Senate
1 December 1909

3^rd Parliament · 4^th Session

CALL OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- STAMPS BRANCH, SUPERNUMERARY STAFF
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
QUESTION
- NEW SOUTH WALES RAILWAYS : CARRIAGE OF COAL
QUESTION
- PRESS CABLE SERVICE : SELECT COMMITTEE
CALL OF THE SENATE
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL
- Third Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL
- Second Reading
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL
ELECTORAL BILL
DEFENCE BILL

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

page 6583

CALL OF THE SENATE

Before the third reading of any Bill by which an ‘ alteration ‘ of the Constitution is proposed there shall be a call of the Senate.

Chapter xxi. contains the Standing Orders dealing with a call of the Senate. It is obvious from them that there can only be one call on one day. I mean that a call cannot be taken at every hour of the day, or with regard to any particular measure. Standing order 271, which was suspendedas regards the interval of twenty-one days, reads -

An order for a call of the Senate shall be made for any day not earlier than twenty-one days from the day on which such order shall have been made.

Standing order 273 reads-

The order for calling over the Senate on 1 futureday shall be set down as the first Order of the Day for the day so appointed.

There cannot be two first Orders of the Day. There can onlybe one call on one day, and that, necessarily, is fixed for a time when all senators are notified that it is desirable that they should be in attendance. That is the first Order of the Day. Of course, there might be twenty. Bills to amend the Constitution, but there can be only one call of the Senate for the day on which the third reading is to take place. The next rule shows that also -

The names of all senators who do not answer when called shall be token down by the Clerk, and subsequently called over a second time, when those who answer, or afterwards attend in their places on the same day, are ordinarily excused.

If, when the first Order of the Day is read, all senators do not answer to their names, they are given what is sometimes called locus penitentiae, and enabled, if they attend later, to answer to their names. I think that the orders for a call of the Senate were made a little improvidently there, because a call is not for the purpose of considering a measure at any stage, but simply for the purpose of insuring the attendance of senators before a certain stage of a Bill is reached. What I ask you, sir, to do is to say whether the true interpretation of the rules is that there can be only one call of the Senate on a particular day ? If there could be two independent calls on the same day, but at different hours, we should get into a state of very great confusion.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has correctly read the Standing Orders. But it does not appear to me that we are limited to taking only one Bill, or two or three Bills, on the day when a call is made. Once a call of the Senate has been made, it will be quite competent to take the business which it is necessary to have submitted’ then. But, in this instance, I believe it was felt desirable that honorable senators should be made fully acquainted with the measures which would be brought forward for consideration after the call had been made. Although it may appear irregular to make provision on the notice-paper for two calls of the Senate, still only one call will be made, and after the Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill has been dealt with, the Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Bill can be taken. T do not think that any difficulty will arise with regard to the conduct of business. It became necessary to make the order for the second call as the first one was made for a specific purpose. It was thought that, for the sake of more abundant caution, it would be better to make the second call, so that no question could be raised hereafter as to the position of the two measures. It was found necessary last evening to suspend part of standing order 273, but previously it had been determined that a call should be made.

page 6584

QUESTION

STAMPS BRANCH, SUPERNUMERARY STAFF

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister of Trade and Customs, in accordance with his promise of 10th November, made any representations to his colleague with a view to raising the wages of the long-ser vice female employes in the Stamps Branch, and, if so, with what result?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– In accordance with my promise to the Senate, on the following day I brought the matter specially under the notice of the Treasury officials, who informed me that they had already requested ‘ the Public Service Commissioner to make a report. Yesterday I made inquiries about the report, and learned that it should be ready in the course of a day or two, certainly before the Estimates are discussed: My honorable friend is, I think, aware that of late the Commissioner has had his hands very full. That may, to some extent, account for the report not being to hand.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Will the honorable senator endeavour to furnish the required information during the present week?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I have already assured my honorable friend that I will endeavour to do so.

page 6584

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council ask the Government to try to expedite the settlement of old-age pensions claims in South Australia? Of 6,098 claims which Have been made, 4,225 have been granted, 436 have been rejected, and no fewer than 1,437 are still under consideration, being twice as many as in any other State. I want the Government to look into the matter, and ascertain why the claims have not been settled quickly.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– I shall bring the remarks of the honorable senator under the notice of the Treasurer.

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

asked the Vice-Presi-. dent of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will the receipt of relief to persons on the funds of the Watson Miners’ Sustentation Fund of Bendigo, or other similar organizations, militate against the payment of an old-age pension to such recipients, or cause any reduction in the same?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

Payments under this fund are made to members of the association not able to work 00 account of sickness.

Such payments are already exempted from “Income” under the Invalid and Old-age Pen. sions Act, section 4-

page 6585

PAPERS

Senator MILLEN laid upon the table the following paper -

Public Service Act 1902. - Documents in connexion with the promotion of W. A. Maguire to the position of Clerk, 4th class, Public Service Commissioner’s Office.

The Clerk:

– Assistant laid on the table-

Return to Order of the Senate of 18th November, 1909 -

Commonwealth Public Service. - Proposed Pension or Superannuation Fund : Papers in connexion with.

page 6585

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask a question of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice. In view of the fact that the Seat of Government Bill has passed both Houses cf the Federal Parliament, will the Government be prepared, before the session closes, to make a statement with regard to the steps which they propose to take for carrying into effect the purposes of the measure ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I remind my honorable friend that it is yet necessary for New South Wales formally to cede the territory. . I think it unlikely that, until that has been done, the Federal Government will be prepared to make any further statement.

page 6585

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES RAILWAYS : CARRIAGE OF COAL

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has he noticed that, as announced in the newspapers of the 26th November, the New South Wales State Railways have gone on strike, and have refused to carry coal for the public?
In view of the disastrous effect which the said refusal must inevitably have on the industrial life of the whole community throughout the Commonwealth, and the widespread distress, loss, and suffering which it must entail on all classes of people, will the Government make representations to the New South Wales State authorities with a view to inducing them to resume their business of carrying coal for the public on the State Railways?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

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

From later reports it would appear that the earlier announcement referred to by the honorable senator is subject to an important modification.
While sharing to the fullest extent the general desire to minimize, as far as possible, the loss and suffering resulting from the present unfortunate industrial disturbance, the Government does not deem it judicious, the matter not being within Federal jurisdiction, to make any representations of the character referred to.

page 6585

QUESTION

PRESS CABLE SERVICE : SELECT COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have on several occasions requested honorable senators not’ to make interjections across the chamber. They do no good, and tend to create an unpleasant state of affairs. »

page 6585

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– The next business on the notice-paper being the Call of the Senate, I now direct the bells to be rung.

Senate called.

All the senators answered to their names.

page 6585

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator DE LARGIE (Western Australia) [2.54I - I move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 3, proposed new section 94B.

I desire to move an amendment slightly different from that moved in Committee by Senator McGregor. My proposal will be to fix a term for the operation of the new arrangement by inserting in proposed new section 94b after the words “From and,” the words “for a period of twenty-five years.” I had intended to submit an amendment to this effect when the Bill was in Committee, but, owing to an unfortunate incident that happened, I was absent when the opportunity occurred. It is necessary to make this .explanation, because I do not wish it to be supposed that I am moving this amendment with a view to causing delay. The adoption of a twenty-five years’ term will allow the agreement that we propose to enter into with the States to terminate at the same time as the special payment to Western Australia. It will then be open for Parliament to reconsider the whole position. Like many other honorable senators, I entertain the belief that the position may have to be reconsidered long before that time. Indeed, I. am sorry that I cannot secure a shorter term than twentyfive years. I believe that that is altogether too long, and that circumstances will force Parliament to take action before thaiperiod is completed. But, at all events, 1 consider that it is our duty to limit the period as far as we -can. If the proposition which I desire to submit be acceded to, the time for the operation of the agreement will-: synchronise arid fit in, with the Western Australian special payment period, and we shall then be able to reconsider the whole situation’ ‘without regard to the particular claims of any State. One of the weak spots in Senator McGregor’s proposal for a fifteen years’ ‘term ‘was that it treated the matter without regard to entanglements affecting any particular State. I think it will, be, admitted by those who have a knowledge of the possibilities of Western Australia that that State may in a few years return again to the condition of affairs in which she made an exceptionally high per capita contribution to the revenue. It requires no great stretch of imagination to perceive what the result of that would be. lt might involve great injustice to the people of the State. We know that when Federal expenditure is the subject of discussion, the people of a State who may be suffering will probably kick over the traces, and will talk in a way which it will not be agreeable for us to listen to. If it is probable that the per capita revenue derived in Western Australia will be much greater than that derived in other States, we should have some means of readjusting the matter. If we agree to this Bill as it stands, we shall have no opportunity to do so, and we shall have made possible a state of affairs which is not likely to conduce to the best interests of Australia. Honorable senators can well understand that if Western Australian- taxpayers are paying £2 per head into theFederal Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the taxpayers of other States are paying, not more than £1 per head, the Western Australian taxpayers are not likely to becontented. Speaking with some knowledge of the mining possibilities of Western Australia, I say that we may any morning read in the newspapers of the discovery of another Kalgoorlie, and the inflation of the Customs and Excise revenue of the State up to j£6 or £8 per head might follow almost immediately. In that case, the people of Western Australia would be paying into the Federal revenue very much more per head than the people of the other States, and the excess would not be handed back to them for expenditure in their State, but might be applied to expenditure inother States of the Federation. Western Australia is the largest of the States of the Commonwealth.- Its enormous territory has yet to be developed, and if the people of the State are not to be allowed to expend the money which they contribute themselves in its development, how can they be expected to make the best use of it? These are questions which will arise in the future, and it is, therefore, well that we should give them some attention now. It is scarcely necessary that T should recall a somewhat regretable incident in the recent history of Western Australia. I mention it merely to show how, in certain circumstances, the people of a State may be induced to look upon the Federation. Honorable senators will remember that both Houses of the Western Australian Parliament some time ago passed a resolutionfavouring the secession of that State from the Commonwealth. I frankly admit that I can complain of very little injustice having been done to Western Australia in the past by the Commonwealth, but it is possible, under this financial agreement, that such injustice will be done to the people of that State in the future. If with so little justification the State Parliament has carried a secession motion in the past, what mav we expect in the future. These are matters which should be carefully considered at this stage, before we take up a. position from which we shall be unable to retreat. Western Australia is likely tr> continue to need the biggest public expen- diture per capita of any of the States. The State Government have adopted a policy of retrenchment which has resulted, in some instances, in real hardship. There is a terrible outcry against it amongst the State civil servants, and if we force the State Parliament and Government into such a position that further retrenchment will be absolutely necessary in the future, it is clear that we shall give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction in the State. I hope that the amendment I have suggested will receive the consideration that it is entitled to, and that honorable senators will agree to fix a term for the operation of the financial agreement, so that the Federal Parliament may be in a position at some time in the future to review the whole position, and bring about readjustments of Customs and Excise revenue which will allay dis content in the various States. I have worked out some figures showing the effect of the present proposal upon the finances of Western Australia. I have estimated the growth of population in the State on the basis laid down in the last Budget papers, and have worked out the amount of Customs and Excise revenue which Western Australia will receive, on the per capita basis proposed in the financial agreement at the end of the twenty-five years term I suggest. I have also worked out the amount which Western Australia would receive if the revenue were distributed in accordance with the existing arrangement, on the basis of the per capita receipts in that State a few years ago. The figures are set out for each year from 1910-11 to 1935-36 inclusive. They are as follow : -

In order to show honorable senators what might happen if we agreed to the proposed financial agreement, I take the figures for the year 1935-6- On the basis I have followed, the population at that time would be 656,000, and the amount which Western Australia would receive from Customs and Excise on that population under this agreement would be ,£820,000. At that time, on the basis of the per capita return in 1902-3 of £4 15s. - and I have said that it is not at all unlikely that the return in twenty-five years’ time would amount to that, or twice that, amount per head - Western Australia would receive ^3, 120,000, while under the agreement the amount returned to it would be only £820,000. Can any honorable senator imagine that the people of any State in the Federation would be contented to have so much money taken from them?

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Under the agreement the Federal Parliament would have the power to do so. It is in order to prevent anything of the kind that I suggest an amendment of the Bill. Something similar might happen in the case of Queensland, or of any other State were a mining rush to take place. If anything of that kind occurred in Western Australia or in any other State of the Commonwealth it would be sure to lead to discontent.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator was saying only the other day that the Commonwealth could not afford to pay 25s. per head; now he is saying that it might have to pay considerably more.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have not said that the Commonwealth cannot afford to pay 25s. per head of the population of each State. I supported that proposal before Senator Millen did so. It was the Labour Convention at Brisbane that initiated the 25s. per head scheme, and all Labour members support it, and have not a word to say against it. I believe that for a very long period mining will continue to be the principal industry in Western Australia, and that State will always show a very high per capita return of Customs and Excise revenue. I shall not take up more time in labouring this matter, recognising that it has been already fully discussed, and at the close of the session I should not be warranted in .discussing it at greater length than I have done.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I was expecting to hear some favorable reply to the proposal for a recommittal from the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I believe that evert at this eleventh hour the Government and their misguided followers should be prepared to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them to retrace their steps. I hope that they will see the folly of the course they have pursued, and be prepared to retain for the Federal Parliament the powers voluntarily given to it by the electors about ten years ago. One important reason mentioned by the Vice-President of the Executive Council has been to some extent lost sight of. The honorable senator said that if we placed a time limit upon the operation of this agreement it would be less flexible than it would be if it were embodied in the Constitution without any limit as to the time. The plain inference to be drawn from that is that if the agreement be inserted in the Constitution without a limit of time it will be revokable at any time. Do I understand the Government desire that ? Senator Vardon is of the opinion that the agreement is not likely to be satisfactory to the electors for a period of more than the period covered by three Parliaments. The honorable senator is in favour of a time ‘limit. So is the Minister in charge of the Bill, but he will not say so directly. He says that by fixing a time limit the agreement will be less flexible than it would be if placed in the Constitution without a time limit. The honorable senator’s words on the subject were very clear. He said -

Those who favour the insertion of a time limit in the Constitution can I think hardly resist this contention, that there would be more of the clement of fixity if a time limit were set out than there is in the Bill as it stands.

I am sure that honorable senators will recognise, even at this stage of our consideration of the Bill, the need for arriving at the conclusion which is outlined in the proposal of Senator de Largie. His proposition, if adopted, will preserve a wise balance between those who wish to retain the. powers of this Parliament on the one hand, and those who desire to surrender them on the other. We must all recognise that the period of twenty-five years over which an allowance is to be made to Western Australia is just as much an integral part of the agreement as is the 25s. per capita, which is annually to be returned to the States. Within the four corners of the agreement are three or four important proposals. The first contemplates the payment in perpetuity - or for so long a period as the electors are satisfied that it shall be made - of 25s. per head to every State. The next proposal is that in order to reimburse the Commonwealth for its expenditure upon old-age pensions, the States shall grant it the sum of£600,000 during next year. Another important provision, so far as one of the States is concerned, is that a special allowance upon a progressively declining scale shall be made to it for a period of twenty-five years. But if any of the contingencies to which reference was made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council in his speech upon the second reading of this Billshould arise - if, for example, the electors desire to bring the agreement to an end at the expiration of seven or eight years - what will become of the provision relating to the special allowance to Western Australia for a period of twenty-five years? It will simply be so much waste paper. I feel that the proposal of Senator de Largie offers a reasonable compromise as between those who think that this Parliament should hold fast to its powers and those who believe that it should surrender them. Under it, a commonsense adjustment would be made as between the States and the Commonwealth. It would afford us breathing time, and, above all, it would give the electors afair opportunity of assessing the demands which are likely to be made upon the Commonwealth. It is an eminently fair proposal, one which would preserve a proper balance between the opposing forces in this Chamber, and at the same time would be likely to produce a rensonable amount of harmony between the States and the Commonwealth.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 3, proposed new section 94b - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 18

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I have not very much to say upon this Bill before the motion for its third reading is carried, as I am sure it will be. But there is one matter to which I desire briefly to refer. The other day the Premier of Queensland, in dealing with this agreement in the Queensland Parliament, said -

Practically all the objection taken to this agreement is that it has to be ratified by the people.

So far as I am concerned, that is not my objection to it. I have no objection whatever to the people retaining complete control over the proportion of the Customs and Excise revenue which shall be utilized by the Commonwealth for its own purposes, and over the proportion which shall be handed over to the States. My objection to the agreement is that, instead of renewing the Braddon “ blot “ for an additional period of ten years, this Bill contemplates the return to the States of 25s. per capita in perpetuity. I have always favoured the extension of the Braddon section for ten years, and the retention by this Parliament of the power to adjust the financial relations of the States to the Commonwealth at the end of that-period, without any reference whatever to the States and without taking a referendum. It is not correct to say that practicallv all the objection taken to the agreement is that it has to be ratified by the people. The Premier of Queensland has endeavoured to make it appear that those who are opposed to the remission of this agreement to the people, fear the people, that they are undemocratic, and that whilst thev profess to be the advance guard of Democracy they are in reality Conservatives in disguise. Now, I submit that the people of Australia through this Parliament have full control of the finances of the Commonwealth. They can say to their representatives what share of the Customs and Excise revenue shall be paid to the States, and they can do so very much more effectively than they will be able to dr under the proposed agreement. I have no doubt that it will be comparatively easy to get the agreement embodied in the Constitution.

Senator Walker:

– That shows that the people believe in it.

Senator STEWART:

– They do for the present. I believe in it for the present. It is probably the best arrangement which could be made for a limited period, and consequently it will be an easy matter to get it embodied in the Constitution. But what about taking it out of the Constitution ? Suppose that ten years hence the Commonwealth finds itself in financial difficulties, and proceeds to agitate for a revision of the agreement. Will it not be met with the opposition of every State Government? By that time each State Government will have a vested interest in the 25s. per capita which the Commonwealth has annually to return to the States. It will have been arranging its expenditure and its taxation on that basis. Its whole finances will have been based on a perpetual payment of 25s. per head, and no matter how serious a position the Commonwealth may be in there will be very great difficulty in persuading the people to alter the provision. Suppose that you have an overwhelming majority in the three large States in favour of an alteration. If a comparatively small and insignificant minority in the three States object, then it cannot be brought about. Is there anything undemocratic in that? Is it not very much more undemocratic than to leave the matter in the full control of a majority of the people through the Federal Parliament? Suppose that the matter were left in the hands of this Parliament. If the two Houses did not agree as to a division, then after certain preliminaries they could meet, and a majority of the representatives of the people would decide the point. But if this agreement is embodied in the Constitution, then a small minority of the people can block an alteration of the provision in perpetuity. There is not anything very Democratic in that. While I have admitted that for the present the amount is probably as good as could be made, I reiterate my contention when I spoke last on this subject. If this payment is to be made in perpetuity, then Protection as we desire to see it in Australia will be an impossibility. Ours is much more a revenue Tariff than- the Tariff of any State, except Queensland, has ever been. Prior to Federation the annual yield per head from Customs and Excise in Queensland was about £3 2s. 6d.

Senator Fraser:

– And now they will have to do with 25s. per head. What a sacrifice !

Senator STEWART:

Senator STEWART:

– Even New South Wales is receiving more from Customs and Excise than she received under her Free Trade Tariff. Under Federation, New South Wales has benefited very largely. She has benefited from the Protective policy inaugurated against the wishes of a large section of the people of that State. I do not intend to prolong the discussion. I repeat my belief that within ten years a revision of the arrangement will be necessary. But in the meantime it will lead to a great amount of recrimination and struggle between the States and the Commonwealth. I believe it will cripple the Commonwealth.

I believe it will be destructive of our industries. I believe it will damage Protection, buttress land monopoly, cause unemployment, increase the cost of living, and injure the working people. And all for what ? All to save the rich from taxation. That is really the purpose of this agreement - to save wealth, and to heap burdens of taxation on the shoulders of poverty.

Question - That the Bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 16

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority of the Senate.

Bill read a third time.

page 6592

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that the third Order of the Day to which Senator Neild calls attention need be discharged. It may be ignored, as it is purely a matter of surplusage.

Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority of the Senate.

Bill read a third time.

page 6593

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[4.0]. - I move -

That this Billbe now read a second time.

In these, the closing hours of the session, it is not my. intention to make any elaborate speech in connexion with this matter. It it, however, my duty, in the most concise manner possible, to bring under the notice of honorable senators certain facts with which for its proper consideration it is necessary they should be made acquainted.

Senator Givens:

– It is like all the other Bills. The Government have made another agreement in which they have sacrificed the interest of the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Surely the honorable senator will be good enough to allow me to proceed when I give him my assurance that I will be as brief as possible. When we come to consider the financial aspect of the question, it will be my duty to go through the various clauses dealing with the subject, and to explain exactly the financial obligations it is proposed that the Commonwealth shall incur. I may be permitted to say that on the 6th July, 1863, Royal Letters Patent were issued annexing the Northern Territory to South Australia, and containing these words amongst others -

Until We think fit to make other disposition thereof…..

And We do hereby reserve . . . full power and authority from time to time to revoke alter or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them shall seem fit.

While it may be admitted that at one time the contention was possible that this was a qualified grant, it was put an end to completely upon the passage of the Imperial Act, which gave us our Constitution and established Federation. The Constitution Act provides in section 6 that - “ The States “ shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales. New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the Northern Territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State.

Under section 11 of the Constitution power is given to the States to surrender territory, and under that power South Australia acts in connexion with this agreement. The section provides that -

The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth ; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

That disposes of the contention that there was a qualified grant of this territory to South Australia. I take this opportunity to place on record my tribute of admiration to South Australia for the courageous manner in which she has borne the burden of the Northern Territory from 1863 to the present time, notwithstanding many tempting offers to hand it over.

Senator Gray:

– What tempting offers did she get?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I hope my honorable friend will not interrupt me.

Senator Gray:

– This is a serious matter.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– It is because it is so serious a matter that I wish, as impartially as I can, to submit certain facts for the consideration of honorable senators. South Australia has borne the burden of the Northern Territory since 1863. During that period it was quite open to the State to have abandoned that Territory. During that period many tempting offers wete made under which South Australia might have permitted the occupation of the Northern Territory by coloured races, and entered into arrangements very advantageous to herself in connexion with the construction of the transcontinental railway on the land grant system.

Senator Givens:

– Did she ever prohibit the employment of coloured labour in her mines, as the other States have done?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
VICTORIA · PROT

– She has not encouraged the influx of coloured labour, and has resisted offers which would have involved the introduction of coloured labour on a large scale. As South Australia was bearing this great burden, which really was a burden which one State ought not to have been called upon to bear, it was a fair suggestion on her part that on the establishment of Federation the Northern Territory should be taken over by the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth should assume all the national obligations associated with it. On the 18th April, 1901, the late Sir Frederick Holder, who was then Premier of South Australia, wrote to the Federal Government intimating that South Australia was prepared to offer the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth on the Federal Government assuming the liabilities of the Territory. In the course of his letter he said -

I may mention that had South Australia been willing to have given carte blanche to capitalists to introduce coloured labour into the Territory a sum of money estimated at about £10,000,000 would have been forthcoming to establish a chartered company to take over the Territory with its assets and liabilities to South Australia, and to carry out the construction of the remaining portion of the overland railway. This offer was declined by the South Austraiian Government in its own interest, and in the interests of Australia.

Nothing appears to have been done under that letter. But it is noteworthy -that in the month of September, 1902, a resolution was carried by the House of Representatives in these words -

That in the opinion of this House it is advisable that the complete .control and jurisdiction of the Northern Territory of South Australia be acquired by the Commonwealth upon just terms.

Senator Gray:

– Upon just terms.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Exactly. No action was taken upon that resolution pending the consideration of a Bill which was before the South Australian Legislature, which was duly passed, and which had for its object the construction of the transcontinental railway upon the land grant system. That Bill having been passed in 1902, the offer of South Australia to hand over the Territory to the Commonwealth was for a time withdrawn, and tenders were called for the construction of the overland railway. One tender in particular was received, 1 think, in 10,06. The late Mr. Price was in office at the time, and his Government decided to decline the tender, and that it was proper that negotiations should be reopened with the Commonwealth. The tender was declined and negotiations with the Comomnwealth reopened. Before that was done the matter was fully discussed by the Legislature of South Australia, and a determination come to as to the terms on which the State would be prepared to hand over the Territory. Those terms were communicated to the Prime Minister of the second Deakin Government. Negotiations and conferences took place, and the outcome of those conferences was that an agreement was finally reached and signed on the 7th December, 1907. That agreement appears as the schedule to this Bill. The object of the Bill is the confirmation cf that agreement. Its confirmation, of course, means the acceptance of the Nor thern Territory upon the terms of that agreement. On the 21st December, 1907,. the Parliament of South Australia passed an Act surrendering the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth. The Royal Assent was given to that’ Act on the 14th May, 1908. I intend to refer in the briefest way to a few of the physical features of the Northern Territory. My idea is to speak generally, and I shall make reference to> certain papers which have been circulated, and from which honorable senators may obtain further details. The Northern Territory comprises an area of 523,620 square miles, or 335,116,800 acres. ‘ South Australia proper is separated from the Northern Territory by the 26th parallel of latitude. The coast line of the Territory exceeds 1,300 miles, and there are many islands, of which the principal are Melville Island, Bathurst Island, Wessel’s Islands, Groote Eylandt, and Sir Edward Pellew’s Group, in close proximity to the northern and eastern shores. The man- rivers which most amply water the northern portion of this Territory, and which are navigable for nearly the whole of their length, are the Victoria, the Daly, the Adelaide, the Alligator, the Liverpool, the Goyder, .the Roper, and the McArthur. The population is merely nominal. In 1908 there were 1,081 Europeans there, and* 1,892 persons of other nationalities, making a total of 2,973. There were then,, and there are now, from 20,000 to 25,000 aborigines in the Territory. With respect to the government of the Territory, that portion of it north of Barrow’s Creek is, subject to Ministerial approval, controlled -by a Government Resident, who has under his immediate oversight the Departments of police, gaols, charitable institutions, board’ of health, law officers, marine, stock and’ brands, botanic garden, survey, goldfieldsand mining, education, public works, &c. South of Barrow’s Creek the Territory isdealt with directly from Adelaide. All. South Australian legislation, unless expressly excepted as provided for under the Northern Territory Justices Act of 1884, applies to the Northern Territory. TheGovernment Resident issues annual reports. The imports and exports of the Territory are interesting. In 1907 the imports werevalued at £78-996, and the exports at £345,721. The main exports are wolfram, copper, cattle, trepang, tin ore, bullion gold, horses, pearlshell, hides and’ horns, silver ore, silver matte, and copper matte. In 1907 the cattle exported num- bered 46,969, and were valued at £206,460. In 1908 there were some 400,000 cattle in the Territory, and in that year 31,636 were exported, of the value of ,£142,998. There was an export of hides to the value of ^£4,469. There are some 20,000 horses in the Territory, and last year 1,459 were exported, of the value of £i4.395- In 1903 there were 61,538 sheep in the Territory, and in 1907 the number was 44, 232. Up to December. 1908, the total value of the metals and minerals’ produced was £2,565,578, of which gold represented £2,029,422. In 1908 the number of miners employed in the Territory was 824, of whom 150 were Europeans and 674 Chinese. The value of the production of gold and minerals during that year was £67,075, whilst the value of the machinery used was £53,070. The yearly average value of its mineral products is £89,727, and the average number of miners employed is 1,176. Speaking generally of the soil of the Territory, it may be stated that there are rich fertile coastal districts which are suitable for agriculture - districts of considerable area - whilst inland there are vast stretches of pastoral country. It has already been proved by experiments extending over twenty years that all classes of tropical

– The other plants which have been successfully grown by the .Messrs. Holtze are arrowroot, tapioca, spices, including pepper, cinnamon, ginger, cassia, citronella, nutmeg, vanilla, millet, and sorghum, sugar, coffee, cocoa, all tropical fruits, rubber of several varieties and fodder grasses of many kinds. On the subject of the soil and its capabilities, Mr. Simpson Newland in his book Land Grant Railway Across Central Australia, writes -

There* is no doubt that the Northern Territory is singularly noted for the growth of cotton. Although not indigenous it is now found growing wild in the jungles and there is no place in the world more adapted for its successful cultivation.

Then the Honorable J. Langdon Parsons, who administered the Territory for some time, wrote -

These Northern Territory lands have been by some overpraised, by others much underdepreciated. In such a vast expanse of Australian country there are stony wastes, rolling sand-hills, spinifex thickets, waterless regions, rocky and sterile ranges. But there are also wide undulating downs, broad, well-grassed plains, rich alluvial flats, and on the north coast large navigable rivers.

Mr. David Lindsay, who has made a special study of the Territory, and who is a man whose report may reasonably be relied upon, says -

We have a country capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of cattle and horses and millions of sheep; extensive agricultural areas ‘ which will produce sugar, rice, coffee, cotton, and nearly all other tropical and sub-tropical products necessary for our use; and the wonderful mineral wealth of gold, silver, tin, and copper, all combined, will make the somewhat despised Northern Territory of vast importance, and place it in the front rank of the Australian States.

Senator Gray:

– Does the honorable senator believe that ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I do. I have had a map of the Territory hung upon the south wall of the chamber. It is not a large one, and unless honorable senators approach it closely they will scarcely be able to follow my remarks. Upon that map the land which has been sold is coloured green. ‘ As will be seen, it occupies a very small patch. The pastoral land is coloured pink; land in connexion with which annual permits exist are coloured white with red outlines, and unleased lands are not coloured. Only 473,809 acres’ have been alienated in fee simple. There are 99,740,068 acres held under pastoral and other leases, whilst under annual leases and permits there are 16,563,840 acres, a total occupation under leasehold and permits of 116,777,717 acres, leaving a balance unoccupied of 218,339,083 acres. I scarcely think it is necessary for me to refer to some statements which have been made in connexion with the Australian Railways and Territory League. I know that the objects of that League have been made the subject of comment both here and elsewhere. I already had documents printed refuting the suggestions which have been made in this connexion. Mr. David Lindsay, to whom I have already referred, writes -

I was engaged as joint secretary and writer and lecturer to the League, to prepare maps, reply to newspaper articles and letters, and to generally disseminate reliable reports and information about the Northern Territory.

He has forwarded to my colleague, the Minister of External Affairs, a very full statement concerning the history and objects of the League. He points out -

From a perusal of this you will see that the League is purely a patriotic association, with neither land nor property, and has no ulterior object in view.

Towards the close of his letter he says -

From the above it is abundantly clear that the A. R. and T. League is in no sense a land syndicate, and has no ulterior motive in view. Amongst the subscribers to the funds of the League we find the names of Bagot, Shakes, and Lewis, trustees” of Cowan’s estate, and G. Buchanan. Now the Hon. J. Lewis, who holds pastoral leases near Newcastle Waters, is bitterly opposed to the transfer on any conditions. Mr. G. Buchanan holds leases on Sturt’s Creek and on the Western Australian border, and is a resident of Sydney. Mr. Lindsay, who represented the League in Melbourne, has no interest beyond holding 100 acres of agricultural land near Port Darwin, which he bought in 1882.

These quotations, together with the correspondence which has already been circulated, conclusively show that this League is what it purports to be, namely, a patriotic League having for its object the promotion of the best interests of the Northern Territory. The question of the land tenures of the Territory would, in itself, be very interesting; but I propose to refer to it only very briefly, and to point out where honorable senators may obtain all the details that they may desire. Fortunately, the Government Resident, in his report for 1907, gives a brief description of the tenures under which the lands of the Territory are held from the Crown. He says -

These were either created under Statutes prior to 1890, but now repealed, or under the Northern Territory Crown Lands Act 1890 and Acts amending or supplementary to it.

He then gives a summary of the respective tenures under present legislation, together with a synopsis of the conditions peculiar to each. The classes of tenure are - right of purchase leases, perpetual leases, freehold, leases for the growth of agricultural products, annual leases, leases for special purposes, leases for the encouragement of the establishment of horse-breeding stations for the remount service, holdings under the Northern Territory Tropical Product Act, pastoral leases, and commonage licences. Full particulars regarding these various tenures can be obtained from some of the papers which have been circulated. But I make the following quotation because I’ deem it of special interest, premising it with the remark that comparatively little land has been alienated since 1881 -

The suspension of the practice of granting pastoral leases, which commenced in 1902, just prior to the passing of the Land Grant Railway Act, has been continued, pending the result of the consideration of the proposal of transfer of this territory to the Commonwealth. The provisions of a somewhat unpretentious section (81) of the Act of 1890 were called into requisition to provide a substitute. It cannot be called either an acceptable or efficient substitute, providing as it does, only for an annual permit to occupy and even then determinable at three months notice. The wonder is that it has been so extensively availed of by pastoralists, no less than 32,306 square miles being held under its provisions.

That it should be so is an indication, firstly, of the high merit of our pastoral country ; and, secondly, of the trust placed in the Government by the permittees that they would not be dispossessed without valid and weighty reason. Assurance was given by the honorable the Minister in August last to the effect that when the country is again made available for leasing purposes a prior right to a lease, except where agricultural country is included, will be given to permittees who have complied with the conditions of their permit as to payment of rent, and who have stocked the land comprised in their permits in all respects as if the permits they hold were pastoral leases. The assurance tends to make the position more acceptable, coupled though it is with a condition of stocking foreign to the terms of the permit. The condition, however, was deemed necessary to prevent country being taken up for speculative purposes.

– The information which my honorable friend seeks is contained in the papers which have been circulated. However, if he is voracious for information, I would refer him to a return laid before the other House in 1907, and showing -

The names of individual holders of alien ated land within the Territory (excluding Palmerston and suburbs), together with the following particulars, viz. : -
1. Total area and estimated capital value of each holding,
2. Nature of the tenure and terms upon which such lands are held.
3. Nature and estimated value of improvements effected on such land by the holders.
4. The purposes for which such lands were alienated.
5. The number of men employed (white and coloured) by each holder.
Similar information relating to lands held by companies or syndicates, and the namesof the persons comprising them.
Similar information (excepting as to paragraphs d and e) relating to the town of Palmerston and its suburban area.

Full details, ifdesired, can be obtained from the papers which have been circulated. There is hardly a question which can be asked relevant to the Northern Territory on which we have not endeavoured to supply complete information. Before dealing with the financial aspect of the question, I desire to say a few words with regard to defence. I would first draw attention to the geographical position of the northern portions of this area, and to the fact that they are very much closer to foreign countries of established military and naval reputation than they are to some of the main centres of Australia. The distance from Port Darwin to Thursday Island is 730 miles, to Fremantle 2,092 miles, to Brisbane 2,160 miles, to Sydney 2,634 miles, to Melbourne 3,210 miles by the east coast route and 3,952 miles by the west coast route, and to Adelaide 3,453 miles by the west coast route and 3,709 miles by the east coast route. The distance frnm Port Darwin to Amboina in. the Dutch East Indies is 580 miles only, to Sandakan in Borneo 1,440 miles, to Batavia in Tava 1,705 miles, to Manila in the Philippines 1,872 miles, to Singapore 1,902 miles, to

Hong Kong 2,350 miles, and to Colombo 3, 253. miles. It will be seen that Port Darwin is nearer to Hong Kong than to Sydney. About twenty years ago a report on the defence aspect of the question was made by Major-General J. Bevan Edwards, C.B., commanding the troops in China and Hong Kong. What he stated carries even greater weight to-day than it did then. He said -

No general defence of Australia can be undertaken unless its distant parts are connected with the more populous Colonies in the south-east of the Continent. If an enemy was established in either Western Australia or at Port Darwin, you would be powerless to act against him. Their isolation is, therefore, a menace to the rest of Australia. . . . The interests of the whole Continent, therefore, demand that the railways to connect Port Darwin and Western Australia with the other Colonies should be made as soon as possible.

Again, Sir George le Hunte, who was Governor of South Australia, and was intimately acquainted with the Northern Territory, made the following reference to Port Darwin in a report which he wrote -

The harbor is a very fine one - deep, well sheltered, and capable of being easily defended. Its position with regard to the Eastern Archipelago and the great Asiatic trading centres ought to make it a very important commercial port in the future, while from its strategic position it might prove a very valuable base in the event of developments which may, and in the course of time are nearly certain to, take place amongst the Powers in the East. There is, in my opinion, every reason why Australia should appreciate and safeguard one of its most important positions. It will be a most dangerous thing to neglect or undervalue it.

From the report on the land grant railway from Adelaide to Port Darwin, which was authorized by the Government of South Australia, I quote the following extract: -

Major-General Sir William Jervois, R.E., late Governor of that State, when visiting Port Darwin some years since in connexion with defence matters said, “ Port Darwin is the key to the East.”

I have quoted this eloquent testimony by men who were anxious to promote our highest and best interests in order to show that the condition of the Northern Territory is a menace to the whole of Australia. It is my duty now to refer to the financial obligations which this Bill will impose upon the Commonwealth. I call the attention of honorable senators to clause 1 of the agreement, which appears as a schedule to the Bill.

The terms and conditions of this agreement are as follow : -

The Commonwealth in consideration of the surrender of the NorthernTerritory and property of the State therein and the grant of the rights hereinafter mentioned to acquire and to construct railways in South Australia proper shall : -
1. Be responsible for the indebtedness of the State in respect of the Northern Territory as from the date of acceptance of such surrender and shall relieve the State from the said indebtedness in the following manner : -

As regards the responsibilities incurred under that clause, on the 30th June, 1908, there were loans outstanding to the amount of£2, 768,062. From that has to be deducted an unexpended amount of £16,169 and a sinking fund of £26,132, held by the State Treasurer, leaving an indebtedness of£2,725,761. The loans will mature at various dates, extending from the present year to 1939. To that amount of indebtedness there has to be added £602,222, which represents a floating deficiency. The total indebtedness, including loans raised for the Pine Creek railway, and the deficit thereon, but not including loans raised for the Oodnadatta railway, and the deficit thereon, is £3,327,983.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What assets are there to represent the first item of

-The sum represents the amount that has not been met by the raising of loans; but if my honorable friend will hear me through he will, as I am anxious that all honorable senators shall do, thoroughly understand the financial aspect of the matter. I will turn now to subclause b, and I suggest that it should be read in conjunction with sub-clause d. Sub-clause b provides -

Construct or cause to be constructed a railway line from Port Darwin southwards to a point on the northern boundary of South Australia proper (which railway with the railway from a point on the Port Augusta Railway to connect therewith is hereinafter referred to as The Transcontinental Railway).

That, of course, refers to the construction of a railway from Port Darwin down to the northern boundary of South Australia proper. Subclause d provides -

Construct or cause to be constructed as part of the Transcontinental Railway a railway from a point on the Port Augusta Railway to connect with the other part of the Transcontinental Railway at a point on the northern boundary of South Australia proper.

Senator Dobson:

– Does the Minister think that the railwaycould be constructed for . £4, 500,000?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is the information which the Department has. Paragraph c provides -

At the time of such surrender acquire from the State at the price and on the terms hereinafter mentioned the Port Augusta Railway including the lands now used for and reserved for such railway together with all stations and other buildings sidings wharfs and other accessories used in connexion with the working of the said railway except the railway carriages trucks and other movable plant and rolling-stock.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The point is that we are called upon in this matter to do justice to South Australia, and I am urging that a fair bargain has been entered into in this regard. The line from Port Darwin to Port Augusta would be a national line and be of great advantage to the Commonwealth. Bearing in mind the comparatively trifling amount involved in connexion with the Port Augusta railway in a vast transaction of this kind, the agreement proposes what is fair and just to the Commonwealth and to South Australia. This agreement goes on to provide -

By annually reimbursing the State the interest payable thereon and by paying annually into a Commonwealth sinking fund the amounts the State has undertaken to pay into such a fund in connexion with the said loans until the said loans are paid and redeemed by the Commonwealth as or before they become due.

The present annual interest on these loans is £84,088. The annual payment to sinking fund at the rate of one-quarter per cent, on £2,242,342 amounts to £5,606. I pass over- a good deal of the agreement, which does not involve financial obligations. The third clause of the agreement provides that-

In consideration of the Commonwealth becoming responsible for the indebtedness of the State in respect of the Northern Territory in manner be forementioned

The total indebtedness of the Territory on 30th June was -

The agreement continues - the State hereby releases the Commonwealth from the liability imposed by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act on the Commonwealth to compensate the State for any State properties within such Northern Territory vested in the Commonwealth in connexion with any Departments of the State transferred to the Commonwealth under the provisions of the said Constitution.

Clause 14 in the proviso to sub-clause a of the Bill sets out that, notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement, the Commonwealth shall compensate the State (if the Government so require) for that portion of the overland telegraph line which is in the Northern Territory. It was necessary to modify the agreement in that manner, because the overland telegraph line being always considered an undertaking of South Australia proper, the cost thereof is not included in the indebtedness of the Territory. Now as to the annual loss of the Northern Territory only, here are the figures -

If the Northern Territory alone were included in the agreement the Commonwealth Treasury would have to provide annually the following : -

This loss of£158,439 does not include anything for special Commonwealth expenditure on development of the Territory, or any loss on the Oodnadatta railway, or on the new transcontinental railway.

Senator Gray:

– Does the honorable senator think we shall get the money at 3 per cent. ?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I hope the Commonwealth will be able to do so. The present annual loss, including the Port Augusta railway, is shown in this statement -

If, therefore, the Northern Territory is taken over by the Commonwealth together, with the railway from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta, the annual sum to be provided by the Commonwealth, based on the year 1907-8, would be -

– No.

Senator GIVENS:

– In order to remove all doubts in the minds of honorable senators. I propose to place on record some clauses of the agreement. In paragraph b of clause1, the Commonwealth binds itself to -

Construct or cause to be constructed a railway line from Port Darwin southwards to a point on the northern boundary of South Australia proper (which railway with the railway from a point on the Port Augusta Railway to connect therewith is hereinafter referred to as The Transcontinental Railway).

That is the first railway which we are bound to construct. We are not to be allowed to decide where it shall go.

Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Millen) read a first time.

page 6609

HIGH COMMISSIONER BILL

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives, returning this Bill with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, with the exception of amendment No. 5, to which the House had not agreed, but in place thereof had made an amendment in clause 7, in which itrequested the concurrence of the Senate.

page 6609

ELECTORAL BILL

The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message from’ the House of Representatives, intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the Senate’s amendment in this Bill.

page 6609

DEFENCE BILL

In Commitee (Consideration resumed from 17th November, vide page 5898) :

Clause 13 -

Section sixty-three of the Principal Act is amended by inserting therein, after paragraph (d), the following paragraphs : - “(da) Establish and maintain factories for the manufacture of naval and military equipment and uniforms; “(db) Authorize the employment of persons in a civil capacity for any purpose in connexion with the Defence Force, or in any factory established in pursuance of this Act ; “ and by adding thereto the following subsection : - “(2.) Persons employed in a civil capacity in pursuance of this section shall not be subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902, but shall be engaged for such periods and shall be subject to such conditions as are prescribed.”

Upon which Senator Story had moved by wav of amendment -

That after paragraph (db) the following paragraph be inserted : - (dc) “ Establish and maintain depotsand farms for the breeding and rearing of horses for military purposes.”

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I was disappointed with the reception which my amendment met with from the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I explained that it was intended merely to be permissive, and to enable the Government to establish farms and depots for the breeding of horses for defence purposes. Senator Millen did not reply to the observations I made in moving the amendment. He confined himself to ridiculing the proposal. He stated that horse breeding is a most precarious business, and that only few of those who go into it escape the Insolvency Court. If that were so - and I do not admit it - it would be a strong argument in favour of my amendment. If the business of horse breeding is so precarious, private persons will not engage in it to any great extent, and unless we adopt some such means as I suggest to overcome the difficulty. I would ask what we are to do when, supposing we were called upon to defend ourselves, a large number of horses suitable for military purposes were required on very short notice?

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator is aware that a large number of horses are exported from Australia?

Senator STORY:

– With a view to showing that the Vice-President of the Executive Council should have known better, I propose to read one or two extracts from that report which will prove that it is not a useless class of animal which is being bred on the overland telegraph line.

Senator Millen:

– I said that the breeding there was of a nondescriptcharacter. The report proves that the mares with which the settlers started were of thaf character.

Senator STORY:

– The report furnished by Mr. Waddy to the Committee of Inquiry reads -

Referring to your memorandum of the 5th inst., Ibeg to attach a copy of my memo. of 15th February last, together with a memo. from the senior inspector, who was one of the earliest stationmasters on the Port Darwin line, and a very successful horse-breeder, and another from Mr. T. Hanley, who for years was in charge of the central line repairing party on the overland telegraph line. To these I can only add -

That we have not been extensive breeders of stock, but simply breed enough to supply our own wants.

We pay 10s. each for gelding the colts, and we have not a good horse-breaker in our employ ; we pay £1 each for breaking in the horses; this is the only cost, as the natural grasses provide all the feed necessary, and the horses are attended to, mustered, &c., by the officers and men employed at the telegraph stations.

The horses we breed being a cross between a blood stallion and a light draught mare, have strength and endurance, and might be described as powerful hacks ; some of a lighter stamp are bred for use in quick journeys.

That is exactly the stamp of horse that is required for military purposes.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Senator STORY:

– The quotation continues -

The horses being reared in such dry country can travel if necessary two days without water, and this is sometimes an advantage.

There are large areas of land untenanted, which could be obtained from the State Government, the rental averages from 6d. to1s. a square mile.

Then followed a memorandum to which Mr. Waddy alluded in his report, and which gives the number of horses and the cost of maintenance. Continuing, he wrote -

In connexion with this, a few words of explanation are necessary.

When the Overland Telegraph Line to Port Darwin was completed, we had a number of good horses, used in construction, left on our hands. Many of these were mares, they were divided between the various stations. A good blood stallion was sent through the line, and we were therefore enabled to breed all the horses we required for the interior, of a good stamp, just suited to the dry Northern Country.

We do not often buy a horse, but when some are required for the line parties in the south, have a supply sent from Charlotte Waters or Barrow’s Creek.

The numbers at Alice Springs and other stations in the north appear large, but only a few are kept at the station in readiness for emergency, and the rest are running in the scrub, and the figures given are last year’s muster.

We send no fodder to the interior, but in times of severe drought we have had to send some to Port Darwin, and to No. 8 Party, which has charge of the line through Sturt’s Stony Desert.

Senator Millen:

– I thought the honorable senator said that there was no drought there.

Senator STORY:

– There is no drought where I propose that the breeding stations should be established, namely, on the high table- land in the interior of the territory of South Australia. If the honorable senator can show from official figures that that country is subject to drought, there would be some force in his interjection, but not otherwise. Mr. J. McL. Johnston, Senior Inspector, made the following report on the subject to the Deputy PostmasterGeneral : -

On completion of the Overland Telegraph Line to Port Darwin, the horses used in the construction were distributed along the line at the stations, and, as there were a number of medium draught mares and others, a blood stallion was purchased and sent along the line, with the result that a good class of horse was bred, and the requirements of the line supplied at a very small cost, if any, to the Government, as other stock was raised, viz., cattle and goats, the surplus being sold.

Senator Millen:

– That is to say, the profits from the sale of the cattle and the goats defrayed the expense of looking after the horses ?

Senator STORY:

– It means that the horses were bred at a very small cost, if any.

Senator Millen:

– Owing to the profits from the sale of the cattle.

Senator STORY:

– The employes on the telegraph stations are not employed to breed cattle and goats, except possibly to supply meat and milk, but the surplus of cattle and goats, as well as, I believe, the surplus of horses, has been sold.

Sheep for home consumption were purchased occasionally, also a few horses at Port Darwin, and Adelaide, when they could not conveniently be drawn from the breeding stations.

Should the Hon. Minister of Defence contemplate breeding horses for defence purposes, I woula respectfully suggest for his consideration the desirability of securing land and establishing two breeding stations in the Northern Territory, say in the vicinity of Charlotte Waters and the Katherine River.

The class of horses required would, I presume, be fairly well-bred blood horses for remounts, and a light to medium draught mare crossed with a blood horse for gun-carriage work.

The natural grasses would support them, with lumps of rock salt distributed near the watering places. This is very essential, as the waters are too fresh.

Three Europeans and three black boys could manage each station. The success of the under, taking would largely depend on the class of men chosen.

Horses bred in the Northern Territory have proved to be of good stamp and very hardy.

At least 100 square miles of country would be required for each station.

I have quoted these reports merely to show that the kind of horses which the Defence Department requires can be bred in that country at a very small cost indeed. If, as Senator Millen admits, it is desirable that’ the Department should own horses, and if it can be shown that it is possible to breed them very much more cheaply than to buy them, I claim that it is a proper thing for the Committee to empower the Department, if it should be considered necessary, to start breeding stations when a suitable time arrives, without being subjected to the delay of having to apply to Parliament for the necessary permission. The Minister of Defence has recognised that we can have no efficient field artillery unless we own our own horses. That being so, is it not desirable to take this power, to be exercised in case of emergency without any delay? Probably Senator Millen will contend that the profit which I have shown cannot be obtained. Figures can, I believe, be made to prove anything. But in the face of these reports that the country is eminently suitable for horse-breeding, in face of the fact that with favorable conditions a very large profit can be made from the industry of horse-breeding, and of the probability that in a time of emergency private enterprise would not be able to supply the demand, and that if it could the price would be raised very considerably, I think that honorable senators should have no hesitation in agreeing to the amendment.

– That might be done independently of this Bill altogether.

Senator VARDON:

– It might. I see no objection to the Commonwealth breeding horses for its own purposes.

Senator Findley:

– If the principle is good, what harm can be done by embodying it in the Bill ?

Senator VARDON:

Senator STORY:

- Senator Lynch met the objection by showing that under this Bill we are giving the Government power to establish ammunition, small arms, and clothing factories.

Senator Vardon:

– I am opposed to the establishment of a clothing factory.

Senator STORY:

– Surely it is just as important that we should be in an independent position as regards the supply of horses, as that we should be independent in the matter of the supply of uniforms and equipment? I think that enough has been said to commend my amendment to the favorable consideration of the Committee, if honorable senators are prepared to view it impartially, and to act in the best interests of the Defence Force.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That after sub-section 2 the following new sub-section be inserted : - “(3) All further appointments to the Central

Administration except to the office of the Minister and District Staffs including the Ordnance Department, Pay Department, and Rifle Club offices, shall be made under the. Defence Act, and persons who have served for not less than five years in the Permanent Forces and have passed the examination prescribed for such appointments shall be given priority of appointment.”

This provision is intended to remedy a long standing grievance in our Defence Department. In that Department all appointments to the clerical branch are made by the Public Service Commissioner. The object of my proposal is to permit such appointments to be made from the Defence Forces, always providing that the appointees have passed the prescribed examination, and are as competent to fill the vacant position as are applicants from outside the Department. It has been pointed out previously that men in our permanent forces are at a great disadvantage in the later years of their lives when they come to seek other work than that in which they have been engaged as younger men. At present they are not eligible for appointment to such positions as storemen, clerks, &c. Very little consideration is required to show that this is a genuine grievance. I quite recognise that the Public Service Commissioner may desire to retain the power of making these appointments. That is only natural. When once a man has enjoyed a certain amount of power he is very reluctant to forego it. I have nothing to say against the Public Service Commissioner in this connexion, but I assume that, like the rest of humanity, he desires to wield as much power as he can. There is no denying the fact that men who have spent the best years of their lives in our Defence Forces ought, if they can fit themselves in later years to occupy such positions as I have outlined, to be given a preference over applicants from outside the Department. Otherwise they will be very unfairly handicapped. It stands to reason that a man who has filled a position for a number of years is better fitted to occupy it than is an outsider. It has been pointed out that we should have only young and vigorous men in our forces; that it would be a mistake to retain men there after they have reached “the sere and yellow leaf.” I might quote a lot of authorities in support of my contention, but I think it is unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the Committee at any greater length. We must all admit that at the present time the men in our Defence Forces are not receiving the same fair deal which is being extended to public servants generally. Thatbeing so, I hope that the VicePresident of the Executive Council will agree to my amendment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– With the general contention of Senator de Largie, I am in entire agreement, but I think that the phraseology of his amendment is open to some little objection. For instance, I would direct his attention to one phrase in it, the use of which creates considerable doubt. I refer to the words “excepting to the office of the Minister.” There is no clear definition as to what is intended by those words. The honorable senator has stated what he intends, but a very grave doubt may arise as to what is meant by that exception. I. have an alternative proposal to submit which I think will meet the wishes of the honorable senator, and which will remove the ambiguity which is contained in his amendment.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

.- If the Vice-President of the Executive Council is quite satisfied that the new sub-section which he has read will achieve the object which I have in view, I am quite prepared to accept it. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the following new sub-section be inserted : - “(3) All appointments in the Department of Defence other than, such appointments to the Central Staff as ought in the opinion of the GovernnorGeneral to be under the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902, shall be appointments in the naval or military Defence Forces and the members of the permanent naval or military forces who have served not less than five years therein shall in case of equality of qualifications have preference over other applicants for those appointments.”

– Into the general Public Service?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; into those positions in the Defence Department which are at present under the Public Service Act.

Those positions will be thrown open by this amendment, if adopted, to staff clerks who have proved themselves worthy of promotion.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 -

Section sixty-seven of the Principal Act is repealed, and the following section substituted in lieu thereof : - “ 67. The owner of any vehicle, horse, mule, bullock, boat, or vessel, or of any goods, required for naval or military purposes, shall, when required to do so by an officer authorized in that behalf by the regulations, furnish it for those purposes, and shall be recompensed therefor in the manner prescribed, and the owners of such vehicles and animals may be required by the regulations to register them periodically.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is, that the clause as printed stand part of the Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope that the Minister does not regard my suggestion as being so insignificant as not to call for a reply. Surely we have not reached that pass when he is going to treat as frivolous and beneath his notice rather a serious suggestion. I move -

That after the word “vehicle” the words “ flying machine “ be inserted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– - There was no occasion for the honorable senator to give way to a feeling of warmth. Being under the impression that he would move an amendment, I turned to obtain a little information from the professional adviser of the Government, and expected the question to be stated from the Chair. I consider that the clause as it stands is sufficiently wide to include flying machines. I am inclined to think that “vehicle” would cover any appliances which were used in the transit of people or goods from one point to another. I think that under the words “ vehicle “ and “vessel “ we can commandeer any form of flying ship. At the same time, if it will carry peace to the soul of my honorable friend, I shall not resist a proposal to introduce the words “ flying machine.”

Senator de Largie:

– If the word “ machine” is used it will cover all kinds of machines.

Senator MILLEN:

– It might not cover one particular kind of machine. I have sufficient belief in the administration of the Department to expect that if the necessity should arise and a particular article was not specified in section 67 of the Act, the authorities would take it, even though they might have to trespass upon the private property of Senator Lynch.

Senator Lynch:

– After the Minister’s explanation, I am satisfied that there is sufficient power to take flying machines, if necessary, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

.- I move-

That the following new clause be inserted : - “16a. (1) Section seventy-nine of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting therefrom the words “ deliver up the article to any officer or in default to pay its value to such officer,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months unless in the meantime he delivers up the article or pays its value “ ; and

by adding thereto the following sub- sections : - “ (2.) When an order has been made under this section the Court may by warrant in writing authorize any member of the Police Force of the Commonwealth or of a State or part of the Commonwealth to take possession of the article and to deliver it to an officer or as the Court thinks fit to direct.” “(3.) Any member of the Police Force of the Commonwealth or of a State or part of the Commonwealth having any warrant under this section may in the day time enter any building, premises, or place where the article is or is supposed to be, and may break open any part of the building, premises, or place, or any chest, receptacle, or thing therein, and may seize or take possession of the article and deliver it in accordance with the warrant.”

I understand that if any member of the Defence Force refrains from delivering up his arms, or other articles, the property of the Defence Department, and an order is obtained in a Court calling upon him to do so, there is no authority by which the police can enforce it. The sole object of my proposal is to provide the machinery by which the property of the Department can be recovered promptly, and in a. manner which would not involve any expensive resort to law.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 17 -

After section one hundred and twenty-three of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted : - “123a. No intoxicating or spirituous liquors shall be sold or supplied at any naval or military canteen, camp, fort, or post, except as prescribed for purely medical purposes. “ 123b. No person shall sell or supply cigar ettes in any form to any junior or senior cadet while in training. Penalty : Twenty pounds. “ 1 23c. No member of the Forces who has conscientious objection shall be compelled to answer any question as to his religion, nor shall any reguhttion or other order compel attendance at any religious service.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western, Australia

– This clause has been inserted, I think, under the mistaken idea that it will lead to increased temperance and sobriety amongst the Defence Forces, but I am strongly of the opinion that if it . is passed in its present form there will be more drinking in the camps, the liquor will be of an inferior character, and the associations under which men will drink will be such as will have a derogatory effect upon them.I have seen canteens conducted both in the forts and in the camps, but I have never observed a man under the influence of liquor. That is very creditable when we recollect that 4,000 or 5,000 young men, full of animal spirit, are out practically for a holiday. In each case the canteen was conducted by a non-commissioned officer, and controlled by the officers. It was closed at a certain hour, and never at any time did I see any sign of disorder or drunkenness. But there are to be camps for the training of youths under the age of twenty. While I think that canteens for the manhood of Australia do not encourage drunkenness, but on the contrary tend towards temperance, it is certainly, inadvisable that temptation should be placed in the way of the trainees. The amendments which I intend to propose have for their object, first of all, to make the clause, if it is to remain in the Bill at all, of general effect. At present it will operate only partially. It will close up the canteens of the men, but leave the officers’ messes in full blast. The officers do not have a canteen. They keep up a kind of club. I think that if the men are to be prevented from obtaining liquor at the canteens, the officers should also be prohibited from having intoxicants at their mess. Therefore, the first amendment which I intend to propose will provide that no person at any camp shall have spirituous or intoxicating liquor in his possession. If that be agreed to, I shall move another amendment, to the effect that no intoxicating or spirituous liquors shall be permitted to be used by any person at any naval or military camp or post. The effect of that will be, that while youths are being trained the canteens will be closed. I claim that in this matter I speak as an unprejudiced person. Indeed, if I have anybias at all, it is in the direction of temperance, because I am a total abstainer myself. Total abstinence is good for me, and is likely to be good for others. But, nevertheless, I am of opinion that the clause as it stands will have the effect of causing men to do one of two things. If they cannot have liquor at the canteen they will go outside the camp, and obtain it, often under questionable circumstances. It will also cause a’ certain amount of smuggling. The circular military tents are constructed to contain ten men. Let us assume that four men in a given ten occasionally take drink, and that the others do not. When the four go out on leave, what will happen? Each man may smuggle in a bottle of beer or whisky. If they could get what they wanted at the canteen they would merely drink their glass of beer and be content. But if they smuggle in a bottle each, the probability is that they will consume the lot. It has to be remembered that the canteens are under the control of non-commissioned officers, and that no man is allowed to drink to excess. But those who are tempted to smuggle drink into their tents will probably keep on drinking until it is all gone. The result may be that there will be disorder in the camp, and that the whole ten men in the tent where the. drinking takes place will be put in the guard-room. I am satisfied that the people who have agitated for this clause have done so with the best intentions. But they suffer from defective knowledge. Many of these military camps are alongside settled places. The men can easily go outside, and get drink in unlimited quantities. Furthermore, the drink which they get there is not likely to be as good as that which is obtained at a canteen. Perhaps it will be interesting to the Committee if I read some correspondence which I have had with the Western Australian Alliance on this subject. I received the following letter -

The West Australian Alliance,

Temperance Hall, Museum-street,

Perth, Nov. 2, 1909.

Dear Mr. Pearce, -

When the Defence Bill comes before the Senate, we earnestly request you and your colleagues to give your best support to the clause moved by Mr. Coon, M.H.R., “That no intoxicating or spirituous liquors shall be used or sold at any naval or military canteen, camp, fort or post except for medicinal purposes prescribed.” We are not keen on the latter proviso, but for the main clause pray you to heartily support it. (Signed) Jas. Mather, Gen. Sec.

A. Alliance.

In reply, I wrote as follows -

Jas. Mather, Esq.,

Gen. Sec. W. A. Alliance.

D.ear Mr. Mather, -

Your letter of the 2nd inst. in reference to the clause inserted in the Defence Bill at the instance of Mr. J. Coon, M.P., prohibiting the keeping of canteens for the sale of liquor in military camps, &c., received.

Your letter appeals to myself and colleagues to support the clause which I take to indicate that your executive are of opinion that the abolition of the canteen would conduce to increased sobriety in militarycamps.

I will take an early opportunity of placing vour letter before each of my colleagues in the Senate.

With reference to my own view on the subject, I frankly say that I have, after careful and practical observation of this question in the camps themselves during the time I had the honour to be Minister of Defence, come to the conclusion that the effect of the abolition will be exactly the reverse of what I believe your own and other temperance organizations hope for. I am convinced that under the present system a very effective check is put upon those who are inclined to over-indulge, and that drunkenness is practically unknown in our military camps. It has to be borne in mind that when you abolish the official canteen the camps are usually surrounded by other means of obtaining liquor and smuggling it into camp, to be disposed of free from the restraining influence of official supervision. (Signed) G. F. Pearce.

If there is a general desire that the can teens should be prohibited, the prohibition of liquor should apply to both officers and men, and, therefore. I now submit my first amendment -

That after the word “ supplied “ in proposed new section 123a the following words be inserted : - “ and no person shall, have such intoxicating or spirituous liquors in his possession.”

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The best thing the Committee can do with the proposed new section under discussion is to excise it from the Bill.

I respect the motive which has actuated those who were successful in inserting it in another place, but I am satisfied that they will defeat their own ends. They desire to remove the stigma of drunkenness from the members of our Defence Forces, and they have my hearty sympathy in that desire. But I do not think that that desirable end will be achieved by thisprovision, which will certainly reflect upon the manhood of Australia. We are to ask our manhood to train themselves to be ready to defend Australia, and yet at the same time, we are asked to say that we have not sufficient reliance on their personal character to permit them to have canteens in their camps. From what I know of the Aus tralian man he is not much given to overindulgence in intoxicating liquors. I deny that there is any need for the proposed new section, though I thoroughly agree that we should keep intoxicants out of the way of the members of our forces who are under twenty-one years of age. While I support Senator Pearce’s amendment in that respect,I do not think there is any need to dictate to our grown men. If I thought that the provision was necessary, and would be effective, I would support it. But what weighs with me is that if we close up the canteens many men will endeavour to secure liquor in another manner. By visiting places outside the camps they will, perhaps, secure liquor that is much worse in quality. Moreover, at these places they will come in contact with much more undesirable company than they would meet by associating with their comrades in the canteen. As we are about to trust to our manhood to defend our country surely we can rely on their character not to abuse any privilege that may be granted to them in this respect. I hope that the Committee will carry the amendment.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel CAMERON (Tasmania) [9.15]. - The amendment proposed by Senator Pearce has my hearty approval, because I agree that we cannot differentiate between the members of our Defence Forces. If intoxicating or spirituous liquors are to be withheld from the men, they shouldbe withheld from those who command the men. While I approve of that principle, and would permit of no differentiation in this regard, that does not bind me in any way to approve of what I believe to be the mistaken policy of wellmeaning people, who have secured the introduction of this provision in the Defence Bill. The position has been well and ably put by the ex-Minister of Defence. The honorable senator has pointed out the difficulties that must arise, and the fact that the men whom the country holds responsible for the discipline of the troops would be absolutely unable to control the people outside camps, who would induce the troops to purchase and consume the very liquors which those who have supported this proposed new section desire to withhold from them. No better method of conserving the decency and morality of our troops could be devised than that of throwing upon the men who are the selected of the country the responsibility of maintaining the highest traditions of British officers and men? Where canteens are established, the responsibility for seeing that they are conducted in a manner which will reflect credit upon those who are in command of the men, as well as upon the men themselves, is thrown upon the officers. I need hardly remind honorable senators that this provision raises also the question of the supply of good liquor to the troops. We should have no guarantee that the vilest decoctions would not be supplied by outside people who would not be under the control of the military authorities, and this might involve great risks to the health of the troops. For the reasons I have stated, it will give me great satisfaction to support Senator Pearce’s amendment, and I shall be prepared later to vote for striking the proposed new section out altogether.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

. -I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment. I agree that no distinction should be made in this matter between officers and men. Officers should not be allowed to have liquor if the men are to be deprived of it. They are all citizens, and should be treated alike. I have received some communications asking me to support the provision as it stands. I believe that the people who have made these requests are actuated by the best of intentions, and if I thought that it would be in the interests of the Defence Force and of the country that the canteen should be abolished, I should gladly comply with their requests. I am afraid, however, that it would be a great mistake to permit this provision to remain in the Bill. I have attended a few camps, and I know that men who have been seen going to the canteen too often have been stopped. Men who are accustomed to the use of liquor will have it by some means, and if they are unable to secure it legitimately at a canteen in camp, they will be encouraged to go outside the camp for it; and we know that there will always be people ready to supply liquor if they think a profit can be made out of it. I believe that it would do more harm than good to abolish the canteen. I agree that no drink whatever should be sold in cadet camps, which will be formed of lads who should not have acquired the habit of drinking. I am prepared to go with those who believe in the abolition of the canteen so far as to support a provision to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors of any description in cadet camps, and to make it an offence for any person to supply a cadet with liquor inside or outside of a camp.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9. 24].- I do not often agree with Senator Pearce, but I rise now with a grpat deal of pleasure to recognise the admirably accurate statement which the honorable senator putbefore the Committee. He should have been most convincing to those who hold utterly opposite views, and he must have been entirely satisfactory to those who hold views similar to those to which he gave utterance. The honorable senator has, however, overlooked one point. He proposes the exclusion of all liquors from camps of trainees under twenty years of age; but he forgets that there are thousands of youths of from eighteen to twenty years of age in the Militia and Volunteer Forces now existing. If the amendment were carried in the form in which it has been submitted, lads of from eighteen to twenty years of age in militia regiments would not come under the operation of the proposed new section, whilst lads of the same age in what might be called the compulsory branch of the forces would come under it. In common with Senator Sayers, and, no doubt, other honorable senators, I have received a number of requests from most worthy sources to support the provision carried in another place. If I had any reason to believe that it would make for the well-being of the men for morality, decency and order, I would support it ; but 1 accept the risk of adopting an attitude that may be objectionable to a large section of people immediately before a general election, hecause I believe that the good folks in question, with the best possible desire, really do not know sufficient of the working of canteens and military forces to accurately gauge the effect of such a provision. This question of military canteens and the supply of liquors to troops was before the Senate not very long ago in the form of a Bill. On that occasion I despatched a large number of telegrams tn commanding officers in my own State, and officers who have retired from command. I asked their view of the effect of abolishing military canteens. I have before me in the Hansard report of the debate on that OCr:: sion a summary of the- replies to my wires which I read at the time. A very large majority of the persons who made those replies are still in positions of authority and command in the Defence Force. One of them has unhappily died, and two have retired under the age provision, who. strangely enough, announced themselves as total abstainers, and yet were against the abolition of the canteen. I shall read only the telegraphic answers to my inquiries, because they are very short. They show how wide-spread was the opinion in favour of military canteens amongst officers responsible, first of all, for the order of those under their command. I ask honorable senators to say whether it is reasonable to suppose that any officer in a position of authority would give the smallest support to that which was calculated to bring about disorder in his command. It is an incredible proposition to assert the contrary. The telegrams I addressed were the same to all the persons from whom I sought an opinion - “ Do you approve of the Canteen Bill?” - and these are some of the answers I received. From a colonel -

Bill most objectionable for camps. Hardship to men more than officers, particularly permanent men.

From another colonel -

Against Bill. Unpopular. Create more crime.

From a lieutenant-colonel in command -

Every man in regiment violently opposed on grounds of discipline, efficiency, and comfort.

From another lieutenant-colonel commanding

Military canteens preferable to drinking in neighbouring public-houses. From another lieutenant-colonel -

No. Entirely opposed to it. Letter posted.

From a major in command -

No. Consider it will be responsible for more crime than ever anticipated.

From a lieutenant-colonel^ -

Emphatically, no.

This gentleman is a total abstainer. From another regimental commander -

Strongly disapprove Canteen Bill. Will be extremely harmful.

From another commander -

Strongly disapprove Canteen Bill. Will indirectly seriously affect good order.

From another -

Disapprove abolition of canteens.

Another colonel wired -

I think it will be a big mistake to do away with canteens for reasons which must be obvious to every officer.

I received a number of letters at the same time, but as they were somewhat lengthy I shall not trouble the Committee with them to-night. I thoroughly agree with the statement of Senator Pearce that the men are able to get drink within a short distance of the majority of training camps. Take as an illustration the largest proposed military training area in New South Wales, if not in the Commonwealth, an area adjoinin[r the town of Liverpool, for which area the Commonwealth has been negotiating. That area is so large that shell practice may be carried on there by the Artillery as well as ball firing practice by the Infantry. But only a narrow fordable river separates it from a town which contains a dozen or more hotels, so that it would be simply impossible, except by an unbroken series of pickets and sentries along the banks of that river to prevent liquor being smuggled into any camp held upon that admirable training ground. In the same way the largest number of men grouped together in barracks in the Commonwealth is to be found in the Victoria Barracks, Sydney. Opposite to one of the walls of those barracks are no less than five publichouses and one wine shop. If the men in barracks are refused the limited drinking which is permitted in the canteen there - it must be recollected that under Commonwealth regulations only light wines and beer may be supplied therein - willthey not find their way into these hotels? If they wish to spend their evenings in barracks naturally they go to the canteen. It is their only parlor. They go there, take their glass of beer whilst talking to their friends, and play whatever game they most affect. They cannot have a single glass of beer supplied to them if they evidence the least sign of liquor. Honorable senators should recollect that in canteens liquors are not sold for profit. It is not to the interest of the man in charge of the canteen to serve a single glass of liquor. On the contrary, ifhe dispenses it in a careless manner, he will very soon come under censure andbe punished.

Senator Findley:

– Are canteen charges lower than those outside?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Certainly. But if a man should drift across the road from the barracks he might find his way into half-a-dozen drinking establishments which, no doubt, are very well conducted. I have been in and out of most of them when I was local member in the State Parliament, and I have never seen anything wrong with them. But in a public-house, no matter how well-conducted, a man is likely to consume more liquor than it is possible for him to get in a canteen under military authority. In the canteen there is very little “ shouting,” whereas in the public house there is a great deal. There are crowds of men who are only too pleased to shout for a man wearing a military uniform.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - Long mav it remain so.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Long may it remain so under proper conditions. For these reasons I think that if the proposed new section is to stand, we ought to adopt the amendment which has been moved by Senator Pearce. When that has been done doubtless the honorable senator will join with the majority in voting for the excision of the provision as amended.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– Most honorable senators will have no difficulty in recalling the very strenuous fight which was waged in this Chamber when the Canteen Bill was under consideration some two years ago. I wish, as far as I can, to prevent a repetition of the events of that interesting occasion. The amendment which has been submitted by Senator Pearce does seem to me, apart from all that has been said in support of it, to possess the additional virtue of offering a via media between two contending points of view. It may be accepted as a fair compromise between those who would abolish the canteen entirely and those who seek to limit it as he does. I should like to point out what will be the effect of his proposal, because I scarcely think that it has been fully grasped by one or two honorable senators who have addressed themselves to it. For instance, Senator Neild seems to be under the impression that the canteen will exist only in some camps. Need I remind him that under Senator Pearce’s amendment, no camp can have a canteen. That amendment will prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in any camp in which there are trainees from eighteen to twenty years of age. Those are the camps at which the Militia will also be training, and the presence of these trainees will, therefore, impose a prohibition upon a canteen for militia men. So that the effect of the amendment will be to prevent the supply of drink in any military camp, whilst permitting canteens to exist in barracks and other permanent posts. Under all the circumstances I am inclined to ask the Committee to accept the amendment as a reasonable compromise Between two sets of opinion.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Why not leave the matter to regulation?

Senator MILLEN:

– That course might be adopted. But certain sections in this Chamber have so frequently expressed a desire to have in the Act itself an indication of the course which is to be followed that I should not be justified in asking the Committee to leave the matter to regulation. Senator Pearce’s second amendment speaks of “section 125 of clause 18.” The words “ of clause 18 “ ought to be struck out, because, although that is the number of the clause in the Bill, it will disappear the moment the provision is incorporated in the principal Act. The word “ canteen “ in this amendment ought also to be excised. I would suggest that he should move for the omission of these words, and the Committee will then be able to vote upon the amendment to which I refer, and finally upon the proposed hew section either with or without the amendment.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not in agreement with the other members of the Committee upon this question. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has stated that some years ago when this question was before the Senate there were opponents of the canteen. I should like to know whether any of these gentlemen are present to-night. It seems to me that they have all departed. I hold in my hand a circular which I have received from the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of South Australia asking me to endeavour to abolish the canteen. Another circular from New South Wales seeks its abolition “ in the interests of humanity.” I have received a third communication from the Rechabites. All these bodies entertain different views of this question from those which have been voiced by honorable senators who have addressed themselves to it. I do not profess to be a teetotaller, as does Senator Pearce.

Senator McColl:

– He does not merely profess to be one. He is one.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Had he been Chairman of the Young Men’s Christian Association for many years I should not have been surprised at his amendment. I confess that I do not see why officers should be permitted to obtain liquor whilst a prohibition is imposed upon the men. Not knowing much about camp life, I consulted two gentlemen who have held high military positions in South Australia for many years, and they informed me that the greatest trouble and the greatest curse in connexion with military camps is strong drink. If any honorable senator doubts my word I am prepared to give the names of my informants. It has been said by some honorable senators that if men are not allowed to get strong drink in the canteen they will smuggle in bottles of beer. But that is the sort of men with regard to whom we have to be very careful indeed. Drink is always a temptation and a curse to such men. If it is not obtainable in the canteen it will be procured at the nearest publichouse, where the liquor will not be so good and too much of it will be drunk. It is the duty of every honorable senator, as a representative of the people, to express his views on this important question. If men who are in the habit of drinking to excess get liquor at one place they are likely to go to another place, and drink more of it. If Senator Best should deliver a speech in favour of the canteen, God help him when he next addresses a meeting of ladies. If we intend to have compulsory military training, which 1 do not believe in, we ought at least to do away with the canteen. At any rate, I shall be found supporting its abolition. I ask Senator Vardon and Senator McColl, who have been well known in connexion with the temperance movement, to come over to the side of justice and fair play and remove a temptation from those who are liable to err. Surely we ought to have a sober military force ! It was not my intention to take any part in this debate, but a sense of duty impelled me to speak. I was present in another place when this provision was being debated. The Minister of Defence made a diplomatic and very sound reply, and when a division might have been taken the proposal was carried on the voices. That is one reason why I think the Seriate should not come into collision with the other House on a question of this kind, especially as one-half of our number will soon have to appeal to the electors and the women will have votes.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I approach the consideration of this provision from exactly the same standpoint as Senator Pearce did. For nearly forty years I have taken an active part in the temperance movement in South Australia, and for many years I was head of the Young Men’s Christian Association. I was very pleased to hear Senator Pearce’s testimony with regard to the conduct of ‘the camps which he visited when he was Minister of Defence. His experience agreed exactly with my own in South Australia. I never saw anything of an objectionable character, and the tent which was erected by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union for the supply of tea, coffee, and cocoa was always very largely patronized. The amendment of Senator Pearce will, I take it, deny to officers and men alike, in all camps connected with persons up to the age of twenty years, the use of intoxicating liquor, and beyond that it will permit simply wine and beer to be supplied to the men.

SenatorFindley. - The Minister says that it will not have that effect, because the men and the boys will be associated at the. same time.

Senator VARDON:

– He made that statement in regard to one period only. That, perhaps, can be remedied. I recognise that very often when we say that the men shall not have a certain thing, that fact induces them to say that they will. It is of no use for us to shut our eyes to that trait in human nature. The proposition which Senator Pearce has made ought, I think, to be accepted as a via media. It should satisfy those who are anxious to keep lads and young men free from the temptation of intoxicating drink. It will keep that article absolutely away from them as well as their officers during the whole of these periods, and at the same time it will allow men of mature years to exercise their own discretion. It is a common-sense proposition which, I believe, will be appreciated by the community generally. I have no fear of any one misunderstanding my attitude. Nobody will believe for a moment that. I support this amendment for the purpose of helping canteens or intemperance. It is because I believe that it covers the ground fairly and completely that 1 am going to vote with Senator Pearce.

Senator Pearce:

– I propose to amend the second amendment which I intend to move at the Minister’s suggestion by leaving out the words “ of clause 18 “ and also the word “ canteen.”

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I do not like the proposed new section as it stands, and shall feel compelled to vote against it. Whilst I have no particular objection to the amendment, still I think that I shall vote against it, because it deals with one of those matters which, in my opinion, can be handled very much better by regulation. I have always been opposed to a policy of absolute suppression. . As regards certain articles there are times in every man’s life when he considers that he is the best judge in regard to his conduct. There are some matters in which we all recognise we should yield to the opinions of others, but there are other matters on which we all like to hold our own views. In such cases we feel that we should not be interfered with by any law, legal or moral. I think that far more harm than good will be done by suppressing the use of drink in military camps. I have received a letter on this question from a friend in Melbourne who for many years has been an officer of the Volunteer Forces. He is a great enthusiast, alwavs having had at heart the welfare and advancement of the Military Forces on sound and proper lines. His opinion, founded on his experience at military camps, ought to carry considerable weight. On the 4th November he wrote to me in these terms -

In view of the fact that the Senate will shortly have the Defence Bill brought before it for consideration and discussion, I would like to bring under vour notice the proposal of the House of Representatives to abolish military canteens.

Whilst distinctly in favour of limiting as far as possible the use of all intoxicating liquor at camps, I am of opinion that the proposal to abolish the sale of liquor in military canteens will be found to be a mistake.

After twenty-seven years’ experience at camps in all grades, I have no hesitation in saying that if the sale of liquor at canteens is forbidden, liquor will be brought by individual members of the Forces, and that sly drinking will go on in the tents.

Under present regulations, the canteen is only open at certain hours, and a non-commissioned officer is placed in charge of it, to see that no liquor is supplied to a man who has apparently had enough ; and, that it is not supplied to Cadets or young members of the Forces; and, further, at the allotted time the canteen is absolutely closed and nothing can be obtained. He is also responsible for the good order of. those who are in the canteen, and would undoubtedly interfere where necessary to restrict a man inducing a comrade to drink.

Some years ago I belonged to a regiment which did not have a canteen, and whilst in a tent with a number of others a bottle was produced, and every one in the tent was expected to take a drink. . . . There can be no question that this habit is demoralizing. An officer is never anxious about his men when there is a canteen, as there are only stated intervals when the liquor is obtainable, but if it is in the tents drinking can go on all through the day, as the opportunity offers.

I may mention that the abolition of liquor has been tried in the American Army and proved a failure, owing to the sly drinking of generally an inferior spirit, and the sale of liquor has since been allowed.

It is far better to restrict and control the use of liquor under the present system than it will be to attempt to prohibit its use, as there appears to be something in a man’s nature which tempts him to do that which he is told not to do.

I am not putting this opinion forward without having made a number of inquiries from brother officers, and would respectfully urge that inquiries should be made before coming to a decision on a point which I feel is of vital interest to not only the Commonwealth Forces, but to those members of the community who are in favour of temperance reform.

The letter is signed by Mr. Charles Merrett, major on the unattached list of the Commonwealth Military Forces. I do not like to oppose what seems to be a common sense amendment, but I think that the best thing to do is to put the regulation of these matters into the hands ofresponsible officers, who have to be judged by the results achieved, both in disciplining their troops and in training them.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– It seems to me that the amendment is in the nature of a compromise. We are not preventing any man over twenty years of age from obtaining intoxicating liquors, but only legislating with regard to young men. I know that a great many officers are against the abolition of canteens, being of opinion that these institutions assist them in disciplining and controlling their troops in respect of their drinking propensities. But I consider that temptation ought to be entirely removed from young men, and therefore I shall vote for the amendment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I shall support the proposed newsection as it stands. The opinions of a number of military men have been quoted, and it may seem to be like rushing in where angels fear to tread for me to offer an opinion in opposition to theirs. But we have to decide such matters to the best of our own judgment on political grounds, and cannot consent to be swayed entirely by the views of experts. The training of young men in military camps is no more arduous than is the work which has to be done in many occupations in various parts of Australia, where employers certainly do not provide barrels of beer for the refreshment of their men. There is certainly a danger in placing temptation in the way of young men at a time of life when they are least able to resist it. They are then at an impressionable age. If a young man sees Jack Jones or Bill Murphy drinking, although he himself may not have had a drop of liquor in his life, he may say, “ Well, what is good enough for my mates is good enough for me.” If we were legislating for men, all of whom were between twenty-six and thirty years of age, when habits of life are formed, it would be an entirely different matter. But we are legislating for young men just out of their teens, who are likely to be very much influenced by the nature of their surroundings. Many honorable senators have followed arduous callings at some portions of their lives. They may have been pushed almost to the point of exhaustion on some occasions. The work which they did was far more exhausting than military training can be, yet they had not a cask of beer to draw upon, and probably had no inclination to drink. It has been well said By Shakespeare -

How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds

Makes ill deeds done !

Senator Mulcahy:

– Does the honorable senator hold that it is an “ ill deed “ to have a glass of beer ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe that it is a good deed to remove temptation from the way of young men. I am quite satisfied that the beer barrel is not a necessary accompaniment to military training, and that its use will lead to mischief.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.-I agree with much that has fallen from Senator Lynch, but at the same time we have to proceed by steps, and it must be patent to all that Senator Pearce’s amendment constitutes an enormous advance on the present position. Senator Lynch’s argument would be a very sound one if we had prohibition in this country. But if a soldier has simply to cross a road to reach a public house, we do not remove temptation out of his way by closing the canteen. Senator Pearce’s amendment, however, absolutely prohibits intoxicants being placed in the way of young men who are undergoing training. It will lead to absolute prohibition in barracks and camps while trainees are undergoing instruction. But there are other sins besides taking a little too much drink. One is that of being a sneak. It is surely most undesirable to encourage our men to be sneaks. We do not want to have our soldiers smuggling drink into camp in defiance of the regulations. When the American Fleet was here, I saw some sailors going off to one of the ships in a boat, who were hiding flasks of whisky in their stockings. They rolled up their trousers in front of my eyes while they concealed the flasks. We do not want that sort of thing in connexion with our forces. I am satisfied that Senator Pearce’s proposal will conduce to entire prohibition, and I shall support it.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.10]. - One point has been overlooked in the course of this debate, and that is that there is a wide difference between men in camp and the same men when pursuing their daily callings, whatever they may be. In camp men are placed in a new set of circumstances. They move under entirely different conditions from those which surround them in their ordinary lives. Let me refer to what happened at the Easter encampments in New South Wales last year. Notwithstanding the absolute embargo laid down in the military regulations, the medical men, on account of the rough weather that the troops were experiencing, consulted together with the result that gallons of rum were ordered into several of. the camps about Sydney. At the Liverpool camp alone, no less than eighty gallons of rum were served out to the men, to fortify them against the stress of weather.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Dutch courage.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Senator Lynch has made out an admirable case in regard to young trainees, but he overlooks the fact that for the last thirty years or more there have been camps of training in Australia attended by hundreds of thousands of youths under twenty years of age, and yet there has been no record of drunkenness. I have been to many camps, but the only case of drunkenness that I can remember is that of a man who got drunk on the way to the railway station to entrain for a camp a few miles away.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That after the word “post” in. proposed new section 123a the following words be inserted : - “ during such time as training of persons as prescribed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of section 125 is proceeding in such naval or military camp, fort, or post.”

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The honorable senator should insert “ship or vessel,” so as to make the amendment applicable to the naval forces.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVice President of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– This Bill does not apply to the naval side of our defences. It is intended to cover naval defence by a separate measure. Therefore, it is not necessary to move such an amendment as Senator Neild suggests.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Why, then, include the word “ naval “ in Senator Pearce’s amendment?

Senator MILLEN:

– There may be a naval camp on shore.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– I move -

That proposed new section 123b be left out.

When we remember that many of the cadets referred to will be actually over eighteen years of age - because there is a six months’ margin one way or the other - it does seem absurd, if a young man is found in possession of a cigarette, to make somebody liable to a fine of £20. I submit that this is going a little too far.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether his amendment, if accepted, would make it possible for any cadet to smoke cigarettes.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

. -I do not knowwhether it would make it possible for any cadet to smoke cigarettes. There are no doubt some who would be unable to do so.

Senator Gray:

– Would they have the right to do so under the amendment?

Senator MILLEN:

– If honorable senators desire to pass a law to prevent young fellows from smoking, cigarettes, they, should pass a general law for that purpose. Why we should be asked to pick out for a specially restrictive law those who come forward to serve their country, I have to admit passes my comprehension.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like to know whether the Committee is to be given an opportunity to take a direct vote on the proposed new section 123 a.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee must vote upon the clause as amended.

Senator LYNCH:

– But there are portions of the clause which I am in favour of. I should be prepared to strike out one of the proposer] new sections, but I do not wish to assist in striking out parts of the clause that I should like to see retained.

Senator Pearce:

– The Minister might agree to withdraw his amendment to enable the proposed new section 123a to be submitted as amended.

Senator Millen:

– I am willing to withdraw my amendment if Senator Lynch desires it. I understood the honorable senator was in favour of the clause as it stood in the Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am satisfied to let it go.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 7

Majority … … 17

In division-

Tbe CHAIRMAN.-Inotice that Senator W. Russell has changed his seat. He is not at liberty to do so after the tellers have been named.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

When a division has been called for, senators shall take seats on the side of the Senate on which they intend to vote, and shall not move therefrom after the tellers have been appointed until the result of the division has been declared.

I have no alternative but to carry out the standing order.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091201_senate_3_54/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 1 December 1909

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

STAMPS BRANCH, SUPERNUMERARY STAFF

Senator HENDERSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator HENDERSON:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator VARDON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator McCOLL:VICTORIA

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

PAPERS

The Clerk:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Senator PULSFORD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES RAILWAYS : CARRIAGE OF COAL

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:Free Trade

QUESTION

PRESS CABLE SERVICE : SELECT COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator Needham:

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (FINANCE) BILL

Third Reading

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Millen:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Walker:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Fraser:

Senator STEWART:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Findley:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Millen:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Millen:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Gray:

Senator STEWART:

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL

Third Reading

The PRESIDENT:

NORTHERN TERRITORY ACCEPTANCE BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senator Gray:

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

Senate
1 December 1909

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

Senator McCOLL:
VICTORIA

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
VICTORIA · PROT

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · Protectionist