1904-09-09 2 1 0 SENATE 4462 0 Senate. 1904-09-09 The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY. Senator PEARCE.- I desire to ask the Attorney-General, without notice, the following question : - . Will the Government procure from the Government of Western Australia copies of a report by the engineer in charge of the party sent out to bore for water on the proposed .route of the Trans-Australian Railway, with a view to distributing them among the members of the Commonwealth Parliament, and for their information? Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON. - I think I can promise that we shall communicate with the Government of Western Australia, and that any information which can be obtained in respect of this matter1 will be communicated to the members - of both Houses. 4463 ministerial statement Debate resumed from 8th September {vide page 4401), on motion by Senator Sir Josiah Symon - That the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures, within the Empire, be printed. 4463 KSQ Western Australia 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I am reluctant to take up the time of the Senate on a Friday in discussing the features of the Government policy, but it is impossible to allow one or two matters to pass without comment, and I hope that I shall be able to deal with them fairly briefly. The utterances of the Government in regard to the transcontinental railway have really astonished me. I gather that it is their intention to pass a Bill for a survey of the line. If it were being introduced with a view to incurring further expenditure on the construction of the line, after the survey had been completed, I could perfectly understand the position of the Government, because in the past we have been led to understand that the Prime Minister was heartily in accord with its construction. My authority for the statement is Sir John Forrest, who, when he was a member of the Deakin Government, had occasion to attend a meeting of the Protectionist Society, held somewhere in this city. At that meeting he complained bitterly that his own Government were only prepared to say that they would see about the construction of the railway, and he said " Mr. George Reid will build the line." I quote from the newspaper reports of that meeting, and from an electoral " dodger " which was freely circulated in Western Australia at the time of the recent election. I do not understand that the statements made in the circular were ever contradicted. The people of that State were asked , in the circular to vote for those who would support Mr. George Reid's policy. They were shown clearly that it was their only chance of getting this railway, because the Deakin Government were not prepared to support its construction. 4463 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Whose dodger is that? 4463 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Well, I prepared the dodger, and from the best material available - the speech of Sir John Forrest. 4463 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The honorable senator did not mention the authorship of the dodger. Senator- MATHESON.- I had no intention of mentioning the authorship of the dodger, as I am not bringing it forward as an advertisement. We always understood that we had only to look for Mr. Reid's advent to power to make a certainty of the construction of this line. But what do we find? We find that he advocates a survey, in order that he may discover whether the project is practicable or not. Nobody can know better than Mr. George Reid, and the members of his Government, that it is perfectly practicable. A flying survey has already been made. 4463 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - That does not give much evidence. 4463 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It gives every necessary evidence of the possibility . constructing the line. 4463 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - It is of very little value. 4463 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It is very likely that the Attorney-General has not read the report. 4463 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - I have, for in South Australia we are all deeply interested in the project. 4463 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - If the honorable and learned senator has read the report, he will know that the route proposed to be traversed was described as being almost a flat prairie, and presenting no difficulty of construction, and that the only difficulty was in regard to the water. 4463 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - Is not that a stupendous obstacle ? 4463 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The honorable senator would have been right in making that remark prior to the result of certain exploratory work which has been carried on, and to which Senator Pearce has referred this morning. When Senator Higgs receives the report of that work, he will find that the water trouble has been solved, and that there will be no difficulty in constructing the line if the Commonwealth Government are prepared' to find the necessary funds. In that case what is the good of talking of a survey to discover whether the project is practicable or not? What we want is a working survey on which a contractor might tender. What is the good of getting a flying survey unless the Government are prepared to go on with the work ? 4463 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Will the honorable senator tell us how they can go on with the work without the consent of South Australia ? 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I understand that the consent of South Australia has practically been promised. 4464 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Where does the honorable senator find that statement ? 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I cannot quote an authority for the statement. Am I to understand from the Attorney-General that South" Australia objects to the construction of the line? 4464 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The Government of South Australia has objected ; it is prepared to approve of a survey being made, but it pledges itself to no more at present. 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Then I understand that it is not Mr. George Reid who is responsible for the difficulty, but the Government of South Australia. 4464 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - The Constitution gives the Commonwealth power to construct a railway if it is considered necessary for the purposes of defence. 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Unfortunately, the Constitution gives the Commonwealth no power to construct a- railway without the consent of the State.- I called attention to that unfortunate position when the draft Constitution Bill was being debated in the Legislative Council of Western Australia. I had only just been returned for the gold-fields, and I regret to say that I could not get any support in the Legislative Council, to an amendment I suggested, to make it feasible for the Commonwealth to build a railway, if it was considered necessary in its own interests. The amendment was poo-poohed, because the people on the coast were afraid that it might be applied to the Esperance railway, and the result was that the Constitution was left in its present shape. Do I understand, from the Attorney-General, that the Government of South Australia make the preparation of this survey a condition precedent to their discussing the question of authorizing the construction of the railway ? 4464 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - They do not pledge themselves, I understand, to anything except that they are prepared to facilitate the making of the survey. 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - That is a most extraordinary and most un-Federal attitude for the Government of South Australia to take up. It is just as well that the country should know that that is their attitude. 4464 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - That is the attitude of the Government of South Australia, not of the people of the State. 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The honorable senator cannot draw any distinction between the Government and the people of the State. With its most liberal franchise it is fair to imagine that the Government represent the people. 4464 JVC 0 0 DOBSON, Henry Senator Dobson - Can the honorable senator say what guarantee the Government of Western Australia are prepared to give against any loss ? 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The late Premier of Western Australia intimated his views on that subject to the Government of South Australia. I am not in a position to quote his communication, but I understand that he undertook to make up the loss. 4464 JVC 0 0 DOBSON, Henry Senator Dobson - Has he ever mentioned any amount that he would make up? 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - How can any person mention a specific amount when he undertakes to make up the loss ? 4464 JVC 0 0 DOBSON, Henry Senator Dobson - He can mention a share of an amount.' 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The late Premier of Western Australia, I understand, undertook to make up any loss accruing during a certain number of years. I believe that the report of the State experts who were asked to look into the question indicated that for a certain number of years a loss was probable, and I understand that Mr. James, the late Premier, offered to make good the loss during that term of years ? 4464 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - Was it not Western Australia's share of the loss? 4464 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - And South Australia's share, too. 4464 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I know that ;t far exceeded the amount for which Western Australia would have been responsible. I propose (o leave that topic, and express my regret that the Government have not seen fit, in their programme, to make any allusion to a Council of Defence. Some days ago, when the Attorney-General first addressed the Senate, as a member of the Government, I very shortly expressed the hope that he would be able to definitely state, when he met us yesterday, what the policy of the Government would be on this question, but I regret to say that he has not seen his way to throw any light on the subject. I propose to deal with the question at some little length, because it is one which is most important, and does not seem to be very clearly understood by a number of honorable senators. When the Labour' Party came into power, Senator Dawson, the Minister of Defence, looked into the whole question. To put it shortly, he appointed a committee of experts, who were instructed to report. We do not know what they actually did report, but the Melbourne Argus apparently obtained some information on the subject. Whether it was obtained officially or not, I cannot say, but it appears from the Argus that the Committee recommended the appointment of ^ Board of Advice, a Council of Defence, and an Inspector-General. According to their recommendation, the Board of Advice apparently corresponds with a body in England, which is called the Army Council. The local Committee followed up to this point the lines laid down by Lord Esher's Committee, which has lately sat in England, and made a very voluminous report in three chapters. I wish to explain the difference between the Board of Advice and the Council of Defence, because from what I have heard, both here and outside, a considerable amount of ignorance exists as to the duties of the two bodies. They are entirely distinct. The Board of Advice, as recommended by the local committee, appears to be a rather unfortunate substitute for the Army Council. Now the Army Council, as recommended by Lord Esher's committee, consists of a board, which takes the place of the General Officer Commanding ; in fact it is the General Officer Commanding, in committee. In the few remarks I intend to make I shall use the term "Army Council,"- because that conveys the exact meaning of what the board is, and the phrase " Board of Advice " does not. 4465 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Does the honorable senator propose something in the nature of the Army Council now under suggestion in England? 4465 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I' do for that specific purpose; but I propose now to deal with the Council of Defence, and to touch on the Army Council .. incidentally. The Council of Defence, as recommended by the local committee, appears to be a consultative body to act as an advisory committee to the Minister. It is very much, in fact, the sort of council that I advocated here towards the end of last session, but with nothing like as ample powers. My suggestion was embodied in the following provisions : - The Council shall receive and review all recommendations of the General Officer Commanding and Naval Commandant in respect to the organization, administration, and financial policy of their respective branches of the Defence Forces, and shall, if thought necessary, obtain expert advice on any questions arising under such recommendations. It shall be the duty of the Council, from time to time, to make such recommendations to Parliament as it may. think desirable for most effectually securing the efficiency of the defences and Defence Forces of the Commonwealth, and to take such steps as may be necessary to secure effective compliance with the directions of Parliament in respect to all such matters. The Council of Defence suggested by the committee of experts is not to have any powers of that nature. The proposal was set out in the Argus of 16th August in these terms - The expert committee in ils report suggested that two bodies should .be constituted - one a Board of Advice, and the other the actual Council of Defence. The Board of Advice, -it was recommended, should; consist of the Minister, the Secretary for Defence, the Chief Staff Officer at head-quarters, and representatives of the Militia and Volunteer Forces and the Rifle Clubs. The duty of this board would be to secure uniformity of administration throughout the Commonwealth, and supervise the working of the Department in each State. Its meetings should be at least monthly. The Council of Defence, it was suggested, should consist of the same officers, with the addition of the Inspector-General and the Naval Commandant. This Council would be of the nature of an advisory committee to the Minister, who would preside over its deliberations. He would not, however, part with his prerogative to initiate the defence policy of the Commonwealth, although he would look to the Council for advice regarding any scheme he might put forward from time to time. This council, constituted in that way, would be on an entirely wrong basis, that is, according to Lord Esher's Committee. I do not wish any members of the Senate to suppose that I set up as an expert. I have simply studied the report of Lord Esher's Committee, and applied the principles which it lays down as far as possible to the circumstances prevailing in the Commonwealth. I do not think that one could have a safer guide than the advice embodied in Lord Esher's report. Lord Esher's Committee point out that the Army Council should consist entirely of executive officers for the higher administration of the Defence Force, plus the Minister of Defence ; but that the Council of Defence, being a deliberative and consulting body, should not include any of the officers who are charged with the administration of affairs. They are, in fact, like managing directors. They have the sole responsibility for carrying out effectively the decisions of the Council of Defence} and as such they ought not, to be able to sit in the.- Council of Defence and frame suggestions for the control of the Army. Their duties are simply .executive, and their members should be renewed from time to time. Now I come to what the Council of Defence should consist of. I am dealing with this matter very briefly, because I understand it is desired to bring this debate to a determination this afternoon. The Council of Defence, as laid down by the Esher Committee, should consist of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the Minister of Defence. Then we have to make a divergence, because the Esher Committee deals ' with a set of circumstances entirely different from the circumstances here. The. Esher Committee suggest the appointment of the head of the Intelligence Department of the Navy and the head of the Intelligence Department of the Army. We have no equivalent officers in the Commonwealth. Therefore I would suggest that the technical members should be the Chief of the Staff, the Inspector-General and the Chief Naval Officer. The Esher Committee lays special stress upon the desirability of having a certain number of permanent technical advisers on the Council of Defence, because they point out that in no other way could continuity be secured in carrying out the defence programme of Great Britain. The same consideration would obviously apply to the defence programme of this Commonwealth. But, in addition, I propose, as I proposed last year, to have on the Council a certain number of members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament - say, one from each House. And for this reason : As things stand at present in the Commonwealth, we get no parliamentary responsibility of any sort or kind 'in connexion with defence matters. We get a nominal responsibility on the part of the Minister, but when Ministers are changing, say, every six months or so, I put it to the Senate - what responsibility of any sort or kind can we get in connexion with the defence of the Commonwealth ? 4466 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - Ministers do not take any. 4466 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - One Minister succeeds another. First we had Sir John Forrest ; then we had Sir . William Lyne ; then we had Senator Drake; then we had Mr. Chapman ; then we had Senator Dawson ; now we have Mr. McCay. Under these circumstances, what can we expect from the defence system of the Commonwealth? The control practically drifts into the hands of . the permanent officers of the . Military Department. 4466 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - Do not these remarks apply to all the Departments under the circumstances ? 4466 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - They do apply, as the honorable senator has said, to all the Departments to some extent, but in the Defence Department the difficulty is accentuated. 4466 K0F 0 0 PEARCE, George Senator Pearce - The policy of defence depends more upon the Minister than is the case in the other Departments. 4466 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The control of the Defence Department is more a matter of policy, whereas the control of a Department like the Post-office is more a matter of routine. When once the lines of policy are laid down in the Customs Department, or the Post-office, the Departments run perfectly smoothly. But in the Defence Department circumstances are changing from day to day, and the policy has to be changed to suit the ever-varying needs of the Commonwealth, and all the changes which necessarily take place in defence policy throughout the world. Under these circumstances it is absolutely necessary, to my mind, to bring Parliament more in touch with its actual responsibility. It is impossible to see how this can be secured unless the question of defence is entirely. separated from party politics. That haw been the trouble with the defence question from the very commencement. Whenever, the party in. power were attacked on any defence question they gave in sooner than force matters to an issue on a question about which members knew extremely little. Therefore the defence of the Commonwealth suffered more and more, every time an attack was made upon the Government, from the apathy of Ministers. 4466 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - We ought to make every member of Parliament join some regiment. 