ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

that means that he can inform his mind

in any manner he chooses, as the

the

clause specifically says; and a union that can state that it has five-sixths of number of people engaged in an industry within its ranks will have no difficulty whatever in obtaining the opinion of the Court in its favour. This talk about polling the workers of Australia is bunkum -pure bunkum—and those who make the statement ought to know that it is so.

Mr. TUDOR.-How is it possible to find the opinion of the majority of an industry if they are not polled?

Mr. McCAY.-It is worse than go-asyou-please. This is the article of their programme, referring to the measure—

Conciliation and arbitration, as nearly as possible in accordance with the original Bill as introduced by the Deakin Ministry, but any member is at liberty to adhere to his votes already given.

I like to interpret general statements in the The existing facts light of existing facts.

of this case are these. Leaving out of consideration the honorable member for vote-and I am not putting that in an unBourke-assuming that he changes his Committee, with the honorable member for pleasant way- -the votes already given in Barker voting for the clause as it stands, were thirty-eight for the clause as it stands, and thirty-five for an alteration. The alliance declare, in the article of their proleave in the Bill the amendment which they gramme which I have quoted, that they will say wrecks the Bill.

Mr. MAUGER.-No.

Mr. McCAY.-I will quote the article again

Mr. McCAY. I notice that this talk about a poll of the whole of the people in an industry of Australia comes from the direct Opposition benches. It does not come from the corner. We do not find the Liberal-Protectionist branch of this precious alliance making these allegations. We do not hear the statement from the honorable and learned member for Indi, or from the honorable and learned member for Darling Downs. Indeed, we have not heard them at all yet. Perhaps as the revolving seasons change, we may hear something from them in connexion with this matter. But suppose that the amendment means what honorable members opposite say that there can be no preference to unionists without a poll of the workers throughout Australia in a particular industry. Does that wreck the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill? Mr. HUTCHISON.-It makes it im- that clause? practicable.

a

Mr. McCAY.-What is the central principle of conciliation and arbitration? It is the substitution of a decision of a Court of peace, for the results of strike, which means war. It may be said that the unions have to make sacrifices in order to get it; that may be true; but so long as the central principle is not sacrificed, conciliation and arbitration is not wrecked. That principle remaining intact, the Bill cannot be said to be wrecked in the case to which I refer. But I say further that when we were talking about the Bill at the last election and previously we never heard a whisper about the vital importance of clause 48 as introduced. If the position contended for by honorable members opposite be true, in what position does the alliance stand? If it be true that clause 48, as it stands, wrecks the Bill, what is the situation of the members of the alliance?

Sir JOHN QUICK.-Go-as-you-please!

Conciliation and arbitration, as nearly as possible in accordance with the original Bill as introduced by the Deakin Ministry, but any member is at liberty to adhere to his votes already given.

Do honorable members expect any one of the thirty-eight members on this side of the House to alter his vote on that clause? Do they expect the honorable member for Barker to alter his vote already given on Do they expect any member who voted for the clause as it stands to alter his vote? They dare not say they do, because they know that they cannot possibly expect it.

Mr. MAUGER.-We expect to do what we should have done if we had gone into Committee upon the Bill-to alter the clause in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. MCCAY. That is not what the article of the alliance provides forany member is at liberty to adhere to his votes already given.

I say unhesitatingly that under this article. in the programme of the alliance not one honorable member who voted for the amend ment will alter his vote. Surely after the two months that have elapsed since the division, and after all the conflict that there has been, every honorable member has made up his mind on this matter. We are not to delay making up our minds for ever. charge this alliance, under the specious guise of this kindly article of their programme. with saying in one breath, that the Bill as

[ocr errors]

it stands is wrecked by the amendment made in it, and in the next breath saying, "We will leave the Bill as it stands, if we can only change thirty-five into thirtyeight." Honorable members may laugh; but that is as true as anything that ever That article happened in public life. means nothing more nor less, when interpreted in the light of existing facts, and in accordance with the views of existing Members of this Parliament, than that they are prepared at a pinch to take the Bill as it stands, under the terms of their alli

ance.

Mr. MAUGER. Absolutely without war

rant.

Mr. McCAY.-I only take the facts.
Mr. MAUGER.-Pure assumption.

Mr. McCAY.-To expect that any honorable member who voted for the Bill as

I wish

with the labour members to-morrow evening. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Isaacs made the fol lowing brief statement to the representatives of the press "I submitted the draft proposals, and the meeting approved of them as a fair basis for an alliance between the Liberal-Protectionists and the Labour Parties for the consolidation of We are to meet the Labour Party next Tuesday all the liberal progressive forces of Australia. night."

The first item in "the official proposals " for a "joint platform" reads—

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, as at present, with the substitution of Watson's amendment in preference clause for McCay's.

That was the draft as it passed the Opposition branch of the Protectionist Party. On Thursday, 8th September, the Age published this statement :

Soon after 11.30 the Liberals entered the Labour Party room, where they were received with loud cheers. The Liberals conferring were Mr. Isaacs, Sir William Lyne

sence

it stands will change his vote, is not pure who does not grace us much with his preassumption, but pure presumption. now to refer to a matter about which I was challenged. On the 5th September, 1904, the Age newspaper said

On Saturday an important stage in the negotiations between the Liberal-Protectionist and the

Labour wings of the Federal Opposition was passed. The Liberal-Protectionists met at Parliament House in the morning, and discussed the recommendations of the committees-outlined in the Age of Saturday-and unanimously adopted them as a basis for alliance.

The recommendations are headed "The Official Proposals."

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH.-Who were present at that meeting?

Mr. McCAY.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. MAUGER. He says that he cannot stand it.

Mr. McCAY.-I quite believe that. It is not the style of debate for which apparently the honorable member for Hume has a preference.

Senator Trenwith, Messrs. Chanter, Groom, Hume Cook, Mauger, and Storrer. Senator Styles and Messrs. Higgins and Crouch were unable to be present. Soon after the joint confer. ence began Sir Langdon Bonython arrived, having come straight from the Adelaide express.

Mr. MAUGER.-That is altogether wrong. Mr. McCAY.-I am quoting from the Age of Thursday, 8th September, a report of what took place on the 7th September.

Mr. HUME COOK.-I may inform the honorable and learned gentleman that no reporters were present.

Mr. McCAY.-No reporters were present, and they have not told us much of

what took place. Will honorable members in the corner deny that the honorable member for Barker, having been out of Melbourne for a week or so, came to a meeting when it was in progress, and that before he came the "official proposals " for a joint platform" contained the item I have just read, or that the article, as finally agreed upon, was in these terms:

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill as nearly as

possible in accordance with the original Bill, as introduced by the Deakin Government, but any member is at liberty to adhere to his votes already given.

Will honorable members deny that the honorable member for Barker had nothing to do with that alteration of the items?

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-Not a thing. Mr. McCAY.-Was it the Labour Party, then, that asked for the alteration? Is it the fact that the Liberal-Protectionists passed "Watson's amendment instead of McCay's," but that the Labour Party asked for liberty for members to adhere to their votes ? If that is what took place I can understand the silence of the Labour Party. They are the people who are going to adopt the wrecked Bill, and not these noble patriots in the corner. So much for the wrecking of the Bill, and so much for the sincerity of those who allege that it is wrecked. Then, with a few exceptions, the Labour Party, ostentatiously, through their leader, abandoned all connected with the Bill. On the 13th September there was a division on clause 62-the provision to which the honorable member for Bourke referred as having been cheerfully accepted by the Labour Party, and which prevented preference to political unions. I think I am correct in saying that it was the one to which he referred, and about which I asked him last night, when he said he did not remember its number.

Mr. HUME COOK.-That is so. Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member said that the Labour Party cheerfully accepted that amendment. The honorable member for Bland, by an interjection the other night, said that he was forced to accept that amendment, that he only accepted it because otherwise he would have had to accept a worse one, namely, that which I proposed. That is the cheerful acceptance. They cheerfully accepted it further, when on the 13th September, the honorable member for Kennedy moved the omission of that provision from clause 62, and sixteen members of the Opposition voted with him. Only two of the cheerful acceptors on the front Opposition bench -the honorable member for Wide Bay, and the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne-stayed there, and the other cheerful acceptors in the Opposition corner cheerfully marched out of the chamber. It was the most cheerful thing I have seen for a long time. Talk of Britons taking their pleasures sadly, I never saw a more notable instance of it than that one. Some marched out at one end of the chamber, and others marched out at the other end. Sixteen of the cheerful acceptors voted against the provision which they were cheerfully accepting, and the other twenty cheerful

acceptors ran away from that which they had cheerfully accepted. They were afraid of getting too cheerful; they were afraid of the cheerfulness that pervaded their ranks, taking such taking such an ebullient form as to carry them beyond themselves, and make them say, in the height of their exultation, something more perhaps than they should. I only hope that they will accept the result of the impending division, whatever it may be, as cheerfully as they accepted that. I wish to draw attention to this fact, that there was member, whom that was

orable

faith.

one

honat any rate with a gross breach of The honorable and learned member for Corio denounced in loud voice and unmeasured terms-in more unmeasured terms than any other speaker-the preference to unionists clause; but he made a second speech later on, and this was his justification for voting with the Government at a pinch-that is, in the division in which they were defeated. Later on, the Watson Government accepted an amend ment-that is the one which they cheer fully accepted-forbidding unions which were political to ask for a preference, and because of that the honorable and learned member said his chief objection was moved. Yet when the Watson Government and its friends went into Opposition, some of them proposed to strike out this guarantee, which was the only justification to the honorable and learned member for altering his vote. I have not heard him speak on that point yet.

re

Mr. WILKS.-We have not seen him for a few days.

Mr. McCAY. No; there are several questions which I should have liked to ask him, had he been here to-day. For example, he is hand in hand with the Labour Party. In the alliance he is the only member who last year, in connexion with the proposed establishment of a clothing factory, said, "I abhor Socialism; this is the first step in that path, which will lead to all sorts of things." I forget his exact words, but that is the substance of what he said. Last night the honorable member for Barrier avowed openly and frankly that he is a Socialist.

Mr. MAUGER. Is not the honorable and learned gentleman one? Mr. McCAY.-In the sense of the State ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, no; and I never shall be. The honorable member for Barrier said that the

further we go along that road the better. The honorable member for Bland, and the honorable and learned member for West Sydney have both said that the only reason why they cannot go the whole hog is that they cannot get the people to go with them. I do not pretend to be quoting their exact words, but that is what their statements amount to. So much for the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I now come to a question which is agitating the public mind more than any other. On the night before last the honorable member for Melbourne Ports pointed out that people must not think that clause 48 in the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was the great issue before the country. He said that the whole House is practically agreed that there must be a majority asking for a preference before it is got, and the only question is as to the method by which the majority must be ascertained. He says that the majority must be asking for it. What wicked people we are to put in an amendment which says what the honorable member states!

Mr. MAUGER.-I said that the House had agreed to such.

Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member is reported to have said that the whole House is practically agreed upon this. Now we come to the fiscal question.

Mr. MAUGER.-Ah! that is the question. Mr. McCAY.-Now we come to the question of the revival of the Tariff, and the question of preferential trade. In the first place, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the time when the Tariff question was revived.

Mr. McWILLIAMS.-Is the raising of the

Tariff one of the terms of the alliance?

Mr. MAUGER.-All that is to come.

Mr. McCAY.-I shall come to that point. When the Deakin Government--a purely protectionist one went out of office, and a Government which was half protectionist and half free-trade came in, we heard nothing from honorable members who now sit in that corner about re-opening the Tariff, or the danger to protection in having any free-traders on the Treasury bench.

Mr. MAUGER.-It was not evolved then. Mr. McCAY.-No; and that is just what I am coming to. The most remarkable thing is the date on which it evolved. The Watson Government was formed half of protectionists and half of free-traders. The honorable member for Bland says that that was a pure accident. So little did he think about the fiscal issue when he formed

his Government, that he never stopped to consider whether its members were protectionists or free-traders. We thought a little more about it than that.

Mr. MAUGER.-This Government is halfand-half.

Mr. McCAY.-This Government is halfand-half designedly, as the last Government was half-and-half accidentally.

Mr. SALMON. And it has a protectionist at the Custom House.

Mr. McCAY.-We have a protectionist at the Custom House, and that is more than the last Government had.

Mr. MAUGER.-Which the Government would not have had, only that it was made a condition by the caucus.

Mr. MAHON.-Does the honorable and

learned gentleman say that the labour members ever made protection versus freetrade a vital issue?

I

Mr. McCAY.-No; they never did. ask honorable members to listen to the words of the leader of the protectionist revival on Sunday night.

Mr. MAUGER.--Who is this? Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member for Bland, of course. Does he not lead that side of the House? We have heard talk about others aspiring to the leadership, but we have not yet heard that it has devolved upon anybody but the honorable member for Bland.

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-He does not lead that corner; he leads these benches.

Mr. McCAY.-Then there is to be another coalition-another Government with

two heads? On Sunday night, the honorable member for Bland said—

I am free to confess that in my view, unless there are grave anomalies, it is better that the Tariff should not be opened too frequently; but as one who has always been inclined to a protectionist Tariff

The cause of protection is in the hands of one who is "inclined to a protectionist Tariff." We recollect the debates on the items in the Tariff. The honorable member for Bland was not always found voting with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports and myself.

Mr. MAUGER.-And the right honorable member for East Sydney was never found voting with the honorable and learned mem

ber.

Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member will admit that I, in the face of difficulties more than he had to contend with, voted with him all the time.

Mr. MAUGER.-I never charged the honorable and learned gentleman with doing otherwise.

Mr. McCAY.-So far as agricultural implements were concerned, in spite of my having more farmers in my electorate than the honorable member had

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-Would the Barton Government have had any Tariff but for the followers of the honorable member for Bland?

Mr. McCAY.-If he had been a freetrader, we might not have had a Tariff; but he is the gentleman who is leading the fiscal revival, and who is to re-open the Tariff for the purpose of raising duties.

Mr. KING O'MALLEY.-I repeat that there would have been no Tariff had it not been for the honorable member for Bland.

Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member for Darwin, at any rate, was pretty uncer

tain.

Mr. MAUGER.-He was not so uncertain as were those now on the Treasury benches. Mr. McCAY.-The free-traders were never uncertain. They were consistently opposed to the imposition of protective duties. They admit now that they were beaten, and they accept their beating for the present. I do not think that the Prime Minister and the ex-Postmaster-General ever voted on opposite sides in the divisions on the Tariff. Mr. MAHON.-I promise the honorable and learned member that we shall never be united again.

Mr. McCAY.-Has the honorable member become a protectionist? That is indeed. good news. I welcome converts to the cause, even though they be converted by propagandists in whom I have not the utmost faith. I am glad to hear that the honorable member is now a protectionist, and that his eyes have been opened to what I believe to be the true light. There are some who do not agree with me, but we have agreed to differ amicably on this question.

Mr. LONSDALE.-The honorable member for Coolgardie is willing to place duties on the people merely to gratify his spite against a particular individual.

Mr. McCAY.-To continue my quotation from the report of the speech of the honor

able member for Bland

But as one who has always been inclined to a protectionist Tariff, when matters more important to the Labour Party's platform were not involved

In other words, the honorable member who leads the Labour Party, and who is to lead in the protectionist revival, says, "I am

inclined to the protectionist view when matters more important to the Labour Party's platform are not involved." The protectionists who have joined the alliance are in the ranks of the Opposition only because of the Tariff. Mr. MAUGER. Nonsense! Certainly not.

Mr. McCAY.-Then, matters which are more important to them are involved in the issue.

Mr. MAUGER.-Most decidedly.

They

Mr. McCAY.-These are the champions of the re-opening of the Tariff ! are using the Tariff as a stalking horse, and nothing else. There are matters involved which are more important to them than it. I ask them, then, by what right do they demand the re-opening of the Tariff, without going to the electors? This precious alliance speaks clearly of Tariff revision without an election, or with an elec tion, if that unfortunate result must follow

because there are honorable members opposite who are afraid that the gun which they have loaded is, after all, carrying ball cartridge instead of blank cartridge.

Mr. DAVID THOMSON.-Honorable mem. bers on this side are not afraid.

Mr. McCAY.-None of us is afraid to meet his own constituents, because, by the dispensation of a beneficent Providence, each thinks that he will win, though he may be doubtful about the other fellow. We all face an election with more or less cheerfulness.

Mr. HUME COOK.-Mostly less.

Mr. McCAY.-I understand the tone in which the honorable member says "mostly less," and under the circumstances I do not blame him.

Mr. HUME COOK.--I have never had a walk-over, as the honorable and learned member has had.

Mr. McCAY.-I have had one, but I am told that I shall never have another. I have also, like the honorable member, had my defeats.

Mr. HUME COOK.-One.

Mr. McCAY.-The honorable member has had only one opportunity to be beaten. I ask every member of the Opposition branch of the Protectionist Party whether he did not expressly or impliedly bind himself to fiscal peace, and no Tariff re-opening for the remainder of the book-keeping period?

Mr. CHANTER. I never mentioned the book-keeping period.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »