Senate
14 March 1923

9^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- MEETING OF PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- NAVIGATION ACT
QUESTION
- WATER STORAGE - WEATHER FORECASTS
QUESTION
- TRADE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT
PAPERS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- NAVIGATION ACT
QUESTION
- PURCHASE OF GOLD
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRE SS-IN-REPLY
A UNIFIED AUSTRALIA
PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

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

page 328

QUESTION

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether, for the information and convenience of honorable senators, and alao for the information of the public, he is in a position to indicate when Parliament will again be called together, after the pending recess.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– As soon as the Government are ready with the measures for its consideration, Parliament will be called together, but I cannot, at the present juncture, indicate what the date will be.

page 328

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Devonport as Port of Entry.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs and the Minister for Health with reference to representations I made to him and the Department he represents, for some months past, concerning the request that Devonport, in Tasmania, be made a first port of entry for overseas vessels coming to the Commonwealth, has any official action been taken to give the final consideration promised to the request?

SenatorWILSON. - I understand that the matter has been finalized.

Senator Keating:

– It was temporarily arranged in connexion with certain vessels due to arrive.

SenatorWILSON. - No. I understand that with regard to Devonport the matter referred to has been permanently arranged.

page 328

QUESTION

WATER STORAGE - WEATHER FORECASTS

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the spread of drought conditions throughout Australia at the present time, will the Government take steps to expedite the construction of water storages on the River Murray, and to providemore sensible and reliable information regarding seasonal conditions than are now published, as the Commonwealth Government Meteorologist appears to gauge seasonal conditions throughout Australia by the rainfall in Melbourne.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honorable senator is not in order in making statements in asking a question.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– May I suggest to the honorable senator that his question should be divided? The first part of it, referring to water storages on the Murray, should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, and the second part of it to the Minister for Home and Territories.

Senator Guthrie:

– I give notice of the questions for to-morrow.

page 329

– They already have a room for that purpose in the South Australian Parliament House. These offices will be principally for the convenience of the administration of Government Departments, but no obstacle will be placed in the way of representatives of South Australia who may desire to make use of the offices.

page 329

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act - Transfers of Amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial Year 1922-23- Dated 28th February, 1923.

Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 19.

Iron and Steel Products Bounty Act RegulationsStatutory Rules 1923, No. 13.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, Nos. 16 and 17.

Norfolk Island- Ordinance No. 1 of 1923- Preserved Fish Bounties.

Northern Territory - Ordinances of 1923 - No. 2 - Darwin Town Council. No. 3 - Electric Energy Agreement.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act, and Northern Territory Crown Lands Act (of South Australia) - Statement giving reasons for resumption of portion of TelegraphReserve at, the Katherine, Northern Territory, together with sketch showing area resumed.

Railways Act - By-law No. 23.

Treasury Bills Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 21.

Territory for the Seat of Government - Ordinances of 1923 - No. 1 - Rates; No. 2 - Trespass on Commonwealth Lands.

War Precautions Act Repeal Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 22.

War Service Homes Act - Land acquired at Tamworth, New South Wales.

page 329

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Commonwealth Offices in Brisbane.

Senator Newland brought up the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, on theproposed erection of Commonwealth offices in Brisbane.

page 329

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives that Mr. Blakeley, Mr. Cook, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Jackson. Mr.

Mackay, and Mr. Mathews had been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

page 330

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives that Mr. Bayley, Mr. Penton, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Makin, Mr. Marks, Mr. Paterson, and Mr. West had been appointed members ofthe Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

page 330

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Specified Poets

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

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

Is it a fact that Hobart, the capital city of Tasmania, is the only capital city in the Commonwealth that is not a specified port under the Navigation Act, section 280 - that is, one between which and other specified ports in Australia, British ships may convey passengers?
If such an anomaly exists, will the Government take immediate steps to remedy it?

Senator WILSON:
NAT

– The answers are : -

No.
See reply to No. 1.

page 330

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF GOLD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
for Senator Lynch

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Will the Government ascertain from the British Government what was the profit, if any, made by that Government on the pur chase of gold during the war period from the Commonwealth Government or through its agency ?
If any profit has beenmade, what was the destination of such profit?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– It is not usual to ask the British Government questions of this kind, and there may be reasons for treating war transactions as secret. As the honorable senator has asked the question, however. I shall endeavour to ascertain the views of the British Government on the subject.

page 330

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator REID:
for Senator Foll

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to appointa Royal Commission or other Tribunal to deal with War Service Homes matters?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The Government proposes to review the operations of the War Service Homes Commission, and to place the result of its investigations before Parliament. Should it then be considered that inquiry by a Commission or other body is necessary, the Government will not hesitate to make such a recommendation for the consideration of Parliament.

page 330

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRE SS-IN-REPLY

Debate resumed from 1st March (vide page 64), on motionby Senator Thomp son -

That the following Address-in-RepIy be agreed to : -

To His Excellency the Governor-General.

May it please Your Excellency :

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency ‘for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I wish, in the first place, to congratulate Senator Thompson and Senator Benny on the speeches they delivered in moving and seconding the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. The mover, as a new senator, certainly showed in his maiden speech in the National Parliament that he possessed the valuable qualification of being able to condense his matter. In regard to Senator Benny, I am sure he will not expect me to eulogize or condemn him, as he has before gone throughthe ordeal, and in seconding the motion he spoke as we expected him to speak.

I do not propose to reply to all the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), and I am sure he will excuse me if I refrain from so doing. It would be better, I think, if we both reserved our powder and shot until we meet again, when we shall have definite measures to deal with, and when we shall be able to indulge in a more practical form of discussion,as anything I might have to say now would be more in the form of a prophecy. One remark, however, of the honorable senator’s cannot be allowed to pass without comment, and that is his reference to the Honorary Minister in this Chamber (Senator Wilson), who, he said, could be likened unto a butterfly flitting from flower to flower. I object to such a term being applied to my colleague, and. any one who looks at the honorable senator will admit that whatever defects bo may possess he cannot reasonably be compared with a butterfly.

I have given some attention to Senator Gardiner’s comments on the constitutional situation and the events leading up to the formation of the new Ministry, and as that matter will have passed into the limbo of forgotten things by the time we meet again, I propose to say a few words in reply to his statement. I have had the opportunity of reading the honorable senator’s speech in Hansard, and I take it that the gravamen of his attack is in the quotation which I shall make. He said the issue before the country was, “ Bid the Hughes Government possess the confidence of the people? It waa Mr. Hughes himself who made that appeal to the- people, and when the verdict had been given the correct and constitutional course for him to take was to retire immediately or to call Parliament together at the earliest possible moment to see who should govern the country.” The honorable senator, having surveyed that position, then formulated his views. I do not think he adequately consulted the constitutional authorities before he formed his: opinion; but, having surveyed the position, he then proceeded to find, as he submitted, constitutional statements and authorities in support of his contention. It would have been far better for the honrorable senator to first consult the authorities and then give us the benefit of his views thereon. If he had done so, I am sure that he would not have .expressed the opinion he did, because all constitutional authorities, including many of those he quoted, as I shall show, are against the views he put forward. The late Ministry took one of two courses. Senator Gardiner, as I shall show, appears to have decided that the Government should have taken the two courses pointed out by him. The exPrime Minister (Mr. Hughes) retired, not perhaps as soon as Senator Gardiner would have liked, but no one can say that his retirement was protracted. The cx-

Prime Minister retired in a constitutional way immediately the result of the elections could be said to have been accurately determined. The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that the result of a general election, in Australia cannot be ascertained within a day, or a week. We have to compare the size of the Commonwealth with the size of some of the countries to which he referred.

Senator Bakhap:

– The result of the Northern Territory election is not yet known.

Senator PEARCE:

– No. One has only to take into, consideration the size of the country to realize that the term “ immediately,” as applied to an election’ in the United Kingdom, has a very different meaning when applied to Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, finding that what had been done was not to his liking, made up his mind to search constitutional authorities for light and wisdom. In ‘Sir Henry Parkes’ Fifty Years in the Making of Australian History, he found, in two letters, a number of precedents, but it would have been more informative to the Senate, and to those who, in the future, may read his remarks, if he had given the reasons for those letters. They owed their origin to the fact that a Government, after an adverse vote at the polls, continued in office for three months without calling Parliament together, and had made an arrangement with a private banking institution for funds, in lieu of obtaining Supply through Parliament. That was not the position in the recent crisis. The Government had Supply from Parliament, and, therefore, there was no analogy whatever between the constitutional position in New South Wales, as stated by Senator Gardiner, and the recent political situation in the Commonwealth. In other words, Senator Gardiner put up a bogy, and then he proceeded to knock it down. He assumed, for the purpose, of his constitutional discourse, that the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) had perhaps advised the GovernorGeneral whom to send for. His remarks were directed, in great part, to the abstract question - “ Whether or not it is a constitutional practice for a Minister retiring from office to advise the

Crown as to his successor.” Sir Henry Parkes had digressed at length on this subject, not as an impartial, but as an interested, observer - a candidate for office - as to whom tlie Governor in New South Wales should send for. No one doubts for- a moment that the authorities quoted by Sir Henry Parkes, and the views expressed by him on this matter, are in accordance with constitutional practice observed in the formation of the present Government, and, indeed, of all Federal Governments in this country. ‘ T suggest, also, that it was somewhat pedantic on the part of Senator Gardiner to quote at length all the statements he did. He gave as a reason for doing so - and it appears to be the only reason he could put forward - his desire to place them on record in order that they may be readily accessible to honorable senators. His speech on this subject will, however, prove a reservoir of disjointed extracts on constitutional government. The honorable senator quoted Edward W. Ridges’ Constitutional Law of England, as follows : -

The present practice upon the formation of a new Ministry is for tlie Crown to call on the recognised leader of the party which has been returned- with a majority in the House of Commons to nominate his colleagues.

The honorable senator then went on to say-

I realize the great difficulty confronting His Excellency the Governor-General in the recent crisis, when no party had a majority. I am not pretending to belittle the difficulties. . . . The question should have been settled on the floor of the House.

I ask honorable senators to remember this comment in the light of what the honorable senator said subsequently, because he proceeded with this quotation from Ridges - lt has become a recognised convention that, in the event of an adverse verdict being given at the polls at a general election, the previous Ministry will resign immediately and wiil not wait for a vote of confidence.

The honorable senator’s comment was to this effect -

I have just proved that when the constituencies show a lack of confidence in a Government, it should resign.

In other words, Senator Gardiner blows hot and cold upon this constitutional issue. Iti one statement lie lays it down that the Government should have re- signed, which it did ; and in another he declares that the Government should not have resigned, but should have come to the House to be defeated, which it did not do.

Senator GARDINER:

– Why are you there if the Government should have resigned ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I am coming to that point also. Every one knows the quotation, “ Much learning doth make thee mad.” I am not suggesting, of course, that Senator Gardiner is mad. I think there was more purpose than madness in his recent utterance on the constitutional issue. He seems to have been laboriously studying all the eminent authorities on constitutional law in order to support his assumption ; but there are two or three quotations that may be recalled. In Todd’s Parliamentary Government of England, one of the authorities quoted by Senator Gardiner, there appears this opinion -

But if, hi the opinion of the Sovereign. state of parties would render a Coalition Ministry expedient, the Sovereign would suitably communicate directly with the two leading statesmen whose co-operation was desired, indicating, of course, the one to whom tha formation of the Ministry was intrusted.

And again, in this case from Sir Henry Parkes’ work -

The Governor is to select the person who in his judgment, taking into consideration political experience, party relations, capacity for public business and representative character, is, in tlie words of Lord Russell, “ most likely to obtain tlie confidence of the country.”

Doctor Hearn, when consulted, thought Sir Henry Parkes’ citations so complete on the subject dealt with that they rendered any citation of authorities on his part superfluous.

Senator Gardiner is to be congratulated upon having brought together so many authorities, hut they are apt to mislead future students of constitutional procedure, because, as I have already said, his quotations are very disjointed. It is ray intention to fill in some of the gaps. I quote, therefore, one statement made by Sir Henry Parkes after mature consideration -

That tho Prime Minister, the constructor and leader of the Ministry, cannot resign without his resignation including the whole Ministry. … Of course the Crown, on its own judgment, can send for any eligible person among the late Ministers to reconstruct.

Let me set out briefly the position in regard to electoral co-operation, with which Senator Keating had a good deal to do in its initiatory stages, in order thatthe country andthe Senate may know what the position is to-day. I have here a memorandum supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer, which states -

Electoral co-operation has existed in Tasmania since 1909 under a system whichprovides for one (joint) roll, and has proved highly satisfactory and economical to both the Commonwealth and theState.

The Commonwealth Government indorsed the recommendations of the Commonwealth and State Electoral Conference whichmet in Sydney at the instance of the Premier of Kew South Wales in July, 1915, at once took all necessary legislative action to give effect to the report of the Conference, and invited the States to move in the matter with the least avoidable delay.

No Stateat that timetook any practical steps.

Later, Queensland passed an Act which ostensibly provides for electoral co-operation with the Commonwealth, but which, unfortunately, in its present form renders an agreement impracticable. Subsequent representations to this State havefailed to produce any definite result.

The South Australian Government entered into electoral co-operation with the Commonwealth in the terms of the accompanying agreement in December, 1920. The arrangement hasproved economical, thoroughly workable, and highly satisfactory to both Governments.

The Victorian Government has from time to time expressed itself as sympathetic with electoral co-operation on the lines recommended in the Conference report, and has announced its intention of introducing legislation as early as circumstances will permit, having regard to the necessity of a redistribution of the State before effect can be given to a joint enrolment system.

Correspondence with the New South Wales Government indicates that it is theoretically favorable to electoral co-operation, but with an impracticable reservation as to State control over the joint system. The Government has taken no legislative action.

Frequent representations have been made to the Western Australian Government, but with no practical result.

Subsequent to the completion of the arrangement with tlie Government of South Australia a copy of the document was sent to the Governments of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia, with fully explanatory memoranda setting out the whole of the working details of the arrangement and inviting them to take action on the lines followed in South Aus-, tralia.

Therefore each outstanding State is in possession of the fullest information, and it is now only necessary for its Parliament to enact legislation similar to that passed in South Australia to (permit of a satisfactory scheme of joint enrolment being brought into operation.

In that case no further legislative action by the Commonwealth is necessary, but it is necessary that the Commonwealth, which has taken the lead in this matter, should continue to impress upon the States the desirableness of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

– The Customs Department has to have a record of those. Anyhow, they subsequently are embodied in our Year-Book. They are not collected by the Statistical Branch, but are simply passed on by the Customs Branch.

There are two other questions which probably are. among the most important with which we. have to deal. One is immigration, and the other is the general question of finance - State and Commonwealth.

I am sure that every honorable senator is pleased to see that an increasing stream of immigrants is coming here. But. the worst advertisement that Australia could: have and the thing that would kill immigration quicker than anything else, is to have immigrants come here and not be satisfactorily placed after their arrival. Whilst it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to obtain these immigrants and bring them out, it is the States responsibility to place them after their arrival in Australia. That necessitates close and complete co-ordination between the Commonwealth and State authorities. The Commonwealth, in order to. protect itself, must see that, the arrangements for providing these immigrants with work are satisfactory. Equally, the States have the right to be consulted as to the class of immigrants selected, and the. manner in which they are brought out.

When it comes to the question of finance, we find that many things are happening which are not good for the credit, either of the Commonwealth or of the States. Take, for instance, the issuing of tax-free loans. The Commonwealth, some time ago, decided not to issue any more taxfree loans, but the States are proceeding to issue them, and that must have a bad effect on Commonwealthfinance as well as’ a bad effect, ultimately, on State finance. It is continually lessening the area of income that is taxable within Australia.

Then there is the question of the conversion of the huge loans that are falling due in the near future. That: alone is such a big question that it needs the united efforts of the Commonwealth and the States to see, that, the taxpayers - who are the same people whether they are taxed by the Commonwealth or by the States - are provided with a scheme of finance that will prove economical. All these are questions which the Government must face and deal withbefore it can bring forward the necessary measures for the consideration of the Parliament.

We come next to the wider issue of Imperial relations. Every one will agree that the one great difficulty with which our producers are meeting to-day is that of finding markets for their produce. Our oversea markets, with the exception, possibly, of those for mutton and wool, are not as satisfactory as we should like them to be, yet there rests, in the Empire itself a buying capacity which, properly organized, would make our markets safe. And there is another side to the picture. We, as Australians, would like to see the unemployed in the heart of the Empire absorbed; we should like to see Britain maintain her supremacy among the nations of the earth, and if, whilst giving full protection to our own industries, we could at the same time, by mutual preference, assist British marketsand the British producer, we should not only confer a benefit on ourselves, but help and benefit the whole of the Empire. The Economic Conference which is to be called will do important work in endeavouring to find a solution of that problem.

There is also the question of Defence. The time surely has arrived when representatives of the various parts of the Empire should meet to formulate somo common plan for the future defence of their common interests. The Washington Conference has altered very largely the basis upon which our pre-war plans for common defence were drawn. No Conference has since grappled with this question,and it is essential, therefore, that representatives of the various parts of the Empire should meet to discuss it. It is improbable that the proposed Imperial Conference will be held before the Parliament again meets, but, in the meantime, the Government needs to formulate its own views as to what ought to be put before that Conference in order that it may give the Parliament some indication of what is in its mind. That must be done so that our representatives may go to the Conference with the knowledge that the proposals they put before the British ‘Government and the Governments of the remaining parts of the Empire have the approval and goodwill of the Commonwealth Legislature.

Senator Duncan:

– Parliament then will be consulted before this Conference is held?

Senator PEARCE:

– Before the Conference meets statements will be made to Parliament as to what it is proposed to bring forward.

I propose now to make a few announcements with regard to the Northern Territory, which I have reserved for the meeting of the Senate. Honorable senators are aware that, from time to time, considerable exploratory work has been carried on in the Northern Territory with the object of discovering rock oil, and that some very promising indications of the probable existence of such oil in the Territory have been found. But no one can say that these explorations up to the present have proceeded along scientific or ordered lines. On the contrary, there has been what may be described as a freeandeasy scramble. I have no doubt that if a vote of the Senate or, indeed, of the people of Australia were taken, as to the best geological advice we could obtain on this subject, the verdict would go very strongly for that of Professor Sir Edgeworth David. I have had, I am glad to say, the benefit of his advice as to the lines on which we should proceed, and am “very grateful to him. for it. In a letter which he has addressed to me he writes -

Before any actual drilling for mineral oil in a new oilfield is begun, the experience of American oil companies, that of the AngloPersian Oil Company, &c, has been that it saves a vast amount of useless expenditure to ha ve the new oilfields, supposed to contain productive oil, examined carefully and reported upon by a thoroughly competent geologist with a sound experience in the structure ‘and development of oilfields.
After this- report and examination has been made by some world-famous authority a fairly detailed sketch geological survey should be made by competent practical field geologists of the areas (if such areas exist) considered by the great authority on rock oil to offer the best prospects.

Professor David, with his complete knowledge of, not- only the subject itself, but the best experts in the world, has been good enough to give me the names of certain gentlemen, any one of whom he thinks would be able to supply us with the information that we require. The Government has authorized me to get into touch with’ these world-famed geologists, and we are endeavouring now to arrange for one of them to visit Australia and to report on the lines suggested by Professor David. I am confident that if this be done it will prevent investors in Australia from wasting their money on” country that i3 not likely to produce oil. It will at the same time, encourage them to concentrate on those areas upon which favorable reports are received, and will lead, in a much -shorter time than would otherwise be possible, to the discovery of profitable oil deposits in Australia.

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Would any of these experts have more knowledge of the subject than is possessed by Professor David himself?

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales

.- The Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) has dealt very quietly and easily with a number of subjects, and I am truly glad that he has at last told us what should really have been embodied in the Governor-General’s Speech. Had all that information been disclosed to Parliament on the opening day there would possibly not have ‘been so much criticism of the Government. I shall not go into the question of the constitutionality of the method of forming, this Government, because that matter has been pretty well threshed out already, but I do congratulate the present Ministers on their Government made, to order for us. All we on “this, side can do now is to criticise the acts and policy of the Government, so far as. they have been disclosed,, until another election puts another, set. of Ministers in power. Why was there all this secrecy about the formation of the Government? We heard much about “managing” and “leading,” and about honorable gentlemen- opposite going in the dead of night to Mayfair Plats and other places in Melbourne and. its neighbourhood. We were told by the newspapers that all that the present Government were then doing was “for Australia” - to save Australia from the rule of the Labour party. But if it had not been for the Labour party, which was ridiculed when the Australian Fleet was first formed under the. Fisher Government, where would Melbourne and Sydney have been to-day? It was truly the Labour party who saved Australia for Australians. It is said by our politcal opponents that the trade unionists are the Bolshevists of the country, but I remind honorable senators that it was the trade unionists who fought and bled for this country, and saved it. Why are our friends opposite not honest enough to say that they “ saved Aust tralia” ‘by securing to themselves office and pay for the few months that they will occupy those ‘benches? The Labour party did not desire to take office in this Parliament, and never would unless given permission to do so by the people. The present Govern-* ment have not the people’s sanction . to rule, and have no right to be in office. They have, however, an artificially* created majority, and for a time they may do as they please.. They are now going into recess for four months in order to formulate a policy, which one man could prepare in five minutes,because the policy for the good government of Australia is laid down by the Constitution, although it has never been put into force by any Commonwealth Government. If the men who opposed the creation of this great Federal machine twenty-five years ago could rise from their graves they would find a verification of their prediction that the Federation would prove unwieldy, costly, and unworkable. Itstands to-day a monument of huge expenditure without commensurate national results. There is only one way in which adequate results can be achieved, and that is by unifying Australia, having one Government, one taxing master, and one tax collector. Until Australia is governed by one central authority no party will be able under the present Constitution to do a fair thing by the people. We are told that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) proposes to call a Conference of State Premiers in order to discuss various public matters. Where is the need for such a Conference? This Chamber was constituted with a right to speak for the States, and no other authority has that right. The Senate, however, does not do its duty in that regard, and is, to that extent, losing the rights which the Constitution gave it. The Premiers meet together and agree that this and that should bo done; there is no reference to the Federal Parliament. Under the existing circumstances, no Government or party can do justice to the ideal of Australian nationhood. Any party that is game enough to go before the people and advocate the abolition of all State Parliaments, the division of Australia into provinces, and the establishment of one central Government, will win from Cape York to Cape Leeuwin. In every State the people are eager for a man to rise who will teach them what is to be gained from Unification. The present Federal system is useless; it can achieve nothing. The present Government is the last and the worst that the system has produced, and their administration will but hasten the time when the people will change their minds in regard to Unification. And yet still we hear the hypocritical cry of the Government and its supporters, “All for Australia and none for self “ ; “ Save Australia from the

Labour party “ ; “ Save Australia from the Bolshies” ; “Save Australia from the Trade Unionists “ ; who fought and kept Australia free. If the soldiers had been wise in their day and generation they would have taken charge of Australia when they returned from the war. Amongst the men who served in the Australian Imperial Force were some who were as smart as any serving in this Parliament, and with the large voting strength at their command they could have taken charge of this Parliament and the Commonwealth. Why was there so much secrecy; why this combination of silk sox and woop-woops? The two parties at present allied can never worktogether. In the negotiations that preceded the formation of this Government all were for self and none for Australia.

At the last elections I again had the pleasure of “topping the score” against all-comers. I boldly went before the people of New South Wales with a definite policy, and it was accepted from one end of the State to the other. It was this: -

page 339

A UNIFIED AUSTRALIA

Constitution

The Commonwealth Parliament to be vested with authority to create any number of provinces as may be necessary for the good local government of the people.

Provincial Legislatures, etc.

The Commonwealth shall grant to each province a uniform written Constitution, setting out the powers and duties of the Legislatures thereof. Such Constitution may be amended from time to time as may be required.

Each province shall be governed by a Legislature to be composed of a reasonable number of members.

The term of office of members to be three years.

Members to be paid such uniform salary as shall be determined.

Commonwealth electoral rolls to be used at all elections.

The Provincial Legislatures shall have power under its Constitution to make laws for the government of the people within the province

Finance

The Commonwealth shall take over all present State debts.

The Commonwealth Government to as far as possible collect all revenue, thus obviating the expense of duplication in collecting taxes, &c.

Municipalities

Commonwealth Parliament shall grant ,a uniform Constitution to provide for municipal government, the supervision of administration to bc the duty of the provinces.

That is the programme with which I won

Bt the hist election, and it would win in every part of Australia if men were game enough to advocate it. The trouble is that candidates are not game to cut their own political throats; I am. They prefer to continue the present huge expenditure and this ineffective governing machine which is inflicting so much damage upon the industrial life of the country and causing so much unrest and distress. That does not afford any section of the community’ a fair chance of making good, either for themselves or for the nation. In a few years the taxation of the Commonwealth will rise to such an extent that it must smother us. Our borrowing ha3 increased year by year, and neither the States nor the Commonwealth can show r.ny works completed which will serve to recoup the country for this expenditure of loan money. In my opinion, it could be curtailed by cutting out all unnecessary Governments. Surely, our Ministry must feel ashamed of themselves, by proposing to go into recess for several months, -while Australia is thirsting for legislation. The following figures indicate how the indebtedness of Australia has grown during the last two decades : -

And we have nothing to show for this huge indebtedness that will help to produce a return. Its sole achievement has been to create land values. I would not permit such a huge expenditure to continue for such a purpose. I would go further, and compel tlie holders of the vast freehold areas in our midst to submit: as every one else has had to submit, to a drastic cutting down of their incomes. While, on the one hand, there is misery among a great n maher of the population, on the other hand, there are people in our midst who spend on their own pleasure and enjoyment in one week what would feed and clothe them for a year. If the National Government do not do something for the welfare of the country by boldly tackling the problem of the national debt, the Commonwealth will be practically bankrupt within a few years.

