1st Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 4007
SenatorMILLEN presented two petitions, from fifty-two electors of Nowra, and from the Chairman of a public meeting held in Newtown, New South Wales, praying the Senate to prohibit the introduction, sale, and manufacture of intoxicating liquors in. British New Guinea.
Senator KEATING presented seven similar petitions from 347 electors of Tas mania.
page 4008
– I desire o ask: the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notico, if he can now answer the, following questions, which I put to him yesterday : -
-The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are’ as follow: -
The telegram was’ taken out with five others for Pitt-street, and the messenger has reported that he delivered the telegram for the hank first at about 9.48 a.m. It was placed on the counter, and delivery was accepted by a clerk. The messenger returned to the General Post Office at 10.20 a.m. after delivering all the telegrams.
page 4008
– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether, in view of the announcement thatSenator Fraser has joined the Opposition, it is not advisable that the Government should consider its position?
– I do not suppose that the honorable senator expects an answer to bis question.
page 4008
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice- -
Against Agreement. - Brisbane, Wednesday. -
The Queensland Government has been strongly protesting against the ratification of the Eastern Extension Company’s Agreement by the Federal Government, and communications on the subject have been addressed to the Premiers of Canada, New Zealand, and Victoria, as well as the Commonwealth Prime Minister. Mr. Philp has also moved His Excellency to cable to Mr. Chamberlain requesting that a special Conference may be held before anything further is done by the Federal Government. A reply has now been received from Canada stating that thq Premier of that country had cabled to Mr. Chamberlain, and also to the Commonwealth Prime Minister, making a protest, while the Premier of New Zealand has also replied strongly urging his objection to the ratification of the agreement, and hoping that the matter may stand over until, at all events, a Conference of the partners in the Pacific ‘Cable has been held.”
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 4008
Senator DRAKE laid upon the table
Protests from the Governments of Queensland, New Zealand, and Canada against ratifying the agreement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company.
Ordered to be printed.
page 4008
In Committee (Consideration of House of
Representatives’ message, vide page8914) : Clause 36 -
The Appellate Jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to judgments of the ‘ Supreme Court of a State, or of any other Court of a State from which at the establishment of the Commonwealth an appeal lay to the Queen in Council, shall extend to the following judgments, and no others, namely : -
Every judgment, whether final or interlocutory, which -
affect the status of any person under the laws relating, to aliens, marriage, divorce, bankruptcy, or insolvency.
Senate’s Amendment. - After the word “insolvency,” lino 12, insert tho words “ but so that an appeal may not be brought for an interlocutory judgment except by leave of the High Court.” House of Representatives’ M esmge. - Amendment agreed to, with an amendment inserting after the word ‘ of,” line 4, the words “ the Supreme Court or.”
– Of the thirty amendments made by the Senate in this Bill the other House has accepted all but one, in which it has made an addition. The amendment deals with a technical matter, but it appears to me to be necessary in the circumstances. It is made in the clause which gives a right to appeal from a State Supreme Court to the High Court. As it left the Senate it provided that in interlocutory matters the right could only be exercised by leave of the High Court. The House of Representatives desires that the right may be exercised by leave of either the Supreme Court of a State or the High Court. It is very proper that the Court before which the matter was decided should, if it think fit, be in a position to give the right of appeal. It is very probable that it is necessary under the Constitution that that right should be given. We cannot take away any right to appeal which is given in the Constitution, and in each State, under the Orders in Council, there was a right to appeal in interlocutory matters, on leave being given by a Judge. The amendment to our amendment puts the point beyond all question, and therefore I move -
That the amendment of the House of Representatives to the amendment of the Senate be agreed, to.
– I am very pleased indeed that Senator O’Connor has seen his way to accept the amendment. There is mi impression in New South Wales that for some reason or other the High Court is absorbing all the privileges of theSupremeCourts of theStates. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported ; report adopted.
page 4009
Debate resumed from 20th August (vide page 3952), on motion by Senator O’Connor -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– I do not intend to speak at any great length on this subject, because it has been very fully discussed. Both sides of the question have been very ably presented, and I do not think that at this stage of the debate any honorable senator is likely to change his views. In the case of a Bill of such importance we are all justified in expressing our views and stating the reasons for our votes. We have listened to some very able speeches, especially those of Senators O’Connor, Symon, and Matheson. Senator Downer made an exceedingly able speech, but it had relation to the Naval Agreement of 1 887 rather than to the subject-matter of the Bill. The speech of Senator Symon was, in my view, the most patriotic, and, in the proper sense of the term, the most Imperialistic that has yet been delivered in the debate.
– The honorable senator does not suppose that there is a monopoly of patriotism on that side?
– No. What I mean to say is that Senator Symon has advocated a course which I think would add to the self-respect of both the Australians and the British people. The proposed agreement can only be a stop-gap, and it will not have a lasting or beneficial effect even from the point of view of the British Empire. Before the Prime Minister went home he stated that he would not in any way bind the Parliament by any agreement into which he might enter, that it would practically have a free hand. When he returned and laid the agreement before the Parliament, he had fulfilled his part of the contract that he entered into with the Imperial authorities. But he made its acceptance a party question. He implied that if the Bill were not carried in the House of Representatives the Ministry would probably resign. That did not give the House of Representatives a free hand. Many members of that House voted with the Government, although they believed that perhaps the best interests of Australia would be served if the Bill were not passed ; they had either to support the Government or probably to see them resign. Fortunately, we are not in that position. The Senate does not make or unmake Ministries. From some points of view that is a very great advantage. We are enabled to vote according to our belief, and to our pledges to our constituents. But even in this case, we find that while Senator Cameron is opposed to the acceptance of the Naval Agreement, he feels impelled to support the Bill because the Prime Minister has given that pledge. My reasons for opposing the Bill differ somewhat from .those which have been expressed by other honorable senators. It has been inferred by some, that .the British Navy is not absolutely necessary to Australia, and that we should be able to get along very well even if it had no existence. I am one of those who believe that the British Navy, at any rate for many years, will be absolutely necessary for our safety. Without it what would be our position? Australia wouldbe a prey to any nation that had a couple of ironclads. Our shipping, worth millions of money, the cargoes contained in the vessels, and, what is more, our coastal towns, would be at the mercy of foreign nations. The damage that could be done by warships to coastal towns is especially applicable to Australia, because here all our principal towns are near or on the coast. We have, running right round Australia, broad bands of fertile country, in which there is room for an enormous population, but the interior is, to a certain extent, bare and arid. Australia in that respect, reminds me somewhat of a man’s bald head. There is a fringe of growth round the edges, and the centre is bare. No doubt we shall be able to apply a lotion in the shape of irrigation which will give us a growth nearer the centre. It is difficult to realize the damage that would be done to Australia by a hostile navy bombarding our coastal towns. Captain Mahan, in speaking of the danger of a’ superior naval force operating against the United States, says -
What is all Canada compared with our exposed great cities? Even were the coast fortified, she (Great Britain) still could do so if our navy be no stronger than is designed as yet. What can we do with Canada proportionate to the injury we should suffer by the interruption of our coasting trade, and by a blockade of Boston, New York, the Delaware, and the Chesapeake.
He practically says that the acquisition of Canada by the United States would not be a compensation for the enormous damage that could be done to that country upon its Atlantic and Pacific littorals by the British Navy. If we apply that illustration to Australia we can see how absolutely necessary the British Navy is to us. How could we defend the islands of the Pacific, theNew Hebrides, New Guinea, Norfolk Island,, and even Tasmania, if we relied only upon our land forces ? It has been said that there is no probability of war at the present time ; but I am very much afraid that everything points to the possibility of a great war. It is absolutely impossible forthe nations to go on as they are doing. Every year they are piling up larger overdrafts. They are having huge deficits and increasing their naval and military forces.. The state of suspense - the financial strain - = is becoming so great that one of two things must apparently eventuate, either war or national bankruptcy - unless, of course, disarmament takes place, which is very improbable. Sothat in opposing this Bill I want it to bedistinctly understood what my position is. I’ believe that for many years to come oursafety will depend upon the preponderating; strength of the British Navy. I also absolutely agree with what has been said by Senator O’Connor that it would be madnessto tie down the three British Squadrons to their respective stations - to provide that theAustralian, the East India, and the China squadrons should only be able to operatewithin their own limits. Any one can see that if that were done a naval power stronger than any of those squadrons indi- *vidually though less strong than the threecombined, could probably defeat each in detail. Suppose that with a recognition of the fact that they were tied, and that other British Squadrons in otherparts of the world were fixed in certain stations, a combination of naval powersdecided to concentrate their forces in the English Channel. They might, in that case, be able to overcome the British fleets there, and then defeat the other squadronsin detail. Therefore, there is a danger in this agreement, evening in tying thesquadrons down to their three stationsNelson, at the battle of the Nile, collected all the ships of the British Empire in oneplace, and so brought about a crushing defeat of the enemy. That might be done again and what would be the position of Great Britain if these powerful squadrons weretied down by this agreement to their own waters? It would be a suicidal policy.. The British fleet must be able to go to any part of the world to meet the naval forces of any other nation. But while I recognise that the British Navy isnecessary, and should not be confined to any place whatever, I still, unhesitatingly oppose this agreement. I admit that we have always received the greatest consideration from the British Government. Throughout the history of Australia we cannot reasonably point to/a time in which we have not been treated with the finest generosity. But I am opposed to this agreement for three reasons. First, I believe that armed cruisers are absolutely necessary for Australia, and that they must be kept, distinct from the British Navy, purely for the defence of Australian coasts and Australian trade.
– Would not a British ship be able to do that as well as an Australian ship?
– No ; it would be foolish to tie British ships -down to Australia. These special boats should co-operate with our forts.
– A weak argument.
– I know that my honorable friend disagrees with me, but I could quote dozens’ of British Admirals of great repute who say that what J! advocate is absolutely necessary. In the. second place, we can never train Australian sailors satisfactorily unless we have armed cruisers of our own. Thirdly, the terms embodied in this Bill are inconsistent with -our national self-respect and self-reliance. In answer to Senator Fraser, let me ask : Why have the Imperial authorities altered their views with regard to Australian defence ? Were men like Sir Peter Scratchley, who was commissioned by the Imperial Government to report on Australian defence, Sir William Jervois, Lord Kimberley, and Admiral Tryon, all wrong ? I do not intend to weary the Seriate by reading extracts from these authorities, because that lias already been done ; but were these authorities wrong when they urged the institution of the very system that those who are opposed to this Bill now advocate? Are Admiral Hopkins, Admiral Fitzgerald, and others wrong at the present time ? Have the tactics of naval warfare altered, or has the policy of the home authorities altered ? I will quote from the handbook of the Navy League, dated 2nd December, 1902, where Mr. Herbert Wilson draws attention to the following extract from the report of the Committee on Naval Manoeuvres -
There should always be an effective reserve squadron, absolutely confined to home waters, sufficient to hold the Channel and protect the coasts and commerce of the United Kingdom, in addition to the coast-defence ships which would be required for active local defence.
Why is it necessary to have these local squadrons in British waters if it is unnecessary in Australia ? If this policy as applied to Australia is obsolete, and should be superseded, why do the Admiralty pursue an obsolete policy in regard to Great Britain 1 Why do they have a Channel squadron, a home squadron, and why are they forming a North Sea Squadron 1 Why do they have cruisers which are constantly kept moving about in British waters, and which are not allowed to go away? Why do they adopt such methods if they are obsolete 1 Then comes the question : why are such cruisers necessary for Australia? Because we have contiguous to Australia many islands occupied by foreign powers who have made them, or are making them, naval bases- and coaling stations. Captain Mahan says, speaking of the United States - .
It should be an inviolable resolution of our national policy that no foreign State should henceforth acquire a coaling position within 3,000 miles of San Francisco, tor fuel is the life of modern naval war; it is the food of the ship ; without it the modern monsters of the deep die of inanition. . . . An enemy thrown back for supplies of fuel to distances of 3,500 and 4,000 miles going and coming is an impediment to sustained maritime operations well nigh prohibitive.
That lays down the principle that there is great danger in having foreign coaling stations and naval bases within 3,000 miles of a country’s coasts. If these bases * and coaling stations did not exist, I should say, from a defensive point of view, there would be no necessity for armed cruisers to be specially retained on the Australian station. There are dangers from foreign cruisers simply because we have foreign nations contiguous to Australia. That, however, is not the fault of Australia. For the last thirty years the Australian authorities have pleaded that those islands should be annexed by Great Britain, but that annexation has not been made, and while many prominent men in Australia regret that fact, we must recognise that, with the vast claims on the Empire, we cannot get all we desire. We must remember that in the eighties, when islands in the Pacific were being annexed by other powers, Great Britain was making enormous acquisitions in Africa. Very large tracts of country on that continent were being annexed, and no doubt, in the view of the Imperial authorities, Africa was then of greater importance than were the islands of the Pacific. In order to show the danger of those foreign naval bases, I should like to read two short extracts from the utterances of Sir Peter Scratchley and Admiral Bosanquet.
– What date?
