Senate
25 June 1925

9^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION
- Chairman
QUESTION
- POSITION OF DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- GERMAN REPARATIONS
QUESTION
- NATIONALITY OF IMMIGRANTS
QUESTION
- CANBERRA BUILDING SITES
QUESTION
- CANBERRA HOSTEL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- MANDATED TERRITORIES
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- OODNADATTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- DEFAULTING MILITARY CADETS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- BIRDS OF PARADISE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LINE OF STEAMERS
QUESTION
- MARRIAGE WITH ALIENS
QUESTION
- CHARTERING OF STEAMERS
QUESTION
- KESWICK HOSPITAL
QUESTION
- WHITE AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT
LOAN” BILL (No. 1) 1925
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1925-26
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 366

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION

Senator WILSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · South AustraliaMinister for Markets and Migration · NAT

. - (Byleave.) - I take this opportunity to submit to honorable senators a brief report of the operations of the commission appointed to control Australia’s display at the Wembley Exhibition, London, in 1924, because I claim that the services rendered by the commission are worthy of some recognition. It will be admitted by all that the exhibition was an excel lent advertising mediumfor Australia, and that the results achieved were of immense value to us. Our display of primary products in particular served to educate the people on the other : side of the world ; it showed them that the Empire could feed itself . The personnelof thecommission was as follows: -

President.

Prime Minister.

Vice-Presidents.

Treasurer.

Ministerfor Trade and Customs.

Chairman

Senator the Hon. R. V. Wilson.

Each State Premier.

New South Wales -

The Hon. E. H. Farrar

The Hon. R. B. Orchard.

Victoria -

The Hon. J. W. Pennington.

H. Swanton, Esq.

Queensland -

The Hon. A. J. Jones.

Joyce, Esq.

South Australia -

The Hon J. Jelly.

The Hon. Sir J. L. Bonython.

Western Australia -

The Hon. J. Scaddan.

. S. Nathan, Esq.

Tasmania -

The Hon. A. G. Ogilvie.

Mr. H. W. Gepp.

A board of control, consisting of the State Agents-General and the High Commissioner, functioned in London.

Mr. Swanton, who represented Victoria, took the place of Mr. Elder, who is now representing the Commonwealth in the United Statesof America. Mr. Jelly, of South Australia., wasappointed commissioner on the death of the lateSir John Bice.No man was more anxious to render service as commissioner than was the late Sir John Bice, and no man gave greaterhelp than he did. Theboardof control in London did excellent work. The commission held thirteen meetings, and passed 790 resolutions. Taking into account executive committee meetings, in all 63 meetings were held, and 1,156 resolutions were passed. As typifying the personal interest displayed by the commissioners in the advancement of the trade and commerce of the Commonwealth, I may say that eight of them travelled to the other side of the world at no expense to the commission, and were at all times ready and willing, even at personal inconvenience to themselves, to do everything possible to make the exhibition the success which 1 believe it was. The benefit to the trade and commerce of Australia was incalculable. The attendance at last year’s exhibition was 17,000,000 people, of whom at least 12,000,000 passed through the Australian pavilion. The return from sales in the pavilion was £163,000, which is a considerable sum, when it is realized that the articles sold were really samples, or something to be taken directly into British households. If we are to achieve success in Great Britain we must get our produce into the homes of the people, and have it labelled as the produce of Australia. We also distributed 3,000,000 pamphlets dealing wilh all phases’ of Australian industry and life. The method of distribution was so designed as1 to be of the greatest service”. We sold in the pavilion. 40, 000 cases of apples in small parcels. We’ also sold large quantities of. butter, cheese, wine, canned, fruits,, and. dried fruits. I think the Wembley Exhibition, has-been largely responsible for the improvement in our butter position in London. Previously Australian butter was mainly used in London for blending- purposes. It was frequently said by those who deal in large quantities of butter that they could not sell Australian butter. As a matter of fact, its price was always 10s. a cwt. less than that of New Zealand butter, which was probably due to the fact, that the Dominion’s marketing arrangements were better than ours. However, since the Wembley Exhibition we have had ieports to show that Australia’s butter is *on an equality with that of New Zealand, and that there is undoubtedly a demand for the Kangaroo brand - Australia’s own brand of butter. The Australian commissioners played a very active part in making the Wembley Exhibition a success. The restaurant in the Australian pavilion catered for 25,000 meals a week, and wherever practicable Australian produce was used in that restaurant. Honorable senators will realize that this created a most favorable impression on- the visitors to the exhibition, and. induced people to talk about and ask for Australian goods. I am pleased to say that the commission lived within its means. It was allotted £200,000, of which £115,000 was contributed by the Commonwealth, and £85,000 by the states. I have the balance- sheet with me. Notwithstanding all the difficulties to be overcome, such as those associated with a very wet winter, and the transporting of goods 12,000 miles overseas, the commission’s- expenditure was £2,129 less than the amount allotted.. I congratulate without stint Captain Sma-rt, the .manager of the Australian Pavilion-, and his staff, for the- excellent work . they did for Australia, and the results they obtained. Australia was exceedingly fortunate in having a staff, that laid itself out to achieve success commercially and financially. The Australian staff, of which Mr. Treloar is secretary, was’ always ready and- willing to do everything to ensure the success of the exhibition. The press in both England and Australia rendered a very great service to the Commonwealth by the publicity it gave to our efforts- in the world’s markets. Mr. Lee Neil is at present- in England in charge of the Australian portion of the 1925 Exhibition. He will be returning to Australia within a few weeks, and the Government will take action to carry to completion the work that has been so. successfully inaugurated. We are hopeful that similar results will accrue from the 1925 as from the 1924 Exhibition. As chairman, I can assure honorable senators that every party was represented on the commission., and all worked for the good of Australia. There was never any friction,, the ambition of every one being to render the best possible public service. I feel, very grateful towards the commission, and appreciate highly the assistance that was afforded to me. I am very thankful that such good, results were, obtained for Australia by the Exhibition.

page 367

QUESTION

POSITION OF DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Markets and Migration been drawn to a circular issued by those who are engaged in the dried fruits industry with reference to their position ? If it has, does the Government intend to take any steps in the matter

Senator WILSON:
NAT

– I have had the circular before me. There are in it many matters that the Government a considerable time ago took in hand and is now looking after. There are others that art receiving attention, and as early as possible a reply will be forwarded to the association.

page 368

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Leader of the Senate received replies to the following questions that, on the 12th June last, I asked on behalf of Senator Gardiner : -

What is the amount of reparation that has been paid to Great Britain by Germany?
What is the amount that Australia has received on account of her share?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Treasurer has supplied the following replies: -

No satisfactory or up-to-date information is available in respect of the amount of reparation paid to Great Britain by Germany.
The amount received by Australia is £135,4751s.1d.

page 368

QUESTION

NATIONALITY OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– Can the Leader of the Senate yet supply the information I sought in the following question that I asked on the 12th June last:-

What are the number, sex, and nationality of all people who have entered Australia as immigrants since the 1st January, 1925?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The following statement gives particulars regarding the number, nationality, and sex of all persons arriving in the Commonwealth from the 1st January, 1925, to the 30th April, 1925 : -

The following figures show the departures, as compared with the arrivals, of Greeks, Jugo-Slavs, and Maltese during the three months ended 30th April, 1925 : -

page 368

QUESTION

CANBERRA BUILDING SITES

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the Minister for Home and Territories answers to the following questions that I asked on the 12th June, 1925:-

How many sites in Canberra have been leased for -
1. Homes.?
2. Business?
3. Other purposes?
What are the total rentals for -
1. Homes?
2. Business?
3. Other purposes?
What is the total area of the sites leased?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are as follow: - 1. (a) One hundred and fifty-one.

Sixty-one.
None. 2. (a) £1,775 4s. per annum.
£2,232 2s. per annum,
Nil. 3.111 acres0 roods 1 pole.

page 369

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOSTEL

Senator GRAHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Home and Territories an answer to the following question that I asked on the 12th June last: -

Is it a fact that visitors to Parliament House, Canberra, cannot gain admission to the diningroom of the hostel unless they are clothed in dress suits?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The reply is- No.

page 369

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act - Transfers of Amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - financial year 1924-25- Dated 10th June, 1925.

Canberra - Copies of communications received from the Chairman of the Federal Capital Commission regarding the effect of recent floods upon the progress of works.

Report of the Federal Capital Commission to the Minister for Home and Territories for the quarter ended 31st March, 1925.

Commonwealth Public Service Act- Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1925, Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96.

Department of Markets and Migration - List of Regulations and Proclamations issued under various Acts administered by the Department.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land Acquired - For Postal purposes - New South Wales - Yeoval; Western Australia - Bencubbin.

Migration -

Agreement between the British and Commonwealth Governments regarding arrangements for the settlement in Australia of an increasing number of assisted immigrants.

Australian Passage Agreement made between the British and Commonwealth Governments.

Northern Territory - Ordinance of 1925 - No. 12 - Registration.

Papuan Oilfields - Report for month of April, 1925, by Commonwealth Representative.

Public Service Act -

Appointments -

Department of Trade and Customs -

R. A. Dunt; R. A. Patten; W. L. Whitehall; E. P. Vallentine.

Department of Works and Railways - H. C. Carrick.

Public Works Committee Act - Tenth General Report.

Statement showing the number of persons who arrived in Australia during the four months ended 30th April, 1925.

page 369

QUESTION

MANDATED TERRITORIES

Loss of Money - New Guinea

Education Tax

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Commonwealth Government suffered any loss of money in the Mandated Territories of Rabaul?
If so, when was the loss discovered and what was the amount?
If a loss hasbeen sustained, what steps have been taken, if any, to discover the cause of same, and the officer or officers responsible?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following reply : -

A sum of money was stolen from the Treasury, Rabaul, on the might of the 19th-20th February, 1925.
The loss was discovered on the morning of the 20th February. The amount lost was £922 13s. 9d.
An official inquiry was held into the matter, as a result of which two officers of the Treasury were charged with negligence in the performance of their duties. One of the officers was fined, and the other was reduced in status, but has appealed against the decision. The matter is in the hands of the Rabaul police, but, so far, the person or persons who stole the money have not been discovered. A reward of £100 has been offered by the Administration for information leading to the conviction of the person who stole the money.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that private planters in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea have to pay an education tax at the rate of 9s. per annum per employee?
What is the nature of the education, if any, imparted to the employees on account of this payment?
What is the total amount of education tax for the last financial year?
How was it expended?

Senator PEARCE:

– The replies are-

Yes.
The proceeds from the education tax are used for the elementary and technical education of the natives of the Territory generally, and are not applied exclusively to the education of native labourers.
The information will be obtained.
All amounts collected as education tax are credited to the Native Education Trust Fund, and may only be expended for the general and technical education of natives, and for purposes having for their object the direct benefit of the natives.

page 369

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Insurance Policies - Appointment of Draughtsman

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is he aware whether officers of the Commonwealth Public Service have suffered financial losses through forfeiture of their insurance policies at the inception of the superannuation fund?
Has the position of these officers been placed before the Treasurer by deputations representative of the Commonwealth Public Service?
If so, will the Treasurer indicate the attitude of the Government in regard to the losses, if any, sustained by theseofficers through forfeiture of their insurance policies?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurer has supplied the following reply : - 1 and 2. It was represented by a deputation which waited upon the Treasurer about two years ago that officers had suffered losses through forfeiture of insurance policies. 3, The Treasurer is still awaiting information, which the deputation undertook to give him, as to the number of officers affected and the losses sustained.

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

When was the appointment made to the position of Draughtsman, ClassE, Third Division, Lands and Survey Branch, Melbourne, as advertised in Commonwealth Gazette No.59, of the 21st August, 1924?
Was the successful applicant an officer of the Commonwealth or State Public Service?
Was such appointment made contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertised position ?
Was the appointment made under section 47 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922?
Does the Public Service Board of Commissioners, when making these appointments under section 47. of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922, decline to hear any appeal from permanent officers of the Commonwealth ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following reply: -

The Public Service Board’s recommendation to the Governor-General for appointment to the position was dated the 29th January, 1925, but, for departmental reasons, the appointment has not yet been made.
No. The successful applicant was a returned soldier, temporarily employed.
The vacancy was advertised as being open to applicants from within the Commonwealth and State Public Services, but as no such applicant was found to be suitable, a person was appointed from outside those services.
The appointment was recommended to be made under section 47 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1924.
No appeal lies against an appointment made under the section named.

page 370

QUESTION

OODNADATTA RAILWAY

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

What is the estimated cost of equipping the narrow-gauge Commonwealth line, Port Augusta to Oodnadatta, with rolling-stock?
What amount has been expended up to the present time?
In designing carriages, brake vans, freight wagons, and sheep and cattle vans, has a standard for wearing parts, such as boxes, draw-bars, brakes, &c, been established?
If not, why; and who is responsible for the carrying out of this work?

Senator WILSON:
NAT

– The information will be prepared and laid upon the table of the Senate in the form of a return.

page 370

QUESTION

DEFAULTING MILITARY CADETS

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is there a regulation in existence giving the Australian Military Forces power to demand from cadets, when entering places of detention for non-attendance at drill, such articles as pipes, tobacco, and cigarettes-, and not again to return them to the person from whom they were taken?
If there is not any such regulation in force, will the Minister endeavour to see that such a practice is discontinued?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The replies are -

The regulations provide that it is an offence for a Senior Cadet to have in his possession cigarettes or material for making cigarettes when in. uniform on duty or in any place used for military purposes. Further, no Senior Cadet is permitted under the regulations to use tobacco in any form in those circumstances, or to have it in his possession, unless the parent or guardian has notified his consent in writing to the commanding officer. The regulations also prohibit the use of tobacco in any form by both soldiers and Senior Cadets under detention. In order to give effect to these regulations, instructions provide that on arrival of trainees at detention camps, they are to be deprived of tobacco, cigarettes, and matches.
I do not know of any practice of retaining the articles taken away from the cadets on their arrival in camp. Any particular case reported will be investigated.

page 370

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Report of the Commission.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

In view of the answer given in another place that copies of the report of the Canberra Commission to 31st March could be made available to members on application, will the Minister for Home and Territories make copies available to members of the Senate; if so, when?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– Copies of the report referred to will be made available to-day.

page 370

QUESTION

BIRDS OF PARADISE

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Have representations been made to the Dutch Government with a view to its prohibiting dealing in the plumage of birds of paradise; if so, what was the reply?
Will the Government make further representations to the Dutch Government with a view to the adoption of the policy in this regard in force in Papua and in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The replies are-

No. Advice was received from the Netherlands East India Government that an area near the boundary between Papua and Dutch New Guinea had been closed against the shooting of birds of paradise and crown doves. Representations were thereupon made on behalf of the Administration of New Guinea, with a view to a’ large area adjoining the boundary between the Mandated Territory and Dutch New Guinea being closed against shooting of birds of paradise and crown doves. The Netherlands East India Government was not prepared to close the whole of the area suggested by the Administrator of New Guinea, as it considered that the effect of such action would be to completely paralyze the trade in birds of paradise in Hollandia. It proposes, however, to close a modified area in the vicinity of the New Guinea boundary.
The matter will receive consideration.

page 371

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LINE OF STEAMERS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

In view of the expressed determination of the Commonwealth Shipping’ Board not to agree to the inclusion of a clause in the articles of agreement with the seamen, guaranteeing the rates and conditions prior to deregistration, and in view of the consequent trouble that might ensue, will the Government instruct the board to do so?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following reply : -

The Commonwealth Shipping Board is charged by Parliament with the responsibility of running the line, and the Government is not in a position to interfere in matters of internal management, and does not propose to do so.

page 371

QUESTION

MARRIAGE WITH ALIENS

Nationality oi? British Women.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Government considered the question embodied in a resolution passed by the House of Commons relative to British women who marry aliens being allowed to retain their nationality if they so desire?
If so, is at the intention of the Government to bring in legislation this session providing for Australian women who marry aliens being permitted to retain their nationality as Australians if they so desire?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following replies : -

Yes.
No. The Commonwealth having adopted Part II. of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, any legislation by the Commonwealth in -the direction indicated would need to be preceded by amending legislation by the British Parliament.

page 371

QUESTION

CHARTERING OF STEAMERS

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

What were the terms of the contract regarding the chartering- of the Huddersfield and John Alee for Commonwealth service?
Is this contract still in existence; if not, when was it terminated and under what conditions?
What amount has been paid to the owners of these vessels to date?’
What was the amount of extra, money paid to the owners of these vessels (if any;, apart from money received under the terms of the original contract, in connexion with the search for the survivors of the Douglas Mawson in the Northern Territory?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The replies are-

By an agreement made on the 2nd June, 1924, between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Boucaut Bay Company, the company contracted to provide an efficient coastal shipping service in the Northern Territory between Darwin and the usual landing stations at Roper River, Borroloola, Victoria River, and all intermediate ports. The agreement was for a period of three years from the 21st April, 1924, and the annual subsidy was £6,000.
No. It was terminated as from the 31st March, 1925, on the ground that the agreement was not being carried out in accordance with its true intent and meaning.
Payment, under the contract, £5,661 5s. lOd.
£1,014 16s. 7d.

page 371

QUESTION

KESWICK HOSPITAL

Senator HOARE:
for Senator O’Loghlin

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice-

Is it the intention of the Government to continue to maintain the hospital at Keswick, South Australia, for the use of returned soldiers, as at present, with a staff of doctors and nurses who served in the late war?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– Yes, at present. The buildings now being used will be required for defence purposes later, and consideration is being given to the question of making other satisfactory arrangements for the treatment of returned soldiers in South Australia suffering from war disabilities.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to close the Keswick Returned Soldiers’ Hospital in South Australia and have returned soldiers suffering from war disabilities treated at the Adelaide or other hospitals in future?
If the (hospital is to be closed, will the Minister say why?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The replies are -

It is not the intention of the Government to close the Repatriation General Hospital at Keswick at present. The buildings now used will be required for defence purposes later, and the question of the provision of suitable hospital accommodation elsewhere is receiving consideration.
See answer to No. 1.

page 372

QUESTION

WHITE AUSTRALIA

Speech bt Me. Ramsay MacDonald.

Senator THOMPSON:
for Senator Foll

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen a statement in the press recently to the effect that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of the British Labour party, made a speech in condemnation of the White Australia policy?
If so, Stave steps been taken to ascertain whether these are the -views of the British Labour party?
Is any action being taken to counteract propaganda of this description in Great Britain ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The replies are-

I have seen the press report of a speech by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald referring to the White Australia policy as a possible danger to the Empire.
lt is not proposed to take action in this direction.
The honorable senator may rest assured that any - actions or statements calculated to detrimentally affect the White Australia policy will be vigorously combated by this Government, but it does not regard the speech of the gentleman referred to as propaganda against Australia’s settled policy.

page 372

QUESTION

EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion No. 2 (by Senator Needham), relating to the number of employees engaged by the Commonwealth Government, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY BILL .(N.o. 1) 1925-26.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

– I move-

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

The Senate has only two days in which to pass this bill if the money is to be made available before the end of the present financial year. I have no desire to curtail debate in any way, but if the ordinary formal procedure is followed, three days will be required to pass the bill. Honorable senators will, therefore, see that at some stage the suspension of the Standing Orders will be necessary.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It is not the desire of honorable senators on this side of the chamber to impede the passage of the bill, but we consider it a strange procedure to move for the suspension of the standing and sessional orders at this stage. Although it is sometimes convenient to adopt such a course towards the end of a session, action such as is nowbeing taken should be unnecessary considering that Parliament has been in recess for over seven months. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have not done anything to interfere with Government business. We remained silent during the debate on ,the AddressinReply, and have been waiting for the Government to introduce business for our consideration. Had Parliament been called together earlier than the 10th June there would have been no necessity to rush a Supply Bill through as is now intended. Personally I object to the procedure so early in the session, and wish to enter my protest against a bill authorizing the expenditure of over £4,000,000 being passed without honorable senators having sufficient time to discuss important items in -the schedule.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
“Western Australia

– As the motion for the first reading of a Supply Bill gives honorable senators an opportunity to discuss important questions, it is my intention to bring forward two or three matters of public interest, one of which is the construction of two cruisers in Great Britain.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Is not the honorable senator rather late?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is not too late to offer some criticism, and probably the Minister will .not smile after this matter has been reviewed by the people, and their opinions recorded through the ballot-box next year. As I have stated on previous occasions, I would rather assist in the building of national friendships than in the construction of battleships. If the good work of the ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), when he made a splendid attempt to lay the foundation of the world’s peace at the last meeting of the League of Nations, had been allowed to continue, we should not now have been discussing the construction of cruisers or battleships, but would have been engaged in the work of establishing international friendship. In March, 1924, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) announced the intention of the Government to authorize the construction of two new cruisers and two submarines, and shortly after the right honorable gentleman, in speaking on the Defence Equipment Bill on the 27th June, 1924, said it was the intention of the Government to have one cruiser built in Great Britain. From the outset the members of the Labour party in both Houses of this Parliament opposed the construction of cruisers, but said that if Parliament decided that they should be built, their construction should be undertaken in Australia. At that time the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States of America were endeavouring to convene another disarmament conference. When the question of the construction of cruisers was before the Senate I moved -

As efforts are being made by the President of the United States of America 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 the Senate that expenditure upon naval construction should be deferred for the present.

That amendment was negatived. The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator Gardiner) when the Defence Equipment Bill was before us, moved an amendment to the effect that if money was to be spent on the construction of cruisers it should be spent in Australia. That amendment was also negatived. The whole matter was discussed in Parliament, and a good deal of publicity was given in the press to the question of whether the vessels were necessary for the defence of Australia, and if they were, where they should be built. So strong was the criticism levelled against the proposal to build even one cruiser in Great Britain that the Prime Minister in speaking in the House of Representatives said -

Upon this measure the House must come to a decision regarding the first cruiser, but no decision will be arrived at in regard to the second cruiser until the whole of the facts and circumstances have been again placed before the House, and the House has had an opportunity of expressing its views upon them.

Since Parliament re-assembled the Prime Minister has denied making that statement.

Senator Pearce:

– Oh, no!

Senator NEEDHAM:

– At any rate, he now contends that he meant that an opportunity would be given for further discussion when the Defence Estimates were under consideration shortly afterwards.

Senator Pearce:

– That promise was fulfilled.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is the Prime Minister’s interpretation of his promise, but it is not the interpretation that I place upon it. I invite honorable senators to closely study what he said -

No decision will be arrived at . . . until the whole of the facts and the circumstances have been again placed before the House.

Honorable senators will recall that at the time there was a discussion as to ihe probable cost of one or two cruisers, the length of time likely to be occupied m their construction, and whether or not the work could be undertaken in Australia. How can it be said that all the facts could be known until tenders had been called? When the Prime Minister made that statement, he himself was not in possession of all the information. Even Sir John Monash, who was called in 10 assist the Government, admits that he did not know all the facts. Therefore, I contend that, notwithstanding the explanations made by the Prime Minister and other members of his Cabinet, the promise which he gave to the people of Australia has not been fulfilled. The Prime Minister went on to say that when he was -in England he was informed that the cost of building a cruiser would be £1,900,000, and that it would take two years to construct. I mentioned, just now, that the services of Sir John Monash were enlisted to assist the Government in coming to a decision. I know of no man more fitted for that work than Sir John Monash, and I again emphasize that he admitted it was impossible to formulate any reliable estimate on the information placed at his disposal, although he had gone into the matter very thoroughly. The Prime Minister stated further that when he was in Great Britain he was pressed by Mie British Government to consent to thebuilding of a cruiser there. Unemployment was very acute, and the British Government was anxious to do all that was possible to relieve it. I remind the “enate that unemployment is still rife in Great Britain, and that it is also a problem in Australia, The Government, we are told, placed the contract for both cruisers in Great Britain because this meant a saving in cost as compared with the estimate furnished by Cockatoo Island Dockyard. Britain to-day has let contracts to European firms to build £1,000,000 worth of vessels, owing to the fact that they can be constructed more cheaply abroad. It was suggested, in newspaper reports, that when in Great Britain the Prime Minister agreed that both cruisers should be built in .the Mother Country. I do not suggest that the reports were true, but, undoubtedly, some influence was brought to bear on the Prime Minister in the matter. It is interesting to recall some of his promises. Here is one -

The question of where the second cruiser shall be built will be submitted to the determination of the House when the general defence policy is put before us.

The Prime Minister went on to say -

When the Defence Estimates were before the House I gave an explicit undertaking that whilst the passing of the bill would be regarded as an endorsement of the policy of the

Government to construct two 10,000- ton cruisers, no action would be taken to let the contract for the second cruiser until the House was afforded a further opportunity .of considering the matter.

That promise has not been fulfilled, either in the letter -or in the spirit. Further, the Prime Minister said, in regard to a statement made by the honorable -member for Dalley (Mr. Mahony), in another place -

I most certainly give the honorable member for Dalley my assurance that the fullest opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the question of where the second cruiser shall be built. When the Defence’ Equipment Bill was being considered I gave the undertaking that the Government would not take any action in regard to the second cruiser until the House had had a further opportunity to ‘discuss the matter.

So much for the Prime Minister. I come now to a statement made by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). On 28th August, 1924, Senator Pearce, referring to the report furnished by Sir John Monash, said -

I said that the report would be placed before Parliament together with a statement as to the intention of the Government in time to enable Parliament to express an opinion thereon.

This Senate has not had an opportunity to discuss the building of the second cruiser.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes. Sir John Monash’s report was presented long before the Defence Estimates came on for discussion.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– But since Sir John Monash admitted that he was not in a position to advise the Government, how could the Government advise Parliament S Instead of finalizing the matter by placing1 the contract for the two cruisers with John Brown and Company, of Clydebank, all the facts, as revealed by the tenders, should have been placed before Parliament. If that had been done, the Prime Minister would have fulfilled his promise in the letter and in the spirit. When speaking on this subject, Mr. Bowden who, until recently, was Minister for Defence, said -

I am fully conscious of the necessity for maintaining in Australia a first-class engineering yard, capable of effecting major repairs to ships in time of war. One of the strongest arguments for the building of the second cruiser in Australia is that it will maintain at Cockatoo Island an efficient -ship-building and repairing yard. The workmanship of the Adelaide compares most favorably with that in any ship of the same class in the British NAVY

– I takethe word of the honorable senator that that is so. My point is that we should have given the whole of the work to Australian workmen, and put into the vessels as much Australian material as could be provided. Those who understand naval shipbuilding are aware that certain of the equipment is provided by a firm that specializes in. that work. When I was employed in the Clydebank shipyard, the battleship Terrible - whose men took part in the relief of Ladysmith during the Boer War - and other vessels, had to be taken to Woolwich to obtain their full equipment. The armour plates were taken from the works of John Brown and Sons in Birmingham. At that time the firm of John Brown and Sons did not own the shipyard ; it was owned by J. G. Thompson’ and Company. The vessel left the dock with its hull complete, but the equipment had to be provided at Woolwich.

I pass for a moment from the. question of the construction of the cruisers to deal with the . important matter of immigration, with which is closely allied the question of unemployment. In every state in. the Commonwealth there are at present large numbers of unemployed. During the last few months there has bean a big influx of foreign migrants into Australia.. The census taken in 1921 showed that in that year there were 159,000 unemployed. If a census were taken to-day, it would be found that that number had been considerably augmented. Foreigners are coming to Australia and taking the places of our workmen. That fact cannotbe denied. The majority of these men go directly to employment in different parts of Australia.. Yet in the press, yesterday morning, appeared the statement thatin the city of Brunswick, that is within easy distance of this Parliament, there are 4,000 unemployed men and women.

Senator Duncan:

-Would it be their positions that the immigrants are taking?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is not my contention: What I say is that the immigrants who are coming; to Australia are going directly into employment, whilst Australian workmen are walking the streetsof our cities and towns.

Senator H Hays:

– How is it that the Australian workman does not get employment too ?

Senator Pearce:

– The Australian, in a large number of cases, prefers to stay in the streets, whilst, on the contrary, the aliens go into the country.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is a reflection upon the Australian workmen, and it is not justified. In every country there is a percentage of men who will take only congenial employment.

Senator Payne:

– Can the honorable senator refer to one. case in which an Australian workman has been put off in order to give employment to a foreigner ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I cannot quote a specific instance, but I know that foreigners are obtaining work, and that that is not made possible because Australian workmen prefer to remain in the streets. The following figures show the number of persons who came to Australia during the first three months of this year : -

British, 20;870; average per month, 6,960.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator does not object to those ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Naturally, I do not object to our own kith and kin. I shall finish the quotation of these figures, and comment upon them subsequently -

Greeks, 408; average per month, 136.

Yugo Slavs, 636; average per month, 212

Italians, 2,385; average per month, 795.

With regard to the Italians, the exPremier of New South Wales, Sir George Fuller, on one occasion, read in the New South Wales Parliament a statementthat he had received from, the Prime. Minister (Mr. Bruce) to the effect that by an arrangement with Italy, only 100 immigrants a month were sent to Australia. Despite this statement, the average for the first three months of this year was approximately 800.

Senator Duncan:

– That was before the agreement was entered into.

Senator Pearce:

Under clause 7 the state must provide one farm for every £1.000 of principal sum issued to the state. Experience proves that the cost of providing a new settler with a farm is usually nearer £3,000, and that frequently actual ‘failure or heavy loss is recorded. The British Government, however, specifically limits responsibility in respect to such losses to £100.

Senator Crawford:

– The State Government ‘has the land, which still remains.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am aware of that; but because the state has the land it should receive greater consideration than will »be the case under this agreement. Continuing, the article states -

How do the states propose to settle immigrants on the land? As everybody knows, and as. experience during the last decade proves up to the hilt, the state is the most inefficient organizer of settlement.

A state cannot purchase land with this cheap money, however, unless it reserves half of such land for migrants, and agrees to train them, the cost of the training not to be paid out of the cheap money.

Another clause entails a heavy responsibility. It provides -

That in any case assisted migrants shall be found suitable employment in Australia at the same rate of wages as Australians of similar experience.

Senator Guthrie:

– Honorable senators on the other side have often insinuated that migrants are being brought to Australia to lower wages.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am pointing out that the responsibility of the states is greater than that of either the Imperial or the Commonwealth Government. The article goes on to say -

In depressed periods, which must occur, the agreement binds the Commonwealth to guarantee employment to migrants.

Senator Lynch:

– .So also has there been an increase in the deposit rate, and an increase in deposits.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There may have been, but there was no justification for an increase in “the bank rate of interest, which is an additional tax on the people of Australia. When the Commonwealth Bank Bill was before the Senate, I described it as a measure designed to change *t«he character of the bank from a people’s bank into a bankers’ , bank and I think events have confirmed my statement. Under the regime of the late Sir Denison Miller, the -bank was really a people’s bank, but as the .result of recent legislation it has become a bankers’’ bank.

I thank honorable senators for their attentive and courteous hearing. I have mentioned one or two matters which, I think, are of importance to the people of Australia. I have shown conclusively (that in connexion with t’he ‘building ‘of the ‘two cruisers the Government has not honoured its promise to the Parliament and the people.. The time is not far distant when the Government will have to face a jury, -not of its peers,, but of its masters,, and I feel confident that when Ministers have given an account of their stewardship the verdict at the ballot-box will be that they have been guilty of a betrayal of Australian national senti- ment and Australian national ideals.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales) [4.551. - This bill gives me an opportunity to make a few remarks with regard to the Commonwealth Bank. Figures published in the Government Gazette show that the bank is retrogressing. As honorable senators are aware, the operations of the bank are conducted under two headings - ordinary banking business and savings bank business. The bank was established, in face of very strong opposition, at the in-‘ stance of a Labour government. Since the death of Sir Denison Miller, it has consistently failed to fulfil its original purpose as a people’s bank. I have no objection to the manner in which officers of the bank are carrying on under recent legislation, but I disagree with the provisions of the act; and I am satisfied that if the business of the savings bank branch is conducted as at present it will not long survive.” For reasons best known to itself, the board has continued the practice of paying merely a nominal rate of interest - a rate lower than is paid by any of the state savings banks - to depositors in ohe savings bank branch.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That has .always been the policy of the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am under the impression that for a limited time the rate of interest paid by the New South Wales Savings Bank was the same as that paid by the ‘Commonwealth Bank.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I doubt it.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At all events, it is a. fact that for a number of years the Commonwealth Bank has been paying only 3 per cent, to its ‘savings bank depositors, while the New South Wales Savings Bank has been paying at least 4 per -cent.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The savings bank branch of the Commonwealth Bank was inaugurated on those lines by the late Sir Denison Miller.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I speak subject to correction on that point, but I fail to see why the bank should pay its deposi.fc.ar3 a least J per cent, less -than is paid by the state -savings bank in New South Wales, and a lower rate than is paid by the savings banks of the other states. If this policy is continued, depositors will undoubtedly withdraw from the Commonwealth Bank and lodge their deposits with the state banks ; because, whatever may be said to the contrary, the security offered by the latter is practically as good as that offered by the Commonwealth. It. would appear that the purpose of the board is to destroy the savings bank business of the bank.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– As a matter of fact, it has been built up under the present conditions.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not being built up at all; it is being destroyed.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator is entirely mistaken.

Senator Duncan:

– The business is increasing every year.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A return published in the Commonwealth Gazette for the quarter ending 31st December, 1924, discloses that the savings bank business of the bank is decreasing substantially. The following decreases in deposits are shown : -

And yet we are told by Senators Duncan and Greene that the business of the bank is being built up. These figures show that it is being effectively destroyed. If the present trend of business continues, the savings bank branch of the bank’s business will eventually become a negligible quantity.

Senator Pearce:

– The Commonwealth Bank has always paid a lower rate of interest to savings bank depositors than is paid by state savings banks.

Senator Lynch:

– And Senator Grant has never objected.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have objected on more than one occasion. The rate of interest paid by the Commonwealth Bank to its savings bank depositors since its inception has been a little less than the rate paid by the State Savings Bank of New South Wales. The point 1 want to emphasize is that owing to the policy pursued by the Commonwealth Bank to-day as disclosed by the figures I have just quoted, the deposits in its savings bank branch are decreasing. If these withdrawals continue this branch of the bank will be completely destroyed.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I always thought that the payment of interest was a capitalistic practice to which you were opposed.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are quite mistaken.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The honorable senator must address the Chair.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Surely I am permitted to reply to an interjection.

The PRESIDENT:

– Addressing honorable senators directly, instead of through the Chair, is always calculated to lead to disorder. The honorable senator has been sufficiently long in the Senate to say anything he requires to say just as well by addressing the Chair rs by directly addressing another honorable senator.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall endeavour to abide absolutely by your ruling. We are assured by some honorable senators that the Commonwealth Bank is making progress. An examination of the figures for the quarter ending 3.1st March, 1925, will show what progress it is making. The increases and decreases in the savings banks deposits in the various states were as follows: -

Therefore, during the last six months the deposits in the savings bank branch of the Commonwealth Bank have decreased by over £800,000. During the next quarter ending -30th June, 1925, when the interest accruing is added to the various accounts, it will ‘ be claimed that the deposits have increased, whereas nothing of the kind will take place. It will merely be a swelling of the deposits by the addition of the interest earned.

Senator Payne:

– I thought that Labour Governments always brought prosperity to the states.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The returns I have quoted refer to the work of the directors of the Commonwealth Bank, and not to the work of Labour Governments. T have no doubt that the returns of the state savings banks show substantial increases in their deposits, due possibly to the fact that there are Labour Governments in control in all the states except Victoria, but mostly to the fact that deposits are being transferred from the Commonwealth Bank to the state savings banks. My humble opinion is that the savings bank branch of the Commonwealth Bank under its present management is being slowly and persistently strangled, and that unless something is done to stay the steady decrease in deposits’, this branch of the Commonwealth Bank must in the not very distant future cease to exist. If the rate of interest were increased to the amount paid by the state savings banks the volume of deposits would at once increase, and if the rate were only per cent, above that paid by the state savings banks such a volume of . deposits would reach the Commonwealth Bank that it would have more money than it could comfortably handle.

Senator Payne:

– Why should the Commonwealth Bank compete in that sphere?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why should it not? I can understand some honorable senators objecting not only to the savings bank portion of the Commonwealth Bank’s business, but also to the very existence of the Bank itself. We were assured yesterday by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) that recent legislation has almost transformed the Commonwealth Bank from what it was originally intended to be, and has made it a bankers’ bank. Therefore, it is quite possible to conceive that some day the savings bank portion of its work will be a thing of the past. Why are the directors of the Commonwealth Bank not opening new branches? So far as I know noi a single new branch has been opened since the board has come into existence. In scores of large towns in New South Wales other banks are doing business, but the Commonwealth Bank is conspicuous by its absence. I have no doubt its directors are acting in accordance with the legislation recently passed, and with the views of the present Government. But if the bank is to perform its duty properly, and fulfil the functions it was intended to fulfil when it was established, it will open branches in all large centres throughout the Commonwealth where any banking business is available. I shall be pleased when an opportunity is afforded to Parliament to make a radical alteration in the personnel and constitution of the board of directors of the Commonwealth Bank, so that the board will not be allowed to rest upon its oars, but will be compelled to open new branches in centres where banking business is available. It will then to some extent fulfil the objects of those who advocated and brought about its .establishment. The recent action of the board of directors in increasing the rate of interest on overdrafts to 7 per cent, was quite unjustifiable. Such a high rate operates very detrimentally to those enterprising men who are willing to borrow money for investment purposes, and afford employment and . develop the country. Very often a per cent, means all the difference between the success or failure of a venture. However, I shall take another opportunity of referring to the Commonwealth Bank in the hope that, in order that it may have a fair chance, some action will be taken to ensure that the rate of interest paid to its savings bank depositors is increased to that which is paid by other savings banks, and that the rate of interest on overdrafts is substantially reduced.

On the 15 ih December of this year war loan bonds amounting to £68,000,000 will become due. It is impossible to say what steps may be taken by the Government to deal with this matter, but it is of the utmost importance that something should be done to reduce, or, if possible, abolish the enormous amount of interest that has annually to be transferred from Australia to Great Britain. Publicly and privately, about £50,000,000 a year, or £1,000,000 a week, is extracted from Australia in the shape of payment of interest to London. It appears to me that it is within the province of the Government, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Bank, to take steps to do away with at least a portion of the interest that is now being paid upon these loans. I find, from the return from which I have just quoted, that there are £56,000,000 worth of notes, of which’ the public -holds approximately £22,000,000 and the Commonwealth Bank £24,000,000. When the east-west railway was ‘being constructed the Labour Government of the day, in defiance of the advice of the allegedly most prominent financiers, printed a considerable number of notes, of which ‘ about £3,000,000 worth were used to pay the expenses incurred in connexion with the construction of that line. Interest has not to be paid upon that sum. It has never had to be paid. I should like to know why the Commonwealth -should continue to pay interest upon the £68,000,000 that will fall due in December next, if by a similar arrangement it can be avoided.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator mean that the Government should print £68,000,000 worth of notes?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not gone quite as far as that; I have not mentioned the number of notes that I would issue. I think that my suggestion is a practicable one. What would happen if the Government invited the bond-holders to take notes for their bonds?

Senator Crawford:

– Not one of them would be so foolish .as to do so.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I believe that they would adopt the suggestion.

Senator Duncan:

– Such action would result in a considerable increase in prices.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If half the number of bond-holders ‘ accepted payment in Commonwealth Bank notes they would then deposit those notes with the Commonwealth Bank. There would be an increase in the currency, but nothing detrimental would happen. The interest that the Commonwealth is at present paying on £68,000,000 would be reduced by, possibly, one-half. What is the Government now doing? We have a National Debt Sinking Fund. Provision was made - presumably with malice aforethought, in order to prevent the Commonwealth Bank from carrying out the functions it was originally intended it should carry out - -whereby half the profits of the bank, with other moneys, must be paid to tire credit of that fund. It is expected hat within the next 50 or 60 years the national debt will be liquidated. When the Fisher Government took the step to which I have referred in connexion with the construction of the east-west railway it was assured that chaos* would ensue. The parrot cry regarding the inflation of the currency that we hear uttered so flippantly in many discussions was sounded at that time, but nothing untoward happened. The notes went into circulation, half the cost of the east-west line was defrayed from that source, and the people of the Commonwealth are not now paying interest on that sum. A Nationalist Government would have borrowed the money in London. Had that been done the loss on the line to-day would probably be 100 per’ cent, .greater than it is.

Senator Duncan:

– -Notes are not cash; they are only a promise to pay.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are as good as cash. One gets no more for a sovereign than for a £l-note. If the loans are refloated the interest rate will probably be 6 per cent., and that sum will have to be found by the workers and producers in Australia. If the payment of interest is to continue, as apparently some people intend it shall, it will be a millstone around the necks of the people for untold years.

Senator Duncan:

– One does not get rid of a millstone by issuing ‘a promissory note.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that my suggestion will jar upon those who have been in the habit of looking at this matter from the orthodox financial view-point, but to me it appears that it would absolutely wipe out the interest to the extent that the bonds were redeemed, and the only cost to the Commonwealth would be that involved in the paper used and in the printing of the notes. What happens to-day .? A loan is floated in London. All that comes to Australia is a wireless. Immediately it arrives - probably before - interest begins to accrue on the loan. The Commonwealth Government alone pays in interest £20,000,000 per annum, mostly to lenders in Great Britain. The time is opportune to obtain the best advice to see if it is possible to adopt the method used in connexion with the east-west railway, and thus wipe out for ever the huge interest bill which confronts us every year.

I desire to refer very briefly to the construction of the railway from Kyogle to Brisbane, During the discussion in this chamber of the measure authorizing the construction of that line, I spoke at some length, and listened carefully to the speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It did not then dawn upon me that a government in this age would contemplate providing for bridges and tunnels wide enough to carry only one set of rails. I understand that the surveys have been completed, and that they include something which, so far as Australia at least is concerned, is quite new - a spiral inside a tunnel through the mountains that separate New South Wales from Queensland. I believe that the tunnels and bridges, when built, will carry only one set of rails. If the work is to be done under contract, I suggest that before tenders are accepted the Government should carefully consider the advisability of making such provision that the bridges and tunnels will be capable of taking a double set of rails. The line from Sydney to Newcastle originally had tunnels that were capable of carrying, only one set of rails. The work ha’d subsequently to be duplicated at enormous cost. There was a. similar experience with the south coast line in New South Wales. In that case, also, duplication work had to be undertaken. There is no reason why the Commonwealth should make that mistake with the tunnels and bridges on the line from Kyogle to Brisbane. Other portions of the line will quite easily cope with the traffic when it is fully operating. I believe that it is impossible to increase the width of a tunnel while the line is in operation.

Senator Lynch:

– Is there a double line across the Hawkesbury river?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think so. I understand that there are one or two single-line tunnels on the line from Newcastle to Kempsey, but that is no justification for the Commonwealth Government constructing a single-line tunnel in the mountains between Kyogle and Brisbane., Now, before a /tender is accepted,is the time to decide this matter. Almost regardless of cost, the Commonwealth Government should not allow a single-line tunnel to be constructed on any portion of the main lines of railway in Australia. I am a warm supporter of the proposal to unify the railway gauges throughout the Commonwealth. The question of- finance is undoubtedly a troublesome one, but that should not; prevent the work from being done. We should not now construct single-line tunnels, when, in the near future, if this country makes the progress which we all expect, double lines will be required. The country between Newcastle and Brisbane is probably the finest stretch of country in the world ; it is well watered, the climate is all that could be desired, and the soil could not bc better.

Senator Duncan:

– lis there provision for a double line on the New South Wales side running north from Newcastle?1

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know of none.

Senator Duncan:

– Then why have it on the Kyogle-Brisbane section?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The point that I desire to emphasize is that in matters relating to its defence a country should be self-contained. These cruisers should be built here regardless of cost. Reference has been made to the fact that British shipbuilders are being ousted by Germans. I should like to throw -a little light on that subject, and shall, therefore, read a statement made by Mr. Walter Runciman, M.P., at Manchester, on the 28th March last, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 18th June, 1925:-

One shipyard, which in the year ended September, 1913, paid £1,930 inlocal rates and £387 under schedule A of the income tax, paid out last year more than £10,000. The yard was of the same size with the same number of dry docks and building berths, but just at the conclusion of the war some soft ground was piled and made into solid ground. Imme- diately the Assessment Committee came along and increased its demand because the improvement had “ added tothe national wealth.” Old machinery was gradually replaced by new and better, and every time the equipment was improved the assessment went up, thus penalizing the owners for everything they did to improve the yard. This was no isolated instance. Another yard, on the Tyne, which was paying £2,700 in local rates and £500 under schedule A, was now paying more than £10,000 in local rates, and £3,000 under schedule A. In normal times that yard had produced four ships a year. Last year it produced three. On each of those ship’s £4,000 of the gross cost was due to taxation.

I should like to know how much of the estimated cost of constructing cruisers at Cockatoo Island was due to the piling on of overhead charges. I invite the attention of honorable senators to the extract I have just quoted, which gives one rea son why the German shipbuilders are able to undercut the shipbuilders in Great Britain, and incidentally I should like to know to what extent, if any, our shipyards are handicapped by taxation of a similar kind.

I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to briefly refer to our present system of national taxation. I presume that in the near future, when tariff measures are under discussion, we shall have an opportunity to deal with this question, although our comments will to some extent be curtailed. On this occasion, however, one can speak at some length upon the question of taxation. At present, the great bulk of our taxation is derived from Customs and excise duties. We are informed by our enthusiastic protectionist friends that under that great national policy all work can be undertaken in Australia, but when they got an opportunity to construct cruisers the work was sent abroad. During the last financial year we collected in the form of Customs and excise duties the very substantial sum of £36,000,000, which of itself should be a very clear indication to honorable senators of the large volume of goods manufactured in foreign low- wage countries which is finding its way into the Commonwealth.

Senator Duncan:

– Does the honorable senator advocate increased duties?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If cruisers are to be built I am in favour of the work being undertaken in Australia. The honorable senator is supporting a Government which believes in building them abroad.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator does not wish any cruisers to be constructed.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This party is in favour of the adequate defence of the Commonwealth, and it would be wise to place on record portions of our defence policy. On page 6 of the “Rules and Regulations of the Australian Labour Party,” we find, under the heading of “Defence,” the following: -

Defence

Amendment of Defence Act to secure -

Deletion of all clauses relating to compulsory training and service.
Abolition of trial by court martial where civil courts are available; any sentence imposed by court martial to be subject to review by a civil court.
No penalties to be imposed except in pursuance of explicit enactments of Commonwealth Parliament.
Intended regulations to he publicly advertised, and regulations to have no effect till before both Houses, cither of -which may veto.
Limitation of professional soldiers to necessary instruction and administnatiwe and working staff.
) Albolition of military oaths.
Abolition of distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. (h) Recognition of principle of election of qualified candidates as officers.
Salute and other useless discipline to bc abolished.
No employment of or interference by soldiers in industrial disputes. Punishment of Ministers and other persons- responsible for breach of this provision.
Citizens, on completion of training, to retain arms delivered to them during training.
Defence Acts to require annual renewal, as in England.
No raising of forces for service outside the Commonwealth or participation or promise of participation in any future overseas war, except by a decision of the people.

– Was not the honorable senator a member of the Labour party when compulsory military training was introduced?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes; I have always been a member of that party. . We tried compulsory military training as an experiment, and, in view of our experience, are now opposed to it. It is very peculiar that, if compulsory military training possesses all the good features which some honorable senators opposite believe it does, men are not trained instead of youths. Why is not every male of the military age compelled to attend drill on Saturday afternoons? Most men prefer to go to the races or football matches, and such a, thing would not be tolerated.

Reverting to the question o:f national taxation, I am very glad to see that the Western Australian Labour Government has dealt with this question in a way in which it has not been handled in any other state. It has imposed a straightout land values tax of 2d. in the ? on the unimproved value of the land in accordance with the principle laid down by the late Henry George in his notable work entitled Progress and Poverty. This policy will, no doubt, have a very excellent effect in making more land available for settlement in that state. I understand that all of the revenue, which must amount to a very substantial sum, is to be used for the reduction of freights on the Western Australian railways. Undoubtedly that will be a step in the right direction. It will be an immense boon to the users of the railways. I should very much like to see the same policy adopted throughout the Commonwealth. It will be within the recollection of honorable senators that when the Grafton-South Brisbane Railway Bill was being discussed in this chamber, I endeavoured to insert a clause providing for the imposition of a betterment tax upon the owners of land adjacent to the proposed railway. Unfortunately, that amendment was beyond the scope of the bill. Owing to the laxity of the Government, through its officers in the Land Tax Department, approximately ?2,000,000 in land taxation is outstanding. It is surprising how promptly the taxation authorities act in some cases and how promptly one set of citizens is mulct in fines while other people are allowed to escape. I noticed, in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 15th May, that Mr. Johnson, the assistant secretary of the Seamen’s Union, was before the court in Sydney and fined’ for having failed to furnish income tax returns.

Senator Guthrie:

– Did the honorable senator say his name was Johnson?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I understand that is his name.

Senator Guthrie:

– His name is Jacob Johannsen.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Whether his name is Johnson or Johannsen is beside the point. He failed to furnish income tax returns and was fined. The Sydney

Morning Herald report of the case is as follows : -

Jacob Johansen Fined.

Jacob Johansen assistant secretary of the Seamen’s Union, was proceeded against before Mr. Camphin, S.M., at the Central Summons Court yesterday, on information alleging that he failed to furnish Federal income tax returns for the years 1923 and 1924. He pleaded guilty, and was defended by Mr. Small.

Mr. Small asked that the information be altered from Johansen to Johnson, but no change was made in the information.

Alan Hardy Falconer, an officer of the Taxation Department, said that Johansen who was the assistant secretary of the Seamen’s Union, had never furnished a return under the Federal Income Tax Act. He should have furnished one for the past five years. His income would show a slightly taxable portion. The aggregate tax for two years would be about ?6, under both acts.

To the Bench: The Commissioner will enforce the tax payable. I do not doubt that the tax will be paid.

On each of the two charges Johansen was fined ?3, with 8s. costs, in default 21 days’ imprisonment.

I have also a report of another case. The Sydney Morning Herald of the 13th May states that Sir Sidney Kidman was fined ls. for what was described as a technical breach of the act.

Senator Wilson:

– Does not that show the absurdity of some of the statements made about his case?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not wish to read the whole of the report. The charge was -

That the taxpayer had failed to furnish, before the 31st August, 1924, a return under the Land Tax Assessment Act 1923 for the year ended 30th June, 1924, as and when required by the Commissioner of Land Tax.

The report goes on to state -

Thomas Owen Smith, officer in charge of land tax records in the department, submitted a return furnished on the 16th September, 1924, showing that the unimproved value of the freehold land of Sir Sidney Kidman on the 30th June, 1923, was ?13,504, irrespective of Crown leases and shares in companies.

The report, which is of some length, indicates that a fine of ls. was imposed, with costs amounting to ?4 6s. 6d. Mark the difference. Sir Sidney Kidman is one of the largest land-owners in the Commonwealth.

Senator Wilson:

– If the honorable senator wished to be fair he should state that the report showed that Sir Sidney Kidman’s offence was a technical one, whereas J Johannsen’s was deliberate.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– -It is possible that Mr. Johannsen overlooked the fact that he was obliged to furnish a return. I have heard of many people who were under the impression for years that they were not obliged to make out income tax returns, so it is quite likely that Johannsen was not aware of his liability. Many’ people believe that members of Parliament escape the payment of income taxation. That”, of course, is a very great error. It is strange that Johannsen had to pay fines amounting to about £6, whilst Sir Sidney Kidman was fined only ls. for a similar offence. I have mad© this comparison in order again to expose the extreme difficulty of the department in collecting taxation under the present system.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does the honorable senator blame tho Government or the courts ?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The courts, I suppose, are really to blame, but their decisions are not always sound. Some years ago, the late Mr. T. J. Ryan successfully challenged a decision of the High Court before tho Privy Council. Whatever respect most people may have for the courts, there is evidently a belief in the minds of some that, when courts deal so gently with men like Sir Sidney Kidman and so severely with men like Johannsen, they may be, to some extent, biased. I would welcome an alteration in the system for the collection of revenue. The present policy is unsound. The people who really own the Commonwealth are only called upon to make a nominal contribution to the revenue, whereas the enterprising’ people who do the work have to pay enormously in Customs, excise, and income taxation, as well as in many other directions. The time is opportune for the Government to bring down a measure calling upon the people who own Australia to contribute substantially towards the revenue. It was my intention to deliver a lengthy address upon -land values taxation*, but, as a number of other bills will come before the Senate during the ensuing few weeks, I shall take the opportunity then offered to enlarge upon this very important question and give honorable senators the benefit of my knowledge in regard to it.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I have always been opposed to the construction of the cruisers abroad. In this matter I and thos© who think with me may be regarded as big Australians in the true sense of the word. We wish to have the vessels built in Australia. Senator Cox, this afternoon, stated by way of interjection, whilst Senator Needham was speaking, that he was talking “ tripe.” Those who object to the building of cruisers in Australia on the ground tha* it will be necessary, first, to establish special rolling mills, talk “ tripe.” Several estimates of the probable cost of those rolling mills have been submitted. One estimate was £1,000,000, another £500,000, and Senator DrakeBrockman has told us that, even if the rolling mills were established, they would only be used for about six weeks. That statement, too, in my opinion, is “ tripe.” I know nothing about shipbuilding, but I’ have been informed by men who are engaged in that industry that these mills can be altered to roll plates of any required size. If it is the intention of the Commonwealth to establish defence forces either on land or sea, it will not matter if it costs £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 to set up a rolling mill so long as we keep abreast of the times. Mr. Bruce, addressing the Chamber of Commerce of New South Wales recently, said -

Our greatest defence in Australia is the building up of our industries.

I quite agree with that statement, but

We find to-day that half of the industries we have built up are idle, while goods produced at less cost in other countries and under conditions of labour which do nOt compare with those in Australia are being brought her© to compete with those locally produced.

The Labour party has a defence policy. It stands for the development of factories which, while fulfilling a useful purpose in time of peace, may be applied, should the necessity arise, to the manufacture of implements of war. The Labour party advocates aerial defence, the establishment of aerial stations all over Australia, the setting up of adequate coastal defences, the building of submarines, and so forth. Honorable senators opposite are quite wrong when they declare that if Labour came into power there would be no defence policy for Australia. Every man in the Commonwealth is prepared to shoulder a gun to defend his country. Whatever may be the policy of the Labour party in other respects there must always be some form of defence. But these 10,000-ton cruisers which are being built at enormous expense will be about as effective as pop guns would be in the defence of Australia’s 12,000 miles of coast-line.

Senator Wilson:

– How many cruisers would the honorable senator suggest are required for that purpose?

Senator GRAHAM:

– If we are to build cruisers we should not build small vessels.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator is aware that the largest cruiser we can build under the terms of the Washington treaty must not exceed 10,000 tons.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Quite so, and under the terms of that treaty - the Labour party was not consulted in the matter - the Government has sunk the Australia, whose guns could fire a shot twice as far as those of the 10,000-ton cruisers will be able to do. It has got rid of a battleship and is expecting two baby vessels to take her place. Since the signing of the armistice the Commonwealth has spent £25,000,000 on defence. According to Sir John Monash and other experts there is nothing to show for this enormous expenditure; the defence forces of Australia are in a deplorable condition, there is not sufficient ammunition for heavy guns to last for 24 hours, and the system of compulsory training now in operation is farcical. It is not the fault of the Labour party, but these things must be taken into consideration. People cannot hold a country unless they are in a position to defend it. Like Senator Needham I abhor war. I believe that the generals we have in this chamber also abhor Avar. But, notwithstanding our abhorrence of war, we all claim that we must be prepared to face it. There are various ways of being prepared, and if we follow the advice of the Prime Minister and build up our industries, it will go a long way towards making Australia a self-contained country quite able to protect itself.- It is quite possible that the Commonwealth Government may embark upon a policy of building a mercantile fleet.

Senator Elliott:

– Already there are vessels owned by the Commonwealth rotting in our harbours.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Whose fault is. that? An honorable senator has asked why the Western Australian Government recently bought a vessel that wasbuilt abroad. It was forced to doso. For its north-west coastal trade it chartered a steamer belonging to the British Government, but was recently notified by the Imperial authorities that the boat must be sold. The Government was given an opportunity to purchase it.

Sitting suspended from (S.S0 to 8 p.m-

Senator GRAHAM:

– Honorable senators are, doubtless, aware that in Western Australia at present we have a Labour administration. In common with all other Labour governments, it does not believe in purchasing abroad anything that can be manufactured iuAus tralia. The price that was asked for the vessel to which I have referred was prohibitive, and the time available for procuring another vessel to take its place- in the north-west trade was so short that it was not possible to have one built. Therefore, the Government was forced to purchase a vessel from Great Britain. Whether the Government of Great Britain was playing into the hands of the private shipping companies is a matter for conjecture.

– Very likely that to’ being done now, but it has not been the case, in past years. I speak with knowledge, because I have worked on the fields. Whilst the Labour party is not opposed to. immigration, it believes that the first duty of the Commonwealth Government is to see that its own people are employed before it permits large numbers of foreigners to be brought to Australia. I do not know whether those who come here accept less than the ruling rate of’ wages, but it is a significant fact that they can obtain employment whilst our own people are unable to- do so-. An honorable- senator asked, during this debate, how the Australians, could expect to get work if they would, not go out of town, but were content’ to lounge, about the streets. That may be so in Melbourne, Sydney, or Adelaide, but on the gold-fields such a spectacle- is not witnessed, and yet Australians there have for some time been displaced by foreign immigrants. If the Government desires to make Australia self-contained, and populate its vast vacant spaces, its. first duty is to see that the Australian-born at least gets a chance to: work some of his native soil. - Frequently he is not given the opportunity, preference being given to immigrants in different parts of Australia.

There is room in Australia for many more people than it is now carrying, and- there should be work for all. The trouble is that when industries are established in any state, but particularly in Victoria, a sufficient amount of protection ia not afforded to enable them to compete against the goods that are dumped here by foreign manufacturers. I should, like to- draw attention to the case of Bryant and May’s match factory in Richmond. Itis second tq none in Australia in the working conditions that it provides for its employees. It supplies its male and’ female workers individually with two sets of overalls, which it launders, repairs, and keeps in order. There is a big dining-room, in which the employees are supplied by the company, free of cost, with soup, two rolls, milk, butter, sugar, and tea daily at mid-day.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-brockman. - It is one of those “ capitalistic companies “ to which honorable senators opposite so often refer I

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator Needham, in a very comprehensive discourse, spoke of the unwisdom of the Government in ordering cruisers from the Old Country. We had heard of this subject before, but the arguments were not presented in the same way. Here again the usefulness of Parliament is exhibited, in that the most exalted among us, as well as the lowliest, may express our views. I am here in my lowly role to offer some comment upon Senator Needham’s speech, and other speeches of a like nature which have been delivered in another place. What is the position? Does it not amount to this : That in the first place, when the Government brought down a proposal for keeping the Australian-owned and controlled navy up to its strength, it received the general support of the Australian people. That phrase, “ an Australian-owned and controlled navy,”

I believe, still lingers in the minds of :he members of the latter-day Labour party. It is in their platform, although they have excised from their programme quite a number of the original clauses relating to our defence. The Australianowned and controlled navy is with us still, and I believe it is one of the boasts of the Labour party that it was responsible for the creation of that navy. What is meant by an Australian-owned and controlled navy ? Does it not mean that it is to be- an arm of our defence which must be maintained as an effective fighting unit? It is true that warships were ordered to be built in the Commonwealth by a Labour Government, and it is also true that some of them took a very long time to construct - some of them as long as Noah took to build the ark. The two cruisers now under construction are for the purpose of protecting the external trade of the Commonwealth, and our action in building them is also in accord with the decisions of the latest world effort to bring armaments at least within reasonable bounds. I refer to the Washington Conference. The members of the. latter-day Labour party say that we do not need any cruisers at all. I can quite understand such an expression of opinion coming from those who kneel at the altar of altruism, and who blind their eyes to the facts, even if such action maylead to their own extinction. If they weretrue worshippers at that altar, I would not mind. But have they been ? When a. certain motion was submitted in another place it waa decided by the members of the party opposite that on this greatquestion they would stand as firm as the rock of ages. In keeping with the principles of the Third Internationale at Moscow or some other centre, they decided’ that no warships should be built. They were resolved to stand firm and blaze thetrail on this important issue. And theThird Internationale, no doubt, said,. “Well done!” But when there wasa further development they decided that if cruisers were to be built, the work should be undertaken in Australia. A member of another place tabled a motion to test the feelings of honorable members on the subject. The motion was defeated. Then came the opportunity for these modern Ironsides. What did they do? They had stated on the previous day that, in keeping with the policy of the Third Internationale, they were opposed to warship construction, but they then became a mere semblance of their original heroic selves, and said that if -warships were to be built they should be constructed in Australia. The ‘ ‘ evil “ act of building ships for our protection has turned out to be quite harmless, so long as they are built here. Black is white, and wrong is right ! The members of the Labour party altered their view-point, and favoured the construction of warships in the Commonwealth. Senator Grant,, of. all men, has made some most astounding statements on the question of Australia’s defence. I used to pride myself on the privilege of following him in his support of Cobdenite principles, but even he, who has followed so faithfully in the steps of Cobden, John Bright, Henry George, and others of their exalted political cult, and has said on many occasions that those who proposed to manufacture anything in this country, and wanted a duty to help them, would not get a vote from him, has changed his course. When it comes to building ships, what becomes of this modern prophet ? He demands that- they shall be built here, whatever the cost. What can I do? My prophet has gone, and his feet are of clay. What will the Third Internationale say? I can imagine a telephone conversation between a representative of the latter-day Labour party and a person of corresponding dignity in the Third Internationale. The latter would probably say: ““What are you doing down there?” The representative df the latter-day Labour party would say : “ We are building warships.” The representative of the Third Internationale would then probably say : “ Oh ! you are, are you?” and the reply would be: “ Yes, we are in favour of warships so long as they are built in Australia.” The answer would be: “Confound you; what do you mean, you hypocrites? Is it because yon want to win popular favour that yon -violate and dishonour your word and principle of yesterday? Do you call yourselves men? You are not fit company for members of the Third Internationale. .Ring off.”

We Iia ve arrived at a peculiar staple of party discipline and party manoeuvring. Gone are the days when mcn adhered to their word, and when principles were regarded as sacred. We are living in a new agc, when -a man’s word is looked upon as of little value, and when, if our alleged principles -stand, in out way, Ave can bore a tunnel through them. Regard for principle no longer stands in theway of the members of the Labour party. They ought to say, “We have none;” Their vision is not so blurred that they cannot see the position in which they stand. The time is coming -when -out efforts, however feeble, will be used against those gentlemen who are behaving in such a peculiar manner at this juncture. Since it has some association with this question of constructing cruisers in Australia, I should like to draw honorable senators’ attention to the fact that when the construction of a vessel on a smaller scale was offered to the shipbuilders in this country - when a Labour Government, to which Senator Graham has referred, required a ship to be built which we know was within the capacity of the shipbuilders of this country - ‘not a single tender was received. The following appeared in the Argus of the 8th April, 3925:-

Perth, Tuesday, 17th April, 1925. - Tlie State Ministry intends to call tenders for a Deiselengined steamer to replace the Bambra at a cost of about £1.60,000 for tlie North-west Coast service. The Colonial Secretary (Mr. Drew) stated to-day that the Federal Ministry ‘had decided to admit the vessel ‘free df 25 per cent. duty.. No tender was received in Australia for the vessel to replace the Eucla on the South-east Coast. It will be built >« England, and will also be admitted free df duty.

Apparently, it is quite right for a Labour Government to let a contract in England for the construction of a vessel which could be built here, but if. a Nationalist’. Government does the same thing the most unusual language is used by Labour members in condemning its action.

Senator J B Hayes:

– The Tasmanian Labour Government is having a vessel built in Great Britain.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes, and, in addition, the Tasmanian Labour Government sold vessels purchased by a previous Nationalist Government. But when, this Nationalist Government hints at selling the Commonwealth Fleet, on which there is an annual loss of £500,000, the dictionary is ransacked for epithets to hurl at them. A Labour Government can steal a whole mob of horses, but any other kind of Government must, not look over the fence. Pair play is bonny play. We must “play the game.” If we played such a game iu the football arena as honorable members of the Labour party are playing in this connexion in the political field, we would be kicked off the field, and rightly so, too. The sins of the members of one party, which are written in scarlet on their foreheads, are allowed to pass unnoticed, whereas the members of the other party, whose scarlet marking is comparatively insignificant, receive wholesale condemnation. How long we are to continue in this way I do not know, but I.. am reminded of a saying that I first heard in Queensland - a man cannot play all the time with a double-headed penny.

Of course, there are such things as majorities, and majorities are very often right. There are occasions, however, when they are wrong. That certain majorities have been obtained recently counts for nothing. Majorities can be secured by various and devious means. I wish to draw a clear distinction between the members of the latter-day Labour party and the old Labour party, in which sense prevailed and some semblance of consistency, honour, and honesty was observed. In the early days of the Labour party its members gave their word and stuck to it. Apparently, we have departed from the old morale of the Labour party. In those days its members made sacrifices in order to establish the movement on a firm footing. The “ cuckoos “ in the movement to-day are enjoying to the full the benefits obtained by the men who made sacrifices because they loved the cause for which they worked. Are sacrifices being made to-day? Not at all. In the years gone by men in the party walked hither and thither, over very many rocky paths, in an endeavour to promote and advance the cause they loved, but they do not do it now. You may count your majorities by five’s or tens of thousands, but I tell you that you cannot advance except by a strict adherence to those principles which are the cardinal points, if not the very milestones, in the evolution of human society. If you depart from them you only court a foredoomed failure. It has been well said by Ralph Waldo Emerson (hat every reform was once the opinion of one man. The truth of this has been fully demonstrated in the history of every well-ordered society, and when I am told about the opinion of majorities, it does not count very much with me, because while the opinions of majorities are mostly right, and therefore to be respected, they are often also wrong. I do not say that my remarks concerning the morality of the Labour party apply to the whole of the party. Far from it. There are in it men whom I respect very much, although some of them do not talk to me - or rather I do not want to talk to them - because I dare to-day to express opinions which I have always held. They put their noses in the air, some of these men when I pass them in the street, but conscious of tlie justice of my attitude I put my own nose just a little higher and pass them by. But let me discuss the morality of this party. It is disclosed by the opinion of one very important member of it. He controlled a newspaper, and in the course of one article dealing with the conduct of it he stated -

There will be only ink spilling and splash. . . . Truth will find a place, but not to the exclusion of more interesting matter. . .

No virtue will be seen in the enemy nor vice among friends.

I did not think it possible to come to such a pass as that. Neither do I think now that the glorious cause of Labour, to which all well-affected citizens are still wedded, will endorse that statement.

Senator HANNAN:

– Who is the editor?

Senator LYNCH:

– A leading member of the Labour party.

Senator McHugh:

– Give us his name.

Senator LYNCH:

– I will; though. I wanted to shield him a little. It is Mr. Anstey. I tried, in all kindness, not to disclose the name, because I have some tender regard for that gentleman: If this represents the policy of honorable senators opposite they are welcome to it. I am convinced, however, that while it may be the policy of certain of its leaders, it is not the policy of an overwhelming majority of the party. If the party intends to conduct its political affairs without regard to individual relationships and ideas of right, it is foredoomed to failure. Who is the best friend of Labour? Who is the best friend of any one of us? Is he not the man who will tell the party or the individual of its faults as well as ite virtues 1 Have we reached that stage when the public life of this country can be conducted only -with abuse ? “ Audacity, audacity, and yet audacity,” was the counsel of a famous French political strategist. Do members of the latter-day Labour party hope to secure permanent victory by that means? I refuse to believe it. It is true that the party may achieve a temporary victory, but at what a cost. I still believe that truth will be vindicated. It cannot be buried permanently in the dust. It will live long, long after all these incidents are forgiven and forgotten. We shall have to get back to the time-honoured principle of justice to all. We cannot conduct our public affairs except by an observance of those truths upon which society has been founded. I intended to refer to several matters, but I permitted myself to enter these bypaths for the special purpose of evidencing my good- will towards honorable .senators opposite. They have it to the fullest extent, and I hope they will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it has been uttered. I have fulfilled my part of the contract.

We have heard something about a breach of faith bv the Nationalist Government in connexion with the cruiser contract. I have already dealt at some length with the breach of faith by members of the present-day Labour party, in regard to things that mattered in the past, and I am now tempted to ask, What have they done with the defence policy of the old Labour party ? I well remember being present at the 1907 Labour conference in Brisbane, when the defence policy of the party, since crystallized in the form of. the Defence Act, was laid down. What was the import of those deliberations. Clearly it was that if this country was worth protecting, it should be protected in some whole-hearted fashion, and not by a haphazard voluntary go-as-you-please, doasyoulike, system. Latter-day leaders of the Labour party have reverse^ that decision. They are doing their best to destroy the work of men who did something for the Labour movement - men who made sacrifices for principles in which they believed: men who were “sacked “ over and over again because they stood by the policy oof the old Labour party. Leaders of the latter-day Labour party, it, appears, do nothing except talk. They have broken faith with the people of Australia in a matter of the most vital importance, namely, the defence of this country. If a thing is of any value, surely it is worth protecting. If a man by thrift becomes possessed of’ a sunt of money to be used for a rainy day, is it likely that he will spill it about on the verandah of his dwelling ? Of course not. He takes steps to protect it, because it is of value to him, and because, if he fails to safeguard it, thieves may steal his hardwon savings over many years. Under the policy enunciated by the latter-day leaders of the Labour party, how do we stand in regard to the freedom which wo enjoy ? We have the last expression in the way of human freedom in the world, and yet we are told that this glorious heritage, handed down bo us by our grandsires, is to be entrusted to the tender mercies of thos© who take their orders from Moscow or sit on some other International Council. Australians will never submit to such a damnable and suicidal policy as that. They will take no chances. Just as Soviet leaders in Moscow are specially jealous of and prepared to defend that awful social system which has been fastened upon the benighted people of that unfortunate blood-bespattered -land, so are all true Australians prepared to (defend- freedom in this country. All this trouble is being wrought at the instigation of a miserable remnant who have come to this country from other lands; by men who have done nothing themselves for freedom, but who are now trying to destroy the glorious heritage which our forefathers fought for and won.

Senator McHugh:

– Who are these people 1

Senator LYNCH:

– They are men who never fought for the principles of the old Labour party, which find an abiding place in our laws. The honorable senator knows them as well as I do. He sits cheek-by-jowl with men who are endeavouring to fasten their suicidal and destructive policy upon Australia. Did we not see Walsh, the representative of bolshevism, sitting side by side with accredited Labour delegates at the Victorian Labour Conference recently ? Do we not also see Garden in the company of Labour leaders in New South Wales? What has he ever done to advance the cause of liberty? What have others done who are now playing such a ruinous part in the affairs of the present-day Labour party 1 They are breeding trouble out of all proportion to their numerical or intellectual strength in the party ? Why are the members of the Labour party being led by the nose in this way ? Fortunately there are some who refuse to be so led any longer. It is high time they made then1 selves heard and stamped out these serpents that have come from abroad - these men who themselves never turned a hair to win freedom. The time has come for plain speaking. It is time that every well-affected citizen, every believer in democracy, rose in his wrath to drive these reptiles out of this garden of Eden - for in a sense Australia is a veritable garden of Eden. It is reassuring to know that there is still some freedom in this country. There have been attempts to close my mouth. That cannot be done. It is not liberty - it is only a bastard form of liberty - that would dare to close the mouth of any mau well disposed towards the social laws under which he lives. There is still opportunity for the expression of opinions such as I have just uttered, and if it is availed of we shall have a more wholesome state of public feeling in the future. We should expose the hollowness, the unwisdom, the impracticability as well as the ruinous effect, of the opposite doctrine. I challenge contradiction of what I am saying.

I spoke just now of an infraction by the. Labour party of its solemn trust. We all know what has happened with regard to arbitration - another Labour-made law. There were nien in the party - I was one of them - who went around the country making themselves unpopular at every turn, and who after a long uphill, strenuous effort at length succeeded in ripening public opinion to the point of accepting arbitration as the sole means of protecting the men and women of the country as they had never been protected before. What is the presentday Labour party doing now ? At the behest and direction, and by the express instruction of a contemptible element in this country, mostly a foreign, brainless, and ruthlessly inclined section, the Arbitration Act, which has been the bulwark of the workers in Australia, is to be trampled to the dust. And not a word is raised in protest, because it would have a repercussionary effect on the reactionaries, and in the end popular favour would be lost. That is the sum total of it. As Aristotle said, “ The demagogues are the bane of democracy,” which brings me again to the point of my argument. The trouble in all democracies is that there is always one section that will advocate its own cause at the expense of the whole, and thus bring about the downfall of the whole. History shouts contradiction to the assertion that democracy is a stable form of society. Democracy that does not trust itself is always unsafe, and unless we throw out of our body politic that poisonous element we have with us to-day we shall go the way of all democracies. Look at Greece to-day - Greece, that glorious land, which, as Byron said, was holding the light aloft for the enlightenment of mankind. How was it governed during the recent w.ar? By an imported sovereign aided and abetted by an imported consort. That country, which gave birth to Pericles and Demosthenes, was ruled by two such samples, who raised the sceptre of tyranny everywhere. The Aegean Isles, whose constitution was a pattern for that of the United States of America, were the prancing ground of a foreign prince. History has the knack of repeating itself. Lest it should do so in our case, let us make sure that those who are in our midst to-day are put in their proper place without much delay.

Another infraction of the spirit that obtained in the Labour party in days gone by is the feeling that has been engendered among two sections in our society - the employers and the employed. Did not those of the early days of the Labour movement always acknowledge that there were employers and employers - that there were good men in the employing classes just as there were among the employed? Did we not claim that by the passing of an Arbitration Act, that legislation which is now being trampled underfoot, a good and generous well-affected employer would be placed on as good a footing as the other fellow, and for the first time would be given a chance with an unfair competitor? That was one of the most powerful arguments used by us in the old Labour time. But now the good and the bad are herded together, and all employers are branded as outcast! of society. I am heartily sick and tired of all this nonsense, because the very men who indulge in it are availing themselves of all the arts and practices and devices that are usually adopted to get a share of what is condemned as capital. I exempt some of them from this charge, but I do blame those who at every “ red “ conference utter condemnations against capital, claiming that . there is nothing so detestable in the whole civilized scheme as capital, yet never lose an opportunity to get a little of its tainted proceeds. To such men I am prepared to say, “Well done. You have to get a living; but I should like a little more consistency on your part.” I have never met that type of latter-day Labour prophet who would feel insulted at being told that by putting a few pounds into certain capitalistic ventures he would have a certain percentage returned to him. As a “ matter of fact, he is the very class of man from whom I have often obtained advice that has proved profitable to me. If I wanted good advice as to how I could get more capital to help my bankrupt farm to get rid of the dead weight of debt upon it, I would get it from the very men who turn up at these “ red “ conferences, declaim against capitalism, and then make a bee-line to the nearest broker’s office to draw their dividends. Their outspoken, fervent cursing of capital in public is only equalled by their whole-souled blessing of it in private when drawing a dividend or the rent of a suburban villa. Yes, it is about time we talked over these things among ourselves. I want to be told my faults; I have so many that I do not know where they begin or end, but I want to be told of them, just as I propose to tell others of their faults, whilst having all good will for them. I hope they will tell me of mine, always provided they stick to the truth and do not follow the standard which has been set up for them by some of their leaders. If the doctrine now preached, that of creating bad feeling between employer and employee, is to be strictly and rigidly adhered to, no worker can rise from the ranks. By all the rules of the game the bootmaker who starts a boot-repairing business, and finds that his trade is sufficient to enable him to employ an assistant, at once becomes a capitalist. If a miner goes into the interior, and after years of plodding and hard struggling, and often starvation, eventually makes a find, unlocks some of nature’s treasure, and secures a rich and well-deserved reward, he at once becomes a detested capitalist as soon as he enlists the assistance of others to form a company. According to the rules of the game he becomes a social outcast, and one to be shunned. Senator Graham does not dissent from that statement.’ When I put it to him he has the wisdom and manliness to assent to it. The farm labourer becomes a capitalist when he reaches that degree of eminence at which he can farm his own land. Where can we draw the line? Capital is but congealed labour. Even the schoolboy who saves a few pennies, and puts them in. a savings box, is a capitalist. The man who saves his surplus earnings and puts them by for a rainy day is also a, capitalist. The man who subscribes to a co-operative establishment is also a capitalist. I recognize that there are abuses of capital, but they can always be held in check by this Parliament. If ever those abuses become rampant in this .country it is within the powers of the people to control them. This Parliament can always bring capital to its bearings, make it amenable to reason, and curb it in its predatory designs. If we only had- in this country a Labour party true to its own principles - a Labour party that would not hearken to the voice of ill advisers - there would be only one party in Australia for evermore. There is no leisured class in the Commonwealth. Ninety per cent, of the people are workers by hand or brain. I know it serves the purpose of some persons on the hustings to say that certain honorable senators are here to serve the interests of a mere 10 per cent, of the people, but the truth is that those honorable senators are here by the exercise of the free choice of the majority of the toilers by hand or brain. Therefore, they must be accorded every right to choose what is best in their own interests.

There are certain features of the Government policy to which I wish to draw attention, particularly the necessity for a better roads system in Australia. According to the Commonwealth Tear-Book this country is largely dependent on primary production. Out of £140,000,000 worth of goods exported from Australia last’ year, only 3 per cent, represented manufactured products. The other 97 per cent, consists of the direct produce of mother earth. Our imports are mounting up, showing that we have a greater consuming capacity, but we are not showing a corresponding increase in the export of those commodities upon which we depend to pay our debts and the interest upon the money that we borrow. The Commonwealth Government is. the dominant tax-collecting authority in Australia. I should like it to take steps that would enable it to increase the road grant to £1,000,000 a year and make it permanent, in order to make easier the lot of those who go into the interior, turning their backs upon the sea coast, so that they may develop the undeveloped portions of the continent, and increase the production of those things which are so valuable to us. Primary production is our breath of life, the main pillar of our national strength.

If I were the adviser of the Government I should suggest that it make available £100,000 annually for the purpose of testing old mining fields, whether they be fields of gold, silver, copper, or any other metal, and for prospecting generally. That would give hope and encouragement to prospectors to go into the uncharted places of Australia, and reveal to us the hidden wealth that they contain. It should be provided that the states should make available an equal amount. By such means attention would be directed to our mining resources, and those who are engaged in metalliferous mining would be given an opportunity to succeedto a greater extent than they have done in the past.

I hope that my suggestions will receive consideration when the Budget is being framed. In the meantime I shall avail myself of every opportunity to further their adoption.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– When Senator Guthrie addressed the Senate, on the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, he referred to the good work that had been done by . the Government. We expected that eulogy from him, because we recognize that the Government isan advocate of the “ big-business interests.” He made certain references to Russia, and to its Bolshevik Government, with which I disagree. One of the quotations that he made was -

Near by stood a church with thewindows broken, the crucifix torn off, and the tower burned, a pitifully typical emblem of the Russia of to-day. The Bolsheviks are robbing the peasants, and killing every one who falls into their hands.

An intelligent man like Senator Guthrie should know that there is something radically wrong with, such a statement.. No government could continue along those lines; it would soon be deprived of the right to govern.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The honorable senator forgets that Russia is not an educated and articulate community.

Senator HOARE:

– I agree that the people of Russia are probably the most uneducated in the world, and that it is hard, therefore, to bring about reforms there. I recognize that every reform springs from knowledge. We cannot, therefore, expect, the people of Russia to progress until they are educated, and gain in knowledge. I have here a quotation that is the opposite of that which was read by Senator Guthrie. It is taken from the report of the British trade union delegation that was sent to Russia, and reads - “In SovietRussia every one must work to live.” In this terse phrase the report of the British Trade Union Delegation which -recently visitedRussia gives the keynote of the Soviet social system. It does not mean thereby that present-dayRussia offers a- perfect example of communism in practice. The system, it observes,, is in many cases “ still in its experimental stages.” It points out, however, that “ no conclusions as to its stability or value can be obtained from those who steadfastly refuse to accept what it offers.”

While it wouldbe misleading to state that the system, has permeated the whole country, “ it is undoubtedly being supported by the whole of the industrial workers, by many of the peasants, and by those of the former middle class who have joined the movement either from conviction or through force of circumstances.”

The peasants are, of course, less accessible to education in the principles of the new system than are the town workers, and the methods of propaganda adopted during the fierce period of war communism have now been modified. “ It is now generally recognized in communist circles,” says the report, “ that the peasantry can best be educated by giving them a larger representation in the Government and District Councils,and by teaching them to govern themselves locally. The communist attitude to the peasant is a curious combination of contempt and consideration. “ Sovictism as practised at present appears to be a compromise between communism and state socialism, with strong tendencies towards the latter. It is the result of practical experiment among largecommunities, and the success of the movement is undoubtedly due to the courage of its leaders in acknowledging mistakes when by practical demonstration their theories have proved to be impracticable. “ The fundamental principle of the system is the formation of a state and society which shall give tlie greatest possible benefits to the majority of the workers (by which is meant both hand workers and brain workers ) , and equal opportunities to all men and women.”

The report .puts briefly the main features of the system. Even more .briefly they are: Creation of the power of personal wealth, by destruction of the power of private wealth. To this end all real property, industry, and capital are owned by the state. The worker receives his pay, and, in addition, tho privileges of a citizen of the Soviet state. Under the latter head come recreation, medical service, education, housing, &c.

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

Bear-Admiral Hall said -

We had a grand fleet with a preponderance of nearly two to one over Germany alone. We had the assistance of the American, French, Italian, and Japanese navies, and yet our main naval purpose - the protection of our trade - could not be carried out.

Rear-Admiral Fullam, of the Navy of the United States of America -

Submarines, air forces, mines, and torpedoes are sufficient to defend a coast. Lord Sydenham -

Submarines, mine-fields, and the air have conferred new powers of home defence.

Admiral von Scheer, of the German navy -

The airplane and submarine furnish greater advantages to the defender than to the attacker. They make attack so difficult that the surface war vessel must now be denied official offensive power.

Lord Wester Wemyss, First Lord of the British Admiralty -

Had any enemy submarines been present at Gallipoli in April, 1915, the landing of the troops in the Peninsula would have been impossible.

Mr. Pembroke Billing, a former squadron commander ;

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, nobody in this country need ever fear an invasion.

Commodore Hyde, Acting First Naval Member of the Naval Board -

We have no stock of munitions, no means of manufacturing munitions, no oil or petrol for submarines or aircraft.

Lieutenant-Commander Rawson states that -

It needs little technical knowledge to see that Australia must concentrate on submarines, minelayers, fast torpedo boats, and aircraft. Sixteen submarines can be built for the price of one’ battleship. No expensive dry docks- are required. Flotilla warfare is a form of defence particularly suitable to our needs and our resources.

Australia cannot be retained as a white man’s country merely by moral effort, and something more than mere sentiment is required. It is incorrect to say that the Labour movement is opposed to the construction of cruisers or above-water craft. The Minister for Defence stated that an enormous expenditure would be required for the adequate defence of Australia. The sum mentioned by the Minister was quite beyond the resources of Australia, but the policy of the Labour party is to ensure adequate defence by submarines and aircraft. That is the policy we stand by. There is considerable unemployment in Australia owing to the heavy importation of goods which should be manufactured in this country. Senator Graham who touched upon this subject is apparently in favour of a prohibitive tariff. That would not furnish the remedy. There must be reciprocity in trade relationships. We must export our surplus primary products, and, therefore, we must import goods. Senator Grant, in his references to finance, has informed the Senate on more than one occasion that whenever we borrow money in England all we get is a wireless message to :hat effect. That is not so. If we borrow £20,000,000 abroad, we must import £20,000,000 worth of goods. There is no other way. This means, of course, that the Australian manufacturing industry must suffer to that extent, and unemployment in Australia results. It is a truism that, the more we borrow abroad the more we must import.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Then Senator Grant’s economic doctrine is altogether wrong?

Senator HOARE:

– Absolutely. If the Customs Department levies a duty of 10s. upon an imported article, the manufacturer of a similar article in Australia will naturally sell to the Australian consumer at a price up to the very limit allowed by the Customs duty instead of being satisfied with a reasonable profit. All this works against the development of the Australian secondary industries. And then there are certain Australians who are iahamed of Australian productions. These, too, retard development. The other day I went into a shop in Hindleystreet, Adelaide, and asked for some Australianmade underwear. The attendant at first informed me that they did not stock it, but he said they had something a trifle better. When I expressed determination not to take the imported product that was a trifle better, but wanted the Australian article, he pulled down bundles of underwear stamped “Made in Australia.” I purchased what I required, and then went to Lever’s hat stores in Rundle-street. Lever manufactures his own huts. I asked for a hat made in Australia, and was told that I could

Yet something better, namely, a hat made in South Australia. I bought a hat, but could find no indication anywhere that it was an Australian-made article. I asked why it was not stamped “Made in Australia,” and the attendant, while assuring me that he was positive it was one of Lever’s hats, said he did not know why it was not stamped as such. The prejudice against the Australian-made article is seriously affecting our manufacturing industries, and is responsible for much of the unemployment in this country. Manufacturers should be compelled by law to stamp their goods “Made in Australia.” According to the latest statistics our secondary industries employ 412,410 people, who receive in wages about £78,000,000 a year. If Australians insisted upon buying the Australianmade article instead of decrying it, we should have a much greater number employed in Australian secondary industries, and the development of this country would proceed rapidly. The wool industry has fallen upon evil times lately, largely because of this prejudice against Australian-made goods. There was a striking instance of this in NewSouth Wales recently. An inspector appointed by the State Government to investigate the condition of the industry, visited a number of warehouses, and again was faced with the same unwillingness to push the sale of Australian-made goods. At one Warehouse he asked if they had any Australian-made serges, and they taid, “No.” When he opened one parcel, however, he found that it bore the stamp of the Australian Woollen Mills. People who deliberately defame the Australian secondary industries should be punished. If ever we are to become a great nation we must give every encouragement to our secondary as well as our primary industries, and co-operate earnestly for the good of the Commonwealth.

Debate (on motion by Senator Duncan) adjourned.

page 408

LOAN” BILL (No. 1) 1925

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.

page 408

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1925-26

Debate resumed.

Senator DUNCAN (New South Wales) f] 0.14] . - All that I have to say upon this bill will take but a few minutes. I want to make my position quite clear upon one or two very important matters that are dealt with in the bill, and will leave until a later stage other subjects which I wish to discuss. I listened with very great interest to Senator Hoare, and I want to say at once that T admire his evident sincerity and the outspoken way in which he dared to criticize the utterances of honorable senators on his own side. He did not hesitate to take to task very strongly the honorable senator who, by the strangest twist of fortune that ever befel an honorable senator, finds himself in the exalted position of Deputy Leader of the. Labour party in the Senate. Ho told him quite plainly that he differed very materially from him. He also assailed Senator Graham, and made it quite clear that he had been saying things which were not in accordance with the general principles of the Labour movement. He also ventured in no measured terms to differ from the views expressed by two or three other honorable senators of his party. It makes me feel that Senator Hoare will not be tied up by the restrictions that bind other honorable senators of his party, and that he has the courage to express his own convictions. I do not think anything will happen to him. I feel sure that those honorable senators from whom he differs will find that hia outspokenness has increased their respect for him.

I rose principally to express my opinion in a few words upon the important question raised by Senator Needham at the outset of this debate, namely, the construction of cruisers in Great Britain. I have never hesitated, since the matter was first discussed in the Senate, to say that if possible the two cruisers should be built in Australia, and that if that were not possible, at least one of them should be built here. I still maintain that attitude. It was made quite clear to me that because of the condition into which certain of the cruisers in commission on our coast had fallen, it was absolutely essential that we should secure at least one new cruiser as speedily as possible. That being the case when the matter was previously before the Senate, I gave my assent to the construction of one vessel in Great Britain. It was made quite clear that it was possible to get one cruiser very quickly, and that it was urgently needed to replace another cruiser that was out of condition. In regard to the second vessel, I understood from the Government that we should have another opportunity in this chamber to express an opinion on the question. However, I accept the assurance given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) that the Government did not intend the Senate to have that further opportunity which I thought we would have, to give specific attention to the matter of building the second cruiser. I regret it very much, because I believe that had we had the opportunity to do so it would have been possible to bring forward facts which would have caused the Government to hesitate a little longer before agreeing to give the contract for the second cruiser to an overseas firm, even though it might be a British firm. A great deal can be said from the standpoint of the Government to justify the step taken. Regarded only from a business stand-point it did the right thing in placing the contract for the construction of the two cruisers with a British firm ; but in national affairs sentiment must come before business. I believe that Australian sentiment was overwhelmingly in favour of the construction of the second cruiser in Australia, and that, even if it had involved an additional expenditure of £800,000, the Government would have been wise in building it here if only for the sake of extending Australian sentiment as we know it.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The thing is done, and I am faced with the alternative of saying that the Government is no longer worthy of the confidence of those of us who believe that the contract for the second cruiser should have been given to Australia, and that our support should be transferred to another party which has made it quite clear, by Senator Needham’s own admission, that it does not believe in the construction of cruisers at all.

Senator Needham:

– Never mind about ice ; what is the honorable senator’s attitude ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– My attitude is that the present Government can satisfactorily meet the opinions of honorable senators supporting it more easily than it will be possible for the honorable senator who interjects to satisfactorily meet th03e of his. supporters. The difference between honorable senators on this side and honorable senators opposite is that we are free to express our opinions openly and frankly. If we differ from the Government, we are free to say that in this or that matter the Government is wrong Having done so, we continue bo support the Government, which we believe is the best we can have, in the circumstances. One mistake on its part does not justify us in refusing any longer to support a Ministry that has done so much for the defence of Australia, and replace it by one which will do nothing, adequate to defend Australia. Honorable senators opposite did their utmost to block these cruisers being constructed, but when it was determined, despite their efforts, that they should be built, they said, “ All right, but construct them in Australia.” Their attitude is not honest. They are either in favour of the adequate naval defence of Australia or they are not. On their own admission, they are not, and they have no right to criticize the Government or its supporters for doing what they deem best to provide that adequate naval defence.

– Mr. Collier also made a similar statement.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes; and, in justice to Mr. Angwin, Senator Find-ley’s statements should be contradicted.

An- attempt has been made . by certain honorable senators t© make it appear that Australia is being flooded by alien, immigrants, but a return which has been supplied to me shows that such is not the case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) endeavoured to show that Asiatic immigration was increasing. The honorable senator quoted the arrivals, but did not mention the departures, and if one quotes only the arrivals the impression is created that there has been, an increase. The arrivals of Chinese for the quarter ended 31st December, 1924, were 768, and the departures for the same quarter 720. For the quarter ended 31st March, 1.92.5, the arrivals were 650, and the departures during the same quarter 846, so that nearly 200 more left Australia than entered it. The arrivals of Japanese for the quarter ended 31st December, 1924, were 93, and for. the quarter ended 31st March, 1925, 239. Th© departures during the same periods were 69 and 202 respectively. Taking the net Asiatic immigration returns for (he quarter ended 31st December, 1924, the arrivals of coloured people of various nationalities numbered 1,337, and the departures for the same quarter 1,365. For the quarter- ended 31st March, 1925, the arrivals were 1,650 and the departures 1,369. The honorable senator might also have mentioned that for the last quarterly period for which we have the figures the number of Greeks whoarrived: was 305 and the departures 143. The number of Jugo-Slav arrivals during the same period was 103 and the departures 253, while there were 193 Maltese arrivals and 87 departures. There is no cause for alarm in these figures.

Senator Barnes:

– Is the Minister quoting from the return supplied- to- me ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I am quoting from a footnote to the return supplied to the honorable senator.

Senator Barnes:

– Am I to assume that the Maltese who came here are returning like scalded cats to their own country, because of the party in power?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have given the figures, arid the honorable senator may draw from them whatever inference he. pleases. I propose also to quote some figures which are an answer to the argument as to the association of unemployment with increased immigration, and are especially interesting in the light of the figures quoted by Senator Needham. Ithas been said that when a large number of immigrants is allowed to come into the country, unemployment is increased. But facts speak louder than words. For the information of the Senate I submit the following table : -

In 1923 immigration was about equal to the previous year, and the number of unemployed continued to fall. In 1924 the excess of arrivals over departures was 43,749, or about three times the excess in 1921; and the percentage of unemployment during the first quarter was only 7.6, as compared with 11.4 in the first quarter of 1921. In the second quarter it was 8.3, as compared with 12.7 ; in the third quarter it was 9.5, as against 11.4; and in the fourth quarter 10.3, as against 9.9: If there is any moral to be drawn from these figures it is that the greater the increase in immigration, the smaller is the number of unemployed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 410

ADJOURNMENT

Delegates to the Assembly of the League op Nations.

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

.- I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I wish to take this opportunity of informing the Senate that the Government has invited the following gentlemen to represent the Commonwealth at the Assembly of the League of Nations to be held at Geneva in September next: - Senator Drake-Brockman, the High Commissioner for Australia (Sir Joseph Cook), and the Hon. George Swinburne. A lady delegate has yet to be appointed. I feel I shall be voicing the opinion of honorable senators in extending to Senator Drake-Brockman our congratulations upon his selection for this very important duty, because we know that the forthcoming meeting of the

Assembly will be of the utmost importance not only to Australia, but to the civilized world. We feel sure that Senator DrakeBrockman is well qualified to represent the Commonwealth, and. will carry out his duties there with credit to himself and to Australia.

HonorableSenators. - Hear, hear!

Senator PEARCE:

– I also wish to state that, during the absence of Senator Drake-Brockman, Senator Duncan will act as Government Whip.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I should like to know if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Labour delegate to the forthcoming Assembly of the League of Nations.

Senator Pearce:

– Not on this occasion.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– A Labour representative was sent on the last occasion. I feel sure that the honorable senator mentioned will carry out his duties with satisfaction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 June 1925, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1925/19250625_senate_9_110/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 June 1925

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION

Senator WILSON:Minister for Markets and Migration · South AustraliaMinister for Markets and Migration · NAT

Chairman

QUESTION

POSITION OF DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY

Senator ELLIOTT:VICTORIA

Senator WILSON:NAT

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

NATIONALITY OF IMMIGRANTS

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA BUILDING SITES

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOSTEL

Senator GRAHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

PAPERS

QUESTION

MANDATED TERRITORIES

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

OODNADATTA RAILWAY

Senator McHUGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILSON:NAT

QUESTION

DEFAULTING MILITARY CADETS

Senator HOARE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

BIRDS OF PARADISE

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LINE OF STEAMERS

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

MARRIAGE WITH ALIENS

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CHARTERING OF STEAMERS

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

KESWICK HOSPITAL

Senator HOARE:for Senator O’Loghlin

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator CRAWFORD:

QUESTION

WHITE AUSTRALIA

Senator THOMPSON:for Senator Foll

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

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

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator NEEDHAM:“Western Australia

Senate
25 June 1925

Senator WILSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · South AustraliaMinister for Markets and Migration · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

Senator WILSON:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRAHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILSON:
NAT

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator HOARE:
for Senator O’Loghlin

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMPSON:
for Senator Foll

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator NEEDHAM:
“Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
NAT