View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
21 August 1919

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- THE WAR
QUESTION
- WOOL POOL
QUESTION
- DISTURBANCE AT KALGOORLIE
THE LATE SIR SIMON FRASER
QUESTION
- RIFLE CLUBS
QUESTION
- SUNNYSIDE WOOLLEN MILLS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- NORTHERN” TERRITORY
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- CANBERRA-JERVIS BAY RAILWAY
QUESTION
- RUSSIAN INTERNEES.
QUESTION
- QUARANTINE
QUESTION
- SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
QUESTION
- CAPTURED GERMAN POSSESSIONS
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES BILL
- Second Reading
THE CONTROL OF SUGAR
- Henry Tate and Sons (Limited),
QUESTION
- SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND

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

page 11754

QUESTION

THE WAR

Offer of Australian Troops

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if he hasan answer to the question I asked a few days ago as to the date on which acontingent of Australian troops was offered to the Imperial authorities?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– An offer was made on the 3rd August, 1914, at which date an outbreak of warbetween Great Britain and Germany was believed to be imminent. War broke out between Great Britain and Germany on the following day.

page 11754

QUESTION

WOOL POOL

Refusal to ship Wool - Skin Wool.

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– Has the Leader of the Senate any information to supply in answer to the somewhat extensive series of questions I put to him some time ago in regard to the Wool Pool?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– On the 14th August, the honorable senator asked the following questions: -

Have the Government any reports or correspondence in reference to a reported refusal by shipping agents in Sydney to ship wool controlled by the Central Wool Committee?
If such wool was so refused, will the Government state who, in fact, refused such wool, and give the names of the ships affected by such refusal?
During what period was such wool held up, and what was the quantity of the wool which should have been shipped?
Who is the chairman of the Local Wool Administration in Sydney?
Was Sir Owen Cox a member of the Local Wool Administration of Sydney, and what action did he take in the matter?
Will the Government lay on the table of the Senate copies of the correspondence between Sir John Higgins and the Central Wool Committee, and Sir Owen Cox and others, relating to the refusal to ship wool purchased on behalf of the British Government in Sydney, and also all reports from Sir John Higgins and the Central Wool Committee on the subject?

The following replies have been furnished by the Central Wool Committee: -

Yes; a report furnished by the chairman of the Central Wool Committee, on the 29th April, 1919, to the Acting Prime Minister. 2 and 3. These particulars are set out in the report referred to in answer No. I.
Mr. J. B. Milne, of Messrs. Gilchrist, Watt, and Sanderson.
Yes. I am unable to state what action was taken by him in the matter.
Yes. I am laying on the table copies of the correspondence in question, together with a copy of the report referred to in answer No. 1.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of theSenate if replies have yet been received to the questions I asked about skin wool and sugar ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No reply has been received regarding sugar. The honorable senator asked the following questions on Sth August: -

How much skin wool was put into the Wool Pool in seasons 1015-16 and 1916-17 - tlie season’s figures to be given separately?
Will these wools participate in any dividends over and above the flat rate - 15id. per lb. on a greasy basis?
If it is a fact that it has now been decided by the Central Wool Committee that skin wools for the seasons 1918-19 and 1919-20 will not participate in any dividends over and above the above-mentioned fiat rate; to whom will these dividends go?

The following replies have been furnished by the Central “ Wool Committee : - 1

There was no Wool Pool during the season 1915-1G. The quantity of skin wool submitted for appraisement during the seasons 1916-17, 1917-18, and 1918-19 is as under:Season 1916-17 (part only )- (36,417 bales; 8,753,163 lbs. in weight; appraised value, £754,440 15s. lid.. Season 1917-18 ( complete) - 81,970 bales; 20,000,680 lbs. in weight; appraised value, £2,087,284 ls. 7d. Season 1918-19 (complete) - 113,692 bales; 27,448,785 lbs. in weight; appraised value, £2,878,363 5s. 5d. The figures for seasons 1916-17 and 1917-18 are approximate only, due to the fact that no provision was made in those years for the separation of fellmongered wools from ordinary scoured wools. For the seasons 1918-19, separate records were kept and the figures ‘herein stated are the computations of fellmongered wool as disclosed by the official catalogues.
The wool for seasons 1916-17 and 1917-18 will participate in the Pool.
On the advice of the Central Wool Committee, the Prime Minister announced that skin wool for the seasons 1918-19 and 1919-20 will not participate in any dividend above the flat rate of 15*d. per lb. on a greasy basis. For these seasons, the owners of shorn wool will bc the participants in any profits over and above the flat rate.

” PAPERS.

The following papers were presented : -

Repatriation Department. - Report on the Organization and Activities of the Department over the period 8th April, 1918, to 30th June, 1919.

Wool: Correspondence between Central Wool Committee and Overseas Central Shipping Committee relating to shipment of wool; and other documents.

page 11755

QUESTION

THE LATE SIR SIMON FRASER

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to intimate that I have received a letter from Lady Fraser, expressing her grateful acknowledgment and deep appreciation of the Senate’s action in passing a motion of sympathy and condolence with her in reference to the death of her late husband, Sir Simon Fraser. The letter will be placed amongst the records of the Senate.

page 11756

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to restore the grants to rifle associations on a pre-war basis?

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– This question is at present under consideration in connexion with the Budget proposals.

page 11756

QUESTION

SUNNYSIDE WOOLLEN MILLS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What contracts were made for supplies of material with the Sunnyside Woollen Mills?
What were the quantities?
What were the prices per yard?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The information is being obtained, and the honorable senator will be informed as early as possible.

page 11756

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Superannuation - Case of D. J. O’Leary - Pay fob Holidays - Accrued Rights of Transferred Officers.

Senator PRATTEN:

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

As the question of Public Service superannuation is receiving the attention of the Government, will the Government consider the advisability of submitting the matter to the Public Accounts Committee for inquiry and report?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– It is not considered that any advantage would result from the adoption of the course suggested.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is he aware whether the transfer of D. J. O’Leary from Perth to Albany was effected at the instance of the Department of Defence or any of its officers, and if so, what was the reason ?
Is he aware whether the Department of Defence or any of its officers requested the dismissal or enforced resignation of O’Leary, and, if so, for what reason?
Was O’Leary considered guilty of any offence; if so, was a charge laid according to the regulations and an opportunity given him of defending himself; if not, why not?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– I have already informed the honorable senator that the transfer of Mr. O’Leary to Albany was made in the best interests of the Department, and considerable economy was effected thereby.

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is he aware whether the Public Service Act passed last December, regulating holidays in the Public Service, has resulted in considerably reducing the amount earned by employees working on ‘holidays below the amount fixed by the Arbitration Court?
Was the Act intended to bring about such a reduction?
If not, will he take such steps as will prevent any such reduction?

Senator MILLEN:

– The answers are -

No; the amending Public Service Act is more favorable to officers generally than Arbitration awards.
The amending Act was intended to secure uniform conditions for holiday pay.
The necessity for uniformity precludes any exception being made to the common rule, even if it were possible under the law to do so.

Senator MILLEN:

– On the Sth August, Senator Mulcahy asked the following questions: -

Does the Government construe section 84 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act, and section 60 of the Public Service Act, No. 5, of 1002, as imposing upon the Administration a moral and equitable obligation to preserve and respect all “ existing and accruing rights “ held by transferred officers under State laws, or enjoyed under State departmental regulations where no specific enactment existed, at the time such public servants passed from State to Commonwealth?
To what extent have the claims of transferred officers under the Acts and sections referred to been recognised?
Have the claims of such officers, with regard to salary increases, duration of service, and furlough, as established by the laws or the departmental regulations of the States at the time of transfer been dealt with by the Commonwealth; and, if so, in what way?

I stated that inquiry would be instituted and replies furnished. The answers are -

The only existing and accruing rights which can be recognised are those to which transferred officers have a legally enforceable claim.
The rights of transferred officers to count their previous service under the State, and to pension or retiring allowance when such is provided for by State law are recognised.
Claims of the nature mentioned have been the subject of legal advising or judgments of the High Court from time to time, and it has been hold that they do not come within the term “existing and accruing rights.”

page 11757

QUESTION

NORTHERN” TERRITORY

Services of Mr. Justice Bevan

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Minister for Home and Territories, in answer to a question on 25th April, 1018, stated that Mr. Justice Bevan’s services as legal adviser to the Northern Territory Administration . “ are utilized only to a very small’ extent, and never in cases that are likely to come before him in his judicial capacity, and should the Administrator desire legal advice he either obtains it from a local solicitor or from the Crown Law Department in Melbourne, and occasionally the Judge is consulted regarding the form in which a regulation should be worded or other similar matters.” ?
Is the Minister aware whether the Darwin Town Council recently received a letter from the Government accountant showing that Mr. Justice Bevan had advised that certain rates which the council levied could not be collected;if so, does not the procedure followed in Dar-i win conflict with the statement made , by the Minister?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yos.
1. The municipal authorities at Darwin have’ advised the Minister of the receipt of such letter. The Minister has asked for copies of all papers on the subject, on receipt of which he will he in a better position to give a decisive opinion.

page 11757

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Erection of Houses of Parliament

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Has the Government taken into consideration the question of placing a sum of money on the Estimates sufficient to complete the erection of temporary Houses of Parliament at Canberra ?
If so, what is the amount?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

and 2. It is not the practice to disclose the contents of the Estimates until the Budget is submitted to Parliament, but a general statement of policy will be made in due course.

page 11757

QUESTION

CANBERRA-JERVIS BAY RAILWAY

Senator GRANT:

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

What steps have been taken in regard to the construction of a railway from Canberra to Jervis Bay?
Has the land on both sides of the proposed railway been acquired, and, if so, to what distance ?
Is the Minister aware whether the construction of this line would probably lead to a considerable increase in adjacent land values, and, if so, is he prepared to submit a Bill empowering the Commonwealth to appropriate all such values without exemption?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Inspection of routes has been made, but the Commonwealth Railway Commissioner considers further survey necessary to obtain detailed information.
No.
The point raised will be considered when preparing any Bill for an Act to authorize this railway.

page 11757

QUESTION

RUSSIAN INTERNEES.

Senator GRANT:

asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -

How many Russians are at present in,terned in Darlinghurst- Detention Barracks? ,
How long have they been there?
What is it intended to do with these people?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Seven.
About four months.
Return them to Russia when there is an available route open.

page 11758

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

In connexion with the quarantine detention of passengers and vessels voyaging from mainland States to Tasmania -

To what extent have the Federal Department of Quarantine and the State Department of Tasmania respectively -

been charged with the responsibility of administration.

borne the expense of administration.

levied, collected, and appropriated the quarantine charges on the passengers and shipping concerned?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

The provisions of the Quarantine Act and the Quarantine Regulations governing the restrictions on passengers on vessels voyaging from other States to Tasmania have been administered by the Quarantine Service.
The expenses of administration have been borne almost wholly by the Commonwealth.
1. The charges for passengers on vessels from Victoria to Launceston were levied, collected, and appropriated by the Commonwealth up to the 3rd March, 1919. The cost of passengers travelling by this route, except in a few special cases, has since been borne by the shipping companies concerned.
1. The quarantine costs of Inter-State vessels and passengers quarantined at Hobart have been charged to the shipping companies concerned.

page 11758

QUESTION

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

Senator KEATING:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is the Government aware whether certain newspapers throughout the Commonwealth have caused uneasiness and alarm in scientific circles by announcing that the Government intends, by the imposition of prohibitive duties or otherwise, to practically prevent the introduction into Australia of scientific books and publications containing any advertisements?
Has the Government or any Minister made any statement to that effect?
Will the Minister state whether there is any ground for such an announcement?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yes.
No.
It is not the intention of the Government to impose duty on scientific books and publications so long as they are not issued as advertising media for individual businesses. This is the present departmental practice, which it is not proposed to vary.

page 11758

QUESTION

CAPTURED GERMAN POSSESSIONS

Treaty between Great Britain and Japan.

Senator GARDINER:

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

Has his attention been drawn to the published statement attributed to Mr. Lansing, of America, namely, that he was aware a secret treaty had been entered into between Great Britain and Japan regarding the division of the Pacific Islands between those two powers?
Was such a treaty sent to the Australian Government?
If so, on what date was the treaty received ?
What Government, if any, in Australia, considered the Treaty in question?
What reply was sent to the British Government?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yes. 2, 3, 4, and 5. It is not considered advisable to make public at this stage any of the secret correspondence which has, during the war, passed between the Governments of Great Britain and Australia.

page 11758

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Report on Remount Section.

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has Inspector-General Ramaciotti furnished a report or reports on the remount section of the Defence Department?
If so, will the Minister have the said report or reports laid on the table of the Senate?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

The Home Service Personnel Commission, of which General Ramaciotti is President, furnished a report on the remount section.
The report affects confidential matters of policy connected with the whole of the Defence Scheme now under consideration, and cannot, at the present stage, be laid upon the table of the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– Is it a fact that the report discloses a loss unaccounted for of at least 1,S00 remounts? If the Minister will not give us the information we shall supply our reasons for asking the question.

Question not answered.

page 11759

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 11759

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th August (vide page 11606), on motion by Senator Russell -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Very well; I will come to the wheat conditions later. The report of the Inter-State Commission states -

A witness deputed by the Victorian Farmers Union, comprising 6,000 members, put the matter from the two points of view - under the average conditions, the cost of producing milk, and the return obtained from it. He showed that a man working sixty hours per week would earn only 26s. 6d. per week during nine months of the year.

Senator Needham:

– They earned more than that.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Quite true; they should have received more. It will be found that, in connexion with the wheat-growing industry, the same observation can be made, and that the producers do not receive the return to which they are entitled. In many instances they have worked two days for themselves and the remaining five for the consumers of ‘ Australia. The report continues -

The next gave . the actual results of his own working with two brothers as his partners. The earnings of each per hour were as follow in the years mentioned : -

This witness, judging by the way his figures were submitted, carried on his farm on expert lines,, but on a small scale, and 8 miles from the butter factory. It is stated that at no period since dairying was established has the production of butter given a return of 9d. per hour for the labour required to produce it, taken over a period of three consecutive years, and that during “ recent years the number of farms that were formerly used as dairy farms which are now used for other purposes is astonishing.” The cause of this process of elimination is put down to the general better conditions in other callings, in most of which 1s. 2d. per hour is assured without risk, and with no Sunday labour. The evidence showed that the dairy farmer has to have good land, artificial feeding, best of herds, and to work hard to obtain a fair return on his outlay and make a reasonable living. In a large number of cases, even after living a strenuous life, the result was said to be quite inadequate as an incentive to gointo the industry.

In to-day’s Argus I find some evidence with regard to prices submitted at the inquiry by the State Royal Commission appointed in Victoria as the result of the outcry against profiteering. They took this evidence yesterday from Mr. Crowe, who is an expert upon commodities supplied by farmers, such as butter, meat, and cheese: -

Australia has been supplied with beef at 5Jd. a lb., which, after allowing for charges for carriage to London, would be worth 11¾d. at the fixed price in England? - Yes. Just 100 per cent. more. In other words, the people are getting meat cheaper than in England. Meat is cheaper here than in any other part of the world.

That is a most significant statement when taken in conjunction with figures which I supplied last week with respect to the price of bread. Those figures were beyond dispute, as they were supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician, Mr. Knibbs. He makes the statement that during the war period the highest price charged here for bread was only 4£d. per 2-lb. loaf; the lowest price was 3Jd. That is the cheapest loaf that I have any knowledge of in any country during the war. To-day we have evidence that cannot be questioned, that in Australia we have also the cheapest meat obtainable in any part of the world. In the report of the proceedings of the Victorian Royal Commission, to which I have referred, I find also the following statement : -

The chairman, quoting from figures supplied by witness (Mr. Crowe) as to the price of meat on the Smithfield (England) market, and ths relative f.o.b. Australian equivalent, said that from 1909 to 1913 there had been a steady increase in the approximate Australian equivalent of from 2d. to nearly 3d. per lb. There had been a steeper rise during the Avar years, and a very sharp rise in 1918 to ls. 0¼d. per lb.

This shows that the price went up in a greater degree in England than, perhaps, in any other country.

Senator Needham:

– The question I asked Avas what was the price of Australian meat in England as compared with the price of the same meat here.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have just quoted for the honorable senator the statement that Australian meat Avas selling in London at ls. per lb., and in Australia at 5d. per lb. I think I have made that clear.

Senator Needham:

– I am adopting the honorable senator’s advice not to depend too much upon figures.

Senator O’Keefe:

– In how many places can meat he obtained for 5d. per lb., and what sort of meat Will it be?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I might go

Avith the honorable senator, after the sitting has concluded, and examine the retail prices of meat in the shops. I have quoted the statement of a witness, who is an expert in this line of business, and if Senator O’Keefe wishes to dispute that statement, I hope that he will rise in his place and do so rather than interject.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The witness has given the price for one place only.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We could not expect him to speak for the whole of the States. He has spoken for the State in which Senator O’Keefe and myself are living at the present time, and we should know something about prices here, and when the Royal Commission collects evidence in other States, witnesses living there will speak for those States. I make the following quotation from the evidence of the same witness in regard to cheese and butter prices: -

Referring to the butter industry, witness (Mr. Crowe) said that it cost a good deal more to produce a lb. of butter in the winter than it did in the spring. It did not matter how cows were fed in the winter, they would not give the same flow of milk as they did in the spring. Under the contract with the Imperial Government, the f.o.b. price for Australian butter was 175s. per cwt., less 2 per cent, commission, and Cs. 4d. freezing expenses. The London fixed price in 19,17 waB 252s. per cwt., which was equal to 2s. 3d. per lb. The people who were clamouring for cheap butter would want it for 6d. per lb. if the price was reduced to ls. They forgot that those engaged in the industry were getting very poor returns for their labour. In regard to cheese, the price to the local consumer was less than the local parity -of the world’s prices.

So that, not only in the matter of bread and meat, but also in the matter of butter and cheese, we in Australia are enjoying these good things at lower prices than they can be obtained for elsewhere. In the face of this evidence, I say that the cry of profiteering is one of the most humbugging cries that I have heard in Australia for years.

Senator KEATING:

– They do not require validating. If we have the power to pass this legislation, and do pass it, we put the Commonwealth Government in the position of fulfilling its obligations. There is no doubt whatever as to the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to carry on these obligations. They are extraordinary obligations and contracts, and ones which would not have been entered into in times of profound peace. As soon as the war period ceased the question would arise as to whether the contracts and obligations were still binding upon the Commonwealth, and if they were is the Commonwealth Government in a position to carry them out. The Commonwealth in this regard is like a contractor or party to a contract who enters into an agreement with other parties to do certain things when circumstances intervene to prevent his fulfilment of his obligations. The circumstances in this case which intervene are the cessation of hostilities, and the question arises in connexion with this Bill as to whether or not this Parliament is competent to legislate to give to the Commonwealth powers which it may exercise during the period between the termination of the war - whenever that may be - and the termination of these agreements, according to their terms. That is the whole question from the constitutional and legal point of view. Can we as a Parliament by legislation endow the Commonwealth Government with extraordinary powers for the period intervening between the termination of the war and the termination of the several contracts entered into according to the respec- tive dates agreed upon? The dates are specified in the preamble, and the contracts for the commodities mentioned in the Bill terminate respectively as follows: - Dairy produce, 31st August, 1920; wool, 30th June, 1920; flax, 31st December, 1920; and, as regards the State of Queensland and the sugar contracts, the date of termination is that of the sugar season of 1919. Before any of these dates have arrived we will undoubtedly be in a period of peace, and the question is, can we bv this enactment enable the Commonwealth to do during that period the things we knew could be done only in relation to war ? For my own part, despite the certificate given by several eminent legal gentlemen consulted by thi* Commonwealth Government, I consider this a matter of very considerable doubt. The opinions given by the eminent legal gentlemen referred to in this Chamber and in another place are very terse, and no reason has been furnished to the Government upon which the joint and several opinions have been based. These legal advisers have not furnished grounds for their opinions, or if they have the Government have not thought it fit to communicate them to Parliament. We have just the simple statement that these gentlemen are prepared to certify that, in their opinion, the proposed legislation is within the constitutional competence of the Federal Parliament. So far as the constitutional competence of the Federal Parliament to pass this measure is concerned, it rests mainly upon two subdivisions or paragraphs of section 51 of the Constitution, which enumerates in thirty-nine articles, as they have been called, the subjects with respect to which the Commonwealth Parliament shall have power to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth. Article 6 reads1 -

The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth.

The power to legislate in regard to these matters is given to the Federal Parliament under section 51, article 6, of our Constitution. Article 39 reads -

Matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the

Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any Department or office of the Commonwealth.

