ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

and I made these remarks, which are reported at page 1141

The Ministry are entitled to take up this position. Putting aside the language of the honorable member, suppose he is giving a description of certain things involved in a charge of corruption, all I can say is that, if there is an understanding, apart from what the honorable member has said on this matter, that it is not an attack on my personal integrity as a man

HONORABLE MEMBERS.-Nothing of the kind! That remark came from the honorable member for Hume and his friends, who were sitting opposite to me.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-It did not come from me.

Mr. REID. I am going on a little further. There is no getting away from the words contained in Hansard. I went on to say

Well, I say if it is simply an attack upon me in a public way, a fair and legitimate public way, as a public man who has made mistakes, then I will not have another word to say. My only desire is this: That after this debate is over, whatever the result is, I do not want it to be said that I was tried on a question affecting my personal honesty, and was found guilty by this House. That is what is said now.

But if there is any understanding that there is a charge of corruption levelled against me, there is not a man in the House who would not do me the justice of having the matter thrashed out before the House dealt with it, because in our party fights we do not want to mix up matters affecting our personal characters. I accept the assurance of the leader of the OppositionWho was he? The honorable member for Hume, who was sitting in front of me with his friends.

as representing his party, that he is not making a charge affecting my personal honesty as a man, and I have, therefore, not another word to say. That is the honorable member who spoke as he did yesterday.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-To commence with, the last statement made by the Prime Mini

ster

Mr. CONROY.-Let the honorable member admit that he was not sober, and say no more about it.

Mr. MAUGER.-I desire. Mr. Speaker, to know whether the honorable and learned member for Werriwa is in order in making a remark implying that the honorable member for Hume was inebriated and not fit to speak?

Mr. SPEAKER.-If the honorable and learned member made any such remark he must withdraw it.

Mr. CONROY.-I withdraw the statement. I admit that this is not the place to make it I should make it elsewhere.

Mr. SPEAKER.-The honorable member must withdraw the words absolutely. Mr. CONROY.-I withdraw the remark.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I regret that such an interjection should have been made, because I really feel that it was quite uncalled for. I do not think that any one in Australia has at any time seen me the worse for drink. The Prime Minister, in another part of his statement, read to the House, not what was said by me, but what was stated by Sir Edmund Barton.

Mr. REID. The honorable member concurred in it.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I did not concur. Mr. JOSEPH COOK.-The whole of the honorable member's party did.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I think I shall be able to show that I did not concur.

Mr. REID. The honorable member concurred at that time.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I did not concur. The right honorable gentleman merely read out what he said, and endeavoured, by securing the re-publication of his remarks in Hansard, to show that I concurred in relieving him from any personal imputation. But I did not do so.

Mr. REID. The honorable member did so when he was sitting opposite me in the House.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I did nothing of the kind. The honorable member cannot show that by quoting from Hansard one word that I said.

Mr. SPEAKER.-Order. I hope that these interjections will not be continued. I trust that the honorable member for Hume will address the Chair, and not make remarks which almost demand an

answer.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I hope that the Prime Minister will not interrupt me in my denial. I direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that the remarks of the right honorable gentleman, and the passages that he read, were intended to induce the House to believe that I concurred in the remarks evidently made by Mr. Barton. I did not concur in them, and the right honorable gentleman has not shown that I did so in any shape or form. As a matter of fact, the contrary was the case. In the course of the speech I made on that occasion, in moving the vote of censure, I recounted the whole history of the case, including the action of Mr. Neild, who had come to me and had stated that he was furious against the Government. I also

stated that information was obtained by me that a conference had taken place between the right honorable gentleman and Mr. Neild, with the result that something had happened of which I did not know at that time, although I had a suspicion regarding it. Mr. Neild withdrew his opposition to the Government, and although he did not vote for them, spoke in their support. The Government won by a majority of four. I am not quite sure, but I believe that at that time Mr. Barton was leading the Opposition.

not.

Mr. DUGALD THOMSON.-Oh no, he was

Mr.

REID.-The honorable gentleman was leading the Opposition, and moved the vote of censure.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I believe that Mr. Barton was the leader of the Opposition at that time. At any rate, he had led it previously, if he was not actually in that position upon the occasion referred to. I have stated plainly what happened in the case, and the right honorable gentleman has not quoted one word from me in refutation of what I stated. My impression stands good to-day as it stood then. The right honorable gentleman has omitted to refer to the question that was asked of him by the Chairman of the Committee, recorded at page 1044 of Hansard. I do not know what Committee that was, but I believe it was connected with the question of old-age pensions. I know that Mr. Neild was connected with it. At that particular time, when the question was asked, it was intended to move a vote of censure against the Premier if he said he was going to pay Mr. Neild. When the Government accounts came out I could not discover how the payment had been made, although I had heard whispers regarding it, and I had to go to the AuditorGeneral, in order to find out under what heading it had been made. Parliament was not sitting, and, unquestionably, such a payment should not have been made. Not one word has been said by the right honorable gentleman to cause me to vary my original statement. If I had been proved to be wrong I should have been perfectly ready to withdraw what I said. But I know what happened, and I know that I am right. The right honorable gentleman has stated that I appointed all the members of the Committee of Public Accounts. Technically I did so, but two of the members were selected at the instigation of the right honorable gentleman, who mentioned their names across the table in the Legislative

Assembly of New South Wales, when he was replying to my financial statement. He wanted to name the third member, but I stopped him, and said that I thought I was entitled to make that selection. I did not know Mr. Yarwood before I asked him to accept a seat on the Committee, and I did not know that he had ever contested an election.

Mr. REID. I brought the fact under the honorable member's notice.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-That was after he had been appointed-he was appointed immediately. I did not know that that gentleman had stood for election, and, as a matter of fact, he, as a free-trader, did not object generally to the policy of the right honorable gentleman, but only to his land legislation.

Mr. REID. He also referred to the question of the accounts.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-Then I was not aware of it. That was the way in which the Committee was appointed. I had nothing further to do with the matter, and, as I stated last night, Mr. Davis was one of the three whom the right honorable member appointed privately and paid. Mr. Davis wished to be placed on the Committee which I was appointing, but I did not know him, and I am not sure that I know him now. At any rate, I never knew before that he was a protectionist; and had I known of it that fact might have been supposed to influence me in his favour. I did not, however, appoint him. I know that he went to the right honorable gentleman's house-I have this in writing-and discussed the matter with him before the question of the report was raised.

not

Mr. PAGE. There is no treason in that! Sir WILLIAM LYNE. I do say that there is. I obtained, I believe, the three very best men for the work in New South Wales, and no one can point a finger at them now. But from the moment I made the appointment, the right honorable gentleman hurled his invectives at both Mr. Dibbs and Mr. Yarwood, though it is difficult to see why, considering that he nominated one of them himself. I do not think there is any necessity to say more. I should not have dealt with this matter had it not been brought up by the right honorable gentleman himself with a view, if possible, to destroy the effect of the Committee's report, which stands, and always will stand, as a record against his financial administration. When the right honorable gentleman

says that I accepted a balance of his in my financial operations as Treasurer, it must be remembered that when I assumed office I was compelled to accept the accounts as they were. The balance left by the right honorable gentleman was £100,000 odd.

Mr. SPEAKER.-Will the honorable member kindly take his seat? It must be obvious to the honorable member that it would be unfair to allow him to proceed with those remarks. I stopped the Prime Minister's references to that subject, and, on the same ground, I cannot permit the honorable member for Hume to continue.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I have very nearly completed my remarks. The right honorable gentleman made a statement in this connexion, and I think I ought to be allowed to say a word in reply. I had to take his balance into consideration until such time as I could have the services of a special inspector in the Treasury to investigate the accounts.

Mr. REID. Mr. Martin !

Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-I explained the position when I made my financial statement later on, and the right honorable gentleman knows that, but he desires the House to believe that I made use of a balance which he left behind.

Mr. REID. The honorable member never altered the figures.

Mr. CROUCH.-I desire to make a personal explanation. The Prime Minister interjected, "If the honorable and learned member for Corio has no care for his own reputation, he ought, at least, to have care for mine.'

Mr. REID. The honorable and learned member alters my words, as usual.

Mr. SPEAKER.-I would point out to the honorable and learned member for Corio that any such interjection is not sufficient ground for a personal explanation on his part. The honorable and learned member may make a personal explanation as to any matter which he himself has brought forward, and in regard to which he has been misunderstood or misrepresented, but he cannot discuss an interjection by the Prime Minister.

Mr. CROUCH.-I do not desire to discuss the interjection, but to make an explanation in fairness to the Prime Minister. That right honorable gentleman has been good enough, in quoting from the New South Wales Hansard, to say that he accepts the assurance of the members of the

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SPEAKER.-But what remark of the honorable and learned member for Corio has been misunderstood or misrepresented?

Mr. CROUCH.-I am speaking of a statement of the Prime Minister in which he expressed the opinion that if I had no care for my own reputation I might have some care for his.

in relation to

Mr. SPEAKER.-I do not think the honorable and learned member understands what I have endeavoured to place very clearly before him. I have already told the honorable and learned member, as I have told others over and Over again, that he may make a personal explanation on any matter which he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. If the honorable and learned member will deal with any such matter I shall certainly not interrupt him. But if he persists in seeking to explain some remark which the Prime Minister has made, he is not within his rights, and cannot be permitted to proceed.

Mr. CROUCH.-Then I ask the indulgence of the House in order that I may make a statement. I presume that no honorable member will object.

Mr. SPEAKER.-Is it the pleasure of the House that the honorable and learned member for Corio have leave to make a statement ?

HONORABLE MEMBERS.-Hear, hear!

Mr. CROUCH.-The Prime Minister has said in reading extracts from the Hansard reports of the New South Wales Parliament, that he accepted the assurance of the leader of the Opposition and other members of that Parliament that they had no intention to reflect on his personal honour or private rectitude. I understand from the interjection of the right honorable gentleman to-day that he thinks that anything I may have said in this Chamber or outside should not be viewed in a similar way, but that I have in some way reflected on his personal honour. I should like to assure honorable members

that all I have said has been against the right honorable gentleman in his official position that nothing I have either said or written is intended in any way to reflect on his personal honour or private rectitude.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo). It is to be deeply regretted that certain honorable members will continuously and persistently endeavour to introduce into this House ancient squabbles in a State Parliament. I believe, however, that every reasonable man here deprecates any efforts of that kind, and I rejoice to notice that, at any rate, the Labour Opposition, to their credit, are no party to those disgraceful attempts. Resuming the thread of my address, which was interrupted last night, I desire to draw attention to a remark made by the honorable and learned

member

West Sydney in the course of his speech. That honorable and learned member complained that the Labour Party

had been " butchered "-had not received

it

fair play. In reply, I am justified in saying that if there was any "butchery was self-inflicted. As to the treatment which the Labour Ministry received during their term of office-which extended from 27th April to 17th August, or nearly four months I may say, from my knowledge of the inner life of the party to which I belong, and of those with whom I was associated while sitting in Opposition, that we did all we could to secure fair play for Ministers. I was not aware of any underhanded attempt to displace the Government; on the contrary, it was generally thought that a little Ministerial innings would do them good-that no harm would result. It was thought that whilst in office the Labour Party were practically" on the chain"-that they had given securities for good behaviour, and that they would emerge from office better and abler men, probably more appreciative of a Minister's difficulties and responsibilities. There was a general consensus of opinion, so far as my knowledge goes, that they should have a fair trial, which, I believe, they got. The Government went on with their measures, and challenged the verdict of the House upon a certain clause in the Arbitration Bill, with the result that they were fairly and honorably beaten.

was

Mr. SPENCE.-No; the business taken out of the hands of the Government. Sir JOHN QUICK.-That is the complaint I heard made last night. But surely the House is not to be so impotent and so recreant to its trust that, if a Ministry

objects to the introduction of a clause into a Bill, it is to surrender its powers and prerogatives. In this case the House viewed the Bill with generous fairness, and with a desire to see it passed into law. There was no wish whatever to emasculate the measure; on the contrary, there was a desire to have workable legislation, and I believe that as a result of our deliberations the Bill is one which we can recommend to the electors of Australia.

Mr. CARPENTER.-Unions will not register under the Bill.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-We shall see about that later on. During the exhaustive debates on the Bill a flood of light, of which we previously had not the advantage, was cast upon its provisions; the debate, indeed, amounted to a revelation to many of us. I admit that, with reference to the clause unionists, I, for one, like the honorable and enabling the Court to give preference to learned member for Ballarat, when the Bill was first introduced, acquiesced in it without a murmur. We thought that the power thus given would only be used on rare occasions. such as when a strike or dispute occurred regarding the employment of unionists or

non-unionists.

We regarded the clause as an incident in the Bill, and not as one involving its very spirit and essence. But as the debate went on, our eyes were opened. and it dawned on the House that this apparently harmless provision, intended to be a mere incident, was being utilized in New South Wales, and would be utilized under the Bill, as a great transforming agent— that the clause would convert a judicial tribunal, for the bonâ fide settlement of industrial disputes, into a great electioneering agency.

I am sure that that was not the intention of the original framers of the Bill when they inserted this harmless provision. It only shows how a clause, which may be well meant in its inception, may, in the course of experience and manipulation, bet transformed into an instrument for a purpose not originally intended or contemplated.

Mr. HUTCHISON.-That exaggeration.

is an absurd

[blocks in formation]

surround and hedge this power of giving
preference to unionists with certain rea-
sonable and legitimate safeguards.
Mr. WEBSTER. Impracticable safe-
guards.

Mr. MAUGER. Then, why stick to the provision?

we

Sir JOHN QUICK. Because wanted that majority principle, admitted by the then Prime Minister, chrystallized in the form of a section in an Act of Parlia

We desired the Court to have notice as to the conditions on which the power of granting preference is to be exercised.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-We shall see whether they are impracticable. In the debatement. on that clause, the then Prime Minister, in endeavouring to persuade honorable members not to pass the amendment of the honorable and learned member for Corinella, said

The Government do not desire that preferences shall be granted to minorities. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the New South Wales Court has never granted preference to a union which did not appear to have a majority within the district to which it was to apply. I assume that that statement was founded by the honorable member upon an intimate knowledge of the unions, and of the work ing of the Arbitration Act in that State. If that be so, what was the objection to the amendment, which was intended to restrict the exercise of the power by the Court to cases where majorities wanted preference?

Mr. HUTCHISON. Because the Court could not find out if there was a majority.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-How has the Court of New South Wales found out that there was a majority, according to that pro

vision?

Mr. WATSON.-The Court has not required absolute proof.

Mr. HUTCHISON.-What is to be done if each side makes an affidavit?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-We shall leave it to the Court to decide.

HONORABLE MEMBERS.
Court"!

"Trust the

Sir JOHN QUICK.-There can be no doubt that the division on that clause of the Bill established in this House a line of cleaveage and demarcation which remains at the present moment unobliterated. That division is responsible for a change of Government, and for our presence on the Ministerial benches this afternoon. There can be no doubt that this provision about preference to unionists, originally an incident,

has been converted into the essence of the whole struggle. Take the honorable memProtectionist Party. We were all strongly bers on this side who belong to the Liberalin favour of the Bill as originally launched for compulsory arbitration in matters of industrial dispute.

Mr. WATSON.-And promptly voted

Sir JOHN QUICK.-No absolute proof against it. would be required in this case.

Mr. WATSON.-Yes, there would.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-No; any affidavit filed by a member of a union stating that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, the people represented in the dispute before the Court constituted a majority of those affected, would be sufficient. I have no doubt that the Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, would accept an affidavit founded upon knowledge and belief.

Mr. HUGHES.-What rot!

Mr. DEAKIN.-This Court is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence.

Mr. HUGHES.--An affidavit filed by the other side would knock that one out.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-This Court is so constituted that it may accept evidence founded upon knowledge and belief.

Mr. DEAKIN.-It is to be especially so constituted.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-It is not bound by the ordinary strict rules of evidence, which require statements to be verified on oath.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Certainly not. Mr. WATSON.-On nearly every occasion when an amendment was moved.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Certainly not. We never voted against the fundamental principle of compulsory arbitration to settle industrial disputes. Surely the honorable. member will grant the main principle of compulsory arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. If so, why object to reasonable conditions being attached to it?

Mr. HUGHES.-The conditions proposed are not reasonable.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Those conditions do not in any way assail or impair the main principle.

Mr. HUGHES.-Undoubtedly they do. They render the Bill ineffective.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I think we can appeal to the sense of fair play of the people of Australia when they read its provisions to find that it is a Liberal measureone which is founded on logic and reason, and which will give effect to the original intention of its framers.

-

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »