voting for the Bill as it stood, and a still larger number voting for the Bill as amended by the honorable and learned member for Corinella. His amendment having been agreed to, and the Ministry having resigned in consequence, it became the duty of those who voted for it to take the constitutional and parliamentary responsibility for their votes. We could not shirk that responsibility. The Labour Ministry resigned, and a new Ministry had to be formed to carry on the Government. Those who were responsible for the vote which displaced the Watson Administration were bound to see that arrangements were made to carry on the Government of the country, and we should have been recreant to our duty if we had failed to do SO. Consequently, we had to cross the floor of the Chamber, and the line of cleavage between the two parties in this House at the present time was caused by the division to which I have referred. We are kept apart by that division, and we shall have to remain apart pending the settlement of the question. If we do not remain here, we must be identified or associated with it for the purpose of maintaining, and fighting for the principle upon which we are divided. I do not see how we can escape the responsibilities of the situation, whatever its consequences may be. The Ministry was formed as the result of that division, and those of us who sit on this side of the Chamber feel that we are bound, as men of honour, to maintain it, so long as it is able to carry on the Government of the country in a manner consistent with our views, our policy, and our programme. There may not be the same amount of individuality in the Ministerial organization that there would be if the Ministry were not of a com pro is any reasonable prospect of a protectionist revival, even if the Ministry is dislodged. The vast majority of honorable members were returned to support a fiscal peace during the present Parliament. That was the policy laid down at Ballarat by the honorable and learned gentleman who represents that place, and I, in common with a large number of my protectionist friends, went to the country in advocacy of it. I informed my constituents that we had had so long a battle over free-trade and protection, that I was getting pretty sick of it, and would like a rest. Mr. WATSON. The honorable and learned gentleman declared himself to be sick of the Arbitration Bill a day or two ago. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Only for the time being. Mr. REID. It was the leader of the Opposition who threw up that Bill. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I think that we have all declared that there should be no more tinkering with the Tariff during the present Parliament, so that trade and commerce may be allowed a short respite and freedom of action, instead of being hampered and harassed by constant threats of changes. I told my supporters at Bendigo that I should be no party to any tinkering with the Tariff during the present Parliament, and I believe that that was the view taken by protectionist candidates generally at the last elections. Mr. REID. The leader of the Labour Party was very sound on that point, too. Sir JOHN QUICK.-When the Labour Party came into office, they had no fiscal policy, except one of a negative character, and in the Age of the 1st June last, there ap ject: On the fiscal issue, the sole issue which has held the Deakin party together, the Watson party has no policy. Its members are free lances, and although about 75 per cent. of them are protectionists, the party, as such, can never take any part with protectionists. posite character. It is neither a straight-peared the following passage on the subout free-trade, nor a straight-out protectionist Administration, and its gramme is limited by the composition of its members. I believe that the work which it will be capable of performing will be of a non-contentious character, but none the less necessary for the welfare of the Commonwealth. It will have to carry out, if it be successful in maintaining its position, a considerable amount of work of a non-con tentious character which the late Ministry undertook to perform. One of the grounds of attack which has been suggested from the Opposition corner is that it should be turned out in order that we may have a protectionist revival; but I do not see that there Sir John Quick. Mr. HUME COOK.-That was before the alliance. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Is the magic of an alliance going to convert them? Mr. HUME COOK.-It has done so. Sir JOHN QUICK.-To show that we cannot expect a protectionist revival from the Labour Party, I would quote from the Age of the 9th August last the following passage from the report of the speech delivered by the honorable member for Bland at Wagga: He believed there was no probability of a Bill altering the Tariff being brought in during this Parliament, and it was certainly desirable that there should be some rest from the turmoil of fiscal strife. It was a desirable thing to have a rest from the eternal fight on the fiscal question, especially in view of the present circumstances of Australia. They had not had time since the passing of the Tariff to get any clear ideas as to what its incidence would be in the future. Then he goes on to say It is too early to judge accurately of the effects. of the Tariff. Perhaps the honorable member for Bourke has been able to instruct the leader of the Opposition with regard to that matter. Then I find in the Age of the 12th August the following statement: Watson Ministry hostile to protection-Those who turned out a strong protectionist Ministry in order to instal in office one which (as Mr. Watson's Wagga speech abundantly proves) is hostile to protection, certainly put on a very bold front when they want to know how a protectionist can oppose the present Prime Minister. Then it goes on to say It would be much more reasonable to ask how a true protectionist can support him? This is indeed becoming daily and more conspicuously the question of the hour. Now, we are invited by the alliance to support the honorable member for Bland, and to restore him to office, in the hope and anticipation that he will break and violate the undertakings in his Wagga speech, and all the apparent understandings of his party and his friends. Surely these things cannot be. Surely such a change could not be brought about even under the magic influence of the alliance. In offering a few observations upon the alliance, I do not wish to say anything offensive to my old friends. I merely wish to offer what I consider to be fair criticism. Mr. KENNEDY.-They will apply for a divorce; do not be too hard on them. Mr. HUME COOK.-In the honorable and learned member's case, there has not been a marriage even. Sir JOHN QUICK.-When the LiberalProtectionists were on the opposite side of the House, I think we worked fairly and harmoniously upon all political questions. We met in the same room, and held consultations, without any serious differences, until the Minister of Defence proposed his amendment in clause 48 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. There was nothing up to that time to sever us or break our I know of I believe unity or integrity as a party. Mr. ISAACS.-That was conveyed by the resolution that we passed. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Yes, exactly. The resolution arrived at on 1st June, and generally concurred in, was that we were to keep together as a party. Mr. GROOM.-And yet there are now four protectionists sitting as Ministers under a free-trade leader. Mr. McCAY.-That is the trouble, is it? Mr. REID. We have got the wrong men in. have we? Sir JOHN QUICK.-I find that the August, and Mr. Reid was then sent for. Watson Ministry resigned on the 16th On looking over the files of the Age, I find that on the very day that the Watson Ministry resigned the honorable member for Bourke, the whip of the Deakin-Liberal Party, issued circulars calling a meeting of a certain section of the party. Mr. REID.-Hear, hear; that was the split. Sir JOHN QUICK.-They did not send an invitation to the other members of the party. The circular was issued only to those members who voted with the Watson Government, who were invited to meet for the purpose of considering an alliance with the Labour Party. Mr. ISAACS.-Did the honorable and learned member say that circulars were issued? Sir JOHN QUICK.-The Age said so. I am only stating what was published in the newspapers. Perhaps a letter was sent, or, at any rate, an invitation in some form. Sir WILLIAM LYNE.-No letter or circular was issued. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The point is that the invitations to attend the meeting were confined to the few members grouped over in the Opposition corner at present. There was nothing to sever or divide our party before that. I was in the country, and never came down between the time that the vote was carried against the Watson Ministry and the reassembling of Parliament. I had no invitation to attend any meeting to consider an alliance with the Labour Party, and the leader of our party was not invited. What had he done that he should have been left out of consideration? Mr. DEAKIN.-I was not even informed of the meeting. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Why should the leader of the party not have been invited to attend, even though he might have objected to what was proposed? Why should not the members of the Liberal Party be invited to meet together to consider the situation? Mr. ISAACS.-The honorable and learned member for Bendigo and the honorable and learned member for Ballarat had as much invitation as any of us. Sir JOHN QUICK. That is absolutely impossible. The last time that we met in caucus as a party was when we passed the resolution affirming, that we should preserve the unity and identity of our party. And if it was intended to change the constitution of our party, why were we not all invited to attend the meeting convened to consider the question? Mr. ISAACS. All the members of the party were invited. Sir JOHN QUICK.-No, we were not. The meeting was exclusive from the first because I find that those honorable members present at the meeting, which was held on the 17th August, and reported in the Age of 18th August, were the honorable and learned member for Indi, the honorable member for Bourke, the honorable and learned member for Darling Downs, the honorable member for Bass, the honorable member for Moreton, and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. Apologies were received from the honorable member for Hume, and the honorable member for Riverina. Mr. ISAACS.—And they had no more invitation than had any one else. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Then it is very strange that they should have known about the meeting. Mr. DEAKIN. They told me that they had received verbal invitations. I had not even a verbal invitation. Mr. HUME COOK.-I told the honorable and learned member for Ballarat about the meeting. Sir WILLIAM LYNE.—It was stated that the honorable and learned member for Ballarat was informed of the meeting. Mr. DEAKIN.-That is not true. I had no invitation. Mr. SPEAKER.-Will the honorable and learned member kindly withdraw that remark. that a certain statement had been made by some one else, and I said that that statement was not true. Mr. SPEAKER.-I heard the honorable and learned member say in reply to an honorable member-I do not know whom"That is not true." That is not a remark which should be made in this House by any honorable member, and I would therefore ask the honorable and learned member to withdraw it. Mr. DEAKIN.-I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that you are under a misappre hension. The honorable member for Hume said that some one had made a statement to I do him, and I said that it was not true. not, however, desire to raise a point or order, and I will content myself with withdrawing my remark, and saying that the statement is incorrect. Mr. SPEAKER.-I am sorry if I asked the honorable and learned member to withdraw a remark that did not apply to a statement made by an honorable member of this House. If the statement were made by some one outside, there was no obligation upon him to withdraw. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I contend that an invitation of some kind should have been sent to all the members of our party, asking them to attend the meeting that was held, so that they might have an opportunity to consider the situation. It is true, I admit, that three of our party had seen fit to accept office. Mr. ISAACS.-The honorable and learned member had just the same chance as we had of hearing about the meeting. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The fact that three of our party had agreed to accept office under the leadership of the Prime Minister did not in any way deprive us of our rights and privileges as members of the Protectionist Party. Those honorable members took office on their own responsibility, and in the exercise of their deliberate judgment and discretion, as they had a perfect right to do. Their action did not dismember our party, and did not release us from our obligations to the leader who was appointed by us. I think there should be something like loyalty to a leader, so long as he remains in his position. If he betrays his trust, if he does not lead the party aright, there is a way of applying a remedy, but to go behind his back and to call a hole-and-corner meeting is to display disloyalty of the most contemptible character. Mr. DEAKIN.-I do not think I need. Mr. HUME COOK.-I say that the leader The honorable member for Hume intimated of the party knew of the meeting. Mr. DEAKIN. That is incorrect. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The leader of the party would not be justified in crawling to a meeting merely because he heard that it was to be held. Surely the leader of the party was entitled to give directions as to the convening of the meeting, and no small party or clique should have convened a meeting behind his back, and have left him to find out as best he could what was intended to be be done. Mr. SPEAKER.-Order. At the moment of my rising three or four honorable members were carrying on a conversation across the Chamber. I have not yet named any honorable member within the meaning of the Standing Orders, although I have mentioned the names of some honorable members. If honorable members do not make a more dignified use of the liberties which they enjoy, I shall have to adopt the extreme course of naming them, and I need scarcely inform them that that procedure would be followed by suspension for such term as the House might direct. I hope I shall not be called upon to proceed to any such extreme. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I am inclined to believe that in certain quarters, for some time past, there has been a little more going on than appears on the surface. The Age of 18th August contained a report of the meeting of the Labour-Liberal section, and it was stated that a conference was held between the Liberal Protectionists and the Labour Party the same evening. Mr. REID.-Hear, hear; there was no room for the leader of the party. Sir JOHN QUICK.-Now I desire to give honorable members a real tit-bit. The conference was held upon the evening of the 17th August, and was reported in the Age of the 18th, as "the outcome of negotiations which had been quietly proceeding ever since the Labour Party took office." Mr. GROOM.-Who says that? the Sir JOHN QUICK.-The Age. I was not aware that any underground engineering of this kind was going on, but I thought that as a party we were working together harmoniously under our common leader, and that although we had divided over amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence, there was nothing in that to separate us as a party. I complain bitterly that a change was made, and that negotiations were commenced behind the back of our leader, and behind the backs of the majority of the Liberal Protectionist Party, without giving us any opportunity to come in, or to be heard. If we had been heard we might have been able to prevent this disruption. As a result of this alliance our party has been prejudiced and damaged in the country, as well as in this House; our usefulness and our influence have been impaired. If this alliance, by which our unity and integrity as a party was destroyed had not taken place, do not honorable members see what a powerful position we should have occupied in this Chamber. We should undoubtedly have been the dominating force, and able to exact terms from any Ministry. Mr. PAGE. That is what the honorable and learned member's leader at Ballarat said that he did not want. Sir JOHN QUICK.-I am not aware that my leader said anything of the kind. It is quite possible for us to work together with another party for one purpose, and remain united as a party for another purpose. We might work together, say, to keep in a Labour Ministry or a Reid Ministry for the time being, if we thought fit, without impairing the integrity of the party. The Labour Party, when supporting the Barton Administration, did not destroy themselves as a party. A political organization or political party does not necessarily destroy itself by giving support to a Ministry for the time being. We could have maintained our homogeneity without an alliance. my opinion the true destiny of the party was to avoid entangling alliances. What has become of the Protectionist Party? An HONORABLE MEMBER.-They are in the Reid Ministry. In so? Three members of the Ministry accepted Sir JOHN QUICK.-How can that be office for the purpose of carrying on what was regarded as a Government evolved out of the necessities of the situation, but that does not destroy their position as members of the Liberal Party, or as Protectionists. They may be called upon of events, to retire from their present posiby irresistible circumstances, and the drift tions at any time, and we expect that they will be loyal to their old friends and colleagues, and come back to the Liberal Party to which they belong. Mr. MCLEAN.-And to their old leader. Sir JOHN QUICK.-And to their old leader, should that time arrive. It is to be deplored that so many of our old and esteemed friends have joined in what I might almost call a colourless coalition with the Labour Party, and for a valueless consideration. Mr. HUME COOK.-Why bother about it? Sir JOHN QUICK.-We have to consider, not so much the consequences and results in the House, as the effect of the alliance upon the party throughout Australia. What is the consideration? Immunity from opposition. What a shadowy consideration the honorable member for Bourke is receiving! I think he is being treated very unfairly; but it is just what we all expected. Mr. HUME COOK.-Is that the reason the honorable and learned member did not come in? Sir JOHN QUICK.-No, I knew long ago that the Labour Party would have nothing to do with any persons except those who would sign their pledge. And quite right, too; let the Labour Party stick to their colours and their platform, But let us also stand by our colours and principles. The Labour Party have, in my opinion, shown a considerable amount of cleverness and astuteness in these negotiations, the result of which is that our Liberal-Protectionist friends have sold themselves to the Labour Party for a mess of pottage. They will have to support the Labour Party "through thick and thin." They will have to support this motion, and any other proposal the Labour Party may make, under the penalty that if they do not go the "whole hog," out they go. Mr. REID. They will go out anyhow. Sir JOHN QUICK. It is rather a melancholy spectacle and I regret it. I do not know whether it is too late for our Liberal-Protectionist friends to retrace their steps. They have elected to join this alliance, not as a mere temporary combination for a special purpose, but, I believe, for a period extending over two Parliaments. They are tied hand and foot to the Labour Party; and what do they get in return? Will they get protection to native industries? They cannot get that during, this Parliament, according to the declaration of the leader of the Opposition. Will they get preferential trade? They cannot get that, unless the leader of the Opposition breaks his pledges and understanding with the party to which he belongs. I do not see what the Liberal-Protectionists are to gain except revenge. That apparently is at the root of the combination-revenge and resentment seem to be the basic principles on which the alliance is founded, irrespective of the political situation, irrespective of the necessity for carrying on the King's Government and maintaining that fiscal peace and industrial progress for which we all have worked, in which we are all interested, and which the country expects. The House ought to determine to deal with the Arbitration Bill during this session. No political changes ought to be encouraged by any party in the House which may lead to the defeat or loss of that Bill, about which there has been so much contention and fighting. It is inevitable that the Bill will be lost if the changes now being agitated for are brought about. The Labour Party, who desire to have this Bill placed on the statute-book, ought to subordinate any resentment which they feel through their defeat, and exercise a certain amount of self-restraint and self-abnegation in order to assist the House in making this Bill law. It would be a great mistake to bring about a change which might result in the loss of the Bill. And if the Labour Party are in earnest-if they do not want merely to see the Bill dangling before our eyes indefinitely-they ought to assist the Ministry in passing it. Mr. PAGE.—The honorable and learned member surely does not doubt our earnestness? Sir JOHN QUICK.-Then I invite the Labour Party not to bring about a change which may result in its defeat. It is plain that the Labour Party are in a position to exercise an influence which might, and no doubt would, lead to the successful accomplishment of this measure. I am not going to take up time in discussing the abstract question of Socialism; there are more burning questions claiming our notice and attention. But I should like to give a word of advice to the Prime Minister. I am prepared to extend to the Ministry at the present moment, and under present circumstances, much indulgence for the apparent meagreness of their programme. That meagreness is the inevitable result of the present circumstances. But I think that, should the Government be able to pilot the vessel through the present storm, and get anchored in the safe haven of recess, we shall be entitled, when the House meets next year, to demand from them a workable progressive programme. Mr. REID.-Hear, hear. Sir JOHN QUICK.-The Prime Minister will not be able to sustain his Ministry. party, or supporters, merely on the cry of We desire an alternative anti-Socialism. policy. Mr. REID.-Hear, hear. |