There is the expressed power to legislate in regard to the military and naval defence of the Commonwealth, and the incidental power’ to legislate in respect of matters incidental to any power vested in the Commonwealth Parliament, or in either House thereof. Some time ago the construction of these provisions of the Constitution came up for consideration by the High Court of the Commonwealth in the case of Farey v. Burvett, when an individual was prosecuted for an alleged breach of one of the regulations under the War Precautions Act. By the amending War Precautions Act it was provided, amongst other things, that regulations might be issued for the purpose of fixing prices, and in the execution of the authority thus given under that Act the Governor-General, on the advice of his Ministers, fixed the prices of certain commodities in the populous areas of the Commonwealth. One vendor of bread - I do not know whether he was a baker or a middleman - sold bread at a price above that fixed by the regulations. He Avas successfully prosecuted, and an appeal was taken to the High Court, when the validity of the legislation and the regulations under the Act mentioned was questioned. The validity of the legislation rested directly, according to the contention of the Commonwealth authorities, upon the two provisions of the Constitution to which I have referred, and incidentally upon other sections of the Constitution, such as 68, which vests the command of Naval and Military Forces in the Governor-General, section 119, which provides that the Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and violence, and section 114, which says that a State shall not, without the consent of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any Naval or Military Force. The sections I have quoted show that the exclusive authority in relation to defence is with the Commonwealth. It was contended that it was in exercise of its defence powers that the regulations were framed, to enable the Commonwealth to more effectively and efficiently prosecute its part in the “war. In the course of a very interesting argument a good many matters were presented to influence the Court in denning exactly, if it could, what were the restrictions, if any, upon the Commonwealth under the provisions of section 51 (vi) and (xxxix) of the Constitution. But there was a difference of opinion, in the Court, which consisted of seven Judges. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Barton, Mr. Justice Isaacs, Mr. Justice Higgins, and Mr. Justice Powers held that the War Precautions Act was a valid exercise of the defence powers of the Commonwealth in a period of war, and they also held that the regulation questioned was valid. On the other hand, Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Bich held that the legislation was invalid, and that, even if the Act were valid, this regulation tinder it was invalid, or beyond the competence of the Federal Parliament or the Governor-General.

Chief Justice Griffith, in the early part of his judgment, said that it was beyond dispute that the Commonwealth could not fix prices in times of peace. I merely mention this matter incidentally because during the course of this discussion honorable senators opposite have asked if this Bill can fix the .price of wool, flax, dairy produce, and the other commodities mentioned in the preamble, why cannot it fix the price of other commodities which are of vital necessity to the community.

Senator Grant:

– The answer is very simple. It is because the Government do not believe in protecting the poorer section of the community.

Senator KEATING:

– The answer is very simple, but it is not what the honorable senator has stated. It is that the High Court has stated, in effect, unanimously, that no body questions, or can question, the inability of the Federal Parliament to fix prices in times of peace. That is stated very clearly at the very beginning of the judgment.

In the course of argument, Sir William Irvine and Mr. Mann, both now occupying judicial positions, were asked by the Chief Justice -

Does not the power (defence) include the power which all sovereign nations have to defend themselves by all means?

And that is the keynote to his subsequent judgment, from which I shall quote. For the information of Senator Grant, and to correct the impression which he entertains, I shall now quote the statement of Mr. Justice Griffith -

The first question, then, is, What is the nature of the power conferred-? It is contended by the appellant that the word “ defence,” as there used, must bear a single and uniform meaning at all times, in the sense that an act which is not authorized to be done in time of peace cannot be authorized in time of war, and that any wider meaning of the word is excluded by the context. No one disputes that an attempt by the Commonwealth Parliament to fix the price of food in time of peace would be a trespass on’ the reserved powers of the States. It is contended that it is, therefore, equally a trespass in time of war.

That is the position. The appellant urged that in time of peace the Commonwealth Parliament could not regulate prices, and, in consequence, he contended, in time of war it could not do so. The Chief Justice said that no one disputed that the Commonwealth. Parliament could not do so in time of peace; but, in time of war, “Yes.” The Chief Justice proceeded then to give the reasons. Later, he said of this power -

It includes preparation for war in time of peace, and any such action in time of war as may conduce to the successful prosecution of the war and defeat of the enemy.

Further, in the course of the same remarks, he said, “ One test, however, must always be applied,” that is, as to whether a piece of legislation during a period of war is a proper exercise of the defence power -

One test, however, must always be applied, namely, Can the measure in question conduce to the efficiency of the Forces of the Empire, or is the connexion of cause and effect between the measure and the desired efficiency so remote that one cannot reasonably be regarded as affecting the other?

He held that the Court must enter into that inquiry in determining whether or not a piece of legislation is a valid exercise of the power of defence. Further, the Chief Justice remarked -

In making the inquiry, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that what could not rationally be regarded as a measure of defence in time of peace may be- obviously a measure of defence in time of war.

That is to say, a piece of legislation which in time of peace cannot be rationally re- garded as an exercise of the defence power of the Commonwealth Parliament, may be obviously a defence measure in time of war. The Chief Justice then cites, as an instance, that a law passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in time of profound peace, to prohibit the accumulation of foodstuffs, could not be regarded as substantially an exercise of the defence power, but that in time of war that same action on the part of any individual might well be made a capital offence.

That is the distinction upon which the Commonwealth Judiciary has gone in determining the validity or otherwise of a piece of legislation in its application to the war.

Mr. Justice Barton gave a very long, interesting, and learned judgment to the same effect as that of the Chief Justice. Senator Bakhap, in the course of his remarks last evening, referred to other means of doing what the Commonwealth Government is proposing to do now. It has been made abundantly clear, both by precedent and analogy, in these judgments, especially in that of Mr. Justice Barton, that upon the Parliament applying itself to legislation of this character, in aid, so to speak, of the direct action in the prosecution of the war, if the legislation which it passes is a substantial exercise of the defence power, it must be left to the Parliament entirely to choose the particular means. Mr. Justice Barton quotes a decision of Chief Justice Marshall, of the American Judiciary, in The United States versus Fisher, wherein that Judge says -

Where various systems might be adopted for that purpose, it might be said with respect to each that it was not necessary, because the end might be obtained by other means. Congress must possess the choice of means, and must be empowered to use any means which are, in fact, conducive to the exercise of a power granted by the Constitution.

Mr. Justice Barton deals with paragraph xxxix. of section 51 of the Constitution, and states that the word “ incidental “ gives at least as ample scope as the expression “ necessary and proper “ in a corresponding provision of the United States Constitution.

In these various judgments the whole of the Justices concerned are at one upon the point that the Court itself cannot enter into an analysis of what may be called the antecedent facts on which the Government and Parliament deemed it advisable to pass the legislation in question. If the enactment is of such a character that it can be conceivably regarded as an effort to organize the forces of the nation - material, mental, economic, financial or otherwise - for the purpose of overcoming the enemy, and preserving the nation itself - if the legislation is substantially the exercise of a power of that character, then it is not for the Court to ascertain whether it is calculated to be effective or likely to be useful, or what are the particular circumstances in which it originated.

It has been pointed out by the different Judges that “ defence “ has not the limited significance which we have been accustomed in the past to associate with it. War to-day is a war not merely of armies and fleets, but of country against country, and of the resources of one nation against those of another; and it may be carried on not alone by armies and navies, but by financial operations, economic pressure, and other means. Those Judges who upheld the validity of our War Precautions legislation were unanimously of opinion that the Commonwealth, under our Constitution, has the power to utilize every means for ite own preservation, and to employ every means at its disposal - using the term “ means “ in the widest possible sense - for the purpose of overcoming the enemy. . In Mr. Justice Barton’s judgment I direct special attention to one sentence which practically sums up his attitude, and that also of the other Judges agreeing with him upon “this matter -

If an activity belongs solely to a State in time of peace, it does not follow that it is not a means of defence for Commonwealth hands in time .of war. .

That is the position which we took up when we passed our War Precautions legislation. There were activities which were solely State activities in time of peace; but, because they were such in time of peace - as Mr. Justice Bartonsays - it did not follow of necessity that they were not a means of defence for Commonwealth hands in time of war.

I will turn now to the judgments given by the dissenting Justices. The Chief Justice and one or more of the five Judges who upheld the legislation and the regulations, likened the Commonwealth power of defence to that of the “United Kingdom, and of the King of England. They held that we had plenary power, absolute and complete, and that it was in all respects identical with the power enjoyed and exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom. Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Bich dissented emphatically from that point of view, and pointed out that the Imperial Parliament is bound by no written Constitution at all, and that it may legislate generally upon any subject and in any way it chooses, and may designate a subject or a piece of legislation by whatever name it desires. In all respects it is unfettered and uncontrolled. The dissenting Justices stated -

It is said for the respondent that the word “defence” of itself includes all such things as may be done either under the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain or under the Royal Prerogative for the purposes of the defence of the Realm, and that the epithets “military” and “naval” do not limit the meaning of the word “ defence.” The inference, of course, is that as the Parliament of Great Britain might enact that no food should be cooked, and that no person should wear any clothes in England during the period of the war, or that an infant should be blown from the mouth of a cannon every day during the same period, the Parliament of the Commonwealth might make similar enactments for Australia. In our opinion, the epithets “military” and “naval” do limit the meaning of the word “defence”; but assuming that they do not, the fault of the argument lies in a misapprehension of the powers and practice of the Imperial Parliament. If it is meant to suggest that that Parliament has power to legislate only in specific departments, as our own Parliament has, and that it could make these enactments only because it has power to legislate for the purposes of the defence of the Realm, it is, of course,’ a misstatement of the facts. The British Parliament has power to legislate in any manner about anything; it can make any enactment, and label it with any name it chooses, however inappropriate to the real tenor of the enactment, while the validity of every enactment of the Commonwealth Parliament must be established by referring it to some particular department of legislation.

These two Justices, Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Rich, held that the words “ naval and military defence of the Opmmonwealth,” contained in paragraph vi. of section 51 of the Constitution, meant defence as confined to naval and military operations and matters incidental thereto. They are very clear and emphatic upon that point. They affirm that the use of the words “naval and military” limit the function of the Federal authorities to defending the Commonwealth by naval and military forces, and enable it incidentally to make all provision ancillary to naval and military defence.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I do not know whether the honorable senator agrees with that view, but, if so, does he hold that the States, in relinquishing their defence rights, relinquished only a portion of them?

Senator KEATING:

– That is the question which presented itself to my mind when I read the judgment. But a little later I shall draw attention to the way in which these two Justices adverted to the responsibilities and the authority of the States. In support of the position taken up by them, Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Rich point out that wherever it is necessary to go beyond the express and limited power of defence provided for in paragraph vi. of section 51 of our Constitution, the framers of that charter of government, after the most exhaustive consideration, made the requisite provision for it. For example, paragraph xxxii. of that section empowers this Parliament to legislate regarding -

The control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth.

If it be held that paragraph vi. of section 51 of the Constitution includes all the things which five Justices held that it did include where is the necessity, it is asked, for paragraph xxxii.? Mr. Justice Duffy and Mr. Justice Rich, therefore, held that the very existence of paragraph xxxii. side by side with paragraph vi. of section 51 showed that the words contained in the latter paragraph have a limited signification.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The adoption of that view would eliminate aerial warfare.

Senator KEATING:

– Aerial warfare is usually associated either with the naval or military arm of a nation’s defence. I propose now to read another paragraph from the judgment of these gentlemen, which will be found on page 465 of the report of this particular case. They say-

In these circumstances, what meaning should he attributed to the words “the Naval and Military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States” in section 51 (vi) of the Constitution? We venture to think that they extend to the raising, training, and equipment of Naval find Military Forces, to the maintenance, control, and use of such Forces, to the supply of arms, ammunition, and other things necessary for Naval and Military operations, to all matters strictly ancillary to those purposes, and to nothing more. This, in our opinion, is their natural meaning, and to extend it would be to paralyze the States during war-time as completely as if there had been no reserve powers, to subject them at all times to an irritating and embarrassing usurpation of their ordinary functions. The defence of “the States would be the defence which King Stork extended to the frogs who invoked his assistance.

They are very emphatic in taking this narrower view of the defence power of the Commonwealth. Further on there is a very striking passage in their judgment, which will be found upon pages 467 and 46S. It reads-

Finally, we were pressed not to withhold from the Commonwealth a power so conducive to the effective conduct of a war in which we were engaged, as we firmly believe, on the side of honour and righteousness. Such an appeal is ill-made to Judges, who are sworn to administer the law without fear, favour, or affection, and whose fundamental duty is to interpret the law as they understand it, not to strain it this way or that way at the bidding of expediency. But, in our opinion, the respondent has wholly failed to show that the power to fix the price of bread in Melbourne and its suburbs at the present time is, in any sense, conducive to the defence of the Commonwealth, or has any relation whatever to the progress of the war. If we are wrong, and such a power bo necessary now, or if it becomes necessary in the future, it can be exercised by the State, or delegated by the State to the Commonwealth. It is a gross and pernicious error to suppose that, in the conduct of the present war, the interests of the State and the Commonwealth are diverse; they are identical, and the people of Australia will, no doubt, be as willing to protect and forward those interests through their State Legislatures as through the Commonwealth Parliament.

Had Senator Millen been present when the concluding paragraph of that judgment was read by Mr. Justice Duffy, he would have been disposed to interject, as he did last night when Senator Bakhap was speaking, that the Justices were unduly optimistic.

If this Bill be passed, the question which will arise is whether our power to legislate in t!he direction outlined therein will not cease the moment we pass from war to peace. Our competence to pass this legislation may not be questioned now, but the validity of the Act may be challenged directly we enter upon the period of peace. Obviously, before any of the dates specified in the preamble of this measure, we shall have entered that period, and the question will then arise whether this legislation did not lapse on the transition from war to peace.

Senator PRATTEN:

– That is the point which will probably be tested.

Senator KEATING:

– The judgments which I have read of Justices of the High Court show that the doubt as to the validity of the legislation proposed in this Bill is very much greater than was that as to the legislation which was challenged in the case of Farey v. Burvett. That legislation was enacted during and for a period of war. We are now approaching a period of peace, when the doubts which then existed will be considerably strengthened. For that reason, I think that the Bill is one the constitutional validity of which is very much open to question. When we arrive at the peace period,- it may not unreasonably be argued that the Commonwealth Government when it entered into the contracts outlined in the preamble of this measure, did so with their eyes wide open. They must have entered into them with a full realization of the constitutional limitation of their own powers. Suppose that the contracts had been made between individuals or companies - between “private persons,” using the term in its widest sense, so as to include corporate bodies. If private individuals or corporations entered into contracts which would bind them up to 31st December, 1920, and if, when making those contracts, they were conscious of the fact that, eighteen months before the date specified, through some circumstance over which they could exercise no control, their power to fulfil them would disappear, might it not be argued that they had entered into such contracts without due regard to their capacity to carry them out, and, as a result, might they not be justly cast in damages? Undoubtedly the Commonwealth can fulfil the contracts into which it has entered by co-operation with the several State Governments. If the State Parliaments choose to authorize this Parliament to legislate in regard to the matters enumerated in this Bill, no question as to the validity of our legislation can arise.

Does the Commonwealth stand in the position, with regard to these contracts, of a guarantor for the State Governments for such period of the term of the contracts as may be covered by a period of peace? That is a question which may be argued in the Courts hereafter. At any rate, so far as the United Kingdom and the State of Queensland are concerned, the agreements they have with the Commonwealth Government are operative, and terminate on the dates fixed in those agreements. If the Commonwealth Government is not in a position to fulfil those agreements, the United Kingdom and the State of Queensland may, as the other parties to the respective contracts, call upon the Commonwealth. Government to equip itself with power to fulfil the contracts. Failing the Commonwealth doing so, it may be found that we are unable, notwithstanding this legislation, to carry out those contracts.

The view I take of the position is that the validity of this legislation, if it- is passed, will be extremely doubtful, but we know that it is the best that the Government can offer at the present time. There has been no delegation of authority from the several State Parliaments. I question very much whether it had been asked for, but if it had been obtained, or were forthcoming unsolicited, there would be no doubt whatever of the validity of the legislation we are asked to pass. We are approaching the particular time when we shall pass from a state of war to a state of peace, and, as honorable senators who have spoken before me have said, our contracts are sacred and binding things.

Whether they were entered into by the Commonwealth Government adverting or not adverting to the possible termination of its powers before the termination of the periods set out in the contracts, I do not know. But, so far as Australia is concerned, it is our bounden duty and obligation to see that our contracts are fulfilled. If the Federal Government can fulfil them by the passage of this legislation, all the better, because it will be so much easier for one authority, such as the Federal Government, to represent Australia in these matters. It will be the more easy, because hitherto, during the period of the war, the Government have been associated with these contracts and with the various Pools and other commercial organizations dealing with the particular commodities referred to in the preamble to this Bill. In every respect it is. highly desirable that the Commonwealth Government should be the party to complete these contracts. In so far as this legislation will enable them to do so, I support the second reading of this Bill. I sincerely hope that if it is put to the test it will be upheld as a valid exercise of the powers of this Parliament, but, for the reasons that I have given, I must say that T have considerable doubt as to what will be its fate should it come to the test of an appeal to the High Court.

There is one other aspect of the question to which I might refer before I sit down. Looking through the Bill, it occurs to me that it is quite possible that it may be regarded as consisting of severable parts. Some of the parts, should they come before the High Court for determination, may be held to be a valid exercise of the .powers of this Parliament, whereas some other of the parts may be held to be invalid. I do not think it is at all likely that the whole measure will be called in question and the whole of this legislation determined to be invalid. With these qualifications, I am supporting the second reading of the Bill, and I hope to give the measure and the amendments which have been notified the fairest and fullest consideration in Committee.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Whilst giving a general support to this measure, I think that the Govern- ment, in characteristic fashion, have dealt very unfairly with a number of industries equally deserving of consideration with those for which the Senate is asked to pass this legislation. I refer, for instance, to industries affected by the increase in the cost of timber, galvanized iron, clothing, house rent, and the increase in the cost of commodities generally. I remember that during the Spanish-American war, when the Americans obtained possession of Cuba, the very first act of the American commander at Havana was to fix the prices of commodities at the prices ruling on his arrival. The Commonwealth Government have only limited powers delegated to them by the various States under the section of the Constitution known as the “ Thirty-nine Articles.” It was in order to extend those powers that this Parliament, almost without comment, and practically without opposition, clothed the Government of the day with every power that it asked for under the Crimes Act, several amendments of the Defence Act, and the War Precautions Act. They were granted all the powers necessary to secure the adequate defence of Australia. In the exercise of those powers a considerable number of Committees were appointed, and, no doubt with the approval of the Government, they entered into various contracts. I take this measure to be intended to enable those Committees, such as the Central Wool Committee and the Committee controlling the Wheat Pool, to give effect to the contracts into which they entered, irrespective of whether the Peace Treaty is ratified or not. I cannot see that this Parliament could do otherwise than give those Committees this necessary power. I am, therefore, not prepared to vote against the second Heading of this Bill, although I have very grave doubts as to whether, when Peace is signed, it will stand the test of an appeal to the High Court.

My main objection is that the Government have not gone far enough. When war was declared there was nothing to prevent them fixing the prices of various commodities at the rates ruling at that time. I have no doubt that if they could have foreseen the enormous rise that has taken place in the prices of commodities they would have done so. The men who, perhaps for lack of a better term, are known as “ profiteers “ did not increase the prices of the commodities in which they deal by leaps and bounds, but on a steadily-increasing scale, with the result that to-day the prices of various articles have been vastly increased from those which prevailed in 1913. This has occurred, not because production has decreased in a ratio corresponding to the increase of prices, but simply because certain men were in possession of stocks of various commodities, and have increased their prices as they thought fit.

I enter my protest against the failure of the Government in this matter, and against their partiality in selecting three or four industries for the specially favoured treatment proposed by this Bill. The Government could have dealt with clothing, house rents, galvanized iron, timber, and all commodities required in connexion with building operations. If they had done so, the result would have been of immense advantage, especially to our returned soldiers, many of whom will presently commence the long and tedious operation - extending, . it may be, over thirty-seven years - of paying for the houses that are to be erected for them. If this matter had been attended to by the Government a returned soldier might have been protected in the case of a house valued at £500 to the extent of at least £100. However, the Government have not been prepared to take any risk in that direction. We are not yet officially at peace, since the Peace Treaty has not been ratified, and there is, therefore, nothing to prevent the Government, if they so desired, dealing with matters of this description. They have given no indication that it is their intention to do so. They are prepared to deal with the wool industry, which is the most important, and certainly the. wealthiest, industry in the Commonwealth. They are prepared to use all their powers, and to appropriate a few to which they are not entitled, in order to assist those- concerned in that in*dustry, in the wheat industry, and the others referred to in the Bill; but they are not prepared to take any steps whatever in the way I have mentioned for the benefit of returned soldiers or of the community at large. Every one to-day, and especially the poorer sections of the community, are suffering most acutely from the extortionate rents demanded by landlords in the Commonwealth. This is due largely to the high cost of land and the high cost of building materials, and this indicates a direction in which the Government should take action before the Peace Treaty is ratified. I hope that they will accept this suggestion, and will not be content to extend the powers of the “War Precautions Act merely for the protection of the few industries referred to in this Bill. Except that I admit that contracts entered into must be honoured, I believe that, on the whole, now that Peace is at hand, it would be better if all the regulations under the War Precautions Act were allowed to go by the board, and commercial affairs were restored to pre-war conditions.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– Sugar is the only commodity mentioned in this Bill concerning which I have an intimate knowledge. At the same time; I have been very keenly interested in the Government activities with respect to wheat, wool, and dairy produce. I have been struck, as, no doubt, every honorable senator must have been, with the magnitude of these transactions, and also with the measure of success achieved, especially when we take into account the very great difficulties arising in connexion with freight and other matters, due to our remoteness from the overseas markets. Sugar in this, and also in many other countries, has, perhaps, engaged a greater share of political attention than any other industry, the reason being, I believe, in part, because the world’s supplies are derived partly from beet and partly from cane. This has brought the product of white-labour countries into direct competition with that of coloured-labour nations. In addition to that, there was for a number of years, a determined effort on the part of the beet-sugar producing ‘countries of Europe to destroy the cane-sugar industry of Great Britain. The last serious attempt in this direction was made by Germany’ in 1896, when the German import duty was in creased to £20 per ton, and the Excise duty to £10 per ton. Very soon afterwards the example set by Germany was followed by both France and Austria. The result was a large increase in the production of beet sugar, and, as a consequence, a rapid fall in sugar prices throughout the world; the lowest point ever known, about 6s. per cwt. for 88 per cent, beet sugar f.o.b. Hamburg, being reached in 1903. If it had not been for the action taken by the United States of America in imposing a countervailing duty upon bounty-fed sugar, and the adoption of the Brussels Convention, which came into operation in September, 1903, there cam be no doubt that the cane-sugar industry of the world would have been practically destroyed, and all countries outside of Germany and Austria would have experienced a sugar famine during the recent war. Sugar is peculiar in the respect that for almost every other footstuff there is some fairly acceptable substitute, but for sugar there is none. As soon as war was declared, Great Britain took action to secure supplies of sugar, and within a few months had purchased no less than 1,000,000 tons at double the price ruling prior to the war. In Australia the price for the three years preceding the war was not £14 per ton, as has been stated during this debate; the average during that term was £16 0s. 6d., if we take into account the bounty paid to growers of sugar cane. Owing to a very heavy yield in Java, which is our nearest competitor, there was a fall in the Australian market, early in July, 1914, of £1 per ton.

Notwithstanding the very sharp and big rise in sugar prices throughout the world at the beginning of the war, the price-fixing tribunals established by the southern ‘States refused toe allow any increase in Australian sugar, so that this commodity was sold at a lower price than that ruling in other countries. The transactions of the Imperial Sugar Commission are set out in a report of the Imperial War Cabinet for 1917, and for the information of honorable senators I should like to quote briefly from that document -

The Sugar Commission is also dissimilar from the meats and fats organizations. As the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply, it was established, as has been stated, long before the Ministry came into being. In the early part of 1016, the Commission arranged to buy for France, and later for other Allies. In September, 1917, at the suggestion of Mr. Hoover, an international sugar committee was established in New York, to centralize the purchase and allocation of Cuban and American raw sugars. The Royal Commission sent two delegates to represent them on this committee, and thus the co-ordination of Allied purchases was effectively completed. The expenditure of the Sugar Commission to 1st October, 1917, exceeded £120,000,000.

In Australia there has been until recently a full supply of sugar both for domestic and manufacturing purposes. In that we have been very fortunate, because in other countries it has been found necessary to rigidly control consumption. This is what was done in Great Britain -

The whole of the domestic consumption of sugar has now been brought under the most rigid control by the system of registration of all dealers, combined with the registration of each individual consumer, by means of sugar cards, with one selected retailer - the first instance of universal rationing in England. The amount allowed to each individual is no more than i lb. per week. Its use in- sweets and other manufactures has been limited to 25 per cent, of the normal quantity.

Sugar may only be used for cooking in hotels, restaurants, clubs, or boarding houses on an average of one-seventh of an ounce per lunch or dinner. Residents may, in addition, obtain a further 6 ozs. of sugar per week for their individual use. The amount that may be used in’ cakes made for sale is limited to 15 per cent, of their total weight, in biscuits to 15 per cent, and in buns to 10 per cent., while scones must be made entirely without sugar.

In the case of sugar, prices are controlled throughout. The Sugar Commission imports sugar on Government account, and regulates prices to wholesalers and retailers on the basis of costs of production and handling. No Statutory Order has been issued fixing prices, but the Commission holding a monopoly in this article is enabled, by the threat of withholding supplies, to compel the dealers to conform to its regulation’s. The prices to the consumer on 1st January, 1918, and for some time previous, were: Loaf sugar, 6½d. per lb.; white granulated, 5)d. per lb. ; ordinary brown, 5Jd. per lb. Lists of prices which the public ought to pay for sugar are officially issued, and charges in excess of these can be reported- for investigation.

I am not in a position to say what- the wholesale price was up to the 1st January, 1918, when these retail prices were charged, but I know that last year the wholesale price of sugar in England was increased to £57 15s. per ton, and there was a corresponding increase in the retail price. It will be noticed, in the prices I have quoted, that white granulated sugar was sold in Great Britain at 5fd., and ordinary brown at 5£d. - the difference being only Jd. per lb. That really represents the difference between the actual value of white and brown sugar, and if the practice of using brown sugar instead of white were’ generally adopted in Australia, the only saving, therefore, would be £d. per lb. I doubt very much whether the people, as has been suggested, are prepared to substitute brown sugar for white for that consideration.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They would require to use more.

Senator CRAWFORD:

-That is so. They would require to use more, because brown sugar contains about 96 per cent, of pure sugar, while the refined product contains about 99.9 per cent., so that any saving in actual cost would be counterbalanced by the larger quantity that would be required.

In 1915 the Commonwealth assumed control over sugar, and, after negotiations with the Queensland Government, arranged to ‘ purchase the whole of the Queensland output at £18 per ton. That rate ruled for both the 1915 and 1916 crops, but the price of refined sugar during the greater part of the period was the same as now, £29 5s. per ton. Buying at £18 per ton and selling at £29 5s., less the usual discounts, of course, enabled the Commonwealth Government to make a profit on the sugar business, after providing for the loss incurred on sugar imported from foreign countries, of about £500,000. In the Estimates for 1916-17 and 1917-18, the amount carried to Consolidated Revenue, as a result of the Government’s transactions in sugar over that period, amounted to over £450,000. Against that, of course, has to be set the very substantial loss incurred by the Commonwealth owing to a disastrous cyclone which occurred in Queensland last year. Under the arrangement made with Queensland, the Government of that State, by proclamation, takes possession, as agent for the Commonwealth Government, of all sugar immediately it is made, and, owing to the shipping strike in 1917, -which lasted for eleven weeks, not a single bag of sugar was shipped from Port Mackay during that period. Consequently, there was a large accumulation of sugar there, and when a cyclone occurred in January, 1918, approximately 10,000 tons were totally destroyed, and another 10,000 tons required re-treatment before it could be shipped. The sugar belonged to the Commonwealth Government, and the whole of the loss incurred had to be borne by them.

In 1916, an award was made by the Industrial Court of Queensland, whereby the wages of all workers engaged in the sugar industry were increased by about 50 per cent., and the sugar industry, as well as other industries, had to pay a great deal more than in pre-war times for everything used, ‘both in the growing of cane and the manufacture of sugar. Representations were accordingly made to the Commonwealth Government as to the necessity for increasing the price, and, as a result of the negotiations between the sugar producers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) , it was agreed that the Commonwealth .Government should not in the future seek to make any profit out of sugar purchased in Australia. It was also agreed that the producers should be given all there was in the business when the selling price of refined sugar was £29 5s. per ton. In pursuance of that arrangement, the Commonwealth Government entered into an agreement with the State Government, and also -with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

I do not hold any brief for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but, being in possession of information in regard to the relations existing between that company and the industry as a whole, I think it is in the best interests of the sugar industry to place this information before honorable senators. I know that injustice is very often done to the whole industry because of the alleged sins of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. When speaking last night, Senator Ferricks said that the margin between the price paid by the refiners in Australia and that at which refined sugar was sold was double the European margin - I presume he referred to pre-war times - and treble the American margin. Senator Ferricks is quite wrong in that statement, and he must have fallen into the error so frequently made by those who have not an intimate knowledge of the business, of assuming that the first mark sugar, the price of which was regularly quoted in the Australian press alongside the price of 88 per cent, beet sugar, was really a refined sugar. The quotation did not refer to refined sugar, but to white sugar, produced as a result of a bleaching process, which does not command anything like the price of refined sugar either on the Continent, -in Great Britain, or in other markets of the world. In a little publication ‘ entitled 4. Short History of Sugar, Mr. George Martineau, CB., who is a recognised authority on the European sugar question, says -

The usual margin between the prices of raw and refined sugar in Germany was £3 10s. pelton. When the Cartel got to work, it rose to £10 10s. per ton, to fall again when the Convention came into force to the normal figure.

Senator Ferricks:

– Do you not admit that it has been?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I certainly do not. I heard evidence tendered, upon oath, to the effect that while it had given the growers to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company’s mills an increased price of ls. 6d. a ton for their cane, it had deprived them of 3s. a ton which they had previously received from the company; and, as a net result, they were ls. 6d. a ton worse off than before that legislation was introduced. In the Mackay district, before the growers can receive the award prices for their cane, a bank guarantee has to be signed to enable the co-operative mills to make the necessary payments. The mills in that district to-day are practically in a state of insolvency.

Senator Ferricks:

– Is it a fair thing for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company to evade the operations of that Act?

Senator CRAWFORD:

page 11781

THE CONTROL OF SUGAR

to THE EDITOR of THE “ TIMES.”

Sir, - We are glad to notice in your issue of the 24th inst., under the heading “ Fear of Dearer Food,” that there is a growing concern about the prospect of dearer food later in the year. The removal of control from some articles has been followed by considerable, and, in some cases, serious rises in price, and the raising of the blockade will undoubtedly lead to greater demands, and aggravate the position of foodstuffs generally.

In April permission was given to import, without restriction, sugar for manufacturing purposes, with the result that contracts have been made at prices equivalent to £12 to £13 a ton over the prices of controlled sugar for grocery purposes, which are at present in this country at least1d. per lb., or nearly £10 a ton, lower than in any other country. What would, therefore, be the effect of the control on sugar being altogether removed? Yet we hear pressure is being brought to bear that this should happen.

The world’s production of sugar is something like 2,000,000 tons less than before the war, and all countries, with the exception of England and America, are short of stocks, and this position cannot possibly be improved until the autumn of next year. Therefore, were the control on sugar to be entirely removed, the inevitable result would be free buying with limited sellers, and a rise of considerably more than the present difference between the price in the United Kingdom and the world’s price. The extent of the possible rise in prices cannot be estimated, for there will be an opportunity for speculators to operate such as they have not had for many a year. The public will see in this nothing but profiteering, and it is for the Royal Commission on Sugar Supply to see that this does not happen.

The Commission have done well through a difficult time, and it would be a thousand pities were they to give up the control of sugar until the return to more normal conditions.

We are, yours faithfully,

Henry Tate and Sons (Limited),

Edwin Tate, Vice-Chairman. 21 Mincing lane, E.C., 3, May 26.

Henry Tate and Sons Limited conduct one of the largest sugar refineries in the United Kingdom. They say that manufacturers there are importing sugar at from £11 to £12 per ton above the controlled price, and that controlled price was, as I stated earlier in my speech, £57 15s. per ton. So that, when that letter was written, sugar was being imported from Europe into England at a price approximating £70 per ton.

Senator CRAWFORD:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Extension of time granted, on motion by Senator Foll.

