9th Parliament · 2nd Session
The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 3195
Limitation of Armaments: Statement by President Coolidge.
-I ask the Leader of the Senate if he has seen in this morning’s press the announcement by President Coolidge that when the reparation plan was in operation he would approach the’ powers with the proposal for a conference for the further limitation of armaments; and if, in view of this definite announcement by the President of the United States of America, the Government will consider the advisableness of suspending, for the present, its proposal to construct two cruisers ?
– I have noticed the paragraph referred to. It is a repetition of statements previously made and to which the Government has given full consideration.
– It is on this occasion a definite pronouncement.
– Since the powers named are proceeding with their naval programmes, the Government does not see any necessity to take the action suggested by the honorable senator.
page 3196
The following papers were presented : -
New Guinea - Ordinances of 1924 -
No. 26- Supply (No. 1) 1924-25.
No. 27. - Laws Repeal and Adopting (No. 2).
No. 28- Appropriation (No. 2) 1922-23.
page 3196
– Is the Minister for Home and Territories in a position to reply to a question which I asked yesterday concerning the expenditure of the Mandated Territories and Papua ?
– The information asked for by the honorable senator will entail the employment of two or three clerks for a considerable time. Certainly there has not been time between yesterday afternoon at 3 o’clock and this morning to obtain it. As soon as it has been prepared, it will be available to the honorable senator.
page 3196
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The information is being obtained.
page 3196
Order of the day No. 2, “ Private Business (second reading of) Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill “ having been called on in connexion with the placing of business -
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - Is it the wish of Senator Gardiner to re-arrange the order of this business?
.- I move-
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill from being passed through its remaining stages without delay.
– Do you propose to put that motion, Mr. Deputy President!
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Yes.
– I rise to order. I am unaware of any standing ordor under which, at this stage, a motion for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders may be . moved by a private member. Standing order No. 65, relating to the conduct of the businessof the Senate, provides that a member of the Government at any time, and without notice, may move the motion which Senator Gardiner has submitted, but I am not aware that that privilege has ever been exercised by a private mem-, ber. I direct attention to the fact that we are now at a stage when the Senate is merely considering the order of business and the placing of business. It is obvious, I think, that the motion at this stage is certainly out of order. Senator Lynch also has an important motion under Orders of the Day, and he has been asked whether he wishes to re-arrange that order of business. To me it is clear that, in any case, the motion submitted by Senator Gardiner should not come on for discussion until after Government business has been disposed of. If Senator Lynch’s order of the day remains on the business-paper until Thursday next, it will then come on in its proper order as private members’ business. Senator Gardiner’s order of the day is in exactly the same position. I submit, therefore, that the honorable senator cannot at this stage, at all events, or without leave, move for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders. Clearly, Standing Order No. 65 covers all motions relating to the business of the Senate. Senator Gardiner, having moved the first reading of his bill, it becomes the business of the Senate, and a motion for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders may be moved only by a Minister of the Crown. This is the first time within my knowledge that there has been an attempt to depart from the regular method of conducting business. We should be exceedingly careful before we initiate a new practice, because if Senator Gardiner is in order now is submitting his motion,his actionwill be taken as a precedent, and private members, on future occasions, may move for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders so as to have private members’ business dealt with at any time.
– A few years ago I submitted a motion for the appointment of a select committee of the Senate to inquire into the Strasburg case. It was necessary, in order to have that matter dealt with before the end of the session, to take the action which I propose now to take with regard to the order of the day standing in my name, viz., the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill. Inquiries which I made at the time led me to believe that I could move for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, and that was done.
– Did the honorable senator submit; the motion, or was it moved by a Minister of the Crown?
– I moved the motion. It was accepted by the President, put to the Senate, and agreed to.
– What year was that ?
– I think it was in 1921, but I am not quite certain. Senator Milieu, who was then leading the Government in the Senate, raised no objection, and as the President accepted the motion and the Senate carried it, naturally I thought that I could follow the same course to-day with respect to this bill.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I point out that, under our Standing Orders, the proper time for the honorable senator to submit his motion would be when the order of the day standing in his name was called on for debate. I made a mistake in intimating that I proposed to accept his motion for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, since the consideration of the order of the day referred to is not a matter of urgent necessity, as laid down by the Standing Orders. I, therefore, rule that the motion cannot properly be submitted at this stage.
page 3197
– I rise to discuss a matter of privilege. Following the proceedings in the Senate last night, there appear reports in the several Melbourne morning newspapers. It is my intention to discuss those reports, and to conclude my remarks with a motion. I direct attention first, to the report in the Sun News Pictorial: -
page 3197
Senator Gardiner Defied the Chair. Not Done ; in thee Senate.
He went quietly with the Usher of therod.
Last night, to preserve the dignity of the Senate, the Acting President (Senator Newland) found it imperative to call upon the Usher of the Black Rod to escort the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) from the Chamber.
Soon after dinner, the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) moved the suspension of the Standing Orders to cut out private member’s business in favour of the Bank Bill.
That paragraph is not in accordance with the facts. What really happened was that Senator Pearce, during the time devoted to Government business, and prior to the dinner adjournment, moved that the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended. The debate on that motion had not concluded when we adjourned for dinner. What followed in the Senate really was based upon that action, and the report in the Sun Pictorial places me in a false position so far as the subsequent proceedings are concerned. If the Minister, when, at 8 o’clock, the time set apart for private members’ business arrived, had moved for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, I should have had no ground for taking exception to his action. But where Senator Pearce and you, sir - if you will pardon me for putting it in this way - were wrong, in my opinion, was in continuing with Government business after the time allotted under the sessional order for the consideration of private members’ business had arrived. The motion for the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders was submitted in order to devote the time, usually set apart on each Thursday evening for private members’ business, to Government business. My objection to the Minister’s proposal gave rise to the incident referred to, and led the newspapers to declare to the world that Senator Gardiner had been guilty of unseemly conduct in the Senate. Let me quote the sessional order, under which an indignity was placed upon me, because I elected to defend the rights of honorable senators. On referring to the J ournals of theSenate
I find that on Thursday, 1st March, 1923, the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce) moved -
That on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, during the present session, unless otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business on the noticepaper, except questions and formal motions, and except that private business take precedence of Government business on Thursday after8 p.m.; and unless otherwise ordered, private orders of the day take precedence of private notices of motion on alternate Thursdays.
What happened ? Before the dinner adjournment the Minister moved the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders, and had the motion been carried before the adjournment, the Minister could have proceeded with Government business. The motion, however, was not carried by that time, and therefore the Standing and Sessional Orders were not suspended by 8 p.m. . The Sessional Order which the Senate deliberately placed on record, provides that after 8 o’clock on Thursday private business shall take precedence over Government business.
Any senator complaining to the Senate of a statement in a newspaper as a breach of privilege, shall produce a copy of the paper containing the statement in question and be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher, and also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty of contempt.
I understand Senator Gardiner is basing his question of privilege on a report in a newspaper, and I ask if, in accordance with the standing order I have just quoted, he has produced a copy of the newspaper, and also suppliedthe name of the printer and publisher.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (SenatorNewland). - Senator Gardiner has not done so, and I therefore ask him to comply with ‘the standing order.
– I now produce copies of the Sun News Pictorial, the Argus, and the Age, of the 15th August, each of which contain the name of the printer and publisher, as required by Senator Pearce.
– I do not ask for the information, but it must be supplied in accordance with the standing order.
– I wish to deal only with what happened in the Senate, the published reports of which affect me personally. I was proceeding to show that our Sessional Orders provide that after 8 p.m. on Thursday private members’ business shall take precedence of Government business. The procedure last night was that after 8 o’clock Government business was continued, on a motion submitted by the Minister before 8 p.m. Had the Minister moved, after 8 o’clock, the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders to enable Government business to be proceeded with, I should not have taken exception to it. I realize that my methods frequently irritate honorable senators, but my action on this occasion was based upon an axiom which has governed me on all occasions in seeking to retain the privileges and rights of honorable senators in this deliberative assembly. The method adopted by the Government was a departure from the correct procedure, and if it had been allowed to pass without objection it would have assumed the force of precedent.
– Is the honorable senator to be the judge of correct procedure?
– No. But I am entitled to offer objection when I think a wrong procedure has been followed . ‘ I recall an occasion quite recently when, if I had held my peace for five minutes, the Standing Orders would have been infringed, _ and when you, Mr. Deputy President, as the result of my intervention, properly terminated the sitting of the Senate, as it was then five minutes after the time provided in our Standing Orders for putting the question “ That the Senate do now adjourn.” My only intention was to prevent any infringement of the Standing Orders, because if discussion on that occasion had been allowed, the procedure would have assumed the force of precedent. Had the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders been carried before the dinner adjournment, Government business could have proceeded after 8 o’clock without interruption; but so far as my judgment goes, the time having arrived for private business to be taken, the Government had no right to proceed with Government business after 8 p.m.
– I rise to order. I desire your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, as to whether, under cover of raising a question of privilege, the honorable senator is in order in proceeding in this way. The Standing Orders are quite clear that an honorable senator is entitled to raise a question of privilege without notice concerning a newspaper report in which he considers that he has been misrepresented. The honorable senator, under cover of privilege, is. not raising a question of misreporting, but is dealing generally with the question of procedure.
– I am dealing with the report in a certain newspaper.
– I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, as to whether the honorable senator, under cover of privilege, is entitled to debate the wisdom of the procedure followed or the ruling which you gave last night.
– On the point of order, I wish to say that although I know this matter does not affect the Minister personally, I have to consider my reputation as a member of the Senate. I am of the opinion that the report - I do not say that it is a dishonest report - reflects upon me, and it should not be allowed to pass without comment. I have made reference to what happened - I am not dissenting from your ruling - and am merely giving the facts in connexion with the situation. My reputation is as much to me as the reputation of any honorable senator opposite is to him. What is the use of our Standing and Sessional Orders if they are not rigidly complied with? I rose to a question of privilege, and this newspaper states that one statement I made was supported by the Minister.
– But the honorable senator has not debated the newspaper statement.
– I can quite understand that the Minister neither knows nor cares. Before I proceed further I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, as to whether I am in order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - In discussing this question of privilege it is very difficult to sepa rate the newspaper report from the incident to which it relates. As the honorable senator is basing his question of privilege upon a report in a newspaper, I ask him to confine his remarks as closely as possible to that report. I do not wish to rule against him.
– I shall certainly confine my remarks to that matter, and shall try, without disturbing the peace of mind of the Minister, to fairly state the position. I have quoted the Sessional Order under which precedence is given to private members’ business after 8 p.m. on Thursdays. I shall now quote the standing order dealing with the procedure when Government business is interrupted under the Sessional Orders, which is really the basis of my objection. Standing Order 75 reads -
If any business before the Senate, or a committee of the whole, be interrupted by the operation of any sessional order, such business may be dealt with at a later hour of the day, or shall appear on the notice-paper for the next day of sitting at the end of Government or private business, as the case may be.
The procedure is very clearly laid down. I do not say that it was purposely done, but being aware that a trespass was being made upon the Sessional Orders and the rights of private members were being interfered with I considered it my duty to act as I did. This newspaper, quite inadvertently, I believe, misrepresented the position. I am not complaining of misreporting, because possibly the writer of the article could not imagine any other procedure than that after the dinner adjournment the suspension of the Standing and Sessional Orders had been moved. The article continues -
Soon after dinner the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) moved the suspension of the Standing Orders to cut out private members business in favour of the Bank Bill. . . .
Had that been done I would not have taken any exception. Mistakes of this kind lead to much misrepresentation. The article proceeds -
Senator Gardiner avowed that the Acting President would put the order into execution at his peril.
I admit that. Honorable senators will agree that I was not displaying any desire to enter into a dispute with you, Mr. Deputy President, or your officers, but merely endeavouring to see that business was being conducted in a constitutional method. But that is a matter to which I shall refer later. After I had been suspended I insisted upon you directing my removal from the chamber, and that sufficient force should be used to enable me to be sure of my position. The force used was that an officer of the Senate placed a hand upon my shoulder and accompanied me out of the chamber. I wanted it to be clear that you had compelled me to leave the Senate, as I might desire to take steps to defend my attitude. The article in the Sun News Pictorial continues -
The motion was carried by nineteen votes to eleven, and the Acting President asked Senator Gardiner to leave the chamber.
– It is the most degrading and disgraceful ruling ever given. The majority of the Senate is incapable of honesty.
– I rise to order. I desire your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, whether Senator Gardiner is entitled to quote objectionable language concerning the Senate, which language you directed should be deleted from Hansard. I ask if the honorable senator is entitled to quote those words.
– On the point of order, I remind honorable senators that I made that statement in the Senate without being called to order.
– It was an abuse of leniency.
– Yes, we all resented it.
– I realize that the report from which I am quoting has an important bearing upon what I am going to say, and repugnant as it may be to hear remarks of that kind - they are all in the newspapers - I wish to deal fully with the matter. I am not speaking in anger. I have risen on a question of. privilege concerning what appeared in a newspaper, and I wish to put the position exactly as it appears to me.
– The honorable senator wishes those words to be recorded in Hansard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator will not be in order in reading reports from the press containing statements by him which at my direction were expunged from the Mansard report. The honorable sena tor is correct when he says that last night I allowed him to make certain statements after he was suspended. I admit that I made a mistake in permitting the honorable senator to make those statements after his suspension. My position, however, was a rather peculiar one. The honorable senator, having been suspended for the sitting, was not entitled, for the time being, to a seat in the Senate, and it would have been rather difficult in such circumstances to call the honorable senator to order, as technically he was not present. That is why I allowed the statements to pass, and subsequently ordered that they be expunged from the records of the Senate. I ask the honorable senator now not to repeat those statements.
– I shall not continue to quote those remarks. The statement you now make, however, has a bearing on this press report, because, according to the proofs that I received this morning, I find that Hansard places me in a much worse position than that in which I am placed by the newspaper reports. I want to put those newspaper reports before the Senate, in order that they may be compared with Hansard. Instead of being made to appear as a man who is prepared to suffer indignities and injustice in order to preserve the rights conferred upon honorable senators by the Sessional and Standing Orders, I am deliberately depicted as a ruffian who wants to ride roughshod over every one. The stand I take is that, if anything is expunged from Hansard the whole of the report must be expunged. I shall not again transgress by reading the statements to which you have taken exception, but I shall place before the Senate the newspaper reports with that exception. I trust that I shall be in order in doing that. The headings in the newspapers this morning really misrepresent my actions. One heading is - “ Scene in the Senate.”
There was no scene whatever. Not a word was said to’ which any one could take exception. Nothing that I said was offensive to any person.
SenatorFoll. - Was not the remark, that honorable senators on this side were incapable of honesty, offensive ?
– That statement was made after my removal was ordered. I am not allowed to refer to that, but the honorable senator, no doubt, will be permitted to do so. The Age report, which is headed - “ Scene in the Senate,” “ Opposition Leader Suspended,” “ Dispute Over Acting-President’s Ruling,” states : -
The customary decorum of the Senate was disturbed last evening in an unusual manner when the Leader of the Opposition in that chamber (Senator Gardiner) disputed a ruling of the Acting President (Senator Newland). Senator Gardiner persisted and complained that an insult was being put upon him. Subsequently, after two unsuccessful appeals had been made to Senator Gardiner by Senator Pearce to bow to the ruling of the Acting President, Senator Pearce moved that Senator Gardiner be suspended for the sitting. The motion was carried on a division, and Senator Gardiner was suspended.
That paper has stated the correct posi tion. The report continues -
Shortly before the dinner adjournment discussion on the Defence Equipment Bill was adjourned, and the Senate received a message from the House of Representatives notifying the lower House’s decision on the amendments made to the bank bill by the Senate. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) intimated that he would move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate giving immediate attention to the message. Senator Gardiner criticized this procedure. A few minutes later the Senate rose for dinner.
That is a bsolutely correct in every detail. I must now given a quotation from that magnificent journal, the Argus, as the proprietors might be offended if I overlooked them. The heading to its report is as follows : -
” SENATOR SUSPENDED.”
” Opposition Leaded.” “ Asks to be Removed by Force.”
The last headline, although accurate, conveys to the general public quite a wrong idea. The report states -
The unusual spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition being escorted from the chamber by the Usher of the Black Bod was witnessed in the Senate last night, when Senator Gardiner (New South Wales), Leader of the Labour party in that chamber, was suspended by order of the Acting President (Senator Newland), and at his own request was removed.
It was not at my own request that I was removed ; it was the result of a most emphatic vote of honorable senators, acting under a misapprehension. Had I been afforded the opportunity of stating to what I was objecting, had I had the opportunity of showing honorable senators that I was merely desirous of having a certain course of action adopted to its minutest detail, I venture to say that the vote would not have gone against me. The statement in this newspaper report is that I was removed by force at my own request. I suppose there is a substratum of truth in that. I do not want to read again what is here reported, and what, by your direction, Mr. Deputy President, has been expunged from Hansard, but I do maintain that the Hansard report as set out in the proofs which I received this morning places me in a wrong position.
– Supposing we get on with the business of the Senate for a change?
– I hope that the honorable senator will not be impatient. The time may come when those who constitute the minority on this side will be numbered amongst the majority on the other side of the chamber, and the honorable senator will find that there is substantial material for the preservation of the liberty of minorities, if ever he is one of a minority. The whole of my training and experience have impressed upon me the fact that the Standing Orders have always been used to protect minorities. Majorities can protect themselves. Measured by the reports that I have read, I was really an offender. I am convinced that the correct position could be arrived at by a simple method, not by appealing to a majority of opponents, but by appealing to the judgment of this Senate. Therefore, before I resume my seat, I shall move the following motion, which I think will meet with the approval of the fair-minded section of this Senate: -
That a committee consisting of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees - Senators Kingsmill, McDougall, Benny, and Payne - be appointed to inquire into and report upon the correct procedure to be followed between the conclusion of government business, and the commencement of private business.
Such a committee would by no means be biased in my favour. I resisted what I considered was a wrong procedure, because I wanted to prevent an infringement of the rights conferred upon private members by the Standing and Sessional Orders. Because of that resistance, a wrong impression of my action has been spread broadcast throughout the country. If the committee’s finding is favorable to the view I put forward, it will remove the misapprehension created by these newspaper reports that I have wilfully and flagrantly offended against parliamentary decorum. If the committee’s finding shows that I was in the wrong, no one will more willingly accept its decision. I propose to adopt this means in an endeavour to protect my reputation. I admit that the matter is not of much importance to honorable senators opposite; that they regard it as being no part of their business ; but it may assist me to escape from a position which, if I had held my peace, would not have been brought about.. Whilst I remain a member of this Senate, there shall never be, without a protest from me, the slightest departure from the procedure which I believe tends to preserve the rights of honorable senators. I can quite understand that, in their eagerness to get through business, honorable senators resent interruptions; but the excitement that is caused by an honorable senator taking an unusual course -brings prominently before the public the fact that there is in existence such an institution as the Senate. The motion of which Senator Lynch gave notice yesterday would lead one to believe that a certain section of the press is not aware that the Senate exists. It would appear, however, that they are very much alive to its existence when something that is acceptable to their readers occurs in it. I recognize that from a newspaper point of view the suspension of such a sedate, law-loving, law-abiding individual as myself is news. It will be news to every one who knows me. It will come as a shock to many to learn that my removal was not the result of obstructive tactics or of offensiveness. If you, Mr. Deputy President, would permit me to defend myself from the imputation which these newspaper reports convey, I could recite the whole of the incidents between you and me. I did not once refuse to resume my seat when you ordered me to ‘ do so. Upon no occasion did I do anything contrary to the Standing Orders or the rules of debate, but you, sir, decided that my methods of asserting my constitutional rights were disorderly, and you reported me to the Senate. At that stage there came another of the indignities to which I have had to submit. I find from my Hansard proof this morning that the last words I am supposed to have used before leaving the chamber were that I would “ resist removal,” or words to that effect. If any portion of the report of what I said after the decision of the Senate had been given was expunged from the Hansard report, all should have been deleted. That I should be misrepresented in Hansard for all time is so unfair that before I obtain redress, I may have to wait until the majority which sits opposite becomes the minority on this side of the chamber. I am sorry that I have not before me the Hansard report as received by me this morning- in its mutilated form, for it would have furnished the further proof of the infringement of my privileges. I am entitled to be reported in Hansard.
– is the honorable senator entitled to say anything he pleases ?
– No. The President is the judge in the matter, and if I say anything offensive he will call upon me to withdraw it and offer an apology for an infringement of the rules of debate. Whenever I have been called upon in the past to withdraw any statement, I have shown readiness to conform to the rules. I feel that you, Sir, in fairness to me, will permit me to bring under your notice the Hansard report of my final remarks before leaving the chamber. The report I was about to read is not complete, and therefore I shall conclude by moving -
That a committee consisting of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, Senators Kingsmill, McDougall, Benny, and Payne, bc appointed to inquire into and’ report upon the correct procedure to be followed between the conclusion of Government business and the commencement of private business.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- This motion does not cover the question of privilege raised, and, therefore, is not in order. The honorable senator took exception to certain reports in the newspapers which he read, but the motion has no bearing whatever on those reports. He now asks the Senate to appoint a committee to inquire into something that was done in conformity with the Standing Orders. I cannot accept the motion in that form.
page 3202
Debate resumed from 14th August, (vide page 3135), on motion by Senator Wilson -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Upon which Senator McD’ougall had moved by way of amendment -
That after the word “That” the following words be inserted : - “ any sum spent in naval construction should be expended in Australia, thus relieving the distress caused by unemployment, and helping to develop Australian industries.”
– When the bill was last under consideration I was drawing my remarks to a close, but I omitted to refer to certain features of the speech by Senator McDougall, who insisted that the warships should be built in this country. I pointed out that only the previous day Senator McDougall and his colleagues had been of an entirely different frame of mind, and were unanimously of opinion that the vessels should not be built in any circumstances. Evidence of that was furnished both by the pronouncements and the votes of those honorable senators.
– It was decided by the Senate that the vessels should be built.
– If honorable senators opposite regarded as sacred the principle that the ships should not be built in any case, why did they entirely change their mind within a day or two? Senator O’Loghlin, in directing a question to the Government to-day, suggested that the building of the ships might hamper the efforts of the President of the United States of America to bring about a meeting of the representatives of the great powers for the purpose of effecting a reduction in armament. I suggest to the honorable senator that his argument and appeal had best be directed, not to any member of the Government, but to his own colleague (Senator McDougall). He should ask that honorable senator to withdraw his amendment.
– The Senate has rejected our first proposal, and now we submit another.
– Yes; to go ahead with the “ objectionable “ ships, so long as they are built here. The amendment provides in express terms that the ships shall be built, so long as they are constructed in this country. Let Senator O’Loghlin remind his colleague (Senator McDougall) that to be consistent he should withdraw the amendment.
– I thought the honorable senator would support the building of the ships in Australia.
– I still stand behind Senator McDougall’s amendment, but I object to such faltering support as that given by Senator O’Loghlin. The party opposite has displayed several different attitudes in the last day or two - from the cry that these warships should not be built in any circumstances, to the demand that we should have them built in Australia. Principles are sacred, but Senator O’Loghlin is inconsistent in his attitude. I propose to support Senator McDougall within this limit: that I am prepared to have the vessels built in Australia by Australian workmen, and with Australian material, provided we do not pay too much for them. I am prepared to support the construction of the vessels here provided that the price is not more than 60 per cent. greater than the cost in Great Britain on the basis of a bona fide offer.
– The extra cost of construction in Australia will not reach 60 per cent.
– I am merely supporting the attitude adopted by Senator McDougall in this chamber in asking for adequate protection of Australian manufactures, but the honorable senator, in support of the claim of his leader, Senator Gardiner, has gone so far as to ask for protection amounting to 150 per cent. We should not forget how some of the manufacturers in this country have succeeded, and at whose expense. It should be remembered that Hoskins Limited erected its fourteen-story building in Sydney with money wrenched from the people of this country by means of excessive protection; and that firm is still asking for more protection.
– That is inseparable from our glorious policy of protection.
– I know that the honorable senator sometimes takes a rational view in such matters. I am prepared to say, with Senator McDougall, “ Let the ships be built in Australia, and let an arrangement be made with the British Admiralty to lend us a vessel, if necessary, while our first ship is being built; but do not let us havean exhibition of the ‘goslow ‘ policy.” I only want to see a fair return for the money expended. When I place my produce in the markets of the world I receive no protection. It has to compete in those markets against the product of cheap labour from the rest of the world . Why should the ironworkers of Australia obtain so much protection when the primary producers receive none? Can Senator McDougall answer that question? Why does he not tell the men that if they will get to work and turn out the ships at a cost that is not more than 60 per cent, greater than the price at which they could be obtained from Britain, they will get that job? and get it, too, with my vote. By so doing he would help the men. They should be told that, as citizens of this country, they must do their duty. These men are living on their mates and ruining their own cause. The story told by the Commonwealth Shipping Board and repeated by Senator Kingsmill, in his second reading speech, is a very sad one. The reason why some honorable senators do not tell them these things is that they are afraid that by so doing they will lose votes. Votes, and nothing else, count with them. I am tired of hearing men say that by voting for a candidate they are conferring an honour upon him; and I tell them so. Yet they continue to vote for me. Why should we humiliate ourselves before the electors and beseech them to vote for us, stating that by so doing they will confer a favour upon us? We should not crawl to the electors. I do not believe they want us to; and, moreover, it would be bad for them, and bad for us in the long run if we did. My policy is to build these warships here if they do not cost more than 60 per cent, above the price at which they can be obtained from Great Britain. If that can be done, let the work be commenced next week, and at the same time let us arrange with the British Admiralty to deliver a second ship in three years’ time if wanted. The slips on which the first cruiser was constructed would then be available for the building of another vessed. Let one of these ships be built here at a cost of not more than £2,600,000. We shall then be able to train Australian artisans in shipbuilding, and give them an opportunity to show their civic qualities and their patriotism by standing up to their work and giving £l’s worth of service for every £1 they receive.
– The workers of Australia do that now.
– The only people in Australia doing any genuine full-time work to-day are the primary producers. There was a time when there were no complaints on that score, but it is, unfortunately, not so now. The others are loafing on the job. Let Senator McDougall study the Commonwealth Year-Booh, and he will find that during the last eight years the output of Australia has diminished, notwithstanding the improvement which has taken place in the meantime in mechanical arts and industrial science. . These men are loafing, and obtaining money under false pretences. Yet honorable senators on the other side are afraid to tell them so. I have not hesitated to tell them the truth, and shall continue to do so while breath remains in my body. Whither is this country heading? Let us look at our imports. Agricultural machinery, concerning which I know something, is rolling into Australia in great quantities. That machinery could be made here and the American makers could be undersold, always, if employers and employees would put their shoulders to the wheel. Honorable senators opposite have changed their attitude so often and so glaringly that they have not given us time to forget the change. Their change of attitude during the last 48 hours is still fresh in our minds. They will reap their reward at the next election. Subject to the limitations I have mentioned, I am prepared to agree to the construction of these warships in Australia being commenced forthwith, as I believe that the country would benefit thereby; but I am not prepared to agree with Senator Gardiner that we should build them here, even if they cost £10,000,000. For that sum we could obtain five vessels” from Britain. Is Senator Gardiner prepared to. accept two vessels only when for the same’ expenditure in Britain he could get five? I am prepared to allow the Ramsay MacDonald Government to build two cruisers at Cockatoo Island if that Government will permit us to build two cruisers in the Old Country. Let the workers of this country approach their comrades in the Old Country in the interests of the brotherhood of man. This is an age of reciprocity. Let us practice it. By doing as I suggest, we would make some advance, instead of moving in a circle. Honorable senators opposite seem always to have an eye to the political horizon, to see from what direction the popular gusts will come. They should not do that when they know that there is a wise and well-balanced community watching their fantastic tricks in the effort to get votes, and nothing else. We>. can no longer set aside the fact that these warships are necessary. At one time the Labour party’s policy included the provision for Australia of a navy, owned and controlled by Australians, but honorable senators opposite, during the last 48 hours, have shown that they are prepared to treat that policy as a scrap of paper, and to tear it to tatters, in order to gain popularity in their electorates. In that they are following the example of the German Chancellor, who referred to the treaty for the neutrality of Belgium as a “ scrap of paper.” Where is the principle of men who are prepared to break their pledges, tear up treaties, and fling them to the winds? If the Melbourne and the Sydney have become obsolete, how can we retain an Australian Navy without replacing them B The electors of Australia are being duped by men in this chamber, who are prepared to allow two ships to be scrapped without replacing them. Twenty-four hours ago they shifted their ground. Now Senator O’Loghlin brings forward a new idea, and asks what will be the effect of the building of two cruisers by Australia on the efforts of the President of the United States to bring about further disarmament. I stand in this matter where I stood fifteen years ago, but honorable senators opposite have stood in many positions since then. Their political coat, so far as this question is concerned, has been one of many colours. One would be justified in believing that at times ‘they have stood on their heads. 1 am in favour of a navy owned and controlled by Australians, and maintained to its full strength, and am prepared to stand by my action. I have enough load of sin and worry to carry without shifting ground in these matters. When my actions come up for judgment before my fellow-men, or before the Great Judge, I hope only for mercy. I shall do my duty, and hope for the best. The whole world can assail me. I have been assailed before, but, notwithstanding that, the more the people know of me, the better they like me. They realize that what I say is worth listening to. I support the amendment, subject to the safeguards I have mentioned, and hope that, notwithstanding the pious aspirations of Senator O’Loghlin concerning the contemplated action of the President of the United
States of America, ‘the safety of this country will not be lost sight of. Honorable senators on this side are prepared to admit that the policy of the Labour party prior to 1919 was a right one; but the policy of the new, young men of the party to-day is the wrong one. By adopting such a policy we would expose this magnificent country - the greatest on God’s earth - to grave dangers. Australia provides boundless opportunities for men and women of good character, intelligence, and determination. No other country can compare with it. Seeing that we have such, a glorious heritage, we should not be led away by pious talk concerning the reduction of armaments and the abolition of war, but should make preparations to defend it, if necessary. We should not go to foreigners and ask for their protection, nor depend upon them; we should have faith in ourselves. We should see to our own safety, and the best way to do that is by establishing and maintaining an Australian Navy at a standard which will enable it to do good service in the interests of the country, should trouble occur. I shall have pleasure in supporting Senator McDougall’s amendment, subject to the limitations I have mentioned.
– One cannot help admiring the earnestness on all occasions of the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat; but we must admit, I think, that his logic is lamentable. He accuses honorable senators on this side of the chamber of inconsistency for having a day or two ago supported an amendment to the effect that in view of possible developments it would be advisable for the Government not to proceed with the “proposal for the immediate construction of the two cruisers, and for saying when that proposal was rejected by the Senate, that the vessels should be built in Aust tralia. Where is the inconsistency of a proposal like that ? It is perfectly logical. As a matter of fact, we are 100 per cent. Australian. Senator Lynch is 60 per cent. Australian; and since our proposals would represent an increase of only 40 per cent, in price over the cost of vessels built in Great Britain, I think we can fairly claim Senator Lynch’s.vote for the amendment submitted by Senator McDougall. Estimates prepared by officials of the Shipping Board and other authorities, and laid before the Senate by the Minister, show that there will be an increase of only 40 per cent. in cost if the vessels axe built in Australia instead of Great Britain. Senator Lynch must have seen those estimates.
– What is the honorable senator’s authority for his statement with regard to 40 per cent. increase in cost?
– The figures given by the Prime Minister in another place. The right honorable gentleman stated that it had been estimated that one vessel could he built in the Old Country for about £1,900,000, but the revised estimates providing for some additions and further armaments was £2,100,000, whilst the estimate of the Shipping Board for a similar vessel built in Australia was £2,800,000.
– The honorable senator had better look at those figures again.
– If the original estimate for the construction of a vessel in Britain had to be advanced from £1,900,000 to £2,100,000, it would, of course, be necessary to advance the estimate of £2,800,000 for an Australianbuilt vessel by perhaps £100,000 or £200,000; but the percentage increase in cost would be about the same.
– I will tell the honorable senator what the Australian estimate is when I reply.
– Whatever it may be will be well within the margin which Senator Lynch is prepared to allow, namely, 60 per cent. Therefore, I think we can fairly claim his vote for the amendment.
– The bill proposes to apply out of the Consolidated Revenue £2,800,000 for naval construction and reserves for defence. The discussion during the past two or three days has ranged far and wide. I have been waiting patiently for either Senator Glasgow or Senator Thompson to rise and contribute to the debate, but for some reason those military men have held their peace.
– There is plenty of time yet.
– Yes, if the honorable senators care to speak. It appears to me that the Government and their sup porters have practically determined to spend a very large portion of this money in Great Britain. They have not definitely said so; but their speeches show pretty conclusively that, in their opinion, the extra cost of construction in Australia will be so great that they are not inclined to take the responsibility of voting for Australian-built vessels.
– The Government decided that one was to be built in Great Britain, and, if the cost was not excessive, to have the second constructed in Australia.
– I can make a suggestion to Senator Drake-Brockman and other government supporters to get over the difficulty of increased cost. I intend to show how the money for the construction of these vessels in Australia may be obtained. At the proper time I shall submit an amendment for a straight-out land values tax which, if imposed, would produce sufficient money to meet all expenses in connexion with the building of the vessels. On the question of defence generally, and the attitude of the Labour party, honorable senators opposite appear to think that members of the Labour party should never change their opinions; that theyshould be rigidly tied down to one set of views, and take no account of altered circumstances. We have just as much right to change our opinions as have honorable members of any other party. Some years ago when the Labour party advocated the maintenance of an Australian-owned and Australian-controlled Navy, honorable members representing the parties now supporting the Government were of the opinion that money should be borrowed for naval vessels, which were to be built in Great Britain and presented by the Commonwealth to the British Navy. Our policy was to have the vessels built in Australia, if possible, and controlled by Australia. Of course, it would naturally follow that in the event of trouble the Australian naval vessels would co-operate with the vessels of the British Navy. The New Zealand Government did actually pay for the building of a dreadnought in Britain, and presented it to the British Navy.
SenatorFoll. - How many of those warships were built in Australia?
– Not many; but times have changed. Does Senator Foil imagine for a moment that Australia should, for all time, import ready-made warships ?
– ]STow that we have come round to the honorable senator’s way of thinking he criticises us.
– The honorable senator and his friends have not come round to our way of thinking. If they had they would support the amendment moved by Senator McDougall, and make absolutely certain that all war vessels required for the defence of the Commonwealth were built in Australia.
-Brookman. - I thought, the honorable senator and his party were of the opinion that no vessels were required at all.
– I have not said so. We have been contending all along that in view of the prospect of further disarmament the Government might very well delay the construction of these cruisers until we knew definitely what other nations proposed to do. It has been decided, however, that Australia should go ahead with the construction of two vessels, and, notwithstanding the bad character given to Australian workmen by Senator Lynch, we now say that our own workmen should build them. Why Senator Lynch should have condemned Australian workmen I am at a loss to understand. Some adverse comments were also made some few months ago by Senator Drake-Brockman concerning the bricklayers at Canberra. Apparently he has changed his view, and realizes, no doubt, that he was misinformed. I feel certain that if Senator Lynch could see Australian workmen engaged at our naval dockyards, or at Walsh Island, he, too, would alter his opinion. We want Australian war vessels to be built in Australia. We are confident that the workmanship put into them will be as good as, if not better, than that of any other country. As soon as the National party came into power the Government, notwithstanding that the Labour party had spent several millions of pounds on the ‘ construction of the Australia, declared that the vessel was obsolete. After partially dismantling her they had her towed outside Sydney Heads, and she is now resting on the bed of the Pacific Ocean. That is the manner in which the National party is treating the work of the Labour party. The National party has determined so far as it can to destroy the defences of Australia, and I should like to know what treatment would beadequate for persons who have placed Australia in such a defenceless position. As a matter of fact, the battleship Australia was not obsolete. If, prior to her destruction, she had been placed in opposition to the two cruisers which it is proposed to construct, it is likely that she would have been able to put up an exceptionally good fight. We were informed by honorable senators opposite that the Australia was obsolete, and in consequence of action taken by the Government of the day a splendid vessel, which had cost the people of Australia millions of pounds, and was capable of further valuable service, was taken outside Sydney Heads one fine afternoon and scuttled.
– The honorable senator must realize that even the best vessels have only a limited life.
– That may be so, but no one can reasonably suggest that the Australia was incapable of further useful service. It must be admitted, of course, that if she had been required to engage the Hood, the Renown, or vessels of that type, she would have been at a disadvantage, but with nine-tenths of the warships now afloat she could have more than held her own. The sinking of the Australia ‘was a most outrageous act. The Brisbane and the Sydney are also supposed to be obsolete, and it would therefore appear that such vessels have an exceptionally short life. If opposed to larger and more powerful vessels they would, of course, be unable to hold their own, but they can still be of great service to the Commonwealth. According to some authorities, vessels of this type arts obsolete before they are completed. A good deal has been said in regard. to the attitude, of the Labour party in the matter of defence. The Labour party was largely responsible for the enactment of the Commonwealth Defence Act, but since that measure became law a number of changes have taken place, and warfare is now conducted on an entirely different basis. When another war occurs, which in my opinion is inevitable, methods entirely different from those now employed will be adopted. Some were of the opinion that the days of trench warfare had passed, but during the great conflict which commenced in 1914 trench warfare was almost continually resorted to. I do not subscribe to the opinions expressed and reiterated that the last war was to end war and make the world safe for democracy. Those were catch phrases used by empty headed people. The’ last war was not fought for that purpose; if it was the failure was complete. In 1870 the French people became more or less insane and decided to march on Berlin. As the Prussians were of the opinion that they had no right to do so, they compelled them to return to Paris, and the Trench had to pay £250,000,000 for their impudence. A few years afterwards similar conditions existed in central Europe. Germany was of the opinion that no other nation in the world was its equal, as it had been organizing and preparing for revenge. It took the Germans 40 years to prepare, but eventually they considered they were ready.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland) . - The bill under consideration deals with defence equipment, and baa nothing to do with the interesting historical- incidents to which the honorable senator is referring.
– I do not wish to evade your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, but perhaps I may be permitted to conclude my illustration by saying that the Germans at the outbreak of the great waa; thought they were going to achieve success. As we cannot tell which, nation will next be similarly placed, it is necessary, despite the efforts made by pacifists and others, to make some preparation for protection in an ordinary way. We are asked to define what that protection shall be, and in doing so it is only natural that there should be some differences of opinion. I do not for one moment imagine . the opinions we now hold on the question of defence will coincide with our views of a few years hence. A few years ago the members of this party were in favour of compulsory military training, but after mature consideration and the benefit gained by experience in the recent war, we have changed our opinion. I have taken the trouble to interview a number of military men in New South Wales, and I have not met one who is in favour of the young men of Australia being compelled to undertake military training. These officers believe that young men of about twenty years of age or a little over who are physically fit can be brought to a state of efficiency in a very little while. The members of the Labour party are also of the opinion that extensive military training is unnecessary. According to the bill, it is proposed to spend a certain amount on equipment, and I should like to set out briefly the amendments of the Defence Act which the Labour party would be prepared -to put into operation if it had the opportunity of so doing. The first is the deletion of all sections relating to compulsory military training and service.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator is not entitled to deal with that phase of the question in discussing the provisions of this bill.
– Senator Lynch was allowed to make quotations from the Labour party’s platform.
– Merely passing references.
– With the exception of the last two, he quoted all the clauses from the defence platform of the Labour party. If the honorable senator was allowed to proceed in that way, why should I be debarred?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Senator Lynch made only a brief reference to the platform of the Labour party, and Senator Grant will also be in order in making a passing reference to it.
– The clauses I propose to quote are only short, and set out in concrete form the attitude of the Labour party towards compulsory military training and the defence of this country. I have no desire to evade the direction of the Chair, but in the matter of military defence I may say that the Labour party has come to a decision after prolonged and careful consideration of the whole question. In the event of war the members of the working classes are always called ‘upon to serve. Although it is true that all sections participate, the greatest number is drawn from the classes represented by honorablesenators on this side of the chain oer-. The first clause I wish to quote reads: -
Abolition of trial by courts martial where civil courts are available-; any sentence imposed by courts martial to be subject to review by a civil court.
The others are: -
No penalties to be imposed except in pursuance of explicit enactments of Commonwealths Parliament.
Limitation of professional soldiers to necessary instruction and administrative and working staff.
Citizens, on completion of training, to retain arms delivered to them during training.
It will be seen that we have no intention of dispensing with an army–
– The honorable senator desires to make it impossible for an army to carry on.
– No, we want a number of trained men such as Senator Drake-Brockman and others who know their business to be available to teach others. We do not wish the whole of the people to be under arms.
– Would the honorable senator be in favour of offering a reward to those who would knock out the “ brass hats?”
– I do not know what is meant by that designation. Does it refer to such men as Senator DrakeBrockman? I have always regarded it as an offensive term.
– It is not anything of the sort.
– Perhaps not. Men who understand their business should be adequately remunerated for the services they render in training others whose assistance would be needed if the occasion arose. I understand that the Government contemplates the establishment of further factories for the manufacture of munitions. With that proposal I agree. But it does not appear to me to be necessary to round up all the young men in Australia three or four times a week to undergo military training. That was the principle upon which Germany acted before the outbreak of war. If the men who are over 25 years of age were compelled to undergo military training, the system would quickly be altered. The Labour party does not believe in the present system of compulsory military training. It advocates that trainees, on completion of their training, shall be allowed to retain the arms that have been issued to them. I and others strongly resent the charges of disloyalty that are levelled against members of the Labour party. It can easily be proved that the enlistments under the voluntary system were more numerous when a Labour Government was in power than they were when that Government was displaced by a Government comprised of members of the
National party. The main objective of the bill is to be found in clause 5, which provides -
Naval Construction Trust Account may be applied for the purpose of naval construction.
It is proposed to appropriate £2,000,000, and to place it to the credit of that account. I contend that these cruisers should be built in Australia. I disagree with statements that have been made by Senator Lynch accusing the Australian workmen of the adoption of a policy of “go slow.” I have seen engineers and boilermakers at work. I sometimes visit Cockatoo Island Dockyard. The other day I had a look at the slipway on which the Fordsdale was built. I am acquainted with many of the men at Cockatoo Island, and they do not appear to me to he loafers. A man who has no experience of work of which he is a spectator may get the impression that the men engaged in that work are not doing as much as they might do. A casual observer of a person who is adding up a number of lengthy columns of figures might conclude that he was engaged in a simple task, because he was not standing on his head, or throwing his arms about; yet that man might be adding up three columns at a time. To my mind, the Australian workman is inclined to work very much too quickly.For a number of years I was employed by the New South Wales Government, and I did not have one easy day during the period of my employment. In fact, the work became so strenuous that my union passed a resolution in opposition to the policy of day labour. Bricklayers work continuously without a break, and sometimes lay a large number of bricks in a day.
– As many as 200, I believe, have been laid in a day by one workman !
– They lay 600, 700, 800, and, in some cases, up to 1,000 bricks a day.
– A normal day’s work at one time was 1,000 bricks, but now the average is about 300.
– It is quite impossible to say what is a fair day’s work unless one is acquainted with the nature of the work. Senator Drake-Brockman might be more profitably employed in one case that lasts two or three years than he would be if he had to deal with a fresh ease every week. So it is with the man who lays bricks. In certain work it may not be possible to lay more than 200 or 300 bricks a day, while on another job a man may lay more than 1,000 bricks in a day. Generally speaking, the Australian workmen work remarkably well. It is surprising to me that they continue working day after day while thousands of men who are well clothed and well fed do not work at all. Whenthe working men and women begin to think the matter out for themselves they will demand to be told why they should continue to work when there is a big army of men who do not work at all. I do not wonder at their developing into militants. There is ample space at Walsh Island to enable the construction of these cruisers to be undertaken there.
– Walsh Island has not the necessary equipment.
– That can be purchased.
– There can be only the one properly organized dockyard in Australia. That is at Cockatoo Island.
– The slipways at Cockatoo Island certainly require lengthening by a few feet. Half-a-dozen men could make the necessary addition to enable a cruiser to be built there. I do not know what it would cost to construct a cruiser at Cockatoo Island, but there is something radically wrong if it would be considerably greater than the cost of construction in Great Britain. The other day an answer to a question in the Senate contained the statement that about £20,000 was expended in Melbourne in overhead charges connected with the construction of the Fordsdale. I am at a loss to know what avenues there were in Melbourne for the expenditure of such a large sum in connexion with the construction of that vessel. That is the way in which the shipbuilding industry in Australia is being handicapped. Should Australia for all time continue to import war vessels? What have we done with regard to oil supplies? An enormous expenditure has . been incurred, and an alliance entered into with the AngloPersian Oil Company, with the result that Australia at the present time is in a very much more independent position than she has ever previously occupied. We should make ourselves just as independent in relation to the construction of men-o’-war and vessels for the mercantile marine. Ample space is available; we have competent workmen; the management is capable, and there are sufficient funds to enable the Commonwealth to undertake the whole of this work. Why, therefore, should orders for these vessels be placed in England? There is a widespread opinion in Australia that all manufacturing work should be done here. Some persons endeavour to achieve that object by the imposition of high tariff duties on imported goods. This is a proposition of an entirely different character. It is not proposed to ensure the construction of these vessels in Australia by the imposition of a protective tariff, but it is proposed to bring about that result by direct action. At one time in New South Wales we were solemnly assured that it was quite impossible to construct locomotives. Following a vigorous agitation a Government was returned to power that issued instructions which led to plans being prepared and locomotives being constructed at Eveleigh of a type that was not excelled anywhere. The locomotives that are now being built in New South Wales take the limited express from Sydney to Albury almost without effort. They are superior to any of the locomotives that previously were imported. It would be a fatuous proceeding to have one cruiser constructed in England and to build another in Australia. If the Government is determined to have two cruisers in a limited space of time, why does it not borrow one or two from Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to keep us going until they can be built in Australia.
– He has not the vessels to spare.
– He could lend us one or two.
– He could not.
– I should like to know if this is a part of the programme put forward by Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is not carrying out that programme. He refused to approve of the construction of the Singapore base, and he has turned down quite a number of other proposals that were made by Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin appealed to the electors of Great Britain as a Protectionist. He was opposed by the Labour party, which issued the following manifesto: -
The Labour party challenges the tariff policy and the whole conception of economic relations underlying it. Tariffs are not a remedy for unemployment. They are an impediment to the free interchange of goods and services upon which civilized society rests. They foster a spirit of profiteering, materialism, and selfishness, poison the life of nations, lead to corruption in politics, promote trusts and monopolies, and impoverish the people. They perpetuate inequalities in the distribution of the world’s wealth won by the labour of hands and brain. These inequalities the Labour party means to remove.
The Labour party does not desire to have a duty placed upon imported vessels. What it wants is to have these cruisers built in Australia. Until they were completed it would not be possible to say definitely how much they would cost. If they were built at Cockatoo Island Dockyard a considerable number of men would be employed. Competition for the landlords houses in Balmain would be keener, and they would be able to raise their rents slightly. There are various devices by which action to increase rents considerably can be circumvented.
Sitting suspended from.l to 2 p.m.
– The expenditure for naval defence, as set out in the Estimates, somewhat conflicts with the figures in the budget speech. On page 119 of the Estimates the vote for the Defence Department is shown as £3,425,829, but on. page 55 of the Budget papers the total is given as £4,468,212, with a special appropriation in addition of £1,000,000, as the first year’s expenditure towards the naval development programme.
– I call attention to the state of the Senate.[Qu rum formed.]
– It is somewhat difficult to ascertain what is the full amount to be expended. In asking the Senate, apparently, to agree to a further appropriation of £2,500,000, the Minister should have made the position clear. Can any honorable senator say, with any degree of accuracy, what time will be required for the construction, in. the Commonwealth, of one of the light armoured cruisers? A grave disparity has already been observed between the time required by the British constructors and the period actually occupied in building the Brisbane and the Adelaide. It is of vital importance that the constructing authority should be provided at the commencement of the undertaking with plans and specifications and with working drawings, which should not be altered during the currency of the work. If I am correctly informed, the designs of some of the boats built at Cockatoo Island were varied to such an extent that in effect three vessels were built in place of one. This does not give the constructing authority in Australia a fair chance. Should any substantial alteration be decided upon during the course of construction ofthe proposed cruiser, much additional time should be allotted for the work. I understand that that practice was not followed in the case of vessels recently built here. All the necessary machinery and other equipment required for the construction of the cruisers is to be found at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, and the Government has advanced no good reason why they should be built abroad. Some honorable senators opposite are opposed to the development of Australian industries unless some individuals secure substantial benefit.
– That is utterly untrue.
– It is in accordance with fact.
– It is a most serious reflection on honorable senators on this side of the chamber.
-That is distinctly the idea I mean to convey. I presume that the Commonwealth will continue to construct in Australia whatever vessels are required for our defence. Honorable senators opposite are prepared to foster local industries by means of high revenue tariffs, but they also have other ideas which they discreetly keep in the background. Last year the Customs Department collected some £36,000,000 on goods manufactured in low-wage, foreign, and low- wage protectionist countries. I desire that these ships shall be built here, not for the purpose of increasing the Customs revenue or for enriching one or two shipbuilders, but for the purpose of providing employment for our own people. If I had my own way I should not allow private enterprise to be concerned in any way with the manufacture of defence equipment. Many wars, we know, have been precipitated merely for the purpose of securing orders for large manufacturing firms. The construction of ships at Cockatoo Island would not add to the Customs revenue any more than does the construction of locomotives at Newport or Eveleigh. For several months past, despite our glorious national policy of protection, many thousands of ironworkers have been out of employment. Here is an opportunity to provide for the expenditure, within the Commonwealth, of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 to maintain an industry of a most substantial nature. Surely the Government does not intend for ever to import defence equipment from abroad That would be a disastrous and shortsighted policy. Every effort should be put forward to make Australia independent of outside sources for its means of defence. We already have a Small Arms Factory and a number of other Government establishments for the supply of munitions.
– What price would the honorable senator pay for the proposed vessels?
– It is impossible for me to say what they will cost, but I have not found that Australian workmen adopt a “ go-slow “ policy to the extent that Senator Lynch has suggested.
– Has the honorable senator ever noticed it?
– I have seen men working too hard and too quickly. This continuous slander of the capacity of the Australian workman to render service of this character is to be deplored. Honorable senators should observe the fine buildings standing in the various streets of this city. Were they made in Europe by foreigners? Every improvement made in the Commonwealth during the last 130 years has been made on the spot. It is surprising to see the volume of work which has been done since Captain Cook landed on our shores.
– Take the building in which we are now seated, for instance.
– The work in this building is an example of what can be done in Australia. There is no better constructed or designed building–
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.Order! I ask the honorable senator not to be led away by interjections.
– It has been said that the cost of these vessels, if built in Australia, will be excessive, because of the “go-slow” policy of the workmen of Australia. I am trying to show that those who have expressed those opinions are mistaken. If they look around them and see what has been done in the Commonwealth, they must conclude that, not only in regard to quality, but also as to output, the Australian workman is equal, if not superior, to any other. This continual slander of Australia should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
– Does the honorable senator say that the workers at Cockatoo Island have never gone slow?
– I have never seen or heard of it.
– Then the honorable senator must have been both blind and deaf. At one time the conditions there were scandalous; and the honorable senator knows it.
– I know nothing of the kind. Has the honorable senator ever visited Cockatoo Island ?
– I have.
– I was wondering whether the honorable senator had gained his information from hearsay. I worked at Cockatoo Island for some time, and saw no “ going slow “ then.
– It is almost a lifetime since the honorable senator worked there.
– I visited Cockatoo Island about six weeks ago, and saw none of it. While a visitor to Cockatoo Island may find a few workmen who appear to be doing very little, a visitor is not always competent to judge how much a man is doing, or the value of his work. I have heard men installed in luxurious offices relate that for hours they have watched the ordinary workmen in the streets “going slow.” We are entitled to ask those men whether they were drawing their pay merely to spy upon others. Never in my experience have I found workmen in any grade “going slow”; nor have they been allowed to do so. [Extension of time granted.] I thank honorable senators for the extension of time, but shall not say a great deal more. The bill should provide definitely where the money for the defence of this country is to come from. At present it does not do that. At a later stage I intend to move a proviso to the following effect: -
Provided that the money so appropriated shall be taken from moneys received by the Commonwealth as the proceeds of direct taxation.
That will, if agreed to, make the bill in accord with the principles believed in by the party to which I belong. It would suit me much better if I could wipe out the words “ direct taxation,” and suggest that the land-owners of the country pay for its defence, but I realize that that would be irregular. I have listened attentively for about three days to the statements made by honorable senators opposite, but their utterances have had no effect whatever on me. They have shown no justification for the proposal that even one of these vessels should be constructed abroad.
– The honorable senator is not open to conviction.
– I hope that no honorable senator on the other side who has expressed himself as being in favour of the construction of these vessels in the Commonwealth will allow himself to be influenced in the direction of voting for a proposal in which he does not believe. It may be true that the carrying of this amendment would mean the defeat of the bill for the present, but that would not prevent the Government from introducing another bill to provide that the vessels should be constructed in Australia. A bill of that nature could pass through this chamber in five minutes, so far as honorable senators on this side are concerned. Protectionist senators on the other side should realize that the opportunity to construct a cruiser entirely by the people of the Commonwealth does not often present itself. By voting to construct the vessels here, they will do more to provide employment, and to build up a valuable industry in Australia, than would all the speeches they might deliver in this chamber for years to come.
– The discussion on the’ bill before us has taken a very wide range. Honorable senators on the other side by their speeches have evidenced that, in the main, they are’ essentially militaristic, imperialistic, and, moreor less, jingois tic. They showed no urgent necessity for the construction of these cruisers. It is true that they expressed fears and doubts in respect to the defence of Australia, but I do not regard them as authorities. 1 prefer to take as authorities men who are clothed with greater responsibilities in this connexion than are honorable senators opposite. In respect of a measure of this kind, I should prefer to be guided by the remarks of two responsible Ministers, as well as a gentleman who supports the present Government, and who, in some quarters, is recognized as an authority on naval matters - a gentleman who played a valiant part in the recent great war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) has, on more than one occasion, told the people of Australia that peace in the Pacific is guaranteed for a period of at least ten years by the Washington Conference. The Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator Pearce), who was the official representative of the Commonwealth at that conference, after his return to Australia, told us that we could now devote our energies to the arts of peace. According to a naval authority in another place, it would be foolish, after that period of ten years, to do anything, because then, should war come, it would not be in the Pacific. It would be fought, he said, where great conflicts had always been fought out - in Europe and the Mediterranean. He even went further, and said that it would occur in 1934, when we would have the great battle of Armageddon. That battle, we have been led to believe, will be between the good and the evil. He also told us that, after it had been decided, we might expect peace for 1,000 years, and that, under the new conditions which would then exist, all people would be on the same level, and true democracywould be restored to the world.
– Who said that?
– A gentleman w ho occupies an important position in the public life of this country - one who is an out-and-out supporter of the present Government, a man who measures his words, and whose utterances, apparently, are taken seriously by the Government and its supporters. Need I say that I refer to Mr. Marks ?
– The honorable senator need not.
– If we follow those wise-acres, the Prime . Minister, the
Leader of the Senate, and the naval authority to whom I have just referred there is no fear of an invasion so far as Australia is concerned. Notwithstanding what has been said, however, certain honorable senators still believe in a war atmosphere. One of them, Senator Lynch, in his speech on this bill glorified war. He and other honorable senators urged the necessity of preparedness for war. He, in effect, declared that the differences between the nations of the world could only be settled by the sword - a barbaric and anti-Christian method. When I heard Senator Lynch extolling war, I was reminded of this passage in a book which I read a little while ago,, written by Yoshio Markino, a Japanese author and artist -
However, we are “ civilized,” you may say, we are not far away from the primitive savages or even from the wild animals, as long as we feel the necessity of war. The primitives . undoubtedly believed the duel or war as the best decision to find out “ God’s will,” and they sharpened their swords immediately instead of discussing the matter with words. How much damage that superstition has given to this world !
Senator Lynch and other honorable senators supporting the Government still cling to the superstition that the differences between nations can be settled only by bloodshed and slaughter.
– Nonsense !
– I go further, and say that although defence should be a. non-party question, it cannot be other than a party matter when we have in this chamber those who believe in war, and stand for war.
– Absolutely no.
– The fundamental, difference between. the party which I have the honour’ to represent, and certain members of the party opposite, is that they stand for war whilst we stand for peace.
– That statement is an absolute misrepresentation of our attitude.
– But Senator Lynch said distinctly that he did so.
– Nothing of the kind.
– The Labour party have done more than any other party in the world in the furtherance of peace. In every country there is to-day what is known as the “ No-more War “ movement, and the workers are determined that they shall have some say in events that may lead to war. I should have thought, after the last titanic struggle, that speeches delivered by honorable senators opposite would be different in tone. I have not heard any utterances from that side of the chamber in furtherance of the cause of peace. Let honorable senators make no mistake about it. The peace army is growing numerically, and in influence and power. If the Governments of the different nations were controlled by Labour, further wars would be impossible. The Labour party in every country has declared war against war. It is out to abolish war, and it is doing everything that is humanly possible to bring about a world peace.
– Does the honorable senator imagine that a nation disarmed will be secure whilst other nations are armed?
– Under presentday, conditions it is necessary for every nation to make some provision for defence.
-Brookman. - That is all we are proposing to do in this bill.
– Honorable senators opposite live in a war atmosphere. Hardly had the dust of the last battle been laid before we heard talk about preparation for the next war. We were told that the last war was to be a war to end war; to make the world safe for democracy, and to bring about a higher and purer civilization. Can any one, by any stretch of the imagination, say that the world today is any better than it -was before the war? In victorious and vanquished countries alike misery and destitution prevail. The world is war weary. In its efforts to further a world peace the Labour party in every country has, as its supporters some of the most intellectual men and women in the world. Recently there was a world conference of advertising men in London. It was attended by the representatives of nearly every nation, and the president, a muchtravelled man, who is known in many portions of the globe, delivered a most inspiring address. He said that he had visited nineteen countries, had come into contact with men occupying high and responsible positions everywhere, and in every land he found that the people, excepting those who lived in a war atmosphere, were unanimously against war. In any case, what does this Government propose to do for the defence of Australia? What has it done during the last five or six years? Ministers would have the people believe that they are anxious for the adequate defence of the Commonwealth. During the last five years the Government has spent on the average £3,500,000 a year, or a total of £17,500,000 on defence. Yet quite recently we had from the Government Whip in this chamber the damaging admission that so serious was our position from a defence point of view that Australia could not last 24 hours against a foe. This is the record of a Government that professes to be anxious for the proper defence of Australia! What would have been said of the Labour party if it had been in office for five years, had spent that amount of money on defence, and at the end of the period mentioned had to confess that its defence scheme was valueless? Now, we are told, the Government proposes to get busy. We understand that it proposes to build two cruisers, but we have not been informed whether they are to be built in England or in Australia, how much they are likely to cost, or how long it will take to build them.
– I thought I gave all that information in my second-reading speech.
– The honorable senator informed Senator O’Loghlin that the Government intended to have an exhaustive inquiry by some outside body as to the probable cost of the cruisers. I do not blame the Government for that, but they should have had this information before the bill was introduced, and it should have been furnished to the Senate.
– It could have been obtained before.
– Of course, it could have been. The Government, we believe, proposes to build two ships, which may cost £4,000,000, or, perhaps, £5,000,000. . They may be built in Great Britain, or they may be built in Australia, but wherever they are built, the probabilities are that they will take three years in the building, and four or five years later they will have to be scrapped. The Government lead some people to believe that the defence of Australia depends solely upon the construction of the two cruisers.
– Who said that?
– What other policy have the Government to submit?
– That is only a por- tion.
– What is the other portion ? Do the Government intend to adhere to the policy which has been in operation for the last five years - the spending of millions with a barren result ?
– What is the policy of the Labour party ?
– Our policy was clearly outlined by Senator Gardiner, and the Leader ofthe Opposition in another place. We believe in a sane and economically sound policy.
– What is it?
– Knowing that the methods of warfare are continually changing, the members of the Labour party advocate an uptodate policy for the defence of Australia. The wars in the future - if there be any - will be conducted in an altogether different manner from the wars of the past. In my opinion, they will be determined largely by aircraft and submarines. We are all aware that aeroplanes played a very important part - in the last war, and that they will be a very important factor in any future combat. If the reports published from time to time be correct, the wars of the future will not last as long as the last war, but will perhaps terminate within a week or a fortnight. A decision may even be reached within a day. It is well to know what is taking place in connexion with modern warfare-, and what weapons are” likely to be employed. The following, taken from the Daily Express, is of interest : -
Scientists have discovered a deadly new poison gas. It can easily be distributed by aeroplanes. It is invisible and has no smell. No one who breathes it will be aware that he is inhaling death, but within from six to twelve hours he will die in terrible agony. The gas is of such a nature that it sinks to the ground, and will remain . deadly in basements or tube subways for two days. Combatant nations at the end of the war knew of this gas, but they were unable to manufacture it in sufficient quantities to use it. Chemists have now solved this problem. While the Washington conference on disarmament was sitting, 200 of the best young chemists in the United States of America were engaged at Edgewood Arsenal, near Washington, in research on and manufacture of the gas. America has now immense supplies of it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - In what way does the honorable senator intend to connect these remarks with the bill before the Senate?
– I was under the impression that the bill relates to the defence of Australia, and I thought that in the defence of any country instruments of destruction were used to decide who were the victors. I wa’s incidentally pointing out that, prior to the close of the last war, chemists were at work on the manufacture of a certain gas, which was apparently to play an important part in the determination of that world conflict, but sufficient quantities could not be manufactured in time to enable it to be then used. The chemists have now overcome that difficulty, and, according to this report, it is now procurable in quantities, and is in the possession of the Government of the United States of America. If it is in the possession of one government, and is to be used in future wars, it is at least informative, I should SaY, to learn of this. If you, Mr. Deputy President, consider that it has nothing to do with war, I shall drop it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. -I merely wished to bring the honorable senator back to the bill.
– I think I can find my feet soon enough without any eisssistaq o61 r
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT . - I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the measure before the Senate.
– Do you say, sir, that the matter to which I was referring when you intervened is not apropos of the bill now before the Chair?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator must deal with the bill.
– The equipment provided for in the bill embraces, I presume, aeroplanes, which may be utilized, according to this report, to carry poison gas. You, sir, have ruled that I am not in order in quoting these facts.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the measure.
– I am doing so. Notwithstanding expressions of disapproval, aeroplanes will play a most important task in any future war. Every country is recognizing that. In a leading daily newspaper I noticed recently the following cablegram, which shows that Japan is moving in this direction : -
A consultation between the Minister for War and the Chief of the General Staff has resulted in the decision to reduce the divisions of the Japanese Army from 20 to 14 with the object of effecting an overhead saving of £30,000,00U, which will be used for strengthening the air service, and improving the scientific methods of warfare.
That was the connexion I intended to make between aeroplanes and the use of a deadly poison gas if I had been permitted to continue. The defence policy of the Labour party is based on the opinions of the world’s best authorities. What does Admiral Sir Percy Scott say?
– He is out of date.
– Not at all. Every authority quoted by honorable senators on this side in favour of the proposals we advocate is considered by honorable senators opposite to be out of date. Speaking at a gathering, of Australian natives in London not long ago Admiral Sir Percy Scott said -
The Australian line of defence was obviously aeroplanes, submarines, and torpedo boats, against which no hostile fleet would dare to approach within 200 miles.
– In London Admiral Sir Percy Scott’s opinions were not seriously considered.
– We cannot help that. When we proposed to make’ a departure in regard to defence the proposals of the Labour party were not approved in certain quarters in Australia, or in certain quarters overseas. At that time there was a suggestion, supported by the big daily newspapers in Australia, that Australia’ should present a dreadnought to the Motherland. According to the newspapers, that proposal was approved by the people, although the Labour party opposed it. Our policy in that connexion was considered to be extremely unpopular, but we did not care whether it was popular or otherwise. We advocated what we considered to be best in the interests of the Australian people. Every one knows with what result. No party has been more anxious to ensure the proper defence of Australia than has the Labour party. Have we not concern for the lives and liberties of those in the land of our birth t Axe we not deeply interested in the progress amd development of Australia? When we have been entrusted with power we have given evidence of our sincerity and earnestness in regard to the defence of the Commonwealth. In regard to the construction of cruisers no one regrets more than I do the attitude adopted by some who are Australians either by birth or adoption. We are considering a proposal to construct two cruisers, and the parsimony evidenced by some honorable senators opposite is beyond my comprehension. In the first place, they ask if cruisers can be constructed as cheaply in Australia as in Great Britain. Is that the manner in which to approach a question of such national importance? Cheapness, apparently is the gospel of these gentlemen. They do not consider the encouragement of Australian production or the interest of the Australian workmen. No kind or generous word has been said by them concerning the efficiency and capacity of the Australian skilled artisan. On the contrary, slander after slander has been hurled by them, the charge being that the policy of the Australian workman is that of “ go slow,” and that it would cost so much to build these cruisers’ in Australia that it is better to have them constructed overseas. Are we to understand, then, that cheapness is the policy of this Government?
– No.
– Why, then, is it necessary to have these boats built anywhere except in Australia ? The desire of the Government appears to be to discourage, rather than to encourage, Australian industries. If we are to have a defence policy let us see that all the work necessary for the defence of Australia is carried out in Australia.
– Where that is possible.
– To me nothing is impossible. The seemingly impossible of yesterday is the reality of to-day. The arguments that have been advanced by Senator Lynch and others against the construction of these two cruisers in Australia are similar to those that, in days gone by, were advanced by the diehard Conservatives. Almost everything then needed in Australia was imported. The policy of Protection has demonstrated that if sufficient encouragement is given to Australian industries, and generous treatment is meted out to Australian workmen, commodities can be produced in Australia as well and as economically as they can by the workers of any other country. The question of cost was raised when it was first suggested that locomotives should be built in Australia. In the early stages of the’ development of the shipbuilding industry in Australia, the cost may bo greater than it is in Great Britain. Probably the first ship that was built-in Great Britain cost considerably more than it was expected to cost; at any rate, the cost then must have been greater than it is to-day, because now the workmen are skilled artisans.
– These would not be the first ships to be constructed in -A. Ti s tra] i’d
– And I hope they will not be the last. There are immense possibilities for shipbuilding in Australia. We have all the raw materials and all the workmen necessary to engage in the construction of these ships. There would not be any difficulty in securing skilled workmen if we required them. According to Senator Lynch’s reasoning, we should not have encouraged the woollen industry, because the wool that we grow can be sent oversea, and the manufactured article returned to Australia at a price cheaper than it can be turned out in ‘Australia. We know what the woollen industry means to the people of Australia. We have placed a protective duty upon woollen and other goods entering Australia, and we have established woollen mills in many parts of the Commonwealth. A few years ago, when it was stated that the Australian mills could not turn out good woollen garments, it was proved that some of the articles produced in those establishments were at least equal, if not superior, to any that could be imported. There was a shortage of skilled artisans, but no difficulties were placed in the way of our obtaining from Great Britain, or other countries, the labour that we required. We should, therefore, when opportunity offers, give every encouragement to the shipbuilding industry in Australia. It is said that the Labour party is opposed to compulsory military training. That is true. We have good reasons for that belief. The results of that policy have not, so far, been entirely satisfactory. Even honorable senators opposite admit that their anticipations have not been realized. I have here an extract from an article published by a newspaper that enjoys a very wide circulation. I refer to the Melbourne Age. It says -
The only object of our citizen force is to drive out an invader if he once got into the country - an extremely vague and shadowy contingency. To accomplish that defensive action, we should be sufficiently equipped if we had an army of bush fighters and marksmen similar to the force used by the Boers against Great Britain. Such a body of citizen defenders does not need to be trained by the drill ground and barrack room methods of an offensive military system such as that directed by the War Office, nor need it involve the waste of millions of treasure. The form of defence most suitable to our needs must be evolved by Australian genius, free from the effete in- ‘ fluence of General Ramrod and Major Pipeclay, and adapted to the means and resources of a peaceful and industrious people.
That was written anterior to the war, but it possesses as much value to-day as it did then.
– Conditions have altered since that day.
– The conditions to-day are more favorable to noncompulsion than they were then. There is no real necessity to engage in an extravagant expenditure on the defence of Australia. References have been made during the debate to a friendly power that was long an ally of Great Britain. Some of those references I exceedingly regret. During a critical period that friendly power gave practical evidence of its loyalty to the allies. It played a part that won the admiration of a very big section of the people of not only this country, but also other countries. It is bound for at least ten years to observe the terms of the “Washington Treaty. When some of the leading men of that country visited Australia a short while ago, they deplored, just as I do, the statements that have been made in regard to possible future action by that power. The creation of a war atmosphere, and the raising of fears and doubts, may prove to be very mischievous and dangerous. I wish that those who occupy high and responsible positions would display as much vigour and earnestness in the cause of peace as apparently they are disposed to display in the cause of war. To talk about defence, to assure other nations that we have friendly intentions towards them, that we do not seek a quarrel with any nation, but that we are determined to provide for the defence of the country in which we live, is one thing. It is quite another, however, to adopt the policy advocated by certain men occupying positions in Australia, who are always drawing attention to imaginary dangers. Some of them go further, and make pointed references to a nation that is doing as much in the cause of peace as any other nation that was represented at the Washington Conference. I do not think it is the desire of the people of any nation to expend millions of pounds and to have thousands of its subjects slaughtered merely for the sake of territorial expansion. I again express the hope that if these two cruisers are to be built, they will be built in Australia, thus giving encouragement to the shipbuilding industry, and providing work for Australian workmen. Action along those lines will help materially industries that to-day need the assistance which this Parliament should be prepared to render to them, because we have proclaimed our adherence to the policy of protection. The majority of the people of Australia, I feel sure, will support any effort in the direction indicated by the amendment.
– I ask your ruling, Mr. Deputy President, as to the effect which the amendment, if carried, will have upon the motion “ That the bill be now read a second time.” Will the effect be the defeat of that motion, and its rejection by the Senate, or will the amendment become incorporated in the motion ?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland) . - The effect of carrying the amendment would be to set aside the second reading of the bill now. The bill could not be further proceeded with in its present form. It would be necessary for the Government to set down the second reading of the bill for another day, and re-introduce it in an amended form.
– I had no particular desire to speak upon this measure, and probably I should not have done so but for the fact that honorable senators opposite have quoted my opinions in rela- tion to defence generally, and to the condition of the defence forces in Australia, in order to criticize this and previous Governments. It is perfectly true that I have, at times, severely criticized the inadequate defence of Australia. I still hold the opinions which I expressed in the speech that I delivered in this chamber last March, and I now reaffirm them. The statement then made by me that has been quoted most frequently is that there were not sufficient munitions in Australia to supply the requirements of the five Australian divisions, under battle conditions, for a period of 24 hours. That is perfectly correct, and, as I think Senator Needham and Senator Foll said, it was supported by Sir Brudenell “White in his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. My friends opposite, and particularly Senator Findley, now demand to know why the Government has acquiesced in this condition of affairs. Perhaps honorable senators will remember that, following the action taken in another place in reducing the defence estimates by £2,000,000 per annum, I began to’ preach the doctrine of adequate defence. I deemed it my duty to point out the dangerous position into which Australia was drifting. But whose fault was it that effect was not given to the programme laid down by the Government and its advisers to put our defences in a state of efficiency? It was due to a movement initiated in another chamber, not by the Government or its supporters, for the purpose of cutting down the defence estimates.
– Was it not initiated by the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page), who is now a member of this Government?
– BROCKMAN. - That is so; but Dr. Earle Page was not then a member of the Government. I shall return to that aspect in ,a moment. All the members of the Labour party in another place supported the movement for the reduction of the defence estimates, and now they demand to know who is responsible for the present sorry condition of our defences. I say unhesitatingly that the fault lies, not with the Nationalists, but with the Labour party.
– The Labour party was not in power when the defence estimates were reduced.
– A Government can obtain no money for any purpose unless it is voted by Parliament, and, despite the advice given by the expert advisers of the Government, it was decided in another place that the necessary money should not be voted. My friends opposite, and particularly Senator Findley, have stated that if the Labour party had been in power for five years, the position would not be as unfavorable as it now is. Bad as is the state of our defences at the present moment, it is infinitely better than when the Labour party went out of office in 1916.
– No.
– BROOKMAN. - I know what the position is to-day, and I know what it was in 1914; I speak with the fullest knowledge. At the same time, I realize that the present position is far from satisfactory, and the reason is that £2,000,000 was taken off the defence estimates two years ago. Immediately that happened, I, among others who realized that the position was serious, began to tell honorable senators, and the public generally, that Australia was drifting into danger. It is obvious that I impressed my friends opposite, since, in the present debate, several of them have quoted the opinions I then expressed. I presume that ‘ the action taken by the Labour party two years ago was due to ignorance of the facts of the case, but it is idle for honorable senators opposite to endeavour to lay on the shoulders of the Government the blame for the present unsatisfactory position. The public and the Country party have since been educated in regard to defence matters, and some of the money previously asked for is now to be given to the Defence Department. Is the Labour party supporting the effort of the Government to improve the defences of this country? Many of the members of that party talk with their tongues in their cheeks, and say that they are in favour of defence. Others say they are in favour of brotherly love and disarmament, and wish Australia to do away with its insurance policy. Should we disarm ourselves, I ask, and trust to the brotherly love of the teeming millions of Asia?
– No member of the Opposition has made use of those words.
– But that is the sort of rubbish that was talked by the honorable senator and by Senator Hannan. That was the absolute rot talked by Senator McHugh.
– That is an untrue statement.
– Absolutely untrue.
– I do not make those stupid assertions. I do not believe that we should depend on the brotherly love of blacks, whites, or anybody else. I throw those absurd opinions back at my friends opposite.
– And I throw back at the honorable senator his wholly incorrect statement.
– I hope- to deal later on with some of the statements that have been made. Honorable senators opposite come here with a multitude of voices. Some of them say they believe that there should be an adequate defence system. It is true that one of them disagrees with me as to details, but most of them contend that Australia should scrap all its defences, and depend on the love and affection of potential invaders. To do that would be the quintessence of absurdity.
– Nobody has made that statement except the honorable senator.
– I invite my friend to read his own speech and all the others that have been made from his side of the chamber. I defy him to discover running through those speeches a definite policy. The Labour party to-day has no settled policy in regard to defence or immigration. It says, “ We do not oppose immigration, but we refuse to vote any money for the purpose of carrying out such a policy.” Some honorable senators opposite frankly admit that they do not want any defence ; others, while claiming to favour a defence system, refuse to vote money for it. The subjects of immigration and defence are closely related. We have a vast continent inhabited by only 6,000,000 people. We have thrown down the gage to the people of certain nations, and have told them that we will not admit them into Australia at any price. Yet when this or any other Government makes an attempt to stimulate immigration, the Labour party objects on the ground that there are many unemployed already in the country. They tell us they believe in immigration, and yet they will not allow other people to be brought here. Let me deal for a moment or two with Senator Findley, who had the nerve to accuse honorable senators on this side of being militaristic, imperialistic, and jingoistic. It is extraordinary that these ‘ assertions are generally made by men who know nothing of war. Similar remarks were made by Senator McHugh. He pointed deliberately at me, and accused me of being jingoistic.
– So the honorable senator is.
– He has repeated it. My experience is that those who use such epithets are generally men who have had no experience of war, and who, for reasons best known to themselves, whether eligible or not, did not go to the late war.
– That is their business.
– If the honorable senator wished to stay at home it was his business, but, if he were a young eligible, I think he ought to have been sent to the war. Some men stayed at home because they had “ cold feet “; some because they had “ white livers “ ; some because they were physically unfit; some because their wives would not permit them to go; some because they were cowards. I do not know exactly why Senator McHugh stayed at home, yet those who are unfamiliar with war have the infernal impertinence to point at those of us who do know something about it, and call us jingoes. Only those who have had experience of war can possibly know how damnable it is.
– Where is the glory of war ?
– The glory of war is for those who stay at home. There is no glory in it for those who have had a taste of it. I speak of what I know and I feel most keenly. I should like to have leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 3.29 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 August 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240815_senate_9_108/>.