The meat ring is still sending up prices, and I venture to say that the cost of living in Australia has increased by at least 10 or 12 per cent, per week since that vote of confidence passed by its people in the monopolies of Australia on 26th April.
– The cost of living is going up all over the world.
– Let it go up all over the world, but not here. Then we are asked to increase the Tariff, and, consequently, without the assistance of new Protection, increase the cost of living.
– Were not the coal vend and the shipping ring your particular pets last session?
– The shipping ring was never a pet of mine, and never will be.
– I mean of your party *
– We have admitted our defeat on 26th April without crying about it, but the proposals will come again.
– In the same form ?
– The honorable senator will get the form afterwards. We intend to ask the people to clothe this Parliament with the powers which we asked for on 26th April.
– Do you refuse to accept the verdict?
– We refuse to accept nothing. The history of the referendum has been that time and again proposals have had to be re-submitted to the people, and that through that system of education they have gradually come to understand what was wanted, and to vote accordingly. I do not think that any of us in our most sanguine moments expected that our proposals would be carried in their entirety at tho referendum. By the time they are resubmitted, the people will have acquired a better knowledge of what we desire, but in the meantime they will have paid very, very dearly indeed for their information. I have little more to say. I recognise that we have to get to work as soon as we can, and I feel confident that during the session we shall be able to place on the statutebook legislation which will be for the benefit of every person in this land.
– Before proceeding to speak on the Address-in-Reply, I desire to say that I. in common with most members of the Senate, am very glad to see that Ministers have returned in safety and health from their trip to the Mother Country. I regret that so many of our other friends who went Home have not yet returned. I desire to express the extreme regret of this side that our friend, Senator Guthrie, is ill. I think that it Would be wise to postpone the consideration of the Navigation Bill until he is able to be with us, because in the matter of navigation he and you, sir, possess the most expert knowledge in the Senate. Personally, I accept as perfectly satisfactory the Prime Minister’s explanation of the unfortunate report of an interview which appeared in the Review of Reviews. So far as I am aware, most of us, in New South Wales, at all events, thought that we ought to wait until we heard his side of the question before drawing a conclusion.
– Then, instead of expecting that, why not put it the other way, that you admit the absolute desire of Australians to pounce at a rat ?
– I quite agree with the honorable senator that those who know Mr. Fisher believe that right through he is a loyal British subject, but it is customary where there is a difference of opinion to wait until you hear both sides before pronouncing a definite opinion. I read with great pleasure the report of the luncheon given by the Eighty Club in honour of the visiting Prime Ministers. I think that Mr. Fisher made a very modest and becoming speech on that occasion. In fact, its tone is admirable. I was very pleased indeed - I only received the report yesterday - with the modesty of his speech. He said among other things -
We never knew of our great merits until we heard you speak of them.
The praise which was given to the visiting Prime Ministers was apparently more than Mr. Fisher expected to receive. There are other portions of his speech to which I may refer later, as showing that possibly he had a higher view of certain matters, than some of us on this side at present are prepared to accept. Coming to the opening speech itself, I am very glad tolearn that in all probability the High Commissioner will shortly have suitable premises in London. We speak a good deal’ about advertising Australia at Home. I recognise that the visit of three Ministers to the Old Country was a splendid advertisement for the Commonwealth. On the other hand, we must all admit that we are very fortunate in having as High Commissioner Sir George Reid. He has become almost an institution in the United Kingdom. A member 6f the aristocracy who attended ai banquet given to the members of the Federal Convention some years ago said to me next morning, “ I believe I have heard all the best after-dinner speakers of note in Great Britain, but in my opinion there is not one of them to touch Reid.”
– That is not the only qualification he wants.
– No j but he has been a good advertiser for us. Wherever he goes he stands up for Australia. I have heard more than one honorable senator on the other side say that had a High Commissioner to be appointed by the then Government they would prefer Sir George Reid. I think it is only clue to that gentleman to say that we were all very sorry to hear of the accident to himself, and we hope that his health will soon be thoroughly restored. Senator Needham has made approving reference to the note issue of the Commonwealth. I am afraid he does not realize that the banks have been very loyal.
– I did not question their loyalty.
– I wish to make my honorable friend realize how useful the banks have been to the Government in assisting to put the notes into circulation. I believe that I am not far wrong in saying that at the present moment, between tillmoney and reserves represented by Government notes, about ^5,000,000 worth of these notes are in the coffers of the banks in Australia, so that my honorable friend must not suppose because there is a circulation of between .£9,000,000 and £10,000,000 worth, that the notes are in the hands of the general public. The actual note circulation of the Commonwealth is probably not much more to-day than it would have been if the banks had continued to issue their notes. The banks are loyal in this matter, although some people do not think so. They wish to give a. thoroughly loyal support to His Majesty’s Government, whatever party happens to be in power. It is apparently always assumed that they- are very selfish, but, as I have said before in this Chamber, and it caused a certain amount of amusement, I look upon bankers as philanthropists. I can claim a good knowledge of them, having been connected with banking for fifty-one years. I have never known, in all my experience of banks and banking, of any case in which banking officials have not been absolutely straightforward, and I have known of very many cases in which banking authorities have been most liberal to persons who have been in distress.
– Then philanthropy is a good paying business.
– I believe that philanthropy is good policy.
– It is more than that - it is a good paying business.
– I am not so sure that it is always safe business for banks. If the honorable senator had been a bank official in 1893, he would not have said that it was very safe business.
– The philarithropic Governments did very good work then.
– I admit that the banks received welcome assistance from the Governments at that time, but the honorable senator should know that the Bank of England has always received similar assistance in times of financial distress. It has been the occasional practice in the Old Country to suspend the Bank Act, and permit notes to continue to be legal tender without obliging the Bank of England to pay gold for them. It is not fair to suppose that at the time referred to banks in Australia were given any undue advantage over and above what the Bank of England enjoyed in the Old Country. With regard to the proposed Commonwealth Bank and banking legislation, I take the liberty of suggesting to the Ministry that, after the first reading of the Bills submitted to deal with the subjects, they should consider the propriety of referring them to a Select Committee appointed to bring up a report on the whole subject. Banking is an expert matter. If these measures were submitted to a Committee, not necessarily of members of Parliament, who could bring up a report later in the session, their recommendations would carry weight with honorable senators, who cannot profess a very great knowledge of the intricacies of banking. There is a feeling abroad that a knowledge of banking may be picked up in a day, but I can assure honorable senators that many years’ study and experience are required before a man can claim to thoroughly understand a system of banking.
– The honorable senator has not very much to learn on the subject.
– I am getting well on in years, and I always envy young men. I believe in young, not old. men coming to the front. I remember on one occasion saying to a wealthy old man that I would not change places with him tomorrow for all his wealth. When he asked, “Why not?” I said that a young man has all his life yet to live.
– The honorable senator has enjoyed his life.
– I have every reason to think well of Australia since ever I came to the country.
– And Australia thinks well of the honorable senator.
– I regret that some intention has been suggested to alter the basis of the reserve for the Commonwealth notes. At the present time, the coin reserve is 25 per cent, on the first £7,000,000, which would be ,£1,750,000, and over and above a circulation of £7,000.000, a sovereign is to be held in reserve for every note issued. So that, with a circulation of ,£10,000,000, the coin reserve under existing circumstances would amount to £4,750,000. If we were to reduce the reserve to one-fourth on the whole circulation, it would amount to only £2,500,000. Though there would be so much more money, which might be lent out at interest to the banks, or taken in lieu of a public loan by the Commonwealth, I give the warning that, if the coin reserve is unduly reduced, there will be a danger in times of stress of the notes going to a discount. That has happened in other countries, and it might happen with us in Australia.
– The honorable senator meins if we reduce .the ,£1 for £r reserve?
– If we have a coin reserve of only 5s. for each £1, it is possible that, in a time of crisis, there may not be sufficient coin in the Treasury to meet all demands, and our notes would then go to a discount. Before now, in the Argentine, where notes were legal tender, gold has gone to a premium of about 250 per cent. This is not a matter into which non-experts should rush without “very grave consideration. I do not profess to be more than an ordinary bank manager, but I have sufficient knowledge of banking to know that the note circulation of a community is a very delicate matter to interfere with. I think it was my leader, Senator Millen - and, if not, it was some member of the same party in another place - who remarked that it is very undesirable that a Minister of the Crown should, after accepting office, retain his prominent connexion with a purely party organization. A Minister of the Crown represents the whole community, and if he is to preserve the respect which his office should always command, it would, I think, be wisdom on his part to resign his connexion with outside organizations. A good deal has been said with regard to the position occupied by the present AttorneyGeneral in this respect. I may not be competent to offer an opinion on the subject, but I think it would be wiser if he severed his connexion with outside organizations, and confined himself to the duties of his Ministerial office.
– In the dual capacity, he may be a great factor for peace.
– There is room for a difference of opinion about that.
– The honorable senator’s suggestion, if adopted, should apply all round.
– Certainly. I am with Senator Barker in that, and I speak not for one side any more than another.
– But the implication is always addressed to one side.
– Surely the objection applies with particular force to the law adviser of the Crown.
– No more than to any other person who has the administration of justice.
– The Attorney-General is the one member of the Government who has to do with the administration of justice.
– 1 do not propose to deal with a great many of the items referred to in the Governor- General’s Speech, but to refer to matters upon which little has, so far, been said. With regard to the Northern Territory, it will be very interesting to peruse the Bill which the Government intend to introduce. I am with the Government, and the Senate generally, in the desire to see a large influx of population to the Northern Territory. I am aware that the Government are against anything but the leasehold system of land tenure. It is not their intention, I understand, to part with the fee simple of land in the Northern Territory. I suggest that one of the best ways in which to attract population would be to offer substantial rewards for the discovery of gold, or other minerals. This would attract prospectors and others to the Territory. I emphasize the suggestion, because I .am perfectly persuaded that, in the history of Australia, it has been shown that there is nothing better than the discovery of a gold-field to attract population to new districts. I remind honorable senators that to promote the settlement of Rhodesia, inducements to settle there were offered to persons having some knowledge of military affairs by offering considerable areas of land, with a condition attached that, in case of necessity, the settlers should give their services in the defence of the country. “The principle might, perhaps, be applied in the settlement of the Northern Territory. It is possible that it might be instrumental in inducing men in a not very affluent position to go to the Territory in the hope of acquiring a considerable area of land for grazing and other purposes on the condition that they would be regarded as members of the Defence Force, whose services would be available should occasion require. I congratulate the Ministry upon the steps they are taking to finally settle the question of the actual occupation of the Federal Capital. I join with Senator Millen in commending the proposal for a Board of Design for the Federal Capital, to consist of three persons, one of whom would be an Austraiian, one a resident of the United Kingdom, and another, as I understand the suggestion, to be secured from America.
– The main point was that the Board should be composed of men whose names would be a guarantee of competency.
– Just so. I admit that Colonel Vernon, the Australian selected, is a very good man, and, knowing him, I am sure that he would be very glad to be strengthened by the advice of two other men. Some years ago, I was interested with others in securing designs for a large hospital to cost £60,000 or £70,000. We appointed a Board of three, one a layman, and two architects, who were non-competing, and Colonel Vernon was the chairman of the Board. I know that he is a man who thoroughly understands his profession.
– I did not wish to say a word against Colonel Vernon. I recognise his capacity in the designing of buildings, but the planning of a city is work of which we have little experience here.
– I am glad to learn that the Government intend to take in hand the settlement of the claims of the States for the transferred properties. The matter has been awaiting settlement too long, and I doubt whether the States are not en titled to some interest for the years during which the Commonwealth has had the use of the properties, while the States have been paying interest oh the cost of their construction.
– I understand that some of the State Governments are going to sue the Commonwealth for the interest.
– After all, does it matter very much, seeing that the people of the Commonwealth and of the States are the same.
– It would-be possible to justify any financial juggling between them on that ground.
– I was very glad to hear all that fell from the lips of the Minister of Defence on the subject of immigration. The honorable senator certainly strongly defended the consistency of the party to which he belongs, in connexion with the question. Rightly or wrongly, there is an impression abroad that the Labour party is not very keen on the matter.
– Has not that been due to a desire to believe it on the part of their opponents?
– I cannot wholly divest my mind of a recollection of the little incident of the six hatters. I do not wish to blame the present, leaders of the Labour party, but such incidents have a bearing upon the question.
– The honorable sena- . tor’s present leader, Mr. Deakin, said that there was no truth in the statements made about the six hatters.
– I look upon Senator Millen as my leader in the Senate. I have said before that I have a very distinct recollection of what Queensland was in 1862. It had then a population of only 40,000, and there is now a population there of 600,000. Wages are higher, and the people more comfortable. Immigration to Queensland has been marvellously successful, and I hope we shall take a lesson from the experience of that State in promoting it generally. I am glad to think that, at the present time, Western Australia is following suit.
– Immigrants to the number of 2,400 will be leaving England for New South Wales this month. Surely that is good enough.
– I am very glad to hear it. I now come to a subject upon which I am aware there is a considerable difference of opinion. I refer to the question of picketting. I hope the Government will see their way to introduce a Bill to declare picketting illegal. We cannot forget what took place in days gone by .at Broken Hill, and recently at Lithgow. Although it is alleged that picketting may be peaceful picketting, we know that very frequently it is found to be anything but that.
– The Federal Government would have no power to deal with such a matter.
– On this subject, I propose to read an extract from the speech by Mr. Fisher. The Prime Minister made a very true remark about being misunderstood when he said -
We must bear these little difficulties with fortitude when we know, let them, say what they will, that the march of democracy is constant and progressive.
Probably some of us do not quite agree with the right honorable gentleman in this statement - ‘
Well it will be for us to remember that, with all our faults and all our failings, we probably allow more liberty, freedom, and justice, than any other of our competitors in a good cause.
I decline to believe that we enjoy the same measure of liberty that is enjoyed elsewhere. I think that a free labourer ought to be able to walk across the public street without being molested. Only the other day a young man in the employ of Mr. Hoskins, of Lithgow, was interfered with by a picket. He warned the picket not to molest him, but without effect, and he then drew a revolver to show that he was armed. The picket at once laid an information against him, and he was brought before the Police Court. In dismissing the case, the Magistrate said that the circumstances were such that the free labourer was perfectly warranted in the action which he took.
– Why does not the honorable member say something about Mr. Weatherspoon, who was going to get a gun for himself and his boys ?
– I am not referring to Mr. Weatherspoon, but to what occurred at Lithgow.
– A man requires to get permission to carry arms.
– Just so. But when a number of strikers break windows and destroy motor cars - two ladies saved one. motor car at Lithgow by remaining seated in it-
– These are exceptional cases.
– They are cases which occur teo frequently.
– Yet we are told that these disturbances were provoked by the action of the New South Wales Government in sending police to Lithgow.
– Exactly. A telegram was actually despatched from Broken Hill requesting their local member to resign, and inquiring why the Government had sent “ hired assassins “ to Lithgow. These circumstances go to prove that many of the supporters of the Labour party belong to a lawless class, and I do not envy the party that kind of support.
– Has the honorable senator’s party no lawbreakers among its supporters ?
– I understand that strikes are illegal. We have already established Conciliation and Arbitration Courts, as well as Wages Boards, and it seems to me that the law ought to be enforced against strikers. The other side has to obey the awards of the Arbitration Court. But, unfortunately, those awards are not respected by the workers unless they happen to be in their own favour.
– Thorold Rogers has said that if he had the making of the law he would compel every man to be a unionist, and he does not belong to the Labour party.
– I do not suppose that the Labour party is any worse than are other parties. At the same time, will not my honorable friends admit that picketting is a nuisance to the community ? We profess to believe in freedom, “but I fail to see how freedom can exist if a man is not at liberty to sell his labour where he chooses, without being called a “ scab “ and a “ blackleg,” and if he cannot cross the public street in the absence of an escort. There is one matter affecting New South Wales to which I wish to direct particular attention - it has reference to the GovernorGeneral’s residence in Sydney. In Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia, the State Governors have each two official residences - a town and a country residence. Hitherto, the GovernorGeneral has been provided with an official residence both in Sydney and in Melbourne. Recently, there seems to have grown up in Sydney a feeling that the Government House and grounds there ought to be converted into a hospital or a museum. I was one of those who took part in a deputation which waited upon the Acting
Premier, Mr. Holman, to urge him to arrange for a renewal of the lease to the Commonwealth Government. He appeared to think that it was for the Commonwealth Government to approach the State Government in the matter, and rightly so, I think. But he stated that the feeling was very strong that, now that State and Federal matters had become so distinct, the GovernorGeneral should be, content with an official residence in Melbourne, and another in Yass-Canberra when the Federal Capital has been established. But I would draw special attention to the fact that Sydney is the oldest city in Australia, and 1 do hope that the Government will see their way to re-open negotiations with the State Government with a view to a renewal of the lease of the Vice-Regal residence there. If the State authorities should decline to accede to their request, I trust that the Commonwealth Government will recognise the propriety of resuming, for Federal purposes, the Sydney Government House, and a sufficient area, say, about 15 acres of the grounds attached thereto.
– We shall soon be in the Federal Capital.
– We shall not be there during the next ten years.
– Is there any precedent in any other Dominion for action of the kind suggested?
– Yes. In Ceylon, where I recently spent six weeks, the Governor has three official residences, one at Colombo, another at Kandy, and still another at Nuwara Eliya. Consequently, it is not reasonable that the GovernorGeneral of the Commonwealth should have less than two official residences. The site on which the Vice-Regal establishment stands in Sydney is a magnificent one. For beauty, it is probably unsurpassed in the world. I am rather sorry that the Minister of Defence is not present, because I should have liked him to have given us some explanation of the treatment which was meted out to the New South Wales cadets who went Home to the Coronation festivities. I mentioned this matter to him yesterday, and asked why he had not explained it. His reply was that nobody had asked him for an explanation. To me, it seems a pity that these young fellows who went Home at private expense, and with the verbal consent of the Minister of De* fence - of course, the honorable gentleman had his own views in regard to their official recognition-
– When the Minister of Defence spoke, he mentioned that he met the cadets in London, and recognised them in his official capacity.
– With all due deference to him, I say that that is a very lame excuse. Our friends in South Africa sent a contingent Home to the Coronation celebrations ; and the remarks of General Botha in regard to the loyalty of that country to the Empire are really quite refreshing, coming, as they do, from a gentleman who was fighting against us only a few years ago. He said -
In assisting the people lo emigrate to Our pail of the Empire we ask you to send your very best men. We have any amount of room for a large population in our country. Those men who began to establish the policy of liberty in South Africa may die, but the’ fruits of that policy will remain for ever, and that will continually bring South Africa closer to the Mother Country. There is only one message I have to bring from South Africa, and that is the offer of the hand of brotherhood, friendship, and of love from our people towards yours.
South Africa sent a contingent of troops to London, and I am very sorry that Australia did not do likewise. I come now to the claim put forward by the Minister of Defence in reference to the Naval Agreement. He actually told us that the arrangement which has been arrived at with the Admiralty is in accordance with the original intentions of the Labour Government. The Leader of the Opposition quite justly took exception to that statement. I understand that the original intention of the Labour Government was that Australia should be provided with a flotilla of torpedo-boat destroyers, and some craft of a larger nature for coastal defence purposes. They never contemplated that the vessels would leave Australian waters, whereas the present Agreement provides for ocean-going vessels. Considering our small population, I think that New Zealand has adopted a much better plan than we have. Where are we going to get the men in Australia to man the vessels of the Fleet unit? Another great disadvantage of the existing Naval arrangement is that, under it, the head-quarters of the British Navy in the South Pacific will be removed to Auckland. Thus Sydney will lose the prestige of being the head-quarters of the British Navy in those waters. It means a loss of something like £400,000 a year. I should be very glad if the Minister of Defence would give us an explanation as to why the New South Wales cadets who went to London were not treated differently. We were informed through the newspapers that official recognition was refused to them.
– If the honorable senator desires it, I will lay the whole of the papers upon the table.
– I shall be quite satisfied with that. Senator Pearce, who spoke of the Opposition as a Tory party, twitted us with being a party that was always changing its name. Now. he says we call ourselves the People’s party. He is aware that we always deny that we are Tories. We are Liberals. We believe in freedom, and so forth. But if there is one party in the Commonwealth that is the party of privilege, it is that which is represented by the present Government. We hear a great deal about monopolies. I have taken the trouble to turn up the definition of “ monopoly “ in Webster’s dictionary. I find it to be defined as follows -
The sole power of vending any species of goods obtained either by engrossing the articles in the market by purchase or by a licence from the Government confirming that privilege. Thus, the East India Company in Great Britain once had a monopoly of the trade to the East Indies granted to them by charter. Monopolies by individuals obtained by engrossing are an offence prohibited by law. But a man has by natural right the exclusive power of vending his own produce or manufactures, and to retain that exclusive right is not a monopoly within the meaning of law.
Senator Pearce was very eloquent with regard to the referenda, and pointed out what he considered to be many popular misunderstandings on the proposals submitted. But there was one question which, the people did not for a moment misunderstand, and that was that it was proposed to give Parliament the power to declare any business a monopoly, whereupon a monopoly it would be; thus practically saying that Parliament might become a lexicographer and define “monopoly “ to be whatever it pleased. The meaning of the word is quite well-known, and surely a person who claimed that his business was not a monopoly should have the right to appeal to the High Court. There is not the slighest doubt that some persons who voted “No” at the referenda were rather in favour of one or two of the Government’s proposals, but there was a strong opposition to the provision regarding monopolies.
– More persons voted for that alteration than for the others.
– I am rather surprised to hear that, and think my honorable friend will find he is mistaken. Senator Pearce was very severe upon Senator Millen. In fact, he reminded me of a well-known person in literature, who was given the name of Bombastes Furioso, so vigorously did he speak. Thinking over his attack upon my leader, I lotted down these lines -
Senator George F. Pearce Waxed uncommonly fierce When to Millen replied he : “What in my eye do you see?”
It was not a case of “ all in my eye and Betty Martin,” on this occasion.
– Is that poetry copyright ?
– Well, as the rhyme says -
A little nonsense now and then Is relished by the best of men.
Senator W. Russell quoted from our old friend, Robert Burns. There is another Scottish poet, Thomas Campbell, whose works some of us have read with delight. In his poem Lochiel’ s Warning, where the wizard is explaining to Lochiel how he forsees events, he uses the line -
And coming events cast their shadows before.
I think that the referenda in April last afforded a very good instance of coming events casting their shadows before. ,If the Government have the courage to put forward those referenda questions again, I have not the slightest doubt that the results will be exactly what they were in April. The last matter to which I have to refer is this : I was rather surprised that a Government which is so intent upon improving the social condition of the people should not have indicated its desire to bring in a Bill for unifying the marriage laws of Australia. The law in some States is so anomalous that poor innocent children are frequently placed in a very unfortunate position. It is the law in New South Wales, for instance, that a man may marry his deceased wife’s sister. But it is not the law that a woman may marry her deceased husband’s brother. It is not positively illegal so to do, I believe, but such a marriage is voidable. The singular thing is that, if either party to such a marriage chooses to break away from it, the children are illegitimate.
– Is that the law in all the States?
– I know that it is the law in some. I trust that the Government will look into this matter.
– It is a matter of pure justice to children.
– The Government professes to have a special interest in the social condition of the country. We are all agreed that justice is far above money. Nowadays, when we do so much in matters of wages, we should certainly be careful to look after the rights of children. It is a horrible thing that children, through no fault of their own, should come to be looked upon as illegitimate. The Scottish law makes children who are born out of wedlock legitimate if the parents afterwards marry. If such is not the case in Australia it shows the necessity for making a change in the marriage law, so that such terrible disabilities shall no longer fall upon the innocent. Certainly the marriage law ought to be uniform throughout the States.
– Why did not the Fusion Government deal with that question ?
– I was not a member of the Fusion Ministry, so I cannot say. Our marriage laws are supposed to be founded upon the Bible. Curiously enough . in the Old Testament - which no one knows better than my honorable friend, Senator McGregor - it was laid down that if a man died leaving a widow and no children, it was the duty of his brother, if unmarried, to marry the widow, so that if a son was born he might succeed to the property of the first husband. A marriage of that kind was compulsory under Old Testament law. Honorable senators will find a case in point, in the book of Ruth.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that we should adopt that ?
– No, but it goes to prove that a marriage with a deceased husband’s brother was recognised as permissible in certain circumstances. I desire to say in conclusion that I have personally a kindly feeling for all members of the present Government, even for Mr. Thomas, the Postmaster-General, though I strongly disapproved of his action in heading a band of picketters at Broken Hill.
– This seems to be the season for congratulations, and I may be pardoned for commencing by indulging in a word of that character. I have to congratulate the members of the Ministry who have returned from the Old Country, on having acquitted themselves there so creditably, not only as representatives of the people of Aus tralia, but as genuine Australians. I think there is no instance on record of three envoys from this country having returned under circumstances in which their conduct has been so highly appreciated by all classes. The rank and file of the democracy throughout Australia were delighted to read the manly utterance of Mr. Fisher when he met a deputation of landowners at the Hotel Cecil. On that occasion he showed the true Scottish granite that is in his nature. He showed furthermore that Australia had at last a representative who was prepared to tell those who might have financial interests in Australia, what the true position of affairs was, and not hide himself behind any subterfuge as to what they might expect in the future. He told them that they would get a fair deal, and that his sympathies were with those who had speculated in Australian enterprises j but at the same time he reminded them that there were other things to be considered apart from the interests of speculators, namely, the true interests of the people of Australia, of which he was the chief custodian. I think that that reply deserves to be written in letters of gold, because it made plain to the members of this deputation exactly what they might expect in the future, and, above all, what had to be rigidly and jealously safeguarded so far as the people of this country are concerned.
– Some persons at the deputation pointed out that, in their view, they were getting an unfair deal, and the Prime Minister seems to have lost his temper; that is the trouble.
– There was no discussion at all about that. In fact, Mr. Fisher would have played a role quite foreign to his character’ if he had given expression to any other sentiment than he did on that occasion. He acted the part of Prime Minister of the Labour party in every detail, especially when he made that reply. As regards anything else which he may have said, or may be alleged to have said, that single reply is enough to stamp him with the highest degree of statesmanship, and as the truest representative of Australian sentiment on that subject.
– Pardon me, he is Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, not Prime Minister of the Labour party, as you said.
– Well, as Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, he lived up to his position, and he was frank, honest, and manly enough to tell these persons exactly what feeling is entertained in Australia by the vast body of its inhabitants. Turning to the opening Speech, one thing I have to refer to at the outset of my remarks is the remarkable utterance of the Leader of the Opposition. We expected that, after an unavoidable term of cogitation, he would at least have arranged, from his point of view, a very strong indictment of the Labour party ; but we find that, after these eight or nine months of incubation, instead of directing his attack at the policy and the administration of the Government, he focussed the whole strength of his mind on a messenger who attended the Minister who proceeded to England. A mountain of labour brought forth only a mouse. With this opportunity, which the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition always has of forging in real or imaginary terms an attack on the Government, it would seem that he concentrated his attention entirely on a poor, unfortunate messenger. What is the position? I had not the opportunity of being present when Senator Pearce replied to the attack, but I have heard that his reply was to the effect that his own expenses in connexion with the Coronation and Imperial Conference amounted to £700, and that that sum was less than the expenses of the representative of a former Government who went to London when there was no Coronation at all.
– Senator Millen made it clear that he was not complaining about the expenses at all.
– Senator Millen disappointed my high expectations when he, as the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition here, descended to the paltry depth of referring to the attendance of a messenger on Ministers of the Crown.
– I forgot to mention in my speech that Senator Millen was under a misapprehension about Sir Edmund Barton, because the latter was at the Coronation in 1903.
– It was an insidious attempt to point out chat we, the members of the Labour party, who have been recognised as the party of economy, which rightly rails against the useless expenditure of public money in any direction, were not consistent.
– I wanted to point out the inconsistency of your party, that was all.
– After the honorable’ senator had mustered all his alleged facts, the only object he could concentrate them upon was the unfortunate messenger whohappened to attend three Ministers on a voyage to the Old Country. Let us compare things. If the honorable senator had wanted to be honestly critical, he could have learned that the visit of at least one member of the Ministry, who can speak for himself, and that is Senator Pearce,, actually cost the taxpayers of Australia less than did the visit of the representative of another Government when there w7as no Coronation. The honorable senator could’ also have satisfied himself, if he had wanted to be honestly critical, that the visit of the Prime Minister to the Old Country, notwithstanding the fact that he was attended by a messenger - the sole source of annoyance to the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition - will cost some hundreds of pounds less than the amount which was paid by the taxpayers when Sir Edmund Barton went to London.
– And some hundreds of pounds more than the amount allowed to Mr. Deakin.
– Mr. Deakin did not go to a Coronation.
– I am not praising Mr. Deakin, because I remember well that on one occasion he rose to such an altitude of virtue as to return to the Treasury of Victoria a certain portion of the money, which had been allowed to him by the taxpayers, and that in so doing he played a very nasty trick on his co-delegates to Westminster^ who were expected to uphold an equal degree of dignity. What I wish to direct attention to is the fact that Senator Millen, can see a necessity for finding fault with the present Ministry for doing a thing which, when compared in the last resort with things which other Ministers did. shows that they have been saving and economical in the extreme. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, his visit will, I am sure, cost hundreds of pounds short of the amount which was paid to Sir Edmund Barton on one occasion.
– And hundreds of pounds more than what was paid to another Prime Minister.
– This brings me to enter a protest against the only means which the Australian people can be made aware of what happens here. As every man takes up his morning newspaper^ he expects to find an account of the happenings of the previous day, and particularly what has happened in this Parliament. We find that at least one organ, which claims to hold the balance fairly as between contending parties, headed a sub-leader with the words, “ The Prime Minister attended by an Eastern retinue.” It was, of course, a mere copy of Senator Millen’s words. Whilst it was quite entitled to give verbatim his words in criticism of the Government, it should also, in common fairness, give, in the fullest terms, the reply of the responsible Minister, Senator Pearce. It did not do that, however, and that is why I have to enter a protest against the action of the press in suppressing a fair defence in a case in which a serious charge has been made. We were ‘charged in an insidious way with lavishly spending the taxpayers’ money, and the responsible Minister’s reply to the charge, which could not be substantiated, should have been given in full.
– Was it not the most expensive delegation which ever went Home from Australia ?
– The statement is substantiated now that Mr. Fisher is the first Prime Minister who ever deemed it necessary to take a personal attendant.
– I do not object to the Prime Minister taking an attendant to see that his luggage and other personal effects were not mislaid, because he and his colleagues had very much more important matters to engage their minds than the custody of personal effects on a voyage. If their only sin was the taking of a messenger with them, all I can say is that the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition has not very much to complain about. The vote at the recent referenda seems to be a source of peculiar joy to the honorable senator ; but, after all, I was not very much surprised at the result; in fact, I was surprised that we polled so remarkably well, considering the extraordinary agencies which were, at work against us. I felt that, as on previous occasions, every strand was strained, so to speak, to pull the strings against us. The people in the East, for instance, were told by Mr. Deakin that it was not a party question. They were also told by him that, if the proposals were carried, it would mean handing over the control of the purely domestic affairs of a State like Victoria to the people of Western Australia. We were told in Western Australia, on the other hand, that if the referenda were carried, it would mean handing over its domestic affairs to be controlled and run entirely by the Eastern people.
– Not entirely. Senator LYNCH.- Yes, entirely. The substance of all authority, so far as the State Parliaments were concerned, would have vanished, and nothing would remain but an empty shell, according to the doctrine of Mr. Wilson and Sir John Forrest. If these men of proved honesty and consistency were right in setting forth contradictory positions, why are they entitled to complain about the Labour party, which was consistent right through? We asked merely for the giving to the Federal Parliament of those powers which it had been found from hard experience could not be exercised with advantage, and, in some cases, not at all, by State Governments. When our opponents addressed themselves to the task of striving to bring about, not the downfall of the Labour party or its proposals, which they now claim credit for, but the withholding of necessary powers from this Parliament, they set up one position in Victoria and another position in Western Australia.
– Exactly the same.
– They told one tale to the people in New South Wales and quite a different tale to the people in Western Australia.
– We were fighting different positions.
– That is an honest admission.
– It was no wonder that the average elector got bewildered when he was told one thing in the North or the East and another thing in the West.
– The honorable senator must see that the argument was the same - that, under the proposals, each State was asked to hand over certain powers which it had possessed to be controlled by the people of other States.
– If Mr. Deakin was right in stating that Victoria and its interests would be controlled to a. very appreciable extent by the representatives of the Western State, what fault could be found in Western Australia about its interests being controlled by the Eastern States, as alleged by Mr. Deakin? On the other hand, what justification was there for Mr. Wilson and Sir John Forrest saying, in Western Australia, that it could be controlled by Victoria, when Mr. Deakin disclaimed that Victoria could be controlled by Western Australia?
– It seems to me to be perfectly consistent that each State was asked to hand over to the other States a power which it then enjoyed.
– This plausible statement, unfortunately, did do very ignoble service for the Opposition. They did carry their point, and now we are told by Senator Vardon that the opinion in England was that the Government should have resigned. Although previously the electors throughout Australia were told by Mr. Deakin that it was not a party question, still the honorable senator interpreted English opinion to the effect that it was a party question; and, therefore, on the defeat of the referenda, the party should resign ; whereas his leader in the other House said that it was no such thing, and that, whether the battle was won or lost, it did not, and should not, affect any party. Where is the need for this inconsistent talk?
– We said that it ought not to be a party question, but you tried to make it one.
– Nor was it a party question. Why does the honorable senator allow his lieutenant to make the statement that this party should resign? Senator Vardon re-echoed with approval English opinion, that on the defeat of their proposals at the referenda the Labour Government should have resigned, because they formed part of their policy, although his own leader had declared on more than one occasion that the result of- the referenda could have no party significance. The members of our party reiterated many times that the proposals were not party questions.
– Then, why try to compel solidarity amongst the party?
– The different sections of the party have their liberty still, and have manifested that in a. very emphatic way.
– And some have been carpeted for it.
– I repeat that Senator Vardon took occasion to refer to the defeat of their proposals at the referenda as a reason why the Ministerial benches should be abandoned by the Labour Government, although it has never been held by Mr. Deakin, or by the Labour members, that the referenda, had any party significance. The carrying of the proposals sub mitted would have meant merely the giving effect to proposals, one or other of which had, at different times, been advocated even by members of the Fusion party. Even Mr. W. H. Irvine went ninetenths of the way in advocating those proposals. I admit that he drew the line sharply at the inclusion of the proposal to bring State servants within the power of the Federal Parliament, but on all the other questions he held that it was necessary to enlarge the powers of this Parliament. To the honorable member’s credit be it said he held to his views for some time, but in order to secure the solidarity of his party, and bring confusion upon the Labour Ministry, he subsequently declined to go as far in support of the proposals as he was prepared to do in another place. The honorable member for Angas, Mr. Glynn, announced that this Parliament possessed insufficient powers, and mentioned two cases in which it could not interfere. This prominent constitutional authority clearly agreed that the powers possessed by the Parliament are wholly inadequate to enable it to deal with certain questions. I mention these facts to show that members of the Labour party, who, in common with myself, claim that the referenda was not a party matter, have been consistent throughout. These considerations however have not prevented men like Senator Vardon, or the Acting Premier of Western Australia, who is a most virulent opponent of the Labour party, from saying that the Labour Ministry should have resigned, because their policy was rejected at the referenda.
– The Acting Premier of Western Australia must be a humorist if he thought they would resign.
– I do not think he can claim to be even a third rate humorist. Dealing with the tactics resorted to by our opponents, all sorts of things were threatened in Western Australia if the proposals were carried. We had Sir John Forrest telling the electors that the small tradesmen round the corner would be liable to have his business run and controlled by the Federal Government at any moment if the proposals were carried. The lolly shop round the corner was to go as well as the sugar refining business in Queensland. We also had the independence and integrity of municipalities threatened, and were told that the railways would be handed over, holus-bolus, to the Federal authority ; and that there would not be a shred of independence left to any governing body in Western Australia if the proposals were carried. But in spite of threats, misrepresentations, and lies, sedulously circulated throughout the States, I am pleased to be able to say that Western Australia was the one State in the group that showed itself prepared to trust the Federal Parliament to the full extent proposed. The questions will be repeated, otherwise I should be disposed to doubt the steadfastness of purpose of our party, and when they are, I feel sure that the other five States will follow the lead of Western Australia, and give to this Parliament the powers desired. I notice, from the Governor-General’s Speech, that Ministers are living up to the professions of the party as the party of reform. A Bill is promised to establish a Commonwealth bank, and uniform banking laws throughout Australia. We shall have a later opportunity to deal with the proposals for the establishment of a Commonwealth bank, but I should like to say here, that the proposal to introduce a uniform banking law may be heartily greeted by every section in this chamber. We have had some unfortunate experiences in the past of banks, established under charter or special Acts of Parliament, that have failed to recognise their obligation. In the early nineties some of these banks, that had the confidence of the people, grossly abused the trust reposed in them, brought many men and women to the verge of starvation, and kept them there for many years. In view of the fact that the law under which they operated still remains the time is surely rotten ripe for the introduction of such a measure as is here proposed. We cannot afford to live in a fool’s paradise any longer, and permit the possibility of a repetition of the unfortunate events of the early nineties. I remember that, on that occasion, within my own circle of acquaintances, persons lost the whole of their earnings.
– I always thought the honorable senator, and his friends, were capitalists.
– Unfortunately, in the eyes of our honorable friends opposite, a person who does not save is held to be wanting in thrift, and is objected to on that account, and now it appears that if a man does save a little he is also found fault with.
– I was not finding fault, but congratulating the honorable senator and his friends.
– Flog high or low we cannot suit honorable senators opposite. I can well remember that in the trying times to which I refer, the failure of the banks to make sufficient provision to meet their obligations, was the direct means of bringing a large number of our people to the verge of starvation. In some cases depositors, who lost their all, were driven to despair and suicide. I can recollect a seafaring man walking his deck up and down, as if he were a dipsomaniac, and the secret of his unrest was that one of the banks had closed for ever upon his life’s savings, and left him without a cent in the world. When we remember that under the existing law such a state of affairs might occur again we can welcome this tardy attempt to put our banking institutions in a thoroughly solvent state, and compel them to fulfil their obligations to the last farthing. Legislation in regard to the Northern Territory should receive the earliest consideration from the Senate. I have communications from the discoverer of the Tanami gold-fields, in which he lays stress on the lack of postal facilities, the supply of water in dry seasons, and other advantages which might be secured by Government agency in the Northern Territory, where he is at the present time. Mr. Lawrie, the gentleman to whom I refer, is well known in the mining world of Australia, and in this connexion I may say I agree with Senator Walker that it is not necessary that we should wait until the Commonwealth Government can submit a well-thought-out policy for the all round development of the Northern Territory. We can well afford to make an immediate advance by placing a substantial sum on the Estimates to encourage mining development in the Territory. Mining has been the pioneering industry in every State., and it has been by mining pioneers that the resources of the several States have been brought to light. Even in the northern part of Western Australia, before ever a pastoral area was selected, or any stock taken there, the mining pioneers revealed to the world the nature of the country. They penetrated to the interior, and after undergoing all the hardships of pioneering located Hall’s Creek, now the famous Kimberley gold-fields. After them came the people who took up the land as pastoral areas. These have been amply rewarded, and to-day, in Western Australia, they are the only wealthy class in the community. They have received cent, per cent, upon their investments, whereas the early pioneers, who revealed to the world the possibilities of the district, are, perhaps, left without even a Government reward. This is a matter which can be commended to the Government.
– Is it not necessary that, before a reward is offered for the discovery of a gold-field, we should determine the tenure to be offered to those who desire to go to the Territory?
– I suppose that would give prospectors some additional assurance that their trouble would not be in vain.
– We must determine the land policy first, whether it be leasehold or freehold, and the terms and conditions on which land is to be held.
– I hope this Parliament will never be so insane as to give a freehold for any mining property. The existing conditions under the law of South Australia should be guaranteed to prospectors. What demands immediate attention is that we should hold out adequate inducement to men to go to the Northern Territory to look for minerals and open up a country whose possibilities we are not at present fully aware of. The Government should be prepared to meet all the expenses necessary to provide camels, and render every assistance to prospectors in the Territory.
Sitting suspended from i to 2.30 p.m.
– When the sitting was suspended, I was referring to the policy which ought to be adopted in regard to the development of the Northern Territory. I cannot too strongly emphasize that it is undesirable that the Government should wait until a well-thought-out policy for its general development has been evolved before placing upon the Estimates a substantial sum for the purpose of ascertaining what mineral wealth lies hidden there. I have received a letter from Mr. Lawrie, the discoverer of Tanami, in which lie complains bitterly of lack of assistance on the part of the Government. I feel convinced that the Ministry will not lag behind the State Governments in this connexion. In Western Australia the practice has long been in vogue of supplying with rations, camels, and all manner of outfit, men who are willing to go into the interior of that State to prospect for minerals.
– Does Mr. Lawrie refer to the Commonwealth Government?
– His general complaint is, that in the Territory he seems to be abandoned, so far as any assistance from Governments is concerned. He finds himself a negligible quantity there. The Government will be lacking in its duty if it does not provide assistance to men of that stamp, who are prepared to incur all the risks attendant upon the hardy work of a pioneer. I trust that Ministers will take particular heed of my suggestion that there is no need to wait for the evolution of a well-thought-out policy for the development of the Territory before attempting to discover the hidden mineral resources of that country. Then, we have also to face the problem of developing a tropical area. Before that can be clone, it is very necessary that those persons who intend to Spend their capital in the Territory should be assured of some degree of success. Consequently, I would suggest to the Government the expediency of appointing a board of practical experts—of men drawn, say, from the southern States of America, whose conditions very closely resemble those which obtain in the TerritoryHie advise us of the class of land there which is suitable for tropical culture, and of the area which is adapted to the cultivation of particular products. For instance, a person may have an idea of growing tobacco, rice, or sugar, in the Territory, and, in such circumstances, he will naturally desire to have some knowledge of the success that is likely to attend his efforts. We cannot afford to initiate a policy of development in the Territory by disappointing those who go there. The best way to avoid that state of things is to secure the advice of persons, who, under similar conditions in other parts of the world; have undertaken the cultivation of tropical products. The Board should consist of practical experts, men who have spent their lives in tropical cultivation in similar latitudes elsewhere. That is all I have to say in regard to the Northern Territory. But there is another matter mentioned in the Vice-Regal Speech to which I wish to direct attention. I refer to our Meteorological Department. In this island continent We are, Unfortunately, visited from time’ to time with very destructive storms. We have a Meteorological Department iri embryo, which provides our producers with a little assistance, perhaps, but which is hampered very much in its operations on account of the lack of funds available. The pressing need for getting into touch with the islands surrounding Australia, for the purpose of warning our people of the approach of storms which may cause serious damage, is generally recognised. On the north-west coast of Western Australia a whole township was recently wrecked, a number of boats were destroyed, and a number of lives lost, owing to the lack of means of communication.
– Was that due to want of telegraphic communication?
– Largely. To the north of Australia, in the China Sea, and amongst the islands surrounding Japan, there is a perfect network of communication for meteorological purposes- So perfect is it that when a steamer leaves Japan on her journey southward, she can be kept posted throughout the voyage in regard to the location of any destructive storm. If, by the payment of a small sum by way of subsidy, similar stations upon the islands surrounding Australia could be established, that money would be well spent. I recollect that some time ago a violent storm destroyed the township of Cairns, in Queensland. Had a meteorological station been established in Papua, and another on an island on the eastern seaboard of Queensland, the people of that town would have been able to put their property in some sort of security before the arrival of the disturbance. I would like the Government to take this question seriously into consideration. At present -we spend only about £15,000 or £20,000 annually in meteorological work, and in disseminating weather forecasts throughout the Commonwealth. Our Department is far from being that useful institution which it might be. In the past our settlers have suffered very much for want of timely notice of the approach of storms and of bad weather which has injuriously affected their crops. These evils might easily be remedied by improving our Meteorological Department, and by making it work more in harmony with the Postal Department, as is done in the United States. There, so perfect is the system, that even the letter-carriers going out upon their morning rounds can drop warnings of approaching weather disturbances. This information is highly valued by the settlers, and is frequently the means of saving the life’s earnings of those engaged in production. But here the producer often has to wait a week for the arrival of a newspaper containing an intimation of the approach of a storm which has already passed him. So that the system which is in vogue in the United States is one which might be advantageously copied in Australia, especially when we consider that it would not cost a further single farthing in additional taxation. The remark which I made in reference to the approach of storms is equally applicable to frosts and other atmospheric visitations which affect primary production. I am glad to observe from the Vice-Regal utterance that Western Australia is at last to be linked up with the eastern States by means of a railway. This undertaking marks an attempt to keep faith with the understanding which was arrived at between a very large number of people in Western Australia and those of the eastern States. While I do not say that the promise of that railway was the chief cause which induced Western Australia to join the Federation, I do say that a well-founded belief that a transcontinental line would be constructed to Western Australia determined very many persons in that State to vote for the Constitution Bill. I am pleased that the Government are about to redeem that substantial promise. In the construction of that railway, as well as in the construction of the line to Port Darwin, which must be undertaken by the Commonwealth sooner or later, we shall be faced with the need for obtaining a considerable quantity of timber. A very large number of sleepers will be required for those two lines, and if we live up to our professions we must pursue a vigorous policy of development in the Northern Territory, not only for our own sake, but for the purpose of warding off any danger which may threaten our future possession of it. In the Federal Territory, too, an enormous quantity of timber will be required for the construction of bridges, wharfs, jetties, and buildings of various descriptions. That being so, the Government should recognise the position in time, and, by securing a good piece of forest” country in one of the States, they should provide the raw material for our future requirements.
– Buy it, or lease it?
– I am not particular which, so long as the Government obtains possession of a sufficient area to provide for the future necessities of the Commonwealth, so as to prevent us paying an excessive price for sleepers. In this State, and in other States, sleepers are to-day from 80 to 100 per cent, dearer than they were a few years ago. We do not know whether the present price is stationary or on the upward grade, but we do know that the quantity of hardwood in the world is limited ; and if we are to be wise in time, and are to make proper use of our national resources, instead of being put to the necessity of paying exorbitant prices later on, we should approach some of the State Governments with a view to acquiring good timber land, so as to provide ourselves with raw material for railway construction in the future.
– In Queensland the Government are building railways absolutely for that purpose.
– That being the case, there is no reason why the Federal Government should not follow the good example. We shall require a considerable quantity of hardwood, not only for public works upon which we have already entered, but for other works which are in contemplation. I do not wish to say much concerning the proposed amendment of the Electoral Act, except that I welcome the changes foreshadowed. At present there are great advantages on the side of those who have money to lavish at election time. The Act as at present drafted, although it was designed to render powerless any person who wished to reach this Parliament by reason of his wealth, still confers favours upon the man who has unlimited cash to spend. We had examples during the recent referendum, when there was undoubted evidence of the fact that money was spent almost without heed as long as it achieved the purpose of deluding the electors.
– Does the honorable senator say that the people were corrupted ?
– The honorable seator can call it corruption, or he can use any term he pleases ; but I say that we have undoubted evidence which should convince us that we need to shut down hard and fast and for ever on any set of men being allowed to spend money to get their views pressed upon the public, or to secure the return of themselves or their candidates to this Parliament by reason of the fact that they have more money than others.
– A man has a right to spend his money, but not corruptly.
– Call it corruption, or whatever you please; but it should not be within the power of any man to spend unlimited money to spread his own opinions or to secure the return of candidates to Parliament. We know that money was spent during the referenda campaign to buy newspaper proprietors against their will - to induce them to insert printed matter for the purpose of deluding the electors. Article after article in stereotype form appeared, because newspaper proprietors were paid to insert the matter in their journals, with the object of inducing the electors to vote against their own true interests, and those of the Australian community.
– Does the honorable senator call that corruption ?
– I am not particular about terms ; if the honorable senator chooses to call it corruption, he can do so.
– The remedy seems to be to register political associations, and to audit their accounts.
– A large amount of money was also spent on hiring motor cars. That should be stopped.
– What about the cash used on the honorable senator’s own side?
– The cash that is spent by my party can always be accounted for. I am hopeful that the honorable senator will be equally frank as to the disposal of cash on his own side. In connexion with the Labour party, the expenditure is always audited, and we can show how the last farthing contributed was spent. Let Senator St. Ledger, if he can, or if he dare, make the same frank and honest avowal as to how money was spent by his party. I am reminded by Senator E. J. Russell of the large amount of money that was spent by the Opposition in Victoria. It is that kind of financial smuggling that has been responsible for the attitude of a large section of the press of this country.
– Does the Labour party publish accounts?
– Every penny of our money is accounted for ; but I challenge honorable senators opposite to produce accounts as to how the money raised on their side was spent. I am pleased that an effort is to be made to amend the Electoral Act for the reasons that I have given, and am glad that it is to be made by the only party that can draft legislation to give us clean politics, though I recognise that it will be difficult, 6y any human ingenuity, to frame an Act capable of checking the tendency of a section of the community to foist their views upon the public by means of money. A reference is made in the Governor-General’s Speech to a contemplated amendment of the Old-age Pensions Act. In the first instance, we were anxious to have that Act passed, although in an imperfect form, but experience of its working has revealed several defects in it that are removable. Those defects concern not only those who are receiving pensions under the scheme, but also those who have the none too easy task of administering the measure. The task of holding the scales evenly is sometimes very hard for those w”ho have finer fibres in their nature. I confess that I do not like to see the proposal to amend that Act appearing alongside proposals to amend some other measures which are not nearly so urgent. There is, for example, a proposal to amend the Public Service Act, and another to amend the Papua Act. I dare say both are wanted, but I am sure that an amendment of the Old-age Pensions Act is of vital importance, especially to those who are receiving the trifling share of benefit that accrues to them at the present time. One direction in which I should like to see an amendment made is by taking out of the Act the provision relating to the value of the house that may be occupied by a pensioner. At present the amount of £100 value is the limit. Under that very drastic provision we find that very many people have had their pensions reduced because their houses were above the stipulated value. I hope that the time will come when* no matter what the value of a pensioner’s home may be, no amount will be deducted from the pension on account of it. It seems to me to be an absurdity to make a deduction because of what a man’s or a woman’s house may be worth. Pensioners who have a home of their own should be allowed to continue to occupy it without any regard being had to its value. Then there is a question affecting income derivable from personal exertion and from contributions made by the children of pensioners. I am sure that the Government will take into consideration the necessity of wiping out deductions which are made in those respects. The Act at present requires that the amount derived by a father or mother from a son or daughter shall be deducted. To do so, however, is to lay a penalty upon family affection, upon that filial regard which every son or daughter should have for father and mother if he or she is possessed of any true human feeling.
To draw a distinction between a father and mother who receive benefits from their children, and another whose children are such degraded specimens that they will contribute nothing towards the support of their parents, is an absurdity, and constitutes a blemish upon the Act. As to the provision which requires account to be taken of earnings from personal exertion, I wish to point out that we have in Western Australia men on the gold-fields who have sufficient vitality to wish to earn a little by fossicking. But if a man earns a small sum in that way, a deduction is made from his pension to the extent of his earnings. That is foolish in the extreme, as it places an embargo upon any man who wants to engage in a little industry in the later years of his life. An old-age pensioner should not be compelled to sit still. It is particularly foolish in such a. case, because an old man who finds a few pennyweights of gold by fossicking is entering into no form of competition with others in the labour market. He is engaging in a light form of employment, which suits him, and tends to conserve his health. The Act, in this way, has a retrogressive effect. I have to express my satisfaction with the very progressive policy that the Government have placed before this Parliament. Although last session we put forth a harvest of progressive legislation of the best kind, which is already bringing forth valuable fruit, no one can deny that we need to make further progress if we :*.re to attain the goal upon which we have set our hearts. I trust, therefore, that the Government will vigorously pursue the progressive policy which they have initiated. There is no sham about our policy. To quote language used by Sir George Reid in Perth a few years ago, if there is one outstanding feature about the Labour party, it is that they place their policy before the electors in the most unmistakable way, so that there is no misunderstanding what they mean. Our policy is one by which we are prepared to stand or fall. There is no obscurity about it. I am pleased to think that the electors of this country have recognised the frankness of our party, ai-d have at length forsaken the leaders by whom they have been so long deluded in favour of a party that is responsible for a policy from which substantial effects have already accrued. I am glad, therefore, that a second instalment of that policy is assuming shape, and that along with the instalment already embodied on the statute-book, not to be removed, but perhaps later even to be improved upon and developed, it will also find a sure and abiding place there. I can only sympathize with the Opposition in their attempt to find fault with the present Administration, because after all they cannot get out of that curious habit of opposing things whether right or wrong. Since they cannot find anything else more substantial to pit against the Government than the poor messenger who attended the three Ministers to the Old Country, they are indeed bankrupt of grievances. I only hope that our programme will be_ supplemented to the full in the Speech which we are to hear next session. For the present I am quite content with the very radical reform which is outlined in many ways in the present programme. I feel certain that the people throughout Australia will receive with acclamation the second instalment as they did the instalment presented to them last session.
– I do not think it needs any explanation or apology for devoting particular attention to the opening Speech on this occasion, coming as it does immediately after two of the most momentous of political events which have affected not only the Commonwealth, but the Empire; both of them finding, and properly so, clear and emphatic notice in that address. The recent referendum was the most important political event in the history of Australia. From the semi-apologetic criticism which has come from the other side already, notwithstanding that at times they attempt to pass it over very lightly, it is evident that they feel the effect of that vote. The other event which I shall refer to is the holding of the Imperial Conference. I do not think that any honorable senator, on one side or the other, will presume to say that the devoting of a certain amount of time to the consideration of these events is time wasted. Further, I think that the country requires such consideration. It is admitted by everybody that the Prime Minister - the head of the Commonwealth as well as the Leader of the Labour party - attended the Imperial Conference on our behalf with a full sense of the importance of what it would lead up to. It led up to trie consideration of important subjects to which I shall refer by-and-by. The importance of these subjects justifies us in giving careful and prolonged consideration to the question of how the results of the referen dum and the Imperial Conference are likely to affect the legislation of this Parliament immediately.
– Yes, the price of sugar has gone up by £3 a ton.
– Does any honorable senator, even on the Government benches, contend that the overwhelming verdict given at the referendum is to be placed on one side, and not to be considered? Is any Minister prepared to say that in the face of that emphatic verdict much of the legislation which is mentioned in the opening Speech is not to be affected by it?
– If the people had voted “ yes,” they would have had cheaper sugar than they have to-day.
– I do not intend to allow the Government to forget that verdict.
– The price of sugar has advanced £3 per ton in four weeks.
– It is evident from the nature of the attack delivered from this side, and the manner in which it was met from the other side, that honorable senators opposite do feel the weight of criticism which has been directed against the Government. I regret that the Minister of Defence is not present, because I intend to devote a little attention to some portions of his reply. Some of his statements in answer to Senator Millen’s criticism were made in what was more or less, I think, a needlessly provocative spirit, as I shall point out presently. He reminded me of a parallel while he was making those remarks. When Mr. Balfour first became Leader of the Unionist Opposition in the Imperial Parliament he indulged himself very frequently in remarks of a similar tone and character. One of his opponents on the Treasury bench complained to Lord Rosebery, and his lordship, an old campaigner, reminded his friend that he ought not to take much notice of them, because it was only criticism in Pretty Fanny’s way. Pretty Fanny was the heroine of a book of fiction, her characteristic being that when she wanted to indulge in a peculiar kind of feminine malice she was unscrupulous about any delicate or indelicate observations which she might -wish to make, and entirely regardless of either mercy or fact when she wanted to make them. One might well ask the Minister of Defence when he has indulged in that kind of criticism not to let a habit grow into a disease. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, by resorting to illustrations and extracts from the newspapers with regard to the conduct of the referenda campaign, instances of the irreconcilable explanations given, not only by members of the Federal Labour party, but by members of the Labour party generally in Australia when presenting the constitutional amendments to the public. The instances which the Leader of the Opposition gave were taken from irreproachable sources. His was a pretty strong indictment, and the Minister of Defence at once attempted to reply to it, and practically admitted that both inconsistent statements were made, and inconsistent positions taken up at times by different sections of the Labour party throughout Australia, and even by different sections of the Government. The Minister replied with a sort of excuse. He pointed out that Senator Millen had colleagues who supported a black labour policy. By interjection, I asked who they were, and the Minister of Defence at once replied that remarks about (hat question I had made here from time to time had left a doubtful ring in his ears. That is exactly what I complain of. It may be good enough for a certain kind of politics. But it is, after ali, in Pretty Fanny’s way. It is only a weakness for indulging in a certain amount of petulant temper, possibly accompanied by an effort to give some political advantage.
– And you as white as the driven snow !
– I am not’ going to say that. The Minister of Defence must have been hard driven by the criticism delivered by the Leader of the Opposition when he had to excuse himself bv pointing out that possibly the latter had colleagues who on a certain policy did not share his views, and then to go further, and to practically insinuate that I was in a similar position. In the face of the scathing attack which was delivered bv mv leader, after it had been denied that the Labour party throughout Australia had split up hopelessly on that question, and to which the Minister of Defence could give no further answer than a mere excuse - in the face of that clear and direct attack, one is inclined to ask what a wretched desert their position must be when they have such things to fall back on for rest or refuge. As a matter of fact, the very apology of the Minister of Defence when he made that retort simply helped to emphasize the severity and the value of the attack delivered by my leader, because practically nothing else could be said than to insinuate that some of the honorable senators on this side do not quite agree with Senator Millen on a certain policy. After all, the very charge which he brought, that the Labour party was divided hopelessly in the presentment of the proposals to the people was substantiated to the letter. The Minister’s apology or his. .defence - call it what you like - only emphasized the fact that the arguments of Senator Millen are absolutely unanswerable. Another rather extraordinary development took place while the Minister was attempting to make a reply to another position taken up by Senator Millen. There is no answer to my leader, and the Minister made it clear that there is no answer to the charge that even the Federal Labour party, when presenting to the public the proposals with the reasons for their acceptance, took up positions which were hostile and irreconcilable with one another. Some explanation may be attempted to be given. The other side have been saying right through the debate that bv means of the organizations supporting our position the people of Australia were bribed and corrupted. There is another form of answer which all the ingenuity of honorable senators opposite cannot get over. The Minister of Defence pointed out that the members of the New South Wales Labour Ministry were opposed, if not to every proposal submitted at the referenda, then to the form in which even those of which they approved were being submitted.
– No one here denies that.
– I am, for the moment, directing attention to the way in which the Minister of Defence dealt with the question, in answer to the very grave charge made against the Labour party. I can, of course, give only the substance of his remarks. He said, in effect, that the proposals were intended to secure an alteration of the Federal Constitution ; and so represented a matter, the determination of which rested entirely with the Federal Labour party, or a Federal Labour Conference, and that that being so, every State Labour party or organization was bound to accept their verdict, since the matter was removed from their jurisdiction.
The inference was that whatever might be said by members of State Labour Ministries or organizations could not be regarded as the expression of members of the Labour party. That was an important admission to get from the Minister of Defence ; and it was well that Senator Millen put the position so strongly as to secure such a declaration from him. That declaration is a very important answer to the attack, and should afford great enlightenment to the public. What does it mean? It means that the Federal Labour party, either as a parliamentary party or as members of the Federal Labour Conference, may take into their consideration any subject of legislation, and if they decide that it is a Federal matter, then no State Labour party or organization has the slightest right or jurisdiction to comment upon their decision.
– They have the right to comment, but not to interpret.
– I am glad to hear that, because it was not made clear by Senator Pearce.
– It was always known.
– I do not think it was ever known that the Federal Labour party might take any measure which a State Labour party might have under its exclusive control-
– That is a. very different thing. The Minister of Defence did not say that.
– I do not say that he did ; but it is an inevitable inference, from the declaration made by the Minister of Defence, that every State Labour organization must subordinate its view to any decision arrived at by the Federal Labour party of Conference once they have decided that the question dealt with is a Federal question.
– The Minister of Defence said nothing of the kind.
– I know that he did not ; but I repeat that that is an evitable inference from what he did say. What would be the result of the adoption of a doctrine of that kind in matters affecting organizations on either side ? It is only’ right that the electors of Australia should be informed as to what are the objects and powers of political parties. The result of the clear declaration of the Minister of Defence is that, wherever it is decided that a matter affects the platform of a Federal political party, no State organization has any right to protest against or resist the decision of a Federal organization. Rightly or wrongly, it is charged against the other side that the Caucus system is being so developed that the politics of Australia are not being made subject to adoption or rejection according to the opinion of Parliament, but are being relegated to the sole control of a Caucus organization entirely outside Parliament. If that be so, it is most important to remember that once a Federal Labour Caucus takes a measure into consideration, and decides that it is a Federal measure, the decision upon it becomes supreme, and no State Labour member who is loyal to the party, and fully grasps the meaning of the Labour platform, has any right to take exception to it.
– The honorable senator is saying a great deal on a matter about which he knows very little.
– I think that on this side we are very clear about the matter. If we are not, the Minister of Defence must be blamed, because he has made one of the most startling statements that a Minister could make as to the ultimate objective of the Caucus organization of his own party.
– The honorable senator may have a hazy comprehension.
– That may be so. I am not here to bandy compliments with the Vice-President of the Executive Council, or to say that, possibly, my intelligence is sometimes equivalent to his own. I notice, however, that when any criticism is being driven home from this side, there is no one who can equal the Vice-President of the Executive Council in the attempt to avoid the difficulty by becoming comparatively personal in a humorous way. Let us consider what the declaration to which I have referred would mean in practical politics. If the Federal Labour party say it is desirable to amend the Constitution to take over the police powers of the States,- the moment they come to that determination, according to the contention of Senator Pearce and his colleagues, State Labour members and organizations have no right to criticise the wisdom or propriety of that invasion of State rights. I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not present ; but the Vice-President of the Executive Council may answer for him. It will not greatly trouble me if the honorable senator does not do so, because the declaration of the Minister of Defence has gone into Hansard, and will remain there as an official statement of the methods of the party. If I have to deal with the referenda proposals from a public platform again, I. shall certainly point out, not only that the Caucus organization is very strong and hidebound, but that there is a growing tendency to impose upon every State Labour party and organization the despotism of Federal Labour organizations, with a view to making the Federal Labour Caucus the one and supreme organization in control of the State Socialistic policy of Australia. We were told repeatedly, more by interjection than in set speeches, that we did not understand the referenda proposals. That was about the “most charitable criticism offered. We were further told that when we did understand them we deliberately misrepresented them to the people. But I remind honorable senators opposite that that blow did not hit us so much as their own party, because the State Labour members of New South Wales were opposed to the referenda proposals root and branch, and for the same reasons for which every member of the Opposition opposed them throughout the campaign.
– Although they received a memorandum from the Federal Government explaining them.
– That is so. Were the members of the New South Wales Labour Ministry thoroughly ignorant? If they were not, neither were we. Did they misrepresent the referenda proposals inside and outside the State Parliament? If they did, we did no more. That is the dilemma into which honorable senators opposite have fallen, or have driven themselves. Let me give an illustration in point: Mr. Beeby, the Minister of Education in the State Labour Government of New South Wales, commenting at Blaney on 1st April on the referenda proposals, said -
He denounced the referenda proposals as an attempt to graft a unified system of government on the Federal Constitution.
So did we. We said, from every platform, that they were leading to unification. That was the main ground on which we attacked the proposals. We are told now that we misrepresented them, or did not understand them. Are honorable senators opposite prepared to say that Mr. Beeby, the Minister of Education in New South Wales, did not understand them? If he did not understand those simple proposals, he was prima facie unfit to hold the portfolio of Minister of Public Instruction for the great State of New South Wales. It is but reasonable to presume that a gentleman occupying that position possessed sufficient intelligence to understand the Constitution of his own State and the Federal Constitution, and to be able to interpret their provisions correctly. But my friends opposite say, “No; he did not. He” misunderstood and misrepresented them.” I have introduced Mr. Beeby’s name into this matter because he mentioned the word “ Unification.”
– The honorable senator himself was a Unificationist at one time.
– When ? Senator McDougall. - Prior to Federation.
– I have not the remotest recollection of ever having been a Unificationist, so far as Federal politics are concerned. If Senator McDougall can remind me of any utterance of mine which will justify his taunt, I shall be obliged to him.
– I will show the honorable senator his own speech.
– Very well. Mr. Beeby went on to say -
He was emphatically of opinion that the referenda proposals went more than half way towards Unification, and it was useless for the supporters of the referenda to contend otherwise.
That gentleman knows as much about the formulation of the Labour party’s policy, so far as it affects his own State, as does any of my honorable friends opposite, unless they adopt the pragmatical attitude that, having been elected to this Parliament, they are the repository of all wisdom. But they go further, and, when defeated at the polls . by an overwhelming majority, they take refuge in the insinuation that we won that brilliant victory by corrupting the public. That is the insinuation which has been made again and again. It has been urged that it was the weight of our money which brought about the defeat of the Government proposals. In other words, we have been told that the wealth of our supporters was used to corrupt the public. To me it is absolute folly for the other side to attempt to disparage the popular verdict, especially in view of the very curious attitude adopted in regard to the referenda proposals by some of its own members in the different States. Mr. Beeby continues -
The transfer of power to deal with the interState as well as the intra-State commerce would undoubtedly give the Federal Government power to legislate on nearly all matters vested within the State Parliaments.
If political debate is not to be dragged down to the level of a mere farce, will some honorable members opposite give us an explanation of how it is that, under such circumstances, we are charged with having misrepresented and endeavoured to bribe the electors?
– The honorable senator is growing quite pathetic.
– I rejoice over the matter. To men like myself, who took an active part in that campaign, it is a consolation to be able to return to this Chamber with such ammunition to fire at our opponents. I wish now to mention just one other incident which bears directly upon the attitude adopted by the Minister of Defence in his reply to the attack of the Leader of the Opposition. It appears that on Thursday, 6th April, of the present year, a meeting of the Political Labour League was held at Broadmeadows, near Newcastle, in New South Wales. At that gathering a gentleman named Mr. D. Maher proposed a resolution which criticised the action of the representatives of the district of Newcastle in the State Parliament in regard to the referenda proposals. The resolution was couched in very strong terms, and Mr. Maher made his speech in the presence of Mr. Edden, who was Minister of Mines in the New South Wales Labour Government. After he had poured out all his eloquence, Mr. Edden said -
He was sorry the circumstances had arisen which rendered such a motion possible. This was the second time such a thing had happened.
I particularly regret the absence of the Minister of Defence from the Chamber, because I wished to draw his attention especially to this matter. ‘ Mr. Edden went on to say -
I hope that in future Mr. Fisher, when he has anything likely to affect the State Labour parties of the Commonwealth, will deem it his duty to consult with the leaders of those parties. With regard to financial proposals some years ago the leaders were never consulted.
But the Minister of Defence has affirmed that the moment the Labour party declare any matter to be a Federal one, no State organization has anything to do with it. In effect, he says, “ When we speak, no clog must bark.”
– Why is the honorable senator barking?
– Because it isa matter of importance to the country. If the honorable senator does not like either the tone or the manner of my address, hehas a very obvious remedy to hand.
– Are the organizations of his own party so united that the honorable senator can afford to throw stones ?
– When my honorable friend chooses to have a tilt at our organizations, he is welcome to a perfect field day.
– Is the honorable senator speaking on behalf of theWomen’s National League?
– I am glad of that interjection, because a portion of thecriticism which the Leader of the Opposition directed at the Government was intended to show that the referenda proposals, if carried, would have affected even the municipal administration of thevarious States. The Minister of Defence, in reply, held up to the gaze of honorable senators a leaflet, which, he said, contained awful absurdities and misrepresentations, and which had been distributed during the referenda campaign for the purpose of inducing electors to vote against the Government proposals. One of the misrepresentations was that, if the people voted infavour of those proposals, they would be giving to the Commonwealth Parliament power to control municipal organizations. -While the Minister was speaking, some one interjected that Mr. E. M. Mitchell had expressed the same opinion, and Senator E. J. Russell at once replied that Mr. Mitchell had subsequently altered his opinion.
– He withdrew it. I will be pleased to produce Mr. Mitchell’s own letter on Wednesday next, in which he admits his error.
– I would direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that in the Argus- of the nth April, a paragraph appears to the effect that Mr. E. M. Mitchell, after the controversy with Mr. George Prendergast, stated, he had seen no reason to alter his opinion that if the referenda proposals were carried, almost the whole of the powers of municipal institutions in the different States could be taken over by the Commonwealth P Parliament.
– Has the honorable senator seen Mr. Mitchell’s letter?
– I am stating the position as accurately as possible from memory.
– But Mr. Mitchell subsequently climbed down from the position which he had taken up.
– I do not think so. The exact words which appear in the Argus are as follow : -
I see no reason to modify the opinions that I have expressed that the amendments would, if carried, give the Parliament practically complete control over the municipal corporations.
Now Mr. Mitchell is confessedly one of the highest constitutional authorities in Australia. Does not the honorable senator know that Labour leaders rush in where angels fear to tread?
– Will the honorable senator quote the portion of Mr. Mitchell’s communication in which he admitted that the layman was right?
– Senator E. J. Russell can quote anything he pleases when he speaks. Even though Mr. Mitchell may have qualified his statement, he was nevertheless substantially of the opinion that the proposals submitted at the referenda constituted a large encroachment on State and municipal powers. That fact cannot be set aside by any misrepresentation of the position. Our attitude was further fortified by the opinion expressed by Mr. Holman, one of the ablest members of the Labour party in Australia.
– He was a heretic.
– In this case the conflict between the heresy hunters and the poor victim resulted in a decisive victory for Mr. Holman. He got the best of it, and I believe is willing to “ take on “ his opponents at any other time.
– Mr. Holman will oe much flattered by the honorable member’s praise.
– It does not matter a snap of the fingers to me what he thinks about my opinion of him. Certainly it is useless for the honorable senator to try to turn strong argument into personalities. At the beginning of my remarks I referred to one or two matters of importance which we’re mentioned in the press with reference to the Imperial Conference, and the Prime Minister’s attitude towards it. T think it will bo admitted by every member of the Senate that, in view of the circumstances attending the Imperial Conference, and the grave questions which were discussed at it, we cannot devote too much attention to its proceedings. At that Conference one of ‘ the most important departures in the administration of Imperial policy was for the first time formulated. The Conference was in that sense epoch-making in the history of the Dominions, and of the Empire. The future of every single Dominion and of the Empire as a whole will depend on the means by which the various proposals there considered are carried out. The Prime Minister of Australia was there with two Ministers. Not only did he attend the meetings of the Conference itself, . and take an important part in the negotiations, but, to use the expression that he himself employed, he was admitted into the inner council of the Empire. With a full sense of his responsibilities as Prime Minister, and a full sense of the importance of the occasion, Mr. Fisher afterwards made a statement to the Morning Post, an important London journal. Before ,1 quote - his exact words, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the relations of he Dominions to the Empire should be considered by us in such a spirit that there should certainly be no attempt to disparage the importance oJ the position which the Prime Minister took up on that occasion.
– The honorable senator’s leader did not say that.
– Is that any reason why I should not say it ? My leader is not the head of a despotic caucus.
– I wish he were ; he would then be able to exercise more control over the honorable senator.
– I have no doubt that the honorable senator speaks from the bottom of his heart. I wish now to quote the exact words ‘ used by Mr. Fisher to the Morning Post. He said -
The admission of the oversea Dominions to the Council of Nations ‘has revolutionized our relations with the Mother Country. AH the barriers of reserve have been broken down, and mutual confidence has been established for all time.
I may here interpolate that that is absolutely correct.
A community of interests of the highest immediate importance and vast possibilities has been created. I shall go back equipped with knowledge that qualifies the Federation that I represent for co-operation with the Mother Country of a more effective kind than was ever possible before.
We may thank the Prime Minister for having said so much in such clear words.
The revelation is complete. I am almost tempted to wonder why we were admitted into the very innermost confidences of the Imperial Government. Hitherto the Conferences have been consultative and advisory gatherings.
I think that is an absolutely correct statement of the previous position.
And the British Government has remained the sole controlling authority. To-day the Dominions are part of the Empire in all things.
Again, I think that the Prime Minister was quite correct.
No developments, however sudden, should now be beyond our understanding. The British Government at the Conference has done nothing to surrender its authority in England’s purely internal affairs, nor has it shown a desire to participate in the purely internal affairs of the oversea Dominions.
I say at once, for my own part, that I think it reflects the highest credit on the Prime Minister that he should so clearly have grasped the situation that arose out of the Conference, and should have expressed himself in such unmistakable language. I say that the more freely, because I intend to take exception to something else that the Prime Minister said. It will be admitted that there is no prejudice against Mr. Fisher personally in the criticism that I have to advance. When the Prime Minister arrived in Australia he was entertained by his colleagues at luncheon, when he used these words -
I say at once that if the Empire is at war tha Commonwealth is de facto at war.
I agree with that statement. I think it is sound international law as well. I am certain that it is sound common sense. Debate interrupted under sessional order.
page 238
– It being 4 o’clock, it is my duty, in accordance with the recent sessional order, to put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– Will Senator St. Ledger have the right to continue his speech if the question is carried?
– Yes. He will have the first call when the debate is resumed. _ Senator Millen. - Am I to understand, sir, that this question is not open to debate, and that, if carried, it will preclude the possibility of an honorable senator questioning a Minister or ventilating a matter ? - The PRESIDENT. - The question is not open to debate, though, of course, it can be negatived by the Senate.
– On the motion for adjournment it has been customary to question a Minister as to the order of business.
– That has been done under standing order 62, whichreads -
The adjournment of the Senate may be moved at any time by, or on behalf of, a Minister of the Crown, and on such motion matters irrelevant thereto may be debated.
On the present occasion the question is put under a sessional order which was recently passed by the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4.2 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 September 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19110908_senate_4_60/>.