ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

and not the matters upon which he is now speaking.

Mr. MALONEY.-I accept your ruling, sir, and thank you for the courteous way in which you have drawn my attention to the matter. I was returned to support a White Australia, but I found, during my electoral campaign, that the forces most actively ranged against me were the so-called liberal and conservative interests. I must own that there are some good Democrats behind the present Government; but it is not a liberal Government, because it depends for its support upon conservatives. Every conservative in Victoria to-day is behind it, and it is a conservative Government in every sense of the word. Life and property in our community are not safe while a Government is in power with the support of a man holding the opinions of the right honorable member for Swan. I hope I am in order in saying that the welfare of the women and children of Australia should be the concern of every man and woman in Australia. If I called a meeting at the Town Hall for to-morrow, and told the people what I have told this House, the vast gathering would say that girls above twelve years of age should be protected. The right honorable member for Swan, who is continually attacking the Labour Party, and who says that we wish to destroy the sanctity of the home, is opposed to that. It must be remembered that it is the daughters of the workers who need protection, because the children of well-to-do people have governesses and companions to go about with them. I am not here to speak against any class. I try to represent all classes. I wish the world to become brighter and happier. I do not desire that men who are willing to work should be unable to find occupation. My duty is to better the conditions of humanity. But will Australia benefit by the continuance of this Ministry in power? Let any member of the Ministry call a public meeting in Melbourne, and see what public opinion is here. Let the so-called head of the protectionist movement, the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, do so. What was the compact into which he entered with my opponent ? He knew that I was a steadfast protectionist, having being a fellow Member of Parliament for years. In the nobility of soul, which seems to sway him when he gets going, he did himself the injustice not to explain that my opponent was going to stay in Parliament only one year, thus permitting the construction to be

made that the Prime Minister of Australia entered into a compact with the Lord Mayor of Melbourne to delude the electors by withholding the fact that the latter would remain in politics for one year only. These men Liberals! These men protectionists! He, the leader of the Protectionist Party, knowing that I was a protectionist, supported my opponent. There is no man in this House with such a gift of eloquence as the honorable and learned member possesses. He can speak "thoughts that breathe and words that burn" to greater effect than any man in this country. For twenty-three years he has had behind him the power of the mighty Age dominated by that grand old man and gray who owns it. In season and out of season that organ has supported him; and if he had only worked as well for protection as he has spoken; this country would have had a decent Tariff at the present time. I am speaking from no enmity to the honorable and learned member. He could have had me as a soldier, fighting behind him, and I would have given my life to carry out any direction that he asked me to undertake. But when he was asked to do something to remove sweating, he merely said, "You cannot do it." When the abominable Gillies-Deakin Government was swept into oblivion, and a new Ministry which was put in its place was also removed, and when also the Patterson Government was turned out of office by the present Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the honorable and learned member for Ballarat, Achilles-like, sulked in his tent, and would not take office. He will not take office now, but he says that he will give the present Government his support. He supports them, knowing in his heart of hearts that the kernel and the brains of the Protectionist movement are to be found in the

Opposition corner. The whole of the fighting capacity of the Protectionist Party is on this side of the House. I do not blame the present Prime Minister for taking office when he had the opportunity. He has had a hard political life before attaining to his present office. But it is to be remarked that he has only attained to the Prime Ministership of Australia after twenty-four years of political life, and after previously having experience as Premier of his own State. Compare his position with that of the leader of the Opposition. The present Prime Minister is the only one of the four Prime Ministers of Australia who had previously been Premier

in his own State. Sir Edmund Barton was never a Premier in New South Wales. The honorable and learned member for Ballarat was never a Premier in Victoria. The honorable member for Bland was never a Premier; yet, whereas the Prime Minister, after twenty-four years of political experience, and after having been Premier of his own State, attains at last to the Prime Ministership of Australia, we find that the honorable member for Bland, as leader of the Labour Party, after only nine years of political life, was able to occupy that high office. It took the honorable and learned member for Ballarat twenty-three years of political life, with all the splendid power of the Age behind him, to attain the Prime Ministership. He has had a career which is splendid on account of its wonderful eloquence, but there is no splendour in his record of Acts passed. There is no man in this country who has a greater power of swaying the masses at a public meeting. Yet the Acts which he has put upon the statute-book for the benefit of the people are exceedingly few. There is more to praise in the Acts of the present Prime Minister, small as they are, however, in comparison with those of the honorable member for Hume, though greater than those of the honorable and learned member for Ballarat.

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-His heart is better than his head.

Mr. MALONEY.-His heart is good. He is a splendid fellow. He has high ideals. If he started a church, I think I would take a pew. But somehow he fails when it becomes a matter of putting Acts upon the statute-book. I have now dealt with protection, with conciliation and arbitration, and with the White Australia policy. Those were the three cardinal points in my platform at the last election. I will now conclude. I might apply to the present situation almost the words that were used by Cato concerning Carthage, Delenda est Carthago-Carthage must be destroyed. I say that this Ministry must be removed and destroyed; and when we face the electors of Australia, and come back again to this Parliament, we shall no longer have in power the present sham liberal and sham protectionist two-headed Government, which will find itself consigned to the abyss of oblivion.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo).-After the three very long and elaborate speeches which have been delivered to the House this afternoon and evening, I am afraid that honorable members must be somewhat tired and

exhausted.

Probably their inclinations will be somewhat similar to my own, after waiting such a long time to get a little innings in this debate. I think it can hardly be expected that I should enter upon the debate with a view to conclude my remarks to-night. I should like to congratulate the honorable member for Melbourne upon his oratorical capacity, and his powers of endurance. I should also like to compliment him upon the very vast stores of information with which he has favoured us. Some passages of his long speech were very eloquent, some were very pathetic, and the whole was bristling with detail; but I venture to say, with very great respect

to him, that a large part of it was utterly irrelevant to the debate now proceeding, although no

doubt

his observations were made with the very best intentions. Mr. Speaker thought it necessary several times to direct the honorable member's attention to the fact that the question before us is as to whether the House has confidence in the present Administration, and I think that any speech which is directed fairly and squarely towards the main issue may assist honorable members. But a speech that rambles over the history of Victorian and Australian politics generally, is scarcely calculated to attain that end. This much, however, I should like to say in fairness to my honorable friend, the member for Melbourne-that he certainly set a good example to even more experienced and distinguished members than himself in avoiding personalities. Whilst he found it necessary to attack the head of the Government, he did not deem it to be necessary to descend to the depths of vituperation and abuse, and he also found it to be consistent with his political position as a member of the Labour Party to do justice to the Prime Minister in several matters, for which he gave him credit. The honorable member, as a labour member in particular, is also to be commended for not seeking to introduce any of the old feuds and vendettas of New South Wales into this debate. A considerable amount of time has been wasted in that way. I do not think that such allusions are calculated to elevate the debates of the Federal Parliament, and I do not believe that they will influence a single vote. Honorable members have a sufficient grip of the present situation to deal with it on its merits as a Federal question, without dragging in and raking up any of the antiquarian episodes of the New South Wales Parliament. Judging from some

of the allusions which have been made to it, one would think that the New South Wales Parliament must have been a very terrible place in times past; certainly the persistency with which these ancient feuds are being revived is anything but gratifying or calculated to elevate our discussions. I am glad, indeed, that the leader of the Labour Party, in accordance with all his previous history, endeavoured to give a high and respectable tone to it, and to direct attention to political issues, avoiding altogether personal considerations. So far as I am concerned, these references and allusions, betraying an animus against the Prime Minister, irrespective of Federal considerations, are rather calculated to excite disgust than, to prejudice me in any way against the right honorable gentleman. Í, in common with other protectionists, have, in years gone by, deemed it to be my duty to fight him hard and fast on public grounds and for just cause; and if, at the present juncture of affairs, any want of confidence motion were tabled, and were justified, I should undoubtedly feel it to be my bounden duty to support it. But, in the absence of good cause, in the absence of argument, to support such a motion as has already been submitted, I deem it to be my duty to record my vote against the motion of want of confidence. I should like to draw the attention of honorable members to

the present political situation, which, it appears to me, is without parallel in the history of parliamentary government. Within nine months of a general election, we have had no less than two Ministries displaced from office, and we are now faced with a motion of want of confidence in a third Government. The position is certainly one which should make us anxious for the safety of our Federal institutions. Such incidents as these, so unparalleled in the history of parliamentary Government, may well be calculated to shake our Constitution to its very foundation. I think that the dangers connected with the situation should induce honorable members of a thoughtful disposition on both sides to subordinate their own ambition, or what they may consider their interests, to the good government and welfare of the Commonwealth. Of course, in every situation a certain amount of selfrestraint is necessary. I think that if the I think that if the leader of the Labour Party had shown a capacity and disposition to sink what may be, perhaps, a natural feeling of disappointment and resentment at being displaced Sir John Quick.

from office, until a future occasion, when better cause might have been shown, it would have reflected greater credit upon his capacity as a leader, and would, I am sure, have won him greater esteem and respect in the country. Only a few weeks ago, he was beaten in a straight-out division on a detail of a Bill.

Mr. POYNTON.-And the honorable and learned member cannot show a parallel case.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member for Bland deemed it necessary, advisable, and consistent with his honour and dignity as Prime Minister to resign office. He did so freely and voluntarily, without any pressure, so far as I am aware, unless it was from outside.

Mr. WATSON.-There was no pressure from anywhere.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I would point out after that the honorable member resigned unsuccessfully applying for a dissolution. Mr. WATSON.-We shall have one now, so it is all the same.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-It may be that the honorable member felt sanguine of obtaining a dissolution, and that he did not expect that in the ordinary course of things he would have to resign. But having failed to obtain a dissolution, he did. There was nothing in the course of the situation which, in my opinion, called upon him to resign. Having resigned on a detail of a Bill, a Jevolution of government necessarily had to take place.

Mr. POYNTON.-The business of the House was taken out of his hands.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The King's government had to be carried on, and the Governor-General, in the exercise of his prerogative, commissioned the right honorable member for East Sydney to form an Administration, and no sooner had he done so, and come down here and outlined his policy than the honorable member for Bland rose in his place and gave notice of a motion of no-confidence. In other words, having resigned voluntarily only a few weeks before, he did not allow the new Government to develop their policy or even to have anything like a fair innings. For what purpose did he immediately table a motion of want of confidence? To get back into the office which he had resigned freely and voluntarily?

Mr. HUTCHISON.-Would not the honorable and learned member have resigned if the control of business had been taken out of his hands?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable member for Bland had a perfect right to resign, if he thought fit. I am not challenging his judgment, but contending that he was not called upon to resign.

Mr. HUTCHISON.-Was not the control of business taken out of his hands? Sir JOHN QUICK.-No. Now observe the difficulty of the situation. Mr. WATSON.-It is very some persons.

difficult for

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The Bill in respect of which the honorable member resigned office still remains in the Parliament. It has not been disposed of. It is true that it was removed to another Chamber, but it will inevitably come back to this House for further consideration. Mr. POYNTON.-Will the honorable and learned member vote against it?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I shall tell the honorable member how I shall vote when it comes back. In the meantime the honorable member for Bland apparently desires to resume office.

Mr. WILKS. With a new team.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Apparently the honorable member desires to resume office, with or without a change in personnel. He would still be in possession of the difficulty in respect of which he resigned. He would again have to advise the House what to do, and it may be assumed that those honorable members who voted against him on the last occasion might feel called upon to vote against him again and again. If they did, would he then resign?

Mr. BATCHELOR.-What about the provision relating to State servants?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I am merely pointing out a difficulty in the way of the honorable member for Bland resuming office. I venture to think that, having resigned, he might as well have waited until a development of events took place, or at any rate until the Arbitration Bill was disposed of in some way or other, before he made an attack. So far as I have been able to analyze in a general sort of way the arguments which have been presented in support of this motion of no-confidence, they may be summarized under three headings. In the first place, it is alleged that the Ministry has no policy. In the second place, there are expressions of vague apprehension that a certain traditional and well recognised policy previously adopted by the House, is is in danger of being attacked bv the Ministry. And in the third place, there is an allegation, or a

suggestion of a general antipathy to the Prime Minister. Dealing first with the question of no policy, I would ask the leader of the Opposition what time the Ministry has had to develop a policy?

Mr. BATCHELOR.-Longer than we had. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Undoubtedly Ministers have had only a few weeks to consider the surroundings. They were suddenly brought into office, without any political association, or opportunities for considering a programme. They were not like the Labour Party, which came into office with a programme ready cut and dried. Ministers have had only three weeks in which to look around and take stock of the situation. Having done so, they found certain Bills on the notice-paper. They decided to take up these residuary fragments of previous Ministers, lick them into shape, and pass as many of them as they can. Surely honorable members on the other side cannot expect a newly-combined team like that to come down with a complete programme, at the fag end of a session.

Mr. THOMAS.-We expect nothing from them.

Mr. POYNTON.-It is too big a task for them.

Mr. DUGALD THOMSON.-They say in one breath that we have no policy, and in another breath that our policy is the same as theirs.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-And yet they will not give the Ministry an opportunity of considering, developing, and evolving a policy. Again, it is said that the great democratic ideals of our Commonwealth, such as a White Australia, and the Immigration Restriction Act are in danger. What do we find? We find the late Minister of External Affairs coming down here and making an attack upon the Prime Minister because, forsooth, his own decision is not reversed. He makes it a positive grievance that his own decision is not reversed by his successor. Mr. WATSON.-Oh no!

Mr. MAUGER.-The late Minister of External Affairs makes it a grievance that his successor does not stand to his colours.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The honorable and learned member for West Sydney taunts the Prime Minister, and does his best to goad him on to reverse his own decision.

Mr. WATSON.-He says that the Prime Minister is inconsistent; that is all.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I do not see where there is any inconsistency about the matter. The Prime Minister expressed certain views about some provisions in the Immigration

Restriction Act in times past, and if he had a majority, I daresay he would endeavour to carry out his promise and try to modify the provisions; but he never said that he would refuse to obey the law.

Mr. MAUGER. He said that he would try to alter the law.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The Prime Minister is sworn to obey the law, and he dare not refuse to enforce the Immigration Restriction Act or the White Australia policy. Mr. MAUGER.—Why did he not say that about Sir Edmund Barton when he enforced the law in the case of the six hatters? Mr. THOMAS.-What did he say about the Petriana case?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-In regard to those cases, I understand that the principal ground of criticism and attack was, that the Act was not enforced in a businesslike manner, and that its administration was allowed to drift. That point does not arise here.

Mr. MAUGER.-Yes, it does.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The point is that members of the Labour Party are endea vouring to frighten people into thinking that the White Australia and Liberal policy is in danger. The greatest and strongest security that the policy to which we are all attached at least those of us who are liberal protectionists-will not be in any way interfered with or prejudiced, is the presence on these benches of liberal protectionists. The tenure of office of the Government is dependent on the liberal element on this side of the House.

Mr. WATSON. And just as much on the conservative element.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-So far as personal antipathy to the Prime Minister is concerned, I venture to hope that this House will rice superior to any such considerations that the House will judge public men connected with this Parliament according to Federal politics and Federal principles.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-Bribery!

Mr. JOSEPH COOK.-The honorable member for Hume is delivering his speech over again, here in the corner.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH.-His conduct is disgraceful.

Mr. SPEAKER. The PostmasterGeneral, the honorable member for Parramatta, and the honorable member for Hume, must be conscious that they are breaking the Standing Orders, and are doing so in spite of the fact that I have called attention to the matter several times. I hope

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SPEAKER.-It is quite unnecessary for the honorable member for Parramatta to make any remarks. I regret that I have had to call the attention of honorable members to the Standing Orders. hope the honorable member for Parramatta will show his regret by obeying the Standing Orders, and refraining from interrupting.

[ocr errors]

Sir JOHN QUICK.-As to the " nopolicy of the Government, I think that a certain amount of indulgence might reasonably be allowed to the new Ministry in the first few weeks of their existence.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK.-I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Hume is hurling accusations of bribery and corruption across the chamber, and it is impossible for order to be kept if the honorable member conducts himself in that unseemly and disgraceful way.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH.-In support of the point of order raised by the honorable member for Parramatta, I desire to say that the remark I made was in consequence of the charges levelled by the honorable member for Hume at honorable members on this side of the House. When an honor.

able member is allowed to make such charges, it is no wonder honorable members interrupt.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I made the charge of bribery this afternoon.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Against whom?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-Against the leader of the Government. I shall say nothing more than what I said in my speech, and have proved by documentary evidence.

Mr. CONROY.-The honorable member is an authority on bribery, I believe?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I do not wish to disturb the harmony of the speech of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. but I was surprised when I heard him say he was going to support a gentleman who has such records against him.

Mr. SPEAKER.-I did not hear any remark from the honorable member for Hume. Naturally honorable members nearer to that honorable member would hear him before

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »