Mr. PAGE. The honorable and learned member has knocked away the only prop which the Government had to lean on.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-That is only one prop. We want practical legislation-legislative proposals in the direction of industrial peace and prosperity in Australia. I am sure the Prime Minister will not hesitate, as far as may be reasonable and necessary, to bring into play the power, authority, and force of the Commonwealth Government and Parliament for the promotion of trade, commerce, and industry. In the July number of the Independent Review there is an interesting article by Mr. Sidney Webb, the well-known Socialist; and I desire to quote a passage, which expresses the views of myself, and, I believe, a number of other honorable members as to the differentiation between what may be regarded as the functions of individualism and the functions of the State. The passage is as follows:

Whilst the community may leave the conduct of industrial operations to personal initiative, it cannot, for its own sake, allow the conditions of employment to fall below a certain standard deemed indispensable to social health. This involves nothing more revolutionary than an extension, though a big one, of our Factory ActThat is the English Factory Act

in the direction in which New Zealand and Victoria have shown the way.

There is a marked differentiation between the functions of the State and the functions of the individual. Mr. Webb says that we should leave the conduct of industrial operations to personal initiative generally; but, at the same time it is the true right and true function of the State to so regulate the conditions of labour and employment that they do not lead to injustice or oppression. I am sure every Liberal in the House will acquiesce in that view; and this should form a rallying point around which we can all venture to fight.

Mr. CHANTER.-Where are the approving cheers on that side of the House for those sentiments?

Mr. REID. Every Liberal is in favour of that view.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I consider that this dictum of Mr. Webb, who is a wellknown writer, affords us a true definition of the distinction between the collective regulation and the socialization of industries. The collective regulation of industries is something we can all justify, so far as it may be necessary, for the protection of the weak against the strong-for the protection of those who cannot alter their surroundings or environment.

On

Mr. ISAACS. There is preference to unionists in the New Zealand Act.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Mr. Webb is speaking of the Victorian Factories Acts, as well as of the New Zealand Arbitration Act. It is well known that when Mr. Sidney Webb was in Australia he studied well the provisions of the Victorian Factories Act, of which he spoke highly. Here he recommends the adoption in England of an Act which, while it makes no provision for preference to unionists, is capable of preventing oppression and sweating in various forms and phases.

Mr. ISAACS.-There is a "common rule" under the Victorian Factories Act.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Yes, but there is no preference to unionists.

Mr. HUTCHISON.-There is in New Zealand.

not

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Mr. Webb points. not only to the New Zealand Act, but to the Victorian Factories Act, as models at which the democracy of the mother country should aim. I did not wish to take up any more time on that branch of the question. But, to sum up my position; in the present state of public affairs, I consider that I and my friends around me here, who belong to the Liberal-Protectionist Party, are, not only justified in our present attitude, but are bound to judge this Ministry merely by its name, or its personnel, but by its measures, as they are severally submitted. I believe that at the present juncture of affairs, there is no probability of any more workable combination being called into existence, and that it is our duty, as far as we possibly can, to avoid any further violent and revolutionary changes. I consider that, in view of the way in which the Commonwealth has been drifting of late, with so many changes, we are undoubtedly in a position of imminent danger, and that there is a risk of the people losing faith and confidence in and respect for our Federal institutions, if things go on much longer as they are doing. Recently

I read, I think in the Review of Reviews, a statement that the present position of this House almost amounts to a proof that Australia was not ripe for Federation when it took place. That may be an exaggerated statement of the position of affairs, but certainly it ought to be a warning to us, at any rate to Liberal-Protectionists, to do nothing to endanger the faith of the people in our Federal institutions that we ought, if we possibly can, rather to restrain our personal inclinations and subordinate them to the interests of the State.

Mr. GROOM.-Hear, hear!

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I invite my honorable friend, who says, "hear, hear to my remark, to endeavour to work for the re-organization and re-constitution of that Liberal Party which he helped to break. up, because unless that be done then we on this side of the House feel bound to support this Government so long as the period of fiscal peace endures, and so long as they are prepared to respect the traditions of the past laws and administration of the Commonwealth, and bring in measures to meet varying emergencies as they arise. On these grounds, sir, I intend to vote against the motion of want-of-confidence.

Mr. HUME COOK (Bourke).-Like the honorable and learned member who has just resumed his seat, I deprecate the frequent intrusion of so many personalities into our debates. I wish, sir, that there was a standing order framed, which would prevent honorable members from referring to anything that has transpired outside Parliament, or since the Commonwealth was established. The last speaker touched upon one matter with which I desire to deal at once, because it affects not only myself, but others who have been named. I re

fer to his statements with respect to the alliance, the alleged issue of some circulars calling a meeting of the LiberalProtectionists, and his remarks in connexion with the negotiations between the members of the Liberal-Protectionist Party sitting on this side of the House, and the Labour Party. There were no circulars issued by any honorable member sitting on this side of the House to any honorable member sitting on this or the other side. The only intimation given to honorable members was one which was conveyed in the press, and it was made, not as a result of any secret negotiation or anything of that kind, but by the general concurrence in the first place of all those Liberal-Protectionists who are now sitting on this side.

Mr. MAUGER.-And not for the purpose of forming an alliance, but for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the party.

Mr. HUME COOK.-The press at first stated that the meeting was to be called for the 16th August.

Mr. DEAKIN.-The 17th August.

Mr. HUME COOK.-No. I wish to be

very particular as to the dates, because a good deal hinges upon them. Let me remind the honorable and learned member and others that the Government was defeated on the 12th August, that the composition of the new Ministry was not known on the 16th August, but that it was known on the evening of the 17th August. There was no meeting called for or held on the 16th August. No intimation, either oral or otherwise, was given to any honorable member of a meeting on the 16th August. But an oral intimation to some honorable members who could be seen was given of a meeting on the 17th August, and a press intimation was given to everybody for the same date.

Mr. REID. Is that the way the honorable member informed his leader?

Mr. DEAKIN. On the morning of the 17th August it appeared.

Mr. HUME COOK.-Yes, and on the afternoon of that day a meeting was held. Mr. MCLEAN.-Was it authorized by the leader?

Mr. HUME COOK.-I had been the

whip to the whole party prior to the break up, but when it was suggested to me to send out a written circular, I felt that I had no warrant for taking that course; and after consultation with those who had voted as I had, it was decided that my attitude was right, and that only a press intimation should be given.

Mr. REID. To the leader?

Mr. HUME COOK.-On the afternoon of the 17th August, when he was sitting just where the honorable member for Fremantle is now sitting, I went to the honorable and learned member for Ballarat and said, "You will observe by this morning's press that an intimation is made that circulars have been issued for a meeting this afternoon. There is no truth in that statement; no circulars have been issued. No one in particular has been invited to that meeting. All who were opposed to the present Administration will be welcomed,”’ and, speaking in a jocular fashion, I added, "We expect you to be there.”

Mr. HUME COOK.-I ignored my leader no more than I do now. No one is more sorry than I am that he and I are sitting on opposite sides. It has been a source of great trouble and pain to me that I should be dissociated from him. I am sincerely sorry that the separation has taken place. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to think that I was still sit ting on the same side with him.

Mr. McCAY.-Come along.

Mr. HUME COOK.-But there were compelling circumstances, political and otherwise, as I shall prove later on, which prevented me from going to that side of the House. The honorable and learned member for Bendigo, I think, must admit that the statements he has made have been based upon wrong information. The facts, as I have given them, should be sufficient to warrant the honorable and learned member in withdrawing his statements. When the negotiations had been going on for some time, and were almost quite completed, the honorable and learned member for Bendigo did not take up the attitude which he now assumes, because he said, "How is it that in your negotiations you have left no open door for other members of the Liberal-Protectionist Party to join you if they wish." I said, "When the terms of agreement are published, you will find that there is a special clause which will permit any member of the Liberal-Protectionist Party, no matter on which side of the House he sits, to join the alliance if he pleases."

Mr. ROBINSON.--Another bridge.

Mr. McCAY.--Only with the consent of the Labour Party as well as of the LiberalProtectionists.

Mr. HUME COOK.-With the consent of both parties.

Mr. McCAY.-Hear, hear. You had to get the Labour Party's consent to be liberal. How kind.

Mr. HUME COOK.-I should think that after the vote which had been taken that was a fair condition to impose on honorable members on the opposite side. No honorable member in sympathy with the alliance programme and proposals could find any bar in the conditions named to his entering the alliance if he so desired.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-The first clause of the conditions prohibited the honorable mem ber for Barker and myself from joining.

Mr. HUME COOK.-The first clause of the programme provides that the integrity of both parties shall be maintained,

and the honorabie and learned member could surely agree to that?

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-The honorable member for Barker has joined the alliance.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Only when the clause was altered to suit him.

Mr. HUME COOK.-So much for that portion of the honorable and learned member's address. May I be permitted now to refer to another matter about which he said a great deal, and on which other honorable members have also spoken. I refer to the famous "McCay amendment," and preference to unionists. The honorable and learned member for Bendigo has been endeavouring very skilfully to draw an analogy between the Victorian Factories Act and the Wages Boards under that Act, and the proposals of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. There is no real analogy between them.

When the honorable and learned member says that preference to unionists means the dismissal of non-unionists, he ought to know that under the Victorian Factories Act the very reverse has been the case, and that as a matter of fact, employers and others have taken advantage of the Wages Boards to dismiss unionists. In the district which I represent, there is a very large number of persons connected with the brick, tile, and pottery industry. In order to secure the advantages of the Factories Act, they found it necessary to form a union. Is the honorable and learned member for Bendigo aware that it is impossible for employés to secure the advantages of the Victorian Factories Act, unless they form organizations? That is a condition necessary under the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, and it is also a condition necessary under the Victorian Factories Act. When they formed their union, some of the men who had been active in its formation immediately became, to use their own term, "spotted men." I know that one man who had taken an active part in the formation of the union, was immediately dismissed from his employment, and he has never since been able to secure employment in any one of the yards. In another instance an employer conducting one of the yards. dismissed every man in his employ who had joined the union. There is not a member of the union in his yard to-day, and he will not allow members of the union to be employed there. These facts are indisputable. The honorable and learned member for Bendigo cannot deny them, because they can be proved up to the

hilt. I say that so far from preference to unionists meaning the dismissal of nonunionists, under Our Victorian Factories Act, the reverse has been

the case, and unionists have suffered. Had it not been for the man to whom I have referred, and those associated with him, the brick, pottery, and tile-makers of Brunswick and other districts would not to-day be enjoying the advantages of shorter hours and better pay than they previously received. The men who took action in forming the unions have been penalized by being dismissed from their employment, whilst those who did not join the unions are now reaping the advantages of the Act. Is that fair? Surely those who take all the risks in getting advantages for the men are entitled to get some of the advantages for themselves which others, without risk or effort, enjoy. also wish this matter, that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo was most unfair when he said that it would be the endeavour of the Labour Party and those associated with them to turn the unions of

I

to say, in connexion with

Australia into active political agents. No such thing could happen under the Conciliation

and Arbitration Bill as it left the hands of the late Administration, and the honorable and learned member knows it.

Mr. WILKS.-The Australian Workers' Union would not register under it.

Mr. HUME COOK.—Under the Bill it was proposed to create distinct organizations that were not the ordinary trades unions. It was proposed that those organizations should have no political character or significance, and the late Prime Minister gladly accepted the proposal.

Mr. KELLY.-Gladly accepted it? Mr. HUME COOK.-Yes; because the honorable member had previously declared his belief in it.

Mr. KELLY. The honorable member for Maranoa does not believe in it.

Mr. HUME COOK.-I am not now dealing with the honorable member for Maranoa. but with a far more responsible man. The honorable member for Bland gladly accepted the proposal that there should be no political significance or character attached to these organizations, and he inserted the provision in the Bill. How, then, can honorable members opposite, like the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, say that it is the intention of honorable members on this side to turn the organization into active political agencies? It

could not be done, and it was never intended that it should be done. It is all rubbish and moonshine to say that that is what was proposed.

Mr. McCAY.-In which clause did the honorable member for Bland gladly accept the anti-political provision?

Mr. HUME COOK.-I cannot now name the clause, but I know that the provision was inserted by the honorable member for Bland.

Mr. ROBINSON.-The honorable member refers to the bridge built by the honorable and learned member for Indi.

Mr. HUME COOK.—It does not matter who built it; there it is.

Mr. McCAY.-Does the honorable member refer to the provision which says that there shall be no preference to unions which are political?

Mr. SPEAKER.-Order! The honorable and learned member will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. McCAY.-I thought I was at liberty to ask the honorable member a question.

Mr. HUME COOK.-There is a proper The honorable and learned member for time to ask questions, and to answer them. Bendigo repeated the statement to which I have referred, and he read an article from the Age newspaper in support of his contention, but he forgot to inform the House that the article he read was written

prior to the insertion of the provision to which I have just referred, insuring the non-political character of the organization.

Sir JOHN QUICK.-No, it was not. I quoted from the Age of the 12th August. article was written it was probably justified, but in view of the fact that at a later stage the organizations were made non-political in character, the article loses its point, and the sting is taken out of it.

Mr. HUME COOK.-At the time the

Sir JOHN QUICK.-I quoted from the Age of the 12th August, which was published a few days before the division took place on the amendment moved by the honorable and learned member for Corinella.

Mr. HUME COOK.-We have now a Government in power which professes to have been brought into existence to do three things-to restore responsible government, to institute majority rule, and to bring about the restoration of public confidence. From what I know of the history of coalitions in the State of Victoria, I am not disposed to believe that a coalition is very conducive to the restoration of responsible