government. A coalition is the very negation of responsible government. It means, in the words of the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, that the Government is necessarily limited by its composite character. It is a sort of limited liability government. When the two opposing elements in the Government desire to do any one thing-apart from the programme put before us. which is entirely non-contentious -as a matter of course they have difficulties in coming to any agreement, and the result is a certain amount of stagnation and delay. Mr. KELLY.-Could they not appoint a Roval Commission?

Mr. HUME COOK.-They were very good at proposing Royal Commissions before they became a Government. If honorable members will look at the policy put before us, they will see that what I have just said is proved conclusively. Every item included in it is purely non-contentious. All matters of real importance to the country are carefully set aside. Why? Be cause I suppose the Government have not yet been able to agree upon them. Take such matters, for instance, as the great question of preferential trade.

Mr. ROBINSON.-Which is going to be

discussed at an early date.

Mr. HUME COOK.-What is the Government proposing to do? They do not even propose to discuss it at an early date.

Mr. CHANTER.-The Prime Minister is pledged against preferential trade.

Mr. HUME COOK.-What are they going to do with respect to the iron bonus? Nothing whatever. They talk of the restoration of public confidence, and the institution of majority rule, but what are they going to do on this matter, which would in one sense help to restore public confidence. The Manufactures Encouragement Bill, providing a bonus for the manufacture of iron, is a most important measure which, if given effect to, would provide employment for thousands of persons, but the present Government cannot agree upon that important matter.

Mr. WILKS. Neither can the honorable member's leader with honorable members opposite.

Mr. HUME COOK.-On this and other matters Ministers declare that there must be a truce. Therefore, to talk about responsible government under a coalition is the very height of absurditv.

Mr. KELLY.-Did not the late Prime Minister declare against the iron bonus?

Mr. HUME COOK. The late Prime Minister will be able to answer the honorable member for himself when he replies to the debate. The Government have three principal planks in their programme. They propose to oppose Socialism. That is plank No. 1. They propose to fight unionism and the Labour Party-that is plank No. 2. And plank No. 3, and the most important of them all, is their proposal to get into recess. If they mean to oppose Socialism, do they intend to repeal some of the measures which honorable members who now hold the fate of the Ministry in their hands, helped to put upon the statute-book? Do they propose to repeal some of those socialistic measures which were placed on the statute-book by honorable members like the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and which the members of the free-trade section of the coalition opposite have in past speeches condemned everywhere in Australia? I think not. Are thev in their offices only to prevent legislation? Are they there to sit still and do nothing? Is that what is meant by responsible government; or are they going at some time to agree upon a policy and let us know what it is by putting it before the public? take it that the people of this country will not be satisfied with a mere stand-still or sit-still Ministry. They will not be satis fied with the mere statement of opposition What the country wants is that something to Socialism or the prevention of legislation. should be done, and done quickly.

I

Mr. WILKS.-What the country wants is a spell from legislation.

Mr. HUME COOK. If the country likely to get it from the present Ministry. wants only a spell from legislation, it is I do not think they will be able to do anything, because they cannot agree upon anything.

-

Mr. WILKS. That will restore public confidence.

Mr. HUME COOK.-The honorable and learned member for Bendigo has sought to prove that the Protectionist Party associated with himself on the other side of the House hold the fate of the Ministry in its hand. Is this consistent with that majority rule, which the Prime Minister said was going to be instituted? Where is the majority rule of which we have heard so much? There is more of minority rule now than there ever was before. The best evidence that we have minority rule lies in the circumstance that the Prime Minister has given half the representation of the

masses, he relies on the fact that he was responsible for the imposition of a tax upon the unimproved value of land in New South Wales. But when he wishes to frighten the electors of Australia, he says that the proposal to institute a Commonwealth tax on land values to provide for a Commonwealth old-age pensions system is Socialism, and something which must be fought to the very death. Then the Minister of Trade and Customs-the other head of the Ministry-who says that the one danger to Australia is Socialism, was, when in office in Victoria, most active in the furtherance of socialistic schemes. It is to the honorable member for Gippsland that we owe the institution in Victoria of workmen's homes. It was he who established the first village settlement in Victoria. That is the best kind of Socialism that could obtain anywhere. And yet he now tells us that those who are in favour of that policy are a menace and a danger to the State, and ought not to be countenanced for a moment. To him also we have to give the credit of having placed under the Victorian Factories Act more trades and occupations than have all the other Premiers put together. It was he who said, in effect, "These people are labouring under an injustice; I will see that that injustice is removed." And he removed it by inducing the Victorian Parliament to pass resolutions which had the effect of placing a great number of industries under the Victorian Factories Act. Yet he now says that Socialism, as advocated by honorable members on this side of the House, should be combated. Then the Treasurer, who, although he has not said anything, no doubt indorses the sentiments of the Minister of Trade and Customs, did a very fine thing for Victoria, and caused his name to be blessed in many homes when he instituted the Crédit Foncier system. The proposals of the leader of the Opposition to interfere with the banks has been very seriously condemned, and yet the Treasurer amalgamated the Savings Bank and the Post Office Savings Bank, and placed their funds at the disposal of our farmers. But for his action many a man who is on the land to-day would have been a ruined outcast, and many farms which now remain in the hands of smal! proprietors might have passed into the hands of wealthy capitalists. When Ministers talk against Socialism they should recollect what has been done by themselves in times past. Then the Postmaster

General, who is a most active opponent of Socialism, made a novel socialistic experiment when he imported a number of prize bulls into New South Wales in order to assist the farmers of that State. The only complaint I have heard in that connexion has been caused by the fact that the bulls have not produced any stock. This prating of the dangers of Socialism is so much rubbish. All honorable members know that the Socialism of Australia is not the Socialism of Europe. Turning to one or two personal matters, I wish to say that it is very improper for a responsible Minister to impute motives to honorable members. The Prime Minister is wont to refer to some honorable members on this side of the Chamber as having entered into an alliance with the Labour Party with the object of securing some personal gain. That is a most improper remark to make. Speaking in Sydney, he said

The Labour Party's methods were simply those of delegates of the Political Labour Leagues. They could not even appear on the hustings without the permission of the leagues, not even to oppose men who had supplanted them.

shall leave the members of the Labour Party to answer that. He continued---

So the attempt of the Parliamentary Labour Party to take the place of their masters had failed. For example, Mr. Hume Cook was run close on a heavy poll by Mr. Hannah, a prominent labour leader. If Mr. Cook could get a guarantee from the Labour Party that he would not be effaced, he would take over Mr. Hannah's support, and` Mr. Hannah would be coolly thrown over. Thus would the Labour Party dispose of Mr. Hannah. Mr. Cook and Mr. Isaacs, and others like them,. were in a position which did not reflect infinitecredit upon their well known cleverness. I desire to say that before entering into this alliance I knew well that I should probably not be able to secure-I did not seek any such thing-immunity from opposition on the part of the Political Labour Council in the district I represent. As a matter of fact, I have had to fight labour candidates on three occasions, and each time I have been returned by an increasing majority. I knew before I entered the alliance that the same kind of opposition would probably have to be fought again, and I was solely influenced by my own political views and my desire to represent the opinions of my constituents. Therefore, when the Prime Minister seeks to make honorable members believe that I was actuated by some paltry considerations of personal gain, he is speaking without the slightest justification. Before entering the existing

a

placed

alliance, I wrote to all the members of my committee some hundreds of ladies and gentlemen-and invited them to attend public meeting at Brunswick. I before them the coalition proposals as agreed to by the honorable and learned member for Ballarat and the Prime Minister, and I also submitted to them the proposals for an alliance made about the same time by the leader of the Labour Party. I told them that I did not think it right to accept the proposals of the right honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable and learned member for Ballarat. I added that I desired to obtain an expression of their opinion with regard to both the proposals. I said scarcely anything else. There was a long, discussion, and eventually the following

resolutions were carried:

That this meeting of Mr. Hume Cook's combined committees thank him for his explanation of the facts concerning the proposed coalition with the free-traders, and of the alliance with the Labour Party; and that, in the opinion of this meeting, the coalition with Mr. Reid's party should not be accepted on any terms whatever.

I had, therefore, some warrant for joining the alliance quite apart from my own individual feelings. As to the second proposal, all the meeting had to say was this

That this meeting expresses its continued confidence in Mr. Hume Cook as the representative of Bourke electorate.

I was, therefore, free to join the alliance. I consulted my committee, many of whom had supported me for ten years, and after having obtained an expression of their views, I felt that I was free to act in any way I deemed best in the interests of the Commonwealth, and my constituents. The honorable member for Perth, during his speech in this debate, referred to statements which I was reported to have made concerning the Labour Party. I wish to put that matter right. He stated that I was reported to have said

To have the Labour Party in power would be as bad as letting loose the animals in the Zoological Gardens.

It was so stated in the Argus, and I do not blame the honorable member for having been misled. I should not have made any reference to the matter but for the fact that an inaccurate report has been placed on record, and I think that its refutation should have equal publicity. Honorable members know that I was opposed at the last election by a labour candidate, that the

Mr. Hume Cook.

fight was a very severe one, and that neither of us spared the other. Among other things I had to answer statements contained in pamphlets, such as one I have here, entitled, "Hume Cook's double shuffle on the White Australia Question." In that pamphlet my opponent, sought to show that I was a black Australian. Among those who assisted my opponent were some persons connected with the Trades Hall Council, and certain events occurred which seemed to afford me a chance of getting back at my opponents. The Trades Hall had been asked by Mr. Fleming for the use of some portion of their building, for the purpose of holding a meeting to commemorate the death of some anarchists. The Trades Hall Council, in perfect friendliness, but hardly knowing what they were doing, granted the use of the hall, and as a result a small bill was issued, which read as follows:

of that

The meeting was to be held on Wednesday, 11th November, some time prior to the day of the election, and certain speakers were announced, including one of the gentlemen to whom I have referred as having been very active in opposing me. When I obtained possession bill I called a which was principally for ladies, and which meeting, bill to the meeting, and then said, "I want was very largely attended. I read the to ask you what anarchy means ?" Then I Webster, according to whom anarchy means gave the best definition I could, quoting ing with my remarks, I said, “What would "absence of civil government." Proceed

eventuate if we had in Victoria an absence of civil government? The police, the law courts, and the Judiciary would be swept away, men and women would be free to follow their own sweet will, and the results would be such that we scarcely dare contemplate them. I am not an anarchist," I said, "and I am not supported by any anarchists. If we have anarchy in this country, I added, "it would be worse than letting loose some of the wild beasts from the Zoological Gardens." I went on to say, "If anarchy means the absence of civil government, it means that every person is free to do as he or she likes, and unfortunately, we know that there