- Author
- Ogle, Brian
- Subjects
- History - general
- Tags
-
- RAN Ships
- None noted.
- Publication
- June 1997 edition of the Naval Historical Review (all rights reserved)
Forrest’s Naval loan Bill proposed that £3,500,000 be borrowed over a term of 16 years at 3 1/2 percent per annum.
In reply, Mr Fisher said:
“I do not believe there is any country in the world that can justify borrowing, for ordinary defence purposes. Defence expenditure should be regarded as an annual matter and I hope the Government will take the manly course of appealing to the people for the necessary amount to provide ships and material, and ask everyone to bear the burden according to his position and his capacity to do so“.
Fisher argued that £3,500,000 could be raised in three years by lifting the contribution of the people by five shillings per head, per annum. Fisher (Reps. Debate, p.6677).
Labour’s policy had not changed. However it was a Mr Wilks, prominent member of the Deakin/Fusion party who really cleared lower deck in all-out opposition. Wilks (Reps. Debate, p.6685).
Wilks backed Fisher’s claims that the useful life of a warship was a lot less than 16 years. Just as the Dreadnought had made navies obsolete overnight so increasing technology could scuttle the new Australian navy. “Within five years we could be re-borrowing to pay the interest on the first loan as well as to modernise the ships”.
Wilks’ final words were:
“The Prime Minister has led us to believe that he would like direct taxation. Not only would I like it, but I want it.”
Wilks (Reps. Debate, p.6679).
The Naval Loan Bill was rushed through to be passed just prior to the Federal Election of April 1910. The debate was intense and at times hilarious. Well worth reading.
Labour won the election and Fisher immediately introduced the “Naval Loan Repeal Act No. 6 of 1910”. A fine example of brevity:
- This Act may be cited as the Naval Repeal Act 1910.
- The Naval Loan Act 1909 is repealed.
The Fisher Government legislated to pay for the Navy by revenue and not by borrowing, refused the Imperial subsidy and stirred the dockyard mateys into producing the ships in a hurry.
From nothing to a navy in 10 years really was astonishing when one considers that those early politicians also had to debate acts covering the creation of a Constitution, the establishment of a civil service, customs, excise, arbitration, postal pensions, taxation, shipping and defence. A tribute to human endeavour because computers, voice writers and other wonder workers, were non-existent – even the typewriter and telephone were new fangled. I propose a toast to their memory with a tot of pusser’s rum.
Brian Ogle M.A. Sydney
January 16th, 1997