I was dealing with the sugar supplies of the world, and, as compared with the year before the war, they were stated to be 2,000,000 tons short. In that estimate of the Messrs. Tate - and I do not know any one more competent to estimate the position - they have entirely omitted to take into account the increase in the consumption of sugar which, under normal conditions, would have taken place during the past five years. For the year 1903-4 the sugar production of the whole world, beet and cane, amounted to 13,744,000 tons. For each of the years 1912-13, 1913-14, and 1914-15, the total production of sugar amounted to no less than over 20,000,000 tons. This showed an increased production, and consequently an average increased consumption,- of over 500,000 tons per annum. There was no reason to believe that that increase of consumption would not have continued but for the war, and, as a consequence, I think it may be fairly stated that now, instead of a shortage of 2,000,000 tons in the production of sugar, there is a shortage of 5,000,000 tons in the world’s requirements of sugar.

Senator Pratten:

– For one year?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes, a shortage of 5,000,000 tons per annum. I suggest that we are producing now 5,000,000 tons per annum less than it might fairly be estimated we require. As a consequence, I hold that the sugar producers of Australia should be encouraged in every possible way to increase production. There should be encouragement for the increased production of sugar, and not only in Queensland, but, if we are ever going to establish the beet sugar industry, in the other States also. As one engaged in the can sugar industry. I should like to see the beet sugar industry established in the other States, because the effect would be to give the whole of the States a direct interest as producers in the sugar industry, and that would help to stabilize the industry, and would very much assist those engaged in it at the present time to secure the measure of protection which, in my view, they deserve. I ask leave to continue my speech on the resumption of the debate.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m.

page 11783

QUESTION

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That inasmuch as the good name and well-being of the British Empire arise from a recognition of the basic essentials that true liberty, good order, and national contentment should obtain throughout all its parts and established rule respond to the matured ideas and aspirations of its several peoples; and as any departure from these fundamentals in any particular part creates a blighted welfare and induces civil discord for that part as well as injuriously affecting the sister parts in the Empire structure : Therefore, the Senate is of opinion -
1. That the present critical condition of Ireland is of vital inter-Dominion concern, and fraught with grave potential danger to the safety and unity of the Empire; and
2. That nothing short of the immediate grant of a full and just measure of self-government, preferably on Dominion lines, to that country will meet the needs of justice, end an age-long quarrel, and restore Ireland to its rightful place as one of the family of self-governing sister nations within the Empire;
3. That a generous settlement of the Irish question on the lines indicated herein would give the greatest satisfaction to all the self-governing Dominions, and cement and make enduring the Anglo-American friendship which gives the best guarantee for the preservation of the peace of the world.
That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted by cable to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honorable Lloyd George.

The motion is very much the same in the wording, if not in actual substance, as one that has appeared on the noticepaper . of the Senate four times during the past fifteen years. As honorable senators will recall, the Senate has changed its political complexion completely during that period, but on this question it stands faithful and true. In the past, discussion on this issue has provoked more heat than light, although our experience in this Chamber would not lead’ one to that conclusion. Elsewhere, for some reason or another, whenever the question of Ireland’s claims to self-government was mentioned, some Englishmen, as Sydney Smith said, used to take leave of their senses. They could not approach it in a rational spirit. I am hoping that on the present occasion the Senate will again exhibit its attitude of sweet reasonableness, patriotism, and appreciation of the troubles which a sister nation within the circle of the Empire is experiencing.

The claim of Ireland for selfgovernment is no new one. It is firmly implanted in the soil of reason and equity, and, if I may say so, its roots strike into the deep, bank of antiquity as well. The claim was still old when Australia was in the undisturbed possession of aboriginal races. It was old even before Columbus “ pierced the veil of night,” and brought to light that huge continent which has been the arbiter of human destiny during the late war. The claim stands unimpaired in all its fulness, notwithstanding antagonistic influences. As for its merits, they will, I trust, be demonstrated later; but before I touch upon what naturally belongs to that part of the subject this evening - the grounds upon which I propose to ask honorable senators to support the motion - I have to indulge in a few necessary preliminaries.

There is a special reason for the introduction of this motion for the fourth time, without apology. That reason is its urgency, and the indisputable fact of its ever-widening significance like the waves on still water when disturbed in the centre. Ireland, as an integral part of the Empire, claims that measure of self-control which Australia enjoys and so jealously preserves; and there is good reason why honorable senators should address themselves to the subject without any lingering trace of prejudice in their minds. This claim for self-government has moved rapidly since first it was dealt with in this Chamber. Then it was confined, so to speak, only to a small family circle of domestic troubles in the Old Country. It was not what may be called the paramount question. But shortly afterwards it did become paramount in the opinion of the Imperial Government and the House of Commons. At a later date, it became one of inter-dominion concern, as evidenced bv the fact that one Dominion after another spontaneously expressed an opinion concerning a sister nation’s grievances. Canada passed a resolution in favour of granting Home Rule to Ireland; South Africa and many of the States of Australia adopted similar resolutions, and, lastly, the Commonwealth itself, not very long after this Parliament was established did the( same.

Subsequently, the importance of this question was realized further afield, and instead of being of inter-dominion concern, it became an inter-allied question. It aroused sympathetic interest in the United States of America, which, as I have said, has become the great arbiter of the world’s destiny, whose moral force eventually turned the tide of war in favour of the Allied cause, justifying the prediction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) that with America in the struggle, victory for the Allies was certain. We have had pronouncements upon Ireland’s claim to self-government from the American Congress, and delegates - about whose character and standing there has been much criticism by ignorant or designing men - appeared in Paris with authorrity to present a resolution carried by an overwhelming majority in the Senate of the United States of America, asking that the claim might be listened to at the Peace Conference. This claim is now of international importance. Congress has become convinced of the inherent justice of ‘the request that Ireland should Ve admitted into the councils of the nations of the world. So far as Irishmen individually are concerned, I admit that by reason of their peculiar characteristics they are prone to hold different opinions; but no matter where the scattered sons of Ireland be found - whether deep in the Canadian woods, on the broad veldt of South Africa, or the sun-baked plains of this our own dear land - the claim, persistent and consistent, for Ireland’s right to control her own affairs remains constant, and ever unites them in common feeling. As well might you try to stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow, as quench the love an Irishman has for his native land. This question, is the touchstone to an Irishman’s worth and manhood the world over. Only an Irishman unworthy of the name, and unworthy of his salt, will fail to feel his heart beat in unison to the throbbings of his native land. Only those who, as Napoleon said, have allowed their souls to be bronzed over by the enervating influence of social environment, or, worse still, have become unworthy, through material aggrandisement or for some other reason, fail to respond to the call on occasions like the present, to sustain the claim of their native land, or the land of their origin, to the freedom which we so fully enjoy in Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– The right of independent nationhood.

Senator LYNCH:

– Senator Gardiner, I observe, appreciates the real position. Irishmen may be divided by distance as well as by creed; in politics they may be sundered as widely as the poles; but upon this issue they come together in a united demand. That being the case, it is time that those who hitherto have closed their ears to the pleadings of Ireland’s cause took stock of the position and be prepared to listen, if not to be convinced. With all my heart, I thank the British Democracy which Michael Davitt - peace to his ashes - spent the greater part of his life in seeking to convert, and for whose conversion he was mainly responsible, for the changed feeling upon this important subject. I am also prepared to extend the same gratitude to the friends of freedom in Australia who acted like- wise. It would be a most stultifying position for supposed advocates of freedom to enjoy its privileges here, and, at the same time, to withhold a similar measure of it from the kindred community of Ireland. The attitude of such people I could never understand; I can only describe it as incurable bigotry. And I have never met a real bigot yet who was not a blockhead.

When we analyze the position, we are satisfied that the claims of Ireland during the last 800 years for some substantial measure of self-government have never been properly considered. Time, we are told, is the great mediator. Time, we know, has healed many old estrangements. Time has been the means of righting many ancient wrongs. Time has been the solvent of many doubts and misunderstandings, or worse; but in the case of Ireland, time has never proved itself either a friend or an auxiliary. I could fill page after page of Hansard, not with opinions of Irishmen or Irish partisans, but with opinions of Englishmen who have shown such an independent mind, such impartiality, and such a true sense of what is best and safest and most creditable for the England of which they feel so proud, as would convince every honorable senator. I could place witness after witness in the box, not from Ireland, but from quarters where one would not usually look for them. I honour Scotsmen, and ever since coming to this country I have looked upon them as the friends of the Irish, because they were behind Gladstone in 1885, when he was prepared to give the Irish their longdenied rights. Welshmen, too, have proved the steadfast friends of my native country. So far as Englishmen are concerned, there has been remarkable indifference or “ stupidity,” as Mr. Asquith said, in handling this question over a long period of years. Gladstone, speaking at Hampstead Heath on 11th May, 1887, said-

There is no such record of failure in human affairs, go where 5’ou will to seek it. There in no such record of failure as in the treatment of Ireland by England for 700 years, during which time, I must say, there has hardly been 700 days - certainly not 700 weeks - of content and satisfaction. Every horror and every shame that could disgrace the relations be tween a strong country and a weak one is written upon almost every page of the history of our dealings with Ireland.

Although Gladstone delivered those utterances thirty-two years ago, they can be repeated to-day with emphasis.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope not. If Senator Fairbairn cares to read this motion carefully, he will perceive that there is not within its phrases the slightest encouragement to those who might contemplate leaving the Empire. I am of opinion that the agreement of the Senate with this motion will have a steadying and sobering effect upon those who are out for something vastly different from what has been claimed in the British House of Commons through years past by the responsible mouthpieces of Ireland.

Ever since the Union was brought about in 1S00, what has been the keynote of the persistent demand for Irish selfgovernment? In season, and always, it has been the repeal of the Union. What did O’Connell fight for? What was it that Isaac Butt fought for? What was it that Parnell and his associates strove for? It was not for severance; it was not for. cleavage; but for the management of Ireland’s affairs by Irishmen according to their best lights in co-operation with the people of the big neighbouring island. Apart from its economic aspect, and aside altogether from the utter impossibility of the project, I dread the thought of severance from the Empire. The idea of an Irish Republic, or an independent Ireland, existing alongside England - -well, is it at all feasible? Every statesman at the Peace Conference recognised that the cause of Ireland was purely an internal matter. Therefore, were Ireland to strive now for severance, she would be forced to face the opposition of the League of Nations to begin with. How, then, could Irishmen hope to convert all those statesmen who sat round the Peace Conference table, and deliberated so long and earnestly on the cause of the small nations of the world ? Should Ireland claim independence, she would .alienate the sympathies’ of those leaders of the world who would otherwise be her friends. I firmly believe, also, that England would fight to her last man, and her last resource, rather than permit an independent power to establish itself near her shores. What would we in this Commonwealth do, for example, if there were some project for the creation of an independent nation close to our own shores? To borrow the phrase of Mr. Fisher, we would expend our last man and our last shilling in the effort to prevent an independent nation from establishing itself in contiguity to Australia’s boundaries. My grounds for pre- senting this motion are many. I could state them fully, and at considerable length, but will content myself with enunciating three only. They are: The inherent justice which sustains Ireland’s claim to Home Rule; the principle of mutual aid and mutual sympathy which operates in a freedom-loving and freedomcontrolled Commonwealth such as ours; and the factor of common prudence. With respect to ‘the inherent justice of Ireland’s claim, that, surely, speaks for itself. I need not elaborate it. Ireland’s right to self-government was once conceded - and that, under duress, when Henry Grattan’s volunteers, having the force of armed might, stood behind him in ‘his demand for the freedom which wad afterwards conceded, but was enjoyed for only eighteen years - namely, from 1782 to 1800. Ireland has never forgone that right. She claims it to-day, and will continue to maintain that right until the end of time, or for so long as Irishmen are to be found, no matter where. Love of freedom is the common property even of the slave, much more truly then of Irishmen - although in their unhappy country they have lived very much after the manner of serfs down the weary centuries. Ireland’s claim to self-government is based upon natural inherent justice. She had that right before it was stolen from her by deeds which Burke described as the darkest and foulest that ever the perverted mind of man could invent. Gladstone described those deeds as constituting the blackest and vilest blot on all the episodes of human happenings. In that effort to wrest self-government from Ireland, money was lavished without stint. The Irish enjoyed this blessing of freedom once, and they had a remarkably prosperous time during the period over which it extended. We wish to resurrect the claim to freedom. The united efforts of Irishmen will always be directed to that end. We are not a decadent nation. Far from it. The Irish race was an independent one long before these 800 years of semi-servitude began. The Irish race, at Tara, in its glorious Council, was in possession of a system of government that was older than the

English Witenagemot. The Irish people had their own language, their own laws and literatures, for centuries before any attempt was made to overrule or control them by the present dominant partner. The Irish people sent out its teachers, its writers, and bards the world over, and was rightly regarded as the Athens of “Western Europe, while yet Ireland controlled her own affairs. It is quite true that she had her wars and strifes, but so also had other countries. But, of course, whenever anything which is unbecoming happens to an Irishman it only needs to be about 50 per cent, less heinous than the offence of an ordinary citizen for it to be magnified into an offence 50 per cent, more heinous. So this claim of Ireland to control her own affairs existed long before the Union was effected. It has never been lost sight of through the weary, chequered course of centimes. It was contended for in the field of wordy warfare, in the councils of diplomacy, and many times on the stern field of arms. The chances are that it may yet be the subject of a similar appeal if men are not brought to their senses and made to realize that Ireland it not le33 entitled to this boon of selfgovernment than are the several small nationalities for whom the Allies fought the most galling war in history. If each and all of those small nationalities are to enjoy their freedom as the fruits of victory, why deny those fruits to Ireland, who sacrificed her sons in the common effort? I therefore ask the Senate to regard this claim as an inalienable and inherently just one - as a claim the concession of which possesses the qualities of natural justice.

The second ground upon which I base it is the principle of mutual aid and sympathy. Australia has a population of 5,000,000. Ireland has a population of a little over 4,000,000, although she did possess a population of 8,000,000 (before the famine time already referred to. Taking into consideration the fact that the Empire itself is a living organism, it must be manifest that not one portion of it can afford to remain silent whilst another portion is not free, happy, and pros perous, by reason of the want of that”power of self-control which those other parts are enjoying. How can Australia, with its jealously-guarded boon of selfgovernment, look complacently upon Ireland, which does not now possess that boon, although she held it centuries before white men set foot on Australia, and before Columbus trod American soil? -It is a boon which will be contended for as long as there is an Irishman in any part of the globe to keep it alive and aglow, until it is conceded in all its fullness. How can she selfishly enjoy her privileges while a sister nation, a member of the Empire organism, remains bound and fettered? Australia cannot, except in violation of the principle of mutual aid and sacrifice, refrain from shouting at the top of her voice that she is heartily in accord with Ireland’-s claim.

Coming to the last ground, it is the meanest of all. It is the ground of prudence, of policy, or expediency. If this question of Ireland’s claim to selfgovernment is further postponed - if it i3 still to be regarded as unsettled - it bodes ill for the security of the Empire itself. In this connexion, I propose to quote what Mr. Lloyd George recently said in the House of Commons, at a time when it was doubtful whether America would enter the war. He said -

I am certain of this : Nothing would help more in the present juncture to secure, I will not say the ready and enthusiastic aid, but the full measure of American assistance, than the determination of the British Parliament to tender to Ireland such n measure of selfgovernment as would satisfy reasonable American opinion; and I believe we are going to do it.

So that the British Prime Minister regarded as a condition precedent to gaining the good-will and hearty co-operation of America in the late war the granting of one thing alone - the concession of the claim which is outlined in this motion. What did Phillip Gibbs learn when in America recently? In travelling through that country, this famous war correspondent had his eyes and ears open, and this is what he wrote to his paper, Cbe London Chronicle -

In the crowds on Saint Patrick’s Day, I overheard many conversations which convinced me utterly that there will be no absolute friendship between England and America until Ireland’s desires have been granted, and I prayed to God that this may happen, to safeguard the peace of the world, which depends on America’s good-will.

That is what that famous war correspondent said, as a close observer of the trend of feeling in America. We cannot view the matter apart from the grounds of justice and fair play. A man who will not play the game is not entitled to be called an Englishman. As an independent member of the Empire of which Australia forms a part, this concession will have to be granted to Ireland in the interests of our own safety. Having reduced the matter to these limits, I do not wish to press the latter ground unduly, because I feel that of all dictators of duty, fear is the worst. We should approach, this question as men possessed of a due sense of responsibility and of the importance of the positions that we hold. We should approach it upon higher ground, and particularly those who have the granting of this concession should not be spurred to action by fear of what may happen, but rather by reason of its intrinsic qualities, its mirrored justice.

Before concluding, I desire to touch briefly upon the religious aspect of this question. For quite a number of years an industrious effort has been made to represent Ireland as a nation which would persecute for religion’s sake. As one who has studied Irish history as much as the opportunity has served in my work-a-day life, I have come to the conclusion that the man who says that the Irish people would penalize or persecute for religion’s sake is either hopelessly ignorant of the facts of the immediate or remote past, or deliberately blind to the teachings of the history of that country. It stands out in favour of Ireland’s reputation that ever since St. Patrick came to Tara and preached there to Laoghaire and his council-

Senator Reid:

– Was not St. Patrick a Scotchman?

Senator LYNCH:

– He was good enough to be a Scotchman. That happened in the 4th century, when the rare phenomena was witnessed of a whole people being dragged from pagan ways and the worship of idols without the spilling of a drop of blood. That is a standing testimony to the pristine forbearance and the inherent tolerance of the Irish character. In my younger days I have moved about Ireland in the remote portions of the country, where men were driven on to waste patches of land to earn a precarious livelihood - patches of bog, rocky slopes, covered with clay, which they carried laboriously up the hillsides in order to build their homes. It has often been said by their traducers that the Irish are a lazy and improvident people. That is an absolute libel upon them. I did intend to quote the statement of Richard Cobden and of many other English authors who have given unsparing testimony to the characteristic industry of Irishmen. If time permitted, I could quote pages to show that this libel on Irishmen is one that never had even a substratum of truth. In reference to the religious aspect, I have seen in Ireland dwellings of one room, and that room had to suffice for all purposes. Upon its walls there would sometimes be pictures. Pictures of whom? Pictures of the Redeemer of mankind and His mother, Mary. What occupied the space between them? Pictures of the Protestant defenders and champions of Ireland - every one of them. Thus one would find side by side men like Grattan, Robert Emmet, Parnell, and others. I ask honorable senators to .cite the case of any other Catholic community which has put Protestants more in a place of honour. Yet we have been ,told that the Irish are a persecuting race. No fouler libel has ever been uttered. The records of Dublin and Belfast show over and over again that whenever Irishmen were given the choice they did not put their own co-religionists in the leading places. On the contrary, they put their own fellow Protestant countrymen in the leading places of trust- or preferment more than their numbers warranted. Since the unfortunate split amongst Christians in the British Isles, Irishmen have never on any occasion justified the foul libel that the Irish are a race who would persecute for the sake of religion.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

Givens). - Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Extension of time granted, on motion by Senator de Largie.

Senator Needham:

– That makes three times to-day that the new standing order has been ignored.

Senator LYNCH:

– I thank honorable senators for their indulgence in allowing me an extra half -hour, though I do not expect to occupy all that time in completing what I have to say. In reference to the religious aspect of the question, when we consider what happened in Ireland a little more than a hundred years ago, it is sad, indeed, to think that the false libel on the Irish race to which I have referred should have done so much dishonorable duty. In 1782, when the Irish volunteers helped Grattan to secure the Irish Parliament there was not a single Catholic amongst them. They stood prepared to ask for Ireland the right that was granted under the leadership and guidance of Grattan. They were Protestant volunteers to a man, and with guns in their hands were successful in wringing from the British Government, under the leadership of Grattan, the same thing that is asked for in the terms of my motion. Where, then, is there ground for the suspicion of Protestants that there would be persecution by Irish Catholics ? There were no men then in Ireland of the type of Sir Edward Carson, nor men such as are to be found here and there in isolated places in this country. Carson would have been spurned with contempt in Protestant Ireland if he had lived then, and acted and spoken as he is doing today. And. if Irish Protestants contended for and trusted Catholics over 100 years ago, why inthe name of all that is rational should not their great grandchildren do the same to-day. Ireland, with Grattan at the head of the Protestant volunteers, spoke and acted nationally. Liberty was granted under duress to Protestant men with guns in their hands. Those Protestants trusted fully their Catholic fellowcountrymen, and if Protestants did so then, why should they not do so now ? What has brought about all the animosity and religious ill-feeling that has since been exhibited. There was no talk of Irish Catholic intolerance amongst the men who eventually wrung from the British Parliament that which it could no longer withhold. At that time Catholic Irishmen were impotent, they had no arms, no seat in Parliament, no votes, no place on grand juries, and their position was best described by an Englishman, who said that they were hewers of wood and drawers of water for other people in their own land. But they were sustained and supported by their Protestant fellow-countrymen, and won the right which, I hope, will shortly be won for Ireland again, and with the aid of a resolution of this Senate.

Ireland has passed along a sad and gloomy way. She has lost the prime of her population. Her people streamed anywhere, out of their own country, and most of them went to the United States of America. They have there built up a strong body of public opinion with which, I may say, the British people will have to reckon in the future if they are mindful of their own safety. Take my own case as an example. Of my own family I am the only one who came to this country, in the first instance. I am here for what I am worth, but there are three members of my family in America. Of my father’s generation six went to America and none came to Australia. The tide of emigration rolled incessantly from Ireland, and always towards the setting sun. The people who went to America brought with them the remembrances of countless grievances and bitter wrongs which they treasured up for years. They brought their memory of cruel deeds to that land under the western sunset. They watered those feelings of burning resentment and kept them ever fresh and vigorous. It was Byron who wrote of

The patient search and vigil long

Of him who treasures up a wrong, and it has come to fruition in the resolutions of the Congress of that great country, which say that Ireland must get Home Rule.

We, as the custodians of this country’s welfare, should take stock of our position, and ask ourselves whether those who stand in opposition to the proposal to grant self -government to Ireland are on the right track. To know that they are not on the- right track, we have only to look round the world. The inveterate opponents of Ireland’s claim to Home Rule in the past have changed their views on the subject. I can refer honorable senators to one in the person of Lord Northcliffe, who lately sent a special message to Captain Alcock, the Columbus of the air, who made the first successful flight from the American continent to Europe. This is the message that he

Bent-

I rejoice at the good augury that you departed from and arrived at those two portions pf tho British Commonwealth, the happy and prosperous Dominion of Newfoundland and the future equally happy and prosperous Dominion of Ireland.

Lord Northcliffe, in that message, looked forward to the time when Ireland would be made a Dominion, and she cannot be made a Dominion until she is clothed with the power which Australia as a Dominion enjoys. There is an expression of the change of view of a man who was one of the most formidable opponents of Ireland’s aspirations. Representatives of English newspapers have week after week been sending reports to their journals, and all telling the same story, that something must be done to secure self-government for Ireland, if not for the good that may come of it to that country, then for the benefit and safety of the British people. I therefore say to those who still harbour hostility to this proposal : Why try to stem the tide? Look round the world, and you will see that standards are altering daily. Views are being altered in regard to this matter, and it is necessary that you should take stock of your position, and alter your views likewise.

The people of Ireland have borne their lot patiently. I may repeat that in fighting the Empire’s battles in the past, Ireland did more than her share. The blood of her sons was spilt liberally, whilst, as the records show, the blood of the sons of the predominant partner was spilt sparingly. In all British wars Ireland supplied the best and bravest of her race, and the claim she makes should not be ignored at this particular time.

The sun of prosperity has long shone over every part of the British Empire, with the exception of Ireland. The sun of happiness and prosperity has invariably gone from the horizon to the zenith, in every other part of the Empire, andhas never once been obscured. But the sun of justice to Ireland has proceeded from the nadir to the horizon, and back again. It has never appeared above the horizon to bring happiness, joy, and contentment to the people of that land. Great Britain has enjoyed a measure of prosperity beyond the dreams of her most ambitious sons, and Ireland has helped her to secure that prosperity. Britain has gone forward, and Ireland ever backwards, and. I ask honorable senators therefore to follow the advice of Lord Northcliffe, and do their share to secure to Ireland that belated measure of justice which he, in his wisdom, thinks should be given to her, not only in her own interest, but in the interest, safety, and prosperity of the Empire as well.

In leaving the motion now in the hands of the Senate, I appeal to honorable senators not to neglect their duty to vote for it, mindful of the responsibility that rests on their shoulders. Ireland to-day holds out her hands to each and every one of us asking for help. The eyes of the world are to-day more upon Ireland than they ever were before. I appeal to honorable senators to rise to the occasion, and with equal manhood and good spirit repeat the former action of this Chamber, and carry my motion by an overwhelming majority.

A word as to the possible consequence of granting self-government to Ireland. What harm can come to Great Britain by conceding this right? Ireland’s right ‘s no man’s wrong. Great Britain has a Navy which the late war has proved could starve into submission any country in Europe. A League of Nations has been formed and Covenant No. .10 of the articles of that League insures Great Britain against any trouble’ which might happen in Ireland. Under that Covenant No. 10 of the League of Nations, Great Britain could confidently look for assistance in the management of this internal question if it should assume such proportions as would render that necessary, though I am certain it never will. If Ireland should repudiate her part of the contract, 1 would repeat, in effect, the words of John Redmond, and say that the charter of liberty granted to her should be withdrawn if she were found ever to be faithless to her trust. As an Irishman, I would say to the British Government, take back your charter and let Ireland be reduced to the state of dependence and servility under which she previously suffered if she shows bad faith. That is my declaration as an Irishman should Ireland ever so far forget herself as to persecute for religion’s sake. Should such a thing occur, I would say with John Redmond, Take back your charter again, if, in the opinion of any impartial tribunal Ireland is shown to have dishonoured her charge.

Again leaving this matter now in the hands of the Senate, I hope that honorable senators will do their duty, and will feel that in doing it they will not only serve Ireland, serve the British Empire, serve the cause for which the Allies fought, serve this dear land of ours, Australia. We have here a country to defend and cherish. There is everything in this land that I desire. As an adopted son of Australia I shall never regret the hour I set foot on this land of freedom. As a youth in the Old Country, when I looked upon the Union Jack, I say, candidly, that I looked upon it as the emblem and badge of my servitude. But when I came to Australia, and wandered round the world in earning a livelihood, and again returned to this country, I looked upon the same Union Jack under the conditions prevailing here, not as a badge of servitude, but as a badge of freedom, and as a flag to safeguard and defend the destinies of mine and me. Having said so much as one who has lived under both conditions, I ask honorable senators who, with me, enjoy in this country the maximum of happiness and progress under the same Union Jack, to give a vote on my motion to secure for Ireland the freedom which we enjoy here.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I rise with pleasure to second the motion submitted by Senator Lynch, and feel that I express the sentiments of honorable senators when I say that, in presenting the case of his country - his country and mine - he handled the subject ably and well. May I interpolate that to-day we have had a third example of the injustice of a certain standing order-

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Order ! In passing a reflection upon the new standing order, or any standing order, the honorable senator is reflecting upon the Senate which adopted it? Any reflection on the Senate is disorderly.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I did not intend any reflection upon the Senate. I merely wanted to point out that we would have liked to listen to Senator Lynch for another hour, but the new standing order prevented him from speaking longer. I feel confident that the Senate, for the fourth time, will agree to the motion. It is my intention to support it ; but I would rather that it had gone further, and had suggested self-determination, which, as the President of the United States of America has pointed out, is the right of every nation. Senator Lynch referred to Ireland’s part in the war. I make no apology for the part played by Ireland. I am not concerned about any dispute as to whether or not Ireland took her part, either in proportion to her numbers or in any other way. I say that the blood of Irishmen, Englishmen, Scotchmen, Welshmen, and of every other nationality mingled freely on the battle-fields of France. I am only surprised that there were any Irishmen at all to fight in the great war that has just been determined - that great contest which Great Britain, in the words of Sir Edward Grey, entered upon for the purpose of protecting the rights of small nations. Is Ireland not a nation? Has she not always been a nation? Why should we to-day in this self-governing portion of the Empire be clamouring, pleading, and beseeching, as it were, with Great Britain to give to Ireland that right which Sir Edward Grey said was an issue in the late war? Senator Lynch spoke of the policy of Isaac Butt, Parnell, Redmond - God rest their souls, every one of them. He referred to the Redmonds - John and William - and I may say that if anything were wanting to prove Ireland’s sincerity so far as the Empire was concerned, it was the action of William Redmond in enlisting at his age, and dying while leading his men in France, thus offering himself as a supreme sacrifice on the altar of liberty. I go back again to the days of Parnell, and re-call the events of those stormy times in the House of Commons when Parnell was credited with the declaration that “England’s difficulty will be Ireland’s opportunity.” During the past five years when the whole civilized world was plunged in the abyss of war, when the prestige of Great Britain was at stake, and when England certainly was in difficulty, Ireland and Irishmen seized the opportunity. To do what? To save the prestige of Great Britain. Irishmen in Ireland, England, Australia, or elsewhere, volunteered and fought under the Empire’s flag. Australia’s contribution to the war of 490,000 men was one of the noblest and greatest of all the Allied nations. Moveover, it was a voluntary contribution, and included nien of Irish birth or Irish descent, irrespective of class or creed. And so, I say, the statement that England’s difficulty would be Ireland’s opportunity was answered, for when Enggland was in distress, Irishmen rallied to her banner, and helped her through her difficulty. It was fondly hoped that at the Peace Conference, where this question of self-determination was being considered, Ireland’s claim would be mentioned, but, strange to say, despite representations made to the Big Four, Ireland’s position as a small nation was not allowed to be presented. President Wilson himself, the author of the League of Nations-

Senator Reid:

– He declares that General Smuts was the author.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Well, we will allow General Smuts to share the credit for that great covenant with President Wilson. He refused to meet the Irish delegation.

The attitude I have taken on the Irish question from the time I was able to think until to-day, has been that the people of Ireland should be allowed to govern themselves according to their own ideas. I am of that opinion to-day. Quite recently there was an election in Ireland, and the people voted for self- determination in accordance with the policy indorsed by President Wilson, Lloyd George, and Sir Edward Grey. As I have always been an exponent of that idea, I say we should assist the people of Ireland to get what they have asked for through the ballot-box. Senator Lynch, in the course of his very eloquent address, took us back to a stage in Irish history when Henry Grattan, one of Ireland’s greatest sons, figured prominently in her affairs. I think he mentioned something about Grattan’s volunteers. Since then there has been another band of volunteers - Carson’s men - and in connexion with’ the Home Rule measure referred to by Senator Lynch, the Suspensory Bill, it was mentioned that Sir Edward Carson had organized a band of . volunteers to fight the Home Rule principle to the very last ditch. Sir Edward Carson imported rifles from Germany so that if that suspensory measure were repealed he and his volunteers might step into the breach and fight. Whilst we remember with gratitude- and speak with pride of the Grattan volunteers we cannot speak with any sense of pride concerning Sir Edward Carson’s volunteers. That is the regrettable feature that presents itself at this juncture.

I feel sure that the good sense of this Senate and the good sense of every lover of liberty in this great Australia of ours will support the motion so ably moved by Senator Lynch. It is a pity that in this advanced age it should be necessary for the Senate to affirm the necessity of granting to Ireland that measure of justice so long denied. Senator Lynch has traversed the ground of Irish history with the ability of an Irishman, and has shown that in every walk of life the Irish have been tolerant. If I admired one portion of Senator Lynch’s speech more than another it is that in which he referred in beautiful language to the tolerance of the majority of the Irish race of the Roman Catholic faith of the opinions of others. I can remember seeing in Irish homes the very pictures Senator Lynch has spoken of - the holy pictures of the faith of Ireland side by side with those of the champions of its liberties.

I feel confident that there will be a unanimous vote on the motion. I sincerely hope that this will be the last time in the history of this National Parliament that we shall have to plead for common justice for a most important and integral part of our great Empire.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.36 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 August 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1919/19190821_senate_7_89/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 August 1919

QUESTION

THE WAR

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

WOOL POOL

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

DISTURBANCE AT KALGOORLIE

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

THE LATE SIR SIMON FRASER

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Senator EARLE:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

SUNNYSIDE WOOLLEN MILLS

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

NORTHERN” TERRITORY

Senator FERRICKS:QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA-JERVIS BAY RAILWAY

Senator GRANT:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

RUSSIAN INTERNEES.

Senator GRANT:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

Senator KEATING:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

CAPTURED GERMAN POSSESSIONS

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

Senator GARDINER:

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES BILL

Second Reading

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senate
21 August 1919

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales