1st Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 5627
– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if he can state when and where the proposed Pacific Cable Conference will sit, and how it will be constituted?
– I must ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question for the next sitting day, as I am not in a position to give him any information at the present time. Perhaps I may be permitted to state that if the two Bills on the order paper are disposed of to-day, I do not propose to ask the Senate to sit until next Wednesday.
page 5627
– I wish -to indicate the nature of a question which I propose to ask on the next sitting day of the Senate.
– The honorable and learned senator can ask the questions without notice, but the new Standing Orders contemplate that notices of questions shall simply be handed in to the Clerk at the table.
– I do not wish to raise a controversy, sir, but merely to draw your attention to the fact that under the new Standing Orders it is purely optional for an honorable senator to hand in his notice of questions. No honorable senator is forbidden by the Standing Orders to read the questions which he proposes to ask, but, for the purpose of convenience, he is allowed to indicate the nature of the questions.
– -The Standing Orders draw a clear-cut distinction between notices of questions and notices of motion. Standing order 96 says : -
Notice of question shall be given by a senator delivering the same at the table, fairly written, signed by himself, and showing the day proposed for asking such question. ‘
That seems to me to indicate that nothing else shall be done. Standing order 98 says -
Notice of motion shall be given by the senator, stating its terms to the Senate, and delivering at the table a copy of such notice, fairly written, signed by himself, and showing the day proposed for bringing on such motion.
My ruling is, and has been, that it is not in accordance with the Standing Orders for an honorable senator to state the nature of any questions which he proposes to ask. This matter was discussed in the Standing Orders Committee, and the decision was that it would save time if honorable senators would simply hand in their notices of questions. The distinction which is drawn by the Standing Orders is that in one case the terms have to be stated, and by implication in the other case the terms are not to be stated.
– At the present stage I am not going to dispute your ruling, sir, but at some other time I shall.
– If the honorable and learned senator does not dispute my ruling, there is nothing before the Senate.
page 5628
– A statement on the subject will be mode by the Prime Minister to-day in another place.
– Cannot the honorable senator anticipate that statement 1
– No.
– 1 desire to know whether it is the intention of the Government to treat this branch of the Parliament as inferior to the other - to make a communication to the other House with reference to an important matter, and not to make any communication to the Senate 1
– We do not intend to treat the Senate in a different way from the other House. The Senate has sent down a message, stating that it has disagreed with certain resolutions of the other House. In the circumstances, that is the proper place for the Government to state what course they intend to pursue.
– I agree with the honorable senator. Some time agoeither, the late Vice-President of the Executive Council or the Attorney-General promised that the minutes of proceedings of the Royal Commission on the capital sites should be laid on the table. This afternoon the minutes of evidence have been distributed, but not the minutes of proceedings, showingthe wide divergences of opinion alleged toexist among the Commissioners with reference to the recommendations which were finally made. I desire to know whether it is intended that the promise made to the Senate shall be kept?
– I do not think that that there was any promise made.
– I brought the matter before the Senate on two or three occasions, and a most distinct promise to that effect was made. Perhaps I shall refresh the recollection of the Attorney-General by stating that a question arose as to whether the minutes of the proceedings were the personal property of the chairman of the Commission or the property of the Government.
– I do not remember whether the answer to the former question, was given by myself, but, if so, my recollection: is that it was to the effect that the minutes of the proceedings were the property of the chairman and were not available, but that the Government would have a precis of the evidence prepared and printed. The Government are about to lay on the table of each House not a precis of the evidence, but the whole of the evidence ; but with regard to the minutes of proceedings, the position is unchanged.
-001. GOULD.- I desire toask the Attorney-General .whether it is not necessary for a Royal Commission to furnish minutes of its proceedings f
– I do not think it is.
-.-Col. GOULD. - Were not minutes kept, showing when meetings were held, who attended, and what resolutions were arrived at, as is done in the case of an ordinary select committee]
– I do not know. My recollection of the answer to the previous, question is that it was to the effect that if any minutes of that kind existed, they were the property of the chairman.
– -I wish to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the question and answer of the 27th August -
-Col. NEILD. - I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether the minutes of proceedings of the Capital Sites Commission are yet available to be laid upon the table ?
– I have received no further information, but I shall endeavour to ascertain what the position is, and let the honorable senator know before the Senate adjourns.
– There is no promise there except to make an inquiry 1
– And to let the Senate know.
– That was done.
page 5629
– It will be recollected that about six weeks ago I asked the Attorney-General whether the Government intended to invite the Secretary of State for the Colonies to visit Australia. I “ desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether they intend to invite Mr. Chamberlain to visit the Commonwealth and explain precisely the meaning of his preferential trade policy 1
– Nothing further has been done ; the subject has not come before the Cabinet when I have been present, and therefore I cannot answer the question-
– It is time that it did.
page 5629
– I desire to ask the Attorney-General, without notice, whether it is true that there is to be a formal opening of the High Court, and, if so, will he state when and where ?
– I am not in a position to answer the question.
page 5629
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
With regard to the mail tender advertisement, dated 3rd September, is the Government in a position to entertain tenders for the conveyance of mails from as well as to the United Kingdom, and what, if any, is the arrangement with Great Britain on the subject?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -
The Government is in a position to entertain tenders for the conveyance of mails from as well as to the United Kingdom. No arrangement has been made with Great Britain on the subject.
page 5629
asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 5629
asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows - 1 and 2. It is not customary to give information in one House of Parliament as to measures which are before the other House. When the Bill in question reaches the Senate full information in regard to its provisions will be furnished.
page 5629
Resolved (on motion by Senator Drake) -
That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to Extradition.
Bill presented and read a first time.
page 5629
In Committee. Consideration resumed from 11th September (vide page 5004) on motion by Senator Drake -
That the Chairman report the Bill with amendments.
Upon which Senator Playford had moved by way of amendment -
That all the words after the word “ That “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “clauses 4, 8, 9, 17, 39, 51, 55, 80, and 89 be reconsidered.”
– I ask that clauses 71 and 120 be included. In clause 71 I desire to insert after the word “ equipment “ the words “ or animal of draught or burden,” because the word “ equipment “ in the British Army Act is held not to cover animals. We all know from experience that contractors have swindled the War Office to a great extent by supplying inferior animals. If we desire to protect the Government against swindling in regard to equipment we ought to extend that protection to the supply of animals. With reference to clause 120, it is the clause under which the Government have power to make regulations, and I desire that it should be reconsidered in order that power should be given to make regulations governing the compensation to be granted under clause 55 to the widows and families of members of the Defence Force who have become incapacitated or have died in the service.
– I have no objection.
Amendment amended accordingly.
– I desire the reconsideration, of clause 27 with a view to bringing up again the subject of a Council of Defence, and that may possibly involve a consequential amendment in clause 120. I also desire the reconsideration of clause 35 in order to move that the words “ and reserves “ be left out. My reason is that the reserves consist of members of the active force who are enrolled as members of the reserve force, and members of rifle clubs ; and I see no reason why either of them should be enrolled for a prescribed period of not less than two years. A fixed period of enrolment is reasonably applicable to members of the active forces, but not to persons who are practically civilians.
– I have no objection.
Amendment further amended accordingly.
– I desire the reconsideration of clause 60. Honorable senators will no doubt have read the report of the Royal Commission which inquired into the conduct of the South African war.
– We have not received it yet.
– That may be, but. a synopsis of it has appeared in the press and Senator Drake will admit that the report of the Commission bears out the arguments I used in connexion with the compulsory training of cadets. I hope that without any necessity for the making of a longspeech, the honorable and learned senator - will allow the clause to be recommitted. If not, I shall have to speak at greaterlength.
– I hope the honorableand learned senator will not press his request for the reconsideration of clause 60. I am not asking for the reconsideration of” any matters which the Senate has alreadydecided. Where in the course of discussion matters have been left in an unsatisfactory state, or it has been necessary that consequential alterations should be made, I have asked.’, for the reconsideration of the clauses affected. On the subject of warrant officers, and thequestion of who should sign a warrant, threeclauses are affected by the action of theCommittee, and I asked for their reconsideration. The other clauses which I asked should be reconsidered require amendments of a consequential character. Theamendments suggested by Senator Pearceinvolve new matters which have occurred to - the honorable senator in the meantime ; and. it is considered that their inclusion may improve the Bill. But Senator Dobson is asking us to reconsider clause 60 in order that we may again discuss a subject which occupied the Committee for the best part of ‘ two days.
– No ; for two or threehours.
– The debate began on one day and was continued on thenext. The subject was thrashed out and we took a division. It is therefore not fair that we should be asked to reconsider the matter. If it is right that we should do so we might just as well recommit theBill over and over again.
– So we should for cause shown.
– The honorable and learned senator has shown no cause for what he proposes. He has made a reference to the report of -the Commission which inquired into the conduct of the South African war, although we have not yet received that report. I have taken steps to secure early copies of the report… and when we receive it we shall be able to learn what the Commission really recommends. At this stage of the session I submit that we cannot afford the time to re- discuss a subject which has been exhaustively debated, and which the Committee decided the week before last.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
Senator DOBSON (Tasmania). - -I move -
That clause 60 be reconsidered. I make no apology to the Committee for trying to secure the reconsideration of this clause. Since I urged the matter ineffectually the other day, information concerning the terms of a report issued by perhaps the -.most important Commission that ever sat to -deal with matters affecting the British Army has reached us. If Senator Drake has not been able to secure a copy of the report, the press has been able to get information concerning it ; and I make this quotation from -a reference to the matter appearing in the Age which Will justify me in every way in asking for the reconsideration of this clause -
A third suggestion, offered b3’ Sir George Taubman-Goldie, and agreed with by three other members of the Commission - Lord .Esher, Sir Frederick Darley, and Sir John Edge - is that a national scheme of military education should be organized, which would include the extension of the cadet system, and the compelling of every physically sound youth of seventeen years . unprovided with a cadet certificate of efficiency to serve a term in the National Cadet School under officers of the regular army. This, it is held, is the only practical alternative to conscription.
– As a point of order, I should like to know if the honorable and learned senator is in order in reading an -article from a newspaper commenting upon a measure before the Senate ?
– It is not before the ‘Senate ; it is before the Empire.
– The honorable senator would not be in order in reading an article which in any way reflected upon any debate in the Senate. As I understand the matter, Senator Dobson is merely quoting an authority. So long as the article does not in any way reflect upon any debate in the Senate, it is quite in order to refer to it.
– Senator Drake has suggested that nothing has transpired, since the Committee came to a decision upon this matter, which would justify us in reconsidering it. But since then, the best military -experts who could be obtained have, in their report, said that there should be a cadet system, which would not be a farce but a reality, and- that any cadet of the age of seventeen years, who had not obtained a certificate that he was efficient in his drill, should be compelled to continue his education in order that he might be able to defend his country. The report of the Commission goes on to say that this is the only alternative to conscription. That in every way bears out the arguments I have previously used. I called attention to the fact that in another place it was proposed that young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one years should attend compulsory drill. There were certain objections to that scheme on the ground that it would interfere with the ordinary work of persons of that age. No such objections can apply to cadets between the ages of twelve and seventeen years. I have pointed out that we have a right to demand that these young people should be trained to take part in the defence of their country, just as we demand that they shall be educated in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Since I used those arguments we have received information of the report to which I have referred, which is a complete justification for the reconsideration of clause 60. Education is the foundation of life, but to say that we should compel boys to learn how to read and write, and should not compel them to learn how to defend themselves when we have the right to call out tens of thousands of them in times of need, is a perfect farce. I point out that the Senate is often placed in a very awkward predicament. A Bill comes up from the other House, and in order to save time and trouble the Minister in charge of it in the Senate says, “This is the policy of the Government ; I cannot allow any amendment whatever.”
– I did not say that in regard to clause 60. I gave very good reasons why the Committee should not agree with the honorable and learned senator.
– Senator Drake does not say that, but he acts it. I say that repeatedly honorable senators have been prevented from exercising their intelligence, and insisting upon the consideration of suggestions offered, simply because the Minister in charge of a Bill would not depart from what had been done in another place to carry out the policy of the Government.
– I did not advance that as an argument.
– I ask the honorable and learned senator to recognise that the question of defence affects every man, woman and child in the Commonwealth. It affects every home and every individual ; and if any honorable senator can suggest anything which will make the Bill more perfect, and our system of defence more perfect, and which will more certainly give us the citizen army for which we are working, Senator Drake should welcome the suggestion instead of trying to snuff it out. I am prepared to bow to the decision of the Committee if it is against me. Men who know more of the subject of defence than all the members of the Senate put together have said that the course I suggest is the only alternative to conscription. They say, further, that the officers who were first sent to South Africa were untrained and absolutely unfitted for their duties, and that the second batch who were sent out were worse than the first. Here I am trying to provide that men shall be educated in matters of defence when they are boys, so that when the time of danger arrives, and we have to call them out, they will at least have a foundation of training in the duties which they will have to perform. I cannot understand why the Minister should object to the reconsideration of clause 60. ,
– I think it is very unfair for Senator Dobson to represent me as having used an argument which I did not use, and at the same time studiously ignore the arguments I did use. The chief argument I used against the honorable and learned senator’s proposal was that the education system is at present in the hands of the States. They fix the hours of attendance of the children, and they control the schools entirely. It is not advisable at the present time for the Federal Parliament to attempt to interfere with the education of children. That is the great difficulty. The cadet system is going on very well in the States now, under the control of the States Governments.
– No ; it is perfect chaos ; the whole system is unorganized.
– It is progressing as part of the States schools system, and it is not advisable that we should at the present time interfere with it. I may be wrong, but that is the principal argument I used, and
Senator Dobson has entirely ignored it. “We discussed this matter fully, and took a division upon it. Senator Dobson says that he will bow to the decision of the Committee, and I ask the honorable and learned senator why he does not bow to it ? Honorable senators have already decided that the scheme which Senator Dobson proposes should not be engrafted on this Bill, and the honorable and learned senator should accept that decision.
– -I am very sorry that the Attorney-General should take up the same attitude on this question as that which he adopted when Minister of Defence. The attitude the honorable and learned senator takes in regard to the powers of the Commonwealth in connexion with States services is not a desirable attitude for any Minister of the Commonwealth to adopt. We have in the matter of defence the fullest sovereign powers which can be conferred upon, a community such as. Australia is. We have the fullest possible powers in the regulation of the methods of dealing with the citizens of Australia in what we consider to be necessary for the effective defence of the Commonwealth. I still’ adhere to- the argument I used on a previous occasion, that in connexion with our postal and telegraph service we, by our legislation, practically commandeer the services of the Railway Departments of the States, and in that we have’ an analogy to this proposal. I know that it, will be answered that we pay them for. those* services, as Senator Gould previously pointed out. But payment or no payment, we are entitled, having sovereign power in the matter of defence, to provideas we think fit- for equipping citizens of theCommonwealth with the necessary military training to fit them to carry out the defencewe desire. It is, therefore, absolutely idle for the Attorney-General to object that theeducation of the children of the Commonwealth is in the hands of the States, because we can ask, and we can go further and insist, that the several States Educational Departments shall carry out such a scheme as the Commonwealth authorities may think necessary for the training of the youths of the Commonwealth in the schools of the several States, to enable them afterwards to(assist in the defence of Australia. I should be very sorry if Ministers generally were totake up the attitude adopted by the AttorneyGeneral, and contend that we should. be hesitant or careful in this regard. If we accept that position, we shall strip ourselves of many of the powers we undoubtedly possess. “When I was offering myself as a candidate for the honour of a seat in the Senate I gave expression to my opinion that it was desirable, in connexion with the defence of Australia, . that Australians should be taught from the earliest years, when they, were capable of receiving instruction with advantage, in the matter of defence. 1 expressed that opinion from numerous platforms, and although I was asked at various centres how it was possible for the Commonwealth to carry out such a scheme when the subject of education had not been transferred to the Federal Parliament, I pointed out that it was quite possible for the Commonwealth authorities to arrange with the States authorities to carry out such a scheme ; and that if the States authorities were not amenable to requests or instructions from the Commonwealth authorities in the matter, the Federal Parliament had still the reserve power of compulsion, and might say, “We are responsible for the defence of Australia.”
– Nothing of the kind.
– With all deference to Senator Neild, I give it as my opinion that in the event of the States authorities refusing to act upon the suggestion or request of the Commonwealth authorities, we could compel them to do so. I do not for a moment believe that it would be necessary to resort to compulsion. It could be amicably arranged between the Commonwealth and States authorities that in the curriculum of every State school and every private school subject to State inspection, there should be some training of the lads towards enabling them to take their place when the time came in the defence of Australia. I hope honorable senators will see their way to support Senator Dobson’s motion for the reconsideration of clause 60, that we may determine what steps should be taken to train the youth of the Commonwealth to take their proper stand in connexion with the defence of Australia.
– After twenty-five years of parliamentary experience it has struck me as a novelty to hear an honorable senator, who is supposed to supply certain useful services to the Ministry of the day, castigating Ministers for their failure to do their duty. It is something new, and no doubt in the making of history it is interesting and instructive. I suggest to the Attorney-General that it will be of no use to have a double outburst of oratory in connexion with the proposal for the compulsory training of children who have not votes, when the proposal would never be attempted in respect of persons who have votes. We should not be subjected to a double outburst of this paltry patriotism. I call it paltry patriotism, because there is no reality in it.
– Nonsense ! This is the foundation of the whole scheme.
– It is a transparent sham. I suggest that Senator Dobson should be allowed to have his little way at this stage, because the Senate will undoubtedly deal promptly with the real question when we come to consider it.
Question - That clause 60 be reconsidered - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 16
Majority … … 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause 4 - “Member” includes any officer, noncommissioned officer, sailor, and soldier.
Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-
That the words “ non-commissioned officer “ be left out.
Amendment (by Senator Walker) agreed to-
That the following words be inserted : - “ ‘ Oath ‘ includes affirmation in the case of any person who has a conscientious objection to take an oath.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 -
The Governor-General may……. appoint and promote officers of the Defence Force and issue commissions to them ….
– I move -
That after the word “ commissions “ the words “and warrants” be inserted.
This is the only one amongst the amendments given notice of by me which has been held over, and my desire is that the practice in regard to the issue of warrants shall be that which has obtained for many years in New South Wales, namely, that they shall be issued by the Governor-General. Warrant officers stand between the commissioned officers and the non-commissioned officers, and occupy a position which is of more importance in citizen forces than in regular forces. I have already discussed this matter at length, and do not propose to detain the Committee. Senator Cameron will bear meout that in forces where the officers are necessarily civilians, the warrant officer, who is a professional soldier, and a man of experience, occupies a position of great responsibility. And the position has more responsibility attached to it in view of the fact that adjutants are no longer professional men, though they receive the magnificent remuneration of 5s. per day.
– I have gone into this matter very carefully, and it is with regret that I find myself unable to support the amendment. I should lite, if possible, to make some alteration, so that the practice which has hitherto obtained in New South Wales should not be interfered with ; but it must not be forgotten that only in New South Wales of all the States are these warrants issued by the Governor, and that similar warrants in England are not signed by the King. No one can tell me how the practice of having these warrants signed by the Governor sprang up in New South Wales ; and, in any case, I think that the one State ought to give way for the sake of uniformity. The warrant officers of New South Wales will be placed at no disadvantage under the clause, because those already appointed have their warrantssigned by the Governor ; and the amendment, if carried, would entail a lot of extra work. I think Senator Neild will see that New South Wales ought to fall in with the practice followed everywhere else in the British Dominions.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 8
NOES: 14
Majority … … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 verbally amended and agreed to.
Clause 17 -
– I move -
That the following be inserted as sub-clause 1. - “Warrant officers and non-commissioned officers in the permanent military forces shall be appointed by the General Officer Commanding or by officers deputed by him in that behalf.”
If this amendment be carried, I propose to amend the present sub-clause 1, so as to make it apply only to the citizen forces.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to -
That before the word “ military,” line 2, the word ‘ ‘ citizen “ be inserted.
Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -
That the words “General Officer Commanding, “ lines 4 and 5. be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “District Commandant.”
– If this amendment, to which I j have no objection, is made, I shall move the i omission of the words “or by officers deputed by him in that behalf.” There is no officer in the force between a District Commandant and the head of a regiment, therefore it is not sensible to propose that the District Commandant shall authorize an officer to approve of an appointment made by a regimental commander.
– I do not think there is any force in the objection of my honorable friend, because the District Commandant could not depute an officer to perform this duty who was not higher in rank than an officer commanding a regiment. I do not see, however, why we should in all cases insist on the District Commandant exercising the power of approval.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - I move -
That the words “ or by officers deputed by him in that behalf,” lines 5 and 6, be left out.
If the head of a regiment appoints a sergeant or corporal, subject to the approval of the District Commandant, it is quite sufficient for the latter to exercise his power of veto instead of delegating that duty to some person unknown. It is commonly the case in the States for the members of the staff to be officers of inferior rank to the officers in command of regiments. I can cite a case where the staff officers are majors. How could the District Commandant appoint a major to veto the appointment of the colonel of a regiment 7
– I do not see that there is very much in the objection of my honorable friend ; but as the approval will probably be given in writing, and it can be given by the District Commandant at any time, I shall not contest the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 -
The Governor-General may appoint a Board of Advice to advise on all matters relating to the Defence Force submitted to it by the Minister.
– I move -
That the word “ may,” line 1 , be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “shall.”
On that question I shall ask the Committee to decide whether in place of a Board of Advice there shall be a Council of Defence, consisting of the Minister for Defence, the
General Officer Commanding the Commonwealth Forces, the Officer in Command of the Naval Forces, two members of the Senate, and two members of the House of Representatives. In deference to an expression of opinion by certain honorable senators, I propose to leave out any allusion to a selection of members from the Opposition. I do not intend to elaborate the question, because I spoke very fully on a previous occasion. I quoted what Mr. Balfour had said in the House of Commons in support of a very similar Committee to assist the Government to deal with defence questions in England. What I then said has received most unexpected confirmation, and has been very greatly strengthened by the report of a Royal Commission, which was appointed in England to consider the condition of the Army in respect to the Transvaal War. It has made very serious disclosures. It has shown that the “War Department, which was organized very much on the lines of our Defence Department, was thoroughly disorganized. According to the London correspondent of the Argus -
It is strongly suspected that much of the trouble arose out of the strained relations of the War Secretary and the Commander-in-Chief, and very largely too out of the desire of the Cabinet to avoid spending money.
I may point out that the same motives are operating in Australia. Time after time the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding have been shelved or ignored because the Cabinet have been unwilling to place the necessary funds at the disposal of the Department. It was pointed out in the report of the Royal Commission that in numerous instances the recommendations of the Intelligence Department and the recommendations of the War Office had been completely ignored, and that, as Ministers had come in and gone out, it was impossible to place the responsibility on anybody. It will be remembered that in his speech in the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour laid particular stress on the desirability of continuity in military policy. It appears to be thought that the Council of Defence which I advocate will operate in the way of reducing the power of the General Officer Commanding. At the present moment his recommendations go to the Minister, who has the sole right of shelving them, or of adopting them, or of putting a certain portion of them before Parliament. I am convinced from all I know, see, and read, that this power is too great to be left with any one man. I propose that the Council of Advice should sit to receive the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding, and call for expert evidence, if they found themselves unable to come to a conclusion on any of them. For instance, if they felt any doubt about a matter involving the organization of the militia, they could summon the officer commanding the militia forces, or any other officer whom they thought it desirable to examine. In the same way, if a question arose in connexion with the volunteer forces they could ask the commanding officer to give evidence. But those officers would not be members of the Council. It would be impossible, with any due regard to discipline, to have the naval and military commandants sitting on the same board with their subordinates. Obviously the subordinates would be practically muzzled by a sense of discipline. I propose that the Council, after considering the recommendations of the naval and military commandants, should report to the House of Representatives at the same time as the Minister for Defence submits his Estimates, and honorable members would then be able to know exactly what they were doing when they voted, or refused to vote, any sums. Perhaps honorable senators may not realize how important it is that the Parliament should be furnished with the fullest information on all these subjects. I propose to state, as shortly as possible, what happened in connexion with the Estimates for last year, and to point out that no attention was called to this matter in another place, when the Estimates for the current year were being considered. Last year a sum of £28,700 was voted for certain military works, but it. has entirely escaped the notice of honorable members elsewhere that only £5,500 has been spent. Owing to the divided control in these matters - owing to the fact that the Department of Home Affairs controls the execution of works quite apart from the Defence Department - works, which last year were considered most essential, have not been carried out, and the result is that this year we shall be asked to vote £29,000 for those works. Rifle ranges, which are urgently needed in the States, drill halls, schools of instruction and fortifications, have all been left unexecuted, simply from want of some authority to see that the recommendations of Parliament were carried out. There is another matter arising out of the Estimates for the current year. The General Officer Commanding has issued a report - very voluminous, but not sufficiently ample, to my mind - in which he points out that £125,000 should be spent this year on equipment. In his report he regrets that a larger sum is not available, and he points out that it would be impossible, even with that expenditure, to place the various parts of the service in an efficient state. Yet we find that the Government, simply with a view to economy, have cut down the proposed vote to £70,000. In other words, £J,000 has been knocked off the vote for medical stores ; £31,000 has been knocked off the vote for arms and ammunition, while £23,000 has been knocked off the vote for field artillery. In relation to field artillery arms and ammunition, the General Officer Commanding in his report is most emphatic. He points out that twenty-four field guns are required to complete the peace establishment; that he proposed to purchase eight out of this year’s vote ; that there are hardly any ammunition waggons; that the batteries are absolutely valueless without waggons ; and that it is just the same in regard to harness. Of course, honorable senators are well aware of the position in regard to ammunition. The guns must have ammunition, otherwise they will be absolutely useless. If a Council of Defence existed it would be their duty to see that the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding were properly laid before the Parliament, and, if adopted, carried out. I shall follow up this amendment, if adopted, with other amendments.
– This matter was fully discussed on the 17 th September, and decided by a majority of the Committee. It was discussed then on a new clause proposed by Senator Matheson, who is now bringing up the same matter by moving an amendment on another clause.
– We have further evidence.
– I do not think so. We have had some telegrams with regard to a report, which has not yet reached Australia, concerning military affairs in Great Britain. The proposal means the usual effort to avoid responsibility by means of boards, but experience has shown that when we have boards we are in much the same position as before. This is a matter which we cannot deal with at the present time. At the close of the session we are discussing a Bill which has really been before Parliament for a couple of years, and it is quite out of place now to introduce what would be a very extensive alteration in the system of administration proposed. I think it is hardly fair for the honorable senator to bring the matter up in this way, because one cannot repeat one’s speeches, and it would be very unfair if the honorable senator were to secure votes in favour of his proposal because those who have already spoken exhaustively upon the subject do not feel disposed to repeat their arguments. My opinion in connexion with the matter is unchanged, and I apprehend that the decision to which the Committee came the week before last will be adhered to to-day.
– I should like to say a few words upon this subject, which is a very important one. We cannot lose sight of the fact that within a few months the Defence Department of the Commonwealth has had three different Ministers in charge of it. It will not be contended that that is likely to conserve continuity of action, or that it in any way tends to a very high appreciation of the importance of the Department. I feel very strongly that the value of the military and naval forces of the Commonwealth would be increased if some proper Council of Defence could be provided. I can see very great difficulty in carrying out the proposal made by Senator Matheson. There would be difficulty in getting together a Council of Defence when it was wanted. I am not certain that the scheme outlined in the amendments is the best that could be adopted, but I am quite certain that it is time the Commonwealth turned its attention to the subject, and that we thought out some scheme by which the administration of the military and naval affairs of the country could be strengthened, and the wish of the Parliament more fully carried out. It is quite possible that the House of Representatives and the Senate might unite in desiring that some course of action should be followed, and that that desire might be more or less ignored by the authorities who at present control our forces.
– Or by a Board of Advice.
– Perhaps also by a board ; but so long as we recognise that there is a difficulty, and we do our best to meet it, Parliament will have done its duty.
I think that at the present time the best we can hope for is that the attention of the Commonwealth will be directed to this important subject, and that some scheme will be carefully thought out by which the Minister for Defence and the General Officer Commanding will be, I will not say controlled, but subject to some little supervision, and the wishes of Parliament given effect to.
– I desire to acquaint the mover of the amendment, and honorable senators generally, that it has just crossed my mind that it will be quite impossible for me to entertain the amendment as foreshadowed by Senator Matheson. I do not think I can prevent him from moving to strike out the word “may,” with a view to inserting the word “shall,” but as this motion is only preliminary to the insertion of a provision which has already been negatived in this Committee, it is not competent for me to receive the subsequent amendment which the honorable senator proposes to move. It will be the duty of the honorable senator, if he desires to press the matter, to move when the Bill is reported to the Senate that the clause be recommitted with a view to make certain amendments. Honorable senators are aware that a motion contradictory to a previous decision of the Committee cannot be entertained by the same Committee. We have already decided the question which Senator Matheson raises, and it is therefore not competent for me to entertain the proposal now suggested.
– I thought we were dealing with these amendments upon recommittal. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
– We are dealing with these matters now only on reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 35 (Period of enlistment).
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I desire in this clause to omit certain words, but I do not know whether I shall be in order in moving the amendment except upon recommittal.
– The honorable senator can only propose his amendment upon recommittal.
– I wish to raise a point of order. I understood, and I believe that every other honorable senator was under the same impression, that these amendments were to be considered on recommittal. I never heard the word “ reconsidered “ used, and honorable senators will see that on the business-paper there is a reference to amendments to be moved “ on recommittal “ by the Minister.
– I am not responsible for that. That is a mistake.
– The honorable senator must be aware that we have never gone out of Committee. It is quite immaterial what words are used in the business-paper. When we report to the Senate certain motions may be moved with a view to amending clauses upon recommittal ; but we are now engaged upon a reconsideration of the Bill, and not a recommittal.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 39. (Discharge of members of citizen forces).
– I find that the amendments I desire to make in this clause and in clause 51 can only be made upon recommittal.
– I hope there will be no misunderstanding. The Committee has determined to reconsider certain clauses. I do not think that where certain words have been inserted by the Committee, we can alter them on reconsideration, so as to make the meaning inconsistent with a previous decision. When it is proposed that certain clauses shall be reconsidered, I cannot possibly know the character of the alterations proposed to be made in them until the amendments are submitted to the Chair.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 55 (Provision for families of men killed, &c.)
– I propose that this clause should be negatived, because we have dealt with the subject more fully in the new clause, 54a, which has been agreed to.
Clause negatived.
Clause 71 -
– This is the clause which provides a penalty for the supply of inferior provisions, material, or equipment. I move -
That after the word “ equipment.” line 10, thewords “or beast of draught or burden” be inserted.
This amendment was brought under thenotice of the present Prime Minister in another place. The honorable and learned gentleman agreed that something of thekind was necessary, and promised to look into the subject, but it was overlooked. I was asked by an honorable member in another place to take up the amendment here.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (by Senator Pearce) agreed, to-
That after the word “material,” line 15, the word “or” be omitted.
That after the word “ equipment,” line 15, thewords “or beast of draught or burden” be inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause SO-
– This clause is of a most extraordinary character. It lays open to a penalty of £20 any person who strolls on a piece of land which has been reserved for military purposes, even though that land be unfenced and unoccupied. Something should be done to protect members of the public who may accidentally stroll on to military property.
– There will be no penalty for accidentally strolling on to such land.
.- In Port Jackson, for instance, there are thousands of acres reserved for military purposes, though I daresay that a military uniform has never been seen there. The land is commonly used for picnic purposes, and the State-
Commandant has caused a notification to be published that it may be so used.
– In such a case there could not possibly be any trespass.
– But the permission might be withdrawn at any moment, and I am only showing how largely the grounds are used by the public, as they have been used, I daresay, for the last sixty years. Military ground should at least be enclosed before a penalty is imposed for trespass, and I move -
That after the word “any,” line 3, the word “enclosed “ be inserted.
I do not desire to hamper military operations, nor do I desire that any unnecessary law shall interfere with the innocent recreation of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
– I hope the Senate will not agree to the amendment. The clause does not prevent people from making ordinary lawful use of military land which may be unenclosed, and the amendment, if passed, would mean that persons might, for instance, trespass on rifle ranges with impunity.
– Surely this clause does not include rifle ranges?
– I believe rifle ranges have been taken to be included, and the clause ought not to be altered in such a way as to make it impossible to convict a person for trespassing on unenclosed land. In many cases the areas could not be enclosed except at great expense, and it is absurd to suppose that the Defence authorities would prosecute people for making a harmless use of such land.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 89-
A court martial may in a summary manner convict any person guilty of contempt of court within the hearing or view of the court.
– In order to meet the views of honorable senators, I move -
That the word “ person “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “any member of the Defence Force.”
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 (Regulations).
– The clause gives the Governor-General power to make regulations for a number of purposes, and I move -
That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (a) The payment of compensation to wives and families of members of the Defence Forces, as provided in part 3, division 4, of this Act.”
It is provided that compensation shall be paid in sums as prescribed by regulation, and, I take it, that it is also necessary to have regulations, in order to insure that the fund is not abused. This a far more important matter than some others which have been made the subject of regulations.We have all heard of the historic soldier in the United States who lived on a pension for over a hundred years.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
– I believe we have now completed the reconsideration of the measure, and I desire to take the present opportunity of tendering my thanks to the Minister for the more than courteous manner in which he has conducted the Bill through Committee. I particularly feel a debt of gratitude to the Minister, and to the members of the Senate generally. It has fallen to my my lot to submit more amendments than are usually submitted by a privatemember, and the great consideration I have met with at the hands of the Minister and honorable senators demands from me the words of thanks which I very respectfully tender.
– Allow me to thank honorable senators generally, and more particularly Senator Neild, and other military gentlemen in the Chamber for the assistance I have received,
Bill reported with amendments.
Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -
That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stages without delay.
– I understood the Minister had some clauses to recommit.
– I do not propose to move for a recommittal.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -
That the report be adopted.
– I move, as an amendment -
That all the words after “That” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “clauses 27, 35, and 120 be recommitted.”
– For what reason ?
– The Minister knows the reason I desire a recommittal. I submit the amendment with the view of substituting a Council of Defence for the Board of Advice.
– 1 support the amendment. The representatives of the Government seem in an extraordinary state of anxiety to get this Bill through. Their idea apparently is that all the Senate has to do is -to pass Bills as they are introduced. It is necessary for me, in view of that attitude, to urge a few reasons why the Bill should be recommitted for the purposes indicated by Senator Matheson. The General Officer Commanding is to all intents and purposes the Minister.
– No.
– The measure before us, which purports to be the Bill of the Federal Government, is the Bill of the General Officer Commanding.
– That is quite incorrect.
– In various parts of the world where there are military systems, we find that General Officers Commanding are being abolished in favour of Boards or Councils such as that suggested by Senator Matheson. I am of opinion that in this part of the world we are safer from foreign aggression than are the people of any nation on the face of the earth. At the same time the general public evidently desire that considerable sums shall be spent for defence purposes, and it is necessary to have a general Council, of which the Minister for Defence and a representative of the Senate shall be members, in order to see that that money is properly expended, and our. military system put on a proper footing. While we give Senator Drake every credit for the care and attention he devotes to the particular Department of which he may have charge, we know that when Parliament is in session, all his time is taken up in defending the Government against the aggressive criticism of honorable senators. The Minister for Defence is in the same position, and, under the circumstances, he has not sufficient time to devote to the affairs of the Department, with the result that the opinions of the General Officer Commanding are those of the Minister. If I were of opinion that we could at an early date obtain the services of an Australian officer who is in sympathy with Australian ideals-
– Why should an Australian officer be better than an expert from hornet
– If we could obtain the services of such an Australian officer, who has seen service in other parts of the world - and we have Australians of that character and capacity - I should not be so anxious to have the suggested Council. But, for some years, at any rate, we shall have an Imperial officer, to control whom there ought, to be a Council. The recent disclosures in regard to the British Forces and the South African war, prove that the idea of one-man rule is a fallacy.
– I never heard that said in England.
– The honorable senator must have seen the report of the Royal Commission, in which it is proposed to have the British Forces controlled by a Board or Council such as that suggested by Senator Matheson. We are not bound to accept “ board “ or “ council,” or any particular name ; all we want is some new blood in the control of the military forces. A Council would insure that hundreds of thousands of pounds would be spent in a legitimate and proper way, and would secure a better morale in the rank and file, as well as amongst the subordinate officers. The careers of Australian officers are at present absolutely in the hollow of the hand of the General Officer Commanding ; but if there were a Board or Council, grievances could be stated and remedied. The members of the Council would be subject to criticism in Parliament, just as the Minister is ; and criticism of that character is in the best interests of the Australian Defence Forces generally. In the United States, the Commander-in-Chief has been abolished in favour of a Board of Control, and as the people of that country have had recent experience of war, and are an up-to-date nation, we might well follow their example. In Germany the staff management is under a chief of staff, each army corps commander being absolutely supreme in his own command, and directly responsible to the Government. In France there is practically the same system, while in Switzerland there is a Board of Control, and in Japan a Board of Military Advisers. The Board in Japan was established after the Japanese, in keeping with their usual modern policy, had sent officers abroad to inquire as to the best system. I hope that honorable senators will not, in their desire to close the session, rush this
Bill through without due consideration. The Defence Bill is of such an important character that it may well be held in abeyance until next session. Where, is the need for hurry? We have been able to exist without this measure for two or three years, and we can very well allow it to stand over for another year, especially if we can show that Senator Matheson’s proposal is of such importance that it demands our consideration. What has been revealed in connexion with the military system in the old country proves that we ought to have a Council of Defence. Who can believe that if such a clause as that suggested by Senator Matheson, and as is now proposed in England, were in existence, the great disasters that occurred in South Africa would have taken place 1 1 do not believe that they would. We see from the evidence that no preparations were made with regard to the clothing of the men, the rations, and a thousand other things that are necessary for the proper equipment of an army. I am fully of opinion that those defects were brought about by the faults of the old system, and that if the two Houses of this Parliament were represented on a military council outside the Government not only should we be in a better position when trouble threatened from outside, but in time of peace we should have some guarantee that our money was wisely expended, and that subordinate officers were properly treated. I. do not propose to pursue the matter any further at the present stage, but I hope that the Senate will agree to recommit the clause.
– I feel bound to support the recommittal of the clause in question, because experience has shown us that the present state of affairs is hardly satisfactory. It ‘is not common sense to expect one General Officer Commanding to have such a perfect knowledge of all the branches of a military Department as will enable him to administer it with efficiency. We cannot possibly expect a trained fighting man to understand everything. On the question of arms and ammunition we are at once brought face to face with the question of free-trade and protection - as to whether we shall have a Commonwealth factory or shall continue to import our arms and ammunition from the old country. Questions of that kind could be dealt with by such a board as is proposed. I am not prepared to say that the body favoured by my honorable friend, Senator Matheson, is the pattern board, but it would be a beginning, and might developinto a perfect board which would give satisfaction. I should be inclined to think that such a body should have upon it certain political officers, and one or more military officers. It should be representative of the volunteers, the militia, and the engineers, and at least one officer from each of those corps should be added. But that, of course, is a question of detail. It is perfectly certain from the way the military Estimates havebeen cut about, without any relation whatever to the needs of the country, that we need a brain for our army, and we cannot expect one man to supply what we want. I am quite in accord with the idea that the moment war commences the naval and military commanders must have absolute control, and that we must put our defence in their hands. But in matters of administration during times of peace, I believe in control by a board. I understand that the idea is to do away with control by a Commander-in-Chief and to have the whole military system administered and vested in a board. That is a condition to which we may attain hereafter. It may be found to be the system we require, but underpresent circumstances I think we need to give the present administration of some body like that suggested. The present position is unsatisfactory. At one moment the Government may make much of theGeneral Officer Commanding for the time being. They may say - “ We now have an expert who wants to spend thousands of pounds, and we are going to let him do it.” But at another time the General Officer Commanding may advise certain things, and the Government may keep his report in the back ground. For these reasons I think that a change in the direction proposed by Senator Matheson may be made with advantage.
– I have very few words to say. It seems to me that we are wasting time and beating the air. This matter was very exhaustively discussed on the last occasion, and nothing that I have heard since warrants it being brought up again. In fact, I feel so strongly upon the matter that I think that a Council, such as is proposed, will be one of two things. It will be either a fifth wheel tothe Ministerial coach, or a useless tribunal to which no one will pay any attention. If an indictment such as I have heard to-day from Senator Matheson and Senator Dobson, can be brought against any Government Ave ought to turn them out of office, and put in another Government to administer the affairs of the country properly. But it is not for any Council to decide upon the management of the defences of Australia. I think that what has occurred in England has put a great many people on the wrong track. The General Officer Commanding must of necessity be an expert, and be the vehicle by which the Minister is informed of the requirements of the Defence Forces and of the country. Army administration and army discipline should be concentrated in the General Officer Commanding, and there should be a clear line of -cleavage between the two branches, so that both may be thoroughly well organized, and every one belonging to them may have his specific place, and know what is required of him whether in time of peace or during war. There would then be no hitch, and no difficulties except such as were the result of differences in the qualifications of -the officers, or of the accidents of service. To speak of what political exigencies in England have brought about is beside the question. In the past, want of attention to mobilization has produced a want of development on the part of the Intelligence Department, or the brain of an army; and that has led to the condition of affairs to which Senator Dobson has referred. But that is not a question for Parliament to meddle with. It is a matter of the internal economy of the Department ; and I hold that essentially Parliament should devote its energies -to maintaining the responsibility of the Minister and to determining broad principles, leaving the minutise entirely to the departmental heads. I feel certain that if, in case of a great national emergency arising, we had a board of control, in whom the affairs -of the Defence Forces were centered, we should lose one of the foremost necessities, and that is the confidence of the forces in the Commander-in-Chief. On these grounds I strongly oppose the Council of Defence.
– I support Senator Matheson ‘s proposal. After hearing the remarks of Senator Cameron, whom we all recognise as an expert, I have come to the conclusion that he has not added to the strength of the opposition to that proposal. Senator Cameron started by saying suggested that he had heard nothing during the debate to cause him to alter his opinion, or to warrant him in thinking that there was any justification for bringing this question before the Senate again. We have heard a number of quotations from a report which was published in the Age a few days ago concerning the inquiries of the Commission which has been sitting in England. I cannot understand how an expert of Senator Cameron’s knowledge can fail to pay attention to that report. The case for the establishment of a Council of Defence has become much stronger since the question was previously discussed. At all events, I am convinced that if we cannot improve matters we certainly cannot make them worse. The Council of Defence has been likened by Senator Cameron to the fifth wheel of a coach. We have often heard that expression used concerning a Ministry of four. I have a distinct recollection of a case where, when a Ministry of four were running the business of a country, the “ fifth wheel of the coach “ was about the most useful of the lot. Then, again, Senator Cameron says that if we are not satisfied with the administration of the Defence Department, the proper course is to turn out the Government and put in another one. But, unfortunately, we cannot always do that at the time when we should like to. Even if we were able to turn out a Ministry owing to some defects in its administration, we should still be in the same danger of having blunders made by its successor in office. I am also prompted to support the motion for the reason that we ought to .have more attention paid to our citizen soldiery. The necessity for a citizen soldiery was a popular cry previous to the last elections. It is not less popular to-day. The majority of honorable members in another place and in the Senate, and the greater proportion of the public, are more in favour of a citizen soldiery than of anything that will encourage the spirit of militarism to become rampant throughout Australia. While our forces are under the supreme control either of Major-General Hutton, the present General Officer Commanding, or of some other gentleman from the old country who has Imperial notions, we are not likely to have such attention paid to our citizen soldiery as they deserve. Whether for good or evil - whether it is in the best or worst interests of the defences of the country - all
Imperial officers are imbued with the spirit of militarism. We must acknowledge, in the light of our experience, that the present General Officer Commanding has not shown his sympathy with a citizen soldiery. That is the strongest reason which prompts me to support this proposal. I believe that if we have a Council of Defence, greater attention will be paid to that question, in regard to which I know I have Senator Cameron with me. Absolutely nothing has been done by the present General Officer Commanding to spread the desire for a citizen soldiery, or* to assist in that direction. I do not think that he, or any other gentleman that might take his place, will do what the public desire in that respect. I believe that the appointment of a Council of Defence would be of assistance ; and that consideration, coupled with other reasons, induces me to support Senator Matheson. As to the question raised by Ministers, that what is now proposed will delay the passage of the Bill, it has been rightly urged that we have done for two or three years without the measure. Of course that is not altogether a good thing. It will be much better for the forces when they are controlled under a Bill of this kind. But seeing that the main objects of the people in regard to defence have not received attention, I, for one, would rather that the Bill did not become law this session than see it enacted as it is. I do not care very much whether it is delayed until next session or not, because I believe that time is working with those of us who are paying great attention to the question of a Commonwealth citizen soldiery.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Senate divided.
AYES: 10
NOES: 7
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
In Committee. (Recommittal).
Clause 27-
The Governor-General may appoint a Board of Advice to advise on all matters relating to the Defence Force submitted to it by the Minister.
– I have already explained my object in asking for a recommittal of the clause. It would be wasting the time of honorable senators if I were to recapitulate my arguments ; therefore I move -
That the word “ may,” line 1, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “shall.”
SenatorDRAKE. - I cannot allow the amendment to go withoutsaying a few words by way of protest. As I pointed out before, this matter was discussed at great length on the 11th September.
– And we have altered our minds since the discussion took place.
– I do not know whether the honorable senator has altered what he calls his mind. I think that he has been voting in the same way all the time ; andI am not sure that other honorable senators have altered their minds. In the first place, I would point out to Senator Matheson that it is a most unheard of thing to use the word “ shall “ in connexion with the Governor-General, and that the parliamentary custom is to use the word “ may “ in that regard. That is one reason why honorable senators should hesitate to vote for the amendment. But on the merits of the proposal, if there are any, I would ask those who wish to see the Bill passed, not to vote for its acceptance. They must see that at this period of the session there is no possibility of being able to make such a tremendous alteration as is proposed by the transference of the duties of the General Officer Commanding and the Minister to a Board of Control. It would be introducing an altogether different system. We are told that the proposal is made upon the strength of the report of a Royal
Commission in England - a report which I may say we have not yet received.
– And what is taking place in other parts of the world.
– No.
– For example, in the United States.
– I have no evidence that the United States have adopted this system. If their military organization is so perfect that they can afford to go in for an experiment of this nature, it is a different thing ; but this is certainly not the right time for us to experiment. Suppose that the amendment were carried, would it be possible at this period of the session for us to induce the two Houses to agree on any scheme for carrying out the proposal of Senator Matheson? What he proposes to do is to make one or two amendments, and then to fling the clause down with the remark, “ That is an indication of what I mean,” leaving the two Houses to put the clause in such a shape as to carry out his intention. That could not be done. This is practically the third year in which this Bill has been before the Parliament. In 1901 it was introduced in the other House ; it has been discussed thoroughly and altered, and now, when we’ should be putting the finishing touches to its provisions, the honorable senator comes forward to propose a radical alteration of our system. Naturally, he is supported by those honorable senators who say that they do not care whether the Bill is passed or not. They would sooner have the passing of the Bill delayed for another year. I can quite understand those who hold that view supporting the amendment; but I cannot quite understand Senator Matheson making this proposal, seeing that he has on the floor of the Senate taken a very intelligent interest in military matters. I think he must see that it is desirable to have a Defence Bill passed this session, in order that the Defence Forces, under our present system of administration, may be brought to as great a state of efficiency as possible. If he feels strongly on this subject, let him come forward with a well-considered scheme next session, when no doubt it would receive every attention and consideration at the hands of the Parliament. Just when there is a thin attendance, both here and elsewhere, is certainly not the time to force on the statute-book such an alteration of our system as is proposed. I appeal to the honorable senator not to press an amendment which, if carried, would probably have the effect of wrecking the Bill.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - It has been pointed out to me by the Chairman that it is unusual, as Senator Drake has said, to use the word “shall” in relation to the Governor-General. In the circumstances, I propose to withdraw my amendment, and to proceed with the other amendments to carry out my object.
– Would not the Government intrepret “ may “ to mean “ may “ and not “shall”?
– It has been suggested to me that “ shall “ would have no greater strength than “ may.”
– The AttorneyGeneral has referred to what I call my mind. Let us consider his mind for a moment. It is of such an original character that he had to ransack through theCornhill Magazine to find a remark to apply to me. When Lord Westbury was appearing before some Judges he said - “ What your Lordships please to call your mind.” When we do venture to offer a few observations to the Senate, there is some pretence to originality about them. But, from my experience of Senator Drake in Queensland, he has never had anything more original than what appeared in the Bill before him. In the Senate he is so pleased with that kind of originality that he cannot be dragged away from it, and the result is that the Government is very often seen in a most dismal minority. I hope that Senator Matheson will adhere to his proposition to substitute “ shall” for “ may,” because, if a possible loop-hole were given, the Minister would wriggle through it. The Governor-General is only the mouth-piece of the Government, and if we were to substitute “shall” for “may” we should give an imperative instruction to the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (by Senator Matheson) proposed -
That the words “Board of Advice,” lines 1 and 2, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “Council of Defence.”
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 10
NOES: 8
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Matheson) proposed -
That the following words be left out : - “ to advise on all matters relating to the Defence Force submitted to it by the Minister.”
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I have moved the amendment because it is desired that the Council shall deal with all matters brought before the Minister by either the General Officer Commanding or the Officer in Command of the Naval Forces.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 10
NOES: 8
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Matheson) proposed -
That the following words be inserted : - “ consisting of -
The Council shall receive and review all recommendations of the General Officer Commanding and Naval Commandant in respect to the organization, administration, and financial policy of their respective branches of the Defence Forces, and shall, if thought necessary, obtain expert advice on any questions arising under such recommendations.
It shall be the duty of the Council from time to time to make such recommendations to Parliament as it may think desirable for most effectually securing the efficiency of the Defences and Defence Forces of the Commonwealth, and to take such steps as may be necessary to secure effective compliance with the directions of Parliament in respect to all such matters.
At every meeting of the Council the Minister shall preside, or, in his absence, a chairman to be chosen by those members present.”
– I think that the constitution of the proposed Council of Defence might be improved upon, because, -as it has been proposed, the two expert members will be out-voted by the five political members. -I think that what honorable senators desire is that our military^ experts shall .have the assistance of men of financial training and of practical experience, but we do not wish them to be out-voted by two to one by laymen. Therefore, I suggest that there should be added the senior officer of the militia forces, and the senior officer of the citizen forces, and that, instead of there being two members, only one. member should “be chosen from each House. Both the officers named will understand the requirements of their branches of the service, and be in touch with the men under their command, -and they should be able to make most valuable suggestions for the encouragement .anc promotion of the volunteer movement.
Senator MATHESON (Western Australia). - I would point out to the honorable senator that it would be impossible to appoint to the Council two officers who are subordinate to the General Officer Commanding the forces, who, if they were so appointed, would be able to canvass his proposals. Provision is made later on to enable the Council to take any expert ad vice it requires, and no doubt, when necessary, it would send for and examine the officers whom he has named. I suggest as a compromise that, instead of appointing those officers, we should reduce the number of the lay members of the Council by having only one member from each House of Parliament.
Senator DOBSON (Tasmania). - I assure the Attorney-General that this is not a farce. If we have time to deal with the selection of the Federal capital site, surely we have time to deal with the Defence Bill 1 I should like the honorable and learned senator to say whether he thinks other expert officers should be included on the proposed Council. I am inclined to think that Senator Matheson exaggerates the difficulty of asking junior officers to sit with senior officers. I take it that on the Board of Admiralty in the old country, there are some officers lower in rank than others, as there will no doubt be on the Military Board which is now proposed. I see no reason why officers representing different branches of the Defence Force should not be associated with the General Officer Commanding on a Council of Advice. I think that in the Council suggested by Senator Matheson there would be too much of the political, lay, and business element, and not enough of the expert element, though I agree that we should avoid having the expert element centred in one man, and we should associate with it a little practical business knowledge and commonsense. I should be willing to agree to one member of the Senate and one member of the House of Representatives being appointed to the Council.
– I can tell honorable senators the difficulty that would arise. We have at the present time the Minister for Defence administering the Department. He has the advice of the General Officer Commanding and of the officer commanding the Naval Forces. Up to that point the amendment proposed would effect nothing. It would bring no fresh wisdom .to the councils of the Minister. He has already the advice of the General Officer Commanding and of the Officer Commanding the
Naval Forces, and it must be remembered that the General Officer Commanding has also the advice of a staff consisting of the most experienced men in each branch - engineering, artillery, infantry, and so on. If we include in the Council a member of the Senate and a member of the House of Representatives, we shall have Australian opinion represented, but if we were to have other professional officers on the Council we should find that they would inevitably be officers from the State in which the military affairs of the Commonwealth were being administered. For instance, under existing circumstances, we should find that the professional members of the Council of Defence would consist entirely of Victorians.We could not have experts on the Council of Defence brought from the other States. I presume that the Council to be of any use would require to sit pretty continuously.
– About eight times a year.
– Once a month.
– We cannot in a country as vast as the Commonwealth bring men from different States to confer once a month.We have arranged for a conference of Commandants once a year ; and I am entirely in favour of that.
– Yes, at Cup time.
– Not necessarily at Cup time, but I need not refer to that petty jibe. We could not have a Council properly representative of the Commonwealth assembling at one place every month ; and the inevitable result of having a number of expert members of the Council would be that the officers upon it would represent the State in which the Council of Defence sat, and there would be no improvement whatever upon the present system. I agree with Senator Dobson that it would not do at all to have five politicians on the Council of Defence. How can honorable senators suppose that we should get anything like unanimity in such a Council ? I cannot ask the Committee at this stage of the session to deal with a matter of this kind without proper consideration. If honorable senators desire to discuss the subject I am willing to postpone its consideration until next week. It should certainly be discussed when there is a better attendance of honorable senators, and not when a number have left.
– They have all paired.
– Honorable senators may have paired, but I think some have done so without being aware of what would be brought forward. It will be much better to postpone the consideration of the subject until there is a better attendance. It must not be forgotten that the proposal has already been discussed in a fuller Committee and decided the other way. Now, with a smaller attendance, and at the end of the week, it is proposed to alter the previous decision. We cannot expect to secure finality in connexion with our legislation if we act in this way. I hope that honorable senators will treat the matter seriously.
Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I have come to the conclusion that this is the proper time to put this Bill through.When it was proposed last week to postpone the discussion upon the Bill Senator Drake said that he must get the Bill through at once, because the country was waiting for it. Now the honorable and learned senator suggests that we should postpone its consideration indefinitely, or until, I suppose, there has been a whip round, and he can secure sufficient support to carry the Bill as it was introduced, and to perpetuate the old system of things under which the Minister for Defence, the Government, and every one else is under the influence of the General Officer Commanding. The time has arrived when the General Officer Commanding should pass as the controller of the Minister and the system of military defence. I cannot understand the attitude assumed by Senator Drake this afternoon. He has told us that the discussion upon this subject has been exhaustive, and that we have heard all that can be said about it, and now he suggests that it requires further consideration.We have given it our best consideration, and as the numbers are ten to eight the honorable and learned senator might just as well give in. Honorable senators who are absent have paired, and are all accounted for. The postponement of the consideration of the Bill for a week or a month will not alter the fact that the public of the Commonwealth, and the majority of honorable senators, have had their views altered very seriously by the report of the Royal Commission which has lately appeared in the press. Senator Drake may say that he has no knowledge of it, but the honorable and. learned senator must admit that there must- be a basis of fact for the reports which have appeared in the newspapers.
– I suggest that honorable senators should comply with the wish of the A ttorney-General and allow the debate to be adjourned till next week. As they are strong they ought to be generous. The Government have intimated very clearly that if this proposal is persisted in, they will have to consider whether they can go on with the Bill or not, and to drop it would be a very serious matter. If honorable senators are certain that absent members of the Senate are in favour of the present proposal, the Government will have to face the situation and accept it. There is some force in the Attorney-General’s suggestion that the matter should be considered in a fuller Committee, and his offer to postpone the consideration of the subject should be accepted.
– It appears to me that there is a majority against us ; and we have to bow to majorities in the country and in the Senate. The Government are not willing that there should be four members of Parliament on the Council of Advice, and if the amendment is persisted in they will support the proposal that there should be only two.
– As one who presided for nearly two years at a Council of Defence in the State of Victoria, I have decided to vote in favour of Senator Matheson’s amendment. I feel that it is most important that we should have in the Commonwealth a valuable Council of Advice such as we had constituted in Victoria. I am opposed to having too many politicians on the Council ; but I think that we require to have two common-sense business men ; and one representative of the Senate, and one of the House of Representatives, would be ample to bring business ideas before a Council of experts.In Victoria we had on the Council of Defence not only the General Officer Commanding, but the chief naval officer and the chief officer in charge of infantry. I think it would be well, in addition to the General Officer Commanding, to have on the Council two of the chief officers connected with the forces of the Commonwealth. It will probably be agreed that, when we are dealing with an expert or professional man, it is well to have another to look toas a check upon any recommendations he may make. If the amendment goes to a vote, I intend to support the proposal to have one member from each House of the Federal Parliament. I think we shall constitute a perfect Council if we have two members of the Parliament, one from each House, as representing the people of the Commonwealth, in addition to the professional representatives suggested.
Senator DOBSON (Tasmania).- I should like to say that while I am prepared to abandon the first part of my suggested amendment, I trust that the AttorneyGeneral will convey to the Minister for Defence in another place the fact that some honorable senators believe that the Council would be improved by the inclusion of other expert members. I still think that we should have only one member of the Senate and one member of the House of Representatives on the Council.
– I should like to see the question put in such a way that if honorable senators think it desirable they may be able to omit the reference to members of the Senate and House of Representatives. I do not see why the political element should be introduced on the Council of Defence. All matters connected with the military administration come before Parliament in some form or another, sooner or later, and then is the proper time for their consideration by honorable senators. To have mem bers of Parliament on the Council might have the effect of causing less interest to be taken in military matters than would otherwise be thecase, and I suggest that the amendment be so put that we may take a vote on the question of whether members of Parliament shall have seats on the Council.
- Senator Matheson had better ask leave to amend the amendment so as to provide for one member from each House to be on the Council.
– I ask that that alteration be made.
Amendment amended accordingly.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 10
NOES: 8
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 120-
The Governor-General may make regulations . . in relation to -
The establishment and composition of a Board of Advice, and the convenience, procedure, and powers of the board.
– As a consequential amendment, I move -
That the words ‘ ‘ and composition of a Board of Advice “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ of a Council of Defence.”
Amendment agreed to.
Clause also consequentially amended and agreed to.
Bill reported with further amendments ; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 5649
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.
page 5649
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.
page 5649
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.
page 5649
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.
page 5649
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :
Clause 4 -
A person who has obtained … a certificate of nauralization . . . shall be deemed to be naturalized.
Rouse of Representatives’ Amendment - After “Has,” line 1, insert “before the passing of this Act.”
SenatorDRAKE (Queensland - AttorneyGeneral). - I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Most of the amendments made by the House of Representatives are of an unimportant character, some being merely verbal. As to the first amendment, it was always intended that the clause should refer to persons who had obtained naturalization before the passing of the Act, but the words now before us were not inserted.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 -
An applicant . . . shall produce . . a certificate signed by a justice of the peace or three electors of the Commonwealth, whose addresses are stated on the certificate . . .
House of Representatives’ Amendment - Omit “or by three electors whose addresses are stated on the certificate,” and insert “a post master, a teacher of a State school, or an officer of police.”
– Ithinkthat the words which the House of Representatives proposes shall be substituted will not be objected to. It will be remembered that after a good deal of discussion an amendment by Senator McGregor was carried to the effect that the certificate could be signed by a justice of the peace, or by three electors, and the objections raised to that provision in the House of Representatives were similar to those which were so strongly urged in the Senate. This is a matter on which there is room for honest difference of opinion, but I think that we may safely agree to the suggestion of the House of Representatives. I move -
That the amendment he agreed to.
– I cannot see what is to be gained by the substitution of the words suggested by the House of Representatives. In the first place, we decided that the certificates should be signed by a justice of the peace or by three electors, to whom the applicant was known to be of good repute. I know a large number of people whom the local postmaster has never met.
– Are they known to the police 1
– Very probably not. They are not even known to a state school teacher. I think that the provision inserted by the Senate, was a better one than that substituted for it by the House of Representatives, and, therefore, I see no reason for going back upon what we have already done.
Motion ‘agreed to.
Remaining amendments’ in clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 8 -
Subject to any laws for the time being in force relating to the qualification of members of the Parliament and of electors of members of the Parliament, a person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall in the Commonwealth be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges and be subject tei all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in the Commonwealth.
House qf Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “Subject to any laws for the time being in force relating to the qualification of members of the Parliament and of electors of members of the Parliament” ; and add, at end of clause - “Provided that where by any provision of the Constitution or of any Act or State Constitution or Act a distinction -is made between the rights powers and privileges of naturalborn British subjects and those of persons naturalized in the Commonwealth or in a State, the rights powers and privileges conferred by this section shall for the purposes of that provision be only those (if ally) to which persons so naturalized are therein expressed to be entitled.”
– -The amendment made by the House of Representatives in this clause makes it perfectly clear that the rights obtained will be those that are conferred by the States Acts. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Amendments in clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 -
Souse of Representatives’ Amendment - After “ mother” insert “(being a widow or divorced).”
– It will be remembered that when we were discussing the Bill in Committee, there was a general expression of opinion that the distinction existing between men and women should be removed.. That was agreed to, and we made alterations to that effect throughout the Bill. In this clause we struck out certain words which, apparently it was necessary to do to carryout that general idea. But, on careful scrutiny, it appears that those words had a different signification from what was supposed, in the place where they occurred. Thefirst paragraph originally contained the words “ whose father or whose mother, being a widow or divorced.” We struck out thewords “ being a widow or divorced.” Honorable senators will see that it is necessary that those words should be in, in order to make it clear that the status of the infant depends in the first place upon whether the father has obtained a certificate of naturalization. Of course, if the father has not done so, it will depend on what the mother has done ; but it will not do to leave the matter uncertain, because the father mightkeep to one particular status and the mother to another. If we left the matter undetermined there might be cases where it would be absolutely uncertain what the statusof the child was. The other House, therefore, has inserted the words “ being a widow or divorced.” That means that if there is afather living his status determines the status of the child, and if there is no father, then the status of the mother determines the child’s status. I move -
That the amendment be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Remaining amendments in clause 10 agreed to.
Amendment in clause 1 1 agreed to. Resolutions reported ; report adopted.
page 5650
Senator DRAKE laid on the table, by command : -
Supplementary papers re prosecutions of Farmer and Company.
page 5650
Resolved (on motion by Senator Playford) -
That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday next.
Senate adjourned at 5.59 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 October 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1903/19031001_senate_1_17/>.