I want to say a word, now, about what I may call race suicide - a matter of greater interest to future generations of Australia than is anything else I know of. No Government has been game enough to tackle the question of a disease, the record of whose ravages is hardly fit for publication, but it is time some Administration introduced legislation which would have the purpose of freeing Australia from this dreadful scourge in, say, a hundred years’ time. The reports of medical men point out how necessary it is that those who have the welfare of the Australian nation at heart should do something in this direction. The press could do much, but still we see in their columns advertisements which should never be permitted to appear. A few cases come to light, but there are thousands which are hushed up.’ Any one who likes to study the question can get all the information in the Library, and a walk in the streets would demonstrate the ravages of the disease. There are plenty of cases of suicide due to it. Unifortunately, in many cases, the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and “fourth generation. I want this great National Parliament to do something in this direction. It is really a question of race culture, or race suicide. One does not care to be outspoken upon such a matter, but the Government who have a medical gentleman in their ranks should endeavour to do something in the interests of the health of the community, for the purpose of preventing, as far as possible, the spread of this scourge.

T do not propose to say very much more. As has already been said, it is like flogging a dead horse to talk to-day, but I shall take every opportunity of watching what the Government are doing, and to see how the fifteen men who have swallowed- the whole National party succeed in this Parliament. I am sorry that the National party did not see fit to fight on the floor of Parliament, where we could put the “ acid “ on them a little. Now, however, they are powerless, and, to my mind, the sooner the Ministry commit political suicide, the better it will be for the country generally.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I desire to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply Senator Thompson, who was the mover, gave a very fine exposition of his views concerning many important subjects, and,” indeed, he is to be complimented upon the manner in which he carried out his task. In the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, honorable senators did not find any ‘outline of the policy of the Government. We could not reasonably have expected to do so. Its nature, however, was such as to afford us opportunities to express opinions upon several matters affecting the welfare of the Commonwealth, and these opinions, I trust, will prove helpful to the Government in formulating their business programme.

I desire, first, to refer to the extraordinary position in which the Commonwealth Parliament has found itself as an outcome of the recent election. The present Parliament was not elected by a majority of the people, but actually by a small minority. Proportionately fewer eligible persons exercised the franchise last December than at any other Commonwealth election. Apart from Queensland, there was not one State in which a 50 per cent, vote was recorded. Even including the magnificent Queensland vote, I believe that the final official returns will reveal that rather less than 54 per cent, of the eligible population of Australia went to the polling booths. In certain of the States only 42 per cent, of the voters exercised the franchise. Australia has been put to considerable ex pense in providing compulsory enrolment. The natural corollary of compulsory enrolment is compulsory voting, and I trust that that fact will have the serious attention of the Government. Compulsory voting would be no new thing in Australia. The Commonwealth Parliament, in 1915, passed a measure to provide for compulsory voting in connexion with the referenda proposed to be taken upon the subject of constitutional alterations. The Act was not enforced, however, for the reason that the referenda were not held. During the same year the Queensland Government passed a Bill to provide for compulsory voting in connexion with State elections. Queensland representatives in this Parliament may justly claim that the splendid vote, cast in the north last December was due to the existence of that Act. It provides that every person within a specified distance of a polling booth must vote. Every eligible adult who fails to vote is required to furnish a reason, and, unless that reason is deemed to be adequate, the person concerned must pay the penalty provided under the Act.

Senator Thompson expressed the hope that the existing immigration policy of the Commonwealth would be enthusiastically carried on by the new Government. He spoke optimistically concerning the outcome of the continuation of that policy. An interjector commented that the effect would be merely to add to the ranks of the unemployed in Australia. I heartily indorse the expressed views of Senator Thompson. Instead of adding to the ranks of the unemployed, I feel confident that a vigorous immigration policy would absorb our workless population. Those who recognise Australia’s vast possibilities are confident that this country can carry .very much greater numbers than are resident here to-day. We look for a reasonable immigration policy to considerably develop our untouched and only partially exploited resources. I may mention Australia’s prospects of cotton-growing as one very important example. I understand that the industry has now been placed upon a sound footing. In Queensland last year the total area under cotton cultivation amounted to only 6,000 or 7,000 acres. It is authoritatively estimated that the area placed under cotton crop this year will be fully 60,000 acres. Any one who reads the commercial intelligence published in British newspapers must realize that the world is being more and more seriously faced with a shortage of ‘this universal -requirement. The shortage in America is becoming actually alarming. Australiana should take every advantage of the great opportunity which is opening to them. Latest statistics show that the American production last year was 6,000,000 bales less than that for 1914, while the con-, sumption during the same period had increased by 4,000,000 bales. Unless America’s considerable difficulties with regard to cotton production are overcome, that country before long will have no cotton to export, and England will be called upon to look to Australia, together with certain other countries, for the production of her raw material. I read only yesterday in the Melbourne press that the Australian Cotton-growing Association, through its managing director, had issued a statement to the effect that Australian growers had now increased in number from 2,000 to 15,000- all in the short space of twelve months. The fact augurs well for our future. “We should take every advantage of the experiences of. America in .connexion with the devastations caused to cotton . crops by disease and insect visitations. We are not only interested in the possibility of cotton-growing in Australia. . I can clearly see that if the growing of cotton becomes one of our staple industries, there is no reason why the manufacture of cotton textile goods should not be one of the greatest of our secondary industries. Already the English manufacturers of cotton textiles are having their attention directed to the openings that exist for their goods in Australia. The value of plain cotton textile fabrics, such as unbleached calico, and goods of the plainest description, imported from the United Kingdom into Australia .in the year 1920-21, was £764,000. Of white plain goods, such as calicoes and similar materials, the value imported was £3,871,699; while of dyed and printed cotton goods the value was £8,500,000. Those items make a total of over £13,000,000 worth of plain, dyed, and printed cotton textile fabrics imported into Australia from the United Kingdom only. In view of our wonderful resources of power and climate in Australia, there is no reason why, with the assistance of experts from the Old Country, we should not. see a beginning of the cotton-manufacturing industry in Australia within the next two or three years, in conjunction with cotton-growing in those parts of the north suitable for the purpose. We even imported cotton and linen goods to the value of £892,000 from Japan last year, and similar goods to the value of £945,000 from America. The people of Australia are spending on imported cotton and linen goods, at Customs values, something over £15,000,000 annually. If we could manufacture only a proportion of these articles iri Australia we might be able, eventually, not merely to supply the needs of Australians in these plain fabrics, but to export a surplus to the Dutch East Indies and tho near East, where there is a great demand for this class of goods.

– Of course they would. They, in common with other boys, are, under existing conditions, shut out altogether from the occupations to which the Federal award applies.

It is opportune for me at this stage to refer to the duplication of Federal and State activities mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I indorse what the honorable senator has said on the subject. I hope that at the Premiers’ Conference, which is to take place very shortly, common sense will prevail, and that without any injustice being done to the States it will be found possible to prevent taxpayers being harassed unduly, as they are at present by the duplication of taxation schedules. I hope it will bo found possible to evolve a scheme by which one return only will be necessary for both State and Federal taxation, and that that return will be a very simple one as compared with the income tax schedules which have now to be filled. Under the present system honest men, prepared regularly to pay the taxation due from them, have, in many cases, no idea of how the schedules should be filled up, and they are obliged to employ a lawyer, or some one else to fill “up their- returns for them, and so are doubly taxed. In connexion with the subject of taxation I should like to remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate of a statement which I made last year or the year before. in this Chamber, and which I repeat today. I believe that the time has arrived when the Federal Government should cease to collect taxation which is not absolutely essential to the financial welfare of the Commonwealth. During the war period it was quite legitimate for the Government to collect taxation from every avenue from which revenue might be obtained. Taxation was then derived from sources which I claim we are no longer justified in levying upon. I refer especially to the entertainments tax. Surely it is a paltry thing that the National Government of Australia should levy such a tax. It was never intended that the National Parliament should impose an entertainments tax unless it was really essential.

Senator Crawford:

– Our war expenditure is higher to-day than it was during the war period.

Senator PAYNE:

– But our revenue is higher, and everything points to the probability, notwithstanding the remission of £3,000,000 in taxation, that we shall have a handsome surplus at .the end of the financial year. If such should be the case, surely the time is opportune for the Government to discontinue collecting taxation in this form, which is beneath the dignity of a national Parliament. I wish to refer to one instance in particular of the administration of the Federal Entertainments Tax Act. In Hobart an organization known as the Hobart Regatta Association was formed eighty-five years ago by a number of worthy men and women who banded themselves together and decided that an annual regatta be held on the Derwent. Since the formation of that association an aquatic carnival admittedly superior to anything of its kind held south of the line has been conducted every year, and the day on which the carnival is held is regarded by the people of Tasmania as a national holiday. No charge whatever is made for admission to the grounds, and the people, no matter whence they come, are in every sense provided with a day’s pleasure free of cost. Fully 20,000 attend this annual gathering, and the people throughout Tasmania contribute funds to meet expenditure. “With the surplus contributions received from time to time the association has constructed a stand in memory of a gentleman named Colvin, who was for many years the secretary of the association, in which seats are allotted to members. The Federal Taxation Department, however, has this year called upon the association to pay an. entertainments tax.

Senator Keating:

– It is wrong.

Senator PAYNE:

– Of course it is. A tax is being imposed on members of the association who occupy seats in their own stand, and the Department might just as legitimately levy a tax on the people who provide their own tents or who take chairs from which to witness the sports. The Department would also have as much justification in levying a tax on persons who pay a small amount to the lessee of the kiosk in the Fitzroy Gardens for the use of chairs on a Sunday afternoon when there is a band performance. ‘Surely it is a wide stretch of imagination to conclude that a seat in a stand or anywhere on the ground for which no charge is made for admission should be taxable. On 1st March I submitted the following questions to the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce) : - :

Has the Income Tax Department given full consideration to the protest entered hy the Hobart Regatta Association against the entertainment tax being demanded from it as regards members’ tickets and grand-stand tickets issued to subscribers to the association in view of the fact that no charge . is made for admission to the regatta grounds?
If so, what decision has the Department arrived at?

To that I received the following reply : - 1 and 2. The Department proposes to tax payments made for admission to the grandstand to view the Hobart /regatta. This action is supported by the advising of the Crown Law authorities.

If a person contributes 5s. or upwards to the association, the secretary forwards a ticket, the holder of which has a right to occupy a seat in the stand. If 2s. 6d. or any other amount were tendered for admission to the stand it would not be accepted. The money is voluntarily subscribed to provide free amusement for the people, and surely we have not reached such a stage in national affairs, and when the Department is in such sore straits, that it has to demand from such an association a tax on tickets issued? I do not know on what grounds the Crown Law authorities arrived at such a decision.

Senator Reid:

– Has the point ever been contested?

Senator PAYNE:

– Representatives of the association have protested, and have received a final notification from the Department that it is going to compel the association to pay. The tax will first have to be paid before an appeal can be lodged.

Tasmania is one of the most important States in the Commonwealth, not because of its area, but. in consequence of its importance industrially and otherwise, and the people of Tasmania justly claim that they are entitled in every respect to the treatment meted out to taxpayers in the other States. Our geographical position should not handicap us in the matter of national legislation; but we are penalized. Honorable senators have already heard of the inconvenience experienced in consequence of a. provision of the Navigation Act which gives certain discretionary powers to the Minister, and under which the Peninsular and Oriental Company’s vessels were allowed to carry passengers from Sydney to Melbourne to witness’ the Melbourne Cup. During the tourist season, however, the same vessels are not allowed to carry passengers from the mainland to Tasmania. Surely that is an anomaly that needs adjustment.

Senator Reid:

– One is an emergency.

Senator PAYNE:

– It is the first time I have heard the Melbourne Cup referred to as an emergency.

Senator Reid:

– I was referring particularly tq the rush of traffic during a short period.

Senator PAYNE:

– Is the desire of the people to witness the Melbourne Cup of greater importance than carrying thou- sands from the heat of the mainland during the summer to recuperate in the delightful . climate of Tasmania? Which is the greater emergency from a national point, of view? I claim that the tourist trade would be the greater, yet permits have been granted to the Peninsular and Oriental Company to carry passengers between. Australian mainland ports, and. without any knowledge that the traffic could, not be. handled by rail. No person can show, on the information available, that any number of people desired to travel to Melbourne by sea because they could not travel ‘by rail, whereas in the case of Tasmania, a very large number of tourists is excluded because the facilities for travel are not available.

Senator Elliott:

– Was it not ascertained that the Interestate vessels could not cope with passenger traffic to Melbourne at that time?

Senator- PAYNE. - That may be so. For the same reason the tourist traffic to Tasmania has been seriously interfered with because the necessary facilities have not been provided. The former Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Rodgers), to whom representations were made a few months ago, sent the Director of Navigation to Tasmania to inquire into the position, and I understand his representations are now in the Department. I think he indicated that in order to meet the; situation it. would be necessary to amend the Navigation Act, but whether he advised the Minister that this was desirable or not, I cannot say. If an amendment is necessary, I hope that it will be introduced by the Government at an early date.

In other directions Tasmania has been at _ a disadvantage. I was rather surprised to learn, from, a report in the Hobart Mercury a few days ago, that an alleged injustice to Tasmania had been ventilated on the floor of the Tasmanian Parliament. Honorable senators will, no doubt, recall that in the Customs Tariff schedule there are a number of items to which deferred duties are attached. Woollen yarn is one. It was to be admitted free from the United Kingdom until 1st January, 1923, and thereafter upon payment of a duty of 10 per cent. Last year Tasmanian importers and manufacturers ordered a quantity of this woollen yarn from England. It was sent by a vessel calling at mainland ports before reaching Tasmania. The vessel, through probably stress of weather or some untoward cause, arrived in Australia rather late in the year, namely, 25th December,, hut sufficiently early for the Melbourne cargo of woollen yarn to be. discharged before the. 1st January.

– It is £188. But this is the position. By means of Tariff protection we are trying to build up certain industries in Australia. We are encouraging the establishment of industries engaged in the spinning of woollen yarn, but there are other established concerns - that are dependent upon supplies of this product. We have such industries in Tasmania, and, unfortunately,- by the late arrival of this consignment, they are penalized to the extent of 10 per cent. Our legislation should not differentiate as between the different States. Cases similar to the one I have just mentioned might be met by providing that the duty should ‘be levied upon the arrival of the vessel in territorial waters. I intend to approach the Minister to see if the matter can be re-opened, and a rebate made to the Tasmanian importers.

– Quite a number of matters were omitted from that speech.

Senator KEATING:

– Were I to deal’ with those matters which have been omitted I would occupy the attention of the Senate at far too great a length.

Before referring to that particular subject, I also wish to extend my congratulations to the two honorable senators who now occupy for the first time Ministerial positions in the Senate. One of them was momentarily absent a few minutes ago when I was about to extend to them my felicitations; but I hope they will accept in sincere good spirit the congratulations which I most cordially tender to both of them. Whether supporting, or sitting in opposition to, the Government of the day, I have always been .prepared to criticise it here whenever I have thought it needed criticism; but I can assure my honorable friends, the newly-appointed Ministers, that they will receive little, if any, factious opposition from me.

Senator Wilson:

– We hope the honorable senator will be returned again to the Senate before the present Administration leaves office.

Senator KEATING:

– To Senator Pearce I also extend my congratulations. I do not know that there is any special necessity to do so in his case, because I think we have come to regard him in this capacity as almost a corporation sole. I do not know whether he has a seal, but he seems to have the right of perpetual succession.

The omission from the GovernorGeneral’s Speech to which I propose to refer is very important to Australia, and is one in which I have taken the greatest interest. I allude to postal rates. If the press accounts are to be relied upon, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Gibson) seems to be disposed to adopt something in the nature of penny postage, or, at all events, to bring about a reduction in the present high postage rate on letters. I view that possibility with a great deal of pleasure since, as honorable senators are aware, whenever the question has been dealt with in the Senate I have insistently and continuously stood for the adoption of reasonable rates. In September, 1920, when the rate on letters up to ounce in weight was raised to 2d., I was in very strong opposition to the increase, and spoke at some length, both in the Senate and in Committee, upon the subject. I pointed out that to adopt a twopenny postal rate for letters was a retrograde movement, and I dealt with the advantages and disadvantages of such a rate to city and country. I said then, as I have before and since frequently said from platforms throughout the country, that the country and not the city people would most benefit by a reduction of the letter postal rates io Id. per ^ ounce. Taking the weight of the mail matter that goes out of a big city business house, and goes into it, it is more than probable that the average payment in respect of it is considerably less than Id. per £ ounce. Circulars and the hundred and one forms of correspondence in which large city business houses indulge to-day go through, the post at a considerably reduced rate. On the other hand, there is scarcely a communication sent through the post by country residents, including people in business in country districts,- which has not to bear the ordinary letter rate of 2d. per § ounce. Business people in rural districts do not issue circulars or large quantities of printed matter, and so do not reap the advantage of the reduced rates in respect of such mail matter. In September, 1920, I emphasized the point that the Post Office should not be a tax collecting machine, and although the responsible Minister at that time questioned some of the data that I supplied to the Senate, I think I was able 1 to verify it. Senator Thomas, speaking out of his experience as a Postmaster-General, took the same stand that I did. On that occasion I stressed the point that, in respect of letters going through the post, Australia compared with the United Kingdom and. New Zealand, gave the minimum weight for the- maximum, rate. We find that in New Zealand the maximum weight that can be carried through the post for the lowest rate ranges up to 1 ounce, if not 2 ounces;, instead of only half-an-ounce as in the case of the Commonwealth. la the United Kingdom the maximum weight carried, through the post for the lowest rate, runs up to 4 ounces. Although I emphasized that point at the time, the Minister disagreed with me, but I succeeded eventually in convincing the Senate that we in. Australia were paying the maximum rate for die minimum weight. That was the position with the ordinary postage rate of l£d. per half ounce without increasing the rate to 2d. per half ounce. I am glad that the representations then made have borne fruit. The. very contrasts, which I introduced here between our rates and those prevailing in New Zealand and the United Kingdom have recently been used with great advantage in causing the Department to review the whole position.

Incidentally, while dealing with, this matter, I, too, wish to’ join with the preceding speaker (Senator Payne) in paying a tribute of gratitude and appreciation to the ex-Postmaster-‘General (Mr: Poynton) for the work that he did, particularly during the last twelve or eighteen months, in the direction of extending postal^ telegraphic, and telephonic facilities to the outback. As

Senator Duncan has said, “some other bloke” will now come along and reap the honour and glory of the exPostmasterGeneral’s work; but I hope that when the people of the Commonwealth cast up their accounts in connexion with this, matter the . name and actions of the honorable gentleman will not be forgotten, and that due credit will be given him.

Telephonic communication is another important consideration to which I invite the attention of the Government. I do not think I need elaborate. I believe I shall be voicing the experience of every honorable senator when I say that the telephone system, especially in the larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne, is very far from being satisfactory. The telephone system in Melbourne and Sydney requires examination from top to bottom. The services of inspectors might be of some advantage in securing an improvement. If inspectors were empowered to enter business houses and residences where telephones are installed and suddenly to call up the exchange with the object of connecting up with it or some other exchange, they might in the course of their experience realize what subscribers have to put up with. It may not be that the annoyances with which subscribers have to contend are in any way due ito the officials in the exchanges. They may be due to other circumstances, but unless we have inspectors with power to call at private and business houses and suddenly to ring up the local exchange, it appears to me that the Department will never fully realize what the experiences of subscribers are.

Senator Duncan:

– The inspectors would need to be changed pretty frequently, otherwise they would go mad.

Senator KEATING:

– That is no exaggeration. In the endeavour to raise an exchange I have had experiences that would not bear telling. It has taken practically the whole of two hours to get three connexions. I have often thought that, so far as Melbourne is concerned, and Sydney; also, to some < extent, if a person is in a hurry to get a message to some one who is not more than half or three-quarters of a mile away, it is muchbetter to walk than to try to communicate by telephone; if a person has a little time to spare, let him take a tram, but. only if he has- a holiday let him try the telephone. The experience of telephone subscribers is enough to drive them mad; indeed,, I know some who will not go near a telephone unless they are rung up and they know there is somebody at the other end, or they have the connexion made for them. The whole system requires investigation. I am not in a position to point out where the system is at fault, but, certainly a subscriber does not get the “ goods “ for which he pays.

The administration of the Navigation Act, to which .Senator Payne has referred, i3 of great. interest to Tasmania. Last September., when I referred to it at some length in this Chamber, I was inclined to think that I had the sympathy of senators who were present on that occasion. Certainly, I introduced the subject on a Supply measure, but a number of honorable senators, by interjection, and others, by remarks afterwards, gave me to understand that in their opinion the case for Tasmania waa one that called for the most favorable consideration, as requested by me and other Tasmanian senators; they seemed to show that their sympathies were with the island ‘State. During the recent election campaign I submitted the suggestion that the Navigation Act be n mended, so far as Tasmania is affected. We are the only island State of the Commonwealth - we are the only State that is not . only unconnected, but unconnectable, ‘by rail. All the five mainland States are connectable; any portion of the mainland is connectable with the great centres: of population in it. Tasmania, geographically and physically, is not in that position, and our case calls for some exceptional treatment. Of course, we are faced with constitutional difficulties involved in the matter of discrimination, but it seems to me that provision could be made to amend the Act by providing that, at least, British mail boats - mail boats which have a contract either with the Commonwealth Government or the British Government for the transport of mails between the Commonwealth and Great Britain - should not be deemed to be engaged in the coasting trade in relation to the ports of Tasmania and other ports of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will give full consideration to the position of Tasmania, and will submit to Parliament a remedy for the undoubted handicap under which that State is suffering, and, moreover, that the Senate, however it may be constituted, will support any action with that end in view. Honorable senators will remember that when I spoke on this subject at some length in September last, I intimated what had been the terms of the reply given in the previous year to a deputation which waited on the responsible Minister of that time. Honorable senators then seemed, or, at any rate, some did, astonished at the nature of that reply. I can only now say that last year the representations were reiterated on behalf of Tasmania to the then

Minister. In my. remarks hero in September I indicated that we Tasmanian representatives were going in a body as a deputation, and that I hoped that if the Government brought down any proposal to meet the position it would be given a favorable reception here. We did go as a deputation to the Minister; and when our representations were under the consideration of the Government, the Minister, though he was not prepared to offer any relaxation of the conditions in order to provide for the tourist traffic and general trading of Tasmania, had, as we learned through the Tasmanian pres3, actually relaxed them in the case of a vessel the owners of which desired to bring visitors from Sydney to the Melbourne Cup! What can we think of the judgment, to say nothing of ordinary common sense, that on the eve of an election, permitted a responsible Minister, when the whole of the people of Tasmania had been and were clamouring to be put on an equality with the sister States, to refuse to relax the provisions of the Navigation Act on their behalf, but to relax them in order to enable “ Cuppers “ and “ trippers “ - possibly some of whom, though I do not say all or the greater proportion, were wanted by the police - to travel from Sydney to Melbourne in order to see the Melbourne Cup race? That, coming from the mainland side of Bass Strait, was an insulting answer to the reasonable request of the people of Tasmania for communication with its sister States at a time of the year when it was essential that every bottom available should be trading between Tasmania and the mainland. Tasmania, rightly or wrongly, considered that bound up with this matter was the question of the export of its products to the other end of the world. While they were seething with excitement and indignation, they “learned that the great Commonwealth Government was making provision to enable Cup “trippers” to come from Sydney to Melbourne, though refusing that provision in the case of Tasmania, for coping with its tourist traffic and the export of its fruit to the Old Country. Thus the Government was carrying out the traditional “wowser” policy of the Australian Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth says to Tasmania, “You run Tattersalls; we cannot allow letters to go addressed to John Jones, in Water-street, Hobart, because we believe, or the Postmaster-General thinks, that he is an agent for Tattersalls.” What a wicked, awful man John Jones must be! Neither will the Government allow a letter to go addressed to A. 13. and Co., of Hobart - a well-known firm established for seventy or eighty year3, and as reputable as any in the Commonwealth - because it is thought that some of the employees of the firm may be agents for Tattersalls. But the moment the bookmaker or the “ punter “ from Sydney asks for a relaxation of the Navigation Act provisions in order to enable him to visit the Melbourne Cup, the Government say “ Yes, Mr. Ikey Mo, you can have it.” To Tasmania, the Government say, “No; stand back, the provisions of the Navigation Act are sacred, even though the apples rot in the orchards because they cannot bo taken to London.’’ The people who swelter in New South Wales and Queensland, and desire to go to Tasmania for a month in the summer are unable to do so because the sections of the Navigation Act are sacred against all but “Ikey Mo.” I trust that the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) will give proper consideration to the peculiar position of Tasmania, and to her legitimate claims, and that when this matter comes up again honorable senators and members of another place will sec that evenhanded justice is dealt out to Tasmania. When the Navigation Act was passed it had for its object the building up of the Australian mercantile marine, and it was confidently predicted, and generally hoped, that the conditions to be provided for employers and employees would build up one of the most contented marine services in the world. But hardly had it come into operation than we had for three years in succession strikes or lock-outs - call thom what you please - the effect of which was to cut off from its sister States the only island State in the Commonwealth. We were not concerned with the Montagues of owners or the Capulets of employees - “ A plague o’ both your houses,” said

Ave. Our ports were waiting for ship ping, our people were waiting to travel to the mainland, people on the mainland were waiting to travel to Tasmania, and we had produce ready for export to the sister States and overseas. Tasmania was isolated; and its people considered that if, after giving all the benefits of the Navigation Act to the employees, and protection to the employers and owners, they were to be treated in that way, the operation of the Act should be relaxed in order that Tasmania might be able to “ function “ properly as one of the sister States of this Commonwealth.

In regard to the general question of immigration, I have been told - I am not’ in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the information - that although a great many people are flocking into the Commonwealth as immigrants under the arrangements that have been made by the States and the Commonwealth, there is almost as large, if not as large, an outflow. It is said that numbers of the new arrivals do not stay long, but return to their homeland dissatisfied and alleging that misrepresentations had been made to them. I am not in ‘a position to say whether that information is correct, but it has been conveyed to me on more than one occasion and in more than one place, and I hope, for the sake of Australia, for the success of the immigration policy and for the development of the States, that these statements are without foundation. But if there be any justification for them, I trust that tho Commonwealth Government will see that there is no further misrepresentation which will lead to disillusioned immigrants returning to their native land and there becoming a bad advertisement of the Commonwealth, its immigration policy, and its possibilities.

– Notwithstanding that in many places, it was travelling along a bush track - the characteristic road of New South Wales. What would a motor car do on a continuously good road? I recollect asking in the early days of the Federal Parliament whether the Government of the day would take steps to invite Signor Marconi to come to Australia, as it was stated in the press that he was leaving Europe to visit the Orient. I remember there were those in the Senate and elsewhere who ridiculed that proposal. They regarded wireless telegraphy as a “dud,” and some members expressed astonishment that this fanciful scheme had not originated in America. To-day wireless telegraphy is in universal use. So, too, with motor traction and transport, and air transport, the rapidity of their development should be considered in connexion with the costly project of unifying the railway gauges.

– That was the salary paid to Sir J ohn Madden when he was Chief Justice. But I fancy it was reduced to £3,000 before his death, and that his successor got £3,000. The other Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria are paid £2,500 each. The Chief J Justice of the High Court is paid £3,500, and has no right to a pension, whereas the Chief Justice of Victoria, with not nearly the extent of responsibility that the Chief Justice of the High Court has, gets a salary of £3,000, and is entitled to a pension. I think, that the Chief Justice of New South Wales, is paid £3,500. At any rate, the other Judges of that State are paid £2,700 each. The Chief Justice of Queensland was getting £3,000. I am not sure that he is getting that amount now, I do not wish to enter into details, but the comparison of the salaries paid to the High Court Justices with those paid to the Judges of the Supreme Courts of the States shows that the Commonwealth Justices do not get anything extraordinary. If a man were offered the position of Chief Justice of Victoria or the position of Chief Justice of the High Court, he would be well advised to take the emoluments and the work of the Chief Justice of the State. That is not right. Now that the Public Service Superannuation Act has taken away one, if not the only one, of the reasons which caused some people to oppose pensions for. Judges on principle, we should make some provision for the payment of such pensions. There is another aspect of the question. In some of the States, men at the Bar earn considerably more than is offered to the Chief Justice of the High Court, and it is desirable, when filling vacancies upon the High Court Bench, that the Commonwealth should not be limited in its choice. It should be able to offer to those whom it seeks to take up such high responsible positions something beyond tho honour itself that will attract them. The honour of sitting upon the Bench of the first High Court was very great; but those Judges who took office did so at considerable pecuniary sacrifice, actual or prospective. Now that the Superannuation Act is in force, the time has arrived for the. Commonwealth to place our High Court Judges in a position to correspond at least with that occupied by State Judges and those in tho United Kingdom. The Federal Judges in the United States of America - whether of the Supreme, the Circuit, or the District Courts - all retire on pensions. They may retire at the age of seventy; but whenever they do so their pensions are made equivalent to the salaries enjoyed at the time of retirement. I think there is no legal provision in Great Britain that Judges, upon retirement, shall receive pensions. It is the practice, however, to provide pensions. If that principle, or method, were adopted in the Commonwealth, there would be no necessity to leave the matter each time to Parliament. Circumstances to-day differ from those which have existed at any time since the High Court came into existence. I hope, at any rate, that there will be no recurrence of happenings like those connected with the retirement of the first Chief Justice of the Commonwealth.

have referred many times previously to the subject of a Constitution Convention. A Convention is foreshadowed once more in the speech of the Prime Minister. If it is convened, I trust that it will not be given the right of considering and revising the whole of the provisions of the Constitution. As long ago as November, 1914, I moved, in the Senate, for the calling of a Constitution Convention. It was to have been one which would be elected by the people on the same franchise as that for the Senate - that is to say, there was to be an equal number of representatives from each of the States. The Convention would have sat at such places and times as might be prescribed by the enabling Bill, and would have reported - first, as to (he need; secondly, as to the substance; and, thirdly, as to the form of proposed amendments of section 51. That section sets out tho Thirty-nine Articles of our powers. It is the section round which all the legal controversy has raged concerning the respective limits of the powers of States and Commonwealth. And I may add that a Convention which, in the light of more than twenty years’ experience of State and Commonwealth administration, can recommend a more clearly defined demarcation will be productive of great good for Australia. I realize, and have always realized, that anything a Convention might do would not be final. My motion - introduced nearly nine years ago! - provided that, when the Convention had reported to the GovernorGeneral and the six State Governors, it should be incumbent on the Federal Government of the day to put into operation section 12”S of the Constitution, and submit the Convention proposals to Parliament. If those proposals passed through each House with the requisite majorities, they should then go on to the people. My object in moving as I did was to strip from the preparation of the proposed amendments any suggestion of party colour. My desire was that they should not be drawn by the Cabinet of the day; that they should not be formulated by the Caucus of the party in power ; that they should not be voted upon by members of the Federal Legislature on party lines. My purpose was not to have the amendments submitted to the people as’ the propositions of the Government of the day, and opposed, therefore, by the Opposition of the clay. My aim was simply that the Convention, being free from party bias and prejudice, should consider the need for amendments, and frame such amendments as might be required. The procedure would be the same as that in connexion with the drafting and submission of the Constitution itself; and, from the moment when they first proceeded to elect their representatives to the Convention until they were asked to say “ Yea “ or “ Nay “ upon the referenda proposals, tho people would bc so familiar with the subject-matter as to be able to vote intelligently - with an apprehension of the significance and importance of what they were doing. It has been recently suggested that the work of Constitution revision could bc done by some outside body. Introducing my proposal in 1914, I dealt with the alternative which had crossed my mind, namely, of calling for the assistance of certain persons, such as Judges of the High Court Bench, men versed in administrative experience since the establishment of tho Commonwealth, and those who knew the shortcomings of the Constitution. I gave reasons, however, why such a tribunal would not bc as appropriate to tho purpose as a Convention. I hope that if the Government introduce a Bill to bring about a Constitution Convention, they will see that its functions are confined to section 51, and that such matters as Unification, for example, shall be left outside the purview of that body.

A matter which has aroused recent interest is the attitude of the United States of America towards the International Court of Justice. The press has announced that President Harding is viewing with interest and enthusiasm the possibility of his country associating itself in the functions of that Court. Further newspaper cables have intimated that the opposite political party has expressed its determination to prevent tha United States of America from joining with the other nations. At first blush, many Australians may feel inclined to resent the attitude of the United States of America. The creation of the International Court of Justice was foreshadowed several years ago, namely, at the time of the Versailles Conference, but it was not until some time afterwards that the Protocol in connexion with the International Court of Justice was prepared. It is not for us to say to the United States of America, “You have been a long time realizing the advantages of the International Court of Justice. You want to come in and reap the benefits attaching to membership of the League of Nations; you want to take advantage of the institutions under the League which have been provided for you; but you will not accept and share any of the responsibility.” I am not sure that, in this respect, we are not living in a glass house. The Protocol in connexion with the International Court had been signed and ratified by South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand long before Australia added her signature. I constantly brought this fact before the Government of the day. I asked several questions, hut failed to receive any quite satisfactory reply. I drew attention to the fact that, early in 1921, in the British House of Commons, the Minister then responsible, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, had pointed out that Canada and South Africa and New Zealand had signed and ratified the Protocol, but that Australia had not done so. It was not until well after June, 1921, and after asking many questions on the subject, that I was informed, and the Senate learned, that Australia had signed the Protocol. We came in rather late, and our action might be regarded with some suspicion. I, for one, welcome ‘this step forward by the United States of America. I feel that, even if that country is endeavouring to take advantage of what it considers to be the beneficial institutions existing under the League of Nations, it will not be very long before she realizes that she cannot take all the advantages and accept none of the responsibilities.

There is one more question I would like torefer to, and that is the general position of the Senate. We, in this Chamber, are very awkwardly placed. We are handicapped, indeed, when circumstances such as have occurred since

Parliament assembled this year arise in connexion with the two Houses.- On the first day of sitting a notice of motion of want of confidence may be tabled elsewhere, and this Chamber, immediately it is acquainted with the fact officially, rises until the motion has been disposed of. There are many matters about which, on the assembling of a new Parliament, one desires to obtain information - matters, for instance, in connexion with one’s own State, the Commonwealth, and international affairs; for Australia has been assuming an international status for some years past. Much of this information one desires to get publicly, on the floor of the Chamber, but when our sittings are interrupted as they have been there is frequently no possibility of securing information in that way. The infrequent and irregular sittings are not the fault of the Government. During a crisis, or a supposed crisis, in another place, it becomes very difficult for honorable senators to apply themselves continuously to certain lines of work, especially in relation to matters upon which public information is desired here from the lips of Ministers themselves. It is frequently in the interests of administration, of Parliament, of the Commonwealth, and of the public that such information should be furnished. I do not know with certainty upon what rests the practice, which- has been followed in all the colonial Legislatures, of a second Chamber, when a Government is threatened in another House, ceasing to do anything at all ; but it may be that on a proper and full consideration of the circumstances some way can be found to allow this Chamber to “ function,” as the French say, in regard to certain matters, even when a censure motion isbeing debated elsewhere.I should not expect the Government to introduce Bills, except those of a very formul character, with no party significance, but there is other work which couldbe proceeded with quite consistently with the fact that a motion of censure was being discussed elsewhere.

Senator Benny:

– Ministers could not answer questions if they did not know that the Government would continue to exist.

Senator KEATING:

– Ministers could answer questions in regard to facts.

Senator Benny:

– But they could not answer questions of policy.

Senator KEATING:

– Yes, they could. I asked some questions in this Senate, and they were several weeks in .being answered because of the infrequent sittings of this Chamber. I asked what was the position of the Commonwealth of Australia in regard to the International Court of Justice, and I inquired whether the Protocol in connexion with that Court had yet been subscribed by Australia. I was asked to give notice of the question. I gave notice that day, but the Senate rose for ten days, and in the meantime the question could not again be brought up. I am not laying down any hard and fast rule. The whole position ought to be reviewed. Experience has shown that the Senate has lost, and in present circumstances will continue to lose, the opportunity of dealing with important matters. The Senate could deal with resolutions on the notice-paper. I think honorable senators should realize that the infrequent opportunities provided for the discussion of public affairs in this Chamber should be availed of to the fullest possible extent. The history of the Senate shows that in the past, especially in the early days of Federation, the influence of this Chamber upon legislation, and upon the course of administration, has been very marked and noticeable. I certainly hope that whatever the developments may be in connexion with the amendment of the Constitution, and whether a Convention takes a part in framing proposed amendments, this Senate, as representing the union of the States, in which each has an equal voice, will not be impaired in any degree, and that its efficiency and status will be maintained by the people of the Commonwealth and by the honorable senators who compose it.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Although during the election campaign a few of my friends, with .that affectionate levity which characterizes the most intimate of them, told me that if I devoted myself very seriously to politics for some time ito come they would constitute themselves the inheritors of my share of next year’s gold yield from Norfolk Island, or some such illusory asset, I intend to take my duties seriously. I wish, accordingly, to contribute something to the debate on the AddressinReply. It has been pointed out by the speakers who have preceded me that the mover and seconder of the Address-in-Reply have been commendably brief, although they have compressed into their speeches much of very important matter. I certainly do not intend to occupy the Senate for any very great length, of time. Let me begin by saying that I congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply upon their speeches. Senator Benny, of course, has served years of political apprenticeship, but Senator Thompson is an accession to our ranks. He has come along quite recently, and I congratulate him, and, as one of the older members of the Senate, welcome him. That is my duty, which in fact is laid upon my shoulders as a matter of courtesy. I hope that Senator Thompson and Senator Benny will have successful careers during the Parliaments that are to come.

The Ministry, as is usual in the circumstances, has undergone some criticism already, but I congratulate the members of it upon their accession to office. As most of the members of the Ministry are new men, I consider that there are all sorts of possibilities of a character profitable to the nation in respect to their labours. To the untried, as to the young, all things are possible. I believe the very best has been done in the circumstances that could have been done, for if the people of Australia desire to adhere to a system of parliamentary government which can only be effective ‘by dividing the members of “ the popular Chamber,” as it is called, into two parties for the purpose of government, they must recognise that many difficulties exist when they take it upon themselves to send representatives of three or four parties into that House. Our system of Ministerial responsibility, which throws upon a Ministry the necessity for resigning if a vote of censure is carried against it, necessitates that there shall really be only two parties in Parliament, or, if there are more than two parties, that at least a majority of members shall vote.as if only two parties existed. Otherwise parliamentary government, as we understand it in connexion with the Cabinet system, which is a part of Parliament, but is not the institution itself, cannot continue. It is well known, I think, that I am an ‘ opponent of the present method of selecting Ministers. I do not believe that Ministers should be selected as they are at present. I believe the electors should send as many representatives of as many parties as they care to choose to this Parliament, and that (then the members should elect the Ministers, who should have a specified term of office, just as the President and the Chairman of Committees and the members of the various parliamentary Committees have. I see nothing at all impracticable in that. On the contrary, I consider it highly sensible and very necessary. The present system is ‘ outworn. I wish it to be clearly understood that whilst believing that the best has been done in the circumstances according to present practice, as a parliamentarian that practice earns no indorsement from me.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m.

Senator BAKHAP:

- Senator Keating made a very proper reference to Australia’s assumption of national status, and it follows that she should take an intelligent interest in what I might term the happenings of the outer world. There is a matter to which I wish to draw attention, and which seems to me to be one of a very grave character, and yet it has passed practically without comment, even at the hands of public men or prominent journalists. About a fortnight ago, I think not more, it was stated in the cables that three important speeches on vital subjects had been delivered in various parts of the world. Two of them, I think, were made on the American continent; but one to which some little prominence was given at the time in the cables was a pronouncement by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. McKenzie King. This gentleman said - I take it he was making a speech at some public function in an important centre of the Canadian Dominion - that in all future wars in which the Empire might be engaged, how Canada would be affected by the conflict would have to be directly considered, and that no participation of Canada in an Empire

Avar could be promised until that had been considered and decided in the affirmative by the Legislature of the Canadian Dominion. I wonder if many people have reflected on what such an utterance really means, if it truly represents the policy to be adopted by the Canadian people? We must first of all remember that Canada contains about one-sixth of the white population of the British Empire, and that if the statement of the Canadian Prime Minister is true, one-sixth of the white population of the Empire would possibly not be participants in an Empire war.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is assuming that the cabled report is correct. I can remember a somewhat similar cable appearing in the British press in regard to a statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Andrew Fisher, which was quite false.

Senator BAKHAP:

– ‘That may be so; but the fact remains that the cables contained the statement I have mentioned, which, I know has been brought under the notice of the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce). The announcement has been made in the local press, hut no comments upon it have appeared, although it seems to indicate one of the gravest occurrences in modern history, and one which must vitally affect the future of the British Empire. It should be remembered that, as a result of the war, the British Empire attained the very pinnacle of Imperial prestige and glory. But it may be that at this very moment disintegrating influences have commenced to work, and that our existence as an Empire in a material and moral sense may almost have ceased. It is irrefutable that, as a result of the war, the British Empire is no longer an Empire in the old sense. It is not the Empire in the sense that the French Republic is. France still holds her Colonial Empire in the old fashion more than Great Britain does. As I have said, one-sixth of the white population of the Empire is in Canada.

Senator Keating:

– Is the honorable senator sure that it is one-sixth?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yea. The highest estimate I have noticed of the white population of the Empire is 73,000,000. I believe the correct figure between 66,000,000 and 70,000,000. Canada has a white population of over 11,000,000. It may bc said that Canada is sure to participate in any war in which the life of the Empire is at stake, and I believe that for a generation or two such a statement might have an element of accuracy in it; but a3 the present Prime Minister of Canada has made the public utterance I have mentioned, it is well for us to understand where we are, and in what direction the Empire is developing or disintegrating - as honorable senators may care to have it. It is of great importance, and very necessary, for Australia that the British Empire should retain its potency for many decades, or even centuries to come. I do not wish to refer in detail to speeches made during the election campaign, but I was careful to point out to the Tasmanian people prior to the election that Canada was in quite a different position from Australia in regard to Empire questions. I believe the statement of the Canadian Prime Minister to be correct, because when Mr. Lloyd George, the ex-British Prime Minister, was communicating with the Dominions in regard to the possibility of hostilities with Turkey, and was ascertaining the attitude the Dominions would adopt, the Canadian Government indicated that the matter would probably be relegated to the Canadian Parliament for .. decision. The ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and the National Government of the day received some criticism because the Australian Executive took upon itself the responsibility of promptly replying to the effect that in the event of hostilities assistance would be given. I had to point out to the electors the different position in which the Australian Commonwealth found itself as compared with the Dominion of Canada. Within the last few days I had a conversation with a representative American citizen on this matter, who agreed with me that the statement I had made to the ‘Tasmanian people in regard to the Canadian position was, no doubt, accurately based. Canada knows that in connexion with any international conflict in which she might be embroiled, the invasion of Canadian territory would, no doubt, be regarded by the United States as a cause for war. lu other words, Canada can have it both ways. She can have her territory protected as a member of the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, and can also rely upon the fact that the stars and stripes of the American Republic will protect her. Canada can say with impunity, “ We will at all times allow our Legislature to determine whether or not we will go to the assistance of Great Britain or any of the other Dominions of the Empire.” Let us understand where we are. We cannot afford to take up such an attitude. Canada, proportionately, is of no more assistance, and cannot reliably be counted upon to assist the British Empire in a greater degree than 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 Americans, because the American President can decide, and those countries which during the Great War did become co-belligerents of the Empire, can relegate to their governing authorities the question of whether they will engage in a war or not. Canada takes up the same attitude, and is, therefore, on the same footing as a foreign Power in such a matter. I venture to say that the friendship and possible assistance of 110,000,000 of people in the United States is of greater importance to us than the qualified allegiance of 11,000,000 Canadians. If what I have mentioned is to be the attitude of Canada, that Dominion will not get any more support from rae, as an Australian legislator, than any foreign nation, and certainly not more consideration than the United States of America. If Canada is going to reserve to herself the privilege of saying whether she will come to the assistance of Australia or not, I am going to mould my conduct on lines that will enable me to say that the friendship of Canada for Australia is worth proportionately not nearly so much as is the friendship of the United States of America, and there can be no discrimination on behalf of Canada in any Act by the Commonwealth Parliament in which I am a legislative participant. Consideration of the Canadian attitude involves very far-reaching and serious thought. I want the Australian people to understand that we are by no means in the same position as Canada. We have no neighbouring people speaking the same language, and solicitous about the inviolability of our territory. And since we have not that good fortune, we want seriously to consider our position. If we claim exclusive possession of this continent, we must at all hazards, and despite the fact that it may be inconvenient, as well as costly in blood and treasure, be ready to help the other Dominions of the Empire whose safety may be endangered, in order that we may demand reciprocal treatment in our hour of need. There are very many other considerations of grave import in this connexion. They all tend to show the importance acquired by America in the eyes of the world during and since the war. So important has the Panama Canal become that serious thought is now being given to the question of its duplication.

I am, of course, leading up to a subject to which I have given a great deal of thought, and which I regard as one possessing elemental factors of safety for the Australian people, namely, the question of Australia’s representation in a serious and important manner at Washington. The abstention of America from participation in the International Court of Justice, which has been referred to by Senator Keating, or from any great world movement, paralyzes other nations concerned to such an extent that they cannot function properly or achieve anything worthy of note. In fact, the United States of America is the pivotal nation of the world. If that great Republic abstains from any world movement, it must almost surely fail. If, on the other hand, she participates, it will achieve, at all events, qualified, and perhaps a full measure of success. This being so, I consider that any one who is opposed to the representation of Australia in a serious and proper manner at Washington has not the interests of the Commonwealth at heart. The friendship of America, which alone enables the Canadian Prime Minister to talk as he has been doing lately, must be a valuable factor in the future safety of the people of Australia. Whether we, with a population of 6,000,000, will be able to hold this continent in peace, depends to a very large extent upon the attitude towards us during the next twenty or thirty years of America, with its 110,000,000 of people. Therefore, I invite the present Government, as one of the first measures of national policy worthy of consideration, to give solid thought to the matter of the early representation of Australia at Washington; not, however, by a Trades Commissioner, or any person who has not what I would call a satisfactory status, but by some Australian of note, to whom the President of the Republic would give audience, and who would be able to give publicity to Australian objectives and ideals in such a way as to insure to us the friendship of the people of the United States of America, conducive as such friendship would be to our national safety. Therefore, I say that every representative Australian public man worthy of his salt should give hi3 adhesion to the appointment, at an early date, of some one worthy to represent Australia at Washington. People talk about assuring this continent to the whiterace. I shall have a little more to say about this matter presently. How can ir be assured by expenditure of money which we can afford at present? Warfare of the future, if unhappily there is going to be war, will assume a character very little dreamt of at this moment. We cannot expect to hold exclusive possession of this continent unless we have the friendship of the great nations of the world, and, preferably, the friendship of nations speaking our own language. I am very sorry to say that in the recent deliverance of the Canadian Prime Minister I find indications that there is, almost unnoticed, perhaps, a disintegrating principle at work. We must not look upon this Empire of ours, much as .we believe in it, as something that is as permanent as the pyramids. It may wither in a night, as Kipling said, and nothing is more likely to .cause it to wither than pronouncements such as that recently made by the Prime Minister of Canada. I have made a few extracts upon this subject. I am only going to deal with this matter and one or two others, and then I shall resume my seat. I know it is the desire of the Government to end the proceedings to-night, and I am not in the humour to delay them; but I feel that I have certain duties to perform in furtherance of views which I sincerely hold. It is acknowledged, I think, that the development of American trade in the East, through the Panama Canal, must have its influence on the waiters that wash our shores. I am going to say nothing that is original, but I am about to quote certain extracts from an article, written by a very eminent American, whose subject is “America.” The thesis which he seeks to expound is that the future of America will lie in development towards the south. He says that the cry, “ Go south, young man,” is being substituted in the consciousness of the American for the old-time slogan, “ Go west.” He speaks of the opening of the canal -

It is a monument of American executive power, of her technical knowledge, and of her readiness to use that knowledge, and stake millions on it.

Every foreign ship passing through the canal bows to the Stars and Stripes, and, though paying a money duc, yet acknowledges a debt of civilization to the American people. Engineers, captains, tourists, crews, all obtain a new impression of America.

America ceases to .be a land merely of canned goods, Yankee dialect, and oil kings. Its flag comes nearer to the Union Jack as one of world-civilizing power.

The shiPS pass deliberately through with processional slowness; ever more ships, ever more diverse in nationality.

This is not a rabid, jingoistic Yankee, who thinks that everything American is all right, and everything British all wrong. You will find that this journalist expresses himself in a sympathetic tone regarding our Empire; otherwise I would not quote from him. He continues -

There is a great dignity about the traffic of the canal, like the stately manners of a bygone age. The ships represent their nations, and come as guests through American waters. America is the hostess of the world.

Every month sees the traffic record broken.

That traffic is in the direction of Australia. He goes on -

More and more ships pass through, more and more business is being done.

Whilst the American flag certainly waves less on European waters, it waves more on the Pacific Ocean. Pan-Americanism, the dream of Stephen Douglas and many others, is carried nearer to realization, the dream that America should rule all the way from the Canadian line tn the Isthmus without question and without regret. Empire was never foreseen by the fathers of the Republic. But what is to be done? America is committed to an Imperial destiny ‘and cannot help herself. Her vast surplus of capital, her gold accumulations must in the human way of necessity fmd an outlet for use. The West has been exploited. The old world is distrusted. There remains, in evitably and obviously, the South. “ Go south, young man,” is being substituted in the consciousness of the American for the old cry, “Go West.”

I have said that these republics are retaining an expanding Empire in a sense which our Empire has lost or forgone. We have gone in for self-determination; to any people within our society of nations that have a reasonable chance of governing themselves successfully we give that chance. The British Empire is not an Empire in the sense that the French Republican Empire - if I may blend the terms, “ Republic “ arid. “ Empire “ - is. This writer goes on to say- i

The growth of the American Empire is the greatest fact in the world to-day; it is far more significant than the decay of Europe.

I have made an extract of what an Italian says about Europe. He speaks of “ the terrible aesthetic and moral anarchy into which Europe has fallen.” When an Italian speaks of “ the terrible aesthetic and moral anarchy into which Europe has fallen,” we cannot blame an American for saying that Europe is in a state of decay. This writer says further -

One’ thing which the great war seems to have revealed is that we are physically subject to forces over which we have little or no control. These forces are generally called economic, and are said to be academic, and theoretic. That is a mistake; they are elemental and primitive. They sweep’ statesmen away when the time comes, and sweep other statesmen into power. Such a force drives the American flag southward, and the cry is, “ Go South.”

It is at the metropolis of these 110,000,000 people, with forty odd States - a people from whose Constitution ours has been to a very large extent derived ; it is at the capital of the great American people - whose greatness, whose achievements, whose prospects, whose destiny, whose intentions so to speak, are revealed so temperately by an American - that I wish to see Australia represented. If our 6,000,000 Australians cannot see the value of being represented there, when 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 Portuguese, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 Dutchmen, and 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 Danes see that necessity, then the Australian people are suffering from a kind of mental blindness, for which no eye-wash can be purchased at the apothecary’s. I want to see the Australian Parliament, through the. Australian Administration, at the earliest possible date secure tlie ablest and best representation of Australian interests at Washington. So I will conclude in respect of that matter.

I want to deal - because it is incidental to this question of our keeping this continent - with a curious exclusiveness that is growing up in Australia amongst the Australian-born. We all know that this continent has adopted the policy of a White Australia - about which I am not going to make any remarks. I believe, as I have said before, that so long as the incidence of the operation of the policy is not too cruel, the idea of preserving Australia as a continent in which, preferably, the members of the British race, and, secondly, the members of the white races, can develop the civilization which is characteristic of Europe - develop their economic and other ideals - is a very commendable objective. I do not know that there is anything particularly wrong in it. It is contradicted, of course, by such men as Havelock Ellis. They say that it is ‘wrong; they say that this idea of establishing pure breeds of people is nonsensical; that the pure breeds of people hardly exist at all; and, moreover, that such specimens as have been found to exist in isolated cases have never effected anything. According to Havelock Ellis, all that is great in the world has been accomplished by hybrids - quite contrary to popular ideas, popular imagination, popular beliefs on the matter. We will let that pas3. Undoubtedly out of this White Australia policy has grown, not only a policy in restriction of Asiatics ‘but a policy that is certainly possessed of an undercurrent of hostility towards even Europeans. We know that the term “Dago” is used, and that it is applied to Spaniards, Greeks, Levantines, Italians, even southern Frenchmen, and certainly not in an honorific sense. We talk of the League of Nations. Are we going to make the League of Nations the arbiter in the world’s quarrels? What will the League think of the frame of mind exhibited in connexion with the recent visit to our shores of a ship manned with Italians, and having on board a large number of Italian wouldbe immigrants? It may be that these men were induced to come to Australia in an improper sort of way, by a kind of false representation. I have close to me a representative of the State of New South Wales in the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner). I understand that there is in New South Wales a gentleman called Mr. Wearne - who, if he does not hold at present, recently held, Ministerial office and rank.

Senator Duncan:

SenatorREID (Queensland) [8.35].- I join with others in congratulating my colleague from Queensland (Senator Thompson) on his maiden speech in the

Senate, and trust that it is hut the forerunner of many. I wish, also, to congratulate Senator Pearce on attaining the position of Leader of the House. Time will prove that the office has been placed in very capable hands. I am sorry that our ex-Leader (Senator E, D. Millen) has been laid aside owing to ill-health, and sincerely trust that it will not be long before we shall have him with us once more. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) on the fact that he is the first Leader of a Commonwealth Government who has recognised the importance of Queensland by raising to Ministerial rank two representatives of that State. I offer my felicitations to Senator Crawford on his appointment as an Honorary Minister.

Senator Payne:

– I thought that the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) fully recognised the importance of Queensland.

Senator REID:

Senator REID:

– None of the delegates, except General Smuts, objected or protested. Personally, I do not see why honorable senators should object to the granting of” these citizen rights. There are very few Indians in Australia to whom the rights could be extended, and if they all voted together they could not change an election one way or another. They were in this country before Federation Avas consummated, and it is not proposed to open our doors to all Indians and give them the same rights. I agree

Avith Senator Bakhap that whomsoever we admit into the Commonwealth should be given citizen rights, for otherwise they are not fitted to be here. The Australianborn sons and daughters of these Indians are in business or on the land, mostly the latter, and they are entitled to vote. In view of the fact that there are very few persons who will be affected by any change in this connexion, it would be a generous, and I might say a noble, act on the part of this young Democracy to recognise its responsibility and duty. It certainly is not in the spirit of Democracy to treat others as we should not like to be treated ourselves. These people are good and respectable citizens, who obey the laws and pay their taxes; and I trust that, during the recess, the Government will make up its mind to set an example to the other Dominions. I do not wish to follow Senator Bakhap in his .remarks about the Empire, though I wish to. see the Empire developed; and I may say that I do not think it has yet reached its apex of glory, in spite of what may be said in Canada by a mere passing Premier, who is here to-day and gone tomorrow. The British Empire has to look to the East, and to its millions of subjects in India, who are part and parcel of the Empire; and it is only right that these few Indian residents in Australia should know that, at all events, Australia is willing to fulfil the promise more or less agreed upon at the Imperial Conference, thus tending to cement the Empire still more closely. I shall say no more on this subject at the present time, but on a future occasion I shall take an opportunity to set forth many reasons why this modicum of justice should be granted. The ex-Prime Minister gave a promise in the presence of the leaders of all parties; and I am sure that if a vote had been taken at that banquet, the reforms which I am now advocating would have been agreed to by an overwhelming majority. Why should there be a change in sentiment now? If it was right then to extend these rights it is right now; and it is far better to do it deliberately and calmly than be carried away by the words of some eloquent advocate. I trust the Government will consider this matter, not only from an Indian, but from an Imperial, point” of view.

Another promise made by the late Government had reference to the Boy Scout movement, and to an official recognition of its usefulness and standing in the. community. These lads are encouraged, to do a kind action every day, and to make themselves handy and useful; indeed, in my opinion, the movement is doing more to properly train young Australians as good citizens than any in operation- today. All that is asked by those interested in the Boy Scouts is that the body shall be legalized, and their badges and so forth recognised. This will tend to prevent persons collecting on behalf of the Boy Scouts, and make it possible to prosecute any who fraudulently do so. I understand, from officers of the Boy Scouts that, during last session, the exMinister for Defence - I do not know whether it Avas Senator Pearce or Mr. Massy Greene - informed them that the Government were considering a Bill to carry out this desired reform. I trust that the present Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden), for the sake of this useful movement, will take this matter in hand. To some this may appear a small matter, but I regard it as one of the most- important in the training of our young people as good citizens.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– Like others, I welcome the opportunity that the motion now before the Senate presents for expressing ourselves on current affairs, more particularly those affairs of political interest to this Chamber and to the people of Australia. I wish to tender my congratulations to those honorable senators who have risen to the high rank of Minister in His Majesty’s Government. To-day Senator Wilson, who has been thus honoured, showed me his commission, in which he is referred to as “trusty and well beloved,” and no doubt he is so regarded by honorable senators generally. I also desire to congratulateSenator Pearce, the Leader of the Senate, on thehigh post to which he has been appointed. If that honorable gentleman’s strength is to be measured by the ability he shows to retain office in any Government, whether of one party or the other, or of a composite party,he is certainly well fitted to lead this or any other deliberative Assembly. He has shown an ability to forecast coming events that many of us might well envy. He seemsto be a Minister of the everlasting type, blooming in all sorts of weather and in all seasons. Whatever the circumstances are, whatever. Government is in office, he remains a Minister.

Senator Bakhap:

– He is much more sought after than seeking.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I am not implying that the honorable gentleman’s continuance in office is due to selfseeking. Perhaps because of his many and varied qualities he is sought after by successive Prime Ministers to accept office; and the honorable gentleman who to-day is Prime Minister has paid Senator Pearce the very high compliment of asking him tobecome Leader of the Government inthe Senate. I feel sure that he will acquit himself with satisfaction to the Senate and honour to the Government and himself. Without desiring to reflect in any way upon the ability ofthe honorable gentleman, I do regret the circumstances that have led to the retirement of that magnificent little fighter and loyal friend, Senator E. D. Millen, who for so long was the leader of this Senate. His retirement from office is most unfortunate for Australia. His treatment by a section of the press and the criticism of those who should have ibeen his friends, as well as of those who were his enemies, have been distinctly unfair; and I feel sure that that, more than anything else, is responsible for his present unfortunate illness. I hope that the honorable senator will soon be restored to health and may be among us again, if not as a Minister, at any rate as a comrade, to assist us with the foresight, readiness in debate, and ability to meet any circumstances which are peculiar to him.

I am very pleased to be able to congratulate Senator Wilson. He also, I am sure, will acquit himself with credit ; and I look forward to the time when he will be sitting at the table as Minister leading the Senate, and perhaps imploring honorable senators to register their votes in favour of a large appropriation for the construction of the Federal Capital at Canberra. He has opposed that great national work in the past, but he has seen the error of his ways, and is now pledged to a Government and a policy that promises to the people of Australia that the construction of the Federal Capital will proceed with vigour, and that as soon as is humanly possible this [Parliament will assemble in its own permanent home. I am delighted to know that Senator Wilson is going to assist those of us who had to fight so strenuously in the past for the consummation of this national city. Hitherto he has been against us ; now he is with us, and as the good Book sayeth, that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just men made perfect.

SenatorReid. - Does the honora’ble senator infer that Senator Wilson is a sinner ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– He is now a political angel.

Senator Pearce:

– How does he get all these complimentary titles bestowed upon him? One senator has calledhim a butterfly, and now he is described as an angel.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I said that I was not referring to State instrumentalities. The matter of arbitration authority is not the only one in which these persons to whom I have alluded are interesting themselves. They are “ out “ for the aggrandizement of the States at the expense, of the Commonwealth. Senator McDougall says that the Commonwealth Parliament can do nothing without Unification. [ do not believe in Unification. It would be absurd for the Commonwealth to attempt to legislate for the whole of Australia. The honorable senator, although such a pronounced believer in Unification, himself recognised the absurdity of the principle when - after pointing out that we needed only one Parliament - he urged .that provincial Legislatures should be established. I take it that Senator McDougall was speaking for his party when he advocated the. cutting up of the present States and the creation of new ones, with the establishment of provincial Legislatures. These latter would each be a kind ‘of glorified County Council. I hope that when the ‘Constitution ‘Convention meets the principle of the preservation of the status quo between Commonwealth and States will be safeguarded.

I listened with pleasure to the speech of Senator Gardiner. He has my sympathy at this moment; for, like Mahomet’s coffin, he finds himself suspended between earth and heaven. “While he sits here listening to the present debate, his political life is the subject of debate elsewhere. His fate is in other hands; and it may be that, to-morrow, he will find that his devoted political head has dropped into the basket.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am still . the master of my soul!

Senator DUNCAN:

– That may be, but tlie other fellows are the masters of the honorable senator’s political carcass. I congratulate him upon the firm stand he has taken in support of his devoted friend, the Leader, or ex-Leader, of the Labour party in New South Wales, who has referred to his opponents as “ uncouth crooks.” I sincerely trust that Senator Gardiner will “come out” all right.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator is just throwing a drop of oil on the fire.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I would not do that for anything. I have a tender regard for the honorable senator’s feelings. I do not wish to see anything happen to him which might be distasteful to himself. I realize that it is not possible for him to make much of an onslaught upon the Government while some one else is vigorously attacking him from the rear. His lines of communication are not protected as they ought to be. He finds himself in a pretty serious position in that, while making an advance, his commissariat is being harried from behind. I hope that he, like the Government, will find a happy solution of all his problems. For my part, I would be pleased to see it in both instances. Anything that I can do to help the Government - I will not say, to help Senator Gardiner, because that might not do him any good - I am prepared to do, and my prayers are with the honorable senator who leads the Opposition.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Some years ago I read a book by Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass. There is one scene where, as Alice comes along, she sees before her an avenue which looks like a chess board. The red chess queen takes her hand, and rushes her down it, crying, “ Faster, faster,” until at last she stops for want of breath,’ and finds that she is at exactly the place that she started from, and on inquiring from the queen the reason for this, is informed she would have to run twice as fast to get anywhere else. That is a parable of the political situation of to-day. The public of Australia have ha’d considerable difficulty in following the political’ vicissitudes that have taken place recently. Extraordinary political phenomena have resulted from the elections. The electors have shown- much uneasiness in relation to certain things that have happened, and, rightly or wrongly, have determined that there shall be a rapprochement between the two sections of the anti-Socialist party, namely, the Country party and the Nationalist party. Surely this coming together may be accepted as reasonable. It is well known that apparently opposing forces bring about direction and control of action in many realms of nature. In the human body there are balances brought about by opposing nervous fibres. In the heart we have on the one side a nervous fibre that causes acceleration, and on the other one that causes retardation, and these working together give direction and balance. An experiment that is repeated frequently in physiological laboratories on the body of a dog is the cutting of the vagus nerve, affecting one side of the heart, and of the sympathetic on the other. When the operation is complete, and the body has been sewn up, the dog still lives. It, however, cannot move quickly - cannot run - because there is no possible means of causing acceleraton of the heart’s action. Similarly, there is no possible means of causing retardation. Consequently the dog must proceed in the most placid way. Then we have in the human arm two sets of muscles, the flexors and extensors, that are opposed, and their interaction is necessary to properly directed movement, and the same statement is true of the whole of the muscles of the human frame. If we pass from anatomy to psychology, we find the balances of pleasure and pain giving direction. If we go to the inorganic -world, and, viewing the infinitely great, look at the stars, we find that they are kept in their orbits, and at the other extreme, regarding the infinitely small, the molecules, that they are kept in motion by the forces of attraction and repulsion. Another illustration that might be used is the employment of the two reins that drive a horse. Opposing forces everywhere go to the making of balance and direction: As the public of Australia has determined that there shall be an arrangement between the two” anti-Socialist parties, surely we can get a similar practical ..balance between them in the two Houses of Parliament. Ministers have determined, rightly or wrongly, that that shall be so, and that out of this hurlyburly there shall be created a Government that will direct the fortunes of Australia as a whole. I am referring, of course, to the fortunes of Australia from the anti-Labour standpoint. It has been stated that in the formation of this Government the Constitution has been violated. When a Prime Minister is defeated he hands in his resignation, and, generally, the man who leads the victorious side is offered the commission to form a new Government. But has not the King the right to send for any man? As Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution, says, It is a wellestablished rule in the Constitution that the King shall send for those who can control the House. The House shall have the last say.” What has been the result in this case? The House has absolutely confirmed the decision of the Governor-General. We now have a composite Government, which has before it certain things to do. We have been told that it has not come down with a policy. Surely there is reason in this. Might I divide the functions of Government into three? They are, first, national stability; second, national strength; and third, national progress. We are living in a democratic age, and I ask honorable senators to take their minds back a little distance and recall some of the early democratic writings in relation to America, and they will remember that when Fisher Ames came back from studying American conditions he was asked what he thought of Democracy as accepted in the United ‘States. He said that, coming as he did from a Monarchy, it appeared to him as if an Autocracy or a Monarchy was like a merchantman. “ You go on board and ride wind and tide in elation, but by-and-by you strike a reef, and go down. But Democracy is like a raft. You never sink, though your feet are# always in the water.” If that was so in those days, I maintain that it still holds good to-day. The surface of the democratic sea on which the barque of the State is now being guided is disturbed by many storms, by many industrial problems. We had an earlier foretaste of Democracy in the Greek City states ; but all appreciate the fact that we have a Democracy to-day such as the

Greeks never anticipated. Let us allow our imagination to flow back to Pericles and Athens. Could we join in the throng in the Agora, and meet the men of creative genius, those of the vision immortal, who were dealing with democratic principles, we should realize that the Democracy we have to-day would throw a challenge to their mental activities. Our Democracy is la thing very delicately adjusted and marvellously regulated. It was thus well for the Government to consider where their ship was heading before they came out to say, “ This is the policy we propose to deal with and enforce upon the people of Australia.” That policy wants a considerable amount of thought and care. They understand that progress does not come with a rejection of our cultural heritage, like that of Russia. We must descriminate between the real and the futile. In Russia we have a few persons taking hold of the reins of government and showing the people a rule analogous to the Asiatic despotism of the early Czars. The Government have to deal with the present-day Democracy, and it will require great thought and care on their part to bring down a policy that will be acceptable to the whole of the people. Stability, as I understand it, depends upon the elimination of misplaced static forces, and to master the graveproblems that confront them will require much consideration by Ministers. Time will not permit me to continue upon that phase of government, and so I turn to the second part, which, in my view, is the conservation of national strength.

National strength does not mean only defence. It involves the proper utilization of our raw materials, the preservation of our timbers, the care of agriculture, the proper dealing with finance, and a right appreciation of our intellectual people, who will be prepared to aid the progress of Australia. May I, first of all, say a word or two on the subject of foreign policy. Australia, as a result df the war, has cast aside her swaddling clothes, and has come forth in the habiliments of nationhood. She has won, as the result of her prowess at the Front, the right of entry to the councils of the nations of the world. She has “been admitted to the Peace Conference, and enjoyed the right there to a voice and a vote in the framing of policies that were ito be of world-wide effect. We have been members of many Conferences and parties to many Treaties. We are a member of the League of Nations. During the time we have enjoyed membership of the councils of the nations, we have been represented by able men, possessed of excellent qualifications, fitting them to deal with matters of world-wide importance and urgency. We occupy a different position to-day from that which we occupied in 1914. In that year England declared war. When England declared war the sons of the Empire prepared to follow the old flag, and following the flag meant that they must tax themselves to find the money to fight, as Australians love to fight, in defence of what they believe to be right. The result of the action we took was that we were given a say in the councils that dealt with the conduct of the war. At the same time we assumed a responsibility that we as a people are now called upon to carry out to the utmost. As we have been permitted to be members of the Imperial Councils, we are given the right to a voice in determining the fate of the Empire. We have been given the right to a say in the framing of foreign policies which may have the effect of bringing about war. It is now possible that any of the units that go to form the Imperial family of nations may bring war upon the Empire. That is not likely, perhaps, but it is possible. Unfortunately, at the present time we have no machinery whereby the policy that is determined by the Empire can be expressed by a single voice. This SUKgests a matter referred to by my honorable colleague from Tasmania in connexion with Canada. That matter has, in my opinion, been far overshadowed by the fact that the Canadian people have ‘been the first of the members of the British Empire to break away and make a treaty with another nation. They have recently made a treaty with the United States of America in respect to fisheries in which both nations are interested. If the people of all the units that form the British Empire begin to make treaties just as they feel in* clined,then we shall have a disruptive force at work that will send the

Empire tottering as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow. It is not of the slightest use for Canada or Australia to imagine that as units they can expect to cut any figure in world politics. They each have tremendous influence as members of an Empire such as the world has never seen before, but the moment they propose to act independently of that Empire their power will become less. I therefore say that it behoves the Prime Minister tobring about as soon as possible an Imperial Conference that will speak for the Empire. To have a satisfactory policy laid down, as the result of consultation in an Imperial Conference between the representatives of the various parts of the Empire would be a natural evoluton of selfgovernment. A further evolution surely will be that we must take our share in the defence of the Empire. The Imperial Conference that dealswith these matters will have to consider how the Empire can best be defended, and must allot to the different nations forming the Empire the duties which it is essential they shall perform to insure that any defence of the Empire that is undertaken shall be effective. I therefore say that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to do what he can to forward the holding of an Imperial Conference as soon as possible, a purpose which I believe he has at heart.

I want to pass from this matter for a moment to refer to our raw materials, and in this connexion I ask theGovernment to give every encouragement to our Bureau of Science. In it we have an institution from which science will improve our products, abolish waste, establish new industries, and reach out helpfully into all the activities of our nation. I remember reading at one time a lecture by Berthelot, and I was struck by two or threepregnant phrases, one of which was Savoirc’est pouvoir - to know, in order to do - which is the pragmatic test of useful knowledge. Our Bureau of Science can tell us what to do, because they know. If the Government are prepared to aid, the Bureau with money and encouragement, they will assist materially to lift the people of Australia above the plane which they occupy to-day. Man’s one hope of salvation in this world is to overcome nature. When he left Paradise he was given a sentence of hard labour. As he began to evolve, he put the work upon horses and cattle, and, in some cases, upon other men. By the aid of science he has been able to discard some of his ideas of earlier days, and has invented machines which enable him without a great amount of physical exertion to accomplish great things. Unfortunately, history tells us, that the people who have benefited most by the introduction of machinery have had most to say against those inventions. In the earlier days of the Industrial Revolutions the people demanded that machines should be smashed. The poets of those times wrote songs about their waste and their danger, and even theologians thundering from their pulpits condemned them as ungodly and unholy. Magistrates on the bench denounced those things that were for the benefit of mankind. To-day that attitude towards the discoveries of science continues in a lesser degree. Although of such moment they are not appreciated here as they should be. At a great meeting in Atlanta City, in 1919, a conference of working men, in force assembled, decided that the only way whereby the working man could benefit, and greater progress be accomplished, was by evoking the aid of science, in geology, agriculture, and mechanical appliances. If we allowour minds to revert to the earlydays of the last century, we will recall that, after the Napoleonic wars, when Germany had been crushed, her spirit ruined, her finances crippled, and she was generally in despair, Fichte suggested that, as her position was critical, her only hope of recouping her lost powers and rehabilitating herself amongst the nations of Europe was by means of scientific research. At the outbreak of the GreatWar she had accomplished this, and had placed herself in the forefront of the nations. Who will say that the Democracy of Germany will not be preparedto subscribe again to the doctrine preached over a century ago? If Germany survived her earlier misfortunes, let us not be crushed by any unfortunate mediocrity. We must be prepared to expend very freely on research for the benefit and betterment of the whole of the Empire of which we form a part.

Let me pass to the question of national progress, which we have to look forward, to. To-day is the day of the machine. The machine is the great leveller. It is one of the powerful forces of Democracy. An aristocracy cannot be maintained without distinction in dress, and that only by sumptuary laws or costliness. Under our Constitution the firstis impossible, and the second is becoming rapidly impossible. For instance, rubies wero used to decorate the ladies of the earlier days at great cost, but now specimens physically perfect are being manufactured in Paris which conform to any test to which a physicist may submit them. These cost4d. a carat, instead of many pounds, as in earlier days. Lace, which was a symbol of aristocracy years ago, is now being manufactured from cellulose. The lace manufacturers engrave upon cylinders wonderful designs, such as the minds of the women of years gone by never dreamed of, and the material, after passing over the different cylinders, is turned out in long lengths of lace of beautiful pattern. In these circumstances, the possibility of an Aristocracy is reduced, and the prospectsof a Democracy raised.

The Commonwealth is endeavouring, in the best possible way, to do what it can to aid the wonderful science of wireless telegraphy. Will any one endeavour or dare to say what the future of wireless will be ? A vessel in a fog can be directed by means of wireless signals, and wireless can be used in many other marvellous ways, too numerous to mention. Australia must move forward in this wonderful realm, and I sincerely trust the Government will not allow the Marconi octopus to throttle our forward movement in this direction. I appreciate the position of the members of the Government, some of whom were members of the Committee appointed to inquire into the proposed agreement between the Commonwealth and , Amalgamated Wireless (Australia) Limited. I am sure the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Gibson) and the other members ofthe Cabinetrealize the great importance of wireless to Australia, and I trust the Government will do everything possible to make this Department a striking success, because itis along these lines that a great deal of the future success of our Empire lies. In conclusion, may I add that the circumstances under which the Government has been formed suggest that one should look for some analogy, and I am reminded of a chariot-driver and his horses. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) has a team to drive. It has to go forward. He cannot stop it if he wishes. He cannotsay with the mechanistic philosophers, “Let them alone; they will go when they must.” He has to let them go on. If they go offthe road they must be guided back. He must keep his team in operation to carry on the functions of government. For guidance he appeals to the facts with which he has to deal - the structure of the vehicle, and nature of his team; on the other hand, to his idealism, his innate feeling concerning the proper destiny of this Commonwealth. He must appreciate the fact that along the road he is driving there lies either damnation or salvation. One has to be avoided and the other aspired to. Where is he going? Is there to he a haven of realized ideals of stability. He does not know; but the winds of God blow in his face, and the dawn of a new day lights the eastern sky. I trust that that new dawn will bring to Australia all the good things which she richly deserves.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 376

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– His Excellency will receive the Address-in-Reply at Government House, to-morrow, at 11.30 a.m.

page 376

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow.

Senate adjourned at 9.51 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 March 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1923/19230314_senate_9_102/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate14 March 1923

QUESTION

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator Keating:

QUESTION

WATER STORAGE - WEATHER FORECASTS

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator Guthrie:

QUESTION

TRADE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Keating:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Rowell:

Senator WILSON:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:

PAPERS

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator WILSON:NAT

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF GOLD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:for Senator Lynch

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator REID:for Senator Foll

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: ADDRE SS-IN-REPLY

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator Bakhap:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator REID:QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:

Senate
14 March 1923

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator WILSON:
NAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
for Senator Lynch

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator REID:
for Senator Foll

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931