Senate
13 August 1924

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

NEW MINISTER
QUESTION
- AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT
AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS
QUESTION
- GENERAL BANKING LAW
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION ROYAL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CANBERRA CITY LEASES
DEFENCE EQUIPMENT BILL
- Second Reading

The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

Bill presented by Senator Gardiner, and read a first time.

page 3022

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Advances to Settlers Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1924, No. 114.

Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1924, No. 99.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act - Statement re Pensions for the twelve months ended 30th June, 1924.

Lands Acquisition Act - Notification of land acquired for Postal purposes at South Launceston, Tasmania.

page 3023

QUESTION

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Does the Government intend, during the present session, to introduce bills unifying the law in the Commonwealth relating to -
1. Marriage.
2. Divorce?
If not, why not?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The matters referred to are under consideration.

page 3023

QUESTION

GENERAL BANKING LAW

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Has the Government recently considered the question of enacting a general banking measure ?
If so, what decision has been arrived at?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Consideration has already been given to the question of a general banking law, but the Government is not in a position to say when legislation concerning it will be introduced.

page 3023

QUESTION

REPATRIATION ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether theboard of doctors recently appointed to inquire into soldier cases will travel through all the states?
If not, what provision is being made to ensure that all soldiers who so desire will have the opportunity of placing their cases before this board?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister supplies the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

The royal commission has not yet met, but it is expected that it will do so very shortly. It will determine how and where it will take evidence, and every facility will be granted to it for that purpose.
The purpose of the commission is not to inquire into individual cases, but to consider and report on the following reference : - “Is the present method of determining whether an ex-soldier’s disability is due to or aggravated by war service adequate to decide the origin or the degree to which it is aggravated, and what portion of his present incapacity can be regarded as having resulted from his war service ?”

The result of the commission’s investigations will be applicable to all cases.

page 3023

QUESTION

CANBERRA CITY LEASES

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Are lithographs and other detailed information available in reference to the proposed sale of building leases at Canberra?
Has a definite date been fixed for the first sale; if so, what is the date?
Is it the intention of the Minister to provide travelling facilities for those desiring to attend the sale?
If so, willsuch facilities include the refund of train fares to the lessees?
What arrangements, if any, have been made or contemplated by the Minister for intending purchasers to inspect the leases?
What arrangements have been made to provide food and accommodation for prospective buyers?
Generally, what is being done to ensure that all prospective buyers will have an equal opportunity of securing a building lease?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

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

It is expected that lithographs and particulars as to the areas and location of the land to be dealt with at the first sale will be available within a fortnight.
Yes. Saturday, 25th October, 1924. 3, 4, 5, and 6. These are matters which are at present receiving consideration.
It is intended that full information respecting the areas to be offered for sale, the location thereof, and the conditions of the sale shall be widely disseminated through the press and otherwise, and that copies of the plans shall be made available for public inspection in the various capitals, and at other large centres. It is intended also to cable full particulars to the High Commissioner for Australia, in London, for the information of prospective purchasers in Great Britain.

page 3023

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th August (vide page 2929), on motion by Senator Wilson -

Th at the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Needham had moved by way of amendment -

That after the word “That” the following words be inserted: - “as efforts are being made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to convene another conference to deal with the question of further disarmament, and in view of the early sitting of the League of Nations, it is the opinion of this Senate that expenditure upon naval construction should be deferred for the present.”

Senator DUNCAN:
New South “Wales

– I was not surprised to find that the Labour party had ranked itself in opposition to the measure that is now under consideration. If this debate has revealed nothing else, it has at least indicated the enormous gulf that stretches between the Labour party of to-day and the Labour party as it used to be constituted. The old Labour party was a fighting party. It believed in effective measures for defence, and was prepared to fight for them. The party -pulsated with what may be termed the virile red blood of patriotism. It was determined that Australia should be adequately defended. Underlying its defence proposals of that time was the true spirit of Australian nationalism. If one thing more than another won support for the Labour party throughout Australia, it was the fact that the party realized the necessity for an adequate defence scheme for Australia, and was resolved that , Australia .should pay for it. But the present Labour party, since its inoculation with the microbe of internationalism, has become merely an anaemic shadow of its former self, preaching a gospel of sickly sentimentality that is abhorrent to every true Australian instinct. ‘To-day the Labour party is opposed to any measure calculated to make for an effective defence system. As I have already mentioned, the old party was entirely in favour of effective measures of defence, and it preached throughout Australia the necessity to adequately defend this country.

Senator Gardiner:

– On a point of order, I should like to know which clause of the bill has relation to’ the old Labour party of Australia? Is the honorable senator in order in discussing that matter ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator is entirely in order.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then I shall be able to follow up his remarks in speaking to the amendment.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I certainly hope that the honorable senator will attempt to explain why Labour has turned its back on its previously held policy. He, above all others, does not seem to know whither it is going. Formerly the Labour party stood for an effective defence system. It had already popularized the idea of an

