Mr. ISAACS.-Will the honorable member state the name of the publication from which he is quoting.

Mr. McCOLL.--The State Hansard. Mr. ISAACS.-Could the honorable member tell me the page. I know that there are some so-called extracts that are wrong. Mr. McCOLL.-My first quotation was from the Victorian Hansard No. 69, page 15, and the second from Hansard No. 70, page 2073. I have still another quotation to make from Hansard No. 70, page 2472. Mr. ISAACS.-Would the honorable member read the next two and a half lines following the last extract?

Mr. McCOLL.-I have not the volume of Hansard with me. The honorable and learned member is still carefully reserving himself, and he will have ample opportunity to read as many extracts as he likes. He said

to find honorable

He was surprised members, who were sent there to support the country constituencies, and to resist the imposition of those duties which pressed so heavily upon them, helping to carry those prohibitive duties through. He could not help expressing his sincere sorrow that this should be the case. The country was

getting heartily and thoroughly sick of seeing this juggernaut of taxation rolling on and claiming its victims all over the colony. He trusted that some other and better means would be devised of raising revenue.

Mr. ISAACS.-And the next Government of which I was a member took off the almost

prohibitive taxes of which I was complaining.

Mr. MCCOLL. The honorable and learned member has practically drawn these extracts from me by his challenge to me to prove the truth of my statement that he was almost a free-trader.

Mr. ISAACS.-The honorable member came prepared.

Mr. MCCOLL.-I know that the honorable and learned member, like myself, assisted to bring down the prohibitive duties that were in vogue. The quotations that I have read show that he was not always the ardent protectionist that he is to-day.

Mr. ISAACS.-The honorable member has not proved his case now.

Mr. McCOLL.-Returning to events in Queensland, I wish to show honorable members how the Labour Party treat their allies. At the recent election in that State, the Labour Party agreed to contest the seats, together with the members of Mr. Morgan's party. They entered into an alliance somewhat similar to that which has been brought about in this House. The

result of the elections was that some 35 labour men and 21 of Mr. Morgan's followers were elected. After the election one honorable member died, and the candidate who had been third on the poll again offered himself for the seat. His candidature was not indorsed by the Government, who put forward the brother of the honorable member for Darling Downs, Mr. H. Groom, and indorsed his candidature. One would have thought that under the alliance with the Labour Party, the leader of the Government would have had the right to select his own nominee. But the Labour Party said at once, "You have no right to indorse Mr. Groom's nomination without consulting us, and we object to what you have done." They are running a man of their own against Mr.

Groom.

now

Mr. DAVID THOMSON.-They had a perfect right to do so, because the elections

were over.

Mr. McCOLL. I am not disputing their right to do so. No doubt they were quite within their rights. I am only telling my friends of the alliance what they may anticipate if the same tactics are pursued in connexion with the Commonwealth elections. The Worker, in its last issue-I think it is the Queensland Worker-says that under the alliance the Labour Party have a right to run their own man for the seat in question, and that if they can gain two or three more seats, they will have an absolute majority in the House, and will be able to shift the Government and take office themselves. I am not blaming them, but I am pointing out the kind of treatment which our friends of the alliance may expect to receive.

a

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-Did the honorable member notice that they elected conservative as Speaker, instead of following the example of the Victorian Parliament and ousting the former Speaker with

out any cause.

Mr. ROBINSON.--Why did the Labour Party oust Senator Best from the Chairmanship of Committees in the Senate?

Mr. PAGE. -We shall shift the Chairman in this House, too.

Mr. McCOLL.-The members of the alliance have transferred their allegiance from the honorable and learned member for Ballarat to the honorable and learned member for Indi without the slightest justification. As has been stated by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, there was no reason why they should not

have continued to sit under their old leader, and have exercised absolute control upon this side of the House. As a matter of fact, the members under the leadership of the honorable and learned member for Ballarat exercise a controlling influence now, because the free-traders have given way to a far greater extent than we have. Whilst those honorable members who have entered into an alliance with the Labour Party had a perfect right to do as they liked, there was no reason why they should rush at once into an attack upon members who chose to take their seats on this side of the Chamber. Instead of acknowledging that there might have been a legitimate difference of opinion, they took the first opportunity to blackguard honorable members on this side, to characterize them as traitors, and to charge them with having surrendered their principles, and having cast protection to the winds. Then the honorable and learned member for Indi said, "However, the door is open if you choose to return." I, for one, do not intend to return, because I would sooner leave parliamentary life altogether than follow the honorable and learned member. I was a Ministerial colleague of his some years ago.

Mr. GROOM. More recrimination. Mr. McCOLL.-If the gloves are off on one side they must be dispensed with on the other. I was a colleague of the honorable and learned member for Indi, and I am in a position to say that for political turpitude and disloyalty to his colleagues he has never been equalled in Victoria. I made up my mind that never again would I follow him, because I could never put any faith in him. Mv statement would be borne out by almost all those who are ac

quainted with the political career of the honorable and learned member, and it is indorsed by Mr. McCulloch in his letter which was published a few days ago.

Mr. PAGE. He was too straight for the crowd he was associated with.

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-He is an intellectual giant.

Mr. McCOLL.-I know that the honor able and learned member is an intellectual giant, and so clever and skilled in the arts of political diablerie that he can put his case very ably before the people.

Mr. GROOM. And add to the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. McCOLL.-I know the honorable and learned member full well, and I could not follow his lead. I would sooner leave

That

Parliament and retain my self-respect. There was no need for honorable members opposite to give interviews to the press, and to make charges against us. was not the way in which they could expect to obtain our assistance. They said that the party could not tolerate any such conduct. What do we care for the party? We are responsible to our constituents. I have been a parliamentary representative for my district for twenty years, and have never suffered a defeat; and it is to my constituents, and not to any association in town, or any newspaper that I am responsible. I desire to enter my strongest protest in a matter, which, however, may not quite concern the question we are now discussing. I was sorry to see that last Sunday evening the ex-Prime Minister attended a party political meeting. I do not profess to be a strict sabbatarian, but I am oldfashioned enough to trust that in this country an endeavour will be made to keep the Sunday free from business of the kind. There is a disposition growing up every week to more and more use Sunday for the discussion of political and other secular matters.

Mr. FRAZER.-The honorable member is after the Women's Christian Temperance Union vote now!

Mr. McCOLL.-I am one who believes in

respecting the Sabbath day; and this is the place in which to denounce such conduct. known a Member of Parliament to hold a Never in the history of Victoria have I Party political meeting on the Sabbath. Time and again efforts have been made to but such enterprises have never been percommence Sunday newspapers in Victoria; mitted by the State Government. Those troduction of secular business on the Sabwho will suffer in the long run from the inbath, will be the working classes. In Bendigo the miners have a rule that no man

shall work on the Sabbath, unless it be absolutely necessary. If once public meetings become the rule on Sundays, candidates will be asked to deliver addresses, and we shall arrive at a perfect Parisian Sunday, such as I hope we shall never see.

Mr. FRAZER.-If the honorable member comes to Kalgoorlie, we will show him firstclass football on Sunday.

Mr. MCCOLL.-I have spoken longer than I intended, and I now return to my first point. What does the country think of our proceedings here? Surely we ought to do better than we have done. If

there is one reason why we ought to support the coalition Government for a whileMr. FRAZER.-Why qualify it?

Mr. McCOLL.-The Government are not here for an eternity. One of the greatest drawbacks to the success of Federation has been the unfederal spirit shown between New South Wales and Victoria. That spirit we all deplore; and I believe that the continuance in office of this Government for a time will have a good effect in mollifying, and perhaps removing, that feeling. To bring about a proper understanding between those two great States, which represent the great majority of the people of Australia, I would give up a good deal. Now that we have the chance to get those States into line we may settle the question of differential rates, and also the question of the utilization of the Murray waters. If we can only get those two States to act in harmony we shall place Federation on a stronger and firmer basis than we can otherwise expect.

Mr. PAGE. And swallow up the other four small States!

a

Mr. MCCOLL.-The small States are protected in the Senate. Is it wise at the present time to force on this motion, which will probably result in a dissolution? As the honorable member for Maranoa said the other night, frankly and honestly, if there were a secret ballot taken there would be no dissolution. I should not care if a dissolution would settle matters, and return a majority on either side. I should not mind which. I have no objection to Labour Government, who, I am sure, would not act unwisely. If the Labour Party have a majority, let them take office, but I am afraid that a dissolution will only mean that, after an appeal to the country, we shall come back practically as we are at the present time, and shall go drifting in the same fashion, with no good result to Australia. There is another matter we ought to consider. The last election took piace in the middle of the harvest, and if there be a dissolution, that experience will be repeated. It is not just to country constituents, who are engaged on the soil, that they should be compelled to leave their work when every moment is precious. This may not matter to honorable members who know nothing of country needs or the precariousness of the returns from the soil; but it is not fair to country people to force a dissolution at this juncture. I was surprised at honorable members representing country districts-such as the honorable and

learned member for Corio, and the honorable and learned member for Indi-pursuing a course which they know must be detrimental to the great majority of their constituents. I hope that the motion will not be carried, but that we shall dispose of the remaining business, and get into recess. That would be good for all parties, and for the country generally. We could then meet and sit for six or seven months, and, with a determination to get out of the slough, bend all our energies to business, and in an endeavour to realize the aspirations of four or five years ago, make the Commonwealth what it ought to be.

Mr. ISAACS.-I wish to say one or two words by way of personal explanation. I must apologize to the House if it is thought for a moment that anything I say may give the honorable member for Echuca more prominence than he otherwise would have. But the honorable member referred to two matters. One was the action I took

publicly some years ago. I can only say that I happened-it was an accident, I suppose to be a colleague of the honorable member in a certain Government. I found it my duty to take a certain course, and to put the ordinary law in motion in a very influential direction. The honorable member resisted that action. In the end I had to sever my connexion with the Government. I placed myself in the hands of my constituents, and was returned unopposed, and at the first available opportunity the honorable member and his colleagues were swept out of office. Immediately after that I had the honour to receive a portfolio in the next Government, formed by the present right honorable member for Balaclava; and I held office then for some years.

On another occasion I took part in a general election, which swept the honorable member for Echuca and his colleagues once more from office, and I again joined a Government, headed by the pre sent right honorable member for Balaclava, retaining my position until I resigned to come to this Parliament. The best credential I can have is the double indorsement of the people of Victoria. I am not afraid to pit my public character against that of the honorable member. Then the honorable member has taken on himself to repre

sent

Mr. WILKINSON.-Misrepresent !

Mr. ISAACS.-The House may judge how far his remarks are representations, and how far they are misrepresentations, and I think I shall be able to show their character very

shortly. The honorable member stated that I had practically supported free-trade in a speech delivered in 1892. That is going a long way back to dig up matters, even if his statement were correct.

Mr. JOSEPH Cook.-Why not have a little Victorian "digging ?"

Mr. ISAACS.-Allow me to proceed; I shall not occupy any length of time. The honorable member for Echuca appears to me to have deliberately stopped short of the very point that would have given the exact truth to the House. The speech he referred to is reported in the Victorian Hansard, vol. 70, and commences at page 2071. The Victorian Parliament was then discus

sing the Budget of Sir Graham Berry, and the opinion I expressed in the speech was that a prohibitive Tariff was being introduced. I took care time after time in that speech to point out that it was not a battle between protection and free-trade, but that, in my opinion, it was an advance to prohibition. I did not say that once or twice, but several times, and the honorable member must have seen the report. On page 2071, I said

It is not a battle between protection and freetrade. Neither do I think that it is a question between protection and prohibition, but I do think it is a question between prohibition of all foreign trade and any foreign trade at all.

Further on, I said-

We are marching steadily on to absolute prohibition. Therefore, I think it is a question, not of free-trade or protection, because no one has attempted to storm the fortress in this citadel of protection in the southern hemisphere. No one has approached the question from that point of view, but it has been raised by those who wish to advance to prohibition; and, looking at the question fairly and squarely in the face, it is not a question in which free-trade is involved at all.

Mr. MAUGER. And the present honorable and learned member for Ballarat said just the same thing.

Mr. ISAACS.-It was page 2073 from which the honorable member quoted. After I had spoken of the farmer and the miner, came the words which I asked the honorable member to quote, but which he said he had not with him. They are as follows:

Is this a fair and equitable Budget that does all these things?

Later on I used words which explain the the position I have always taken up on fiscal question.

Can it be denied that when we have prohibition we create a monopoly? I object to the foreign trader having a monopoly here. One of the chief reasons for introducing protection was that it would prevent such a monopoly; that it would protect the people of this country against the foreign trader, who can ask what price he likes. But if we shut out the foreign trader absolutely, do we not create a monopoly at home? Are we to of press the great bulk of the people, the great body of consumers in the country-the farmers, and the miners, and the general population-by placing on their necks a monopoly? There is not the slightest doubt that prohibition is another way of spelling monopoly.

I think that any one who intended fairly to represent me could not have mistaken the views I expressed in that speech. I merely use these quotations in order to show whether now, or in the future, any reliance can be placed on the word of the honorable

member for Echuca.

Mr. MCCOLL.-In regard to the first matter mentioned, I merely wish to say that it came twice before the Victorian Parliament, and Parliament indorsed the action of the Government, and not the action of the honorable and learned member for Indi.

Mr. ISAACS. And the people swept the Government out of office.

Mr. WILKINSON (Moreton). This side of the House may feel a little indulgent to protectionists on the other side. and accept their apology for their present position in the House. The debate, so far as I have followed it, appears to have been nothing but a mass of apologies from the protectionists on the Government side, and I do not know how they can explain their action in placing themselves under a free-trade leadership. We are told that the Minister of Trade and Customs is the equal in all things with the Prime Minister, but looking at the former, and also at the right honorable member for Balaclava, and others who have been associated with the Protectionist movement, we may see that they are not very comfortable. The leader of the Opposition has moved

That the present Administration does not possess the confidence of this House.

I desire to intimate to the Government now, because I think it will save time hereafter, as

far as I am concerned, in explaining the position that I purpose taking up, that I intend to fight to the very utmost against what I conceive to be the inequalities of this Budget.

possess the confidence of either the House or the Commonwealth, but I do not propose to move an amendment, because that question will have to be referred to the people probably within

months.

the next few The only question to be de