Senate
19 August 1903

1^st Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
QUESTION
- QUARANTINE
QUESTION
- CAPITAL SITES COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS REVENUE
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
- Victorian Railway Employes
QUESTION
- NAVAL DEFENCE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH FLAG
QUESTION
- ENGLISH MAIL : HOBART
QUESTION
- MILITARY FORCES : TASMANIA
QUESTION
- EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY
PAPERS
GOVERNMENT OFFICES: RENTS
QUESTION
- MINISTERS IN THE SENATE
CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL
PARLIAMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL
NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL
- Second Reading
PATENTS BILL
QUESTION
- STANDING ORDERS

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

page 3788

PETITIONS

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD presented two petitions from 146 electors of New South Wales, praying the Senate to prohibit the introduction, sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in British New Guinea.

Petitions received.

page 3788

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if it is the intention of the Government, at an early date, to bring in a measure dealing with the question of quarantine 1

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I - It will be impossible to bring in any legislation on that subject this session. It is the intention of the Government to deal with it as early as possible.

page 3788

QUESTION

CAPITAL SITES COMMISSION

Ishe aware that it is currently reported that there were very serious differences of opinion amongst the members of the Federal Capital Sites Commission regarding the various sites ?
Were minutes of the proceedings of the Commission kept?
If so, will he lay such minutes upon the table of the Senate ?
If no minutes were kept, will he lay before the Senate a copy of whatever records the Commission kept? 5.If no records of any kind were kept, will arrangements be made for the members of the Commission to appear before the Senate for examination?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

No. 2.Yes. 3 and.4. The minutes are with the chairman, whose property they are.
No.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– How can the minutes be his property?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– T - They are.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– It is an unheard of thing.

page 3788

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REVENUE

Senator McGREGOR:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether for the three weeks ending 21st July, the gross Customs revenue for 1903 was greater or less than that for 1902, and what was the difference?
Whether from 21st July to 8th August, 1903, the gross revenue for 1903 was greater or less than for 1902, and what was the difference ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– T - The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The gross Customs revenue for the three weeks ending 21st July, 1903, exceeded that for the three weeks ending 21st July, 1902, by £42,789.
The gross Customs revenue for the period from 22nd July to 7th August, 1903, was less than that for the period 22nd July to 7th August, 1902, by £71,102.

page 3788

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Victorian Railway Employes

Senator McGREGOR:

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has the attention of the Government been called to the notice No. 7 appearing in the weekly notices of the Victorian Railway Department, issued by Mr. B. Lochhead, Chief Traffic Manager, as follows : - “Municipal or ParliamentaryElections. - The Commissioners direct that employes are to refrain from taking any part in connexion with municipal or parliamentary elections, other than that involved in the recording of their votes ?”
Will the Government inquire if this notice is intended to affect the Commonwealth parliamentary elections ?
If it is, will the Government draw the attention of the Railway authorities to sections 177 and 178 of the Common wealth Electoral Act ? .

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

Yes, by the honorable senator’s question.
and 3. Inquiry will be made.

page 3789

QUESTION

NAVAL DEFENCE

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

The names and class of the vessels owned by the Commonwealth and used for naval defence purposes ?
In the event of the proposed new Naval Agreement being ratified, do the Government intend to sell or otherwise dispose of these vessels?
If the vessels are to be disposed of, what is to become of the naval officers and men employed on or in connexion with them ?

Senator DRAKE:
Minister for Defence · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

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

The following are the names and classes of the vessels belonging to the naval forces of the Commonwealth.

The Government have no intention at present of doing so, but will obtain advice as to the suitability of the vessels for purposes of harbor and coastal defence.
The Government intend to protect the officers and men to the utmost extent, and will be in a better position to do so when it has been ascertained to what extent their services will be utilized under the new arrangement

page 3789

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FLAG

Senator HIGGS:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice -

. Is it true, as stated in the press, that the Lords of the Admiralty have issued a warrant? saying that “ whereas His Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the adoption as the merchant flag of the Commonwealth of Australia of the red ensign of His Majesty’s fleet, defaced by a six -pointed star on the lower canton next the staff, and by five smaller white stars ins the fly, we do by virtue of the power and authority vested in us hereby warrant and authorize the red ensign of His Majesty’s fleet, defaced as above stated, to be used on board’ vessels registered in the Commonwealth of Australia ? “
Does not “ deface “ mean “ to destroy or mar the face or external appearance of ; to disfigure ? “
Will the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia demand that the ships of the Australian Squadron shall use the Commonwealth of Australia flag ?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

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

The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have issued a warrant to the effect stated. A copy of the warrant was published in the Gazette of the15th inst.
’ ’ Deface “is believed to be a technical terra used to describe the superimposition on the surface of the flag of any device.
The squadron is a squadron of the Navy of the Empire, and is expected to fly the flag which the rest of that Navy flies.

Senator Higgs:

– Can the honorable Senator tell me in what dictionary I may find a definition of the term “ defacing?”

Senator DRAKE:

– Probably in a heraldic dictionary, but I cannot speak positively.

page 3789

QUESTION

ENGLISH MAIL : HOBART

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Hobart portion of the English mail which arrived at Melbourne on Monday, 10th inst. , was not despatched with the mail leaving Melbourne for Tasmania on the following day, Tuesday, 11th inst., and that in consequence such English mail matter was not delivered until the end of last week ?
If so, what was the cause of the delay in despatching such mail matter ?
Will the Postmaster-General take steps to prevent the recurrence of the inconvenience and loss occasioned by such delay ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

It is not a fact. The English mail did not arrive in Melbourne until Tuesday, the 1 1th inst.

The Tasmanian portion was taken from the railway station immediately upon receipt, and shipped by the only available steamer, the Easby. 2 and 3. Answered by the reply to question No. 1.

page 3790

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES : TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has he seen in the Age newspaper of 18th August instant a paragraph setting forth the terms of the minute of his predecessor in office directed to Captain Collins, in which the ex-Minister for Defence states : - “I am glad, however, that the re-organization of the forces is now practically completed - uniformity of administration and of regulations and orders has taken the place of the six separate systems hitherto existing, and the whole military foree has been placed on a uniform basis.”
Is it not a fact that the forces in Tasmania ore excepted from the uniform rates of pay for the reasons stated in Sir John Forrest’s memorandum on the Defence Estimates of 30th July last, namely: - “The urgent need for keeping down the expenditure in Tasmania and the strong representations made against the increase of expenditure involved.”
Has the Defence Department been asked by or on behalf of the Government or the Treasurer of Tasmania to make this distinction ? “ 4.If so, is it to be understood that the Australian defence policy is to be varied to suit the varying financial conditions of the several States?
If not, why are the Tasmanian forces to receive pay at lower rates than the forces of the other States ?