Australian navy, and it inaugurated the compulsory training system from one end of Australia to the other. I well remember a certain famous election, following the outbreak of the war, when one of the strongest arguments by the Labour candidates throughout Australia as to why they should be returned to office was that a Labour member, Senator Pearce, then Minister for Defence, was primarily responsible for the effective defence measures that had been adopted, and that he alone should direct Australia’s military activities during the years of war. The people listened to the party at that time, and it was returned with a large majority, but since then a strange change has come over the scene. Since the amendment now before the .Senate- has been moved by the Labour Whip in this chamber, I take it that it is officially inspired, and that the Labour party is now prepared to place Australia’s future in the hands of the League of Nations, or any other body, rather than that we should face the issue squarely for ourselves. “We were told in effect by certain Labour members in another place that, failing the assistance of the League of Nations, there was no necessity for us to worry about our defence, inasmuch as, since £500,000,000 of British capital was invested in Australia, the British Navy would defend us against aggression. When the late war broke out, Australia responded with pride to the famous declaration of Mr. Andrew Fisher, who at that time was the Leader of the Labour party, that the Commonwealth was with Britain to “ the last man and the last shilling.” The Labour party of to-day seems to have amended that slogan, if we are to take cognizance of the remarks of a certain Labour member. It now says that Australia is with the Motherland to Britain’s last man and Britain’s last shilling. Nothing whatever is .said about Australia’s responsibility.. I intend to read an utterance by Mr. Fisher to show the difference between the Labour party of to-day and the Labour party of his time. I refer honorable senators to the report of the debate on the Naval Loan Repeal Act of 1910, which is to be found in Hansard of -28th July, 1910, page 822. Honorable senators will remember that Britain had offered £250,000 per annum to assist us in’ providing for our naval defence. The Government of which Mr. Fisher was the head- declined that offer, and when he was attacked for his attitude he replied -

It is not a question of declining the offer of the Imperial Government. It is a question of the Australian people providing for their own defence, and by that means carrying out the policy of this party, at any rate, to protect this part of the Empire to the best of our ability, and to relieve the Mother Country from any embarrassing expenditure on account of this end of the world.

How different the outlook of Mr. Fisher, supported by the Labour party of that day, from the outlook of the present party ! One of its members in another place tells us that there is no need for us to worry about the defence of Australia, since Britain has £500,000,000 invested here, and there are, therefore, 500,000,000 golden reasons, why Britain should not let Australia go down. Such a sentiment is abhorrent to Australian instincts. I recoil from it, and I feel sure that every honorable senator on this side of the chamber also recoils from it. If- there is one thing that is primarily the business of Australia it is the provision of its own defence. Mr. Fisher and the Labour party of his day recognized that fact, but to-day we are told by honorable senators opposite that weshould rely for our defence on the League of Nations. They say that if the League of Nations fails, Britain will stand by us. But I ask, if Britain fails us, what then ? No alternative is offered by those who advocate this contemptible policy. Surely the words of Mr. Fisher - that Australia’s defence was our business, and that it was our duty to relieve Britain as far as possible of the burden, of providing for the defence of this part of the Empire - will bear repetition. I believe that Australia has the means to enable it to provide the necessary measures of defence, and the present Government has put before Parliament an adequate defence programme, of which the present bill is the first instalment. Of course, it would be foolish to say that what is proposed in this particular bill is adequate for the defence of this country.

Senator Barnes:

– It has not yet been submitted to the Public Works Committee.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Nor do I imagine that it will be, but certain aspects will, I suppose, be submitted to the committee. The Government’s proposals, if acted upon, will give Australia at least some hope of being able to defend itself in time of crisis. To many people it is astounding that the party that once stood above all for the adequate defence of Australia now takes an opposite view, but it is not surprising to those of us who know the change that has come over the party. We know that it has gone back on many of the old planks of its platform. Those members of the party who assisted in fighting for the principles for which it once stood occupy a most invidious position when they are required to stand behind a proposal such as that submitted by Senator Needham. The Labour party to-day says that all Ave have to do is ‘ to trust to . the c Washington Conference, the League of Nations, or some other authority to pull us out of the- fire should we find ourselves in trouble. I cannot endorse that policy. I hope that the Senate will carry the Government’s proposals, and that the programme which it has laid down will be proceeded with. If that is done, it will eventually place us in the fortunate position of being able * to stand “ four square to all the winds that blow “ so far as the defence of our own country is concerned. We would, of course, be backed up all the time by Britain, and could rely on her assistance. I do not believe that the Government’s programme would place Australia in a position to defend herself against the world, without the assistance of Britain. There is no need for us to place ourselves in that position, but there is a moral obligation upon us to do the best that we can with the material and the resources which we have in Australia. That is what the Government proposes to do. On the other hand, the Labour party declares that we should leave everything to the League of Nations. Another aspect of the question appeals* to me, and I believe it should appeal also to the members of the Opposition. Man for man, Australia is infinitely wealthier than are the workers of Britain ; but the proposal, as put forward on behalf of the Labour party in another place, means that we should leave our defence to those who on other occasions have been referred to as “ the down-trodden workers of Britain.” We all know unemployment is rife in the Old Country, and that industries there are not in aflourishing condition. Britain is faced with the necessity of meeting keen competition in both naval and military affairs, yet it is proposed that we in Australia should leave our defence to the workers of that country, who are not so well paid as are the workers of Australia. Senator Needham’s amendment means that we are to rely either upon the unfortunate workers of Britain - who, after all, are those who have to bear Britain’s burden - orupon the goodwill of the other nations of the world. In the utterances of the leaders of the Labour party, we have the very strongest argument against the amendment which has been moved by Senator Needham. During the debate that ensued on the return of our delegate, Senator Pearce, from the Washington Conference, and the presentation of his report to Parliament, Mr. Charlton, the Leader of the Labour party, as reported in Hansard, August 2, 1922, page 1001, spoke of the ineffectiveness of conferences to settle international problems. He said that there were certain problems which could not be said to have been successfully solved. He had in mind the proposal for the abolition of submarines, and pointed out how barbarous submarine warfare was. He expressed regret that that conference had been unable to restrict the use of such craft. SenatorGardiner, in speaking to the second reading of this measure, said that Australia should see to its future defence by the provision of aircraft. He said that aircraft would provide a better defence than any other means which could be devised, and that cruisers such as those contemplated by the Government could not be anything but ineffective. Mr. Charlton, speaking on this subject, s aid -

I am disappointed also with respect to the limitation of the use of aircraft. It is almost unbelievable that the conference should have disagreed upon the matter of the abolition of aircraft in warfare.

On the one hand, we have Mr. Charlton, the Leader of the Labour party in another place, condemning the use of aircraft in warfare, whilst, on the other hand, Senator Gardiner, the Leader of that party in this chamber, says that we should provide for the defence of Australia by building aircraft. Mr. Charlton also said -

I do not know whether we are not spending money unnecessarily upon our aerial services.

Mr. Charlton was not in favour of the extension of our aircraftservices, or of the provision of additional submarines. We have, therefore, the Labour party speaking with two voices. Senator Gardiner, in his general condemnation of this bill, spoke of the sinking of the Australia. If my memory serves me rightly, he spoke of it as an iniquitous thing. He said that we never should have sunk the Australia, that a vessel capable of doing such magnificent service should have been retained. He said that her days of usefulness were not over, and ridiculed the proposal of the Government to build two 10,000-ton cruisers. What does Mr. Charlton say about the sinking of that vessel? -

No one can take rauch exception to the destruction of warships. It is said that the rights of property should be preserved, but in this instance we lose nothing by the destruction of property, for it is of no use to the community. It is no use to keep up property of a kind that will only result in costing us a great deal more money. If these ships could be used for any other purpose, well and good, but I have nothing to say against the decision of the conference to sink or destroy.

If that is not an effective answer to Senator Gardiner, I do not know what is. It is not necessary for honorable senators on this side to provide arguments to combat those of the party opposite. They themselves supply the refutation of their own arguments. One has only to search the records to reveal the shallowness and the hyprocisy of their arguments to-day. Senator Needham now pins his faith to conferences, such as the conference of the League of Nations, or the Washington Conference, the ineffectiveness of which was pointed out by Mr. Charlton. Mr. Charlton said that as far as land armaments were concerned that conference accomplished nothing. Is it nothing to Senator Needham that Mr. Charlton has no faith in these conferences, or that he considers them ineffective and incapable of accomplishing anything for the protection of Australia in the future ? The remarks of the great leader of the old Labour party, Mr. Andrew Fisher, had in them a true ring when he said that it was Australia’s duty to provide for her own defence. I venture to say that Mr. Andrew Fisher, and the other Labour giants of that day, would not have been prepared to trust Australia’sfuture to a Washington Conference composed of delegates some of whom might be antagonistic to ourselves, jealous of our territory, and also to some extent angered against us because of racial prejudice. If we are to trust our future to conferences such as these, what is to become of our great ideal - the maintenance of racial purity in Australia? Can we depend for its maintenance upon conferences composed very largely of men who are opposed to that ideal ? I refer not only to the representatives of Japan and other eastern nations, but also to representatives of France and other nations who have not the same ideas upon the subject that we have. Can we rely for the maintenance of our racial purity on conferences composed of such delegates? Personally, I do not think that we can. At the Peace Conference the right honorable William Morris Hughes engaged in a stupendous fight so that Australia should retain her racial purity. It was then a big issue, and it will be raised again at no distant date.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– And but forthe intervention of the American President the issue would have been carried against us.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes. This great issue will again be raised, and having regard to the future of Australia, her defence, the maintenance of racial purity, and every great national ideal to which we hold fast, we should not leave matters such as these to the decision of a conference, composed of delegates from all over the world, many of whom would be in bitter opposition to our ideals, without at the same time showing them that we were prepared to fight for their maintenance and to provide some adequate method of defence. Unless we do that our last position will be infinitely worse than any other in which we have been. Has the Labour party abandoned this ideal ? Does it declare to-day that the maintenance of racial purity is not worth fighting for?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It has removed it from its policy.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes. The members of that party now believe in internationalism, and the old Labour’s party’s policy of Australian nationalism has been abandoned. The members of the Australian Labour party stand for internationalism and brotherly love. I am not prepared to endorse their doctrine of brotherly love, which means that we should admit coloured races into our country, and allow them to inter-marry with our own people. That is the logical conclusion of the policy of the Labour party of to-day; but it was not the gospel of the old Labour party. I wish now to quote the remarks of another Labour leader in relation to the value of a conference such as that to which Senator Needham has referred. The Deputy Leader of the Labour party in another place (Mr. Anstey), inspeaking on the same question, said, as reported on page 1033 of Hansard- “ There never was anything in the Washington or any like conference. The conference from beginning to end was a farce. War will continue in spite of everything.” “ Australia has no guarantee of peace from any treaty. When any nation desires to invade our shores, and considers that it is strong enough to do so, it will. Treaties, after all, are mere scraps of paper. They always have been, and always will be, so long as there remain warring classes and warring interests in the nations of the world.”

– The difference between the British estimate for the construction of one of these cruisers and the Australian cost is, approximately, £900,000. I presume that, if the vessels were built in Australia, at least £500,000 would be spent in wages to shipbuilders, and, in addition, a very large sum would be expended in the raising and smelting of the ore for the steel, the rolling of the steel plates, and in many ‘ other industries associated with shipbuilding.’ Thus an enormous sum of money would be circulated in Australia. In all probability the increased spending power of the people employed in this particular work would mean additional revenue to the Government through Customs duties, and by way of income tax. Therefore,, the case for the construction of the vessels in Australia is a strong one. I listened with interest to the speech delivered by Senator Millen on Thursday evening last. There was a ring of sincerity about his remarks that must have impressed honorable senators. I believe the honorable senator is prepared to stand to his statements irrespective of friend or foe. He expressed the fear that one day Japan would seek to invade Australia. On this question I remind honorable senators that not so long ago it was stated by Mr. H. S. Gullett, who spent four months in Japan as a special commissioner for the Melbourne Herald, and who had unique opportunities for studying Japanese problems and conditions from the Australian point of view, that -

Australia has little to fear from Japan for 25 or 30 years.
Japan had, even before the earthquake,’ deliberately resolved upon a radical change in her foreign policy, and had decided, temporarily at least, to modify her disposition towards aggression and colonizing expansion.
Japan is definitely committed to a fundamental change in her system of government She is proceeding to set up a democracy in the place of the present rigid, if benevolent, despotism by a small military clique acting in the name of the Emperor.

On this question of naval defence, I say that if the cruisers could be built in Great Britain for £2,000,000, and if built in Australia they cost £10,000,000, I would prefer paving the £10,000,000.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator delivered the best protectionist speech I have heard in this chamber.

Senator PAYNE:

– Senator Gardiner said that if to build the vessels in Australia would cost £10,000,000, as against £2,000,000 if built in Britain, he would prefer that the cruisers should be built in Australia. He said that to spend £4,500,000 on building cruisers for our defence was equivalent to throwing money into the sea, becausethey would not be completed for two years, and would have to be scrapped in ten years. Let us read that in conjunction with the honorable senator’s former statement: He has expressed the hope that the time is not far distant when his party will occupy the Ministerial benches. Should that be the case, then God help Australia if the. honorable senator’s policy is the policy of the Labour party ! I cannot understand any honorable senator suggesting such a policy, especially in view of the financial difficulties which are likely to arise in the future. Men like Admiral Field - that efficient officer who commanded the Special Service Squadron which recently visited Australia - and Lord Jellicoe, who should know what they are talking about, have expressed the opinion that, so far as our finances will permit, adequate defence measures are absolutely necessary for the protection of Australasia. They pointed out that Australasia could not bear the cost of the fleet that would be necessary for defence purposes without the co-operation of the parent fleet of the Empire, but that we should do all that was in our power to assist in the defence of Australasia and the Empire. When such men are so firm on this question, and. point out the dangers of permitting any other Power to have a free run of the Pacific and Indian Oceans in time of peace, without any preparations being made by us for a possible war, it is suicidal for us to neglect their advice. We can all expect good results from the operations of the League of Nations. Already good work has been done, but when we consider the varying and conflicting interests of the different nations, and the difficult process involved in bringing those nations together, we must realize that the day when we need no longer contemplate war is still afar off. I feel sure that the League of Nations has the support of every public man who takes the slightest interest in the welfare of his country, but we should not close our eyes to the developments in the world to-day. It is in time of peace that preparations for war must be made. I do not believe in doing anything to cultivate a jingoistic spirit among our people, but in a country like Australia, with her wonderful assets and possibilities of future development, which will make her in the years to come one of the leading nations of the world, we should fail in our duty if we neglected now to do everything possible, within our financial resources, to defend ourselves. I am anxious to see our land defence scheme made much more effective than it is, and feel that the compulsory provisions of our

Defence Act are essential to our welfare. I sincerely hope that, whatever differences of opinion we may have regarding details, when it comes to a question of deciding whether or not we shall accept our fair share of responsibility for the defence of the Empire, the Parliament of Australia will do its duty.

Senator GRAHAM:
“Western Australia

.. - I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by Senator John D. Millen, and was surprised to hear him say that Singapore was required not only as a naval base, but also for oil storage purposes. There is a good deal of conflict regarding the best means of defending the Australian coast. Seeing that we have about 12,000 miles of coastline to be defended, , and that the League of Nations is considering whether or not it is possible to further reduce armaments throughout the world, I am of the opinion that we are not justified in spending £4,000,000, at the present time, to build two cruisers. The money could be spent to much better advantage. These two cruisers will not be sufficient to protect our extensive coastline. Some may say that their construction is a step in the right direction, as they could co-operate with the vessels of the British fleet in policing the seas and keeping clear the trade routes from Australia to England. Senator Wilson said that if one cruiser were built in Britain, its construction would occupy 27 months. Since then we have heard that there are vessels’ on the slips at Home which will meet the requirements of the Commonwealth. I do not know whether that is so or not. It is amazing to realize the difference between the estimated cost of constructing cruisers in Great Britain and in Australia. We have been informed that it would cost £1,900,000. to build a cruiser in Great Britain, and that the expenditure on a similar vessel built in Australia would be, approximately, £3,000,000. It would be interesting to know in what direction the extra expenditure would be incurred. Would it be due to increased labour costs, the’ purchase of material at the top of the market, or to unnecessary administrative expenses? Notwithstanding what honorable senators have said, I believe we should provide for our defence ; but I do not agree that it should be in the manner proposed by the Government. If cruisers are to be built as a means of assisting in the defence of Australia, the work should be undertaken in Australia, so that the Australian people would benefit. Senator Payne emphasized the necessity of keeping open our trade routes, and agreed with the opinion expressed by Senator Gardiner that, as we produced all we required and had a surplus for export, we were a self-contained nation. Although we produce more than sufficient to meet our own requirements, it is incumbent upon Great Britain to protect our trade routes so that the requirements of the British people in the event of war may be supplied at least in part by us. According to the opinion of experts, no less than £50,000,000 would be required, annually, to maintain an adequate defence scheme for Australia, but if such expenditure had to#be met taxation would have to be increased, and the people who are already overburdened would be unduly penalized. Instead of spending, money in the direction proposed, it would be better to open up undeveloped country, and establish new industries, as by doing so we should be creating employment, making room for new settlers, and generally providing a means whereby we could defend ourselves. If Australia were attacked, the two cruisers which it is proposed to construct would be faced with tremendous difficulties, because with such an extensive- coast-line the number of fuel, provision and ammunition bases would be inadequate. With seaplanes, which can travel at 150 miles an hour, some advantage would be gained.

Senator Kingsmill:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the advisors of the Government have considered that aspect of the question?

Senator GRAHAM:

– Possibly they have, but I am showing how two cruisers would be of little use in protecting Australia’s extensive coast-line. If the money which it is proposed to expend were to be devoted to the construction -of submarines, seaplanes, aeroplanes, and the provision of mines, some protection would be assured. If these cruisers are constructed, they will .be quite obsolete in the course of a few years, and the whole expenditure will thus be futile. In common with you; Mr. Deputy President, I was strongly opposed to the sinking of the battleship Australia, and I believe that if these vessels are constructed it will only be a few years before they will be of little use to the Commonwealth. In the event of invasion our means of railway transport would be entirely inadequate. With four breaks of gauge between Western Australia and the eastern states, one can readily see the delay which would occur in transporting troops and supplies. If the money were expended in unifying the gauges of the main lines we should- derive a lasting benefit. Further consideration should also be given to the extension of existing factories in which munitions can be manufactured, as that would. not only be the means of providing employment for our people in time of peace, but would also be of great assistance in the event of war. According to the records, no less than £18,000,000 has been spent on defence during the last five years for which there is nothing to show. Sir John Monash, who is regarded, I atn sure, as an authority on defence, has stated that we are not in as favorable a position as we were in 1914. For the information of honorable senators I shall quote the opinions of leading naval experts to show that consideration should be given to this question from a different angle. Admiral Sir Percy Scott states -

Another bogy put before the Australians is that on account of their enormous coast-line they must have battleships. That is just what they do not want. If the waters of all countries are protected by submarines, all waters will be wrong waters for battleships.

Honorable senators opposite have quoted the opinions of other naval authorities, but I am prepared to be guided by the opinion of Admiral Sir Percy Scott, who also states-

When Australia and New Zealand are properly defended with aeroplanes, submarines and destroyers (as regards invasion), they will have nothing to fear.

If there is anything in the contention of such an eminent authority, one wonders why it is not the policy of the present Government to institute a system of defence on such a basis. The same authority continues -

For the protection of, or the destruction of, sea-going commerce, fast light cruisers are required. This fact is apparently recognized by the Japanese, as they are building them as fast as they oan. They will soon dominate the world in this class qf vessel, which means they will command the commerce of the Eastern seas.

Admiral Kerr, of the British navy, states - . . . the Australian line of defence, obviously comprised of aeroplanes, submarines, and torpedo boats, against which no hostile fleet dare approach within 200 miles.

In recording my vote on this important measure, I have to consider the interests of the people whom I represent. If honorable senators opposite are to be guided in their decisions by the opinions of certain experts, I, too, am justified in being influenced by the views of men equally competent. Mr. Pembroke Billing states -

A battleship is as much use to Australia as a sick headache. I cannot emphasize too strongly that if Australia was prepared to devote the money she intends spending on cruisers to the development of a powerful naval air force, no one in this country need ever fear an invasion.

I am quite content to be guided by the opinions of experts such as those I have quoted. Although I intend to oppose the bill, it must be understood that I believe in arl adequate defence for Australia, and am prepared at all times to support a policy which I believe to be in the interests of the whole of the Australian people.

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– This has been a most interesting debate, firstly on account of the extreme diversity of opinion expressed, and secondly because of its apparent irrelevancy. I have carefully read the bill, and I cannot find the word “ cruiser “ in it. Honorable senators opposite seem to be under the impression that certain cruisers are to be built, bub, in fact, a certain amount has been mentioned for armaments and munitions, and money is to be appropriated for that purpose. In that direction, the Government have my hearty support. I trust, however, that if I refer to cruisers it will be remembered that I am only following the example set by honorable members on both- sides of this chamber, and in another place. One of the most interesting speeches to which I have listened was that of the honorable senator who leads the Opposition. I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in that speech. I do not anticipate that the honorable senator will be either surprised or concerned at my disagreement, although he resents disagreement very much more when it emanates from unfortunate honorable senators on this side - who, he ought to remember, are ignorant upon many subjects - and appears to regard with equanimity differences of opinion among honorable senators on his own side. In the’ first place, I do not agree with his standard of measuring the defence capabilities of a country by its coast-line. That, I think he will admit on further reflection, is an absolutely fallacious standard to set up. Let us consider the defence of Singapore on such a basis. It is an island possessing a coast-line of about 150 miles. Judged by Senator Gardner’s standard. the defence necessary for Singapore would be infinitesimal. That is not so. There are trade routes - there are other interests to consider - that far outweigh the consideration merely of a country’s coastline. The situation of Australia at one end of the world, while it constitutes a weakness in some ways, is a source of strength in others. I do not propose to look upon this bill as a measure which will provide for the defence of either the Empire or Australia. It will not do that. Furthermore, I do not propose to do as the honorable senator did - look upon England as a foreign country. As the honorable senator said, although it did not influence his argument, Australia is a part of the commonwealth of nations. If the Government of the Commonwealth thinks that we should bear a proportion of the cost of the defence of the Empire, in return for which we shall receive from the Empire very much greater facilities in regard to defence, I am thoroughly in accord with it. If that involves the building of two cruisers they should, undoubtedly, be built. Senator Gardiner also said that because one part of our defence scheme is useless or defective we should- scrap the lot. That is a peculiar argument. It would have its parallel in the action of a man who, having discovered that he had holes in his coat, registered an inflexible resolve to discontinue the wearing of trousers. Any gentleman who adopted that drastic remedy would find that he had rendered himself extremely conspicuous, and made himself an object of unfavorable criticism, in addition to making himself particularly vulnerable to attacks from outside. I am unable to endorse for a moment any proposition df that kind, and I am surprised that the honorable senator should put it forward. I am aware, of course, that the honorable senator does not always speak as seriously as one would be likely to conclude from his apparent earnestness. There is a considerable difference of opinion as to where these cruisers should be built. Senator Gardiner said that, even though they cost £10,000,000, they should be built in Australia. I think he was in earnest when he made that statement, and in certain portions of Australia it will be accounted unto him for righteousness. I look at the matter in an entirely different way, perhaps because I com’e from a different part of Australia. I think that the honorable senator ought to be a little more moderate. Although statements that are sometimes made in this chamber may create the contrary impression, the fact is that the Commonwealth has only a limited amount of money with which <to fulfil its obligations, and we have to make the best use wo can of that money. It certainly does not appear to me that we should be putting our money to the best use if we spent a very great deal more in building these cruisers in Australia than they would cost in Great Britain. I do not want to argue from a sentimental point of view. I desire to be guided by the facts of the past, and by the cold logic of experience. Quite a considerable time ago, thinking that an occasion of this sort might arise, I wrote to the Defence Department asking to be supplied with certain facts. After a. reasonable interval had elapsed - which’ is always necessary when one is seeking information - I received a very illuminating answer with regard to Australia’s experience in the construction of cruisers and destroyers. The particulars I have relate to three destroyers and two cruisers. Those vessels were not built according to any fixed estimate; their construction was, apparently, guided a good deal by the law of chance. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden), whose signature appears at the bottom of the document, states -

As to whether the cost has been above or below the original estimate I have to inform you that there was no contract price for building the vessels. They were built in the government yard at Cockatoo Island, Sydney. The estimated price for building similar vesselsin England was -

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– There is £2,000,000 towards the cost of cruisers, and half a million only to provide adequate defence within Australia. The allocation should have been reversed. The developments in modern methods of warfare, both on sea and on land, we are told by naval and military authorities, are very much in favour of the weaker powers. It is now impossible for huge armies to be transported long distances across the seas for the purpose of attacking even the weaker nations. I intend to quote one to two competent authorities on this view of the matter. According to them it is practically impossible for a fleet of ships to proceed across the seas for any distance to transport armies and supplies, and make an effective landing on the shores of a country so distant as Australia. Rear.Admiral Fullam, who had command of the Pacific Squadron of the United States Navy during the late war, sums up the position in the following words : -

Reviewing the subject briefly, we may say: - First, a battle fleet cannot carry an attack across the ocean; second, a great army cannot be sent oversea; third, a base 5,000 miles from home, surrounded by enemy bases, is no base at all; fourth, submarines, air forces, mines, and torpedoes suffice to defend a. coast; fifth, sea-coast forts are useless; sixth, it is only by transporting overseas an overwhelming air force to seize and control the air that one. continent can attack another; .seventh, each continent will control its own destiny if it arms itself with modern weapons.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator believe the statement that it is impossible to transport a great army across the seas?

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– I do.

Senator Pearce:

– I am aware of that. I am merely mentioning that the Government of that dayentered upon a programme involving the establishment of a number of naval bases, and, when faced with thetremendous expenditure which that work involved, discontinued the work. Of course, there was more than one reason for that abandonment of policy. One was the outbreak of war. When war came, naturally expenditure on such works had to be dropped. In quite a number of other directions there has been heavy expenditure of public money upon schemes the value of which to-day is very problematical. Take, for instance, the fixed defences of Australia. Everybody knows that the fortifications at our various ports are obsolete .

Senator McHugh:

– How much would it take to put them in order ?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator McHUGH:

– The Australia was sunk in accordance with the terms of the Washington Treaty. If another disarmament conference is convened within the next year or two, and similar decisions are reached, it is quite possible that the vessels that it is now proposed to construct will either have to be sunk, or that if they are still on the stocks their construction will be discontinued.

SenatorReid. - It would pay us to do that if it were decided that naval construction by all parties should be suspended.

Senator McHUGH:

-If that is the case, why does not Australia use her influence in the direction of having another conference convened.. That would be better finance than to spend millions and then find that the work was unnecessary. During the visit of thevessels of the British Service Squadron, I was in conversation with some of the officer on the Hood, some of whom were of the opinion that that great vessel, which cost over £6,000,000 to construct and which has never fired a shot, would be out of date in four or five years. No one can reasonably anticipate that Australia is likely to be at war within the next few years, and that the work which the proposed cruisers would undertake in policing the Australian coast would be of such a character that the expenditure outlined would be justified. Everything points in the direction of international peace, and I do not think it wise for the

– Does the honorable senator believe that they want us to take that advice ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not think they do, because if we rejected this bill they know that we should strip this country of. a very effective weapon of defence. No other civilized country is doing that. I hold in my hand some remarkable press illustrations of what is being done by the Soviet Government of Russia, just referred to, in order to preserve the existing social order of that country, which is so often held up by votaries in this country, and even by some members of this Parliament, as a good example of how a people should be governed. These illustrations show that schoolboys, from the age of six years upward, are being mustered by the Russian democracy to preserve the existing form of government from which capitalism has been banished, and to uphold the truculent declaration that it made to China in regard to the Manchurian border, and to Poland over the frontier question. If even Russia finds it necessary to train children of tender age for such a definite purpose should we not train our young men? No one suggests, of course, that we should resort to such a barbarous expedient as the training of our school children for such a purpose. What we want is a rational view of the defence of this country.

The bill proposes to set aside the sum of £2,000,000 to be expended on naval construction for the protection of our trade routes. I have heard it said, in the course of the debate, that provision for two warships is totally inadequate for that purpose. Opponents of the measure declare that they intend to vote against it because the means which it provides for the protection of Australia would be ineffective. My answer to that is that they are as much as this country can afford at the present time, and they are an earnest of our intention to co-operate with the British Navy, upon which, as we well know, we must depend for our protection. If we can strengthen that arm, and the

Government proposal is a step in that direction, then we shall be doing something for our own safety in the hour of danger. Unless the power’ that holds the encircling seas be the British Navy, then we shall lose our freedom. It stands to reason that a. naval power having command of the seas would hold this country in its grip. It is important, therefore, that that’ power should be the British Navy. It is equally important that- we should do what we can to strengthen it for the duty it has to perform.

The ostensible object of the measure is to ensure the protection of our trade routes. Owing to our isolated position, this is vital. Our external and internal trade is in the vicinity of £250,000,000 a year, and if we add to that the private wealth of Australia: - which, according to the Commonwealth Statistician, is approximately £2,500,000,000- we realize “how important it is to ensure the safety of both. If the war furnished any lesson., lc was that Germany, alt-hough a landlocked country, was absolutely dependent upon the seas. Germany, being unable to secure command of the seas, was forced eventually to regard the struggle against the allied armies as hopeless, because the morale of her people had been broken. Ludendorff himself acknowledges this. In his review of the war operations’ he confesses that the troops lost their morale because the morale of the people behind them in Germany had been broken beforehand by the privations imposed upon them through command of the sea being in the hands of the allied naval forces. Germany, though resourceful as a nation and all-powerful on land, was entirely dependent, during that great struggle, upon command of the sea. We know now the straits to which that country was reduced during the later stages of the war. She had to resort to the . use of substitutes for various war materials, and even for many foodstuffs of her people. The lesson furnished by Germany’s experience during the war justifies us in making every effort to ensure that the British Navy shall have command of the seas whenever trouble comes. This bill is a step in the direction of strengthening that arm to the extent of our resources land for our own benefit.

Something has been said .about the menace to Australia. “ Where is the enemy ?” ask opponents of this bill. That question has been constantly put during this debate. I do nae think a more foolish question could be asked by any responsible body of men with any pretence to intelligence. As Senator Greene has observed, when a big engagement is in progress no one can say where the spirit of retaliation will be displayed, or where re-percussion of action will occur. During the last big upheaval in Europe, people and territories in a wide-flung area had their destinies determined in a most surprising manner. At one stage of the conflict Poland, and the Italian states fronting the Adriatic^ might well have asked, “Where is our enemy?” If the war, instead of ending in our favour, had gone against- us, there would then have been no need for Australia to ask this question. When the United States came into the struggle, Mr.. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, declared that victory for the allies was then certain, lt is a fact, as .attested by the pregnant remarks of the general in command of the British forces, that- for a time in 1918 the fate of the allies was trembling in the balance. The British soldiers, he declared, were fighting with their backs to the wall, and there mustbe no further retirement. If the tide of war had turned against us, those people who now ask, “ Where is our enemy?” would have had the answer furnished te them in the persons of burgomasters appointed to the control of all our cities with armed forces to support their authority. But, fortunately, the tide did not so turn. The enemy to Australia would have come out of the Northern Hemisphere. I emphasize that, whenever a big engagement is in progress, it is impossible to say whence the enemy may come, or when he will appear. It is not safe for any nation to be unprepared, because no one can say what countries may be embroiled in a struggle. I ask those who are putting this question to supporters of the bill to turn to the map of the world and, blind-folded, place their finger upon any part of it. They will not be able to point to any country which has not, at one time or another in history, been challenged or had its freedom taken from it. Unless Australia is to be the one lone exception ‘ through all the ages, their challenge to supporters of the bill to find the enemy is so much empty vapouring. I say that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves, and this bill is a step in that direction. I ask honorable senators opposite why there has been this change of front on their part? So far as I am aware, nothing has happened to warrant it. I contend, on the other hand, that the very party that has changed its mind on this subject, if it declines to support the bill now before the Senate, will be violating a solemn pledge given by it to the people of this country. The policy upon Which the Labour party appealed to the people at the last election clearly stipulated that it stood for an “ Australianowned and controlled navy.” Honorable senators opposite were elected on the strength, among other things, of that declaration - that solemn pledge. The present proposal is made in order to replace two cruisers that are rapidly becoming obsolete. The Sydney and the Melbourne are twelve years old. By the time the proposed new vessels are in commission the present cruisers will have seen fourteen or fifteen years of service, which authorities agree is the extreme limit of a naval vessel’s usefulness. Even the Australia, young as she was at the time of the battle of J utland, was declared to be unfit in some respects for that encounter. For instance, she was too slow. One of the planks of the Labour party’s platform, adopted in June, 1915, is as follows : - “ Citizen defence force, with compulsory military training, and Australian-owned and controlled navy.” That is the fourth item under the heading, “ Planks made law, the principles of which we are pledged to maintain.” ‘ I ask honorable senators opposite how they can justify their present attitude when, according to their own platform, they are pledged to maintain the Australian Navy. Why are they not prepared to replace obsolete ships by new ones 1 I realize, of course, that they must accept the responsibility for their actions. Are they now prepared to reduce the strength of our navy by two important ships? In the policy adopted in 1919, when an alien element was introduced, the party went to the extent of advocating the abolition of compulsory military training. It desired to give recognition to the Soviet system, and ad- vacated amendment of the- Defence Act to secure, among other things -

Abolition of military oaths.

Abolition of distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers.

Recognition of the principle of election of qualified candidates as officers.

Salute and other useless discipline to be abolished.

No employment of, or interference by, soldiers in industrial disputes. Punishment of Ministers and other persons responsible for breach of this provision.

– It was stated before the last war that the Labour movement would save the world.

Senator HANNAN:

– Yes, and I repeat it now with greater emphasis. When the last war occurred there was among all the nations only one Labour Government in office, and that was in Australia. There was not one Labour

Government controlling the destinies of those nations which made such tremendous preparations for combat and whose diplomats carried out their work in such a way that war was ultimately declared.

SenatorFoll. - Is not this bill to authorize the provision of equipment?

Senator HANNAN:

– The Labour party is not responsible for the present position.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I am responsible for the statement which the honorable senator has just quoted concerning the lack of equipment.

Senator HANNAN:

– Governments which Senator Drake-Brockman has supported have been in office since 1916, and yet he has admitted that if Australia were to go to war to-morrow, we should not have sufficient equipment to maintain an army for 24 hours.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– And consequent upon that statement the Government are now doing something.

Senator HANNAN:

– It has frequently been stated, during this debate, that the members of the Labour party have lost their zeal for the protection of Australia, but notwithstanding thatantiLabour Governments have been in office since 1916, our defence equipment is in the deplorable condition which I have just mentioned.

Senator Reid:

– Because the Labour party and the Country party voted to reduce the Defence Estimates.

Senator Foll:

– The Country party and the Labour party, combined, were largely responsible.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - I ask honorable senators to assist me in maintaining order. If there are any further interjections, I shall be compelled to name the honorable senators responsible for them. Senator Hannan should be heard in silence.

Senator Foll:

– I only want the country to know the truth.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT . -Order!

Senator HANNAN:

– I did not know that we were in such an unfortunate position until I read the statement in Hansard.

Senator Thompson:

– I believe we are better equipped to-day than we have ever been.

Senator HANNAN:

– We are informed that there is a tremendous diversity of opinion amongst honorable senators on this side with regard to defence, but Senator Thompson’s interjection shows there is a great difference of opinion among honorable senators opposite.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

German troops. Again,within 6 miles of Magdhaba, on the Sinai Desert, the Germans had a reservoir and wells prepared, if necessary, to supply water for 100,000 troops. We have German settlers in various parts of Australia. During the. war quite a number of them were not loyal to the country that fed them. I again appeal to honorable senators to support the bill, which makes provision for the construction of naval vessels to cooperate with the British Navy, the only power than can save us.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Needham’s amendment) - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 17

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Debate (on motion by Senator McDougall) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 August 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240813_senate_9_108/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 August 1924

NEW MINISTER

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

PAPERS

QUESTION

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

GENERAL BANKING LAW

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

REPATRIATION ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA CITY LEASES

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator DUNCAN:New South “Wales

Senator Gardiner:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Barnes:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hannan:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hannan:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator HOARE:South Australia

Senator Duncan:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Wilson:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Payne:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Lynch:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Wilson:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator HOARE:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator HOARE:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator HOARE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator HOARE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator HOARE:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senate
13 August 1924

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
New South “Wales

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRAHAM:
“Western Australia

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT