Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 13 October 1910
Page: 0

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia) (Minister of Defence) . - I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will find that the Bill now presented to them, dealing with the naval defence of the Commonwealth, has to be read in connexion with, the main De-, fence Acts of 1903 and 1909. I desire to intimate that, for general convenience, I have obtained supplies of the Act of 1903 as amended by the Acts of 1904 and 1909. It will be found to be more convenient for reference in this form than as separate Statutes. The aim of the Government in connexion with naval defence is that, whilst the Navy that we are establishing shall be, in some respects, separate from the British Navy, it shall at the same time be auxiliary to that Navy. We think that that is by no means a contradictory position. It is a position that has always been recognised in the policy of our party ; and, although it has at times been fiercely assailed, especially by those who have argued that, as the sea is one, the Navy must be one, nevertheless, in recent years we have witnessed a considerable revulsion of feeling on the question, and it is now generally admitted by leading naval authorities in the Mother Country that by building up in Australia a separate Navy, auxiliary to the British Navy, we shall be adding a fresh source of strength to the Empire. We also wish to emphasize the fact that our Navy will be under complete Commonwealth administration and control. Just here I should like to quote from the proceedings of the Conference with the representatives of the self-governing Dominions on the naval and military defences of the Empire, 1909. On page 28 of the proceedings will be found set out the agreement reached between the representatives of the United Kingdom and the representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in regard to the position of our naval unit. The second paragraph reads as follows : -

In peace time and while on the Australian Station this fleet unit would be under the exelusive control of the Commonwealth Governnent as regards their movements and general administration ; but officers and men should be governed by regulations similar to the King's Regulations, and be under Naval discipline, and when with vessels of the Royal Navy the senior officer shall take command of the whole. Further, when placed by the Commonwealth Government at the disposal of the Admiralty in war time, the vessels should be under the control of the Naval Commander-in-Chief.

That agreement, we believe, safeguards the principle of Commonwealth control over our own Navy. It recognises that the placing of the Fleet unit under Admiralty control must be the act of the Commonwealth, and that the vessels should be so placed by the Commonwealth Government. This will call for the sympathetic co-operation of the British Navy in time of peace as well as in time of war. We need this, because, in time of peace, we must see that our standard of efficiency, discipline, and control is equal to that of the British Navy. The only way in which we can accomplish that is by having the most complete, thorough, and sympathetic cooperation established between ourselves and the Mother Country. I quote the following paragraph from page 29 of the Proceedings of the Conference -

When desired, officers and men of the Australian Service might be sent for training and service to vessels and training schools of the Royal Navy, and their places taken by officers and men of the Royal Navy, who, with the approval of the Admiralty, should volunteer for service in vessels of the Australian Navy. Great stress was laid upon the maintenance of the same general standard of training, discipline, and general efficiency, both in ships and officers and men.

These are merely general principles. They do not bind the Commonwealth or the Admiralty to anything. They are expressions of general principles to which the parties represented at the Conference gave their adhesion. Of course the working out of these principles will take time, and the Commonwealth Government, and through them, the Parliament, will have to give their assent to each proposal as it is made. These principles are not definitely dealt wilh in this Bill, but provision is made in the measure to give effect to them. They will be given effect as the result of acts of administration from time to time, and possibly of Imperial, as well as Commonwealth, legislation. As I said when speaking a few days ago, we are in the unique position of being a nation within a nation. We are part of an Empire, and there has never been a case before in which, within an Empire, there has been a country with a separate navy, having independent control, and possibly a separate flag, and yet in a position to impose responsibilitiesupon the whole of the Empire. It may be,, as the position develops, that it will befound necessary for the Imperial Parliament, and also for the Commonwealth Parliament, to legislate in order to give full' effect to the idea. On the question of/ officers, for instance, we hope eventually to have our own naval schools and colleges, in which we shall be able to thoroughly equip and train our officers. But in the earlier years of our Navy,' and until we have had time to thoroughly establish and equip such institutions, we must have recourse to the - Admiralty, and must rely upon their generosity and good feeling to provide us with a certain number of officers, in order that we may have the instructors necessary for the training of our officers and men, and to bring them up to the standard of the British Navy. We have no reason to doubt that this service will be freely rendered by the Admiralty. In all the despatches, the authorities of the Admiralty have shown the most cordial desire to co-operate with : us in every way. Already we have offers to place several" expert officers at our disposal, and in connexion with the recent despatch of our torpedo-boat destroyers from Great Britain, the Admiralty lent us every assistance in training the officers and men we sent lo the Mother Country, and in lending officers and men to assist in bringing the ships to Australia. In time of war, or of the imminent danger of war, it would be unsound and disastrous to have divided naval control. Whatever wars the Empire may become involved in, we shall be involved" in also. If those wars are of a naval character, we shall be concerned in them, even though they should :be wars which we may have done nothing to bring about. That is one of the disabilities attaching to our position as part of the Empire. It brings us many advantages, but some disadvantages, of which this is one. Obviously, in the conduct of such a war, there should be only one control at sea. It would be clearly unsound to have divided control, with two or three fleets acting -independently, and so enabling the enemy -to meet and defeat each in detail. We recognise that undivided control at sea in such circumstances is absolutely essential. The time of placing our fleet, the circumstances in which it shall :'be placed, and the manner in which it shall be disposed of when it has been .placed, will, of course, rest largely upon -the Naval 'Commander-in-Chief of the forces engaged in the war. But there is no reason to believe that the Admiralty would disregard any representations made to them by -the Government of any of the Dominions as to the disposition of their fleet. The "Imperial . Defence ConferIndomitable class, three unarmoured cruisers stipulated to be of the Bristol class - but, since the Conference, it has been decided that they shall be of what is known as the Improved. Bristol or City class - six destroyers of the Improved River class, and three submarines. That is the unit which the representatives of Australia at the Conference undertook to provide. In order to meet the requirements of that unit, we need to commence educational establishments for officers, and we propose to establish a naval college. A site has been chosen at Middle Head, in Sydney Harbor, and a sum of money, which was collected in New South Wales during the now historic Dreadnought agitation, and amounting to ,£45,000, is to be handed over to the Commonwealth Government for the establishment of the college there. Under this Bill, we take power to establish that college. This, also, was part of the agreement entered into, as will be seen from the following quotation which I make from the summary of the result of the Proceedings of the Conference -

Training schools for officers and men should be established locally, and arrangements made for the manufacture, supply, and replenishment of the various naval ordnance and victualling stores required by the squadron. Until stores and munitions of war are manufactured in Australia, the vessels of the Australian unit should be supplied, as far as possible, with stores, ammunition, and ordnance stores in the same manner and at the same cost as other vessels of His Majesty's Service.

What I particularly wish to refer to is that it was agreed at the Conference that these training schools should be established. The establishment of a training school will be a work of some years, and it must be some years before we can hope that officers will be turned out from it. In addition, we shall need naval, gunnery, and torpedo schools for experts and the ordinary schools for the personnel. In a discussion of the matter elsewhere, objection wa* urged to the establishment of schools for these purposes on land, but the person who made the objection seemed to be oblivious of the fact that all these schools exist in the Mother Country, and are established on land at places contiguous to the sea, and, of course, at times the students at the schools are taken to sea. At Deptford and other places in Great Britain these schools are established on land. They are found to be economical, and to afford the best method of training youths for this work. The sites for these schools have not yet been chosen. This is a matter on which we are asking Admiral Henderson to report. The Bill merely gives power to establish the schools. In connexion with Admiral Henderson's visit to Australia, I wish to say that, in the establishment of a navy, we must provide for a main naval base, where ships can be refitted'.; 'where, if necessary, construction and revictualling can be undertaken at a place where the ships may lie safe from the attack of any possible enemy, and at which they may take shelter after an engagement whilst the work of refitting is being carried out. In addition to this main base, we require subsidiary bases at different parts of the Commonwealth, which must be selected for their strategical value. Whilst these subsidiary bases will not contain the main workshops and construction works, they will need to be, on a smaller scale, a duplication of the main naval base. In addition, it may be necessary to have torpedo depots at different places, where torpedoboat destroyers, submarines, and similar craft can be refitted and obtain extra stores, but they will need to be protected by land defences or be in positions difficult of access to the vessels of an invading fleet. On all these questions we are obviously ill-prepared to decide. We have a small naval force, but, as honorable senators are aware, it is not up-to-date. For many years, the Commonwealth Naval Force has languished both for want of funds and lack of experience. The Government feel that all these matters should be determined absolutely independent of any local or parochial considerations. They should be decided solely on the ground of the strategical value of the places selected for the establishment of these bases. With that idea in view, we asked the Admiralty to recommend an officer to give us advice. After consideration, it was arranged that Admiral Henderson should be invited to come out to Australia. We invited him, and he is at present engaged on this mission in Australia. He is in possession of the highest recommendations, both from Lord Fisher, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and from Admiral Wilson, the present First Lord, for the work in which he is now engaged. We have invited the co-operation of the various State Governments in placing at his disposal all the information he may require about the various ports of the States. We have given Admiral Henderson an absolutely free hand. We have merely indicated in our instructions to him the points which we regard as of special importance, such as the capital cities and other places that are obviously of commercial importance. Otherwise, we have left him an absolutely free hand to take the map of Australia and mark upon it the places where these bases should be established. It is the intention of the Government, so far as they can, to be guided in their action in this regard by Admiral Henderson's report. We confidently appeal to Parliament to back us up in what we believe .to be the only sound way in which to commence the establishment of naval defence in Australia. In regard to the question of administration and control, it has to be remembered, first of all, that an undertaking has been entered into by the Conference agreement which we adopt, that our unit shall be kept in an efficient state, which means that all the ships shall be kept fit for war at any time, even though an emergency should suddenly arise. That being so, the vessels of the unit must be provided with permanent crews and 'officers. It is advisable also, following the example of the Mother Country, that administration should be -divided from command. So there will be appointed in command of the unit a naval officer who, of course, in the first instance will probably be a British officer, but who we hope, eventually, when our own men have had the advantage of training and experience, will be an Australian officer. At any rate we propose to appoint in command of this unit an officer who will be separated from the duty of administering the Naval Act. In this measure provision is made for that officer^ appointment. These officers will be appointed by the Governor-General in Council. Even the British officers who are appointed at the outset will be recommended by the Admiralty, and appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council, in other words by the

Minister charged with administering the Act. We propose to copy, as far as we can, the British Admiralty, and taking into consideration the smallness of our force, to establish an administration commensurate with our requirements. Consequently, we take power in this Bill to establish a Naval Board of Administration. Under the existing Defence Act reference is made to a Naval Director. That officer has been, and will be until this Bill becomes law, associated with a small Board for administrative purposes. But to all intents and purposes, our small Naval Force has hitherto been under his control. The reason why we have omitted from this Bill provision for a Naval Director is that we propose to replace that officer by a Board of Administration, of which he will probably be a member. That does not mean that we" are either abolishing that officer's duties or the officer himself, but merely that we are establishing a different system of control which is more in accord with the new requirements. Upon this Board there will probably be the head of. each sub-Department. For instance, we shall have a Construction Branch. We hope to construct one of the protected cruisers, and the remainder of the torpedo boat destroyers and submarines. The officer, at the head of the Construction Branch will have a seat on the Board. I wish honorable senators to understand that the scheme which I am now outlining is of a tentative character, because we have yet to receive the advice of Admiral Henderson on the subject. But it is the scheme which we at present contemplate. Some alteration may be made in the constitution of the Board ; but there will certainly be a Board of Administration. Then, there will be an officer in charge of the Naval Intelligence Branch, including the disposition of ships, and he will occupy a seat upon the Board. Another officer will have control of the personnel and training of our Naval Forces, and he, too, will have a seat upon the Board. Still another officer will deal with contracts, and he also will have a seat on the Board, as will also the paymaster or accountant, who will be responsible for the financial side of our Naval Forces. Then we shall have representatives of the sub-heads upon the Board.

Senator de Largie - It will be a pretty numerous Board if all these officers are placed upon it.

Senator PEARCE - I am merely pointing out that the officers who will administer these sub-Departments will occupy seats on the Board, and be. responsible for bringing before that body the matters affecting those sub-Departments. When the Board meets, it will make a joint recommendation which will be forwarded to the Minister, who will either approve or disapprove of it as he may think fit.

Senator Lynch - Then the Board will have more than advisory powers?

Senator PEARCE - Only in respect to small matters will it possess executive power. Its powers in that respect will be delegated to it by the Minister.

Senator Lynch - Relatively speaking it will have less powers than will the Lords of the Admiralty?

Senator PEARCE - Yes, because in England the conditions which obtain are not similar to our own. In the case of a great force such as the British Navy, which has a number of half-pay officers who are quite as good as are the officers who are in full commission, and where officers can be called up and discharged, there is a much simpler method of control than we have at present. We have not the numbers to choose from that they have in the Old Country. We have not the officers at our disposal. But bearing in mind our altered circumstances, I say that this scheme is modelled somewhat on the lines of the British Admiralty.

Senator Guthrie - But the "Minister will accept responsibility even for the executive actions of the Board?

Senator PEARCE - Certainly. The Minister will have a seat on the Board. T come now to the forces which are to man the Navy. In the first place there will have to be a permanent force sufficient at all times to keep ready for service the vessels of the unit which I have outlined. It may be that some of those vessels may not at first have the full complement of crew, and that they may be used around our coast for the purpose of training the naval militia.

Senator Guthrie - There will be a peace footing all the time?

Senator PEARCE - Yes, and the idea is that that peace footing shall very nearly approach war conditions, at any rate in the case of the first vessels of the unit. It is considered desirable by the Admiralty that those vessels shall be in full commission. Upon page 28 of the report of the Imperial Naval Conference, honorable senators will find the following:-

These vessels should be manned, as far as possible, by Australian officers and seamen, and the numbers required to make up the full complement for immediate purposes should be lent by the Royal Navy.

It is obvious that for a year or two we shall be unable to make up the full complement. At present our Naval Forces number only 800, and our resources were pretty well exhausted when we sent Home the crews with which to bring out the three destroyers.

Senator Guthrie - But we have a strong reserve.

Senator PEARCE - That is so, but its members are chiefly engaged in civil avocations. During the next financial year the Government contemplate recruiting for this new force, and arranging with the Admiralty to have these recruits trained either on the ships of the Australian Squadron or on some other vessels, so that in 1912, when the vessels of the unit arrive, we shall be able to fill up, at any rate the lower ratings, with Australians. The Imperial authorities are now intimating to all persons in Australia joining the British naval service that they will be liable to be transferred to the Australian unit.

Senator Guthrie - They will cease recruiting them.

Senator PEARCE - They will, when we take up this other scheme. At present they are giving each recruit to understand that in 1912 those recruited in Australia will be transferred to the Commonwealth unit. Under this arrangement there is an obvious disadvantage to the Imperial authorities in that each year they have to bring before the Imperial Parliament provision for the maintenance of their establishment of 133,000 officers and men. The Australian unit will be an addition to their ordinary establishment, and unless we make provision for meeting the requirements of 1912, the Imperial Government will have to provide either for an increase of their establishment or for a decrease of it. They do not wish to do that if it can be avoided. Consequently, the Government have in contemplation the taking of early action to commence recruiting, and we are informed that within two years men can be sufficiently trained to enable them to fill the lower ratings of our prospective Fleet-unit. As regards the other ratings, a much longer time will be required. Indeed, from ten to twelve years' training is necessary before gunners become proficient in their calling. Of course, some may become fairly proficient in about seven years. Then we have made provision on the Estimates for the establishment of schools in which boys ranging from twelve to fourteen years will be taken and trained for the personnel of the Navy. These lads will require about three years to get through their land course, and to fit them to go to sea. We hope to commence the establishment of these naval schools towards the end of the year, but it is very unlikely that the lads trained in them will be fit to go to sea on any of the ships of the Australian unit, which will be in commission, before 1913. I come now to the Citizen Forces - that is, to those who are not permanently employed in our Naval Forces, but who are recruited from the ranks of our citizens. These will consist of two classes. Clause 21 of the Bill reads - (1.) The Citizen Naval Forces shall be divided into the Naval Reserve Forces and the Naval Volunteer Reserve Forces. (2.) The Naval Reserve Forces shall consist of officers and seamen who are not bound in time of peace to continuous naval service and who are paid for their services as prescribed. (3.) The Naval Volunteer Reserve Forces shall consist of officers and seamen who are not bound in time of peace to continuous naval service and who are not ordinarily paid for their services in time of peace.

Section 125 of the principal Act provides for compulsory training, and sub-section c states -

All male inhabitants of Australia (excepting those who are exempted by this Act) shall be liable to be trained, as prescribed, as follows : -

(c)   From eighteen to twenty years of age in the Citizen Forces;

(d)   From twenty to twenty-six years of age, in the Citizen Forces.

Then sub-section 3 of section 126 provides -

The training in the Citizen Forces shall be gin on the first day of July in the year in which the persons liable reach the age of eighteen years, and shall continue for two years.

Section 127 provides-

The prescribed training shall be, in each year ending the thirtieth day of June, of the following duration : -

(c)   in the Citizen Forces, sixteen whole day drills or their equivalent :

Provided that, in the case of those allotted to the Naval Forces and to the Artillery and Engineers in the Military Forces, the training shall be twenty-five whole day drills or their equivalent.

So that those who are allotted to the Naval Forces will be liable to twenty-five days' continuous training annually. They will be the first line of our Naval Reserve Forces. Then we have in each State naval militia; that is, partially-paid men who are liable to

a.   shorter term of service. As in the case of the Military Forces, they will be continued until the new force is thoroughly established ; and then the question of their abolition will be considered. These twobodies will constitute the second line of the Naval Reserve Force. Next we come to the Naval Reserve Volunteer Force. It will embody those who have served their term, and, therefore, will not become operative for some years. Those who have reached the age of twenty-six years will pass out of the Naval Reserve into the Naval Volunteer Reserve. They will not be liable for a continuous service of twentyfive days. They will only be liable to come up to serve when called on; but they will be kept registered at their station, and liable to service whenever required. In addition to these, there are, throughout the Commonwealth, various persons whose services would be of considerable value for naval purposes. For instance, there are a number of pilots employed on boats- that run to and from Brisbane through Torres Strait. They would be of incalculable advantage to the Commonwealth in time of war, because they know all the passages about the Barrier Reef, and its intricacies. They are at present embodied in our Naval Volunteer Force, but are not called upon for any service. We propose to establish a reserve of such men, so that they may be enrolled and be at our disposal in time of war. That explains to the Senate how we propose to raise the force. As I said before, we shall require, in the first place, to obtain from the United Kingdom the officers and the men in the higher ratings. The local officers will be retained and given full opportunity of gaining promotion and obtaining, service.

Senator Blakey - Will our local officers take the place of the Imperial men later?

Senator PEARCE - As we begin to draft local men into the ships, the Imperial men will be withdrawn ; and the same course will be pursued with the officers. The capital cost of the unit is estimated at £3,695,000, namely, the armoured cruiser at ,£2,000,000, the three protected cruisers at .£1,050,000, the six destroyers at £480,000, and the three submarines at £165,000. These are, of course, only approximate estimates. At present, we have no means of ascertaining the cost of construction here. All sorts of estimates have been submitted to me. The cost has been estimated', in some cases, at 12 per cent, above the British price, and in others at 25 per cent. When the third destroyer is put together in the Fitzroy Dock, we shall be able to ascertain how our people shape at this work. The estimated cost of the upkeep of the unit is about £500,000 a year. That is based on the assumption that we shall give higher rates of pay than are allowed in the British Navy..

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould - Is it not also based on the assumption that Great Britain will contribute ,£250,000 towards the cost ?

Senator PEARCE - No; as I shall show presently. After giving a general estimate of the capital cost, the Imperial Conference, in their report, estimate the total upkeep as follows : -

The annual expenditure in connexion with the maintenance of the Fleet Unit, pay of personnel. and interest on first cost and sinking fund, was estimated to be about £600,000, to which amount a further additional sum would have to be added in view of the higher rates of pay in Australia and the cost of training and subsidiary establishments, making an estimated total of £758,000 a year.

That, I would point out, includes interest and sinking fund. As we do not intend to borrow for the purposes of the Navy, we shall not require to make such a provision. The report continues -

This annual cost should be disbursed by the Commonwealth, except that the Imperial Government, until such time as the Commonwealth could take over the whole cost, should assist the Commonwealth Government by an annual contribution of £250,000 towards the maintenance of the complete Fleet Unit.

Senator Sayers - Will they have any say in regard to our unit when they contribute half the money?

Senator PEARCE - The honorable senator has already been told, in the GovernorGeneral's Speech, that' we have no intention of asking the British Government for that contribution. We propose to bear the whole cost, because we consider that it is only our duty to do so. We also intend to continue the annual subsidy of £200,000 to the British Government until this unit is provided. The question of discipline is, perhaps, one of the most difficult matters tq deal with in this connexion. I again draw attention to a paragraph which I quoted, and in which the Imperial Conference say -

In peace time and while on the Australian Station this Fleet Unit would be under the exclusive control of the Commonwealth Government as regards their movements and general administration, but officers and men should be governed by regulations similar to the King's Regulations, and be under naval discipline. . .

Clause 37 of the Bill reads -

The Naval Discipline Act and the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the time being in force in relation to the King's Naval Forces shall, subject to this Act and to any modifications and adaptations prescribed by the regulations, apply to the Naval Forces.

Clause 46 contains this provision - (j.) The Governor-General may make Regulations .... in relation to ... the discipline of persons receiving instruction or training in or employed in or in connexion with Naval establishments;

According to the definition clause - " The Naval Discipline Act " means the Imperial. Act called The Naval Discipline Act as amended from time to time and includes any Act for the time being in force in substitution for that Act.

The effect of these provisions is to adopt, in globo, the Naval Discipline Act, and the King's Regulations as applied to the Royal Navy, but to reserve to ourselves the power to make, from time to time, such adaptations of them as may be necessary for our particular conditions. I have taken the trouble to look through the Naval Discipline Act, which, I may remark, is as large as an ordinary volume of our Hansard. Previously, I had the idea that the punishments allotted to various offences in the Royal Navy were altogether harsh, and out of keeping with modern thought; but what I read in the Act was a revelation to me. I found that, after all, the punishments, in comparison with the offences, are neither harsh nor drastic. I am given to understand that in the Royal Navy, a much more humane system of administering the punishments has been adopted. There is a general impression that flogging is still practised.

Senator Sayers - It has been abolished for years.

Senator PEARCE - Some honorable senators know that flogging has been abolished, but others do not. I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not prescribed as a single punishment throughout the calendar of offences. All the harsh forms of punishment which at one time were characteristic of the Royal Navy were abolished a long time ago. Of course, serious punishments are provided for certain crimes. The punishment of death extends to other crimes than that of murder. In the civil code that is the punishment for murder and some sexual offences; but in the Naval Discipline Act it is the punishment for treason, for cowardice in the face of the enemy, for giving information to the enemy, for refusing duty in the face of the enemy, and for desertion in the face of the enemy. I think that most of us will admit that, in such circumstances, the punishment of death is well-deserved ; that a man who deserts in the face of the enemy is as bad as a murderer, because he leaves his comrades to their fate, in order to save his own skin. The object of the Government in adopting these regulations is to keep as near as possible to the code of the Royal Navy. In time of war our ships will have to co-operate with its ships. If our standard of discipline were different, if our system of control were less effective, the result would be disastrous not only to our ships, but also to the whole Navy which might De engaged in an action. We, therefore, have to keep up the effective standard which we are adopting. I hope that honorable senators will not be unduly alarmed ar this proposal. A large number of young Australians - 600 or 700, I think - are at present serving in British ships on the Australian Station. They are taken to the ships at an age when a lad is generally most restive under control. But I have not heard that the Australian has been more obstreperous than his British confrere in the ships. I have not heard any complaints from them as to the treatment to which, they are subjected. That is a good indication that we can safely adopt this code for our ships; of course, with the safeguard that, if necessary, we have the power to make an alteration. In conclusion, I would remind the Senate that, as Australia is an island, it can be reached by no foe except by sea, and that if war has to take place, it is far better that it should be conducted on some other land than ours. If we can prevent a landing, a war can never take place on our shores. It is a very risky undertaking to bring ships across the sea, even when the defending fleet is small, if the invader knows that the ships of that fleet are effective, vigilant, and courageous. So I think that this unit, small as it is, will afford a very good guarantee that Australia will be safe to pursue her peaceful career. Another point is that almost every one of our principal commodities depends absolutely for its stability in price upon keeping open the great sea routes. If those routes were blocked or threatened* for a single week, the effect upon the prices of our products would be disastrous. Therefore, in passing this Bill, we shall not merely safeguard the peace of Australia, but also the trading interests and the well-being of her people.

Debate (on motion by Senator Lt.Colonel Sir Albert Gould) adjourned.

Suggest corrections