– I do not know the date, but the extracts are from reports to be obtained in the Parliamentary Library. Sir Peter Scratchlej7 was sent out to report on the defences, of Australia, and he said -
With the example of South Africa before their eyes, the danger of border disputes is ever present in their minds, and it would be idle to attempt to disguise the fact that, in the unhappy event of a European war, Kaiser Wilhelm Land, from its size and position, may prove the basis of awkward complications in that part of the world.
Admiral Bosanquet, speaking of New Guinea, said -
The const abounds in harbors which command important trade routes from China and the East to the Western Pacific. In the hands of an enemy these harbors would command the whole of the east coast of Australia and make it difficult for the colonies to get along at all.
We all regret the present condition of affairs, under which two or three fast cruisers with heavy ordnance could destroy all the shipping of Australia. That shipping is valued at over £3,000,000, ‘and doubtless the cargo carried represents another £3,000,000. These foreign cruisers, working from these bases, would, moreover, have the power to destroy our coastal towns.
SenatorFraser. - Where would the British fleet be then ? Asleep, I suppose.
– I am speaking of a time of war, when the British fleet would be concentrating at some point where a decisive battle was expected.
– The British fleet is everywhere.
– There are vast odds against any decisive naval buttle being fought in Australian waters. Senator Fraser suggests that we would never be so left. But let us consider the actual position. The Admiral would be the sole person to decide as to the movements of the fleet if Great Britain were at war with some foreign nation, or combination of foreign nations, and there might be two or three cruisers lurking at Noumea, or at
Kaiser Wilhelm Land, ready to pounce down on Australia. The Admiral would be thirsting for action and glory ; and is it likely he would not desire to leave Australian waters for the scene where the decisive naval battle was expected ?
– Certainly- not, with those cruisers close at hand.
– Is it likely that the admiral would keep a large fleet here merely in order to check the movements of a couple of hostile cruisers ? The great probability is that he would decideto join the main fleet, and having there assisted to smash the enemy, would the» turn his attention to the cruisers.
– Nonsense!
– A young ambitious Admiral would be very likely to follow the example of Nelson atCopenhagen, and, disregarding the wishes of Australia, put the telescope to his blind eye. We should have no say in the matter ; and it is possible that an admiral might be justified in taking such a course, even though, in consequence, the Australian coastwere harried. The squadron in Australian waters should not be tied to Australia, but should be able to go to any part of the world where a decisive battle is expected.
– Under what command ?
– Under the command of the Imperial authorities, absolutely.
– That is what we propose.
– And with that I absolutely agree ; but I contend that we must have under Australian jurisdiction certain cruisers to watch the interestsof Australia. These cruisers must be left behind to act as watchdogs when the attacking fleet has gone to some other part of the world. Without those watchdogs what would be the position of Australia in time of war? Imagine the people of Australia watching the destruction of their towns, and commerce, wringing their hands in hapless impotence !
– I hope they would not do that.
Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Would the people not then curse the agreement which had been made on behalf of Australia 1 Would there not be the bitterest recrimination and the strongest resentment against those who had brought the country to such a pass? The advocates of the agreement say that they support the Bill in the interests of the Empire, with which our interests are bound up.
– Our reason for adopting the agreement is that it is in the interests of Australia.
– If timid Imperialists, who think it unsafe for Australia to have a navy, draw the silken bonds too tight, those silken bonds may be found to snap, with the result of bringing about what they- most dread. Those are my reasons for contending that we must have cruisers which are confined to Australian waters, so that, in the event of the British fleet being drawn away, we shall not be left absolutely defenceless.
– Does the honorable senator suppose that it is not as much to the interests of the Admiralty to keep their base intact here, and preserve Australia, as it is to the interests of Australians?
– I do not agree with the honorable and learned senator. The view of the Admiralty is that every ship must be concentrated in order to effect a decisive victory, even though injury be done to certain portions of the Empire. Their view is that when the decisive victory has been won, attention may then be turned to hostile cruisers in Australian waters. The principle which animates the British Admiralty is, I believe, that every ship of the fleet ought to be concentrated, even if certain places are left undefended - that it is better to have a small disaster than a big disaster.
SenatorFraser. - The honorable senator would keep the Australian ships idle in Australian waters?
– I quite agree as to the value of a decisive victory, but I contend that we must look after our own defences, and have two or three armed cruisers of our own.
SenatorFraser. - And keep them idle ?
– They would not be idle. We should have the power at any time to send our cruisers to assist the British fleet, and no doubt we would do so; but we desire to have it within our power to say whether or not our coasts shall be left unprotected. I wish to give one or two reasons why I think the proposed contribution is not consistent with our national self-respect, and not in the best interests of all the parties concerned. We propose to subsidize Imperial sailors to defend . our coasts - to pay in cash what we are unwilling or unready to give in men or service. Taxation without representation is no greater sign of national decadence than defence without service or protection without personal danger. It was because the British people put the taxation horse before the representation cart that the American colonies seceded. The Imperial Federation League, at its last annual meeting in Melbourne, condemned the proposed Naval Agreement on the ground that it was taxation without representation. That league is presided over by Mr. Justice Holroyd, and the agreement was condemned because the principles underlying it are not consistent with the position of a self-reliant and democratic people.
– This is not taxation, but a voluntary contribution.
– The money is raised by taxation, and is handed to the British authorities to spend - we have no voice in the spending.
– . Where do the British authorities spend the money?
– The greater part of it in Australia.
– Tt is well known that this contribution of £200,000 does not add one man or one ship to the British Navy. The whole traditional policy of the Imperial authorities regarding the British Navy is that it must be equal to those of any two foreign powers. In 1870, when the population of Australia was a little over 1,500,000, an understanding was come to with the home authorities under which the Imperial troops were withdrawn from Australia and colonial troops substituted. In the third of a century which has elapsed the population has more than doubled, and the colonies have been welded together in a federation ; and the time has now arrived when we should begin to undertake a second arm of defence, and create an Australian Navy. To timid and distrustful Imperialists, who regard an Australian Navy as dangerous to the Imperial connexion, I would point out that the withdrawal of the Imperial troops from Australia was a much more momentous step. At that time the people of Australia were not nearly so loyal to the Empire as they are at the present time.
SenatorFraser. - The people of Australia were always loyal. Some may have thought the Australian people were not loyal, but it was a mistake.
– The people of Australia are more loyal now than they were then.
– They are just the same now as then.
– What was the result of the withdrawal of the troops ? It would have been possible for the Governments of the Colonies to have been absolutely disobeyed - for the Imperial authorities to have been set at defiance. But the self-reliance and the self-respect of the Colonies were trusted, and we find that, when Great Britain is engaged in wars in different parts of the world, Australia ia as ready as Great Britain herself to defend the Empire. The more we relax the fetters on Australia - the more freedom we give to the Australian people - the more loyal will they become to the British Empire. The best way to enable the people of this Commonwealth to realize the true nature of sea power is to induce them to maintain and man cruisers of their own. It must be admitted that the time may come when it will probably be very, difficult for ‘Great Britain to maintain her present preponderating naval supremacy, if all the nations of the world are to continue increasing the power of their navies at the present rate. I say that the true and the only lasting solution of that problem is that the various portions of the Empire shall contribute ships and service, and not money contributions to the Empire’s Navy. The four great nations of the Empire - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa - must create naval squadrons of their own, and must increase these as they grow in wealth and population ; and if this course is adopted the time will come when our naval preponderance will be based upon a far higher and surer footing than it can ever be if the great Colonies of the Empire are to make money contributions to Great Britain with the understanding that the mother country is to provide and man their navies, because under such a system no opportunity is afforded for development of self-respect and self-reliance. It was never intended, even by the Admiralty, that the 1886 agreement should last after the Federation of the Australian States was accomplished. Admiral Tryon said -
It is not a .mere subsidized force that will do what is wanted. It is not only money that is required to produce effective forces, but it ispersonal service of our countrymen all over theworld. It is blood rather than gold that is thebasis of every true force ; and to awaken thetrue spirit the Government of each colony, and. the people of each colony, should manage, as far as possible, their local forces during the time of peace. Unless they do so, the burden of cost will be irksome, and the interest of the people in their maintenance - which is a first factor for success - will not be evoked.
Admiral Tryon said that unless we had an Australian force the interest of the people would not be evoked. That is exactly the opinion I am trying to express. What was Canada’s reply to this proposed agreement i Are the Canadians or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great Premier of Canada, less loyal than we are, or less desirous of advancing the interests of the Empire ? The reply of Sir’ Wilfrid r Laurier and his Ministers to theproposal that Canada should join in this subsidy is a noble vindication of their loyalty, not only to the Empire, but te Canada. They said at the Conference ill 1902-
The Canadian Ministers regret that they have ‘ been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborne respecting the navy, and by Mr. Brodrick respecting the army.
It must always be borne in mind that the Imperial authorities made two suggestions. One’, that we should keep an armed force in Australia ready to be sent to any part of” the world, and the other which is represented by the proposed naval agreement.
The Ministers desire to point out that their objections arise not so much from the expense involved as from the belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial selfgovernment. Canada values highly the measure of* local independence which has been granted to her from time to time, by the Imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the motherland.
In June last the following telegram from Ottawa appeared in the London Standard : -
At the formation of a branch of the Navy League here to-day the Minister of Militia said that Canada was prepared to do its duty for the defence of the Empire although dissenting from the proposition of Great Britain that it should contribute in cash towards that which will be absolutely under the control of the Admiralty.
What is this miserable contribution, as I . call it, to the Imperial Treasury? What is a contribution of £200,000 a year for the up-keep of a navy which costs £38,000,000 a year 1 The contribution proposed from the
Commonwealth would but add 1¼d. to . every £1 raised from the British people. If the Australian contribution were divided amongst the people of Great Britain it would amount to about Id. per head.
-Col. Gould. - The honorable’ senator would be better satisfied if we gave £500,000 or £1,000,000.
– I say that if we accept the principle that we should contribute in money, the Imperial Government in this agreement has treated us most generously.
– Then the honorable ^senator would not be in favour of making any amendments in this Bill if the second reading is carried.
– I do not propose to tie myself to anything like -that.
– Surely that follows.
– I say -that I. object altogether to the principle ; but if the principle is right that we should contribute money, instead of service and men, to the defence of the Empire, the bargain contained in this agreement is, from that aspect, a very generous one. The Australian Squadron proposed will cost £500,000 a year, and we are asked to pay but half of that sum. I do not object to the agreement from that point of view.
– The honorable senator gives the whole situation away.
– I do not give the situation away ; I find no fault with the generosity of Great Britain towards Australia ; but I say that it is here proposed that we should adopt an entirely wrong principle, and one which will tend to alienate rather than to bind together the various portions of the Empire. What we should do, in addition to providing -an Australian Squadron, is to supply in Australia bases and coaling stations for the navy of Great Britian. They would be found most valuable. If Great Britian had not these naval bases in Australia, she would require to have them in some of the islands in* this part of the world, .and that would involve- the fortification of those islands and the expenditure of an enormous sum of money in garrisoning them, whilst the advantages thus secured can be supplied by Australia, practically without cost to the -mother c’ountry. We have been taunted with the statement that Australia pays but 4s. lOd. per head for naval and military defence, whilst, according to the Estimates for 1903-4’, the British people are called upon to pay £1 5s. per head. But it must be borne in mind that whilst the British people are taxed to the extent of £3 9s. per head, the Australian people are taxed to the extent of £7 15s. It must be remembered also that, in a young country like Australia, an enormous expenditure is necessary for development, and there is absolutely no analogy which can fairly be drawn between a contribution for purposes of this kind from a young country like the Australian Commonwealth and from a settled country like Great Britain.
– Does the honorable senator not recognise the fact that the fares paid on our railways cannot be called taxation ? .
– What on earth have the fares paid on our railways to “do with taxation1?
– They are included in the honorable senator’s figures.
– We could never pay what many English people believe to be our .due proportion of the defence of the Empire- £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 - because we have to incur such enormous expenditure in the development of the country.
– I do not know how we can get the money to build the Western Australian railway if we spend £2,500,000 on a fleet.
– We will discuss the Western Australian railway at some other time. This proposed contribution of £200,000 a year for the assistance of Great Britain is merely a sentimental contribution of no practical value to a people who are called upon to spend £38,000,000 a year. As I have said, it means but the addition of l£d. to every £1 raised from the British people.
– They are spending that the world over.
– I am speaking from the Australian point of view. I say that it is abhorrent to all our British traditions and our self-reliance, that we should for all time-
– Not for all time - nobody says that.
-I see. Then this is to be a mere stop-gap or patchwork arrangement ?
– No; the same arrangement as we have had for years.
– The proposal is to have a patchwork arrangement to enable the ship of State to carry on for another ten years, and then we are to get what I am advocating now.
– Then we can reconsider the whole situation.
– If we are to have any broad principles for our guidance, it is better that we should begin a policy which we can continue than that we should adopt a policy which my honorable and learned friend admits is a mere patchwork policy, intended to last only for a certain time.
– The honorable senator must recognise the difference. .”We will have got rid of the Braddon “ blot “ in ten years’ time, and we shall then have a free hand.
– The Braddon “ blot “ is a wonderful help to the Government. I do not know how they would have got on but for it. Whenever any expenditure is proposed, such as that which would be involved in the establishment of a system of old-age pensions, we are told that it is impossible, because the Braddon “ blot “ stands in the way. The Braddon “blot” gets the Government out of all kinds of difficulties. Besides the proposed contribution there is a very important principle involved in this agreement which has not received sufficient attention from honorable senators. Our expenditure up to the present time in connexion- with the ordinary annual services has always been purely for the defence of Australia, with the understanding that at certain times, and purely as a voluntary act, we may render assistance to the Empire wherever war may be carried on. But the policy of this agreement is one of offence and defence, and we shall be bound, willy-nilly, to assist the Empire without being consulted. Whether we approve of what is proposed or not, and without being asked, we shall have to consent to the removal of the Australian Fleet to fight in other parts of the world. Is that likely to increase our loyalty and pride in the Empire ? Is it likely to stimulate that selfreliance which is the basis of all national greatness ? No one who looks at this matter fairly can say that this agreement is framed in the best interests of the Australian people. I do not propose to go into the expense of providing a purely Australian’ Squadron. Captain Creswell and Senator Matheson have shown that it is possible for us to provide an Australian Navy at an annual cost slightly in excess of the proposed subsidy of £200,000. When we consider what should be done with regard to our navy and our army, it does appear to be extraordinary that, of the £800,000 annually expended in this island - continent of Australia upon defence, £600,000 is spent upon the army, and a paltry £200,000 upon the navy ! I say that in principle that is wrong. Great Britain spends more upon her navy than upon her army at the present time. We must remember that Great Britain requires to keep an enormous armed force ready to be sent to any part of the world in time of- emergency. We donot require to do anything of the kind, as we can call for volunteers, if there should ever be a necessity to send men to other parts of the world, as we did in the case of the South African war.
– We have not the same interests to defend in other parts of the world as Great Britain.
– We have no possessions in other parts of the world. But whilst we spend £600,000 a year on our army, and- £200,000 upon naval defence, Great Britain spends £38,000,000 on her navy, and £34,000,000 a year on ner army. Undoubtedly, the true policy for Australia is to spend very much more upon her naval force than upon her land force. If we divided the annual expenditure of £800,000 upon defence between our land forces and our naval forces, we might have five fast Australian cruisers, armed with heavy ordinance, which would give us all the local naval protection we require. In . my opinion differential rates of pay on the ships would be most unfair and unworkable. They would create all kinds of difficulties. They would provoke such an outcry and such dissatisfaction that the system could not last more than a year or two. Either the Imperial rates would “be raised’ to the level of the Australian rates, or viceversa. British sailors would leave Britishships and join the Australian Squadron as Australians, and probably get twice thewages they had been receiving. That in itself is a very serious blot on the agreement. If British sailors left England, or joined’ the Australian boats when paid off, and shipped as Australians, the expense would be enormously increased, without making one atom of difference. The British, sailors would still be manning the ships, and we should be paying this enormous extra amount simply because British sailors had joined as Australians. What would be the effect on the morale of the ship 1 A sailor who had shipped as an Australian would be receiving more wages than a petty officer. Fancy a petty officer receiving a less salary than a sailor who had to obey his commands ! The whole tiling amounts to an absurdity. What occurred in South Africa? Did not Tommy Atkins object strenuously, and very justly too, to the fact that he was receiving Is. 6d. a day, whilst the Australian fighting by his side was being paid 5s. a day ? He fought as bravely as the Australian, he had to bear the burden and heat of the day, and naturally he asked why he should be receiving Is. 6d. a day whilst another man was receiving 5s. a day for doing the same work? That differentiation would prevail in the Australian fleet, with the inevitable result that it would create the greatest ill-feeling. I do not intend to take up much more time. T have stated the reasons why I am compelled to vote against the acceptance of the agreement, which I admit is of very great importance. I have not spoken with the view of converting any honorable senators. I felt that it was necessary for me to state my views, and to give reasons to justify the important vote I shall give. My desire is that we shall legislate in such a manner as will serve the best interests of Australia, and promote and continue the friendly relations existing between Australia and Great Britain. I hold that this tentative and patchwork agreement, which is opposed to all the sentiments of the Australian people, will do no good ; will injure the friendly feelings that exist, and will bring about the very- thing that its advocates do not desire. I hope that the Bill will not be passed by the Senate, and that at the next election the electors will have an opportunity of saying whether they favour the agreement or not. I believe that if it were submitted to the electors, with a full knowledge of the facts of the case, they would not agree to its acceptance. At any rate I should like the Bill to be remitted ‘to the electors for that purpose before we are absolutely tied up for ten years to such an agreement.
- Senator Smith has very aptly described the measure as a tentative and. patchwork one. He has clearly shown that the agreement is not in the interests of the people of Australia ; and that the proposals it contains have been condemned not only in the present but also in the past by those persons who are able to pronounce sound judgment. Although we may not be able to alter the intended vote of any honorable senator, yet it is our duty to place our views, not only before the Senate, but also before the electors. Senator Smith has given some very sensible advice. If the Government desire to learn the real feeling of the people of Australia in regard to this project, as well asother matters of policy, they might very well take the advice which has been given by Senators ‘ Smith and Symon to delay the passing of the Bill until the opinions of the electors are elicited at the next general election. The more I have thought over the agreement, and the longer it has been discussed, the more convinced do I feel that that course should be taken. It is so far reaching in its consequences and entails upon us such heavy responsibilities that I feel that the opinion of the electors ought to be taken before it is accepted. In my judgment it is a bad agreement for the people of Australia to accept. In the past we have pursued a mistaken policy in regard to naval defence. The present proposal is alien to the national’ feelings of this young Commonwealth. When past difficulties have been cleared away, and we are malting a start in nation building, we ought to take a statesmanlike view now that the opportunity is presented. Instead of asking the Parliament to continue the old agreement or to accept an agreement based upon old lines, the Government might well have struck out in a new direction. From my point of view, the agreement is not suitable to the ‘people of Australia, and will cripple our national responsibilities. Undoubtedly it involves a great matter of public policy. T do not believe that any honorable senator poses as a naval expert. We can only educate ourselves from the sources of information which are made available to us, and by that means endeavour to come to a correct conclusion on the Bill. I have found that a senatorship entails many responsibilities. On almost every question, be it large or small, we are called upon to speak, and to pass judgment.
Very often a senator would need the wisdom of a Solomon, or two Solomons, in order to come to a correct conclusion on the grave matters that are submitted for his consideration.
– We are making a new departure now.
– Perhaps, from the honorable senator’s point of view, we may be making a new departure ; but I am arguing that we are not. We are simply asked to accept an agreement which I admit, in its terms, differs somewhat from the existing one.
– It is very little different
– We are not making a new departure from the point of view of self-help, as I think we should do in a measure of this character. We are not taking up the position of laying down a policy for the Commonwealth. It is admitted all round that the agreement is only of a tentative character. That argument has always been advanced. If the history of the naval defence of Australia is studied, what do we find 1 We find that in the past the States’ have been divided amongst themselves, and have always been looking forward to a time when their difficulties would be removed. When the Colonial Conference was held in London in 1887, our representatives said that the proposed agreement was only to be entered into for a time ; that in future the immense difficulties that confronted us would be removed, and that when Australia federated a great change would occur, and we should be able to deal more effectively with the question of naval defence than we could then. We are federated, the difficulties of representation and government have ‘ been removed, and yet we are asked by this agreement to take up exactly the old position, and to depend on Great Britain for our naval defence in the immediate future, ‘and as far as I can see, for a considerable time to come. Early in the -history of the Commonwealth we are called upon to decide a question of great public policy. I prefer to take my stand with those who wish to build up a national life in Australia. I desire to see in Australia a self-reliant people in regard to not only naval defence, but other matters also. [Senate counted.] I look upon this as a great question of national policy. This is the first time in the history of Australia when we have been called upon to deal with defence from a national point of view. Even though we are not able to convince honorable senators who have made up their minds, this debate may from an educational point of view serve some purpose. Probably future Parliaments, when dealing with the subject, will turn to this debate. It would have been a good thing if the Government had paused, not only with regard to this matter, but also as to others, in order that the public might be educated as to the governing principles.
– That is a good’ reason for postponing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, i
– That question is on an altogether different plane. The hollowness of the argument, could be shown clearly if it were in order to do so. When this question comes to be discussed in the future, the people will realize that those who are opposing this Bill have taken the proper course, and have enunciated views which, though they may have fallen upon deaf ears, should have prevailed. What does this Bill do1? In the first place it cripples our national aspirations. The. love of home and of country calls forth our highest patriotism. But there is nothing for us to enthuse over in this agreement. We are simply carrying out the old policy, and in no way entering upon the path which we ought to follow. We should look upon the question in the light of our own history. It is evident that naval power ought to be the first consideration for Australia. We have an island continent with an immense coastline. Experts have declared that if there was any danger to the people of Australia it would come in the shape of naval attack. Therefore, it is our first duty to guard our coasts from attacks of that character. But this agreement does not give us the security we require. In fact it binds us down, not to defend ourselves, but to leave our defence to the Imperial Squadron. That is altogether at variance with the views of experts like Sir Peter Scratchley, Admiral Tryon, Major-General Edwards, Sir William Jervois, Captain Creswell, and a host of others, who are supposed to know something about the question, and many of whom have studied the Australian situation on the spot. [Senate counted.] Our first line of defence being of a naval character, we should study the requirements of naval defence, and should have the ships to give us the absolute security we need, lt is contended that we have absolute security now, but that would only be so if, when an engagement was fought with a hostile power off the coast of Australia, we could count upon the Australian Squadron being able to defeat the enemy. But an important consideration has been left out. Suppose that the hostile fleet were divided into two sections, that a feint were made in one direction, and ‘ that whilst the British Squadron was engaged in pursuing them,the other half made a descent upon Australian shores, and not only destroyed our ports, but also took a good deal of money away from us. That possibility seems to be forgotten in the calculation. Honorable senators pride themselves upon the strength of the British Navy. They have said that it has done great deeds in the past, and is impregnable. We know that it ‘has done glorious deeds. Admittedly up to the present it has been impregnable. But, in the future, there may be wars of such a character that Great Britain may not be able to give to her dependencies the absolute security to which they have been accustomed. That is a reason why we should have an Australian Navy, or, at any rate, why we should make an attempt to defend ourselves. This is the first duty that we owe not only to Australia but to Great Britain. It is said that it is necessary to have a British Squadron in Australian waters, because this part of the world is one of the bases of the navy. It is clear that it is the first duty of the navy to keep open the great highways of commerce, and to maintain communication between the portions of the Empire. But it is our duty to maintain our own local defence. If we do that, instead of weakening we strengthen the naval position immensely from the Imperial point of view. If the dependencies of the Empire can undertake their own defence, and relieve the mother country of the anxiety, and, to a certain extent, of the expense to which she has been committed in the past, surely that will not be a source of weakness. Therefore I cannot understand the reasons advanced as to why we should not take this departure. So much for the first line of defence. But that is not all that we should undertake. Our second line of defence should be our forts, batteries, and mines. In the event of a foreign power making a descent upon our shores, we ought not to be at their mercy. Our forts, batteries, and mines should defend our ports, and guard our coastal cities. There is another duty that Australia owes to herself as well as to the Empire. Senator Matheson last night very clearly and ably showed that without an efficient naval force the land force is altogether useless. On this point Senator Mail.t, son made out an extremely .good case, and proved that unless due provision is made in both directions, the money spent is absolutely thrown away. The Defence Department is the largest spending department in the Commonwealth. Huge sums of money have been spent in the past, and huge sums will no doubt be spent in the future on our defences ; and this to my mind is an answer to those who contend that Australia has done very little in this direction. Until quite recently the Australian States and New Zealand were spending nearly £1,000,000 per annum on defence, and considering our population and the taxation involved, our efforts compare very favorably with the efforts of other communities in outlying portions of the Empire. Our first line of defence is on the sea, and instead of expending immense sums in the establishment of land forces, it might be wiser to make a departure. Great saving might be made in the expenditure on the land forces, and more attention paid to naval defence, which is the more important at the present moment. I have no desire to be misunderstood. I firmly believe that there ought to he efficient defence within, but naval experts, who have come to Australia from time to time to give advice, declare that the danger is from without. In my opinion the land defence, instead of being, organized on an expensive scale, ought to take the form of a citizen soldiery ; the manhood of Australia ought to be asked to give their services, so that the necessary forces may be established on a less expensive and more efficient basis than at present. The naval policy of Australia in the past has crippled our selfreliance, and has, so to speak, taught us that we have no need to branch out for ourselves. One great argument used by the advocates of the agreement is that we have had the utmost security in the past, and will therefore have the utmost security in the future. We are further told that the time is not- opportune for Australia to begin to establish her own navy ; but there is danger in assuming that position. In other directions we in Australia are taking upon ourselves the responsibilities which nationhood entails. We have set ourselves up as a Commonwealth, and we are extending our influence. When are we going to assume our proper responsibility from a naval point of view 1 It is our duty to face the position fairly and squarely and do what is best in the interests of Australia. It would appear, however, from the attitude of some honorable senators, that the proper policy is a policy of procrastination. In 1887, when the Colonial Conference met in London, the question of defence particularly engaged attention. Senator Downer referred to this matter last night ; and it was shown that one of the reasons why the Colonies could not then undertake a proper system of naval defence was the great difficulties in the Svay of the whole of the Colonies acquiring ships for the purpose. The present AttorneyGeneral, when he returned from that Conference, clearly indicated that so far as Victoria was concerned the agreement was only tentative, and that at its termination it would be possible to undertake our own defence on an entirely different plan from that which had prevailed in the past. The agreement then made remains in force, and no attempt has been made in the direction indicated by the present AttorneyGeneral. According to several honorable senators we are simply tied to the apron strings of Great Britain, and in no way prepared to face our proper responsibilities. Such a position of affairs is not in the interests of Australia. The time is -ripe for giving effect to the Australian sentiment that we should undertake our own defence - a duty which is cast on us by the Constitution and by the position we occupy in the world. When the existing agreement was made, the Auxiliary Squadron was our sole defence; and the proposed agreement, instead of giving us the security we desire, places the whole of the responsibility in regard to the, fleet in the hands of the British Admiral. On that point I join issue with Senator Smith. While it is quite right that there should be a British Squadron in Australian waters, we should not be obliged to place our whole reliance on that squadron. The proper policy is to commence the creation of an Australian Navy and undertake the responsibility of our own defence. As has already been pointed out, it is the duty of Great Britain to keep open the highways of commerce - that is a duty she owes to her position. The great bulk of the food supplies of Great Britain are collected from every quarter of the world. If a naval war took place her position would be endangered if she did not keep open the great highways of commerce. It may ap- pear mean to again advance an argument which hd,s been repeatedly used in the Senate, but, I believe, it is her duty to do this, and it is our duty to look after ourselves. As Senators Matheson and Symon have pointed out, we shall not find an Australian scheme of naval defence which will give us security for the future in the agreement now before the Senate. A great deal has been said about the cost involved, and going back to the history of the question, I “find that we have spent no less than £1,500,000 on naval defence ; and naval experts, who have dealt with the question from an Australian point of view, and particularly Captain Creswell, have reminded us of the fact that we have nothing to show for this large expenditure of money. Under this Bill it . is proposed to make another charge upon the people of Australia ; and, should the Federal Parliament ratify this agreement, we shall, during the next ten years, spend no less than £2,000,000 in this way.
– And we shall get £4,000,000 back.
– I do not think we shall. I have heard a great deal of the amount of money we are to receive in the future if this agreement be carried into effect. We are told that the British vessels will obtain their coal and supplies, and everything required for the maintenance of the squadron, from Australia. I question that statement.
– What happened in connexion with the supplies required in South Africa t
– The honorable senator may well ask that question. The Imperial authorities will pay no attention to the suggestions of honorable senators that the supplies required by the squadron should be obtained from the Australian . people. We know that they will do only that what they consider best in their own interests.
– Of course they will buy in the cheapest markets.
– They will buy in the cheapest markets, as the honorable senator says, and that is the very thought I had in my mind. The British Admiralty is not a philanthropic institution, nor are British statesmen philanthropists.
– Neither is the Commonwealth a philanthropic institution.
– I do not contend that it is, but I am replying to the argument submitted by Senator Zeal. We are told that if we spend £200,000 a year in the way proposed we shall get the money back two or three times over.
– We shall get something worth very much more than we pay. We shall have the use of three fleets if ever the necessity arises.
– That argument has also been submitted to the Senate.
– It is a fact.
– It may be a fact from the honorable and learned senator’s point of view, but it is not a fact from my point of .view.
– It is a fact under the agreement.
– The honorable and learned senator is reading the agreement in one way, and I am reading it in another.
– But the language is plain, and it can only be misread wilfully.
– I am not wilfully misreading the proposed agreement. If I am making such a mistake as the honorable - and learned senator suggests, it is open to him and to those who agree with him to point out how I have erred in construing the agreement. I can assure honorable senators that I honestly believe I am right in the arguments I advance. In view of the recommendations of naval experts who have from time to time reported to the Governments of the ^States that it is our duty to defend ourselves, I ask what we are to gain by the expenditure of £2,000,000 in ten years, as proposed under this agreement? If in the future we must undertake the responsibility of defending ourselves by sea, is it not wiser and more statesmanlike that we should now face the whole position, and that the people of Australia should consider whether, as a beginning in naval defence must some time be made, it should not be’ made now? What have we gained from the agreement which has existed in the past? .Have we gained anything by the - expenditure of £1,500,000 in subsidizing the British ships which have been our means of naval defence under the present agreement ? I am told that it has been an insurance, and that it has given us security. I am told that we have by this expenditure purchased a certain amount of protection, and I have no doubt that the naval force which has been supplied would to the best of its ability have defended us in the past if there had been any necessity. But that does not do away with the argument ‘ that we must face the question of . naval defence for ourselves. I contend that, by the establishment of an Australian Navy, we should but accept our proper responsibility, and we should only assume the position which we ought rightly to take up in regard to this important matter. In view of the experience of the past, I ask what will be our position at the end of the next ten or twelve years ? I have no doubt that, if this agreement is ratified, we shall hear the same old arguments used, and there will be the same procrastination in the establishment of a naval defence of our own. I have no doubt that in discussions which will take place ten or twelve years hence’ the arguments used will be those which are being used to-day. It is because I realize that that is proved by the experience of the past that I am endeavouring to make out a case for the establishment of an Australian Navy. There is the higher question of the aspirations of the people of Australia to be considered . Senator Smith has pointedly alluded to the fact that it is our duty to foster and encourage the national sentiment. It is not only in the matter of defence, but in respect to other important questions and principles that the people of Australia must realize that in the formation of the Commonwealth we have made a wide departure from old lines. We are now building up a nation and assuming the responsibilities of nationhood. Our duty to defend ourselves must be instilled into *he minds of the people, and by the creation of a purely Australian Navy we shall do more in that direction than we can hope to do by adopting the agreement now placed before us. We must make a beginning in naval defence some time, and I wish to know why we should not make that beginning now? The argument is almost threadbare that nearly £4,000,000 of money has been spent in connexion with naval defence, and we are incurring enormous expenditure every year. But I point out that much might be done in the re-organization of our land forces, on a simpler plan than is now proposed, to relieve public expenditure so far as those forces are concerned. We should then be in a position to spend a great deal more upon a naval force. I would remind honorable senators that that is the position taken up by Captain Creswell. In his excellent memorandum he has shown that by an expenditure of between£300,000 and£400,000 a year we should be able to establish the nucleus of a navy that would be effective not only at the present moment, but in the future. I see no reason why the old agreement should not, for the present, be continued . I can see no reason why the security or the insurance, which has been spoken of so often, could not be obtained by the establishment of a navy. By that means we could obtain that better security to which I think we are entitled, and which we are compelled to take in our own defence. A good deal has been said of the danger which is likely to arise to the Commonwealth. Senator O’Connor in his excellent speech, which touched upon every phase of the question and gave every possible information, said that the great danger was likely to arise from the concentration of foreign fleets in eastern waters. He told us that British interests would be threatened in that direction, that the cloud in the Eastern horizon would break. All naval authorities admit that it is in Eastern waters that the danger to Australia is likely to arise, and that the interests of the Empire may be threatened from that direction. We have also to consider another important point. It has been contended, as I contend, that the agreement does not give the Commonwealth the perfect security to which I think it is entitled. The danger which may arise from a great naval battle in the Eastern seas may be of such a character, as Senator O’Connor has suggested, that the available force of the home country in Australian waters may have to be concentrated in thai! particular quarter. As that possibility is admitted, as we realise that the danger is likely to arise in that way, I cannot understand how it is that there should be any opposition to the establishment of a navy for the Commonwealth.
– And from Australians, . too - patriots like Sir Edmund Barton and Senator Playford.
– Yes. I do not blame the Prime Minister for the position which he has taken up in regard to this agreement. I have no sympathy with the statement that he has pledged the Commonwealth. The very preamble to this Bill distinctly states that all which has been or may be done in regard to naval defence is subject to the approval of this Parliament, though I cannot commend the right ‘honorable and learned gentleman for his conduct at a later stage. When the rejection of the agreement was threatened in the other House - if I had been there it would have had no effect upon me - he took it upon himself to say that if certain things were not done which he considered vital, complications might arise.
– Was that giving Parliament a free hand ?
– No.
– After his promise to the Parliament, he broke faith with the Australian people.
– I appreciated the stand which Senator Smith took on that important point. In my opinion it was not a proper position for the Prime Minister to take up, and certainly, if similar tactics had been adopted here, I would rather that the Government should go out of office than that the Senate should adopt an agreement which I believe is not in the interests of the people of this continent.
– It will lead to their downfall yet.
– It may.
– I hope it may, if it is carried.
– On this and every other question the straight course is always the best. Under our parliamentary system - for instance, in the case of this agreement - the interests of the Government are often considered, and the true interests of the people are ignored. I shall never be a party to the adoption of such tactics. The position should always be manfully faced. Whether a Government is to be saved or to go out of office, we ought not toneglect to do what we believe is right and proper, when we find that their interests are being forced upon Parliament in opposition to the interests of the whole people. I have been pointing out the i danger which may threaten British interests in the East. The absolute security that we need will come from the establishment of an Australian Squadron, and the determination to defend ourselves. Occasions may arise in the future, as in the past, when for the time being, Imperial interests may not be identical with the interests of the people of Australia.
– For instance, in the petty wars in various parts of the world.
– Quite so.
– But our fleet would not go there.
– In making that statement I am open to the charge that I am disloyal, or that it may contain a spice of disloyalty. I have been long enough- in politics to know that there have been occasions in regard to not only Australia, but also other out-lying portions of the Empire, when the Imperial interests have been against those of a dependency. What has been the result ? Time after time there have been struggles by Colonial Governments with the Imperial authorities, and had it not been for the backing of the people of the various States, and the firm
Stand which our statesmen made - had it not ‘ been that they had grasped the true Australian view - the result would have been that the interests of the various colonies would have suffered because they clashed with those of the Imperial Parliament, or with the position assumed by Imperial statesmen. I wish to develope and illustrate that argument by the position which may arise from a series of complications under this Bill. In the future defence of the Empire in the East, in this great naval war which has been predicted, possibly for the time being Imperial interests may-overshadow, or may appear to overshadow, in the mind of the Admiral or of British statesmen, the interests of Australia. I am not drawing any fanciful picture ; I am simply describing a position which has existed in the past, and which is very likely to occur in the future. I could cite, if necessary, many cases in which Colonial politicians have clearly seen that the position they were taking up was altogether in the interests of their own people as against Imperial interests. Senator Higgs has suggested a larger view to my consideration. The people of Australia have no voice in determining the policy of the Empire in regard to petty wars.
– What voice had we, for instance, in the Venezuelan affair, when troops were sent to collect the Germans’ debts ?
– What have we to do with that?
– We have no voice in Imperial concerns. I may lay myself open to the charge of being unpatriotic when I express the hope that we should not meddle in such matters, that Australia should strictly mind its own business, and leave the Imperial Government to protect Imperial interests outside the Commonwealth.. Such will not be the case under the provisions of this agreement. Under this agreement, while we have no voice in guiding Imperial interests in other quarters of the world, we may be led into difficulties that will be repugnant to the public feeling of Australia. When such difficulties arise the whole control of the vessels will be in the hands of the British Admiralty. This is no fancy picture. Not only has Great Britain been the great colonizing power of the world, but she is extending the sphere of her influence in” every quarter of the globe. I assume that if we contribute to the British Navy we assume responsibility for what the navy does. There is no need for us to do so. We have quite enough important questions of our own without meddling with business that does not concern us. That is the position which Sir Wilfrid Laurier has taken up in regard to naval defence.
– Is not Great Britain as much interested as we are in the defence of Australia?
– Certainly.
– Would the honorable senator therefore leave the whole onus on Great Britain ?
– No. I am not assuming what the honorable and learned senator has in his mind in that direction. I am not arguing that Great Britain should assume all the responsibility for our protection. Instead of doing less in that direction the Australian people should do more. By the establishment of an Australian Navy we should relieve the old country from much of that responsibility. The time has now come when we should take this responsibility upon our own shoulders and make provision to meet it. But, on the other hand, we should not be called on to take responsibility for the troubles which Great Britian ma,y involve herself elsewhere. She may declare war with some foreign power. By the express terms of this agreement, the result may be that the people of Australia may become involved in war. That is not in the interests of the people of these States. By assuming responsibility for our own costal defence we shall escape this danger, and shall at the same time be doing what is in our own interests and the interest of other portions of the British Empire. Coming to the agreement itself, it is to ‘ be noted that under article 2, full control is given to the Admiralty. Senator Stewart pointed out the dangers that might arise from this provision. He observed that as trouble had arisen in the past by the clashing of Imperial interests with purely Australian interests, the time may come when such a clashing may occur in regard to questions of purely Australian concern. There might be misunderstandings. If Imperial interests were threatened in the East, the Admiral on the Australian Station would at once, from his position and training, take the fleet in that direction. Senator Cameron, in his admirable speech yesterday, showed what might result. I am extremely sorry that the honorable senator is going to vote for this agreement, because he gave the best possible reasons why we should not accept it. In his short speech he emphatically proved, from the stand-point of his training and knowledge as a soldier, that from the point of view of our own interests this agreement was bad.
– [Senate counted.] - It is most unfortunate that it should have been thought necessary by honorable senators to speak at such great length as some have done on a question of this kind. It is also somewhat a matter of regret that there should have been speeches delivered which might lead one to believe that we were debating a subject that has reference to a power entirely foreign and alien to our Australian life. But honorable members, I do not know how, seem to be blind at times to the fact that the connexion which exists between the Commonwealth and Great Britain is of very great value not only in reference to our national life, but also to our safety and protection. I have always felt that however ambitious our people might be to form themselves into an independent nation - to separate themselves from Great Britain - there was always on the other side a strong balance, not only of sentiment but of self-interest and selfpreservation. We all recognise that the grand old mother land gave us the majority of the ancestors of the people in Australia to-day. It is a pleasing fact that, notwithstanding the speeches that are delivered at times, a strong feeling of loyalty permeates Australia. I have heard it said that our loyalty should be concerned first of all with the interests of Australia,, and that the interests of the mother country should, be a secondary consideration. I entirely dissent for any such idea. I feel a pride and glory in the fact that we form a portion of what I regard as the greatest Empire ever known on the face of the earth. I trust, however, that whatever our differences of opinion may be on matters which may .arise from time to time between ourselves and the mother country, we shall always recognise the fact that we are just as much members of the British Empire as we should be if weresided in England, Ireland or Scotland Again, I .take exception altogether tohonorable senators, when debating a matter of this kind, speaking as if we werehiring men and ships for our defence - as if we were going to some foreign power and saying - “ We have plenty of money,, but we have no desire to take on ourselves the dangers and difficulties of. actual fighting, and we will pay you to protect us.” We are not doing anything of thekind. The Government, in submitting this agreement, are asking us to enter into a partnership, as it may be termed, with the Imperial authorities for the protection of Australian interests. We areasked to contribute to what will be called an Australian Squadron - to bear one-half of the cost of maintenance, the other halfbeing borne by the ‘ mother country. I include New Zealand in these remarks,, because that Colony has a share in the interests which are to be protected. Weare dividing the cost of maintaining an Australian Squadron ; and, while that squadron will be primarily interested in the maintenance of the integrity and interests of Australia, it will be equally concerned’ in the maintenance of the interests. of the mother country in this part of “theworld. We cannot fail to recognise the fact that the protection of Australia is vital, not- only to the interests of Australians themselves, but also to the interests of the people of the mother country. But there are matters of mutual concern, and the day has now arrived when Australia may fairly take upon herself the responsibility, of assisting in the defence of the great interests that are involved in connexion with both countries. While speaking on this matter Senator Matheson drew attention to some comments made with regard to the proportion that we are called’ upon to pay individually towards the navy, and the proportion paid by the people of the mother country. While advocating that we should contribute £200,000, Senator Matheson, on the other hand, regarded the contribution as miserably inadequate ; and contended that we ought to be prepared to contribute a greater sum if we were to have our share in the protection afforded by this great navy. I am quite sure, however, that a moment’s reflection will show that the argument, based on the idea that the navy costs something like £40,000,000 per annum, entailing an expenditure of about £1 per head on the residents of the United Kingdom-
– It is 16s. per head in the United Kingdom.
– The argument is that, because it costs the people of the United Kingdom 16s. per head, the people of Australia should contribute a like amount.’ But while we are members of the Empire of Great Britain our interests in Canada are not the same as are the interests of Great Britain in that country. . In the same way our interests in ‘ South Africa are not the same as are the interests of Great Britain. It is therefore an utter absurdity to .say that the people at this end of the world should contribute in the same proportion towards the cost of maintaining the navy of the mother country as do the people at the heart of the Empire. If we bear our share in the protection of our interests in these Australian waters, we pay a fair contribution towards the support of the Imperial Navy - we pay as much as we ought to be expected to pay under any circumstances, at any rate, under the circumstances of the present moment. It is utterly idle for people to chide us, and ‘say that we are not contributing towards the navy to the extent that might fairly be expected. As I have already said, if we contribute to the protection of the commerce of Australia we do our fair share. Of course, that at the same time, we are by the energy of our people, opening up the whole of Australia. We have been opening up Australia for many years past, and thereby increasing not only our own wealth but the wealth of the mother country. Not only Australia, but the whole of the outlying dependencies are doing in this way noble and valuable work, in the interests as much of the mother country as of themselves. It must be borne in mind that the idea of Australia doing something in the direction of naval defence is not novel. In 1SS7 we entered into an agreement, which did not, however, come into force until 1889. Under that agreement we consented to contribute a certain amount of money .towards the maintenance of the Australian Auxiliary Squadron. It was provided that the squadron should not move out of Australasian waters, and I do not know that a great deal of the opposition to the present proposal would not be removed if a similar clause were embodied in this agreement.
– There would still be the same opposition.
-Col. GOULD. - Probably there would on the part of some honorable senators. I do not know whether .Senator Higgs would agree that if there were such a provision in this agreement there would not be the same opposition to it.
– Not on the part of some, perhaps, but I do not think that I would favour it.
– The honorable senator is an anti-Britisher ; that is the word.
– Senator Fraser has noright to say that.
– The honorable senatorhas said it himself.
.- I would not say that those who are opposed to the agreement are anti-Britishers. I believe that at all events much of the opposition expressed to the present agreement would disappear if it contained such a provision.
– Those who oppose the agreement would be under the necessity of finding another excuse
.- That is so ; they would have to find another excuse. I say that we secure a distinct gain in the present agreement as compared with the old agreement, not only in the number and quality of the ships to be obtained for our defence, but ‘also in the assurance that we shall not only have those ships to defend us, but that we may rely upon the ships employed on the China and Indian stations in “the event of any condition of affairs arising in Australasian waters which would necessitate the concentration of the three fleets. Under the old arrangement we have had a few Imperial vessels - the Royal Arthur, a couple of third-class cruisers, and a few survey sloops, in addition to the Auxiliary “Squadron - but it is well known now that the ships supplied under the agreement made in 1887 are not equal to the requirements of the defence of this station at the present time. We might have asked the Imperial authorities to continue the existing agreement, but we should have done so at the expense of the effective maintenance of the defence of our Australian ports. Is it not very much better that instead of the Imperial authorities having to come to the Commonwealth Government with a request to move the Australian Squadron out of Australasian waters - a request which, upon the admission of honorable senators opposed to the proposal, would be granted immediately - that we should simply place the ships under the command of the Admiral on the station ? Some honorable senators have suggested that in .the event of war the Admiral in
Command on the station would be only too anxious to take the ships away, and would leave Australia without naval defence. That is an absolute libel upon the action which would be taken under such circumstances. We have had a picture drawn here to-day of the fleet being taken away to the other end of the world, or completely outside the sphere of action, and two or three foreign vessels waiting at New Guinea or New Caledonia for the purpose of making a raid upon the Australian coast. Do honorable senators believe that the Imperial authorities and the Admiral upon the Australian station will not be well acquainted with the disposition of the enemy’s ships?
– Far better than we should be.
.- Do honorable senators believe that any Admiral in the British service would be so regardless of his duty under this agreement as to take his ship* away thousands of miles and leave unprotected the interests which those ships are specially maintained to defend ?
– They have done it before.
– He might consider it to be his duty.
.- He would never consider it to be his duty under this agreement to leave the Australian coast absolutely undefended unless he was convinced that to do so would be to secure our absolute safety.
– He would be shot if he did when he went home.
-Col. GOULD. - And deservedly, too. Honorable senators have been conjuring up an imaginary case.
– It was suggested yesterday that Great Britain might turn her guns upon us.
– Did she not turn her guns on her sons and daughters in America?
.- That remark shows the spirit in which anything which comes from Great Britain is regarded by certain honorable senators. I say that no man who is loyal to Great Britain would make such a remark, or could possibly hold such views.
– If he holds such views he has no business here.
– I wish the honorable and learned senator could get a title ; that would silence him.
– During the last century the relations existing between Great Britain and Australia have been of the most amicable and friendly kind, and in recent years the ties between them have been drawn closer until now it may be said that an Englishman -has the same interest in Australia as ac Australian himself.
– The same interest, but we pay the interest - 4 per cent.
– Who has the principal ?
– Who has received the benefit from the expenditure of the principal?
– The only thing which troubles Senator Higgs is that we cannot borrow some more money.
– I say that it is wrong to hold such views. We require a naval defence in order to protect ourselves and our commerce. 1 would ask honorable senators who advocate the establishment of a purely Australian Navy what would be the position of Australia if the fleets of Great Britain met with the reverses with which it is assumed they might meet, and were thereby rendered unable to protect us? What position would we be in if in such an event we had to rely solely upon a small local fleet to oppose to a force that had been successful in defeating and destroying the great fleets of Great Britain ? Our position would surely be one of absolute helplessness. Of course, I sympathize with the desire to see an Australian fleet, but, while I am perfectly prepared to assist in providing ships for our coastal defence, I still believe that this agreement is in our own interests. Honorable senators should not assume that, because under this agreement it is proposed that we shall pay £200,000 a year towards the expense of a squadron, we shall therefore be debarred from establishing a navy of our Own.
– I remind the honorable and learned senator that he talked like that in 1887.
.- The honorable senator did not hear me talk in 1887, and I do not think that I spoke upon the subject.
– The honorable and learned senator’s speech is reported in the New South Wales Hansard.
– If that be so I am very glad that Senator De Largie has taken the trouble to read Mansard, and that he has found that my views upon the subject still remain very much the same. I say that we are still in a position to establish what may be termed a colonial naval force for coastal defence. Captain Creswell, in the report upon which so much reliance has been placed by those who oppose the Bill, has pointed out the means by which we should be enabled to establish a navy of our own, but some honorable senators appear tobe unable to realize the fact that years must el apse under Captain Creswell’s proposed arrangements, before we pan have a navy half as efficient as that proposed under this agreement. I think that Captain Creswell estimates that we might every second year provide a cruiser, at a cost of £300,000, and he estimates the cost of the maintenance of one cruiser at £47,000 per annum. Under his scheme, by the time we secured five ships, ten years would have passed over our heads.
– Provided that the first four were not taken by a hostile force, in the meantime.
– And if the ships were not destroyed, or taken by some hostile power in the meantime, they would have became obsolete, and I use theterm in the sense that they would be old vessels as compared with thevessels of war being built year by year. The ships that were sent here twelve orthirteen years ago were considered suitable. Probably, so far as their hulls are concerned, they are almost as good to-day as they werethen. But such ships are not being built at the present time for the purpose of warfare.
– And they wereconsidered suitable in view of the dangers that were likely to occur.
– Yes. The possible dangers are much more serious now than they were thirteen years ago. Therewas no far eastern question when the ships were obtained in 1889. There was noaggregation of foreign fleets in these waters at that time. There was no difficulty in regard to Manchuria.or Corea. The present position has been brought about, by the action which Japan has taken in hostility to Russia. The times are marching on, and as years roll by we shall find ourselves gradually getting closer to the possible scene of action, and in rauch more danger of being involved in war, and of hostilepowers attempting to interfere with the integrity of Australia.
– The honorable and learned senator is quite an alarmist.
– No. I weigh the possibilities of the future, and am warned by what has happened during the last few years.
– We have not had any wars which affected us for a longwhile.
– No ; and I hope that we never shall ; but, at the same time, I am not sanguine enough to believe that such a war will not occur. Let honorable senators accept the agreement as it is offered, and see that our gun-boats are properly manned and equipped and increased in order to protect our coasts, if necessary, against the attack of any hostile cruiser which might slip past the Australian Squadron. I wish to remind honorable senators of the class of ships now on this station, and the class of ships to besupplied under the new agreement. I find that while the present ships aggregate less. than £1,000,000 in value, the ships to be supplied under the agreement will aggregate £2,500,000 in value, and will be more numerous and more powerful.
– No, there will be only eleven ships as against fourteen ships.
– Yes, but the agreement will not prevent the Imperial authorities from stationing other vessels in these waters.
– And four of the ships are to be sloops. Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD. - At the present time we have three sloops, which I think are not included in the Australian Squadron.
– One.
– We have the Royal Arthur, a first-class cruiser, which is not included, and two third-class cruisers similar to those which are comprised in the Australian Squadron. The first-class cruiser to be supplied under the agreement will be of far greater value and strength than that which we have to-day. The Royal Arthur measures between 7.00Q and 8,000 tons. If we get a first-class cruiser of the Cressy type, as the Government expect, we shall have a ship of about 12,000 tons, which, proportionately, will be armed to a greater extent, and more effectively than the Royal Arthur. We shall also have two secondclass cruisers which will practically be equal to the Royal Arthur ; while they may be a little smaller in size, they will be. faster in speed, and armed more heavily. Then we come to the third-class cruisers. Three of them, I’ believe, will be used as training ships, but the fourth will be a superior ship of the Amethyst class. No doubt the sloops will be more powerful than those we now have. I place great reliance on article 2, which says -
The base of this force shall be the ports of Australia and New Zealand, and their sphere of operations shall be the waters of the Australia, China, and East Indies stations, as defined in the attached- schedules, where the Admiralty believe they can most effectively act against hostile vessels which threaten the trade or interests of Australia and New Zealand. No change in this arrangement shall be made without the consent of the Governments of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand ; and nothing in the agreement shall be taken to mean that the naval force herein named shall be the only force used in Australasian waters should the necessity arise for a larger force.
The ships of the squadron will be of the class which is described in the first article of the agreement. In ordinary circumstances, in times of peace, we shall probably be confined to those particular ships, but we have ari article in which it is distinctly stated that, while certain ships will be stationed in Australian and New Zealand waters, the China and East Indies fleets will be available to strengthen the protection of the trade or interests of Australia. So that we are entering into an agreement which shall give us the services of not one squadron, but three squadrons, for our defence, should the necessity arise for the three fleets to combine against an enemy. Again, if there were the prospect of a serious war, in which Australia might be involved, I have no doubt but that the Imperial authorities would send out other ships to strengthen the fleets on the three stations. Another important consideration is that the fifth article of the agreement provides that -
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 relative population of the Commonwealth and New Zealand.
– What does that mean ?
– I assume that it means men from Australia and NewZealand. I am not going to quarrel about the definition of a word. So long as the words are clear and specific as to their meaning and designation, it is sufficient. I do not go so far as Senator Matheson does in requiring that every “i” shall be dotted and every “t” crossed in any negotiations .we have with the Imperial authorities. The word “Colonies” means, I take it, the States of Australia and New Zealand.
If a sufficient proportion of men from either Colony should not on the aforesaid basis be forthcoming, a sufficient number of men to complete the complements of the ships, may be enrolled from the other Colony. They shall be officered by officers of the Royal Navy, supplemented by officers of the Royal Naval Reserve.
Exception has been taken to this provision on the ground that our men will regard the Imperial Government and not the Commonwealth as the authority whom they are serving, and that their loyalty to Australia will be sapped. I entirely dissent from that view. These men will be just as loyal Australians after they go upon the ships as before they were enrolled. They will not regard their connexion with the Imperial Government as taking away their interest in Australia, but will be just as loyal to their own country as they would be if they belonged to forces raised and directed by the Commonwealth Government. Then again a complaint is made that we shall have two rates of pay in our ships. There will not be two rates of pay, but there will be two classes of ships ; and the pay in one class of ships will not be the same as the pay in thu others. There are advantages as well as disadvantages in this arrangement. We want an Australian Naval Force. We desire, as far as we can, to rely upon ou r own people for our own defence. We have to look at the matter from the stand-point of how we can best secure the services of men to serve on the ships. Men are not likely to enrol for the purpose of training if inadequate wages are offered to them. It would not be possible to recruit a large number of Australians if they were paid what are regarded in this country as’ being inadequate wages. The men of the Imperial fleet are recruited in England at rates of pay which are regarded as commensurate with the services rendered. It also has to be remembered that the men in the Imperial service are provided with pensions when they retire after a number of years service. Of course I admit that from one point of view the pay of the men in the Imperial Navy is inadequate. It may be necessary for the Imperial authorities to. consider the propriety of increasing the pay for the navy, just as they have increased it for their soldiers. But that is a very grave question for them to consider, because, if Great Britain were to increase the pay ‘Of her soldiers and sailors by ls. per day, it would mean hundreds of thousands of pounds additional expenditure. Of course, if it is found impossible to secure sufficient men for the ships on any other terms, the Imperial authorities will have to meet the case in the best way they can.
– The foreign pay is much lower than the English pay.
– It is a notorious fact that the pay in the Imperial Navy is higher than in foreign navies. But we have nothing to do with the rates of pay elsewhere/ We recognise that it is necessary to pay Australian rates, if we want to raise a body of men able to serve this country in time Of war. That being so, the arrangement made under the agreement is a wise one. As to the training of men, where else could it be better earned out than in Imperial ships and under Imperial officers 1
– - We could hire instructors.
– Where should we hire them from except from Great Britain 1
– They would not be ours under this agreement.
.- They would be our men in every sense of the term. I cannot distinguish any difference between a Britain and an Australian. An Australian is a member of the British Empire.
-The honorable and learned senator might as well say that the British Navy is manned by Australians.
.-I do say that some of these ships will be manned by Australians. We shall have our own men on them.
– We might put the instructors under the Immigration Restriction Act if they came out under contract.
– Then we should have to certify that there was nobody within the Commonwealth able to perform the services for which they were required. Possibly some honorable senators might like to place them under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, .and settle “ the rates of pay in that way. But we are not sufficiently advanced for that yet.
– We ought to have an International Board of Conciliation.
.- If we could get other nations of the world to assent well and good; but we could not yet.
– Other nations are more anxious for it than we are ; they have all agreed with the exception of Great Britain and Germany.
.-I dare say there are good reasons why those nations stood out. Is it not better, however, to place our defences in order at present than to endeavour to build up at considerable expense a navy of our own that will not be worth speaking of until a number- of years have elapsed t The balance of argument and testimony is entirely in favour of the adoption of the agreement. But even assuming that the agreement is not all that it ought to be, we simply have to look at it from the point of view of whether it is a, suitable arrangement for us to make at present. It appears tome to be so. It would be a most deplorable thing if the Senate were to decline to go even to the extent that in the agreement we are asked to go in recognition of our relations with the inother country. Before the South African war the idea was present amongst the continental nations that Australia, and indeed the whole of the Colonies of Great Britain, would not be prepared to stand by the mother country in time of war. Although numerically, perhaps, the men we sent over were not very strong, we know that they did loyal service. At any rate, foreign powers were shown that the young cubs were prepared to come around the old lion in time of trouble and difficulty.
SenatorFraser.- The moral effect was great.
– The immoral effect.
-Col. GOULD- As Senator Eraser says, the moral effect was great. It demonstrated that the British people are really one. It showed foreign powers that the British Empire is not an aggregation of units who recognise no common responsibility, but a number of communities of kindred people who will coalesce to resist any danger, no matter in what part of the world it occurs, that threatens the old country.
– If there were another trouble like the South African war, Australians would not offer their services.
– If there were another trouble, and the people of Australia believed that the mother country was in need of help and sympathy, men would be got to volunteer without difficulty throughout the whole of Australia. I do not believe there would be a dozen persons who would be bold enough to stand up and object to send men who were willing going to assist the mother country in time of difficulty or trouble.
– The merciless treatment which some of the returned soldiers received will prevent any further volunteering.
– Who is to blame for that treatment?
– The people who made promises and did not keep them.
– Who were the people who made promises and did not keep them 1 They were not the people of Great Britain. I admit that Ministers of the Crown in too many instances made promises which they ha<?e not kept ; but at the same time, if the mother country were in peril, the same loyal spiiit would prevail again, notwithstanding the difficulties which occurred in connexion with the South African campaign. It would be almost giving the mother country a slap in the face, after the generous offer which has been made - an offer approved of by the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of New Zealand - if we turned round and said - “ We will have nothing to do with you ; you will have to send a fleet out here to protect your own interests, and we shall get the benefit of that protection.” We do not want to put ourselves in that position. The time has gone by for Australia to take a stand of that kind. Australia should be prepared to say - “ Where our interests are involved we are prepared to stand by and assist in defending them, and if the mother country finds it necessary, as she does, to have a fleet in Australian waters, we will not only willingly help in defraying- the cost, but will regard it as an obligation on our part to do so.” I do not propose to speak at . any great length, but in regard to a measure of this kind it is just as well that honorable senators should have an opportunity of making their views known, and also their reasons for the vote they intend to give. I take up my position on the common ground of patriotism and of common right of birth. I claim that we are members of the British Empire, and where in this outlying part of the world our interests are specially concerned, we ought to welcome the opportunity of doing what we can to defend ourselves and maintain the prestige and position of the Australian Commonwealth and the great Empire to which we have the privilege to belong.
– As I intend to vote against the measure, I should like to give a few reasons for my action. So far as the pounds, shillings, and pence aspect of the question is concerned, this agreement might very well be described as a good bargain ; but from the Australian stand- point it appears to be one of the most dangerous agreements into which we could enter. It is one of the most important measures that has been introduced in this Senate during this session, or perhaps during this Parliament, with the exception of the measure intended to secure a “White Australia.” This Bill may prove to be the most far reaching of all our measures in its influence. If it were desired to undermine the national sentiment to which Senator Gould has referred, no better means than this agreement could have been adopted. If we sap the self-reliance and self-respect of the people we shall be utterly unable to meet a great emergency when it arises ; and for the very reason which Senator Gould gives for supporting the measure, I find myself obliged to oppose it. If we are ever to become a maritime people, the national sentiment must be fostered, and we cannot bring about that result if, instead of launching out with a navy of our own, no matter how small, we continue to rely absolutely on the fleet of the mother country. I am quite satisfied to be guided by experience in matters of this kind, and, so far as my reading goes, the hiring of mercenary troops or fleets has always had the result of sapping the national spirit of a people. The sum it is proposed to contribute may be small.
– Added to other proposed expenditure, it is a big sum.
– Of course the proposed contribution is only a part of our expenditure on defence. If the money were spent on the establishment of the nucleus of a navy, which would grow as time goes on, we should be doing much more to foster Australian sentiment than can be done by the adoption of this agreement. The spirit of Australian nationality must grow, considering how far distant we are from the old country, and some day or other we must become an independent nation. So long as we are connected with the mother country, we should be on the best possible terms with her ; but to that end we ought not to take the course proposed by the Government. Senator Eraser, and several other honorable senators, on hearing such sentiments as I have expressed, use the old hackneyed sneer, which has lost any point it may have possessed, that they mean disloyalty to the mother country. The man who allows himself to be influenced by that kind of thing, in my opinion lacks moral courage. If there is any truth in the suggestion of disloyalty I have no objection to say that I should prefer to be disloyal to Great Britain, rather than to the country in which I live.
– But this country is a part of the British Empire.
– It does not follow, as some honorable members seem tothink, that those who believe in fostering Australian sentiment are of necessity anti-* British. An honorable senator may be an enthusiastic Australian without any feeling of opposition to the old country. It isfor that reason I object to the suggestion that, because . we think it well to- 1 oppose the proposed agreement and believethat it will prove rather to the detriment of the old country we deserve to be sneered at as anti-British.
– Does not the honorablesen tabor oppose contingents and everything else of the kind where the interests of theBritish flag are concerned?
– Unfortunately,, the Labour party all the world over has had this disagreeable duty cast upon it from time to time. If Senator Fraser were a. Frenchman or a German he would giveexpression to the same sentiments with respect to those countries, but in every country the Labour party has had the disagreeableduty to perform of fighting against the jingoistic sentiment. The French Democratic party have had to put up with the sneer that they are disloyal to the Republic whenever they oppose any military proposal which might lead to a strugglebetween France and Germany. The German Socialistic party have had the sama sneer hurled against them, and they have been told that they are disloyal to theFatherland because they havenot agreed that men should go to war and kill Frenchmen to satisfy the patriotic sentiment of the Fatherland. In Australia only recently the labour1 man who had the courage to express his opinion in opposition to the military spirit was called a pro-Boer. I am not ashamed of the attitude I have assumed upon these questions. Such sneers as those to which I refer havevery little weight either with my colleagues or myself. I hold the opinion that the £200,000 proposed under this agreement tobe given to the old country could be better utilized for the purposes of Australian defence if expended upon harbor defences and a strong land force. That would be much more within our capacity, whilst it is utterly impossible forus at the present time to think of establishing a navy worthy of the name. If we doall that is possible to arm our people and secure the defence of our harbors by forts,, the money we expend in this direction will be better spent than if it is devoted to the maintenance of these ships. What use will these ships be for the defence of our harbors ? To secure their protection we must provide our own harbor defences. We have heard a great deal of the danger in which we would be placed if any of the great foreign powers attacked Australia and we had not the mother country behind us. Any sane man must admit that if one of the great powers of Europe sent a fleet to attack Australia it would be able to do us a great deal of harm. It would be able to bombard some of our cities, but I do not know that it could do anything else. Even that would be a very considerable undertaking, when we remember that Australia, in having practically the only coal supply in the Southern Hemisphere, holds the key of the situation. All that a foreign power could hope to do would be to bombard some of our cities, and it cannot be imagined that any invasion would be attempted.
SenatorFraser. - A contribution might be levied upon us.
– I do not think so. I am satisfied that no country, in the world could hope to be successful in the invasion of a country like Australia, with a population of 4,000,000. If we are exposed to any such danger, why have not the little South American republics, that have been struggling for existence for so many years since they severed themselves from the control of Spain, been seized upon many years ago.
– They have been protected by the Monroe doctrine of the United States.
– Has not Great Britain a Monroe doctrine in regard to Australia!
– These South American republics existed before the Monroe doctrine was ever heard of. It may be admitted that the Holy Alliance, as it was called, was formed for the purpose of seizing these little republics and handing them back to Spain, and the Monroe doctrine, then brought into existence, saved the situation. But whilst we may not have a Monroe doctrine in name, we certainly have one in reality, and I am satisfied that the powers of Europe would- force the hands of any one power attempting to seize Australia, even if such a thing were possible, and . 1 hold it to be impossible. The Transvaal campaign has proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt. The greatest maritime nation. in the world experienced the greatest difficulty, in a three years’ war, in conquering a handful of Boers numbering not quite half the population of Melbourne. When such a mighty maritime power, as Great Britain undoubtedly is, found it so difficult to conquer such a people as the Boers, I think it must be admitted that no power, and no combination of the powers of Europe, ‘could invade Australia successfully.
– No one supposes for a moment that any nation would attempt to occupy Australia.
– I do not believe that any one has ever seriously thought so. Senator Dobson in addressing himself to this question, made one of the happiest comments I have heard during the debate. The honorable and learned senator referred to the attitude of Canada, and said that whilst Canada was not a party to the Naval Agreement, she was carrying out a great national work within her own borders, and that by the building of the great transcontinental railway, she had been doing quite as useful work in the interests of the Empire as any other portion of the Empire had done. I fully recognise that it is about the only possible work which young countries such as Australia and Canada can reasonably be expected to carry out. The development of its territory is quite a big responsibility for a small community ; and it is all that the mother country should expect Australia to do. It is quite reasonable to expect the mother country to keep a fleet stationed in these waters. If she kept a fleet in these waters for the protection of her mercantile marine, she would be only doing what she would have to do if Australia did not exist. We should, assist the mother land much better by devoting our energies to the development of our country than by giving a paltry subsidy of £200,000 for a service which will be of very little use to us when it is rendered. If the money were spent upon the construction of a” transcontinental railway, at the end of ten years we should have an asset which would be of some use to the country, which would open up new lands for the benefit of the people, just as the eastern goldfields in Western Australia have enabled very many starving workers from the East to get a living within the last six, eight, or ten years. At the end of ten years, however, we shall have nothing to show for the expenditure of our £2,000,000 but a few cruisers in these waters. I hope that honorable senators will view the question from that stand-point. What possible good can we get from this agreement which we do not possess now ? We have often been told that the time is not opportune for Australia to establish a navy. I admit that we have not the money available to carry out a large scheme. I candidly admit that apy such proposal, if made, would receive my opposition. We do not need, and we are not able, to form a navy of our own, but we are quite able to develop our country in the same direction as Senator Dobson says the’ Canadians are doing and, as we ought to do, if we carried out the compact which was entered into when the Commonwealth Constitution Bill was placed before the people through the agency of the referendum. I have glanced through the reports of the debates in the Colonial Parliaments on the Naval Agreement Bill of 1887.- The very same arguments as we have heard on this occasion were advanced at that time. The late Sir Henry Parkes, the head of the Government of New South Wales, which, I think, included Senator Gould, bewailed the fact that* the Colonies were not federated. He expressed the hope that long before the termination of the Naval Agreement the Colonies would have established a Federation, so that then they could have an Australian fleet. Mr. Duncan Gillies, the Premier of Victoria, used similar terms when he introduced the Bill in its Legislative Assembly. He bewailed the fact that there was not a Federal Government, so that the question could be taken up on a larger scale and a Federal Navy established. If we regard naval defence from the same stand-point as land defence, that is what we ought to do. I cannot understand anything more inconsistent than to have one branch of our defence under the control of the’ British Government and the other branch under the control of the Australian Government. I see no reason for the Admiral of this fleet to take his orders from the British Government, and the Commander of our land forces to take his orders from the Australian Government. If the Bill is passed I should like to see an arrangement made by which the Admiral of the fleet should take his orders from the Australian Government. I feel quite sure that it would not lessen the usefulness of the fleet. My view is that while it is in
Australian waters, it ought to be under the guidance of the Australian Parliament. If that arrangement could be -made it would remove to a great extent my objection that this agreement will tend to destroy the spirit of national self-reliance. I believe that the people of Australia would be far better pleased with the agreement if the fleet were to be placed under the control of the Australian Government rather than under the guidance of the British Government. It is said that the terms of this agreement cannot be altered ; but I intend to ask honorable senators to alter the condition regarding the rate of wages. I can imagine nothing more unfair than to ask an English blue-jacket, whom some honorable senators are for ever lauding to the skies, to give his services - perhaps of a superior kind - for less pay than an Australian. We shall be a sweating employer if we sanction differential treatment of the sailors. I hope that the Government will see their way to make the alteration. If the agreement were adopted with that amendment it would be much more acceptable to the people, and more creditable to the Parliament than it is in its present form.
- Senator Gould regretted that so many honorable senators had spoken at great length. In my opinion the Senate is considering one of the most important measures which have yet been submitted. And seeing that it involves a total expenditure of £2,000,000, I do not think it would be wise on the part of any honorable senator who holds strong opinions to allow it to be rushed through the Chamber in a few hours. I have not the least doubt that several honorable senators would like this proposal to be rushed through in perhaps part of a day.
– Who has wanted to rush the Bill through ?
– I do not imply that the honorable and learned gentleman would like to rush the Bill through.
– I did not try.
– I could not help noticing the impatience manifested on the countenances and in the general attitude of many honorable senators during the last few sittings, while the opponents of the Bill were giving the reasons for their opposition. Nor could I help noticing that the signs of impatience emanated from honorable senators who had spoken at great length to the question They have taken the opportunity of putting their opinions before the country. My attitude is this. We are within three or four months of an appeal to the electors. I defy contradiction when I say that probably a majority of the candidates who sought election before this Parliament was chosen indicated in their speeches that there would probably be an attempt to establish an Australian Navy as part of the scheme of defence. It was not indicated, by the majority at least, that such a scheme as this now before us was likely to»be submitted to Parliament. It would only be a fair thing to wait until the opinion of Australia could be had regarding the value of the agreement or as to whether it is better to commence our nationhood with the establishment of a navy of our own. I do not say that the opponents of this Bill would be in a majority in the next Parliament; that is a very moot question. But the majority of Australians never believed that an attempt would be made to pass such an agreement within the first three years. Senator O’Connor in submitting the Bill to the Senate referred to the fact that Japan is our ally for defence purposes only, and he said that we never knew when difficulties in the China seas might involve us in war. He also appealed to the Senate to pass the agreement upon another ground when he Said rather pathetically - “What is to happen when the Dowager Empress of China dies?” Do the people of Australia believe that it is in the interests of this country that our policy should be so interwoven with the land-grubbing claims of Japan in China that it was necessary to appeal to us in. that manner ? I do not think so. In this morning’s newspaper is a cable to the effect that Japan is still protesting against the action of Corea in making concessions to Russia under lease at Yoogampho at the mouth of the Yalu River, and Japan concludes her protest with the warning that she reserves to herself the right to take “ suitable measures “ if her complaint is disregarded. It is left to our imagination to suppose what “ suitable measures “ may be. Is it a wise thing for Australia to enter into an agreement which must inevitably involve us in conflict, if the schemes of Japan are to be carried out, and that country is going to act as the cable indicates ? By assenting to it we almost bind ourselves totake part in the foreign quarrels of Japan. I do not believe that the Australian people ever contemplated that.
– Whenever England is involved in war, our position will be the same, whether this agreement is made or not.
– It will not be the same, because if we accept the agreement we subscribe to the doctrine that we support a navy which can take part in wars in other parts of the world. Briefly put, the position seems to be this : that Australia will pay half the cost of the squadron, and have it to look at in times of peace, but will probably be left to take her chance in time of war. The fleet will be able to steam off in time of war to fight iri British interests or in the interests of Japan. It is argued that it is only in accordance with naval policy and with the opinions of the best experts the world has known that the ships should be concentrated to smash an enemy. But would an enemy be likely to have all its ships in one place to be smashed ? Is it not just as probable that while our fleet was going away to smash the enemy elsewhere, some of the enemy’s ships would be putting in their work round the shores of Australia ? It is one of the most serious flaws in the agreement that the fleet is at liberty to go away under the advice of the Admiral at any time when he thinks that it is in the best interests of Australia to do so, leaving our ports open to raids from the enemy’s cruisers. There are about £400,000,000 of capital invested here. Would it not be better for the capitalists of England to insist that our ports should be absolutely secure than for the British Government to take power to remove the fleet into other seas in time of trouble ? One of the strongest objections which I have to the agreement was pointed out by Senator Cameron yesterday. I was delighted to hear such a speech coming from such a source.
– And perhaps surprised.
– Yes ; I was surprised as well as delighted, because, as the honorable senator who has just sat down put it, there is no doubt that the members of both Houses of the Federal Parliament who oppose this agreement are being’ called disloyalists. If the agreement is rejected, it will be said that that has been done- owing to the action of the members of the Labour party, who are disloyalists. When we hear an honorable senator like Senator Cameron, whose loyalty and bravery cannot be questioned or impugned, uttering such sentiments, it certainly takes a good deal of sting out of the epithet which has been levelled at opponents of the Bill. Senator Cameron said he was going to vote for the Bill, and we can all sympathize with him in his position. Possibly in some unguarded moment he promised to vote for the agreement, or, as is the most probable explanation, he considers himself, as an avowed supporter of the Government, bound to vote for the agreement, because the Prime Minister in another place announced his intention of making the question one vital to the Government. I feel sure that the latter is the explanation of Senator Camheron’s conduct, which, after his severe condemnation of the Bill, must appear rather peculiar to the people of Australia.
– That is the sort of supporter a Government likes.
– I heard Senator Downer on one occasion say that he would give little for a supporter who only supported the Government when he thought they were right - that he believed in one who supported the Government right or wrong. Senator Cameron, after his speech, and in view of the vote he intends to give, must certainly have reached the highest pedestal in Senator Downer’s admiration as - a Government supporter. I should like to direct attention to a few of the rather strong phrases used by Senator Cameron, who is admitted to be the greatest expert in this Chamber on military, and, no doubt, naval defence. Senator Cameron is opposedto the agreement because, as he says, he has had experience of British officers both in peace and in war. When Senator Cameron went to England in command of the Commonwealth troops, he was brought into contact with British officers, and probably his experience then led him to fear that Australian naval men trained under such officers would be weakened in their allegiance to their own birthland, and would, to a certain extent, become aliens. Senator Cameron, amongst other expressions of opinion, said that the agreement will not develop the sea power of Australia, and asked why we should not make a start with our own navy now ; that the agreement strikes at the very foundation of our national life ; that it will make us fail to realize our responsibilities ; that it must be distinctly understood that at the end of ten years we shall begin to raise our own navy, or otherwise men will be trained under British officers and have their sympathies alienated from Australia ; and, Anally, that the agreement surrenders all responsibility for ten years. Could there be stronger expression of denunciation ? Could stronger reasons against the agreement be- given to men who do not profess to be military or naval experts, but who can be guided only by their own common sense 1 The arguments of Senator Cameron certainly appeal to me with greater force than do the arguments used in the excellent speech of Senator O’Connor. when we look at recent events in the career of Senator Cameron we are entitled to place some value on his opinions as worthy of our consideration. There is no man in either House of the Federal Parliament, or probably in Australia, who is a better officer or braver man in the field, or who has shown in a more practical manner the loyalty he bears to Great Britain, and the loyalty which, I am glad to say, he bears first to his own country. Senator Cameron’s principal objection to the agreement is that we are going to raise Australian seamen who will be imbued with the ideas of British officers rather than with Australian ideas ; and this, and other opinions expressed by such a man, ought to carry considerable weight. Senator Cameron’s views are very reassuring to a number of honorable senators who are opposing this Bill- who, though as loyal to Great Britain as any honorable senators in the Chamber, place their own country first. It is re-assuring to find such views held by one on whom the stigma of disloyalty cannot rest - by one who shares the opinion of those who would prefer to see an Australian Navy or the commencement of one. I do not think it is fair to charge honorable senators, who consider their own country first, with being disloyal to Great Britain. My idea of patriotism is to first consider the interests of the country that gave me birth - the interests of the country where I get my living. I am not ashamed to say that I do put the interests of Australia first, and that is why I should prefer to see Australian seamen trained under officers who are directly controlled by and subject only to influence of the Australian Parliament. A number of the supporters of the agreement express belief in an Australian Navy, but urge that we cannot now afford to establish one. They say, however, that they will be prepared in ten years’ time, when we are in a better position financially, to agree to such a proposal. It is just as well that those who take that attitude should know what the views of Sir John Forrest, the late Minister for Defence, are on- the point. We know that Sir John Forrest had a great deal to do with the making of this agreement. The right honorable gentleman said at the Conference -
I am not prepared to recommend under existing conditions the establishment of an Australian Navy. Even if it were established, I am afraid it would not be very efficient, for besides the enormous cost of replacing the fleet from time to time with more modern ships, there would be no change for the officers and crews, who would go on year after year in the same ships subject to the same influences, and I fear with deteriorating effects.
There is nothing in that paragraph in favour of the establishment of an Australian Navy, now, or at any other time. I think we are justified in believing that the ex-Minister for Defence would like to see this agreement signed, for the reason, which I have already suggested, that it might be considered the thin end of the wedge ; and the commencement of a movement to tie us for all time in matters of naval defence to the Imperial Government. I believe that if the right honorable gentleman had his way he would debar us for all time from establishing our own navy. He says further - 1 n regard to defence, we must altogether get rid of the idea that we have different interests to those of the rest of the Empire, and we must look at the matter from a broad, common standpoint.
There are many people in Australia, as well as many members of the Federal Parliament, who do not agree with Sir John Forrest in that. They believe that we have different interests to those of the rest of the Empire. Great Britain has. considerable interests in the Eastern seas, with which the Australian people have no desire to be mixed up. He goes on to say -
If the British nation is at war, so are we ; if it gains victories and suffers disasters, so do we ; therefore it is of the same vital interest to us as to the rest of the Empire, that our supremacy on the ocean shall be maintained. There is only one sea to be supreme over, and we want one fleet to be mistress over that sea. If a proposal were adopted that the Empire should have one fleet, maintained by the whole nation, every partcontributing to its support on some plan to be mutually arranged - probably on that of the comparative trade of each country, and not necessarily on an uniform basis of contribution - what a splendid idea would be consummated, and what a bulwark for peace would be established ! Besides that, we should be doing our duty to the mother country, which has been so generous to us during our early years.
Those are the sentiments of the ex-Minister for Defence, who has had much to do in forcing this agreement upon the Australian people. When we hear those sentiments given expression to we cannot believe that the right honorable gentlemen has any aspirations or ambitions that are purely Australian. Arguments have been used in support of the contention that our best policy is to adopt this agreement and allow the ships to be taken from the Australian station whenever the British Admiralty think it advisable. It is well that we should consider the opinions of experts, on this matter. I admit, in common with other honorable senators, that I am not an expert in matters of naval defence, and I go to experts for opinions on the subject. I find ‘ that Admiral Tryon, in 1886, wrote as follows -
However superior our force may be ; however skilled the strategic arrangements ; however vigilant our Admirals ; history may repeat itself. An enemy may escape notice ; and it may be some time before his destination is known and hisdesigns penetrated. We may feel confident he will be quickly followed, but his power for mischief for the time would be great, and the difficulties attending a pursuing squadron are greater- than those to be met by a squadron carrying intoeffect a well-devised and pre-arranged scheme. This difficulty must not be overlooked. The power to avoid notice is much greater in 1886 than it was in the earlier part- of the century.
If those remarks were true in 1S86 thev are equally true to day, and they have probably much greater force now than they had then. We have there the testimony of an eminent expert in naval matters as to the unwisdom of signing an agreement under which the ships supplied for the defence of Australia may be taken away from the> Australian Station at any time when, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the interests of Great Britain in other parts of the world are endangered. I cannot forget the splendid things that were said before Federation. What has become of the aspirations of the leaders of the public at that time? Honorable senators know how those gentlemen went round Australia asking people to accept Federation, and one of their strong reasons was- that by Federation we should be better able to secure a national defence. We were led to believe that Federation would mean the commencement of a grand nation, and that united in one Commonwealth we should be better able to defend every part of Australia than we were as a series of disunited Colonies. Did we find any of the gentlemen who were so eloquent in inducing the people to accept Federation forecasting what has now come to pass 1 Did we find any of them prophesying that the very first time the question of naval defence came to be dealt with by the Federal Parliament, a proposal would be made to bind Australia for a further term of ten years - not on the lines of the old agreement, but on lines still more objectionable to the feelings of the Australian people ? No such prophecy is to be found in any of the speeches made by those gentlemen ; and, so fatas any reference to defence was made by them, we were led to believe that the creation of the Commonwealth would be followed very shortly by the commencement of an Australian Navy. The proposal to establish an Australian Navy is met by a reference to the question of expense, and we are asked whether we can afford it. The honorable senator who preceded me used some powerful arguments in dealing with this phase of the question. I do not believe for a moment’ that the signing of this agreement is looked upon by the people of Great Britain in the way in which some honorable senators would have us believe. I believe that if the Federal Parliament were to negative the agreement there would be no objection made on the part of the people of Great Britain. We might say to Mr. Chamberlain - “ We do not think it would be wise, in the interests of Australia, to sign this agreement. We are anxious to commence our own navy in due time, when we are financially able. We are not able to do that just now, but we are prepared to continue the old agreement, under which there is no power to remove the ships from the Australian Station to other parts of the world. Instead of paying an additional £100,000 a year as proposed under this agreement we shall commence the formation of our own navy, and provide for our own ‘naval defence. Leave the question in our hands, and do not ask us to bind ourselves to this agreement.” I believe that if that were placed before Mr. Chamberlain and the Imperial authorities they would cheerfully and readily accept the position.
– A number of English people consider that it is shabby to ask Australians to pay this money.
– To my mind it is nonsense to suppose that our naval relations with Great Britain would be immediately snapped asunder if we were to reject this agreement. I am satisfied that the people of Great Britain would not for a moment countenance any such thing. I am also satisfied that, much as Mr. Chamberlain may desire to make this the commencement ef a scheme of Imperial unity against the wishes of a majority of the Australian people - for I do not believe that there is a majority in Australia agreeable to the idea of Imperial unity in the sense in which it is understood by Mr. Chamberlain. Much as he would like to see this agreement signed, as the commencement of a scheme of that kind, I do not think . he would offer any serious objection on behalf of the British Government to allow us, if we rejected the scheme, to go on in our own way and in our own time to build up a system of naval defence, just as we are allowed to build up a system of land defence. There is nothing to prevent our reducing* the expenditure on land defence by a considerable sum, and devoting that money to a scheme of naval defence. I am satisfied that when the Defence Bill is submitted very many honorable senators will be able to see where the expenditure could be considerably cut down without decreasing the strength of the land force, and without impairing to any great extent its; efficiency.
– I hope that the honorable senator is right.
– I believe that with the honorable and learned senator the wish is father to the thought.
– I would like to reduce the expenditure by £300,000 if I could.
– No doubt, and there are other honorable senators ‘who will pro bably apply themselves to the task of reducing the expenditure without seriously impairing the efficiency of the land force. If the Parliament should be able to reduce the eost of the land defence by £150,000, £200,000, or even £100,000, surely it would be better and wiser to apply that money to developing a system of naval defence, and in our own time to establish the nucleus of what in future years would become a fairly powerful and efficient Australian Navy. After all, is it likely that we shall be subject to any great danger from the absence of a navy for the next ten years ? . If the Australian people, through their Parliament, say that they do not wish to meddle in foreign affairs, to become embroiled in Great Britain’s quarrels with other nations in Eastern seas, is their existence likely to become endangered ? I do not think so. The references made by Senator O’Connor to Japan being the defensive ally of Great Britain, taken in conjunction with our later knowledge of what “is going on, and is likely to happen in these seas, must have led the people of Australia, or at least a great number of them, to believe that it was not a good thing for this portion of the British Empire when Great Britain entered into that alliance. Where is the urgency of adopting this agreement when the Ministers have refused so resolutely to submit it for the approval of the people? There are two questions which might be referred to the people - the question, “ Are you favorable to the adoption of the agreement ?” which probably, as has been said by the Prime Minister, is a good bargain from a monetary* point of view; and the alternative question, “ Are you favorable to the establishment of an Australian Navy?” Unless that course is adopted, the people will be entitled three months hence to turn round and say to their late representatives, “ You never said anything to us three years ago about entering into a fresh agreement with Great Britain for a period of ten or twelve years ; but you led us to believe that, in the early days of the Federation, when you would begin to consider a scheme of national defence, you would probably establish the nucleus of an Australian Navy.”
– Who ever said that ? That was never stated.
– If the statement -was not made in so many words, at least the people were led to believe that whatever might be done naval defence would be provided for on those lines rather than by means of a new agreement for ten years. I should like the honorable and learned gentleman, in his reply, to point to any speech in which any leader of public thought in Australia who was advocating the Federation of the Colonies referred to that question.
– Not one of them did, because they were all afraid.
– I should like the honorable and learned gentleman, in his reply, to cite an instance in which a leader of public thought referred to the probability, even to the possibility, of the first Australian Parliament approving of the Government entering into another agreement for a period of ten years. If anything was said by the speakers at that time, it was in the direction of making people believe that we should go in for the formation of an Australian Navy, rather than that we should continue the old system.
– The only reference made to defence at the elections was in regard to a citizen soldiery.
– The only reference by public speakers was to the expenditure of a certain sum of public money for the up-keep of our forts, of course backed up by a citizen soldiery. That was the direction in which the people were led to expect that the expenditure of public money would proceed. Nothing was said about the probability or the possibility of such an agreement being advocated. I believe that I voice the opinion of a majority of the Australian-born population of the Commonwealth when I say that, at the dawn of our nationhood, we should grapple with the question of naval defence, but not in this manner. I am not going to say, as has been said by some members of the Labour party, that -I think the time is ripe for cutting the painter. I believe it is to the best interests of Australia to have an alliance with Great Britain, just as it is to the best interests of Great Britain to have an alliance with Australia. I anticipate that if ever Australia should separate from Great Britain, on this or any other question, it will be a peaceful parting, and that a friendly alliance will be entered into and maintained. But that question is entirely apart from the acceptance of this agreement. No doubt very many of those who are opposing its adoption will be charged with a desire to cut the painter; but after the speech of Senator Cameron, which has been so often referred to, there will not be much sense in that charge. I believe that if the question were remitted to the people of Australia, as it should be in all fairness in three months’ time, they would return an overwhelming majority to each House against the acceptance of the agreement.
– In favour of. the agreement.
– No. I can quite understand the opinions of honorable senators like Senator Walker, who I do not think is Australian-born.
– Certainly not !
– It will not be found that many of the Australian-born take the same view as is taken by those who were born in the old country. It is quite a natural thing that they should not. I sometimes wish that that spirit of loyalty which actuates the members’ of the Government were no quite so strong as it is. I wish that we could occasionally lift up the veil and peep into Cabinets, so as to see how many of the members of Government were in favour of certain propositions, and how many took the opposite view. I do not think that many of the Australian-born members of the Federal Ministry believe that this agreement is the best policy for Australia.
– The majority yof the present Ministry are Australian natives.
– But there are two or three of them who, unfortunately, had a great deal to do with the shaping of this agreement, and who are anything but Australian in their sentiments.
– They fight for it because they believe it will be a reflection on Sir Edmund Barton to reject it.
– If we could lift the veil we should know a great deal more in regard to the real views of Ministers. If the meeting of Premiers had taken place in Australia, instead of in London, such an agreement would never have been placed before the Australian Parliament. Amongst the causes which- led to this policy being introduced, I place first and foremost the famous - or rather the notorious - memorandum put forward by Sir John Forrest, which professed to express tho feelings of Australia. Only a few weeks before that memorandum was laid before the Secretary of State for the Colonies we assembled ia this very building to wish success to Sir Edmund Barton and Sir John Forrest when they were about to leave for England. We were then assured that they would not bind Australia by anything which they did in England. But Sir Edmund Barton came back and threw this agreement on the table of the House of Representatives. It is true that the Government pro fessed not to make it a party question. They said - “We have, not bound Australia, but there is an agreement, which we say is in the best interests of the Commonwealth, and we ask you’ to ratify it.” But there was a general understanding that if it was not ratified the Government would resign. Probably that accounts for the fact that some of the strongest speeches made against the policy which the agreement embodies came from honorable members of another place who afterwards voted for it. It is interesting to look through Hansard, as I have done, and to observe the number of speeches delivered by honorable members of tho House of Representatives who voted for the agreement, but whose opinions were absolutely in opposition to it. For some inscrutable reason their votes did not accord with their views. The reason is that, although this was not made a party question, there was practically a threat of a dissolution if the agreement was not ratified. I believe that if the agreement hod been placed on the table and’ honorable members had been left free, as we were led to believo would . be the case, it would have been rejected. I cannot come to any other conclusion after reading some of the speeches delivered in the other Chamber. The question is undoubtedly one that ought to be submitted to the people because the agreement strikes a blow at their national life at the very commencement of our Federal existence. We have not been’ treated fairly by thefact that the Government threw the agreement on the table, and said - “ Take it or leave it ; but if you don’t take it, we will resign.” I do not say that honorable members of another place who voted for it were so craven-hearted as to fear to face the constituencies. But the fact is that there were other measures of great importance to come before Parliament, and many of the members who voted for the agreement were actuated by the fear that if there were a dissolution, as waB threatened, those other measures might be lost. In conclusion, I regret extremely that the first national Parliament of Australia should ask the representatives of the people to strike this blow at our nationality, and to hand over the sacred duty of defending itself against its enemies, which devolves upon every individual and every country, to another country. It is not the paltry, miserable sum to be paid that I find fault with. I wish that were sufficiently strong in the Senate to defeat the Bill, but, unfortunately, I do not believe we are. The numbers are against us. If I thought that there was a possibility of turning a vote, I would stand here for the next three or four hours. But, as I have said, the numbers are against us, and the national aspirations which wo, as Australians, have had at heart have been nipped in the bud. Our opportunity is lost for another ten years, and we have been sold by the Government which we have supported.
Debate (on motion by Senator CLEMONS adjourned.
page 4040
– There is upon the notice-paper an unopposed notice of motion which I should have put formally at the beginning of the sitting. But it escaped my notice at the time, and Senator Keating did not call my attention to it. With the permission of the Senate, it can be put ‘now. Ordered (on motion by Senator Keating -
That there be laid upon the table of the Senate copies of all correspondence and documents relative to the representations to the Defence Department made by or on behalf of the Government of Tasmania in- connexion with the expenditure upon the Defence Forces in that State.
Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 August 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1903/19030821_senate_1_16/>.