View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
20 September 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
- Mr. Deakin or Mr. Reid

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4695

PAPERS

Mr. DUGALD THOMSON laid upon the table the following papers : -

Amendment of Regulations under the Public Service Act, Nos. 104, 144, 168, and 169.

page 4695

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– I desire to make a personal explanation. During the meeting of the House on Thursday last I drew attention to the action of the Prime Minister in not answering a question of which I had given notice, and I regret to say that the right honorable gentleman, speaking in reply on the motion for the adjournment, and in my absence from the chamber, so that I had no opportunity to defend myself, told honorable members that I had been “wildly inaccurate as usual,” and that I had not given notice of the question, although, as a matter of fact, that question has been on the notice-paper for nearly a month, and occupies the first place among the notices of questions on the business-paper for to-day.

Mr Reid:

– What I said was that the question had not been brought under my notice until the day when the House met after the recent three weeks’ adjournment, that is until the 7th September,

Mr CROUCH:

– I was not present when the Prime Minister madethe statement to which I take exception, so that I may not be correct in saying that the Prime Minister made the statement which I have attributed to him, but it is the statement which occurs in Hansard, and in the reports of the two metropolitan newspapers. That the impression that the right honorable gentleman stated that I was “wildly inaccurate as usual,” was conveyed to members of the House, is proved ‘by the fact that the honorable member for Bourke thought it necessary, in my absence, to defend my reputation. On the 18th August last, I gave notice of my intention to ask the Prime Minister the following question : -

Whether he proposes to carry out the policy that in all Government contracts preference shall be given to local manufactures and products ?
Whether he will cause to be inserted in all Government contracts a condition that goods which can be reasonably manufactured in Australia should have a preference over similar articles manufactured outside.

On the 19th August copies of that question were distributed to the members of the Ministry and of the House, and to the press, and on the . 20th it was publashed in the newspapers. On the 7th September the Postmaster-General came to me, and informed me that the Prime Minister was not ready to answer it. He therefore asked me if I would postpone it.

Mr Reid:

– That is quite right. Having seen the notice of the question on the 7th, the day upon which the House reassembled,. I asked the Postmaster-General to request the honorable and learned member to postpone it, as I had not had time to prepare an answer to it.

Mr CROUCH:

– Unfortunately, ‘ the Hansard and newspaper reports state that the Prime Minister said that he did not see the question until the 8th September. In reply to the request of the PostmasterGeneral, I said that the Prime Minister had had three weeks in . which to prepare an answer, and that, as I had previously asked the’ question without notice, I thought he should be ready to answer it then. The Prime Minister said that on the 8th September I consented to its postponement, but on that day I was at the Geelong Agricultural Show, and did not enter the chamber until late in the evening, so’ that I could not have consented to its postponement then. On the 15th, when I asked for a ‘ reply to the question, I stated that it had “ appeared upon the business-paper for about a month,” but the House was nevertheless afterwards informed by the Prime Minister, in my absence, that I had been “ wildly inaccurate,” that I had asked it on the’ 8th, and had then consented to its postponement. I think that that was a very unfair statement to make. Six weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the Opposition, the same question. He made a laughing reply, but did not answer it. I do not understand why he has not answered it. Although he has said that I was “ wildly inaccurate, as usual,” I have shown that in this case I was not inaccurate. Whatever has been charged against me, I have not been charged with being an artful dodger.

MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I move-

That the present Administration does not possess the confidence of this House.

Mr WATSON:

– Everything that is proposed by the “ other fellow “ is Socialism. Everything that will benefit the “ other fellow “ is Socialism. But when a proposal is brought forward that will benefit, at the expense of the State, or with the assistance of the State, the farmers, for instance, who are so ably represented by’ the Minister of Trade and Customs, then we hear nothing of this cry about Socialism. The ‘ Prime Minister made a declaration about Socialism which, so far’ as I have been able to glean, is rather cryptic. He stated the other evening, in the House -

– No, but that is the intention declared by the right honorable gentleman on the hustings, and the announcement was supplemented by a statement to the same effect made in this Chamber last week. Therefore, there is a clear-cut issue between the present Government and those in Opposition, quite apart from the immediate programme which has been put forward. The question is not whether the Papuan Bill; the Trade Marks Bill, or an amending Electoral Bill should be carried, nor is it whether honorable gentlemen opposite, for whom personally I have the highest respect, shall continue, to occupy the Treasury Benches. It is whether the people of Australia sympathize with the declaration of policy which has been made by the Government, whether they are prepared to go back upon that which their .representatives in Parliament have done, and whether they are prepared to indorse the idea that private enterprise should be allowed full sway, and that interference on behalf of the community as a whole should be refused. I believe that the people are opposed to that idea, and that they will on ‘a future occasion declare themselves to be opposed to it. That being so, I think it is my duty, in common with other honorable members who sit on this side of the Chamber, to try to ascertain whether the Government represent the majority of the House. I have been moved to my present action primarily by the considerations which I have put forward; but, in addition, by the desire to clear the political atmosphere, to make sure of how honorable members stand. I feel that the Prime Minister has no right to complain of a straightforward, open attack of this character, against which he has an opportunity to defend himself, the people being asked in the last resort to judge between the two parties.

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade

– I do not at all question the right of honorable gentlemen sitting opposite to table the motion which the leader of the Opposition has just moved ; but there is a marked difference between the motion involving the existence of , the then Government which I moved some three years ago, and that which the leader of the Opposition has just moved. On the occasion to which I refer, I stated, in my motion, the grounds of principle upon which I asked the House to censure the then Administration; but my honorable friend has taken a different course. He has made a speech which amounts to the raising of an issue of vast national importance somewhere else. His closing sentences could have no meaning at all if applied to the position of honorable members who are now sitting in this Chamber. They point to a decision upon vital matters of national importance, which cannot be made by us. Although the honorable gentleman has framed his motion as if this were a mere domestic squabble between the “ ins “ and the “ outs,” he might well have framed it in such a way as to bring to the service of this party fight the declaration of some large principles, in respect to which the two sides of the House are, at issue. We find it necessary, however, to interpret the motion by the way in which it has been supported. The leader of the Opposition has no serious fault to find with our proposed procedure for the present session.

But he complains that the Ministry which has just come into office is not sufficiently foolhardy to regard itself as fit to work out a deliberate matured policy for a session which cannot possibly begin for the next six or eight months. We are not heavenborn statesmen like those gentlemen who recently sat on these benches. We have had sufficient experience to know that whilst it is easy to make speeches in this House, especially from the other side, the position is different when one assumes vast responsibilities, and when the welfare of a great Commonwealth’ is intrusted to a Ministry, with reference to its policy. I think I can claim that I am supported in this Ministry by men of experience who have held high positions in the Governments of the States, who are men of affairs, and who know the difficulties of such a position ; and we have had too much sense to profess to introduce, out of season, and six months before the time, anything like a declaration of policy upon large measures of national concern. Surely it is not a ground of censure that we do not come down now with the policy which we shall have to submit to Parliament, if Parliament continues to exist, somewhere about the middle of next year. My honorable friend the leader of the Opposition did pursue that course in a mild way.

Mr Poynton:

– I know that very much has happened. It is a new Mr. Watson that we have now. When the honorable member for Bland was the leader of the elect, with no strangers admitted, he practically affirmed that until the Labour Party had a majority of members who would subscribe to its platform, it did not hope to exercise any position of authority in this House. Now, I ask, “ Has that subscription been made ?” Have those honorable and industrious gentlemen really got an alliance at all. Because I accept the. declarations made by duly admitted members of the Labour

Party. I know that no member of that party, when he refers to the proceedings of the caucus, speaks wide of the truth. There is no member of the Labour Party in whose accuracy I have more sublime confidence than- in that of the honorable member for Perth. He is a genuine member of the Labour Party - a man who has stood his ground against every opponent in a fair and honorable way - and this is what he is reported to have said at a “ Pleasant Sunday Afternoon “ meeting which was held an Sunday last -

Where was the necessity or advantage of an alliance ? He, for one, would never indorse any attempt of that kind.

The labour movement was liberal enough for any one wishing to associate with it, and, so far from there being any advantages in an alliance, there were very grave disadvantages. Was it not a tendency on the part of many supporters of the movement to be enticed away by some red herring across the trail?

– There can be such a thing as dishonorable ambition.

Mr REID:

– I am not attributing that sort of ambition to honorable members opposite. The honorable member for Perth continued -

It was resorted to only as a very temporary expedient, but there were always within the ranks of the party those who regarded it as contrary to the principles of the labour movement.

Have we not always been told that office as compared with the principles of the labour movement was as dust? Could we deflect these pure unselfish patriots from the path of loyalty to the labour movement for the sake of a vote upon a motion of censure ? Never ! But the voice from within has been heard, at last. Hitherto we have been unable to learn what the caucus really did, but we have always been told what it did not do. Whenever anybody made a statement as to what was done at the caucus meetings of the Labour Party, we were always assured that nothing of the kind ever occurred. Nobody has ever told us what did occur. Now, however, we have a gleam of daylight.

Mr Crouch:

– It must be interesting to the right honorable . member to know that principles exist.

Mr REID:

– Continuing, the honorable member for Perth is reported to have said -

Those members felt it was unnecessary and objectionable, and their ideas had at least received the assent of a majority of their colleagues.

Each to use its influence individually and collectively -

Mr Poynton:

– Say that again !

Mr REID:

– I do not think it is necessary ; I am going to prove it. I think it is a matter that concerns the public far more than the question who is to hold office. If people are to be allowed to betray their promises to their electors the electors had better know it. I suppose that the policy of the Deakin party may fairly be quoted from the lips of the then Prime Minister, the honorable and learned member for Ballarat. In the opening speech of his campaign, the honorable and learned member described my attitude by saying that I had greatly come down in my demands. He said that I had asked for a mild Tariff revision, and that “it was only a little one.” Then my honorable and learned friend went on to say that he knew that industries were being injured by the Tariff. So that this is no new discovery which has just been made. It is nothing new. The then Prime Minister said -

Some industries have been destroyed by this Tariff; some others have been injured, and many have not been assisted.

So that the then Prime Minister went before the people of Australia, telling them, “We do not like this Tariff; it has destroyed some industries; it has injured others ; it has not assisted some others ; but, nevertheless,. I say that the policy which I put before the people ‘ ‘-

Mr Mauger:

– He had not the faintest idea of the extent of the injury.

Mr REID:

– May I read what the honorable and learned member for Ballarat said before the election? He said -

The clean cut issue, then, in the contest now to be commenced, lies between those who hold with us that what we need is time to adjust ourselves to our new conditions without another Tariff campaign in Parliament. .

What is the Opposition corner trying to bring about? A new Tariff campaign in this Parliament. In the debate on the Address-in-Reply, the three leaders of the House declared the verdict recorded by the electors of Australia, in the following words : -

Mr Deakin:

– The fiscal issue is dead and buried during this Parliament, at all events.

Mr Reid:

– I recognise that that is the verdict of the constituencies.

Mr Watson:

– I share the gratification of the Prime Minister that with the last election the issue, as between free-trade and protection, has disappeared for some time to come, at any rate, so far as the Tariff is concerned..

Practically the fiscal issue is dead, at any rate, so far as this Parliament is concerned.

Even Sir William Lyne, in returning thanks at Albury, said -

The fiscal question should never have been raised in this election, because, owing to the stringency of the financial clauses of the Constitution it was impossible to have either protection or free-trade. Whatever party was in power, the only possible Tariff must be very similar to that now in force, and until the expiration of the Braddon clause it was in vain for either party to dream of radical alterations.

I want to go a little further. I have here some quotations from the leading protectionist organ. One was published after the speech to which I have referred. It is contained in a leading article, published on the 30th October, 1903.

Mr Tudor:

– In what newspaper?

Mr REID:

– In the Age.

The first and foremost necessity of the time is a truce on the fiscal question.

The word “truce” is used. It was not recognised some months afterwards.

Mr Mauger:

– The right honorable member would not recognise it then.

Mr REID:

– I am referring to the attempt made in a certain quarter to deny that they ever used the word “ truce.”

The first and foremost necessity of the time is a truce on the fiscal question. As long as that struggle goes on it bars the way to any progressive legislation on other national and social questions.

I now give a number of others - 6.11.1903. - The issue is clear enough - Preferential Trade, a White Australia, and Fiscal Peace.

1 1. 1903. - This being the position, protectionists are compelled to concentrate all their strength upon the single item of fiscal peace, including the addendum of preferential trade within the Empire. 7.12.1903. - They (the electors) wish either for fiscal peace or for fiscal war again. They would have the present Tariff let alone pending the Imperial preferential proposals, or ripped up again as soon as Parliament meets. . . . .

But the issue on which the bulk of the community is divided is fiscal peace or fiscal war_

Mr. Deakin or Mr. Reid

1. 1. - Now, whether we like it or not, we cannot get away from the questions which are at issue - fiscal peace under Mr. Deakin, or fiscal war under Mr. Reid. It all comes down to that in the end. 14.12.1903. - We cannot doubt, from the history of many Victorian elections, that liberal protectionists form the vast majority of the voters of this State. These people all want to see the Tariff battle cease for a few years. They want fiscal peace as proclaimed by the Deakin Government. 16.12. 1903. - To-day the electors will return their verdict. They are to-day more truly a jury in their country’s cause. For this State, we know beforehand, the overwhelming preponderance of the popular voice is for the Deakin Government and fiscal peace as against Reid. and another fiscal war. 18.12.1903. - The net result of the whole polling in all the six States is to leave the strength of the respective parties almost exactly as before, with, perhaps, a gain of one seat to the Government, and a more solid vote than ever for fiscal peace and preferential trade. Indeed, on the one chief point which Mr. Reid insisted on making his battle cry - that of Tariff revision - he is hopelessly beaten. 19.12.1903. - When the new Houses meet, the Opposition will find itself powerless to make an effectual attack on the Tariff. That matter is, therefore, at rest for three years at least. . . .

There can be no longer any doubt about the verdict of the people on this’ fiscal issue. The new Parliament will contain at least a majority of nine protectionists, and a majority of twentynine pledged to fiscal peace. 30.12.1903. - The free-traders, having fought and lost the late election as enemies of fiscal peace, are now putting out feelers for an alliance with the protectionists. . . ‘ . It is much more useful to recall to mind the. true division of parties as they came from the country on the issues fought there. These are -

When Mr. Reid says he does not think the fiscal question can be re-opened, he may be thanked for nothing.

1. 1. - For one thing, we have cast off definitely the threats of the free-trade leader that he would force a new struggle over the Tariff…..

As to the fiscal question, that will be at rest for a few ‘years at least; and for this respite every one will be thankful.

1. 1. - The Prime Minister (Mr. Deakin) has just made manifest one of the good results of getting the fiscal question out of the way.

That was published this year ! Now I will pass on. We came out of this contest before the electors as representatives of the people. The then Prime Minister, the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, honorably acknowledged . the issue that he put to the people, and he was gratified, as he might well be, at the fact that an unmistakable majority had responded to his demand for a fiscal truce, and that there should be no Tariff campaign in the new Parliament. Whilst the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, the then Prime Minister, was making this statement, I interjected “ Yes, I must admit that was the decision of the constituencies.”

Mr REID:
Free Trade

– Could I be beaten before? That interjection only shows the unhappyposition which a Prime Minister is placed in. I am blamed for having said after the election what could not have been said before !

Mr Mauger:

Another question which has been definitely settled, so far as Queensland is concerned, is that there shall be no alteration of the Tariff.

Here is a trusted representative of the public coming back from his constituents, and placing on the parliamentary records what his commission was, and stating that the decision of Queensland - not of himself, not of his corner - was that “ there shall be. no alteration of the Tariff.” The honorable and learned member further said -

I think the people have declared that it is desirable that until the bookkeeping period has closed we should adhere to the existing Tariff.

Mr Mauger:

– And yet the right honor- . able gentleman says that there is a fiscal truce.

Mr REID:

– The honorable member can see that the truce was not mine; it was a truce made between the protectionists and the people of Australia. I wished to carry on the fight. The electors heard us both, and declared a truce by returning a larger number of members who believed in a truce than were returned to follow me in making a fight. I ask any fair-minded man if, having done my best to carry out the principles for which I have fought all my life - principles which were put into practice in New South Wales when I had the power - if, having done my best to achieve the triumph of those principles throughout Australia, and the verdict of the people being unmistakably against me, I should be accused of treason ; if when I have been overwhelmingly defeated I should be charged with betraying my cause? I wish now to come to that calm and critical intellect, the honorable and learned member for Indi. He made no speeches during the elections, but fortunately he the other day committed himself to a definition of fiscal peace. I am grateful to him for that. I will read two passages from his speech, which occur within thirty lines of each other, and I will ask the House to reconcile them. Speaking of the electors, he said -

They declared that there should be a pause in the great struggle between the protectionists and the free-traders, and that the protectionist flag should still continue to wave.

That is quite true. The Tariff had been passed. It was a protectionist Tariff., and by decreeing a fiscal truce during this Parliament the electors decreed that tha protectionist Tariff should continue as it was, that, in that sense, the protectionist flag should continue to wave. The honorable and learned member in that passage said, not that the free-traders were finally defeated and annihilated, but that there was a pause, that the electors had declared that there should be a pause in the great struggle between the .protectionists and the free-traders. Did that mean annihilation and defeat? Yet fifteen lines above the passage which I have just, quoted the honorable and learned member is reported to have said -

I shall tell honorable members what that fiscal peace meant. It meant this, that the contest in Australia between the policy of free-trade on the one side, and the policy of protection on the other, was decided. There was to be no more struggling as to which policy was to be triumphant.

In the one breath the honorable and learned member spoke of there being a pause between the two great warring camps, and in the next he spoke of the final overthrow of free-trade. How can those statements be reconciled ? In the one breath he said that free-trade was finally vanquished, that it was dead, while in the next he declared that the verdict of the electors was that there should be a pause between the two great antagonists. The latter is the true description of the- circumstances.

Mr Isaacs:

– Will the right honorable gentleman kindly read the sentence immediately following the first quotation?

Mr REID:

– I will read it all. I had a reason for not being too frank about my authority for the quotation, because I did not know that I should be in order in making it. However, I will read all that the honorable and learned member said about the fiscal peace.

Mr Isaacs:

– I do not ask the right honorable gentleman to do that ; it will be sufficient if he reads the sentence which follows the first quotation.

Mr REID:

– The speech from which I am quoting will be found on page 4457 of the Hansard report. 1 s I have stated, the second sentence was uttered before the first, but I will now quote .the whole passage. It reads as follows : -

I shall tell honorable members what that fiscal peace meant. It meant this, that the contest in Australia between the policy of free-trade on the one side, and the policy of protection on the other, was decided. There was to be no more struggling as to which policy was to be triumphant. We had erected the standard of protection, and that flag was to fly all over Australia. When the Prime Minister, in Sydney, taunted the protectionists of Australia, and said that they had that “ tired feeling,” and that they dared not raise the protectionist flag before the people of Australia, we dared to do so, and the people supported us.

The honorable and learned member was unopposed. I do not know where he did it. :I did not hear of him speaking anywhere -

They declared that there should be a pause in the great struggle between the protectionists and the free-traders, and that the protectionist flag should still continue to wave.

That is the Tariff. We admit that the Tariff is to continue to wave.

Mr Isaacs:

– Will the right honorable member read the next sentence ?

Mr REID:

– I ask my honorable and learned friend how can it be said that one army has been totally annihilated if, when the two great armies are face to face, there is a pause? How can one of the armies be destroyed when there is a pause, and no fighting is taking place? The sentence upon which the honorable and learned member relies is this -

But they never said that in this declaration of peace .between two warring camps any details of protection should remain unattended to.

– Because other people behind the honorable and learned member have been doing the same thing ; because this poison has been circulated in Victoria with the deliberate object of crippling my usefulness in the great public fight in which I am engaged. In New South Wales, where I am known, where I have lived nearly all my life, and where I have stood before the public all my life, I need not waste my time, because I never stood stronger in the public estimation in that State than I* do to-day. These miserable slanders outside of my own country may run their wicked course, but, in my own State. I am happy to say that I have received marks of the confidence and the respect of the people which I think no other public man in Australia ever received. I shall pass by the matter of lavish expenditure referred to by the honorable and learned member for Corio. I do not care about that, because it does not involve any personal imputation. The honorable and learned member says in his letter -

It is notorious that his accounts were publicly condemned as cooked ; and that a disinterested 8 b board, appointed by the Government, consisting of the general managers of the leading banks in Sydney, supported this criticism by finding that public moneys had been misused, accounts doctored, and balances wrongly applied.

I say that if that were true, I should have no right to stand in any public assembly of honorable men. I have had these things, in a milder form, hurled at me, but never in that form. In view of the use that is being made of these slanders, which are being employed, not to defame me as a man, but to injure me as a public man, I have felt it to be my duty to bring evidence to bear on the subject. I shall first read a letter from the gentleman who was accountant to the Treasury during the whole term of my office. In order to show the standing of this gentleman, I may tell’ honorable members that my successors - I do not know whether it was the Administration of the honorable member for Hume or that of Sir John See - promoted him to the high position of AuditorGeneral of New South Wales. That shows he was a man of high standing.

Mr Crouch:

– Why does not the right honorable gentleman read the finding of the board ?

Mr REID:

– I propose to read a letter from the board, with regard to these slanders. I submitted them to the board, and I have their letter signed by ever)’ member. The honorable and learned member’s letter appeared in the Age of the 9th September. The first letter in reply to my inquiries, which I will read, is dated the 13th September, and reads - -

Auditor-General’s Department,

Sydney, 13th September, 1904.

My Dear Sir,

In reply to your favour received this morning, I am pleased to express my opinion, which is formed on my own personal knowledge, that at no time during your occupancy of the Treasury in this State was there any interference on your part, or on the part of any member of your Ministry, with the preparation of the public accounts of this State, and that the balances as published and used by you were as prepared and presented to you by the officers of the Treasury, and were in all respects statutorily correct ; and no suggestion as to any alteration thereof, with a view of showing different results, was at any time ever made to me as accountant for the Treasury -

And I ask honorable members to listen to what follows, because it constitutes the most absolute vindication of all - and also, that the accounts, as subsequently published, exhibited in all and every respect the same figures and results as when they were first laid before you by me, acting as accountant to the Treasury.

Yours faithfully,

Vernon, Auditor-General.

That officer was the accountant, who signed every statement which I submitted to Parliament. I shall now read a letter from the Under-Secretary to the Treasury, a gentleman who has occupied that position for many years, and who still fills it. He says -

Treasury, New South Wales,

Sydney, 13th September, 1904.

Dear Mr. Reid,

I am in receipt of your note of 10th inst., and regret very much to hear of the baseless charges levelled against you in respect of your administration of the finances of New South Wales -

I sent a copy of the charges to each of these gentlemen.

Mr Crouch:

– I sent them.

Mr REID:

– Surely the honorable and learned member might begin to be ashamed of himself.

The charges could only have been made by persons utterly ignorant of the facts, and also of the terms of the report furnished by the committee appointed by your successor at the Treasury. To your inquiry as to whether you ever suggested, or- endeavoured to do anything at variance with the highest standard of political honour and integrity, I can only answer, emphatically, “No.”

Trusting that you are well, with kindest regards,

Yours, very truly,

Kirkpatrick.

Those gentlemen are no longer under my control. They are absolutely outside my sphere of influence. The next letter which I propose to read to the House is from the gentleman who became Colonial Treasurer of New South Wales when the honorable member for Hume quitted State politics and who continued in that office for four years. I vacated the position in 1899, and Mr. Waddell became Colonial Treasurer in 1900, and retained office until 1904. Mr. Waddell says - 14th September, 1904.

Dear Mr. Reid,

Owing to pressure of work, I have got behind in my correspondence, and only just opened your letter, and read the extract which it contains, which you say appeared in a letter in the Melbourne Age of the 9th inst. When you ask my opinion of the statements or charges contained in the extract, I feel bound, in fairness to you, to say that no one is justified in making such charges, and I feel sure that whoever has made them, will, in his calmer moments, withdraw them unreservedly.

Yours sincerely,

Waddell.

Further, as the Under-Secretary to the Treasury tells us, the statement that the report of the committee of leading bankers, which was appointed by the Government, arrived at findings which supported these infamous charges is absolutely opposed to the truth. I wrote to Mr. French, being under the impression that he was chairman of the committee in question.

Mr Crouch:

– Mr. Dibbs was the chairman.

Mr REID:

– One would think that the honorable and learned member for Corio was making this explanation. I repeat that I wrote to Mr. French personally, thinking that he acted as chairman of the committee. He informed me, however, that he did not so act, but that Mr. Dibbs was the chairman. He interviewed Mr. Dibbs and Mr. Yarwood, the other members of the committee. Mr. Dibbs, I may add, was the general manager of the Commercial Bank ; Mr. Russell French, the general manager of the Bank of New South Wales ; and Mr. Yarwood was an accountant. These three gentlemen have written me the following letter : -

Sydney, 17th September, 1904.

Dear Mr. Reid,

Referring to your note of 10th inst. to Mr. J. Russell French, covering extract from a letter published in the Melbourne Age, our report, which is referred to, speaks for itself, and should not have given rise to any misapprehension.

In view, however, of the remarks in the extract in question, it is but just to you to state that we made no reflection whatever on your personal honour or integrity, nor did we intend to suggest any improper manipulation of the Treasury accounts by yourself or the Treasury officials, as would seem to be implied by the terms “ cooked “ or “ doctored “ - which appear in the letter.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Fuller:

– Can the honorable and learned member for Corio produce Mr. Dibbs’ letter stating that the accounts were “ cooked “ ?

Mr REID:

– I have simply to ask the House to pardon me for introducing this personal matter. I think that every honorable member in the Chamber will feel sufficient sympathy with me - after the infamous slanders which have been circulated against me for so many years - to admit that I should at last take notice of them, not because I need to clear my reputation in New South Wales, or perhaps even in Australia, but because I have the interests of Australia in my hands now, and I do not wish to see any man occupying this position against whom such accusations can be justly uttered. Passing from that matter I should like to point out that there is a statement due to the public of Australia, which I hope will be made by the honorable and learned member for Indi, if not by the leader of the Opposition, as to whether this alliance is a mere piece pf legal network, from which any honorable member can escape, or whether it has a solid business meaning. We are all entitled to know that.

Mr Mahon:

– The right honorable member is very much interested.

Mr REID:

– Are we not all interested? Is it not a fair subject for criticism ?

Mr Hughes:

Mr REID:

– I do not complain of it. I think I may fairly say that the present leader of the Opposition took up the position that under our party and parliamentary systems we pushed to its extreme the practice of making questions vital. I believe that has been the objection raised by the honorable member. He has urged that there is too much of this system of party government, and of the lives of Governments depending on questions that come before the House.

Mr Mahon:

– The right honorable gentleman will make nothing vital to the life of his Government.

Mr REID:

– May I ask the ex-Minister to allow me, an actual Minister, to make a little Ministerial statement? It is a sore business, but I had to submit to it for four years, and now the Opposition have to undergo the same experience. I merely desire a few months, that is all. The present leader ‘of the Opposition, in referring in the course of his Ministerial statement to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, made the following remarks, which are to be found at page 1268 of Hansard: -

In September last, when the Bill introduced last session was dropped by the late Administration, I took the stand that they had no right to make a matter of detail a Government question.

In other words, he urged that the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, in standing by, as a vital matter, the position that the extension of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to States servants was unconstitutional, and a gross interference with the rights of the States, did wrong, because it was after all only a matter of detail. We see the difference sometimes in the views held by men when they hold positions of responsibility as compared with those which they express when they do not. An honorable member had asked the then Prime Minister, the honorable member for Bland, if he would regard a vote against the extension of the provisions of the Bill to States servants as vital, and, in reply, the honorable gentleman made the statement which I have just read. A little later on, he said -

For my own part, I expressed the view as far back as six or seven months ago that the matter was one of detail, and, therefore, if occasion arises, I shall be free to take any course without going back upon principles already enunciated.

That is my .point. The honorable member took a most liberal view of what was due to himslf . “ You have terrible objections to these clauses ; but they are to be taken as a matter of detail.” That was his advice to the honorable and learned member. for Ballarat. “Do not mind,” he said; “but go on with the Bill.” The scene changed. The honorable member, who advised the honorable and learned member for Ballarat to sink his views of political honour as a Prime Minister, came into office. He occupied the same responsible position, and-

Mr Poynton:

– What did the right honorable gentleman say ?

Mr REID:

– This matter has nothing to do with the honorable member, except in so far as he is a listener.

Mr Poynton:

– It has a good deal to do with me.

Mr REID:

– I trust that the honorable member will bear with me. I come now to the question on which the late Government shipwrecked themselves. The House will remember that the Committee decided by a majority of five to insert in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill a provision that the Court, before granting preference to unionists, should be satisfied that a majority in the industry affected was favorable to the making of such an award. The Government said, “ We will ask the Committee to reconsider that decision.” But before they did that .they made the statement that if the Committee would not eat their own words, and go back from, their decision, as expressed in the Bill, the Government would take the view that their services were not required. That was done by the Prime Minister. Yet when we came to the recommittal, consider the view which the Prime Minister took of the difference between what was in the Bill and what was proposed to be put in tHe Bill. He did not think of resigning at first, and I do not blame him for that. If a decision is a close thing there is a tendency that way. Here is what the Prime Minister said when this proposal to recommit was challenged by the honorable and learned member for Corinella -

If anything approaching a majority apply for a preference, the Judge may reasonably hold that they substantially represent all engaged in the industry.

That is to say, if any number approaching a majority applied for preference, the Judge might reasonably know that they represented substantially all engaged in the industry. Then the honorable member went on - the remarks are reported in Hansard, page 4047 -

Under the proposal of the honorable and learned member, the Court could not dispense with rigid proof of the existence of a majority in favour of the granting of a preference, while, under our proposal, if they were reasonably assured of the fact, it would not have to be mathematically demonstrated to them. That is the only difference between the two proposals.

– -A good Christian organ.

Mr REID:

– I shall read a little of its Christianity. I got this extract in rather a round-about way. I do not happen to subscribe to the Brisbane Worker, but I get newspaper cuttings from the old country. Amongst those received was this, from the St. James’ Gazette, which- had extracted it from the Worker; and it shows how we are “ boomed “ at Home by these organs. This was published in the Worker just a month or two after the Federal election -

Political power has been won in the Federal domain….. The question now is, What next ? and the answer, Economic Revolution.

The wage system holds us as firmly as ever in its vampire clutch. . . . “Wage system!” “Vampire clutch!” No more wages ! All Government salaries.

The great work now awaiting us is the utilization of political power to economic advantages. The vote must be used as a bar to strike the shackles from our limbs.

What fearful slavery there must be in Queensland ! And a Labour Government, or very nearly a Labour Government, is in office ! What a fearful state of things the people of Queensland must have to contend against ! The extract goes on -

The Capitalist State must go. . . . There can be no peace, no happiness, whilst civilization continues to be based upon the system of barbarism - a Master-caste whipping slave-masses to labour for private gain.

That sounds all right, does it not? Just fancy the mild and conservative leader of the Opposition using language like that ! The leader of the Opposition is the right man in this Parliament, but that extract shows the work which is going on outside -

The Co-operative Commonweclth alone is worthy of this age of science and invention.

– Perhaps the honorable member will permit me to answer one question before he asks another. What I desire to say in reference to that is that we all agree that the national taxing power should be used through the Customs House, and that all direct taxation should come through the powers of the States Parliaments. That would leave the people of each State to work out their own system of direct taxation for themselves, and if there were a majority in a State in favour of a land tax there would then be no obstacle in the way. But it was felt that it would lead to immense confusion if we were to attempt to raise direct taxation, and for many years to come. So far as I am concerned, I think it will always be better to leave to the States their individual freedom to work out their own destinies in this respect, and that the Federation should use the national power of taxation through the Customs only. But now we can understand the levity with which our honorable friends opposite look forward to flouting the States in reference to this question, which particularly affects two of them. There are two of the States in which already laws have been passed relating to old-age pensions.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– They are charity doles.

An Honorable Member. - They are rotten laws.

Mr REID:

– Still they are laws, and that is all I said. I said that they were laws, but I did not say the precise condition of preservation which they are in. There are such laws in New South Wales and Victoria, whilst none of the other States have passed such’ legislation. Now, if we had a friendly conference with the Premiers of those States’ we could get their authority to bring this system in without raising£4,000,000 through the Customs when we require only£1,000,000.

Mr Isaacs:

– In that the right honorable gentleman agrees with us.

Mr REID:

– I do not mind agreeing with the honorable and learned member sometimes, but I point out that I expressed that view years ago. I said that it could not be done through the Federation, but my honorable friend representing the Opposition now says, “ We do not care what the States say, we will have it.” The honorable member does not mean to oppress the people by raising ^4,000,000 when only _£:r, 000,000 will do. The honorable member has not become editor of the Tocsin yet, but he will get his .£1,000,000 out of direct taxation. I admit that we are getting daylight in connexion with this matter. The honorable, and learned member for Indi thought he had made a tremendous point in a criticism recently of the terms of the memorandum drawn up by the honorable and learned members for Ballarat and Balaclava, in conjunction with the honorable member for Macquarie and myself. We agreed on this -

The Tariff ,not to be altered in any respect during the present Parliament without the consent of both parties in the Ministry.

My honorable and learned friend professed to look upon that as an admission that we could alter the Tariff. But that is simply ratifying the truce which both admitted had been declared, instead of a provision giving liberty to break it. Just fancy our wing of the party agreeing to bringing in protective duties ! There was another understanding - concerning preferential trade. We took up a position which is most excellently expressed by the Melbourne Age, of 30th October, just after the speech delivered by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat. The Age said -

But on this point there is no need whatever for Australia to leap before she comes to the fence. Details at this stage are premature. Mr. Chamberlain may not succeed in his mission.

That looks very likely just now.

That is a matter which rests in the future. Should he carry the mind of England with him it cannot be done for the next twelve months. Therefore, any overtures from Australia would be completely out of place. . . .

One thing is certain, the protectionists will never permit the preferential Tariff to undermine the Federal policy of protection.

Mr Mauger:

– Hear, hear.

Mr REID:

– That is right; let the English people know that. That will be another encouragement ‘ to them to agree to a tax upon food.

Mr Mauger:

– The English people do know that.

Mr REID:

– The Age further said-

Mr. Chamberlain has distinctly stated he is satisfied to work on that basis. Mr. Deakin’ s preferential policy is crystallized in a sentence.

Everything is crystallized in an Age leader - “ Great Britain must make the first move.” That is the sound position to assume.

We all assume it; but because I agree with it I am the enemy of the Australian farmer ! Since that article was written another obstacle has occurred. The Imperial Government has categorically rejected the policy of taxation on food and on raw materials. The piesent Imperial Government has distinctly said that that is no part of its policy. Is not this new anxiety about preferential trade more an attempt to create mischief, than anything else? The fact is, that my strong objections to preferential trade are from the point of view, that it would be most seriously injurious to the Mother country herself. I believe that if the Mother country were to adopt that policy, she would be injuring herself in a most- serious way.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Would it be beneficial to Australia?

Mr REID:

– I expressed these views only the other day. Before I became Prime Minister, I was asked to send a contribution to a book which is coming out on Mr. Chamberlain’s life and projects, and in the article I contributed, I expressed in the strongest way my belief that it would not be a good thing for the people of England.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Will it benefit Australia?

Mr REID:

– If the people of England come to the conclusion that it will be a good thing for them - and I admit that they know a little more about the matter than I can pretend to know - and if they do come forward with proposals, as I have already said, their proposals will receive from this Government as fair consideration as they could receive from any Government. But if it comes to a point at which I have to choose between adhering to and surrendering my views on fiscal questions, only one thing can happen. If any emergency occurs, and we are unable to come to a reasonable view on any matter of moment which arises, we must be prepared to give our honorable friends opposite a chance. But we are not going to make troubles out of things that are in the future. We are not going, in an unbusinesslike way to create points of discord. Our enemies wish us to do that. ‘They wish us to muddle public affairs; to do everything at the wrong time, and in the wrong way. We are here, not to oblige them, but to do our best in the public interest. I think I fairly represent even honorable members who do not belong to the party, which I lead, when I say that if the fiscal question had remained for this Parliament to deal with, it would have been impossible for us to come together. The people, however, removed that question from this Parliament, and the main bond of union between us is this : We are absolutely opposed to the political methods of the Labour Party, and to the authority which their organizations have over members of Parliament, and we are absolutely opposed to their extreme socialistic designs. It is very easy for newspapers in Australia to publish articles, such as that which I have read, and which are republished in the great newspapers of the Empire; but I wish honorable gentlemen to recollect that these revolutions which undermine the security for property and enterprise, these threats of turning our industrial system upside down, come at a bad time. They help to aggravate the state of unrest and of want of confidence which is paralyzing the industrial expansion of Australia. Labour’ Socialists talk of a time to come, when the workers will all be happy, when they will all be employed in a Government factory ; but attempts to carry such views to a violent extreme - an extreme which makes the very basis upon which property, enterprise, and labour rest insecure - are the worst things that can happen for that great mass of the workers who have to live by the expansion of industry under conditions of confidence and trust.

Mr Fowler:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The Prime Minister read amongst other things., the following passage, from the report of an address which I delivered in Melbourne, on Sunday night : -

Those members felt it was unnecessary and objectionable, and their ideas had at least received the assent of a majority of their colleagues.

It is evident that the word “ majority “ slipped in’ accidentally. The passage should read -

Their ideas had at least received the assent of a minority of their colleagues.

Otherwise, the report is substantially correct.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– The Prime Minister, at very great length, essayed the task, that he himself declared at the outset to be ridiculously easy, of replying to the leader of the Opposition. So far as I was able to gather, the right honorable gentleman made a very ineffective reply. Even now, after having had an opportunity of going over in my mind what the right honorable gentleman said, I am at a loss to know his objective, or how nearly he approached it. He did, indeed, during one period of his address, declare the difference - or what he thought to be the difference - between his party, or that heterogeneous collection of gentlemen who now form his party, or permit themselves to be so called, and honorable members on this side of the Chamber. Beyond that his speech was a very general resume of those very fruitful and interesting criticisms to which he has treated the country for some months past.

Mr Webster:

– For some years past.

Mr HUGHES:

– Of course there comes with each succeeding address a certain amount of delicate adjustment to existing circumstances that serves to stamp the right honorable gentleman as an artist of the very first rank. He has not failed on this occasion to put on just that particular delicate shade of colouring which is perhaps necessary under the circumstances, and which marks the difference between the occasion of to-day and that of, say three weeks ago. He stated that the ‘ leader of the Opposition had made no definite complaint against the Government. I should like to know what he means by a definite complaint. He said we ought to have formulated in detail reasons for displacing him. Have we not, from the very inception of our movement, ten or twelve years back, formulated the reasons for dislodging such a Prime Minister as the right honorable gentleman? He stated also that he had received support from me for eight years, and of course he meant that he had also received support from other men who, like myself, have been members of the New South Wales Labour Party, and now sit in this House. Yes, he did receive - not for eight, but for five years - the unswerving support of men like myself, who gave him their assistanceso long as he was marching, no matter at what pace, along the broad high road of democracy. When at length, slumbering in the pleasant shades of the banyan tree of office, he was too long inactive, we put him out, and we sat behind another gentleman, upon whom I am sure the right honorable gentleman has never, during his life-time, passed one word of eulogy. In that, at least, the riight honorable gentleman has been consistent. We transferred to the honorable member for Hume the support that we had given to the right honorable gentleman. In detail then we object to the Government, because it stands for everything we detest and mortally hate. What more detail does the right honorable gentleman require? That is not a general charge - it is a specific charge. I see the right honorable member for Swan - all of whose ducks and geese are swans - assuming a content which I am sure he does not feel .

Sir John Forrest:

– How does the honorable and learned member know that ?

Mr HUGHES:

– In the adjustment of the political kaleidoscope, the right honorable gentlemarfs expectations have not been fully realized.

Sir John Forrest:

– That is nonsense.

Mr HUGHES:

– But it is not all, for the exigencies of political circumstance have compelled the Prime Minister even to throw obstacles in the way of other laudable ambitions of the right honorable gentleman. Honest ambition, we are told by the Prime Minister, is a most excellent quality in a politician, provided it is an ambition that suits the purpose of the right honorable gentleman; otherwise it is anathema, and is to be crowded out. For what does the right honorable gentleman, the member for Swan, stand, when he forgets that power to which he himself bent very readily indeed in Western Australia, and under which he subdued his fiery spirit for three years in this Parliament, never letting us know - except occasionally - that he was opposed to us ? For what does1 he stand when he comes out in his true colours ? I assume that when there is nothing further to be gained by dissimulation, the right honorable gentleman does come out in his true colours. Does he want to know why we are opposed to him? Does he want to know in detail why we object . to the Government? We object to the Government because of their abandonment of principle, and particularly because they stand for everything that we are here to oppose and denounce.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable and learned member is no doubt a great patriot. Doubtless he has shown, it. all his life, and has done some public good.

Mr HUGHES:

– I notice that the Prime Minister, since his recent elevation, has found it necessary to make a number of remarks about his high and responsible position. Well, it is a high and responsible position, but he has not been, so long in it that it need have altered his whole nature, and the recognition of his great responsibility should not relieve him from the. duty of explaining to the country why he is occupying his high and responsible position. Is the fact that he occupies that high and responsible position to be sufficient for the people of this country, and are they to accept that fact in lieu of a policy? A high and responsible position is an excellent thing; but what about his high, and responsible policy? What is his policy? The right honorable gentleman said that the honorable member for Bland had taken exception to the fact that he had not outlined his policy for the next session. I am astonished at the honorable member for Bland. The right honorable gentleman outlined the whole of his policy for this Parliament, and for as many other Parliaments as he shall lead. Briefly, his policy viewed from one aspect, is a movement, in rapidity excelling all the most uptodate engines of science. It is a movement towards recess, towards that beautiful oasis in the desert of politics that the right honorable gentleman appreciates so much, and which he does not hesitate to dangle before his own supporters, and also before the weary sojourners on this side of the Chamber for all it is worth. On the one hand he directs our gaze to the beauties of recess, and on the other points to the danger of doing anything to this Government, for he threatens us with a dissolution, if we attack them. Only last week, or the week before, he said . that he wished to intimate at once that any movement upon our part to upset this delectable Government before it had got its second wind, would bring about an appeal to the country. Here was his first exhibition of statesmanship. He came into office to restore responsible government, to bring about majority rule, and to exorcise from politics that condition of things which hampered the free expression of individual opinion. This was to be the battle-ground upon- which every man, without fear’ or favour, without any cracking of the party whip, or . blowing ‘of the party horn, was to be able to say wha’t he thought, and to vote as he pleased. Yet he was not in office twenty-four hours before he declared that if we dared to do anything hostile to the Government, there would be a dissolution of the House. He speaks of his consistency in regard to his beliefs. I wonder whether he really believes his own statement. He asserts that if we dare to attack the Ministry, we shall bring about a dissolution. What did he say in 1899? He may remember the occasion to which I refer, when the honorable member for Hume, I presume he will say, was permitted by a jaundiced Providence, to occupy that sphere which he himself had ornamented so magnificently. I will tell the House what the Sydney Daily Telegraph reports him as having said then, and surely it cannot be wrong. Upon the 13th of September, 1899, it published this statement -

After making all the illegitimate use of the dissolution whip that he possibly could while his own turn was to be served by it, Mr. Reid -

Mr Johnson:

– The honorable and learned member for Parkes is a better judge of democracy than is the honorable and learned member.

Mr Page:

– The honorable member’s idea of democracy is a remarkable one.

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Reid:

– Hear, hear; I have not repealed them yet.

Mr Batchelor:

– The right honorable gentleman does not dare to propose it.

Mr Reid:

– The honorable and learned member knows that I am sworn to carry out the laws of the country, and if I did not do it, he would accuse me of treachery in breaking the law.

Sir William Lyne:

– Of what did the right honorable gentleman accuse Sir Edmund Barton ?

Mr HUGHES:

– The Daily Telegraph further said -

One of these enactments is the notorious section of the Immigration Restriction Act, by which it was sought to keep the six hatters out of the Commonwealth. The other is the equally notorious section of the Postal Act by which the Government seek to prohibit mail, steamers from carryinglascar seamen.

Mr HUGHES:

– The right honorable gentleman was returned here to revise the Tariff. Now, what did he say? He is reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 1 8th August, 1903, as having spoken as follows : -

I want to tell . you frankly that, although all sorts of temptations have been addressed to me to sink the fiscal question, and although I believe I would be an infinitely stronger man, so far as the whole of Australia is concerned, if I would only sink this question, I cannot do it. My whole public career would be a fraud if I endeavoured to get political power by sacrificing the great principle of my political existence.

Mr Reid:

– Hear, hear !

Mr HUGHES:

– Now the right honorable gentleman is a free-trader first, last, and all the time. I am not, and never have been, and do not want to be. I believe that free-trade is a better policy than protection, but I have declared, and I say again, that the planks of the labour platform are infinitely more important to me than any form of fiscalism. Does the right honorable gentleman say that a White Australia - or rather a Black Australia - is more important to him than fiscalism? No. He says free-trade is to him the beginning and end of everything; and yet there he sits in calm community with the Minister of . Trade and Customs, the Treasurer, and the Minister of Defence. These three protectionists and another leaven the lump. The right honorable gentleman has sunk his fiscal belief. He is in favour of amending the Immigration Restriction Act with a view to removing the present restrictions upon, the immigra tion of contract labourers, but he will not do that at this stage, because his friends in the Ministry do not agree with him. In fact, the right honorable gentleman is a seething volcano of convictions, but he cannot find an opportunity to carry them into effect. He says he will fight like a tiger for free-trade, and he will fight more like a hyena to carry out his other convictions ; but circumstances are not favorable, and he cannot go on. He asks us to formulate in detail our objections to the Government. Why, it is with difficulty that we can bring ourselves to consider the claims of such a combination to ordinary treatment. Consider the circumstances under which the late Government came into office, and the conditions under which they were thrown out. Consider the promise we got from the honorable and learned member for Ballarat that we should have fair play. Consider the circumstances connected with the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Consider the volume of opinion in this House that had led the country to believe it was in favour of the whole of that measure, and consider how it changed the moment that we assumed control of it. The head of the fourth party, or the third party in this Chamber - the honorable and learned member for Ballarat - wanted to give us fair play. He himself said so. He was in favour of entering into an alliance with us. That honorable and learned member who is opposed to the existence of third parties and to the methods of the Labour Party, made overtures to us some considerable time before the House met, that we should join with him. He did nonqualify those overtures with any objection to our methods, to those irresponsible persons outside of Parliament, to the caucus, to the pledge, or to anything else. He was willing to ally himself with our party, ignoring ,what he now professes to regard as blemishes in our movement and platform. The House met. He was still in favour of an alliance, so much in favour of an alliance as such, irrespective of the party with whom he allied himself, that he was also in favour of an alliance with the right honorable member for East Sydney. That was, indeed, putting the virtues of an alliance before anything else. He made overtures to the right honorable member for East Sydney, and to us. We were unable to agree to his overtures. The right honorable member for East Sydney was in a very different position. He had taken a very rapid bird’s eye view of the situation, and saw clearly enough that there was no hope from fiscal strife, or anything in that direction. . He knows when he is “ licked,” and says so. Anybody who has watched his career would know so much without his saying so. No man accepts defeat more readily, or declares it more readily, when it suits his purpose to do so. The honorable and learned member for Ballarat was negotiating with two parties at the same time. The right honorable member for East Sydney objected to that. The honorable and learned member for Ballarat said he was very sorry, but could not help it. It was one of the consequences of his insatiate desire for an alliance of some sort, and if there had been three or four parties in the House, doubtless he would have offered to ally himself with every one of them. That is why I cannot understand why the honorable member for Corangamite has not been admitted to the little room in which the Ministerial protectionists meet. Yet, although the honorable and learned’ member for Ballarat wanted to ally himself with the Labour Party, because he conceived it would be a natural alliance with the Liberal Party which hd was leading, he now stands behind the present Ministry, the head of which says he is glad to intimate that the honorable and learned member for Ballarat is his warmest friend, and that he has now only one mission in .life; namely, to bring the blessings of brotherly love to the people of Victoria from those of New South Wales. He declares that his one mission in life is to bear the olive branch. He desires to embrace al! the people of Victoria. He loves them so much that he wishes them to understand that those cruel things which he uttered a little time ago, were uttered in a frenzy, and must not be considered seriously. According to the Age of 17 th May, 1904-

There is really a good deal of humour in politics “ would men observingly distil it out.” One exquisite piece of it lies in* the tearful yearnings of the inventor of the Petriana Myth towards Mr. Deakin. Only a few months ago, when the local free-trade press was vainly trying to get the Victorian electors to accept Mr. Reid’s nominees and throw over those of Mr. Deakin, no abuse was too rabid, and no falsehood too foul, with which to bespatter the protectionist leader. He was held up to the odium of the world at large as a man who pushed shipwrecked sailors back into the sea, and denied them a foothold in Australia. When Mr. Deakin branded1 these fictions with the name of the “ Petriana Myth,” and proved by irrefragable documents that his accusers had deliberately invented their accusations, he was told that he was a mere tool of the Labour Party, ready to cling to office by any means, however grovelling.

That represents the attitude of the right honorable member for East Sydney towards the honorable and learned member for Ballarat a little time ago. Now all is changed.

Mr REID:

– I never made such a statement, and only the Age, would, say so. It is an absolutely false statement.

Mr HUGHES:

– Anyhow, the Age does say so. When the late Government came into office, the1 honorable and learned member for Ballarat was still smarting under these gentle, amicable olive branch overtures on the part of the right honorable member for East Sydney, and he would not look at him. On the contrary, he declared that he1 was one of our warmest friends. According to the Age of 19th May, of the present year -

When Mr. Watson sat down yesterday, after making his statement to the House, of the Ministerial programme for the current session, Mr. Deakin rose and complimented him on having announced a policy almost identical with that which had been agreed upon between Mr. Reid and himself. .

The honorable and learned member for Ballarat promised that we should receive fair play. At that time he was not opposed to our party to the extent to which he has latterly betrayed himself, but he was still angling for a coalition with the supporters of the right honorable member for East Sydney. Upon 20th May last the Age said -

The liberal caucus has silenced the cry of conservative coalition.

The honorable and learned member for Ballarat did not begin to see the! vices which are inherent in the organization of the Labour Party until some time after. Possibly he thought that the Watson Government would fall into decrepitude and decay almost before it was out of its swaddling clothes. Possibly he hoped for’ the very best - that is, for the very worst. Perhaps he thought that we .should require his assistance - that we should run to’ him, as to a foster mother. At any rate, we were promised fair play at his hands, and we expected to receive it. He urged then, as the chief reason why he acted as he did, that three parties in the House were undesirable, and rendered constitutional government impossible. Upon 23rd May last the honorable and learned member had altered his opinions to such an extent that the Age made the following remarks -

Mr. Deakin is at great pains to emphasize the differences between himself and Mr. Watson, and to minimize the points of dissimilarity between himself and Mr. Reid. . . . Having admitted that the business programmes are identical, he flies off to something which Mr. Watson has outlined as possible work for another session ; and so, as there are no difficulties for to-day drags in possible differences of the future. That is not the attitude of a friendly critic, and shows a disposition of .mind which is anxious to cause a quarrel. But the singular thing is that the leader who thus strains after something to justify him in opposing men to whom he has promised a fair trial quite ignores the dangerous differences which ought to have guarded him against all present thought of coalition with the free-trade leader.

Here then, the honorable and learne’d member for Ballarat begins to evidence that objection to the Labour Party which latterly has become accentuated. Now he is not only opposed to third parties as such, but he is opposed to the Labour Party as such - the very party with which, a few weeks or a few months ago, he was perfectly willing to ally himself, upon almost any terms - at any rate upon equal terms. As to this coalition, to which my honorable and learned friend has lent his powerful aid, but to which’ he has not committed himself body and soul, I would remind the House that as formerly projected, it was dealt with by the Age in its issue of 26th May last! I understand that the present coalition is the lineal’ descendant of that first proposed. I presume that the basis which supported the one first proposed supports the present. May I ask the Prime Minister for an approving nod.

Mr Reid:

– The honorable and learned member will not allow me to interrupt.

Mr HUGHES:

– Jove sleeps. I presume that the present coalition is the same as that which formed the subject of the famous effort made by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat.

Mr Watson:

– He said some time ago that it was not the same ; therefore, there has been no public notice of the understanding.

Mr HUGHES:

– If it be not the old coalition, what is it? What guarantee has the honorable and learned member for Ballarat that it is going to do that which be’ said it would ? Where is the agreement for the maintenance of a White Australia? Has my honorable and learned friend not obtained it? I believe that he has. Can he’ rely on it? I believe that he cannot? Is he satisfied with a mere declaration? Does he not desire that it shall be in black arid white ? Will the honorable and learned member who does not believe in written pledges take the mere ipse dixit of my right honorable friend in this matter ? I do not think that he will. I think he betrays a weakness in this little matter for black and white. And the Prime Minister, who has nothing but scorn for the labour pledge, says of the terms of the alliance, ‘’ Let us see it in black and white.” Will he not take the word of an honorable member ? It is, nevertheless, very convenient apparently to have everything in black and white. Now, this is what the

Age said of the coalition as first proposed in its issue of 26th May last : -

It may be at once conceded that if a coalition were necessary to make a policy effective, or to avoid any great danger to the integrity of parties, a coalition between the Liberals and the Labour Government would be quite a natural one. It would be a coming together of the two great branches of the Liberal party - a union mostly of affinities as contrasted with a union of discords in the proposed coalition with the conservative free-traders.

Here, then, we find that the Age emphasized that coalition which it believed ought to have been effected. The honorable and learned member for Ballarat was in favour of that coalition, but it did not come about, and he has ever since consistently opposed the party to which I belong. I have merely a few more words to say on the attitude of the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, and I shall have done. The honorable and learned member was in office for nearly three years as a member of the Barton Government. During that time the Labour Party supported him, and he never said a word against it. Then he became Prime Minister, the Labour Party supported him, and he still was silent as to our organization and our methods. He next went to the country, and the verdict was so much in our favour that he thought it would be unwise to continue without our aid. He then requested us to join him. He made overtures of the most liberal character to us, and said not one word against our pledge, our methods, or our outside organizations. He did this publicly, in his Ballarat speech, and subsequently privately. We did not accept those overtures. He hoped by decisive action, possibly, to bring us to his way of thinking. Following that, he offered to coalesce with the right honorable member for East Sydney. He still hoped, I believe, during all this time, to coalesce with us. He never shut the door to a coalition with the Labour Party even while he was endeavouring to coalesce with the party led by the present Prime Minister. After that coalition had been consummated, however, he denounced our methods, although not to the extent he has since done. He denounced third-party Government, the methods of our selection, and everything in connexion with us. He demanded that the Labour Party, because of these things, should go out. At the very time that he was willing to coalesce with our party he had apparently some over whelming objection to us. As time went on his denunciations became more bitter, And so we come down to the present day. We find that for three years he accepted our support, and said nothing against us. We find him during all this time willing to accept the aid that we would give him, glorifying in it, and willing enough to join with us in preference to coalescing with the party led by the right honorable member for East Sydney. Having coalesced with that party, however, he gradually withdrew that fair-play treatment that he- had so liberally promised, and now we have not a more consistent opponent than is my honorable and learned friend. That is a very saddening reflection, and it is a matter which I should be glad to hear the honorable and learned member attempt to explain. On a previous occasion he smarted so much under some criticisms that I had offered, that he made some personal accusations against me - -accusations which perhaps would have come better from some other man - but I ask him now to endeavour to explain, if he can, not to me, but to the country, the attitude at present taken up by him. I call upon him to explain his opposition to third parties, when he himself leads such a third party; that little band of honorable members who go with him to the little room to which I have referred. I ask him to say whether the members of that little band owe allegiance first to him, or to .the Government. I ask him to say where he stands with the conservative phalanx on the front cross bench on the Government side, and also to state how he stands in regard to democracy in Australia, in regard to the policy of a White Australia, and to that reversal of such a policy which the Prime Minister has promised. The people of Australia have a right to receive an answer to these questions. If they be answered, we shall know something about majority rule ; we ‘ shall then learn who is ruling the country - whether the little band behind my honorable and learned friend control it, whether it is run by the conservative phalanx in the Government corner, or whether it is controlled by my right honorable friend who has placed himself in the hands of outside class organizations, employers’ unions, and property-owners’ associations to such an extent that he stands here to-day without a declared policy, except that of getting into recess. He has thrown over the High Commissioner Bill. Where is the right honor- able member whose last “Swan” song amused the late Government? He has been thrown over because the Government’s march to a speedy recess would not be expedited by the introduction of the High Commissioner Bill. The Prime Minister has inquired why we are opposed to him, and has requested us to formulate some reason for seeking to displace him. The late Government were butchered in the most cowardly and unprecedented fashion by honorable members who had not the courage to formulate in detail their reasons for displacing it, and were unable to deal with us as every other Government has been dealt with in this House, irrespective of from what section of the House it came. This Government, which comes into office with its hands stained with the last Government’s blood, composed of honorable members who have abandoned their principles, and have nothing in’ common save a desire to remain where they are, now ask for consideration. If the Government wish to know why we are opposed to it, let me say that it is because it stands for reaction, for monopoly, for class legislation, and for what it terms “ anti-Socialism.” I shall not deal with that phase of the question, for it has already been dealt with by the leader of the Opposition. The difference between the policy of our party and that of the Government, so far as it has been enunciated this afternoon by my right honorable friend, may be briefly stated. The Prime Minister says the difference between his party and ours, so far as Socialism is concerned, is that while we are prepared to gp to extremes - to socialize everything - he will only go a certain length in that direction^ I appeal to him to be specific in this matter, and to tell us at what particular point he will stop. Where will he stop? As for us, our policy is clear, and our methods are open to all men. We would socialize everything when, and only when, it became a monopoly. When it is necessary in the interests of the community to socialize anything, is when, in our opinion, it has become a monopoly, and, therefore, dangerous to human liberty. Let my right honorable friend dare to say what his masters outside wish him to say, that he stands against Socialism in that direction, and that he will not nationalize monopolies because the employers’ associations outside and other associations - class associations - that he stands for, are in favour of them. We are opposed to this Government, because it has no policy. We are opposed to it, because it threatens us with a dissolution if we dare to do anything against it. We are opposed to it because it is made up of men who have nothing in common. We are opposed to it because it crawls on all fours towards recess, and because it stands for nothing but reaction.

Mr Reid:

– Has the honorable gentleman got to the peroration yet ?

Mr HUGHES:

– Peroration, with an individual like the right honorable gentleman sitting in front of me ! He interrupts in such a way that Demosthenes himself would be unable to perorate under the circumstances. If I were to perorate as I should like to do, I should tell of a man who has shamefully betrayed his hustings pledges, as the right honorable gentleman has done, and it would be a peroration that would burn into his heart and mind, and be engraven there for ever. It would be a peroration that would penetrate even that pachydermatous hide of his that no ordinary criticism seems to be able to pierce. He would not then sneer about a peroration, but would betake himself to some quiet, secluded recess, where he could commune with himself and ask whether repentance was not possible. We have no confidence in this Government, we can have none, and, therefore, we oppose it. I believe that if an appeal were made to the country, the people of Australia would be only too ready to approve our opinions as to this Ministry. We believe that this Government does not occupy the Treasury bench by the will of the people of Australia. We say that it is there first of all by a trick, and secondly as the result of a combination of men who have abandoned their principles. Not all of them ; I do not say that for a moment. I do not say that men like the honorable member for Flinders have abandoned their principles; but I do say that the Government is composed of men who are so widely dissimilar in their opinions that if they have not abandoned their principles, some tremendous explanation or excuse is necessary to explain to the country how’ it comes to be that they are now united upon a policy which absolutely is so tenuous as not to bear examination, and which we, as an Opposition, do rightly challenge and denounce.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– I am but a young parliamentarian, and, therefore, I cannot speak from long experience ; but, as far as my knowledge goes, I believe that usually when a Government is challenged, it is challenged upon some question of public policy, or because of the nonfulfilment of pledges, or for some specific reason which can be clearly shown. But now we have the astonishing spectacle of a Government being challenged, not for acts of maladministration, not upon any ground of public policy, or of injury to the public weal, but simply because it has decided to go on with public business, and devote the tail end of the session to some useful public purpose. That is the sole ground, apparently, for challenging the existence of the present Government. There is no justification whatever for the action which has been taken by the leader of the Opposition. So far as his speech was concerned, not the slightest reason was advanced for the tabling of this motion. The speech to which we have just listened has added nothing further in that direction. On the contrary, it has simply been one long tirade of abuse, and of misrepresentation, and has been conspicuous for the amount of spitefulness and vindictiveness which have been imported into it. We have heard a great deal about a White Australia. But is it not a fact that the present Prime Minister “moved an amendment in the Alien Immigration Restriction Bill to substitute the colour line for the education test, and is it not a fact that he had the support of the leader of the Opposition in doing that?

Mr Tudor:

– Not in this Parliament.

Mr JOHNSON:

– So much has been made of this White Australia cry, that I am justified in saying that the use which has been made of it is altogether unjustified by the facts. I will quote what the Tocsin said in regard to certain members of the Opposition in reference to that matter. Speaking of two members of the Opposition, the Tocsin said- -

When it came to the vote, McMillan kept his promise, but Mauger did his little somersault.

That is in reference to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. Then, in regard to the honorable member for Bourke, the Tocsin said -

When it came to the division, he, like Mauger, turned turtle. Hume Cook was one of the few citizens of the Commonwealth who, to use his own words, would not support the proposal for which he had spoken.

As to the honorable member’s attack upon the Prime Minister, in reference to his action with regard to the six potters, I should like to know what action the honorable and learned member himself would have taken, and what he would have said if the Prime Minister had adopted any other course. He would have said that honorable members ought to vote against the Government, because the Prime Minister had not the courage to carry the law of the land into effect. I ask honorable members opposite whether it is not the duty of the Prime Minister, or any responsible Minister, when he finds a law in existence of which, personally, he may disapprove, to carry out that law just as fully as if he was in favour of it ? Would it not be a dereliction of duty if a Ministry did not carry out the law ? That is an aspect which ought to be placed before the country in contra-distinction to the aspect already placed before us - an aspect which has been grossly distorted. Carrying out the law as it exists is not inconsistent with any promise which a Minister may make to alter that law if he gets the opportunity. Until that opportunity presents itself, and the Minister is able to repeal the law or its objectionable sections, it is his duty to see that it is carried into effect.

Mr Reid:

– A Minister is under oath to do so.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That is so; and if he does not do so, he simply breaks the oath he’ takes on accepting office.

Mr Tudor:

– But the Prime Minister denounced a previous Government for carrying out the law.

Mr Reid:

– In that case the men were not breaking the law, and they were liberated.

Mr JOHNSON:

– It is unfair for the honorable and learned member for West Sydney to bring charges of this character against the Prime Minister. But what can we expect? The Opposition has absolutely no material on which to base an attack of a legitimate character, and they are driven to the necessity of resorting to those questionable and very unfair means to bolster up a motion which has no justification whatever so far as the public interest is concerned. I am surprised that an attack of the kind made on the Prime Minister should come from the honorable and learned member for West Sydney.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He, of all others !

Mr JOHNSON:

– Of all men in this Parliament, the honorable and learned member for West Sydney is the last who should say one unkind word of the present-

Prime Minister. No man has received more favours or greater kindness at the right honorable gentleman’s hands than has the honorable and learned member.

To-day the electors will return their verdict. They are to-day most truly a jury in their country’s cause. In this State we know beforehand the overwhelming preponderance of the popular voice is for the Deakin Government and fiscal peace as against Reid and another fiscal war.

I do not think the matter could have been put more clearly. There is the issue put on behalf of the Government by the Age newspaper, which was the organ of the Government, and was backing it up. The verdict, of the people was in favour of that issue, not in New South Wales, it is true, but that State is only one of six, and the verdict outside of New South Wales was admittedly ona of fiscal peace. On the same date, amongst the names printed in heavy black type, as supporters of that policy of fiscal peace, and as opponents of Socialism - because opposition to Socialism was another matter put prominently before the electors by the .party - I find those of the honorable member for Bourke, the honorable and learned member for Corio, and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. The same paper cautions the public against voting for Reidites, amongst other reasons because he is the man who, “ by re-opening the Tariff, will disorganize Victorian trade and commerce.” Who is it who to-day wishes to re-open the Tariff, and to disorganize Victorian trade and commerce? The prime mover in that direction is one of those who subscribed to the speech delivered at Ballarat by the representative of that city, who was at the time Prime Minister. But although he subscribed to the declaration for fiscal peace which that speech contained, he is to-day endeavouring to promote fiscal warfare. Associated with the honorable member to whom I refer is the honorable member for Hume, who, by the way, has been supplanted in the leadership of the rebellious section of the Opposition. The honorable member for Hume is reporter! to have said at Albury -

The fiscal question should never have been raised at this election. Whatever party is in power, the only possible Tariff must be very similar to that now in force, and until the expiration of the Braddon sections of the Constitution Act, it would be vain for either party to try to frame a Tariff.

That is precisely in keeping with what has since taken place. He continued -

I will at once admit that, provided an alliance can be honorably made between two parties in the House, it is the only way in which to adjust the balance. But as long as three independent parties live in the same House - the parties being more or less equally balanced- the basis of an honorable Government is, I will not say lost, but endangered. . . . There must be none of these underhand intrigues. I hope that the party to which I belong, and that the Labour Party too, whatever they may do in the public life of this country, will act up to the principle which the Prime Minister has announced.

The honorable and learned member for Ballarat said, as will be seen by reference to Hansard, page 91 -

The problem facing them now was how to conduct a Parliament which, instead of having a majority and a minority, had three practically equal parties taking part in the proceedings. It was a problem which had not yet been solved in any part of the world….. Administration and legislation had always been conducted 011 the principle of a majority and a minority. Now, however, they had practically three equal parties, and the position was unstable. It was absolutely impossible. It could not continue, and ought not to continue.

Mr Poynton:

– That is the position which exists to-day.

Mr JOHNSON:

– It was the position taken up by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, and the present Prime Minister, immediately after the assemblingofP arliament - so early, indeed, as the debate which took place on the Address-in-Reply. Their attitude indicated that two parties must find a common basis of agreement if the business of the country was to be successfully carried on. This statement was made by the honorable and learned member at a time when he was fresh from the elections. We may say that we are still fresh from the elections, for are we not in the first session of the new Parliament? Let me read what the honorable and learned member for Ballarat said on the question of the armed truce during the course of the same speech. At page 108 of Hansard he is reported as follows: -

When he spoke with a certain sympathy -

He was referring to the right honorable member for East Sydney - of the funeral obsequies of the Ministry, the apprehensions which I might otherwise have felt were calmed by the realization that he is wearing black crape upon his own arm in remembrance of obsequies far more important than those of a Ministry or party - the death and burial, during this Parliament, at all events, of the fiscal issue.

That is a fairly comprehensive statement.

The Labour Party had been able to knock out a few taxes which pressed heavily on the people, and in this way had reduced the revenue by a large amount.

After making the speech during the debate on the Address-in-Reply, to which I have referred, trie honorable member, as Prime Minister, went to his own constituency, and, speaking at a public meeting at Wagga, on 9th of August last, said -

I believe there is no probability of any appeal for the alteration of the Tariff being responded to during this present Parliament. The people were assured at the last elections that it was desirable to have fiscal peace, at any rate, for this Parliament, and I must say that I agree that it is desirable to have some rest from the eternal fight on the fiscal question. If this were a country which had been united for many years, and the full effect of Inter-State free-trade could be 8 c 2 accurately gauged, and the whole records were available for years, then I should say that there might be grave reason to inquire again into the conditions brought about by the Tariff. But we have not had time since the passing of the Tariff to get any clear idea of what its incidence will be in the future.

We thus have the evidence of the leaders of the three different parties which were then in existence - the Deakin Party, the Reid Party, and the Watson Party - as c the verdict of the country. We have also the evidence of another honorable and learned member, who, strange -to say, is to be found to-day most actively assisting those who wish to fight against what they declared to be the verdict of the country. We find the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne among those who now wish for fisca’l war instead of the fiscal peace on which they appealed to the electors. Here is what the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne said in regard to that question -

Now that the Tariff has been disposed of, surely we must recognise that there is nothing between the Ministerial and the Opposition side of the House than the table. There are more differences’ of opinion between individual members of the Opposition than there are between members of the front Ministerial and front Opposition benches.

The honorable and learned member professed to recognise that there was practically no difference between those who were sitting in Opposition and those on the Ministerial benches.

Similarly there are more differences between Ministerial supporters themselves than there are between the political views of Ministerialists and Oppositionists.

I should like to know how the honorable and learned member reconciles that attitude with the attitude he takes up now, as one of the small party led by the honorable and learned member for Indi, who are anxious to raise the Tariff issue at the present time ? Some complaint has been made by the leader of the L-bour Party about the unfair tactics which have been pursued in arriving at the vote by which the late Government were ousted from office. But I would remind honorable members opposite that the battle ground was of their own choosing. The issue upon which the late -Government were defeated was not in itself necessarily a vital issue. Believing that they had means of escape at their disposal the late Government, with that appearance of courage which characterizes them when they think they are going to win, and that there is no possibility of defeat, made the question vital. But while they chose the battle ground, the members of the then Opposition chose the time for making their attack. This was what the Labour Party had not bargained for. It was a case of being out-generalled. The then Government had made provision for meeting a frontal attack. They had prepared bridges by which they could escape, and laid mines and made other preparations to repel an onslaught from the front. But they had not made provision for an attack on their flank. The members of the Opposition, whilst accepting the field of battle, chose the time when the issue should be fought, and by means of superior generalship a time was chosen which was inopportune for the occupants of the Treasury bench, whose sentinels were caught napping at their posts. It was a perfectly legitimate thing when the gauge of battle had been thrown down by the Ministry of the day, and they had declared that they would regard a certain proposal as vital, for the Opposition, accepting the situation, to choose their own time for making the attack. Their choice, of course, was made when it best suited them. That was perfectly fair tactics in political warfare. But there was no necessity to make a detail of a Bill in Committee vital, and the members of the Opposition are not to be held responsible because the late Government were foolish enough to do such a thing. But the charge of unfairness made against the Opposition is absolutely baseless. I now want to refer to something which was said by the honorable and learned member for Indi in reference to the Prime Minister. He quoted a passage from a speech by the Prime Minister, in which that right honorable gentleman said -

In the plenitude of time, when our millions have become tens of millions, we shall have a crop of misery which shall solve the difficulty in regard to cheap manufactures.

The object of that quotation was to indicate that the present Prime Minister meant that the question of cheap competition was to be solved when, men and women in Australia were starving and lacking even a crust of bread. But I charge the honorable and learned member for Indi with gross unfairness in separating that quotation from its context, which bore no such construction as he placed upon it. This is a sample of the kind of charges which are levelled against the Prime Minister and honorable members on this side.

Mr Tudor:

– Let the honorable member read the context.

Mr JOHNSON:

– This is the portion which the honorable and learned member for Indi did not read -

Will the erection of a fence solve it? Never ! We may run a ring round our own people, but we cannot bull-doze the markets of the world. When we come to compete with those markets, we shall have to do as all other nations do. That is why I have abhorred the policy of producing artificial industries which belong to -a period of human misery and’ over-population.

It will be seen that those words are not capable of the construction which the honorable and learned member for Indi sought most unfairly to put upon them. The Prime Minister was referring to the futility of attempting to improve human conditions, and to get rid of misery, starvation, and other evils which oppress humanity, by raising Tariff walls around industry - he was trying to prove the absolute futility of such means for bringing about an improvement in the social and industrial conditions of the people. The words are not capable of the construction which the honorable and learned member for Indi most cruelly attempted to put on them, and which went broadcast through the newspapers as the sentiments of the Prime Minister. I should like to say a word as to the position of the honorable and learned member for Indi, in regard to the fiscal truce. In the Melbourne Argus, of 14th September, there is reprinted an extract from a speech delivered by the honorable and learned member on fiscal matters, and as I have seen no contradiction I may assume that the report is correct.

Mr Tudor:

– What is the date of the speech ?

Mr JOHNSON:

– The date of the delivery of the speech is not given’, but it was before the last election, I think.

Mr Tudor:

– The speech was delivered about ten years ago.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The speech was quoted in the Argus a few days ago, and I presume that if anything had been wrong the honorable and learned member would have taken the very first opportunity to send a correction. - And the miner, how is he on a level with the workers in the town ? He has a weight round his neck.

Evidently, the honorable and learned member was a staunch free-trader at that time.

We are told that the miners patriotically stood by protection in the past. Are we to whip the willing horse to death? Is protection to go ‘on for ever to an unlimited extent, right on, as we arc mid ‘to prohibition? Are we never to stop taxing the miner? He is the man who goes through the most arduous labour, the .most dangerous pursuits, to win the wealth of the country ; and what does he get in return for it ? A promise that more burdens shall be laid upon- him. His pick is weighted with taxation, every article he wears is weighted with taxation, and when he goes home every article in his house, even his knife and fork, is taxed.

When we read that speech, can we conceive it possible that it was delivered by the same honorable and learned member for Indi, who is now seeking to place fresh burdens on the shoulders of the miner - to put fresh taxes on what the miner uses? Can we conceive it possible that the two are one and the same person ? I must confess’ that to me it seems a most strange and unaccountable metamorphosis. As to some other honorable members, it is inter:esting to see what they have said, in- regard to those matters. The honorable member for Bourke is reported in the Melbourne Age of. November 25, to have said at Northcote -

The electors had to consider whether they would be represented, by a person who was the nominee of a little clique called the Political Labour League -

I wonder whether the honorable member meant any allusion to gentlemen now sitting on the other side of the House. See- - ing that he is in active association with those same gentlemen, I can hardly believe that to be the case. But still we have to go by what the honorable member himself.. has said. The speech proceeds - or whether they would send back their present member, who represented, not one section, but all sections of the constituency . . . leaving the ballot-box to decide whether the choice should rest with the domination of. the Political Labour League or the .individual judgment and liberty of the people.

How are we to reconcile those sentiments with the position of the honorable member at the present time in association with those ‘ whom he in November last, during thy itcent campaign, denounced in no unmeasured terms? In making a very violent attack on that party, he further said -

Their methods savoured of Tammany Hall and Russia - the caucus did not allow any liberty.

Those, are peculiar sentiments for an honorable member to hold who is now so closely associated with the very men whose methods he thus described in . November.

Mr Tudor:

– Tell us what the Prime Minister said about the honorable and learned member for Ballarat.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I leave that to other honorable members. Here is another remarkable speech, delivered at Brunswick Town Hall, and reported in the Age of November 1 2 th : -

It was a question of the domination of a party called the Political Labour Party or of the electors choosing a candidate of their own free right. He would deal with the constitution, the tactics and methods of the Political Labour Party at’ a future election meeting, and he would promise to make it very interesting indeed.

And he did, though I shall not quote the speech just now. Honorable members may look it up on the files for themselves.

He held their own declaration in his hand, on which were the names of Tom Mann, Messrs. White and Fleming, and other anarchists.

Mr Tudor:

– Whose declaration?

Mr JOHNSON:

– The declaration of the Political Labour League.

Mr Tudor:

-I think the honorable member is misquoting the honorable member for Bourke.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am reading the speech as reported in the Melbourne Age, and if the honorable member had been . misreported, I take it that he would have -sent a correction. I looked in subsequent issues for a correction, but could find no trace of one, and, therefore, I think it is perfectly legitimate for me to accept the report as . an accurate statement of what the honorable member said. At this juncture of the honorable member’s speech, a voice interjected, “What has that to do with the Labour Party?” and the . reply of the honorable member for Bourke was: -

It had got this to do with it; that circular was issued as the result of a minute carried at the Trades Hall Council. . . . With reference to the future, he would support the Government as. regards the maintenance of the present fiscal protection and fiscal peace.

So that the honorable member for Bourke ‘ was a declared anti-Socialist ..at that time, and asserted that the Political Labour League was composed of anarchists and Socialists, because they had accepted as their creed a circular issued by those bodies. The honorable member’s name appears in the list published by the Age newspaper of those who were opposed’ to any interference with the Tariff and to Socialism, but we now find him amongst those who are raising the Tariff issue in order to bring forward measures of extreme protection, and who to do this have allied themselves with those very Socialists whose policy they have condemned in such vigorous language.. I have a good deal more to say upon the question, and possibly honorable members would agree to an adjournment of the debate at this hour.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 September 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1904/19040920_reps_2_21/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 September 1904

PAPERS

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CROUCH:Corio

Mr Reid:

Mr CROUCH:

Mr Reid:

Mr CROUCH:

Mr WATSON:Bland

Mr Batchelor:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Groom:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Reid:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr Johnson:

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr Wilks:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCay:

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr Johnson:

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCay:

Mr WATSON:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WATSON:

Mr Reid:

Mr WATSON:

Mr McCay:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WATSON:

Mr Johnson:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Wilson:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Webster:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Johnson:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Poynton:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Salmon:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Webster:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Higgins:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Kelly:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Salmon:

Mr WATSON:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WATSON:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:

Mr Higgins:

Mr Reid:

Mr Higgins:

Mr WATSON:

House of Representatives
20 September 1904

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr REID:
Minister of External Affairs · East Sydney · Free Trade