4466 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I think it would do a good deal of good, but of course it is impossible. Now, I come to the Inspector-General. He can be left off the Council of Defence, or not, as the Parliament thinks fit. There are many advantages in including the Inspector-General in the Council of Defence. But the one place where he ought not to be is upon the Army Council. Because his duty is to report upon how the members of the Army Council carry out . the instructions of the Defence Committee. That is his raison, d'etre. And though his advice would probably be extremely useful to the Council of Defence, I do not know. that it is absolutely essential that he should be a member of that body. The important point that I want again to emphasize is that the Council of Defence should arrange the policy of the Defence Forces, and should consist partly of Members of Parliament, and partly of experts, and that it should report to Parliament direct. That is where another trouble has arisen in connexion with this Department. Reports go in to the Defence Department, and unless they happen to please or suit the! views of the Minister in charge of the Department, they get pigeon-holed, and it is impossible for Members of Parliament to ascertain what they contain. We want to know the truth, and the only way in which we can get the1 truth is to have this Committee reporting to us direct. Now I come to the question of the Army Council. I think I have made sufficiently clear to the Senate the1 difference that exists between the Council of Defence and the Army Council. What Lord Esher's Committee says of the Army Council is that it is not, and cannot be, a representative body as regards the several arms and departments. I want the Committee clearly to appreciate that, because according to the Argus report, it seems to be proposed that the Army Council or executive body should consist of the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of Defence, the Chief Staff Officer at Head-Quarters, and representative's of the militia, volunteers, and rifle clubs. This is absolutely at variance with fundamental principles. I have already stated that this Council ought simply to be! a board of officers for carrying into effect the schemes approved by Parliament and by the Defence Committee. I do not wish to be entirely destructive in my criticism. I wish to be constructive as well. Because criticism is extremely easy. It is easy to say, " So-and-so is wrong " ; but not always so easy to suggest what would be right. I have taken some trouble * therefore to avoid that criticism being applied to myself. I have taken the trouble to analyze Lord Esher's scheme, and apply it as far as possible to the Commonwealth in connexion with this Army Council. Applying on a small scale the recommendations of Lord Esher's Committee to our needs, I would suggest that the Army Council should be constituted as follows : - First of- all the Minister of Defence, the head of the Department; then four military men, who would be the executive chiefs of their various Departments, and upon whom I have conferred the titles given to them by Lord Esher's Committee. They consist of the Chief of Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, and the Master-General of Ordnance.' In addition to those we require to have a finance member and a naval member. But on no account - and on this point Lord Esher's Committee is most emphatic - should the Secretary of the Minister of Defence be a member of the Army' Council, as apparently he would be under the scheme which has been prepared -for the Commonwealth. His duties are to be purely secretarial, as between the Minister and Parliament, the other Departments of the State, and the law officers of the Crown. He ought to be responsible - which, apparently, he is not at present, as far as I can gather - for the actuarial and statistical returns in connexion with the Defence Department. I have had occasion several times lately to criticise the statistical statements furnished in various reports, and I have been told that those were statements emanating from Major-General Hutton, and that the Department was not responsible for them. That is not a position of affairs which ought to prevail. The Secretary of the Department ought to be absolutely responsible for all the statistical information placed before Parliament, and the Department ought to be responsible through 'him for their accuracy. Each member of the board, plus the Minister, would have specific duties to perform, and 1 specific Department to control. In order to prove to the Senate and to the public that that is advisable, and that there is no difficulty in applying Lord Esher's recommendations to our circumstances, as far as defence is concerned, I have taken a very useful table, which will be found at the end of Major-General Hutton's report for 1902-3, and which is called Appendix- A. It sets out the duties of the various officers under Major-General Hutton's control, and I have allocated those duties more or less in accordance with Lord Esher's recommendations to the officers whose titles I have mentioned. They are as follows: - The Chief Staff Officer would have the following duties : - General supervision as Chief Staff Officer, administrative questions involving action in Parliament, and decision of Minister of Defence, military intelligence. Topography. Schemes of defence. Defence system of Australia, and all details in that connexion. Basis of military organization. Plans of concentration foi war.. Then we have the Adjutant-General, who would have to deal with - Discipline, practical instruction, and training. Returns and statistics connected with the personnel. Enlistment and discharge. Drafting and issuing of general orders and instructions. Drafting of regulations. Appointment and promotion of officers, and their qualifications. Peace organization of forces. Mobilization. Military education, instruction, training, drill and examinations, rifle ranges and rifle clubs, rifle shooting. Supervision and instruction of the instructional staff. Schools of instruction of all kinds, and staff rides. Then we have the Quartermaster-General, who would deal with - Occupation and appropriation of barracks, &c. Supply of food, forage, fuel, light, and quarters. Movement of troops, and distribution of their stores and equipment. Land and water transport. Remounts. Patterns of dress and uniform. Organization of and instruction of the Army Service Corps. Medical service. Sanitation. Administration and command of the Army Medical Corps. As a temporary expedient the organization of an Australian Army Veterinary Department. Patterns and inventions. Care, maintenance, and distribution of warlike stores, arms, accoutrements, equipment, and clothing not in charge of the troops. Questions of armament and equipment other than artillery and engineers. Then we have the Master General of Ordnance, who would deal with - All armament and equipment. Personnel of the permanent and militia artillery. Stores. Experimental equipment. Artillery ranges and practice. Technical instruction of the artillery, &c. Inspection of warlike stores. Repairing workshops, control of magazines and store-houses not in charge of troops. Administration of the Army Ordnance Corps. Contracts for guns, ammunition, artillery stores. Defence works. Construction, maintenance and repair of fortifications, barracks, and store buildings. Preparation of designs of all military works. Military telegraphs. Custody of plans of works. Custody of lands in occupation of troops. Questions of engineer and submarine mining stores and equipment. Personnel and stores. Technical instruction of engineers, submarine miners, &c. Then we have the Finance member, who would deal with the - Preparation of annual estimates. Questions affecting pay of troops and allowances provided by regulations. Questions involving petty disbursements under the regulations. Minor questions of finance for recommendation to Minister. Collating data affecting annual estimates. Pay and allowances of the Head-Quarters Staff. Controlling and recording contracts, and obtaining stores from contractors. Custody of documents of all properties pertaining to the Department, and plans of all departmental properties not in occupation of the troops. Purchase and leases of the above. Custody of lands not in occupation of the troops. Finance Department, - supervision of all expenditure. ' Then we have one innovation of Lord Esher's recommendations. That is the Naval member. One has to bear in mind that there are only about 1,500 members of the Naval Forces of the Common - wealth, and it would be absolutely preposterous to have a full Naval Board, separate from the Army Council, to deal with the affairs of our extremely small Navy. Such -a council might become necessary later on, when we increase our ships and increase the number of men enrolled. But at present it would be absolutely unnecessary. Therefore I suggest that a naval member should be included, who should be given general supervision as Chief Naval Staff Officer, equivalent to Chief of Military Staff. Control of entire Naval Force about 1,500 men. That practically embraces everything.. As to the Inspector-General, I want to add a few words in connexion with Lord. Esher'S report. Lord Esher's Committee says - The Inspector-General and his staff should have no executive or administrative functions. They are intended to provide the Secretary of State and the Army Council with eyes and ears, and their reports should deal only with existing facts, pointing out defects, commenting upon efficiency, and thus enabling the governing body of the army to know the practical results of the measures it adopts..... The Inspector-General should form an opinion, either personally or through his staff, as the Army Council may direct, on the efficiency of officers and men, on the handling of troops, on the standard and system of training, on the suitability of equipment, and generally on all that affects the readiness of the forces for war. He should act as an umpire at manoeuvres, and have a small personal staff. He should prepare an annual report to the Army Council, and also send reports on matters requiring immediate attention to the Secretary of the War Office. Under these circumstances I think it must be clear to the Senate that, as I said before, the Inspector-General ought on no account to be a member of the Army Council, as is suggested apparently by the report of the Committee with regard to the Commonwealth Forces. That completes what I have to say on the subject of the Army Council, and the Council of Defence. I have dealt with the question fairly briefly, but at the same time I hope that I have made the various duties of these bodies sufficiently clear to the members of the Senate. Now, I wish, as shortly as possible, to deal with the reasons why a Council of Defence, reporting direct to Parliament, is an absolute necessity. To do that I shall have to. go back to a small extent over the history of . the Defence Department. 4469 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Is it true that the honorable senator has been " slating " me in my absence? 4469 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - No ; I have nothing whatever to complain of so far as the honorable senator is concerned. On the contrary, it was not until Senator Dawson got into possession of what I may call an impregnable fortress like Port Arthur, that it was possible to get any information whatever. I was just about to come to that very point. The Senate will remember that in July, 1903, I had occasion to move for a report to be furnished on the deficiencies of armament and equipment. ' Major-General Hutton had made a speech in Adelaide, in which he pointed out that the defects in both respects were very great, and the Government were doing all in their power, to prevent a disclosure of the absolute facts. 4469 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - That was in regard to small arms. 4469 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It was in regard to all equipment - in regard to water bottles and other matters which I forget ; it is not necessary to go into details. 4469 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - The honorable senator's complaint is about the heavy guns, and Major-General Hutton spoke about small arms. Major-General Hutton was entirely wrong, because it was just a matter of .distribution. 4469 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - On the 2nd July, 1903, I stated that there was, at any rate, one battery at Albany, which was a shell trap, and that the principal armament of that fort consisted of 6-inch guns. On the 8th July of that same year, Sir John Forrest, in a press interview, characterized my charges as romances, but I shall prove that they were absolute facts. Sir John Forrest in the same interview asked what experience or knowledge I ha'd to justify me in posing as an authority, and in the Herald of the 7 th of that month he is reported as saying - I don't think the place ls as Bad as he makes out. I have not been furnished with any report that it is not all right. They would have said so if anything were wrong. Notwithstanding that, however, I have asked for a report. On the 17 th of the month, there appeared in the Age a telegram from the General Officer Commanding: - I consider the danger suggested as relatively insignificant. The Senate will notice that the General Officer Commanding could not deny that the facts were exactly as I had stated them; all he said was that the danger was " relatively insignificant." 4469 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Contrast that with the last report of the General Officer Commanding. 4469 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The last report contains nothing about the state of the defences at Albany. 4469 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Yes, the General Officer Commanding refers to the great danger arising from the fort not being fully armed. 4469 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - But on the occasion to which I refer, he was dealing with, a specific statement that one of the batteries was a shell trap. There is a wall of rock behind, and -any shell thrown must splinter and decimate the men in charge of the guns below. I wish the Senate to observe that Sir John Forrest, though head of the Defence Department, knew nothing whatever about the state of affairs at Albany. This is the more remarkable, in view of the fact that Sir John Forrest is a representative of Western Australia, and had, presumably, as Premier of that State, previously visited this battery. But the great point is that Sir John Forrest was in charge of this Department ; and his want of knowledge in this instance emphasizes the necessity for the appointment of an intelligent Committee of Defence. When Senator Drake, as the representative of the Government, replied to me, he pooh-poohed my statements, which he said could do no harm, as they did not come from an authoritative source. Senator Drake further questioned the patriotism of my action, and said that no useful purpose could be served by bringing this matter up. In that I am quite willing to admit Senator Drake was quite .-.right, for I certainly served no useful purpose, seeing that I got no satisfaction, and that matters to-day remain exactly as they were then. It will be remembered that my motion for a return was carried by the Senate ; but, nevertheless, it was completely ignored by the Department. Month- after month went by, and no attempt was made to furnish the information for which the Senate, and not, I it must be observed, Senator Matheson, had 1 called. Finally, on the 30th June, 1904, I received a note from the Secretary of the Department, stating that the annual report for 1903-4 would shortly be in the I hands of the Minister, and would give all : the information in regard to the deficiencies of equipment which, in the opinion of the General Officer Commanding, it was advisable to make public. That note I received nearly twelve months after the report had been called for by the Senate. I submit, again, that if there had been a Council of Defence, the Senate would, within a month, have received the information to which we were perfectly entitled, and we should have been able to deal with the report when the Estimates were under consideration. But there is something even more interesting to be said- in connexion with the forts. Turning up some old papers a few days ago, I came across a communication sent by Sir William Lyne, when acting Minister of Defence, to the Age, on the 30th June, 1902. My statements, it ought to be observed, were made on the 2nd July, 1903, and the Senate will be amazed when I read what Sir William Lyne said, . as follows : - Without specifying Queenscliff or any other place where forts are employed, I may say that certain forts are described to me as so many shell traps. When a man says " without specifying Queenscliff or any other place " he obviously means his readers to infer that Queenscliff is the place to which he alludes. 4470 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - What does the honorable senator suggest? That the Queenscliff fort is a shell-trap? ,. SenatorMATHESON.- That is apparently what Sir William Lyne intends the public to conclude, and he went on to say - They may be retained in some form as a decoy, and will be manned with brave men whose lives may be sacrificed for the country's safety. It will be seen that the Acting Minister of Defence was, on the 30th June, 1902, perfectly well aware that certain of our forts were shell-traps, in which it would be dangerous for men to stand in time of war, and vet to this day no steps have been taken to rectify the defects. 4470 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Has the honorable senator seen the Queenscliff fort? 4470 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I have never been inside the fort. 4470 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - If the honorable senator had seen the fort he would realize the absurdity of his statements. 4470 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The honorable senator speaks with the authority of an ex-Minister of Defence, whereas I am speaking simply as one of the public, of the public utterances of another ex-Minister of Defence, so that the Senate may place the views of one as against the. views of the other, both probably being equally competent to form an opinion. This instance only shows the extent to which opinions may differ on any one subject. We have arrived at the fact that quite apart from being a shell-trap, Albany is not defended in any sense of the word. The 6-inch guns are absolutely useless to protect the mine-field, for which, if honorable senators read Major-General Hutton' s report, they will see the guns were intended. Those guns would be out-ranged by guns on any modern cruisers sent to attack the forts. Then at Albany, there is no search-light apparatus, no plant for generating electric light, and no staff of submarine engineers. 4470 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - About a month . ago submarine engineers were sent to Albany. 4470 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Of course I accept the' ex-Minister's explanation, but so far as the reports and the Army list are concerned, no submarine miners or engineers are stationed at Albany, or, in fact, in Western Australia. I am sure the ex-Minister of Defence deserves the thanks of the Commonwealth if he was the means of having these men sent to the fort as a very necessary complement to the defences of that State. This is what the Colonial Defence Committee, the great English authority, had to say on fixed defences in their report, dated 30th March, 1901 : - The object of fixed defences is to deter the enemy's vessels from approaching within the range at which his fire would be effective. That is to say, the guns in the fixed defences or forts should be able to out-range any guns likely to be brought against them, or otherwise the former are absolutely useless. There is no use whatever in paying thirty-six men, as we do year after year, to play at the defence of Albany, unless the guns of which they have charge are able to out-range any guns likely to be brought against them. What the result of such weak defences is we have seen in connexion with the Japanese war. The ships or batteries containing long range guns are out of the range of the defending forces, and are able to shell and destroy the latter. There are no guns that would be of any use in the defence of the Commonwealth for long range purposes except a 9.2 inch gun - no gun of a lower calibre would be of any value. I know that Senator 'Dawson holds views different from my own on this subject. 4471 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - I do not hold different views as to the efficiency of the gun, but it is a question of cost. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The question of cost cannot be considered in connexion with defences, but must be put on one side altogether. We must make our defences efficient, or it is not worth while having any defences. 4471 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - That is a large proposition. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - What would be said of a manufacturer who, in the face of competition, was satisfied with inferior plant ? 4471 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - That is another matter. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The positions are identical. 4471 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - If a manufacturer has not the money to get a new plant, what is to happen? 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - If we have not the means for adequate defences, why should we waste £700,000 per annum on plant which we know to be inferior? 4471 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Must every manufacturer have the maximum of capital? Cannot a manufacturer get on with a little less ? 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Every manufacturer who is worth his salt throws out his old plant as soon as better plant is invented, as- the honorable senator would know if he were a mercantile man. 4471 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - A manufacturer would have to be worth something more than " his salt " to do business in that way. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - What is the alternative if a manufacturer cannot obtain the best plant? He must see his competitors beating him year after year, and ultimately he must become bankrupt. 4471 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Does the honorable senator hot think that some little consideration should be given to the element of cost. SenatorMATHESON. - I quite agree with the honorable and learned senator, but if we in Parliament consider that the cost is beyond us we ought to abandon the business altogether Do not let us go on dragging £700,000 out of the Commonwealth each year for what we know to be a farce. 4471 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Is it not possible to secure efficiency for that expenditure? 4471 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Cannot we secure efficiency without 9.2 guns, which cost about £30,000 each? 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - We cannot secure efficient defence without 9.2 guns in those places we wish to defend. We have to settle on what places we desire to defend, and if it be decided that Western Australia is not worth defending, well and good. 4471 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - No one would dare to say that. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I am glad to hear that remark, because I quite expected Senator Clemons to express a contrary opinion about Western Australia. If the Constitution is worth anything, and we desire to pay regard to that particular provision which makes this Parliament responsible for the defence of the States, those defences ought to be placed in an efficient condition. 4471 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - We cannot be asked to do that regardless of expense. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - If proper defences cannot be provided, let us make no pretence at defences.. Do not let us lead the British Government, the Admiral of the Station, and the people to suppose that Albany is defended, when it is defenceless. Even the 6-inch guns at Albany are not modern guns, and do not possess the penetrative power and other advantages which are possessed by guns of similar calibre turned out at the present day. 4471 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Has the honorable senator made any calculation of what would be the total cost of defending Australia on that basis? 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I am not in a position to make any such calculation. That is why we want the Council of Defence. We are not in a position to arrive at a conclusion. The Minister will not make such a calculation, and, if the, responsible adviser of the Minister does so, and the amount involved is larger than the Government care to spend, the Minister, as Sir George Turner did, takes his pen, and sweeps off half. 4471 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - That was because he knew Parliament would not vote the money. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I speak subject to correction, but I think that last year Major-General Hutton stated that it was essential that £125,000 should be spent. Sir George Turner then took his pen, and reduced the estimate by 50 per cent. 4471 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - That was because Parliament would not have voted the money. 4471 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Parliament never had the opportunity, and we all know that Parliament cannot increase a vote. Why blame Parliament when the blame lies with the Government? 4472 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Because a general pledge had been made to Parliament that expenditure would be cut down. 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I do not wish to contradict the honorable and learned senator rudely, but there was no such general pledge. The pledge was that the money spent on the Head-Quarters Staff, and so on, would be reduced. 4472 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Does the honorable senator think that we could afford 9.2 guns at every port and harbor in the Commonwealth ? 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - We ought either to drop any pretensions at defences or place 9.2 guns at the places we wish to defend. It is a farce to spend money, year after year, in supporting garrisons and place's which could not be defended with the armament provided. 4472 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Some of us might modestly suggest that there were other ports to be defended besides Albany. 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Yes ; there is, of course, Hobart, and also Launceston. I do not, however, wish to raise State questions, but to deal with the matter on as broad a basis as possible. 4472 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Could we have 9.2 guns at all those ports? 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I really cannot answer the honorable senator ; that is a matter for the Council of Defence. 4472 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Such armament is not required in all the States, because there are only two points of entrance into Australia - Queensland and Western Australia. 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - That is a possible argument, with which, however, I do not quite agree, though I understand the drift of the honorable, senator's interjection. I wish to lay further stress on this question of the 9.2 guns. On the 29th August, of the present year, a telegram came from England to the effect that the British Admiralty are abolishing 4.7 and 6-inch guns in favour of 9.2 guns ; and I may say that my notes for this address were put together before that telegram arrived.. At the same time, I do not wish to be misunderstood. The duty; of 9.2 guns is to keep the enemy out of range, and prevent. them from shelling the forts, but 6-inch guns are also absolutely necessary for the protection of narrow channels, where the enemy must come within short range. I do not wish to be understood for an instant to say that the 6 -inch guns are not necessary. In those places where we had not 9.2 inch guns, the enemy, after having shelled their batteries, and destroyed the 6-inch guns, would be able to send in their torpedo boat destroyers, and destroy the mine-field. The protection of all these ports, I understand, is the mine-field', which is laid down under the immediate protection of the 6-inch guns. Now, the 6-inch gun is a quick firer. A certain number of shots can be fired extremely rapidly, because the cartridge can be put into it by a man. But anything above a 6-inch gun requires machinery for loading, and therefore a very) much reduced number of shots can be fired in the same time. I hope that up to that point I have the Senate with me in proving the necessity for a Council of Defence. We now come to the 13th of July of the current year. On that occasion Senator Pearce wished to know how many obsolete guns were being used by the field artillery, and Senator Dawson said that of his personal knowledge he could say nothing on the subject, but that he had made it his business to inquire at the Department, and that the reply he got was that the Department was utterly unaware of any obsolete guns being used by the field artillery at the present time. On the 28th of July, 1904, I moved for a return, which was laid upon the table on the nth of August. It is an analysis of the schedule of field guns in present service, as shown in Appendix K of the General Officer Commanding's report of the 1st May, 1904. Of eighty-two guns, sixteen are 15-pounder guns with the modern breech action, and to that extent up-to-date; twelve are 15-pounder guns, with' the obsolete breech action; sixteen are 12 -pounder guns, which have the obsolete breech action, and are going to be converted; thirty are muzzle-loaders, fit for nothing but the scrap heap, or for parks; four are breech-loading howitzers, with . the obsolete breech action, and four are breech-loading 40-pounder siege guns, with the obsolete breech action. 4472 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - But they can be sent home and converted. 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It is quite true that they can be converted, but what would be the cost of converting these siege guns ? 4472 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - About £1,500. 4472 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It could be done at a cost of£1,500, to say nothing of the freight. I wish to explain why the obsolete breech action completely puts the guns out of account, as far as efficiency is concerned. At the barracks here a man is taught to work these guns on a one motion breech action. The object of the tuition is to teach the men to fire as many shots as possible in a given time, and to do that each man must become a mete machine in loading the gun. After he has become a mere automaton, he goes down to Queenscliff, where he finds himself placed in charge of a gun with the obsolete breech action, which requires three motions. What is the consequence? After he loads the gun, he slams the breech to, and does not give the handle the other two turns. When another man pulls a string, the cartridge goes off, the breech block is blown out behind, and if a man is there he is killed. It is reported in the press this morning that on one of His Majesty's ships of war a breech block blew out, and killed several men. 4473 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Is it the fault of the guns at Queenscliff, or the fault of the petty officer in not giving the requisite order ? 4473 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It may be the fault of the officer, but it arises from the fact that after a man has been trained at the barracks here to the use of one gun he is put in charge of another gun, and he has become more or less of a machine in giving his orders, quite forgetting that three turns are necessary instead of one. These guns are more dangerous to people behind them than to people in front of them. I now come to another question, which the Council of Defence will have to deal with, and that is the cost of converting these obsolete guns. I question whether we are justified in spending a single penny in that direction. To begin with, the guns are absolutely obsolete from, the point of view of the British Government. For their field artillery the British Government have now adopted the 18- pounder gun. Last year I called attention to that fact, and one would have imagined that in the interval some steps would have been taken bv the Department of Defence to ascertain the cost of the new 18-pounder guns, which are described as being extremely efficient, and a great improvement on anything in use at present by Continental nations. 4473 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Only at long range. 4473 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The description reads as follows: - The new guns throw 18-lb. and.12½-lb. projectiles; the former shell being the heaviest of the kind in Europe. Great rapidity of fire can be obtained. The guns ride close to the ground, the breech mechanism, is of the single motion pattern, and fixed ammunition - that is to say, the cartridge and shell are combined - is used. These characteristics have enabled as many as twenty-eight rounds to be fired with one gun in a minute. When the Government of Great Britain are discarding all their 15-pounder and 12- pounder guns in order to adopt the 18- pounder guns, I ask the Senate whether it is a wise policy on our part to spend £523 in converting a 12 -pounder gun into a 15- pounder? It is impossible for a private senator to express an opinion on the point, but to most business men it would certainly seem a very doubtful line of policy. Here, again, I wish to point out the absolute want of business capacity shown in the Defence Department in connexion with the valuation of their property. In a report made on the 21st June, 1901, a committee of experts advised that a complete schedule and valuation should be made of all the transferred military stores and property. It will be remembered that only yesterday I received a reply from the Attorney-General, to the effect that no such valuation has ever been made. Although the States will have to be paid for all these stores and guns, still no steps of any sort have been taken to assess their value, or come to any arrangement with the States. 4473 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - New S'outh Wales has already been charged for some of its obsolete guns. 4473 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I think that the honorable senator is mistaken, because we have the word of the Attorney-General, and of the Department, that the contrary is thefact. 4473 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Well, the fact is the contrary. 4473 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - There, again, we get a little evidence of the necessity for a Council of Defence. We -get the ex-Minister of Defence and the Attorney-General absolutely at variance on a point on which there ought to be no doubt. 4473 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - I know that certain obsolete guns' were charged against the Commonwealth, and that when we asked the Government of New South Wales if they would undertake the cost of distributing them to municipal councils and to public gardens they agreed to do so. That was done before I left the office. 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The 'honorable senator is quite right. I can explain how it arose. The State Government agreed to distribute the guns, and not to make a charge against the Commonwealth; and no valuation has been made because none was necessary. I now come to the thirty muzzle-loaders in the schedule. Out of eighty-two apparently effective guns, thirty are obsolete muzzle-loaders, which, accord to Major-General Hutton, are absolutely useless. At page 24 of his report of 1st May, 1903, 'he says - The obsolete type of muzzle-loading guns now in existence in the various States is useless for service purposes. When the municipalities in Western Australia applied the other day to have these guns distributed to them for ornamental purposes they received a reply . to the effect that the guns could not be dispensed with. 4474 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Is that quite correct ? Did not Mr . James absolutely refuse to bear the cost of the transfer of these guns from one place to another? 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - No ; the honorable senator is mistaken there The guns that were offered to Mr. James were two 7 -inch muzzle-loaders - guns of position - which were sent but by the. British Government in 1884, and. have been lying in the sand at Karrakatta e.ver since, under a galvanized iron roof. The muzzle-loading field guns are absolutely useless -for training or anything else, and are kept on the schedule of effective! guns simply to deceive the public of Western Australia. We are told that the defence of that State consists of ten guns, when, as a matter of fact, only two of them are effective. 4474 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - The fact remains . that Mr. James refused to incur one penny of expenditure on the transfer of any obsolete guns to any garden or municipality. 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The honorable senator is mistaken there. 4474 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Well, I read the papers. 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I have also seen the papers, . which show that Mr. James, in reply to a communication from the Federal Government, wrote: - The military authorities inform me that there are' at present only two guns which could be granted to parks, &c, namely, those stored at Karrakatta; but these would entail -a heavy cost in removal. and mounting. As the guns referred to have little interest, I question if any public body would care to pay the cost of removal, &c. There are eight smaller guns which will be. avail able when replaced by ones of more modern pattern. These guns would, no doubt, be suitable for the purposes indicated in your letter. In view of the above facts, I think it wiser to deal with the question as it arises, and do not care to commit the Government as to its future action. The municipalities, 1 may say, are perfectly prepared to take eight 'muzzleloading field guns; but the Defence Department wishes to swell the list of apparently effective guns in Western Australia. I am not quite sure about Victoria ; but in several of the eastern States, muzzle-loading field guns are still kept on the effective list, although they are absolutely useless. When I moved my motion last year for a return of the deficient stores, Sir John Forrest, as usual, went out of his way to have an interview with the press. He said that there were ten modern efficient field guns in New South Wales, and pooh-poohed my statement. When we get this return, after very great difficulty, we find that New South Wales has only four modern efficient field guns with the up-to-date single breech action, and that the other six guns have the obsolete breech action, and are not. as he termed them, modern efficient field guns. So much for the information that gets placed at the disposal of the Minister of Defence by the Department. 4474 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - What branch of the Department does the honorable senator mean ? 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I have not been Ministe'r of Defence, and therefore I do not know. 4474 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - But the honorable senator is making charges against three or four branches of the Department. 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I absolve the Minister, whom I regard as simply the mouthpiece oft he Department. On the 30th of August last, in the fort at South Head, Sydney, the men were firing from 80-pound muzzle-loaders, which would be absolutely useless in time of war. 4474 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Is there not some part of the training which might be carried on with even a dummy gun? 4474 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I do not know, as I am not an expert. Of course, the honorable and learned senator understands the distinction between a muzzle-loading gun and a breech-loading gun. It is perfectly obvious that the training of a man in one case must be different from the training of a man in the 'other case. 4475 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - I should think that the drill as to position would be the same in the case of the muzzle-loading gun as in the case of the breech-loading gun- 4475 KSQ FT 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - The honorable and learned senator will find on investigation that that is not so. 4475 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - There is no harm in a man knowing how to load an ordinary fowling piece; it does not injure him in learning how to load a rifle. 4475 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I never said there was any harm in it. I say that it is a complete waste of time and money. Even every breech-loading gun has a different throw of its projectile; and it is laid down in one of the reports of the Colonial Defence Committee, that it is extremely desirable that the captain of a gun should be attached to the gun he is going to use in time of war, in order that he may know its tricks, to such an extent do breech-loading guns differ. How useless must it be, therefore, to train artillerymen to use muzzle-loading guns ! Now I come back to Western Australia, and in the position of that State with reference to defence I find one of my . strongest arguments in favour of a Council of Defence. From the very commencement of the Commonwealth, we in Western Australia have suffered from systematic neglect. 4475 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Colonel Riccardo is there ; what ' more does Western Australia want ? 4475 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I find from the Estimates that in 1902, the Albany garrison figured at forty men ; but as a matter of fact, they only had about 50 per cent, of the total number in the garrison. That is to say they had twenty. Senator O'Connor when Vice-President of the Executive Council, pooh-poohed my statement to that effect, and said that it was the imagination of a fevered brain. I passed over to Western Australia a fortnight later, and investigated the situation. I found that there were enrolled at Albany at that moment eight commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and thirteen men. that is to say, twenty-one men in all. So much for the imagination of my fevered brain ! Of these men several were on leave. So that, as a matter of fact, on an average there were on the roll during one week in October, 1902, only five men per diem at that fort - not sufficient to clean the guns. The then Minister of Defence, Sir John Forrest, when the question was brought before him, was of course not aware of the position. Proving that I was thoroughly right, sixteen men were sent over in 1902, including a sergeant. Then what happened? There was a most ridiculous position of affairs.. These men were enrolled under the Victorian Act. When they reached Western Australia they were under no Act whatever. The Officer Commanding in Western Australia had no legal power to enforce any penalty or. any discipline on any one of these men. The ex-Minister of Defence can confirm that statement. "Until we passed the Commonwealth Defence Act, members of the Defence Force in one State, who were sent into another State, were absolutely free of all control, owing to the fact that they were enrolled under a State Act, which was in force only in the State from which they had come. 4475 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - That is right, but it must be remembered that they were under the regulations. 4475 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - These men were sent over simply to avoid enrolling men in Western Australia. Now the Department has gone to the other extreme. At Albany they have thirty men and no staff. 4475 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - In Melbourne they have all staff and no men! 4475 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I say nothing about Melbourne, because I do not know, but I want to make clear the -position so far as Western Australia is concerned. I want to show that Western Australia has suffered from systematic neglect from the beginning. On the 30th June, 1902, provision was made on the Estimates for £5,600 for drill halls in Western Australia. We find from the Estimates, dated 30th June, 1903, that only £640 of that sum had been spent. The rest had been saved. Then, again, when we come to the Estimates dated 30th June, 1904, as I pointed out last year, £13,270 was voted. At least £9,000 of that was never spent. 4475 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Was not that to be put into small arms? 4475 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - No; only £5,000 was put into small arms, a very small proportion of which went to Western Australia. This treatment of Western Australia is not confined to the Defence Department. It is part of a systematic course of neglect of Western Australia on the part of the Commonwealth Government. I find in the Estimates for 1902 that a sum of ^2,300 was set aside for Customs buildings at Perth. In the Estimates for 1903 the same sum for the same buildings is set down. The buildings have not been erected. In the Estimates for 1904 we find the same sum over again ; and, probably, when the Estimates for 1904-5 come along, we shall find the same sum upon them which we have had year after year. It seems to be nobody's interest to see that" the money is spent. I went into the question of the defence of Fremantle on a previous occasion, so that it is of no use to deal with that again. I come to another point in connexion with the defence of Fremantle, and it is this : The present proposal, as I understand it, is to put 7 '5 inch guns into the Fremantle fortifications. I must insist that no- arm is of any use for the defence of any of these forts and for keeping off an' enemy but 9'2-inch guns. That, again, is another question which" a Defence Committee would go into and advise Parliament upon. 4476 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - What time would elapse between the placing of an order and the delivery of the guns? 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It it of no use to put such questions to me. ' What I am advocating is that our defences should be looked after in a business-like way. 1 say again that we shall have no satisfaction until we have a Council of Defence. 4476 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Where are we to get the money from ? 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - If we cannot get the money we shall know our position. We shall know what it is necessary to spend when we have the money. But at present there is no responsibility of any sort. I insist that Parliament must take the responsibility. 4476 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - The honorable senator has told us what is wanted. . 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - But I know what every one will say. They will say, " But Senator Matheson is not an expert." I am making these statements in order to call attention to what I believe to be the true facts of the case, but to call attention to them will be of no use until we have a body of experts whose duty, it will be to advise Parliament. 4476 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - We cannot do any good until we have the money. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Very well, but let us know what is wanted. 4476 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - Would it not be cheaper in case of invasion to let the enemy destroy Fremantle and rebuild it afterwards? 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - A member of the Legislative Council of Western Australia said exactly; the same thing some years ago. 4476 K7R 0 0 STYLES, James Senator Styles - It has been said here also. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I am aware that Senator Styles has said that there are so few people in Western Australia - only 200,000 or so - that it would be more advisable to bring them over to Victoria in case of invasion. That is the way that questions affecting .Western' Australia are treated in the Senate. The representatives of the eastern States sit together and pooh-pooh every claim that Western Australia has for consideration from the Commonwealth Parliament. . 4476 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - And Mr. Reid gives that State no representation in the Cabinet. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Mr. Reid,according to common report, offered an honorary portfolio to an ex-Minister in another House, but he, to save his pride, would not take it. That is the current report ; I do not know whether it is true. If the interests of the State suffer, Mr. George. Reid is not to blame, but the gentleman who would not pocket his pride. 4476 K7R 0 0 STYLES, James Senator Styles - He wanted to pocket the fees ; he did not believe in working for nothing. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Is it supposed that the risk of invasion in the case of Western Australia is less than in the case of one of the eastern States? 4476 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - It certainly is not. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Yet the representatives of the eastern States are prepared to vote money for the defence of Queenscliff arid Sydney Heads, whilst the Government simply allocate 7 -inch guns for the defence of Fremantle. 4476 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - What are the eastern States to which" the honorable senator refers? 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales. 4476 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - The honorable senator must not include Queensland in that criticism. 4476 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Then I apologize to the honorable senator. I am glad that he takes a more Federal view of our interests than other senators do. But I am accustomed to hear such interjections from Senator Styles in connexion' with the Western Australian railway, and every other claim that Western Australia has upon the Commonwealth. From a defence point of view, as showing the position which Western Australia occupies, let me quote what Major-General Hutton says - The potential wealth of the gold-fields, and the vast extent of valuable and unoccupied land in the territories of Western Australia rendered the acquisition of that portion of the Australian Continent a most valuable prize to foreign nations. The strategical situation, moreover, of Western Australia, dominating, as it does, the southern side of the Indian Ocean, and the converging trade routes from the west, must be considered as of the greatest importance to British and Australian interests. What have we to oppose to a well-equipped, well-trained, and well-organized expedi-tion ? 4477 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - How are 20,006 men going to be brought here to invade Australia ? 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - We have in Western Australia a field force of 107 officers, and 1,496 men. We have 2,704 men in all, who are charged with the defence of a State which is the most likely of all .the States to- be attacked, because it is a State from which gold can be taken at any moment. 4477 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - Where is the attack coming from? 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - If there is not going to be any attack, why have we any defence whatever? We assume that an attack is likely at some time to be made when we make any arrangements for our defence. Senator deLargie. Everybody admits that. 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - We have two modern field guns, but the men are suffering from want of instructors ; and our artillery is trained to practice with muzzle-loaders. Major-General Hutton makes no pretence that we can defend ourselves. This is what he says - Under the existing circumstances, Western Australia, for purposes of co-operative military assistance from the other States, is as far distant from direct means of reinforcement as New Zealand is from the eastern States of Australia. That is what we in the west have got from Federation ! We are denied the right to provide for our own defence, and the Commonwealth absolutely declines to provide for it. ' There can be no disputing that statement, because we have it on the authority, of Major-General Hutton, who says that it is absolutely impossible under existing circumstances to defend Western Australia through the eastern States. 4477 KHE 0 0 HIGGS, William Senator Higgs - The honorable senator seems to have met with a similar reception in the Western Australian State Parliament. 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I am not aware of that. 4477 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - Who provided these obsolete guns in the first instance in Western Australia? 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - They were not obsolete when they were purchased. They have become obsolete. 4477 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - Muzzle-loaders were obsolete thirty years ago. 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - But what do we find in the eastern States ? We find that provision is made for 56,691 men in all, 28,000 of whom are in Victoria, and can be moved about by rail from one State to another. Honorable senators are agreeable to make adequate provision for the defence of their own States, but when it comes to the defence of Western Australia, the matter is of no importance. 4477 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - Does the honorable senator think that is done designedly ? 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - I do not 'suppose that it has been done deliberately, but it seems to have been a matter of complete indifference to Ministers of Defence that Western Australia ought to be defended. That I do say without fear of contradiction, and the proof of it is seen in the remarkable disparity between the provision made for Western Australia and for the eastern States. 4477 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Has the honorable senator worked out the provision in proportion to the population? 4477 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - What has population got to do with . the necessity for defence? It is locality that matters. It is the wealth that can be taken out of the country. It is the danger to the whole of Australia if Western Australia were seized and held by a foe. What have those considerations got to do with the relative number of men in the various States? I suppose Senator Drake would say that, as there were so many hundreds of people in one . State, and so many hundreds of thousands in another, therefore, there ought' to be ten men and a captain in Western Australia, and tens of thousands in other States. The Commonwealth has not contracted to defend the States in proportion to population. The contract is to defend the States regardless of population. Honorable senators will find the provision in section 119 of the Constitution. 4478 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - It does not use the words " regardless of population." 4478 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - Would Senator Sir Josiah Symon maintain that defence, is to pay regard to population? The section to which I allude says - The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion. I quote that to emphasize the fact that Major-General Hutton says that it is impossible, under existing conditions, to defend Western Australia. And that is all the attention that the Commonwealth pays to our necessities in the West ! The very scheme of defence that has been outlined, shows the absurdity of the whole business. When I came to .look into this question, I found the following facts : - That our mounted infantry in Western Australia is brigaded for defence purposes with the mounted infantry of South Australia. That is to say, in time of war, they would be under one brigade staff. As a matter of fact, at the present moment, our infantry in Western Australia is brigaded with the infantry of Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania. To have an effective field force under a mobilization scheme, you would have to bring all these regiments together under one commanding staff. I should like to ask how that is likely to be done effectually. That is another question that the Council of Defence would have to go into. The very basis of the Defence Forces of the Commonwealth would, have to be reconsidered. The constitution of our defences is, as a matter of fact, based upon the idea of a force leaving Australia. It is based upon an offensive, not upon a defensive scheme. It is only under an offensive idea that the scheme becomes at all practicable, and then I question whether it could be carried out in an efficient way. 4478 JTV ALP 0 0 DAWSON, Anderson Senator DAWSON - The proposal is that each State Commandant shall have representation on the Council of Defence. 4478 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator MATHESON - It would be a difficult thing to have the States ' Commandants as members of the Council; though their advice should be asked for if necessary. I should like to read what Major-General Hutton had to say about organization, because then the Senate may judge how far he has been successful in carrying out his own schemes. In his report, dated the is£ of May, 1903, Major-General Hutton says - The organization provides for the adequate local defence' of the various States, and also for a sufficient field force for active operations in defence of the whole Commonwealth. The conditions governing the defence of Australia are thus satisfactorily dealt with so far as organization is concerned. . . . The invasion of Australia for purposes of territorial aggression is under certain possible circumstances a military undertaking of no serious difficulty, but it could, and would only be, undertaken by a large force of the most highly-trained and best equipped troops, which an enemy or combination of enemies could place in the field. Military operations against such a foe could only be successfully carried out by troops well organized, ably led, and thoroughly equipped. Under the circumstances that I have shown in connexion with the defences of Western Australia, can it be, for one instant, held by any reasonable man that the organization provides for the adequate local defence of that State ? The conclusion is inevitable, that there must be some body, apart from political parties, to deal with defence matters - some body responsible and reporting to Parliament direct. In no other way shall we ever get any efficient defence organization. There is a great deal more that I should like to say, but I observe that it is now after mid-day, and I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. I hope that what I have said is sufficient to convince honorable senators that unless the Government are prepared to constitute a proper Council of Defence some steps should be taken to force their hands. 4478 JZ9 Tasmania 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - One of the matters mentioned in the statement of the Government policy unfolded to us by the Attorney-General the other day is of particular importance to representatives of other States beyond those of Western Australia and South Australia. We .have heard a good deal about the proposed Transcontinental Railway, but until I know more as to the practicability of the scheme - of the total cost, and as to the possibility or probability of the railway paying working expenses, if not the interest on cost of construction - I shall certainly not. feel justified in voting for even an expenditure of ^20,000 for the proposed survey. 4478 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - That was part of the policy of the> late Government, and surely the honorable senator is not going to repudiate that policy now? 4478 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I did not say1 that I was in favour of the proposal when the late Government were in power. I was a supporter of the late Government in, I suppose, practically all their policy ; and it does not lie well in the mouth of the Attorney-General to suggest inconsistency on my part, seeing that he himself does not swallow everything which the present Government proposes. 4479 JYX 0 0 FINDLEY, Edward Senator Findley - And, at any rate, Senator O'Keefe's remarks show that the Labour Party are not a bound party. 4479 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is so. My position shows the hollowness of the charge that the Labour Party are a bound party. 4479 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - All they are bound to, is what they are bound to. 4479 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is so; and the terms of the bond are publicly stated, so that they may be known by all. This scheme for a Transcontinental Railway is of prime importance to the smaller States. I hope I am as true a federalist as any man in this or the other chamber, but in a matter involving immense expenditure, it is' the duty of representatives of the smaller States to see that the interests of those States are properly conserved. Tasmania staggers under a national debt, not so large as that, of other States, but still large enough, and most of it has been incurred in connexion with the building of railways. Then, again, half the annual revenue of Tasmania is required to pay the interest on that national debt, and it seems rather unfair to the taxpayers of the small States, that they should be called upon to contribute towards the cost of a railway, the most direct benefits of which will go to Western Australia and South Australia. I do not say for a moment that this great railway will not prove of . considerable convenience to all the States in providing quicker- transit for mails and passengers; but no one can deny . that the two States I have mentioned, will benefit more than any of the other States of the Commonwealth. I think we are quite justified in looking at the project from this point of view, without laying ourselves open to the charge of being anti-Federalists. I now understand from the speech of Senator Matheson, and from interjections by Senator Pearce, and other Western Australian representatives, that the Government of that State have made a magnanimous offer. I knew that some offer had been made, but I thought that all it amounted to was that the Western Australian Government would make up any loss in interest on the cost of construction, or take' a fair share of any loss, as divided . between that State and South Australia. However. I am glad to hear from Senator Matheson that the offer made by the late Premier of Western Australia is that all loss as between the earnings of the line and the working expenses, plus interest on the cost of construction, will be guaranteed by Western Australia for some period of years. If that be the case,- no representative of any State need have much objection to supporting an expenditure of £20,000 for a survey. 4479 KSQ 0 0 MATHESON, Alexander Senator Matheson - What I said was that that is the offer, so far as I knew. 4479 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The only offer is that of Western Australia to indemnify South Australia for any loss. 4479 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - But where would the other States " come in " ? 4479 KNB 0 0 GUTHRIE, Robert Senator Guthrie - The other States would pay* 4479 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - We require some more information before we agree to the proposal for a survey of this line, and it has been suggested by Senator Pearce that we shall also have some details as to the water supply along the route. If the expenditure of £20,000 is undertaken for a survey, I presume that the construction of the line will follow. If the two States which are most directly concerned, and which will benefit most from the construction of the line, were willing to give to the taxpayers of other States some guarantee to make up even a portion of the loss, the representatives of those other States might be willing to come to some arrangement. Failing this guarantee, however, States with big public debts ought not to be asked to assist in building a railway to connect Western Australia and South Australia; and that is- a view which I think cannot be regarded as anti-Federal. We have heard a great deal as to the reasons why the late Government were turned out of office. I do not wish to go into matters which might involve personalities, but I am justified in asking the reason for the delay there has been in Federal legislation for the last five, or six months. Why is it that, although Parliament has been in session for six months, we have done so little business? I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, the whole of the blame - must be laid at the door of Mr. Deakin. I admire that gentleman, not only for his charming personality, but his splendid abilities. I also admired Mr. Deakin for his statesmanship, but that admiration has ceased after1 .what has recently occurred. Mr. Deakin likened the political position to three elevens in the cricket field, but I think his simile most unfortunate. In the first place, it is impossible for three elevens to play together, and, in the second place, it is Mr. Deakin who has made legislation impossible during the last few months. What was the object of Mr. Deakin in taking the course he did, and how was his object achieved? His desire was to evolve two parties out of the three parties in Parliament ; but surely Mr. Deakin was aware that for all practical purposes there were then only two parties in Parliament. He had known for three years that what was known as the third party had supported him and worked with him in the interests of the whole of Australia. What Mr. Deakin has succeeded in doing is to evolve four parties out of the three. It may be admitted that two of the parties sit on one side, and the other two on the other side, but each is a distinct party. Mr. Deakin has not been able to merge his protectionist followers in the free-traders ; and the Labour Party, on the other hand, are certainly not merging their individuality in that of the Liberal or Radical Protectionists' wing. We have, however, formed an honorable working alliance, as the other two parties have done, for a term. On the part of Mr. Deakin there was a dream - or perhaps it had better be called, a nightmare - as to the impossibility of carrying on constitutional government with three parties in the House of Representatives. He regarded the position as intolerable. 4480 K1U 0 0 PULSFORD, Edward Senator Pulsford - So it was. 4480 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Is the position not as intolerable to-day, when there are four parties ? As politicians, we must come down from the clouds to which Mr. Deakin has soared, and admit that for all practical purposes there were only two parties - that is, that the Labour Party and the Deakin Government were for all practical purposes one party. The alliance might not nave been reduced to writing, but it was tacitly acknowledged by the people of Australia in the interests of progressive legislation. On the other hand, about one-third of the Parliament, representing, possibly,, not one-third of the people of Australia, were banded together under Mr. Reid to stop progressive legislation. 4480 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - It was the Labour Party which put out the Deakin Government. 4480 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Senator Drake knows very well that it was not the Labour Party which put out the Deakin Government. Had it not been for the most treacherous political act we have seen in the Federal Parliament - the act of the men behind Mr. Reid - the Government would not have gone out. 4480 K1U 0 0 PULSFORD, Edward Senator Pulsford - What treacherous act? 4480 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I do not see why a representative of New South Wales should ask that question. Some of the honorable senator's colleagues in another place stood on the floor of the House and shamelessly announced to the country that they were going to break the pledges they had given to the electors, their only reason being that Mr. Deakin considered vital a certain clause in the Arbitration Bill. 4480 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - What Mr. Deakin said was- that he would not consent to an amendment. 4480 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - But for this political treachery, would the Government have been turned out ? Did not Mr. Reid stand on the floor of the House and -say that he agreed with Mr. Deakin that the inclusion of State servants under the Bill was unconstitutional and an infringement of States' rights? The present Prime Minister on that occasion turned his portly form round and said, " I am not going to cast black looks at any of my followers if they think otherwise." A number of them thought as Mr. Reid did, but they voted differently, announcing that they would break their pledges in order to displace Mr. Deakin, and make Mr. Reid Prime Minister. It is with politicians of that class that he finds himself associated to-day, and no one is more sorry for the fact than I am. At the last general election the people deliberately returned three parties. What mandate did Mr. Deakin then get from the people of Australia to come into this Parliament only a few months later, and cause all this hubbub, which is almost certain to lead to another general election within a very short time, and at a cost of ^60,000 to the taxpayers? 4480 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Then we shall get two parties. 4480 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - We may not get two parties then. What mandate, I repeat, had Mr. Deakin to cause the loss of all this time, and the expenditure of all this money, when the electors had deliberately sent in three parties, knowing when they did so that for all practical purposes two of them were working together as one? When Senator McGregor was speaking yesterday about Mr. Deakin's action, Senator Drake interjected that the Labour Party had not said so and so prior to the late general election. 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - I thought he was attacking Mr. Deakin. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Whom have the late leader of Senator Drake and the protectionists in the present Coalition Government to thank for having put their Tariff on the statute-book? Have they to thank their present allies or their present opponents? The members of the Labour Party are twitted with being divided on the1 fiscal question. We do not make fiscalism the be-all ' and end-all of our politics, or the first plank in our platform. We put social legislation above fiscalism. I as a protectionist am very glad to be able to say that it was the protectionist members of the Labour Party who made it possible for us io have a protectionist Tariff. Will Senator Drake deny that? 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Certainly not. It was not treated by them as a party question. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - What happened when the Barton Government sent up their Tariff, to the Senate which was almost evenly divided on the fiscal question ? In their hour of trouble, when they wanted every vote which they could fairly look upon as their own, they found that Senator Fraser from Victoria, and Senator Dobson from Tasmania, who had been returned to support t'heir policy, were going over to the other side on almost every division. . It was the presence of six protectionists in the Labour Party of eight senators, which made it possible for the Barton Government to get their Tariff through the Senate. Senator de Largie and I took a big political risk in voting for the Tariff, but we believed in protection, although it had not been made the first plank in our platform. The Bar-, ton Government were deserted not by the members of the Labour Party, but by two honorable senators who had been returned to support the whole of their policy. Yet the Deakin Party deserted the Labour Party and embraced the gentlemen who had bitterly fought them on every measure of progressive politics. 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - The honorable senator says that we deserted the Labour Party because we would not accept an amendment which they moved in our Bill. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The Deakin Party deserted a party which was al ways admitted to be their natural allies, not because they would not accept an amendment in that Bill, but because after that amendment was out of the way, an agreement or understanding between the two parties was broken by Mr. Deakin. 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - I thought that we we're beaten on that amendment. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is so; but what did Mr. Deakin do after he had asked the Labour Party to form an honorable alliance with' his party? Before his natural allies could consider his offer he asked the other party to join his party. 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - He said openly that he would receive proposals from either party. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Does the honorable and learned senator deny that before Mr. Deakin had received a reply from his natural allies he consented to a programme for a projected coalition, and put- his name to it? At the time when he signed that programme he knew perfectly well that the Labour Party had not had time to meet and to consider whether they should -form the working alliance which he had proposed. 4481 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Not time to consider the proposal ! I forget how long they had ; but I know that it was a long time. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I do not forget how long it was. Before Mr. Deakin went out of office, towards the end of April, he came to an honorable understanding with Mr. Watson that they both had to pursue their policy up to the breaking point, even if it involved his resignation, and keep their pledges to the electors quite irrespective of what some of the Reidites intended to do. But said Mr. Deakin, " After this clause is out of the way, then will be the time for this natural alliance to commence." Well, towards the end of April, Mr. Watson was sent for and formed his Government, and when he asked for an adjournment to the 1 8th of May, Mr. Deakin made a speech, in which he talked about giving the Government fair play. But what happened ? Mr.. Deakin knew perfectly well that the third party, with which he was willing to ally himself- 4481 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - On certain conditions, of course. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - What were his conditions ? 4481 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - That they would waive certain things. 4481 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I beg the honorable senator's pardon, Mr. Deakin did not say anything about that at that titre. He said he was willing to consult with either party as to the possibility of forming an alliance, and he added that the working alliance could only commence after a certain event had occurred - that is after a vital clause in the Bill had been considered. He knew very well that it was quite impossible for the members of our party to meet until the 17th or 18th of May. And yet in the face of that fact he took the leader of the other party into a small cottage in Richmond, and allowed himself to be drawn into a coalition of another kind. I blame Mr. Deakin not for having coalesced with the Reid party, but for having broken his understanding with the leader of the men whom he had described as his natura allies. 4482 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Was not the condition that there should be one party? 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The only condition was that the two parties should meet and try/ to come to some honorable working alliance. 4482 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - As one party. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It does not matter whether it was to be as one party or not. But supposing that condition was made, no one can deny that Mr. Deakin knew that his proposal could not be considered .by the Labour Party until the 17th of May. Ten days before that date, however, he had drawn up and signed a programme for a coalition with another party. That was not fair political dealing. 4482 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - He had not done anything of the kind. He had consented to submit certain conditions which had been agreed upon by two of them, to their respective parties. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I accept the correction, although I do not see that it makes very much difference. My complaint against Mr. Deakin is that many days before it was possible for his proposal to be considered by his natural allies he drew up a programme for a coalition with Mr. Reid to submit to his1 own party. 4482 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - And he could not have refused to do it. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Does the honorable and learned senator say that Mr. Deakin did not try his hardest to get his party to accept the programme for the coalition ? 4482 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - Yes. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Well, if he did not make the trial then he did a few days afterwards. 4482 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator Keating - He left it absolutely to his party to act. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Where does Mr. Deakin find himself to-day ? 4482 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - His object was to get rid of the three parties. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - One result of his action has been that he has got a fourth party. A second result will be a loss of ^60,000 to the Commonwealth, the cost of a general election, and a third result will be a delay of five- or six months in passing useful legislation. I ask Senator Keating to consider whether even on fiscal grounds Mr. Deakin could not ally his party more naturally with the party which helped him to get his Tariff put through the Senate, after Senator Fraser, who was returned as a supporter, deserted him. 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator FRASER - I did not. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - On a number of the most vital items in the Tariff the honorable senator broke his political pledges. 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - Give me an instance of it? 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The struggle over the Tariff' was marked by many such instances. I cannot pick out a particular case at random. But I' remember reading in! la newspaper that the honorable senator attended a meeting of free-traders, and said that he was against the Barton Government. 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I attended a meeting in opposition to the then Government, but not as a free-trader. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The- honorable senator . came here as a supporter of the Barton Government, and I presume of all their policy. 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I did not. I was opposed all along to the construction of the Transcontinental Railway, and to other proposals as well. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I understood, from the Age, that the honorable senator was a strong supporter of the Barton Government. At any rate, it had a good deal to do with putting him into the Senate. 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - So ,had the Argus, and so had my personal canvass. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Did the Argus claim the honorable senator as a free-trader ? 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - No, it could not. 4482 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Did the honorable senator say he was a free-trader? 4482 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I did not. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Did the honorable senator promise to give a general support to the Barton Government? 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - To their policy as announced at that time. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Now we are getting down to the truth. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - They did not announce rabid protection. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - What nonsense the honorable senator talks. They announced a policy of revenue without destruction. They announced that no existing industries should be destroyed. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - And I did not give one vote to destroy an existing industry. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The honorable senator came in as a supporter of the Barton Government, and I suppose of their general policy, but when they were in difficulties here he deserted them. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I did not come in as a caucus man, but as a free independent representative. 4483 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - That is a lie. 4483 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order ! The honorable senator must withdraw that remark. 4483 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - I shall not withdraw the remark, because you, sir, allowed Senator Millen yesterday to say something of that kind to Senator Henderson. 4483 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Senator Millendid not say exactly the same thing. I think that the honorable senator should not use such language as that here. I admit that Senator Fraser had no right to interject. He was being attacked, and, of course, it was very difficult for him to refrain from making an explanation, but I think that Senator McGregor ought to withdraw the remark he used. 4483 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - I made the remark with the express purpose of getting a ruling from you, sir, different from that which you gave yesterday. 4483 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Perhaps the ruling which I gave yesterday was not a well considered one. I do not think that the use of language such as the honorable senator has given utterance to ought to be permitted in the Senate. 4483 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - Nor do I. 4483 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT -I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the remark. 4483 KTF 0 0 MCGREGOR, Gregor Senator McGregor - I withdraw the remark because I know that it is right that it should be withdrawn, and I hope that whenever another honorable senator contravenes the rules in the same way, he will be called to order by the Chair. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - We are merely talking politically now, and I am not making any personal attack upon any honorable senator. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - Then what is the honorable senator doing? 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am justifying the attitude of my party, and am trying to show that the present alliance is not a natural alliance. As for the honorable senator who interjects, I will say that he did not give the Barton Government anything like the assistance which they were entitled to expect from him when the Tariff was being passed. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I do not object to that statement in the least, but I am entitled to hold my. own view. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - And the public of Australia are entitled to hold their view. That view has been pretty generally voiced since the honorable senator turned from being a protectionist to a free-trader, and announced himself as a straight-out supporter of Mr. Reid. But I am inclined to think that it was not so much a matter of free-trade and protection with him. What displeased him was that the Barton Government brought before Parliament legislation which he thought was introduced too soon. I refer specially to the legislation dealing with the kanakas. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - That was only a very small matter. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It seemed to be a large matter in Senator Fraser's estimation. He did not approve of the radical policy of the Barton Government, especially their White Australia policy. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I did, and do now. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Senator Fraserwould put the kanakas back in Queensland to-morrow, if he could. 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I would allow the State to deal with the matter. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Is it not a fact that Senator Fraser would repeal the Pacific Island Labourers Act, if he could ? 4483 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I would allow the kanaka question to remain as it was for a few years and test the matter. 4483 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am entitled to believe, from the honorable senator's actions, that it was because he did not like the White Australia policy of the Barton Government, that he became an out-and-out free-trader. 4484 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - There were other matters of far more importance that I objected to. 4484 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I had the honour to be on the platform at Ballarat when Mr. Deakin delivered his Ministerial pronouncement to the country, and when he justified the action of his Government for the past three years. It had never been my pleasure, and I suppose it never will be my pleasure again, to hear a finer speech from an oratorical point of view. I was charmed in listening to Mr. Deakin for two hours, while he delivered that speech on' the 29th October last. But let me quote a passage from it. Mr. Deakin said - Free-traders have hitherto resented the appellation of " foreign traders." Their affection for the mother country has disappeared. They are also creatures of inconsistency. They favour treaties containing the most favoured nation provisions, but we must not make most favoured nation provisions with our own flesh and blood. They believe in reciprocity, provided it is not with citizens who live under the same flag. For the sake of foreign traders they are prepared to sacrifice all. Is it national trade or foreign trade? "National trade," says the Ministry - " Foreign trade," says the Opposition. But since then Mr. Deakin has allied himself with the Coalition Ministry. He has refused to join it, but nevertheless 'he supports it. He puts himself in the position of the poor old gentleman who, hearing a burglar down stairs at night, went down with his wife, pushing her in front of him, and saying "You go first" - staying behind himself. While pushing Sir George Turner and Mr. McLean into the Coalition Ministry, Mr. Deakin says 'he has not sufficient faith in it to enter it himself. 4484 K1U 0 0 PULSFORD, Edward Senator Pulsford - He never said that. 4484 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is what his actions say ; and actions speak louder than words. 4484 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Why misrepresent things like that ? The honorable senator can draw any inference he likes, but he ought not to attribute language to Mr. Deakin. 4484 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - If that does not represent Mr. Deakin's attitude, I am in a quandary. 4484 JVC 0 0 DOBSON, Henry Senator Dobson - He stated distinctly what 'he meant - that he did not want to be in the position of opposing his late colleagues or his late partv. 4484 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Where is he now? Has he not said repeatedly that he is going to give a loyal support to Mr. Reid, who is being opposed by a section of Mr. Deakin's late party? He is sitting in opposition to more men who supported him for the last three and a half years than can be found on his own side of the House. Without dealing at any great length' with the reasons given for removing the late Government from office, I wish briefly to mention that, in my opinion, in the first place, the whole of the trouble sprang out of the resignation of Mr. Deakin over a detail in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I take the view that, in that case, the then Prime Minister was absolutely wrong in making that detail vital to the life of his Government. It was not properly in accordance with the meaning of constitutional government, that a cabinet should go out of office on such a detail of a Bill. Of course, we are aware that there was a great difference of opinion on the point, and that, unfortunately, Mr. Deakin had practically pledged himself to resist the inclusion of State or railway servants. We are aware that the Labour Party went to the country and made the inclusion of those servants a point in its programme. We are also aware of the political treachery which marked the conduct of some of Mr. Reid's supporters in' the House of Representatives. When Mr. Deakin decided to make the issue vital, he was the judge of his own actions, but the country and Parliament thought he was wrong. Now we come to a rather interesting stage of the question. When the Watson Government, in consequence of the advice which' Mr. Deakin gave to the Governor-General, came into power, they took up the Arbitration Bill at the stage at which it had been dropped, What happened ? We find that Mr. Deakin and, unfortunately, several of his late, colleagues, voted repeatedly against important provisions in that Bill. Certainly Mr. Deakin himself supported the Watson Government to a certain extent. But it is worth while remembering that Sir Philip Fysh, Mr. Chapman, Sir John Forrest, and Sir George Turner by way of a pair - making four out of a Cabinet of eight - voted for almost every amendment proposed by the Opposition, which included a large number of those who were absolutely opposed to an Arbitration Bill in any form. In view of these facts, what about the cry of minority rule? That cry which has . been raised against the Labour Party may very well be applied to those members of the Deakin Government. "We can only infer, as four members of that Government voted against clause after clause of the Bill, that when that Bill was being considered in Cabinet there was strong opposition to its provisions, and that it was only by a minority vote that it was allowed to be introduced. 4485 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - A minority ? 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes. I hope that for the enlightenment of the people of this country upon this Bill - which has wrecked two Governments and is going to wreck a third very shortly - and for the credit of himself and his late colleagues, . Senator Drake will not sit silent during the debate, but will inform the Senate what really took place in connexion with the Arbitration Bill. 4485 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Does the honorable senator mean -what took place in Cabinet ? 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No; but I hope that Senator Drake will enlighten us about the conduct of four out of eight members of the Deakin Government, who, when the Bill was in charge of a succeeding Government, voted against clause after clause of it. Four out of eight members of the Deakin Government have shown . themselves to be opposed to nearly every clause of the Bill, showing that they were opposed to that measure when it was being considered by their own Government, and that it was not the product of a majority of the Cabinet. If that be not the explanation, then those four members were wreckers, and immediately turned a somersault and voted against their own convictions. Either they voted in Cabinet against their convictions in allowing the Bill to be introduced, or, when they were out of power and another Government took up the Bill, they voted against their convictions when they opposed all its principal clauses. 4485 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - There is always a difference of opinion in regard to details in connexion with every important measure. 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - But how many members of the Deakin Cabinet were in favour of the Arbitration Bill from the beginning? Apparently not a majority. 4485 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The honorable senator's party have already declared that they are going to wreck the Bill if they cannot have their own way. 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I leave the question with this further remark: that, with reference to the question of preference to unionists a great deal has been heard, and much more will be heard when the measure comes before the Senate. I feel sure that there is a majority of members of the Sen ate who are genuinely in favour of arbitration, and that there is a sufficient majority in favour of preference. Without preference to unionists, the Bill is absolutely useless. Without it Mr. Deakin, when asked for bread in the shape of industrial peace, gave us a stone in the shape of industrial strife, which is bound to occur if Mr. McCay's amendment remains in the Bill. It is only fair that members of the Labour Party should be allowed to say one or two words in reply to the old charge of Socialism which is hurled against us. Have honorable senators read the words which were uttered by the present Prime Minister only last week, when addressing a gathering of farmers in Melbourne? The quotation was used last night in another place, but it is worth repeating, because it cannot be too widely known what are the real views of the head of the present Government, who is constantly railing against the Labour Party, who, he says, are Socialists. Mr. Reid, on the occasion referred to, said - I, believe it is a true ideal of politics to use the national power in every conceivable way to advance the happiness of the community. What greater evidence of Socialism has any member of the Labour Party ever given? 4485 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - That is the sort of Socialist the honorable senator ought to be. 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is the sort of Socialist I am, and the sort of Socialist which every member of the Labour Party is. I do not object to be called a Socialist ; but I claim the right to say what particular brand of Socialist [ shall be called. 1 belong to that brand of Socialism which would nationalize or municipalize any public service, as soon as that service, in the hands of a private individual or syndicate, becomes a menace to the welfare of the community. 4485 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Are fixed deposits in banks a menace to the community ? 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Certainly not. 4485 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - But the Labour Party proposed to get hold of those deposits. 4485 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The honorable senator is just as much a Socialist as I am, because I am sure he would not now approve of handing over our railways, our posts and telegraphs, our hospitals, our water supply to the control of private individuals or syndicates. One of the most striking instances of successful municipal ownership is found in the city qf Launceston, from which the honorable and learned senator comes. At the very front door of that city is provided a magnificent water power, which is, and has been for some time, utilized by the local authority to generate electricity for lighting the streets and the houses of the citizens. Would Senator Clemons be pleased if that water power had, some years ago, been placed under the control of a private syndicate, which was then seeking to acquire it by Act of Parliament ? 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - I may say that I am not full of admiration for State-owned railways, if I may judge of these by the measure of their success. SenatorO'KEEFE. - Would the honorable and learned senator prefer to see that lighting service owned municipally or owned by a private syndicate? 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - As the service is being run at present, it is very well. 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It is one of the most successful instances of Socialism we have in Australia. The honorable and learned senator is a keen opponent of Socialism, who loses no opportunity of criticising the Labour Party in very strong terms; but I think that in his heart he feels glad that his own city was wise enough to municipalize this service. 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - So long as it is well managed, I shall not quarrel with it. 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is all we ask. 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - The honorable senator asks a great deal more. 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - We propose to convert onh' such services as are used by the community, and are likely to become a menace or an inconvenience to people while in private hands; That is the sort of Socialist that Senator Clemons is, and all his sophistry, argument, and eloquence cannot relieve him from his admission that the people of Launceston have done a good thing. 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - I have not admitted that far. I admit that at the present time the service seems to be well managed, and, therefore, I approve of it: 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Can the honorable senator show me a member of the Labour Party who says that such services should be other than well managed ? Honorable senators can bring evidence in favour of Socialism or in favour of anti-Socialism, just as they think best suits their case. 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - That is what the honorable senator is doing. 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I have given a good instance of successful Socialism, and am glad to have converted Senator Clemons. 4486 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons -I am afraid the honorable senator has not quite succeeded in converting me. 4486 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - In two years' time, possibly, when Senator Clemons and I face the electors on separate platforms, I shall be able to point to the fact that I have converted him in some respects. I do not think that I need take up the time of the House by asking any anti-Socialists whether they are in ' favour of such services as I have indicated being municipally or locally owned. It is the most empty and arrant humbug that we hear about the Socialism of the Labour Party ruining Australia. There is a kind of Socialism which appeals to some of the supporters behind the Prime Minister, namely, the Socialism of which Mr. Walpole, the paid agitator of the Employers' Federation, is the advocate. The other day Mr. Walpole said -that this Employers' Federation had by its action rendered the Factories Act harmless, and had justified the existence of the organization. We are, therefore, justified in regarding Mr. Walpole, the representative of that federation, as one who believes that the evils and conditions which existed prior to the introduction of the Factories Acts in this and other States should be allowed to continue - conditions which prevailed at the time when Tom Hood wrote his memorable Song of the Shirt. Is that the kind of anti- Socialism of which the Attorney-General or his leader approve? It is the kind of anti-Socialism which a number of the supporters of the Government in another place approve. Let us see what a leading Melbourne paper says, for instance, in reference to the wages of dressmakers, in "the following paragraph, which is published under the headings," Wages of Dressmakers, "Employers Dismiss Hands": - It appears that, as a result of the determination of the Wages Board in the dressmakers' trade having come into force, a number of employes in some of the leading establishments have been dismissed. The scale' fixed by the board will appear to most people to be at least not a high one - many will think it exceedingly low - yet the employers and. the trade consider it too high as a basis for the remuneration of their work people. Let us see what the -remuneration is - The scale provides a wage of 2s. 6d. per week for the first year, 4s. 6d. for the second year, 7s. 6d. for the third year,11s. for the fourth year, 14s. 6d. for the fifth year, and thereafter the minimum is 16s. After a poor unfortunate girl has worked for five years she is allowed enough to enable her to keep herself from starvation, and cover herself with scanty rags, but not enough to enable her to keep herself in a decent state. That is the kind of- anti-Socialism which is being advocated by the Walpoles and the Dobsons of the community. 4487 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - That is not true. 4487 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order ! 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It is absolutely true. Is it the kind of anti-Socialism to which Senator Fraser subscribes f 4487 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - No. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am glad to hear that, but he cannot deny/ that it is the kind of anti-Socialism which Mr. Walpole, and the organization he represents, advocate. The Employers' Federation, would like to abolish Factory Acts, Arbitration Acts, and all similar legislation. Will the Attorney-General, out of the plenitude of his knowledge and experience, tell mie how by any possibility sweating can be prevented without such legislation? Senator- Fraser.- It was the Upper House which passed the Factories Act. 4487 K0F 0 0 PEARCE, George Senator Pearce - It was the Upper House which abolished the Factories Act, and reinstated it under public pressure. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - One alleged reason for which the late Government was kicked out of office, without any charge against their administration, was that they represented minority rule. Here we are face to face with an interesting situation. Mr. Deakin said that the chief reason for the action taken was to bring about majority rule - a return to constitutional government. I apprehend that Mr. Deakin has achieved his desire in so far as there is a Government in power with a small majority. 4487 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - That is a commencement. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Does Senator Drake say that they have majority rule now? 4487 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Yes. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Then I ask Senator Drake arid his colleagues whether the Government are going to carry out their ideal. Are they going to alter the Arbitration Bill in accordance with their view, and strike out the provision including railway servants? 4487 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - What has that to do with the question? 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That was the rock which wrecked the Government. 4487 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Discuss something that is relevant. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - My remarks are too relevant for the honorable and learned senator. If Mr. Reid and his present colleagues believed three months ago that it is wrong to include States servants- 4487 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The Labour Party abandoned the State servants. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The Deakin Government went out of office, and dropped the Bill because States servants were included, and because there w-as not majority rule - because the position was "intolerable." Now that they have majority rule, are the present Government going to strike out the clause including railway servants? 4487 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The Labour Party were not "game" to take up the clause, but ignominiously abandoned it. 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The Labour Party followed the wording of the Constitution, and would have, been satisfied if that course had been followed by the Deakin Party. 4487 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Did the Labour Party not abandon the States servants ? 4487 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No; and the honorable and learned member knows that the Labour Party did not do so. All that the Labour Party did was to alter the phrasing of the clause - to first provide for railway servants, and then for all States servants who are engaged in industrial occupation. Does not the word " industrial ' ' occur in the Constitution, and is it not the correct word to use? Mr. Reid told the Governor-General that he could get a majority with which to carry on the business of the country. Mr. Reid is going to do one of two things - he is either going to send up an Arbitration Bill, in which he does not believe, or he is going to suffer a defeat ; and I think I know what he will do rather than meet the latter. I do not believe the present Government is " game " to put the question to the test in order to ascertain whether they have majority rule, after all their trouble. Another reason urged against the Labour Government was that the members of the party are professional politicians. If our experience in Australia, during the last three years of the professional and amateur politician is to be taken as a criterion - if we have to contrast the attendance and the work done by those politicians in both Houses - then it seems ' to me that the professional politician is the better servant for the people. Who are the loudest in the denunciation of professional politicians? Mr. Bruce Smith, Mr. Norman Cameron, and one or two others in another place, who have the worst record for attendance. They draw their monthly cheque for only a few days' work. There are some honorable senators who have spoken here against the professional politician; but they are gentlemen who attend only occasionally, perhaps a day now and again, or for an hour or two in a day, when something of importance to them or to their friends is before the Senate. Week after week, and month after month, during the last three and a half years, the amateur politician has refused to sit here continuously doing the work of the country, although he was re- turned to do that work, but he has had no scruples about drawing '.£33 6s. 8d. per month as payment for doing it. But let us get away from the personal point of view, and look at the matter from a broader basis. Would any business man intrust the management of a large Department to an amateur? Would he not rather pick out a professional, a man who was competent to take charge because of his training, his special knowledge, his attention to affairs, and his diligence? . Surely if that principle holds good in the management of private businesses, it should hold good in the management of the affairs of the country. The cry about professional politicians injuring the country is an empty one. One of the reasons why it is alleged that the existence of the Labour Party is inimical to the interests of Australia is that it is driving capital from the country. Senator Fraser has said that on more than one occasion. 4488 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - And it is destroying capital in the country, too. It is doing two bad things. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Let us examine the statement by means of statistics. I find that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company last half -year . paid a dividend of 10 per cent., and the Colonial Bank of Australia a dividend of 5 per cent. The London Bank of Australia has this year paid a dividend of2¼ per cent., its first dividend since 'the great bank smashes of 1892. Twenty Australian banks are now on the dividend list, and are doing better to-day than during any other period since the bank failures. 4488 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - The honorable senator knows very little about banking. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I have taken my figures, not from the 'Worker, or any other labour organ, but from the Sydney Daily Telegraph, a newspaper which has never had much to say in favour of the Labour Party. During the March quarter the New South Wales banks increased their deposits on current accounts by £950,000, and their coin and bullion by £675,000, while there was a reduction in advances of . £850,000. Yet this was done during a period in which there were labour parties in existence in all the States of Australia, with the exception of Tasmania. 4488 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Does the honorable senator regard a reduction in advances as a sign of prosperity? 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - It is certainly not a sign of depression that people can afford to reduce the advances made to them by the banks. 4488 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - It is the other way about. The banks are reducing their advances. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - A reduction of overdrafts does not mean depression. 4488 KMT 0 0 GRAY, John Senator Gray - Yes, it may. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Then, to be logical, the honorable member would assert that Australia would be in a prosperous condition if every business man had an overdraft. 4488 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - When advances are" reduced it is a sign that the employment for capital has decreased. 4488 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - The honorable senator's figures do not prove anything at all. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - They are figures compiled by Mr. Nash, a recognised financial authority, and financial editor of the Sydney Daily Telegraph. It would take a. great deal from this side of the Chamber to prove anything to Senator Fraser. 4488 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - Read what Mr. Nash wrote about Mr. Watson's proposed banking system. 4488 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am not discussing that matter now; but if the late Prime Minister had remained in office for a few months longer he would have converted Mr. Nash to his scheme, as he would have converted the people of Australia to it. To quote from another financial newspaper, the Financial Record, seven life assurance companies show a net expansion of business during last year of , £3,163,117. It will not be denied by any reasonable man that the expansion of life assurance business may be taken as evidence of increased prosperity. Then I find that Tooth and Co., a big Sydney brewery, made a net profit for last year of £61,942, and declared a dividend of 8 per cent. 4489 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Senator Pearce would not consider that a sign of prosperity. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Senator Pearce is a genuine teetotaller, and all honour to him for it. But even Senator Clemons will admit that the amount of money spent upon drink is generally regarded by financial experts as in some measure an index to the prosperity or depression of a community. If men have not money to spare, they cannot spend it on drink; -but when there is a good deal of surplus money some of it will be spent on drink. 4489 KMT 0 0 GRAY, John Senator Gray - The breweries have decreased in value by 15 per cent, during the last fifteen months. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is because there is too much competition ; but well-managed institutions, whose manufactures have a good name, have not declined. 4489 KMT 0 0 GRAY, John Senator Gray - The value of Tooth and Co.'s business, which is the best in Australia, has gone down 15 per cent. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Well, last year that business made a large profit, and declared a dividend of 8 per cent. Then the Australian Agricultural Company, which has large landed properties- 4489 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - And coal mines. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes. It made a profit of £60,000 in the half-year, and paid a dividend of 25s. a share. As the shareholders are absentees, I think that that company would be " fair game " for an absentee tax. 4489 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - The companies to which the honorable senator has referred are conducted by private enterprise; but what profits have Been made by the socialistically ' managed State railways? 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The State railways are not run primarily to make profits, but to open up the country, and to indirectly increase the revenue. But I ask the honorable senator to contrast the State owned railways with the privately owned railways in Tasmania. Let him, too, contrast the privately owned tramways in Melbourne with the State owned tramways in - Sydney. In Melbourne one is charged 3d. for riding merely from one street to another, unless" one buys a shilling's worth of tickets, in which case the charge is i£d. 7 r 4489 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Is that all one can do here for 3d. ? The charge for a five-mile ride is only as much. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - In Sydney a ride from one street corner to another costs only id., or one can go as. far for that coin as one can go here for 3d. Furthermore, one can get there what one does not often get on the Melbourne t tramways, and that is civility. 4489 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Does the honorable senator think that this has anything to do with the policy of the Government? 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am giving instances which, in my opinion, show that the charges of Socialism hurled at the late Administration are empty charges, and that State control is in certain instances preferable to private control. 4489 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - The only policy of the present Government is anti-Socialism. 4489 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes. If it were not for that policy, three .or four of those who are now sitting behind them would not be supporting them. I have here a few figures which must appeal to our friends the anti-Socialists, and they are gathered at random from statistics supplied in Coghlans book, which is the statistical bible common to us all. I find that in 1901 the deposits in banks, including savings banks and in building societies, where the information has been available, amounted' to £44,954,947 ; and in 1903 they had increased to £47,065,620. It will be admitted that that is a very considerable increase, and Coghlan explains that on these lines the increase in those three y'ears was larger than the increase in the previous ten years. I find further that in 1891 the. number of depositors in savings banks was 158,426, and the aggregate amount of money deposited by them was £5,342I35In 1903, thirteen years later, the number of depositors was 323,212, or more than double the number in 1891, whilst the amount deposited had increased to £12,425,464. It will be seen that the amount deposited was also doubled in the same period. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that during the last ten years the Labour Party had more power in the New South Wales Parliament than in any other State, but in spite of the figures I have quoted we are being continually told that the Labour Party is driving capital out of the country. 4490 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - And the figures quoted also cover years of drought, bank smashes, and all the rest of it. 4490 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - So much for the charge that the Labour Party are driving capital out of the country. If the party at present in power be so nearly allied to the Labour Party in matters of Socialism, as shown by the utterances of Mr. Reid, and if it cannot be proved that they have driven capital out of the country, and, further, if the present Administration are not going to establish the majority rule for which they have fought, and if they are not going to bring to an end minority rule - and I do not think they will try to do so on the question of the inclusion of State servants in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill - what difference is there between their policy and the policy of the Labour Party ? If there is no difference, I am entitled, on behalf of the people of Australia, who have to pay the piper, to ask what is the reason for the delay which has 'been caused by the change of Government, by the turning of one set of men off the Treasury bench, in order to allow another set of men to occupy their places to carry out the same policy ? 4490 JVC 0 0 DOBSON, Henry Senator Dobson - They turned themselves off. 4490 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - They went off, to the unutterable joy of the honorable and learned senator, and they went off on a matter of principle. It will be a good thing for parliamentary honour and dignity' if the right honorable leader, for whom the honorable and learned senator has such a great admiration, proves to be equally scrupulous, and will retire, if defeated, on a principle of a Bill. 4490 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - It will require a team of bullocks to drag the right honorable gentleman off. 4490 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Had the members of the present Ministry any charge to make against the administration of the late Government ? Again, the answer is " no." Only the other day the present Prime Minister admitted that the late Government had left everything in apple-pie order,, and the right honorable gentleman passed the highest encomiums on Mr. Watson for the manner in which he had grappled with the work of his Department, and on the fact that he had not only worked up arrears which had accumulated when he took office, but had left everything in apple-pie order. 4490 KMT 0 0 GRAY, John Senator Gray - Hear, hear. 4490 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - That is the general verdict of Australia. So much for Mr. Watson in his capacity as Prime Minister. In his capacity as Treasurer we have it on the authority of Mr. Reid and his colleagues that Mr. Watson, by the application of intense energy, left matters connected with that Department in perfect order for his successor. Then with respect to Mr. Hughes, is there any charge against the administration by that honorable gentleman of the Department of External Affairs? Who was it that exposed the swindle of the fraudulent Chinese certificates ? Who first burst up that practice which had probably been going on for some years in Australia, I do not say with the connivance of the Deakin and Barton Governments, but probably because there was not quite so much energy shown in the administration of the Department? Directly Mr. Hughes came into power he discovered the evil, or if he did not actually discover it he at all events grappled with it. In doing so he came into conflict with the State Premier of South Australia, and we know that some rather severe passages appeared in the press in connexion with the matter. Under the Constitution, where a State and a Commonwealth law come into conflict, the Commonwealth law must prevail. When the Premier of a State and the second in command in the late Commonwealth Ministry came into conflict the Commonwealth Minister prevailed ; the Premier of South Australia had to admit that 'he was wrong, and he had to take a back seat. These instances show the capacity exhibited by the late Minister, and no charge has been levelled against his administration of his Department. Then we come to the Defence Department. I do not know whether it is next in order of precedence, but that does not matter. 4490 KAH 0 0 WALKER, James Senator Walker - The Attorney-General. 4490 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The work of the Attorney-General is not patent to the public eye. I do not think that if we took a plebiscite of the people of Australia to-day, there would be a very large majority found voting to say that the late Minister of Defence made many mistakes in his Department. I believe that the majority of the people would say that he filled the bill very well, and possibly that he did better than any of his predecessors. The honorable senator was, at least, the first Minister in charge of that Department, who let one of the servants of the Commonwealth know that the Commonwealth is first, and that servants of the Commonwealth must obey. It was the late Minister of Defence who told the General Officer Commanding that he was not the ruler of the Defence Department of Australia, but was the servant of that Department. I could quote other instances to show that the late Minister of Defence was, at least, as well able to administer the Department as any of his predecessors, and I venture to say that he left it with the good will of the people of Australia, because no charge has been hurled against his administration. Then I come to deal with Mr. Mahon, as Postmaster-General. Has any other honorable gentleman who has occupied that high and responsible position, taken the same stand? Was it not Mr. Mahon who first put an end to all the frivolous nonsense in the Department whereby a subordinate officer, if he were a volunteer holding a higher rank than a man above him in the Department, could insist that his official superior should address him by his full military title? Who was it that put an end to all that nonsense, and declared that when volunteers came into the Department they came in to do the work of the Department for which they were paid, and had to leave behind them all the titles connected with their military calling. 4491 KLS 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas Senator Givens - All their military frill. 4491 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - When they come to do the work of the Post Office Department now they are not colonels, captains, or anything else, but have to answer to their proper names. Again, who was it who upheld the right of the employes of the Department to organize, so that their united voice might be heard by the highest authority, in a proper way ? It was Mr. Mahon. In that matter the honorable gentleman came into conflict with the Deputy Postmaster-General of Victoria, and I think that, in the opinion of the people of Australia, the late Postmaster-General got considerably the best of his deputy in the argument. Again, who was the first Postmaster-General to declare that, so far as he or the Public Service Commissioner could have it done, the public servants of his Department should not any longer continue to victimize their tradesmen. We know that a very great deal of opposition was offered to Mr. Mahon's proposal to make it a misdemeanour for the servants of his Department to be continually dunned by their creditors during office hours. In thus compelling [them to pay their just debts, the honorable gentleman did what was absolutely right in the interests of fair play to the tradesmen. Mr. Mahon is a member of a party who make it a vital plank of their platform to see that every man employed by the Government shall be paid a fair wage, which will enable him to pay his debts. If, after he has given a fair return, he is given a fair wage, so far as the Labour Party can do so, they are prepared to see that he shall pay his just debts. In that matter again Mr. Mahon showed that he had a grasp of the situation, and was well able to administer his Department. He probably administered it better than it had been administered before, and I may at least say that he administered it quite as well. No charge has been brought against his administration. I now come to the administration of the Home Affairs Department, by Mr. Batchelor. No sooner did the honorable gentleman take office than he started to grapple with its difficulties in a businesslike way. He attended his office day after day for more than the regulation eight hours, in the endeavour to evolve from the chaos produced by the Commonwealth Electoral Act some state of order for the next elections. It was only to be supposed that passing an electoral law as we passed it, without full knowledge of the circumstances operating all over Australia, it would contain a number of defects. Those defects were made apparent at the last election, and all we could be expected to do was to try to remedy them. Directly Mr. Batchelor assumed office he grappled with the difficulty in a. business-like way, with the result that the recommendations he has left on the subject are admitted by the present occupant of the office to be very valuable, and I think that they are certain to be adopted" by him. I have said sufficient on the subject, and it is generally admitted, even by our opponents, that no charge can be brought against any member of the late Government in connexion with his administration of the Department committed to his care. In the circumstances, I may well ask why so much indecent haste was shown to turn the members of that Government out of office? It was certainly not because they were discourteous, or because they had not shown themselves to be honorable and fair-minded men. I intended to quote the opinion which Mr. Reid expressed of the Labour Party during the time when he was " in the hollow of their hand." But, if any inquiring person will refer to the pages of Hansard, he will find that Mr. Reid has placed on record the statement that he always found the members of the Labour Party imbued with the strictest integrity, the greatest impartiality, and the finest courtesy, and that they were absolutely fair in every respect. lt is only fair to say this, and it is one of the things which stand to the credit of the Labour Party, that during the whole of my five years' connexion wilh Them in t -he Parliament of New South Wales they never endeavoured to intrigue themselves into office. That is what he said on one occasion when he was passing a most eulogistic commendation of their work as a party. 4492 K1U 0 0 PULSFORD, Edward Senator Pulsford - And they were very proud of his certificate. 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No ; we prefer to have the certificate of the people of Australia. We know that a certificate of the Prime. Minister is not worth a snap of the fingers, because next week he is likely to say something else. I propose to quote what he said about some honorable senators, because it will make it all the more difficult for him to state what was the reason for his indecent haste in ejecting the Labour Party from the Treasury bench. I now come to the peculiar connexion between Mr. Reid and Mr. Deakin ; and I propose to quote what Mr. Reid said about Mr. Deakin and all his colleagues, incidentally. Addressing a great meeting in the Melbourne Town Hall on the 30th October last, he said - The Government introduced the Electoral Bill in the Senate with a provision for minority representation. That was the main provision of the measure. The Senate knocked it out. Then the Senate put in a provision against plumping. The other House removed it, and the changes were running between the two Houses, in which several Ministers voted in several ways during the several stages of the Bill. Mr. Deakin said last night that that Bill gave manhood and womanhood suffrage to Australia. I say that this Government, to serve its political interests, robbed hundreds and thousands of electors of their just rights. (Loud applause.) Senator Clemonssaid the same thing in the Senate, and I am sure that he thinks it now, if he does not say it. 4492 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - And what did the honorable Senator do - did he join in the robbery ? 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I held a different opinion. 4492 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - How did the honorable senator vote ? 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I voted in the opposite direction to the honorable and learned senator, and gave reasons for my vote. 4492 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Then I was the robber, I suppose? 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The honorable and learned senator admits now that he did think what Mr. Reid said was true - that the Deakin Government, in order to serve their political interests, had robbed "'hundreds and thousands of electors of their just rights." 4492 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - Did not the Government throw over the report of their own Commissioner ? 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Did not the right -honorable gentleman, who made this charge of pure corruption against the Deakin Government, crawl to Mr. Deakin a few months afterwards, and whine to him for a coalition? And does he not sit on the Treasury bench to-day equal in all things with Mr. McLean - only a half Premier? Mr. Reid goes on to say - If the friendless wretch in the criminal dock is told that he is supposed to know the law, and if he breaks it he is sent to gaol ; if this Electoral Act makes it penal to corrupt an elector or interfere with his vote, I ask you -what do you think of the conduct of those who break every duty they owe to the integrity of the political suffrage of Australia. (Cheers.) That is what he said about Senator Drake, and Mr. Deakin, and all their colleagues. 4492 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - No, that is a general remark. 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Although Mr. Reid spoke in that way . about those gentlemen only last December, still, to-day, they are willing to sit under the shadow of his portly form, and to be overwhelmed by him, and in a little while they will be swallowed. 4492 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Is the .honorable senator willing to recall what the Labour Party did on that occasion? 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The honorable and learned senator will have an opportunity to recall that, .as I have no doubt, he will. I have quite enough to do at present to deal with the political sins of the Prime Minister. 4492 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - The honorable senator has more than enough- to do to look after his own sins. 4492 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Mr. Reidgoes on to say - This nefarious act in the interests of one political party may be committed in the interests of another. Let us, while we stand on the brink of the momentous developments of this Australian nation, try to' keep it from the political corruption we see in other great democracies. (Cheers.) My strongest charge against this Government is that they have broken their duty to the people, and broken the laws of the country for a selfish motive, and they have defiled and debased the ballot-box of Australia. (Applause.) That is what Mr. Reid said in December; but, oh ! how he loves Mr. Deakin to-day. 4493 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Almost as much as Mr. Mahon did. 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - How highly Mr. Reid admires Mr. McLean ! He says that the interests of Victoria are safe in the hands of Mr. McLean and Mr. Deakin. As Mr. Hughes said at Ballarat the other night, how the python loves the little mild-eyed gazelle, when he slimes him over before he proceeds to swallow him. I feel sure that Senator Symon would like to hear one or two more statements that Mr. Reid made at that meeting. 4493 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Certainly; but th'ey do not relate much to the policy now. 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes," they do. 4493 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Will the honorable senator tell us what Mr. Reid said about the Labour Party in that connexion? 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - For five years Mr. Reid had nothing but what was good to say about the Labour Party. So long as they were willing to keep Mm in power, ind to be political newers of wood, and drawers of water, they were a noble body, and even in England he preached about the merits and virtues of the Australian Labour Party. But when they wished to hew the wood, and draw the water for themselves, they became, in his estimation, another kind of party. 4493 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Will the honorable senator tell us what Mr. Reid said about the Electoral Boundaries' Act, in connexion with the Labour Party. ' 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I wish to say that Mr. Reid has taken to his bosom one part of the combination which he stigmatized in this speech,' because it has made him Prime Minister. He goes on to say - Let me now deal with three measures which involve large questions of national policy. One was the Immigration Restriction Act. I believe in making that Act speak honestly and straightforwardly the determination of the Australian people that we should have a White Australia. (Cheers.) I stood side by side with the Labour Party on that occasion, but I was beaten. I think it was a hypocritical pretence when you wish to exclude coloured races to submit even your own countrymen to the language test. When an elector interjected "but you- did," Mr. Reid suddenly remembered that he had, but he said - I did not; but if I did, 1 was very wicked. (Laughter.) There is one part of the Bill which provides that no one is to be admitted into Australia if there is a danger of his becoming a charge on the public funds. No one can object to that. But, at the dictation I have previously referred to, it was provided that another sort of person must be treated as a criminal - for that is what it really amounts to. The man who came with definite employment open to him, should be prohibited too. After speaking about the case of the six hatters, he says - Some of my friends don't agree with me. However "Yes-No" his leader may be, Senator Symon is always consistent, and I wish to know if he believes in the sentiment which was expressed by Mr. Reid when he said - Some of my friends don't agree with me, but if I ever have the power in Australia - (cheers) - I will make provision for the objects referred to- That is to say, that he would knock out the contract provision in the Act - but I would absolutely do away with the opportunity of stopping honest fellow-countrymen settling down here in honest employment. Does he intend to ask the Parliament to delete that provision? If he does not take that course, he will stamp himself as the worst kind of political humbug, because he will have gone back on the pledges he made only six months ago. 4493 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - Will the. honorable senator support him if he does? 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No, and the honorable and learned senator is so consistent that if he did not believe in the provision two years ago he will not change his attitude now. I do not believe that he would ever jump Jim Crow like his leader does. 4493 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Does the honorable senator wish to keep up the impediment against honest workmen coming here? 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - No member of the Labour Party desires to keep up an impediment against honest workmen coming here. Every man should come here as a free agent, and after he has acquired a knowledge of the local conditions he should be able to enter into a 'contract. 4493 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - But some men prefer to have a billet before they come. 4493 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes. A number of men got their billets before they came ; they were brought here to interfere with the fair rate of wages paid to Australian workmen, and that was the reason for that provision in the Immigration Restriction Act. Unless the leader of this Government asks the Parliament to repeal that provision he will stamp himself as the worst kind of political turncoat. And if he does attempt to keep his pledges to the people, and he' is assisted by Mr. McLean, Sir George Turner, and Senator Drake, then they will break their political pledges. Either one half of this peculiarly constituted Government or the other must break the pledges given to the people only six months ago. When Mr. Reid was reminded by an elector at the meeting in the Town Hall, that he voted for the provision to keep out the six hatters he said - If I did I ought to be kicked - He really did not know whether he had voted for it. It is a just retribution for the stand which he took at that time, and the tarradiddles which he told the people of Australia, that the six hatters, for whom he tried to enlist so much sympathy, should work and vote against him at the last general election. He said - If I did I ought to be kicked. But I say I did not. 4494 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Was it impossible for the honorable senator to finish that quotation in the first instance? Was the sentence too long for him to quote? 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I shall give the honorable and learned senator as much more of it as he likes. 4494 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - Does not the honorable senator think that it would have been fairer to finish the quotation in the first instance ? 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Does the honorable senator say that I have not quoted correctly ? 4494 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - I say that the honorable senator quoted the first part loudly, and the second part as a sort of stage aside. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - A voice interrupted Mr. Reid, and he said - If I did I ought to be kicked. But I say that I did not. 4494 K6M 0 0 CLEMONS, John Senator Clemons - That is what I referred to. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Mr. Reidalso said - The democracy of Australia should beware of pushing its principles for a White Australia to a mean and contemptible extreme. I was with the Government on the kanaka question, and was willing to let the Bill pass. But we have to pay too heavily for it. Then Senator Fraser echoed from the platform " Too heavily." 4494 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I say so still. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - The honorable senator is consistent in that. Yet he says he is in favour of a White Australia. 4494 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - Perfectly. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Yes, if he can get it for nothing. 4494 KKL 0 0 FRASER, Simon Senator Fraser - I do not grow crazy about it. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Mr. Reidsaid- I do not grudge the amount, but it was still too heavy a price to pay. Then he went on to deal with the Tariff, but I can leave that subject, because we know that he has sunk the fiscal issue entirely. I wonder how Senator Pulsford likes that. Mr. Reid sunk the only big political principle to which Senator Pulsford ever attached himself. I do not think that in his heart the honorable senator is a genuine supporter of the coalition. 4494 K1U 0 0 PULSFORD, Edward Senator Pulsford - Yes I am. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Will Senator Pulsford tell us what in his opinion should be the duration of the fiscal truce? We should all like to know that. Some reason ought also to be given for the change of Government which has taken place, and for the delay in the transaction of public business, which has consequently happened. The present situation must stand condemned before the people of Australia as absolutely devoid of common sense. Those who have taken the reins of Government ought to tell the people what is the difference between their policy and ours. They found no fault with the administration of the late Government. They have copied our methods. 4494 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - No. 4494 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - They have copied them as well as they could. Mr. Deakin, in his great speech at Ballarat on the 30th October, made it a great complaint against the protectionists that their organization was not perfect. He said, "What we want is a solid phalanx of protectionists to be presented at the next general election," and he added in those splendidly flowing phrases of his that there was a plethora of candidates on the protectionist side, and that some of them must stand aside. He said, "We must have only one protectionist candidate for each constituency." That is what Mr. Deakin wanted. How was that object to be attained without a political machine? The very fact that our Opponents on both sides are willing to adopt our methods and that they can bring no charge against our administration, furnish reasons why they should justify the change of Government which they have brought about. Only lately the Reform League in New South Wales have copied our methods. 4495 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Not the methods of the Labour Party. 4495 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - In what respect do the methods of the protectionists with whom the honorable and learned senator is associated differ from those of the Labour Party. 4495 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Very greatly. 4495 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Let Senator Drake give us an instance, when he speaks next week. The present Government have adopted our programme, or at least a miserable portion of it. I ought not to call it a miserable portion, but they certainly have adopted a small portion of it. 4495 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - There is not a plank in the honorable senator's platform which was not taken from the platform of some other party. 4495 JZ9 TASMANIA ALP 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - There is not a plank in the platform of the Labour Party which has not been there for many years before the late Government came into existence. The greater part of our platform is derived from the brains of the members. of the Labour Party. Mr. Reid calls our policy a crawling policy, but, nevertheless, he adopts it. I ask again : what are the reasons for bringing the coalition into existence? Can it be that honorable senators opposite object to the Labour Party, because they do not mix in the highest social circles ? That is a deplorable thing to suggest, but I cannot explain the situation otherwise. I believe that some honorable senators opposite in their inmost hearts and consciences, subscribe to the ideal of Government which was expressed . by an American millionaire the other day, when he said that " the rights and privileges of the working people of this great country will be best conserved, not by agitators, but by the Christian men and women, to whom God in his infinite wisdom has given the control of the property and interests of the country." Do honorable senators opposite subscribe to that doctrine? Do they say that the rights and privileges of the people of Australia will- be best conserved only by the class of individuals who own the property ? 4495 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - Certainly not 4495 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - I am glad that my honorable and learned friend, who has been a democrat, does not subscribe to that ideal. 4495 JXO 0 0 DRAKE, James Senator Drake - I am a democrat still. 4495 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Then the honorable and learned senator should get out of the present Government at once, because I can assure him that his friends in Queensland will not recognise him as a democrat so long as he remains a member of it. I am impelled to the opinion that the majority of the supporters of this Government do adhere to the ideal which I have described. 4495 K7V 0 0 SYMON, Josiah Senator Sir Josiah Symon - The honorable senator is quite mistaken. 4495 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'KEEFE - Our ideal, on the contrary, is that the rights and interests of any community should be paramount to the rights and interests of any individual or class, and that so long as human nature is constituted as it is, and until we reach the millennium, the rights and interests of the mass of the people must be paramount to those of any individual or class. After all, government in itself and in the abstract is not a ' good thing. Government is essentially a recognition of the weakness of human nature. While human nature is what it is, we must have some form of Government ; and the Government in which I believe is that which uses every fair means to make individuals recognise the claims of the race to which they belong, and of the community in which they live. Debate (on motion by Senator Fraser) adjourned. 4495 adjournment 4495 Motion (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed - That the Senate do now adjourn. 4495 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Before I put the motion, I think it only right to mention to the Senate that His Excellency the Governor of Western Australia is present. My attention has just been called to the fact, or otherwise I should certainly have invited His Excellency to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. I am sure the Senate would have accorded so distinguished a visitor that privilege. I was not informed officially that His Excellency was here, or I should have taken action. Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear. Question resolved in the affirmative. 4495 15:32:00 Senate adjourned at 3.32 p.m.