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

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

The Minister of Defence has seen the minute.
The status and pay of the Tasmanian. forces remain unaltered under the new organization, for the reasons stated by Sir John Forrest.
Yes.
No; but the Government cannot altogether ignore the financial condition of the States.
The reason is stated in the above answers.

page 3790

QUESTION

EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Senator HIGGS:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council,upon notice -

Is it true that the agreements between the Eastern Extension Company and the States of Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia are perpetual agreements ?
Is it true that the agreements between the Eastern Extension Company and the States of Tasmania, South Australia, and W estern Australia give the company the same rights, privileges, and concessions as are embodied in the agreement between the company and the State of New South Wales
Does not the Tasmanian agreement terminate on the 1st May, 1909 - seven years hence ?
May it not terminate on that date, due notice being given ?
On what date may the agreements between the Eastern Extension Company and the States of Western Australia and South Australia terminate, due notice being given ?
Will the Government furnish the Senate with copies of the agreements between the Eastern Extension Company and the States of Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, and New South Wales ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

Clause 21 of the joint agreement entered into between the Eastern Extension Company and the States mentioned provides that the agreement shall remain in force until rescinded by mutual consent expressed in writing.
Yes, except that the Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania did not undertake to provide telegraph lines in those States for the use of the company.
No.
No.
Answered by replying to question No.1 .
Copies of the agreements will be laid upon the table of the Senate.

page 3790

PAPERS

Senator DRAKE laid upon the table

Agreements between the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company and the Governments of New South Wales,South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania.

page 3790

GOVERNMENT OFFICES: RENTS

Ordered (on motion by Senator Pearce) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing -

The amount of money paid as rent, in the State of Victoria, for the offices of the Commonwealth Ministers, showing the amount for each office separately.

The amount so paid for the rent of offices for Departments established under Acts of Parliament of the Commonwealth.

page 3790

QUESTION

MINISTERS IN THE SENATE

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That this Senate records its disapprobation of the action of the Prime Minister in failing, when reconstructing the Cabinet, togive effect to the resolution of the Senate, unanimously adopted on the 26th day of June last, viz: - “That this Senate affirms that, in view of the position and status of this branch of the Legislature, as defined by and in the Constitution, it is desirable that there be more adequate representation of the Government in the Senate by the appointment of at least two paid Ministers.”

The form of the motion seems to me almost sufficiently plain to render needless any lengthy remarks on my part. On the 26th June, the Senate unanimously - the Minister present concurring - passed the resolution embodied in my motion. An opportunity recently occurred for givingeffect to this claim, based, not so much on, I imagine, the personal ambition of any honorable senator as on a desire to giveexpression to the view of the Senate, that there should be more adequate representation of the Government here, involving and permitting the introduction of a larger number of measures directly rather than at second-hand. Itwill be in the recollection of honorable senators that the motion in its original form, submitted in its second part a proposition that it was desirable that more measures of the Government should be introduced directly in the Senate. During the course of the debate I withdrew that portion of the motion, deeming that it was not necessary to go to the vote. But this seems to me to be a suitable opportunity to refer to the fact that my action on the 26th June was taken with the object of getting more measures of the Government initiated here. That would be accomplished unquestionably if a larger number of Ministers, having charge ofDepartments, were in the Chamber. Recently there was a certain amount of Cabinet-repairing, and the opportunity was given to the Prime Minister to give effect to the unanimous wish of the Senate. So far as we know, no inclination has been manifested to give effect to its resolution, and we only hear now from the lips of an honorable senator that he is to take up the position of an unpaid Minister here before very long. How soon we do not know, but, as the honorable senator has pleaded guilty to the gentle indictment, I suppose there cannot be any doubt about it. That being the case, we find that not only in the past has the resolution of the Senate been ignored by the Prime Minister, but that he is still proposing to ignore it by the appointment of an unpaid Minister here, rather than a salaried Minister having charge of a Department. I disclaim all desire now to do more than afford to the Senate an opportunity of confirming the action which it took at my instance a few weeks ago. It appeared to me then, and it appears to me still, that if we were to allow the matter to pass without any comment or explanation we should be absolutely stultifying ourselves. Deliberately, after considerable argument, we arrived at a resolution to make a certain demand ; opportunity for giving effect to the wish of the Senate arose ; but no such effect was given, and as far as we know it was not attempted to be given. I consider that it is my duty to afford an opportunity to the Senate of indorsing its previous vote, or an opportunity for an explanation to be offered which would satisfy the Senate that its deliberate resolution has not beenas deliberately ignored. I shall not go into the question of who might have been appointed, or what might have been done, but I consider that the Senate was entitled to at least an explanation as to why nothing was done to give effect to its unanimous decision on a question of large public importance, arrived at, not in a light or airy manner, not without due consideration, but with all the impressiveness which attaches to a carefully considered and deliberately debated proposition.

Senator DRAKE:
Minister for Defence · Queensland · Protectionist

– Senator Neild is a little at fault in stating that the Minister agreed to his motion. I was present in the Senate at the time it was being discussed, and I opposed the motion. I did not call for a division, and I presume that is what the honorable senator has in his mind when he says that the resolution was concurred in by the Minister. I did not call for a division, because I had no doubt as to what was the feeling of the majority of the members of the Senate at the time, and I did not therefore think it necessary to call for a division. The motion was submitted to the Senate after a languid debate in a very thin House; and there was apparently very little interest taken in the question. I admit that most of those who did speak were in favour of it. I must concede that ; but I do not think it was considered by the Senate, or even by those who supported the motion,thatthe Government was expected at once to make such a re-arrangement of portfolios as would give effect to what was proposed.

Senator Lt Col Neild:

– Only when a suitable occasion arose.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think the view generally held was that possibly such rearrangements as would give effect to the motion might be made after the next general election. Perhaps Senator Neild has in his mind the recent changes which have taken place in the Cabinet; but the honorable senator, if he looks into the matter, must see that the composition of the two Chambers is such that each portfolio requires to be administered by a member of either one House or the other. An occasion has not yet arisen when we could do what the Senate desires ; but the matter has not been overlooked, and no doubt in course of time, when an opportunity occurs, the Government will accede to the wishes of the Senate. I do not think there is any necessity for the honorable senator to press the proposal. According to its terms it is really in the nature of a vote of censure against the Government for not having, since the passing of the motion proposed by the honorable senator on the 26th June, altered their arrangements, so . that there would be a second Minister with a portfolio in this Chamber. If the desire of Senator Neild is to draw attention to the matter again he has already done so, and it is hardly necessary that he should now initiate a long debate on the subject.

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

– I should like to say two or three words with reference to the motion submitted and the remarks made by the Minister of Defence. I was not present when the original motion to which this motion refers was discussed, but I think that the affirmation of the original motion, without any division, was sufficient to justify Senator Neild in regarding it as having been carried unanimously, and with the consent of the Government. The question is one which I know has been discussed several times amongst members of the Senate, and the feeling generally expressed is that, all tilings being equal, in the formation of a Ministry, it is very desirable that a proportionate representation of paid Ministers should be given to the Senate. We know perfectly well that it has been the custom generally in the States, in deal with the second Chamber, to act upon the principle of having one paid Minister and one honorary Minister as a sufficient representation of the Ministry in that Chamber. But under our Constitution, the Senate as directly responsible to the people of the country, and it is therefore but reasonable and fair that proportionate representation should be given to this Chamber in the administration of public affairs. It may sometimes happen that it will be impossible to carry that out, and a great deal of discretion must be left in the hands of the gentleman called upon to form the Ministry. On the recent occasion of the re-arrangement of the Ministry, I recognise that, instead of introducing another Minister into the ranks of the Ministry, an honorary Minister has merely been removed into a position rendered vacant through a resignation which has taken place from the Cabinet. The fact that under these circumstances attention has not been paid to the motion carried in the Senate, can hardly be regarded as showing any desire on the part of the Ministry to flout or disregard the representations of the Senate upon a question of some importance as affecting the position and dignity of this Chamber in the eyes of the community. I do hope that when the time comes round when it may be necessary to make changes in the Ministry, involving the introduction of new men, the desire of the Senate in this matter will receive the fullest and most favorable consideration on the part of the Prime Minister. The Government have some reason for the course they have recently adopted, but Senator Neild cannot be blamed for having brought the matter under the notice of the Senate, in order that we should be reminded that we have affirmed a motion of this character, and in order also that it may be impressed upon the members of the other Chamber, where we recognise that, in all probability, the Prime Minister of any administration will be found. Honorable senators feel that it is due to the position of the Senate as a constituent part of the governing body of the community that it should be fully represented by paid Ministers in the proportion suggested by Senator Neild.

.- I hope I shall be quite as resigned to all the circumstances of this unhappy life as Senator McGregor. I leave the motion in the hands of honorable senators. It is for them to say whether the occasion is one upon which the previous decision of the Senate should be forced upon the notice of the Government or otherwise.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 9

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Questions so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3793

CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– Since this Bill was introduced we have passed a measure repealing the Claims Against the Commonwealth Act, and I therefore move -

That the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill be read and discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3794

PARLIAMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I am quite sure that at this period of the session, and knowing that this Bill, beforeany effect can be given to it, must be passed by the otherChamber, it is quite useless for me to proceed with it further. I think I shall be meeting the views of honorable senators generally when I move -

That the order of the day for the second readng of the Bill be read and discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3794

NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL

Senator PEARCE:

– I am very doubtful whether he could if the cruiser was lying under the protection of a fort. At any rate, here is the report of the Colonial Defence Committee, which the Government seem to have overlooked.

Senator O’Connor:

– N - No.

Senator PEARCE:

– This report, which was laid on the table of the Senate on the 19th September, 1901, contains these passages relating to measures of defence -

The defensive measures required on land to give security against coast attacks by raiding cruisers acting with these objects, and under these limitations, can be estimated with a near approach to accuracy. In dealing with such questions it is essential to keep in view the conditions as they present themselves to the enemy, as the extent of the protection required at any port is evidently that which will increase the risks involved in an attack to a point at which they will outweigh in the opinion of an enemy the possible advantages to be derived from the enterprise.

Further on the Committee state -

In addition to a military force, fixed defences, consisting of shore batteries and sometimes submarine mine fields, are required for certain Australian ports and harbors. This is the case where valuable and vulnerable resources such as docks, naval stores, or large masses of shipping are collected within such a limited and exposed space that they are liable to be easily destroyed by the gun-fire of hostile cruisers with a small expenditure of ammunition. The object of fixed defences is to deter the enemy’s vessels from approaching within the range at which his fire would be effective :a such objects. As already pointed out, the measure of defence required will vary according to the advantages to be derived by the enemy from the particular attack con templated. Thus naval bases or mercantile strategic harbors in the neighbourhood of points where the routes followed by Australian floating trade converge would offer more inducement to attack than a commercial port where only a small amount of shipping might be lying of value incommensurate with the risks involved in coming under the fire of light fixed defences or even of troops on shore.

What Australia needs is not her petty fraction of the Imperial Navy, a squadron assigned to her in perpetual presence, but anorganization of naval force which constitutes a firm grasp of the universal naval situation.

The essence of the matter is that local security does not necessarily nor usually’ depend upon he constant local presence of a protector or squadron, but upon general disposition.

Does that language require any explanation % Captain Mahan further says -

As was said to and of Rodney, “ Unless men take the great line, as you do, and consider the King’s whole dominions as under their care, the enemy must find us unprepared somewhere. It is impossible to have a superior fleet in every port.

I venture to say that these quotations, for what they are worth, sum up- the whole position in favour of central control as against divided control. The advantage of central control is that in an instant, or, at any rate, as rapidly as communication cau be despatched from one part of the world to another, it is possible to mass a superior force against an enemy at a given point. That cannot be done if there is tied to these shores a squadron quite unable to cope with a big or superior naval force, but which would be able to render useful and, it may be, greatly needed assistance if sent to join hands with any other portion of the British Navy. I think we might draw something of a parallel from the arguments used in urging the adoption of Australian Federation. It was pointed out then that each of the States with its little army would be an easy prey to any invading force, but that the capacity in military matters of two men is more than twice that of one man - that by joining hands it would be possible to,mass all the troops at a certain point, and so make our defences effective. The same principle underlies the proposition that there ought to be central control in naval matters. The sea is a broad thoroughfare along which all may pass - unlike land warfare the enemy on the sea may be anywhere. For that reason, it is necessary to have central control, in order to meet an ever-changing front, and to repeat the words I previously used - to be able to mass a superior force at any point where the enemy may be present. That is necessary in order to secure an advantage which I contend is obtainable only under central control. That is the proposition and principle maintained by every writer that I have had an opportunity of reading.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I rise to oppose the measure. I should like to say at the outset, that I do not know that any one could, under similar circumstances, have made a better bargain than the Prime Minister made; but the conditions were such, that no one, with the limited knowledge of the subject which the Prime Minister necessarily must have, could make a good bargain against the experts on the other side. Aman when he is putting up a large building does not himself arrange with the builder, but employs a skilled architect to make the bargain, and see the work carried out. The Prime Minister was at a disadvantage in not having the advice of experts interested on his side, especially when he was at the very fountain head where more is known of these subjects, perhaps, in the way of making bargains than is known in any part of the British Empire. The Prime Minister made the best bargain he could under the circumstances, but the bargain is not good enough. It has now been asked - “ Why not keep to the old agreement 1 “ but to that question Senator Millen made no reply. The reason, however, is obvious enough. The old agreement provides that the Australian Auxiliary Squadron shall not be removed from Australian waterswithout the consent of six separate Governments. That is a condition which the Admiralty wish to overcome, and they desire a fresh arrangement in order that they may be able to move the shipsat any time they think fit. One argument used against the establishment of an Australian Navy is that vessels become obsolete in ten or fifteen years. If it be true, why did the British Admiralty allow us to pay £106,000 a year for obsolete vessels ? Why did the Admiralty allow us to live in a fool’s paradise and make us pay for the privilege ? The vessels may be obsolete as fa* as their class is ‘concerned, but they can, no doubt, be used for purposes other than those for which they were specially built. In the British Navy there are no fewer than thirty-nine vesselsfourteen years old and upwards which are still in commission. The Orlando, the formerflagship of the Australian station, now on the China station, is fifteen years old, and still “ going strong.” The machinery and the armaments to a greater extent may become obsolete, but the vessels can scarcely be so described.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The Royal Arthur is ten or twelve years old.

Senator STYLES:

– I believe the Royal Arthur is twelve years old, and the

Cerberus, which is thirty years old, is to be re-armed at a cost of £20,000 or £25,000. When the work on the latter vessel is carried out, the Cerberus, will be more than a. match for any enemy’s vessel which may find its way into Port Phillip Bay. I hope I am able to speak with some little authority on the management of men ; and, from my experience, I am firmly of opinion that the provision for two separate rates of pay will not prove satisfactory. If the Australians are paid bigger wages than the men in the British Navy there is bound to be grumbling and dissatisfaction ; and when men are dissatisfied they do not give their best services. The term “ special “ rates of pay is rather vague. Are the- wages to be specially high or specially low 1 A difference of 6d. or 3d. a day might be described as a special rate, and I think that in this respect there ought to be some clearer definition. Is it likely that the Admiralty will employ Australians and pay them wages, say, 50 per cent, higher than are paid to the other men on the ships, when men can be got in the United Kingdom at lower rates As a fact, the contribution of £200,000” is only £94,000’ per annum more than we have paid hitherto,, and the whole is a contribution, top the support of the navy, which costs £34,000,000 per annum. The proposed contribution has. been described as a “-drop in the bucket,” but to my mind it can more justly be compared to. a drop in two buckets. It has been said that the spirit of the agreement ought to be kept; and on this point I should like to read an extract from the report of the Conference of naval experts- representative of the now federated States, which was held in 189>9;. This is what that report says about the spirit of the agreement entered into between Australia and. the Admiralty :: -

When the Auxiliary Squadron was first established: by agreement between tha- Colonies and Admiralty, it was generally understood, in Australia at any rate, that the ships would form a means of drilling and training Australian seamen .. This expectation has never been realized, the vessels, in reserve having been, always laid up in Sydney,, and uo attempt has been made to utilize them for the benefit of the- local naval force. There has consequently been no advance in Australia’s ability to undertake any honorable share in her sea defences The present policy, viz., that of the payment in> specie in return for naval defence furnished in toto by the mother country, makes no advance whatever. Twenty or fifty years hence Australia’s ability for sea defence - self-defence - will be- as to-day and as it was ten years ago. A continuance of the present policy involves either the periodical increase of the amount paid to the Imperial Government for naval defence, that the growing trade and interests of the Federation may be adequately protected or, if that amount be not increased, we must expect a justifiable complaint from the British taxpayer. In this connexion it is well to remember the high point already reached by the Imperial Naval Estimates. In the event of a European combination of such strength as to occupy the attention of the British fleets, the continuance of a policy which in no way advances Australian ability for sea defence might have disastrous consequences.

This is the deliberate opinion of naval experts, who are presumed to be men of ability and well acquainted with the conditions prevailing in Australia. They are men who should be able to give us the best possible advice. The- Conference in question was composed of Captain Hixson Captain Creswell, Captain Collins, Commander Drake,, and Commander Tickell. Senator Millen made reference to an estimate that nothing less than. £500,000 would be sufficient to provide an adequate naval force for Australia.

Senator Millen:

– I do not say that. I said to maintain a force equal to .the one we should obtain under the agreement. I did’ not speak of its adequacy.

Senator STYLES:

– Presumably the force provided under the agreement is adequate, otherwise the Admiralty is at fault. The experts from whom I have quoted go on to say-

The cost of the maintenance of the local naval forces in Australia is at present about £65,000 per annum, which, together with that of £l’26i000 contributed each year towards the cost of the Australian- Squadron, makes- a total annual expenditure on Australian naval defence of £191,000.

I ask honorable senators to pay particular attention to this, paragraph -

The Conference are of opinion that this expenditure, controlled by the Federal Government, would be sufficient to provide for the maintenance of fi ve- second-class cruisers. £191,000 for five second-class cruisers.

Senator STYLES:

– I think that if the British Government undertook to protect our oversea trade, and Australia provided a squadron to protect the coastal trade in the event of the Imperial fleet being taken away from our waters, sufficient would be done. I quite admit that no amount of talking will affect the vote ; but I am speaking because I desire to show why I am not in favour of the proposed subsidy, and why I should like to see an Australian Navy established. The estimated cost of the new fleet is £480,000. I am sure that the people of Australia would not begrudge paying £300,000 per annum- that is £100,000 per annum more than we are asked to pay - to secure a fleet of their own. Captain Creswell showed us how we could obtain a fleet by such means. He does not say that it would be an efficient defence for Australia in the first year or two, but for every ship of our own which we purchased the British Governmentcould remove one of theirs, and that process could be continued until we had a fleet sufficiently strong for our purposes. We have heard a. great deal about what has been said by various authorities, but there is one authority who has not been mentioned to whom we should pay a little attention. That is the late Admiral Tryon, who is said by some to- have understood the question of Australian defence better than any other expert who has ever been in these waters. Admiral Tryon was in favour of the establishment of an Australian Navy. It was on his advice that the Auxilary Squadron was established. He expressed his views in favour of a development of that kind over and over again. He says in his letter to Governor Loch upon this question -

As a general principle we come to this in each case of war. Wherever your enemy is you must get as near him as possible if you would frustrate his designs and the further you are from him the less likely you are to meet him and the less able you are to hinder him.

That is the principle that is being advanced by the advocates of the subsidy. But Admiral Tryon qualifies his view in this way-

If the above is accepted it will follow that any force that is localised may be one whose action is limited designedly for special purposes and to special seas. While it may be of the greatest value and its existence but a sequence to the general principles above sketched it does not fall into place side by side with the main force, but is rather an adjunct to it and a very important necessary adjunct, as I shall now endeavour to show, for on my so doing depends whether from a wide and national point of view we are right in localizing a naval sea-going force at all.

Senator Playford:

– That shows the necessity of attacking an enemy by means of a fleet under one control.

Senator STYLES:

– I ‘ quite admit that in the case of war our navy should be under the command of the British Admiral, but with the limitation that he should not be able to remove our vessels from our own waters. So long as our vessels remain in our own waters they should be under the command of the Admiral on the station in time of war, but he should have no power to send them where he thought fit outside of Australian waters. In another letter Admiral Tryon. says -

– My first duty is to congratulate the supporters of the Bill on the easy way in which they are satisfied with the kind of support it is receiving. I listened with the greatest interest to Senator Cameron. His speech did him, I think, infinite credit. A more crushing denunciation of the agreement it would be difficult to conceive. A more fatal analysis of what he described as the blots of the measure could scarcely have been presented. I only regret that he does not feel that an instrument which he described, I think accurately, as one which strikes a blow at our national life ought not to. be supported. Like my honorable friend, I adhere to the views which I expressed in my speech on the address in reply. I also adhere to the course which I then indicated I should take of voting against the agreement in every form in which the issue may be put to the Senate. T do not intend to speak at particular length, because there are honorable senators who are much more copiously informed on the details of this subject than I could possibly be. I should have liked to listen to some of them before offering my views, but I intend to adhere to my decision to vote against the Bill. I certainly have been surprised to hear the statement made by Senator Cameron, who, I am sure would not have made the statement if he did not implicitly believe it to be true that the Prime Minister had declared that if this agreement were defeated he would resign - that it would amount to a violation of a compact binding upon him, and therefore,’ in the circumstances, binding upon the Commonwealth of Australia. I deny that that is the situation. I do not believe for an instant that it ever entered into the Prime Minister’s head to take a course which would have been playing false with the conditions upon which he went to London last year, and entered into the Conference which then took place, an outcome of which was this Naval Agreement. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having a desire to make the best possible arrangement for Australia. I give the fullest credit to the right honorable gentleman that, so far as the mere bargain is concerned, it is an excellent one ; so far as the amount is concerned, it is a mere bagatelle.

But that is not the question. I am sorry that a suggestion should be made which would hamper debate, which would hamper us in the expression of our views upon a great national question, in ‘ respect to an agreement which, in its present form, strikes at the foundations of our national life.

Senator Best:

– The Prime Minister did threaten to resign if a certain amendment were carried in the Bill.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is another matter altogether. I am quite sure the Prime Minister is too good a son of Australia to utter a threat of that kind with a view to burking discussion, or preventing the free exercise of our votes in regard to the approval or disapproval of this agreement. Of course I do not ask Senator Cameron to change his determination as to the way in which he shall vote ; but I . do hope that this question will be considered free from any . influence of party, and free from any such fetter as would be imported into a discussion of this kind by such an intimation as the honorable senator has suggested to the Senate. My ‘honorable friend, Senator Millen, in referring to the agreement, said one or two things to which I should like very briefly to refer. One view which the honorable senator put before us was founded upon certain quotations from Captain Mahan. We may very well have the utmost respect for Captain Mahan, but

We know that, with all his power as a theorist and as a naval biographer - and no man has written a finer biography than Captain Mahan has written of Nelson - Captain Mahan is not in the position of our own British Admirals to speak upon this question of the naval defence of Australia. And when I find British Admirals supporting the view which I take, and disagreeing with this subsidy, I feel that I am on fairly solid ground in following their guidance’ so far as regards the expert side of this question. When we are told that it is necessary that we should have a grasp of the universal naval situation, all 1 can say is that that is a misapprehension under which many people have been labouring. We do not need to have an aggressive naval force, which may be sent all over the world. We are not, nor do we require to be, in the position of the mother country, whose very existence depends upon the control of the sea.

Senator Stewart:

– She is always looking for fight.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not say that she is always looking for fight; my belief is perhaps the other way, that she is always looking for security and peace ; but it is the security and peace which can only be obtained by the possession of the dominant power. The position of the mother country is quite different from ours. The mother country is dependent upon the control of the sea for her sustenance, to preserve her from invasion, to preserve her mercantile marine, and that commercial supremacy, that trade which is the very life-blood of Britain. That is not our situation. It is true that we cannot separate, as Senator Millen has said, the offensive and the defensive in naval operations. Senator Cameron cheered that view, and if I may humbly . say so, I am a follower of his in that respect. But that is an expression which can only properly be used when we are dealing with a great fleet like that which England, Prance, or Germany possesses, or when we are dealing with a condition of things totally opposed to that which prevails in Australia. What we require here, independently of the posses-: sion of the Imperial fleet, is a coastal defence of our own. We require to defend ourselves.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– How many ships shall we require ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Senator Zeal is a far greater naval expert than I can pretend to be. But I am not now dealing with the number of vessels required, but with the principle raised by this particular agreement, and our situation. Our situation is that of a nation which undoubtedly has foi its first line of defence the sea surrounding its shores. Then my honorable friend, Senator Millen, said - “ Surely the public spirit of Australia would not permit us to refuse so small a contribution as this.” My feeling is that the public spirit of Australia ought to take; and does take, quite a different direction. The public spirit of Australia ought to reject a mercenary fleet and a hireling defence. I say that we ought to be prouder, it seems to me, of our new nationhood, our union, our self-government, than to consent to be tied to the apronstrings of any country, whether the mother country or not, for- the defence of our shores.

Senator Dobson:

Senator Best:

– The sum of £200,000 is not a very excessive insurance premium, is it?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I decline to regard this as a question of insurance. If it be regarded from that point of view, let us adopt the plan of insuring ourselves. Senator Best can see at once that if it is an insurance, it is an insurance only against fire arising from a particular cause in a particular direction. It is not an insurance against all fire, but an insurance which may be taken away when the Admiralty, or the Admiral on the Australian station under the direction of the Admiralty, thinks fit. As to the danger which may come in the shape of a predatory descent we are absolutely where we were before.

Senator Best:

– With all our navy, we should look very foolish without the aid of the mother country.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– We all admit that the Imperial authorities must keep up the navy. If, as has been suggested, a proposition were brought down to contribute a battleship, or a sum of money equivalent to a battleship, to the Empire, I should be prepared to give it my support. But I object to paying tribute. I object to this contribution being placed before the people of Australia in the nature of a bargain which leaves our defence to some One else. To a self-governing country such as Australia, with 4,000,000, such a position is absolutely humiliating. When Senator Best alluded to the matter of insurance, I was about to refer to Captain Creswell, whose name has already been mentioned. Within my knowledge Captain Creswell is as competent a naval officer as if he had already been High Admiral. I know of no man more enthusiastic in his profession or more devoted to it than that gentleman, and, moreover, I believe him to have as great a devotion to the mother country as he has to Australia. Captain Creswell would be the last man in the world to suggest anything which could possibly weaken the ties which unite Australia to the Empire ; and in his report he so appropriately and so lucidly expresses what I think ought to be the feeling of every Australian, that I ask honorable senators’ indulgence whilst I read an extract. Let it be understood that I should like to see an Australian Squadron of the Imperial Navy on the shores of Australia, ready and obliged to go anywhere - a squadron which would be part of the Imperial Navy. At the same time 1 desire to see an Australian Naval Force which should also be prepared to go anywhere if necessary, but only by the orders of the Australian authorities. In fact, we must all admit that, whether we pass this Bill or not, the Imperial Navy must have a rendezvous in Australia ; indeed that is set forth in the agreement. If honorable senators will bear that in mind, and listen to Captain Creswell’s words, they will see exactly the point at issue, lt is not a question of amount. It is not a question of maintaining the connexion which we all desire and which I hope we shall live and die to maintain between Australia and the mother country. The question is one which affects our nationality and our self respect. It is from that point of view that Captain Creswell himself has looked at it. He quotes a passage from the Edinburgh Review -

For a maritime State unfurnished with a navy, the sea, so far from being a safe frontier, is rather a highway for her enemies ; but with a navy it surpasses all other frontiers in strength.

Then Captain Creswell goes on -

The above quotation from the Edinburgh Revieu) is of close application to Australia. Our future must be that of a maritime State. It is a truism that the defence of the frontier of a State should be in the hands of its frontiersmen. In Australia our seamen are our frontiersmen. They numbered 32,000 in 1891.

– If they jeer at it why do they accept it?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I will tell my honorable and learned friend why they accept it - because it is supposed to be one of those absurd visible links which a mistaken Imperialism thinks are necessary to bind Australia to the mother country. But I say that it is nothing of the kind.

I say that it is these links, forged in this way, that are the very worst possible systems by which the connexion can be maintained between Australia and the mother country. They become fetters and sources of irritation as time goes on.

Senator Best:

– The mother country does not think so.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The mother country does think so. It is not only Captain Creswell in Australia who takes that view. My honorable and learned friend seems to think that it is only some Australians who are opposed to this particular method of obtaining naval defence.

Senator Charleston:

– The London Spectator has been denouncing it all along.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The Spectator has always denounced it; but I will quote from the Speaker, one of the best informed papers published in London. Some time ago the Speaker wrote this -

We desire to see local supplementary navies owned by the colonies, and manned and officered by the colonists. Such a squadron would be a help in war time, and in peace would train the colonists in the duties of self-defence - duties which no body of Englishmen would depute. We would not care to see the colonists, as it were, hiring British ships, at so much per ton per annum, to guard their shores. find that some of the most distinguished British admirals take the same view. For instance, Admiral Hopkins a. little while ago, in a letter to the Spectator, wrote this -

In my judgment the reiteration of our demands for money, and moreof it, is undignified, and more likely to estrange and weaken their regard for the mother country than to strengthen their desire for Imperialism. And it is Imperialism we want, and not a miserable contribution in money, which would hardly provide a thirdclass cruiser, and only tends to wound the pride of a young and rising nation, whose susceptibilities should be soothed rather than ruffled. In fact, as you suggest, let them contribute in their own way, and be encouraged to provide reserves, &c. , which would be, as their military volunteers have been, of the greatest use when men are wanted in war time, and of real value on the side where we are navally weakest. On the North American continent, Canada, whose Imperialism none can doubt, refuses to give a money contribution, whilst Newfoundland, a comparatively poor country, supplies her quota of hardy fishermen as naval volunteers - a far better gift than any money concession. I am aware, sir, that you and I are advocating an unpalatable doctrine to many who apparently cannot see that for England (in the plenitude of her wealth), to extract a valueless sum of hard cash from those” who, in their pride of race, consanguinity, and country, would cheerfully pour out their blood for us is rather to retard than advance the Imperialism we desire.

I thoroughly agree with every word of that. And it does not stand by any means alone, because I find that’ another distinguished naval officer, Vice- AdmiralFitzgerald, says the same thing. He uses these words -

One can quite understand this idea of personal service, and the feeling that to have a little thing which you can call your own is much better than to have a share in a bigger business which you cannot call your own. As Touchstone said to Audrey - “ ‘Tis a poor thing, but mine own.” Now, the first Australian navy would be a very poor thing, but their own.

Senator O’Connor:

-Th -That is a very unfortunate quotation to make.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– We shall see in a moment whether it is unfortunate. People often call things unfortunate which are against them -

It would come to a vigorous manhood, but if it does not have a beginning I do not see how it is going to get on. No one can doubt that twentyfive years hence Australia will have a navy. Why not start them, andlet them have the money now given to us - a very small drop ? Why not start the navy, even a gunboat, in which they can train their men ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Exactly; they will fight their own battles, but will not take knocks from strangers. Whilst I give every credit to my honorable friends for thinking that this is a patriotic thing to do, I take with great deference exactly the opposite view. I hold that it is imperilling our patriotism, that it is doing the very thing which may cause an estrangement between England and Australia. That I wish to avoid. Wecouldeasily afford to give the £200,000. I am not one of those who are addicted to the views of economy which needlessly prevail. I place the proposition on the higher level - that we are a self-governing community, and that one of the first considerations with us ought to be to provide out of our own pocket for and have under our own control our naval and military defence. A recent writer in the Edinburgh Review, from which Captain Creswell quoted, says -

A strong movement exists in Australia in favor of obtaining control of their navy, and it found expression, as we believe, at the Colonial Conference. The tendency is inevitable. State sovereignty is inextricably bound u p with the military power. No colony can really be self-governing which has not also control of its own forces. And as the desire for self-government is the profoundest and strongest motive in colonial politics, so the dislike to any idea of military consolidation is unqualified and universal. It seemed plain to the colonies that this was a movement backwards - a movement away from the autonomous principle on which our Empire is based. That the colonies should undertake their own self-defence, and should in the end establish entire self-dependence on this matter, is only right and just both to them and to ourselves.

Senator O’Connor:

– I - Is it signed ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No. Evidently it was written by a publicist of great power and discrimination, and from the point of view of magnifying the position of the Commonwealth. Regarding the whole matter from that point of view,I cannot understand how it is possible for us, with contented minds, to support such an arrangement as this. I hope that the provisions in the agreement to which I have referred will have the attention of honorable senators, particularly those which provide for a form of control which I think will lead to the possibility of endless disputes. In article 3 it is provided -

This force shall be under the control and orders of the naval Commander-in-Chief for the time being appointed to command His Majesty’s ships and vessels on the Australian Station.

So that we have a double external control, so to speak, the control of the CommanderinChief, who is in turn subject to the direction of the Lords of the Admiralty. And we find that a sort of “sop,” as I call it, is offered in article 6, which seems to me to be perfectly contemptible. It is there provided that -

In order to insure that the naval service shall include officers born in Australia and New Zealand, who will be able to rise to the highest positions in the Royal Navy, the undermentioned nominations for naval cadetships will be given annually.

Thisforceon ordinary occasions is separated from the navy, and is under their own rules, but they should be required to amalgamate for periodical training with the navy, under naval regulations, “in the ships which they would actually serve in during a war. With tact on the part of the part of the officers of the Schools, there should be no difficulty about this, but it should be arranged that on mobilisation this force should be directly under the command of the Admiral on the station, and entirely independent of the Colonial Government. The navy must be directly under the Admiralty in war time. There must be no divided responsibility or command, and there should be no difficulty about this if the true functions of the navy are recognised.

– That argument cutsagainst my honorable friends. What is the use of having an Australian Navy which would be chained to the rocks outside, which would never go beyond Australian waters? I made a note to ask my honorable friends what would become of New Guinea and the New Hebrides if we should ever get intotrouble. What would become of Australia if we should get into a disturbance in the South Pacific ? Should we not want our navy free to go instantly to the scene of the trouble ? Is it not one hundred chances to« one that it would be sent there rather than be left to hug the Australian coast ? The argument tells against my honorable friend. Again I venture to assert that there is no proper base within 4,000 miles of Melbourne which would be likely to be used by any nation ‘with which we might be at war. I do not think there would be much chance of anything but a stray cruiser coming down to raid our cities* and, if one did come, she would act like a pirate, making up her mind that the chances would be ten to. one that she would lose. If she did gain, the men would, perhaps, obtain great kudos and get their pockets well lined. But the chances, are ten to one that she would fail. We know that these desperate undertakings are sometimes entered upon, but I do not think that we need bother, ourselves much on that score. Then, with regard to the question of officers,, the agreement provides that cadetships may be started at once.- The cadets might in due course rise to the highest command in the navy. A cadet who as a lad entered! the Australian Navy might be transferred to the Imperial branch, and come out by-and-by as the Admiral of our fleet. So that, in every way, the agreement does promote and encourage the aspirations which we all have. I have one more quotation from Lord Selborne to read before I .resume my seat. He says -

The British Empire owes its existence to the sea, and it can only continue to exist, if all parts of it regard the sea as their material source of existence and strength. It is, therefore, desirable, that our fellow subjects in the dominions beyond the seas should appreciate the importance of naval questions. If they will undertake a greater share of the naval burden, well and good.

They do not ask us to undertake it. They leave it to our generosity. As I understand, this sum of £200,000 is practically offered. They do not. levy taxation upon us. It will be ungrudgingly given by us, at least I hope so.

But I regard it as of even more importance that they should cultivate the maritime spirit ; that their populations should become maritime as ours are, and that they should become convinced oE the truth of the proposition, that there is no possibility of the localisation of naval force, and that the problem of the British Empire is in no sense one of local defence.

– Why was the opportunity not given to them under, the old agreement 1

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

.- The proposed agreement is an immense advance on the old one. I was not in favour of renewing the old agreement, because I do not think that its conditions are nearly so favorable as those now presented. The new agreement gives us that mode of naval protection which appears necessary in the estimation of the experts of the Empire, and it is given without compelling us to make any outlay of a capital kind. We are only asked to give a contribution ; and here I may say that I regard the word “tribute” as an insult alike to the Commonwealth and the mother country. “Tribute” implies a recognition of inferiority, and the Commonwealth owes no obligation of inferiority to the mother country, nor does the mother country demean herself by imposing such a condition on her children. The proposed agreement, as I say, without the outlay of a . heavy capital, gives not only the immediate advantage of naval protection, but also an opportunity,, which we in Australia have never possessed before, of securing ah adequate training for our sons. An opening is., here presented for our stalwart men and ‘the young chaps who are growing up and are. anxious to take their place in the defence forces, not only of the Commonwealth, but of the Empire. . The heart of the Commonwealth beats true enough torecognise that in unity with the rest of the greatest Empire upon which the sun has ever shone there, are advantages to be gained. The conditions of the mutual exchange of support are honorable and beneficent - they are advantageous to the buyer and advantageous to the seller. There are the advantages which flow from an honest and honorable understanding, and from a mutual effort to secure the greatest good of both he who gives and he who takes.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– At the outset I may say that it is my intention to vote for the Bill. As Senator Neild said, it is improbable that anything which is now said will alter the voting,, although I did a few minutes ago come across an honorable senator who apparently had not made up his mind. I agree very much with what has fallen from Senators Dobson and Neild ; and I strongly disapprove of the expression “tribute.” We must remember that it is anticipated this naval force will’ require for its support £480,000 per annum, towards which New Zealand is called upon to pay £40,000 and the Commonwealth £200,000. It will be seen that, to begin with, one-half of the cost is borne by the mother country. As to purchasing ships of’ our own, it must not be forgotten that Great. Britain can always borrow money at some- . thing like 3- per cent. I do not speak on this question as an expert, although I have a nephew who is a great naval engineer at home. I believe, however, that some of the ships which it is proposed to send out here will cost from £500,000 to £750,000 each, so that the probable total outlay will not be less than- £4,000,000. Not only do we have those eleven ships provided, but in article 2 of’ the agreement it is stated that the agreement shall not be taken to mean that that force shall be the only force provided for use- in Australian waters should necessity arise for a larger force. Why should we not during the term of this; agreement provide a certain amount of coastal defence for ourselves 1 I have heard of nothing to prevent that course beingtaken, and during the ten* years we shall, be raising up the personnel, at all events, for an Australian portion of the British Navy. I do not for one moment supposethat we intend to cease to be a portion of the Empire ; at any rate I do not intend to- cease being a Britisher first and an Australian afterwards. I cannot understand honorable senators from north of the Tweed imagining that they can get rid of their nationality so easily.

Senator Stewart:

– Australia is much better than Scotland.

Senator WALKER:

– Article 5 of the agreement provides -

The three vessels used as drill ships and one other vessel shall be manned by Australians and New Zealanders as far as procurable, paid at special rates, and enrolled in proportion to the population of the Commonwealth and New Zealand.

The article goes on to provide that the ships shall be officered by officers of the Royal Navy, supplemented by officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. Article 6 provides for eight annual nominations for naval cadetships to be given to Australia, and two to Ney Zealand. It is within the knowledge of many honorable senators that this by no means represents all the Australian naval cadets who enter the British service yearly. I know one bank manager in Queensland who has a son a major in the army, and another a lieutenant in the navy, these young men having gone home in order to join the services. There is a considerable contingent of Australian officers in the navy now ; and the more there are the better we shall be pleased. We are extremely indebted to the Imperial authorities for the protection of our mercantile marine. We must not judge our commerce by the exports from Australia to Great Britain, or by the imports from the old country ; we must recognise that the confidence given by the protection of the British Navy enables our ships to go to all parts of the world. At the end of ten years we shall be more free than we are at present to spend money on naval defence. For the first ten years of the Commonwealth we are under the “ Braddon “ section of the Constitution, and the expenditure of the Commonwealth is limited ; but at the end of that period, if we wish to be more extravagant in the way of naval expenditure, we shall have the opportunity. At present, however, we cannot afford more than we are asked to pay under the agreement. As to descents by privateers in the absence of the fleet, I take it that in these days of cable communication the home authorities will know very well from whence and when such descents are likely to be made ; at any rate they will be better informed on those points than we can be. The navy is not localized at home, but at the same time every vulnerable point is well protected. About 100 years ago there used to be Martello Towers along the coasts of Great Britain. These are now obsolete, but I well remember the lines from the poem Ye Harmers qf England, written by Thomas Campbell, himself a Scotchman, as follows : -

Britannia needs no bulwarks,

No towers along the steep ;

Her march is o’er the mountain waves.

Her home is on the deep.

– I am not now referring to preferential trade - I would not be allowed to proceed if I did - but to something which I conceive is highly pertinent to the question before the Senate. I object to Imperialism. I am a little Englander, if you will, or a little Australian, if you will. I have no ambition for a huge Empire. There is no virtue in size. We have an excellent example of that fact in Senator Zeal, who, although one of the smallest men in the Chamber, is one cif the most effective. There is nothing in mere bulk. What we want is quality. If your Empire is good, if it is sound at the heart, you need not care two straws about its size. Some of the greatest Powers that the world has ever seen have been small Powers. Look at Greece, Rome, “Venice, England herself. Nearly all the great powers have been small powers, concentrated powers if you will. When did the Roman Empire tumble to pieces 1

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator if he thinks that the Roman Empire has anything to do with the subject under discussion ?

Senator STEWART:

Senator MATHESON:

– I take exception to that remark ; it is not under any changed conditions. As a matter of fact, when the boats came out they were not only inefficient in structure but inefficiently armed. The Admiralty, or rather Admiral Tryon, had led us to believe that’ these boats were to be armed with 6-inch guns, but as a matter of fact they came out armed, I believe, with 47-inch guns. Admiral Tryon, in his memorandum dated 25th March, 1885, says, on page 21 S : -

In Parliament in London lately, it was .an nounced that ten additional vessels of what are termed “scout” class should be added to the navy ; these vessels, admirably adapted for the service for which they are designed, would, in my opinion, not have sufficient gun power ; but a design might be got outgiving them 6-inch breechloading guns in lieu of 5-inch ; these guns at moderate ranges penetrate ordinary ironclads.

It will be seen that 5-inch guns, and not 4-7 guns, are mentioned. What happened was that Admiral Tryon’s suggestion was adopted and an improved style of “ Archer “ was built. But while we were repeatedly led to believe throughout the whole negotiation that the armament would be 6-inch breach-loading guns the armament was really 4’7-inch guns. I shall quote another paragraph from Admiral Tryon’s memorandum, page 221, as corroboratory evidence. “This statement appears in an Admiralty minute of 9th September, 1885 -

The class of vessels which would in their lordships’ opinion be most suitable for the service are the Archer class, ten of which are ordered for our own navy. They are 1,630 tons displacement, will steam 17 knots, and are to be armed with six <6-inch B.L.R. guns.

Again, on page 242, we have the following -

Naval Defences. Proposals as agreed to.

I would particularly beg the Senate to mark that this proposal was agreed to -

Note. - It is understood that the Archer is a vessel of 1,630 tons displacement, will steam 17 knots and be armed with six 6-inch B.L.R. guns, and would also cany torpedoes.

– It is not in the agreement, but it is found clearly expressed throughout the whole of the records of the Colonial Conference of 1887. I will take them one by one in short extracts to prove my case. On page 30, a calculation is given showing that at 5 per cent. sinking fund and interest paid by the colonies would give £31,500, leaving the Imperial Government to provide the difference of £42,536 ; and the paragraph then goes on to say -

This is calculated on the assumption that the vessels would have been entirely replaced by new ones at the end of the ten years.

That was the original calculation. It is contained in an Admiralty minute dated 25th February, 1887.

Senator Best:

– Did we ever ask for a renewal of the vessels?

Senator MATHESON:

– The honorable and learned senator asks if our Ministers have performed their duty in this regard. No, they have not, and they will never be found to do so. What Minister is going to make himself unpopular with the British Government? What Minister is going to risk his chance of getting a star of a garter, or some other decoration, by calling attention to breaches of faith 1 No one knows better than the honorable and learned senator himself that Ministers will never call attention to breaches of faith of this kind. Lord George Hamilton,who was then an Admiralty official, addressed the Conference, and in explaining the policy of the Government he said, as reported on page 43 -

Our idea was that if the colonies would pay a certain proportion of the expenditure, say 5 per cent. , we, at the end of ten or five years, when the arrangement had to be re-considered, would be ready to replace any vessels which were not up to modern requirements with new vessels, and thus keep the colonies supplied with the most efficient vessels of modern warfare. I think that is a consideration which ought to carry weight with it.

Then there is an interval, after which he again alludes to the subject, and says -

I do not know whether it would better meet the views of Victoria and the colonies that agree with them, that we should try to make another arrangement - that is,that the whole cost of manuing and maintenance, including indirect charges, should be borne by them ; but I think when they consider whatI said that at the end of ten years we may have to be called upon to undertake an expenditure of upwards of £600,000 in the construction of new vessels, and that in every year during the interval we have to bear a largely increased charge for providing the men and the boys and the pensions additional under this scheme, I repeat, I think they will see that the proposition to pay 5 per cent. is not a very unreasonable one.

The difficulty that had arisen was this: The Victorian Government, and I think also the South Australian Government, which was represented by Sir John Downer, were objecting to pay the sinking fund - that is, 5 per cent. They claimed that this fund should be defrayed entirely by the Imperial Government. Lord George Hamilton was protesting that they should pay the sinking fund, and the undertaking he gave was that there was to be on the part of the Admiralty an absolute obligation to replace these vessels.

Senator Millen:

– The words were, I think - “We may have to do it.”

Senator MATHESON:

– The honorable senator has been sleeping. I will read them again -

When they consider what I said that at the end of ten years we may have to be called upon to undertake an expenditure of upwards of £600,000 in the construction of new vessels.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator say that that is a solemn obligation to do it?

Senator MATHESON:

– Undoubtedly, it is an obligation ; and it is in consequence of that obligation that Lord George Hamilton contends that the 5 per cent. is not an unreasonable charge by way of a quid pro quo. On the one hand, he asks Australia to pay 5 per cent. sinking fund, and on the other hand the British Government were to be called upon to replace these vessels at the end of ten years. The agreement was for ten years, and then was to continue on from year to year, pending notice to cancel. The Premiers also discussed this matter at a later date ; and I think that Mr. Kingston was the only one with sufficient backbone to object to the extension of the agreement. He maintained that the money could be very much better spent in educating Australians as seamen than by wasting it as it was being wasted at that time. I now go on to page 305. The proceedings of the Conference had almost come to an end, and I quote the following passage to show that the same considerations ran through the whole proceedings. Mr. Burt, the Western Australian representative, said -

Before we leave the subject, mightI ask if there is an understanding of any sort with regard to what will take place at the end of 10 years - whether the matter will be reconsidered or whether the Imperial Government will undertake now to replace the ships which may need replacing by others of an improved type ; because we shall be asked probably on our return by our respective Governments special questions upon this matter.

Lord George Hamilton replied as follows : -

What was stated the other day was that, supposing the colonies wished to renew the arrangement for another period, we would undertake either to make these vessels thoroughly efficient, or if any of them became obsolete by that time, to replace them by vessels more in accord with what then might be the naval requirements of the day.

– That was clearly understood, and yet, because it was not inserted in an agreement, because this special arrangement which it was pointed out would be necessary was not made, we have failed to get the assistance of these officers to this very day. There was another distinct breach of faith, and that was in regard to the fleet visiting the capital cities. In the first volume of the proceedings of the Conference, at pages 157 and 158, Lord George Hamilton explains the objects for which the squadron was established.

Our idea was that this squadron would not be engaged in the work that the small ships of the present squadron are - that is to say, visiting the Islands, and doing police work. Our idea was that this squadron should be always kept in Australian waters, and go round from one capital to another therefore they would be constantly in view of the different colonies, and would never, so to speak, leave Australasian waters. As a matter of course they would visit New Zealand in their tour.

Seneator Pearce. - He would be called a naval heretic to-day.

Senator MATHESON:

– Judging from this report, he seems to have been one of the most enlightened men of that year. He certainly seems to have advocated this auxiliary fleet, and to have done everything he possibly could to see the arrangement put through. On the next page, I find a speech by Admiral Sir Arthur Hood. Lord George Hamilton had said that he . would not be disposed to let the vessels go among the Islands, whereupon Admiral Sir Arthur Hood said -

Certainly not. I should say that they should be in peace time properly employed visiting, as yon said just now, the principal ports in the different colonies, putting New Zealand upon practically the same footing as Victoria, New South Wales, and the other colonies, and that they would visit the different colonies as often as the necessities of the service required.

If we turn to the second volume, we find a letter on this question from the Government of Western Australia to the Admiral, in which this paragraph occurs -

Each contributing colony would, of course, desire to see Her Majesty’s ships in its waters, as frequently as possible: To avoid future difficulties, perhaps some understanding or arrangement on this head would be expedient -

What has been the position 1 From the date that agreement was signed I do not believe that the Australian fleet has been in Western Australian waters more than three times, and that has arisen simply because, in their blind belief in the Admiralty, our representatives did not have a binding stipulation put into the agreement that thevessels should visit the capital of ever)’ Australian State. On page 235 I find this statement in a memorandum from RearAdmiral Tryon to Sir Robert Stout, who, I believe, was Premier of New Zealand -

The wishes of the Ministers will be fully met by an assurance that the ports of New Zealand will be frequently visited either by single ships or at intervals by several ships cruising together as a squadron, an arrangement which is ‘ in accord with my existing orders, but which is rarely done, owing to the numerous calls made for vessels to visit distant islands.

– But I am still of the opinion, with the greatest respect to you, sir, that the Senate has the right to give the honorable senator permission to resume his speech to-morrow. I do not wish to debate the question. I propose to move in accordance with No. 427 of the standing orders which govern us now, and which, with all respect for the President’s ruling, appears to me to meet this case. I think we may stretch our view of the matter to such an extent as to describe this as a case of “ urgent necessity,” and that is the only phrase which would appear to offer any impediment to the motion I propose to move. I move -

That the standing orders be suspended to enable Senator Matheson to continue his speech to-morrow.

Motion agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Senator Matheson) adjourned.

page 3847

PATENTS BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 3847

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) pro posed -

That the report be adopted, and that the standing orders be printed and come into force on the 1st September next .

The PRESIDENT:

– They must be printed and circulated amongst honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 August 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1903/19030819_senate_1_15/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 August 1903

PETITIONS

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

CAPITAL SITES COMMISSION

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Lt Col Neild:

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REVENUE

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Victorian Railway Employes

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

NAVAL DEFENCE

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator DRAKE:Minister for Defence · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FLAG

Senator HIGGS:

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

Senator Higgs:

Senator DRAKE:

QUESTION

ENGLISH MAIL : HOBART

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

QUESTION

MILITARY FORCES : TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

QUESTION

EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Senator HIGGS:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

PAPERS

GOVERNMENT OFFICES: RENTS

QUESTION

MINISTERS IN THE SENATE

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:Minister for Defence · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col Neild:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Lt Col GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Lt Col Gould:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator Drake:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

PARLIAMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

NAVAL AGREEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Barrett:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senate
19 August 1903

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DRAKE:
Minister for Defence · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Minister for Defence · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Lt Col GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales