unemployed, which is the more urgent from the fact that the receipt of
relief does not disfranchise the recipient. Its origin must be sought
in the extensive Public Works policy of the past, which absorbed
immigrants who would otherwise have settled on the land. In 1887 the
majority of the great undertakings had been completed, and many
thousand men, thus thrown out of employment, drifted into Sydney and
led the Ministry to establish a casual labour Board, which {46} was
discontinued after a year, but spent L252,000 in the relief of
destitution. In the following years other causes intensified the
distress: the great strikes of 1890 destroyed confidence and deterred
enterprise; the Broken Hill strike and the recent strike at Newcastle
have had similar effects, the latter having struck a blow at the export
trade in coal, which was gradually recovering from earlier
disturbances; the collapse of 1893 cast adrift a large number of
mechanics and clerks whose services had been required during the period
of inflation, the fall in the price of wool caused a shrinkage in
private expenditure, and the severe drought experienced during the
latter part of 1895 had disastrous effects on the labours of those
employed in mining, pastoral, and agricultural pursuits. To meet the
difficulty a Labour Bureau was established at Sydney in 1892, in order
that the unemployed might be able to register themselves and might be
helped to obtain work; but, while much has been done in this direction,
no more satisfactory solution has been found for the problem, as a
whole, than continual relief works, which attract the destitute from
country districts and other Provinces, and afford merely temporary
alleviation of the distress. According to a recent report of the
Superintendent of the Bureau, to whom I am indebted for information,
L201,000 were spent during the year ending February last (in a
population of a million and a quarter) upon works in {47} aid of the
unemployed, an expenditure of which two items alone, L50,000 for forest
thinning and L35,000 for railway deviations, can be supposed to have
had any other justification. Mr. Creer told me in June, 1896, that the
daily attendance at the Bureau had averaged for several months 1,500 to
2,500, but had decreased latterly to 300 to 500; that many who had been
given employment had abandoned it, and that, where a large number had
been working together, he had had much trouble owing to their rowdiness
and bad behaviour. On this point the Premier, Mr. Reid, stated that he
had been informed, on good authority, that there were not more than
1,500 genuine unemployed in Sydney, but admitted, quoting his
informant, that "there are also hundreds of men who do little or no
work" and "a large number of men who have been identified with the
unemployed agitation for the past ten years, and who appear to delight
in its existence, as no doubt they consider it a capital cover to pose
as _bona-fide_ workmen out of employment." The conduct of the latter
is mainly due to the weakness of successive Ministries, which have
failed to resist pressure and may almost be said to have encouraged
idleness. Such encouragement is also provided in the climate of
Sydney, which enables men to sleep in the open for nine months of the
year without discomfort. Mr. Creer proposed that those who profess to
be willing to work should be employed upon schemes of water
conservation and {48} irrigation in the drier parts of the Province,
which should be carried out by gangs of men under strict supervision,
and that the confirmed loafers should be placed in Industrial Homes and
be compelled to choose between work and starvation. The present
Government have established thirty-five branches of the Labour Bureau,
which will tend to prevent the unemployed from flocking into the
Metropolis. But the bulk of the unemployed at Sydney are demoralised
by idleness and ignorant of agricultural pursuits, and can only be
dealt with by a strong Minister who, regardless of political
consequences, will discontinue the system of indiscriminate relief and
treat the confirmed loafers with the greatest severity.
Democratic government, actively opposed by some and detested by most of
the more educated members of the community, is firmly established in
New South Wales, and is essential to the happiness of the people there
as elsewhere in Australasia, in the general prevalence of purely
commercial instincts and the absence of a landed class which is bound
by inherited traditions to take an interest in its dependents. Of
recent years the democratic movement has been more rapid: payment of
Members of the Assembly dates from 1889, Sir George Dibbs passed
manhood suffrage in 1893, and Mr. Reid seeks to curtail the power of
the Upper House. A great impetus has been given by the Labour members,
whose numbers and influence entitle {49} them to be regarded as one of
the most important political factors in the Province. The reason for
the formation of a separate party has thus been explained to me by one
of its members: the prominent men among the working classes, who were
anxious to promote progressive legislation, were hampered by the fact
that they disagreed upon the question of the tariff, and that their
votes were, consequently, useless as far as the advancement of such
legislation was concerned. The line of cleavage in the Assembly was
between Protectionists and Free Traders; reactionary and advanced views
were represented on both sides of the House. They felt, therefore,
that labour would be powerless unless the issue of the tariff were
explicitly sunk and a programme put forward which would concentrate the
votes of the working classes. In their campaign they were doubtless
aided by the Act passed for the payment of members, and by the failure
of the maritime and other strikes, which impressed Trades Unionists
with the necessity of seeking to attain their ends by other means. A
programme was, accordingly, drawn up, of which the principal items
were, in order of importance, Electoral Reform, the Right of Mining for
Gold on Private Land, and the Taxation of Land Values; it was adopted
at the elections of 1891 by a large number of candidates who came
forward in the Labour interest and succeeded in winning thirty-four
seats. Upon the meeting of {50} Parliament it was decided by the
Party, although the majority had Protectionist leanings, that support
should be accorded to Sir H. Parkes, who had made Electoral Reform the
principal item of his policy. A few months later he was defeated on
the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, and the votes of the Labour Party were
transferred to his Protectionist successor, Sir G. Dibbs, who also
favoured Electoral Reform; but, in the meanwhile and subsequently, many
of the Labour members refused to leave their views on the tariff in
abeyance, with the result that the number of those who adhered
staunchly to the programme was reduced to five or six. In spite of
these defections, the first two items in the programme were carried and
the Taxation of Land Values took the foremost place. At the 1894
elections the Labour Party had been much discredited, but secured
fifteen representatives, in the Assembly of one hundred and
twenty-five, who were pledged to the so-called "solidarity" vote.
Their support was then transferred to Mr. Reid, the present Free Trade
Premier, who was in favour of the Land Tax, which they enabled him to
carry in 1895, though only after a further election, caused by the
action of the Upper House, at which they carried three additional
seats. At present the Labour Party are concentrating all their efforts
upon the abolition of the Legislative Council and the substitution for
it of the referendum, which they regard as a necessary preliminary to
the passage of {51} advanced legislation, and are prepared to accept,
as a step in the right direction, Mr. Reid's proposal that the tenure
of the members of the Council who are nominated for life should be
reduced to a period of years, and that all-important Bills, upon which
the Assembly and Council have failed to agree in two consecutive
sessions, should be referred to a plebiscite. They argue that when the
electors realise that the Council can only delay legislation for one
session, and that the issue is then directly referred to them, they
will sweep it away as a mere obstacle in the path of progress. It may
be doubted whether the adoption of the plebiscite would have the
results that they anticipate, but it cannot be doubted that a compact
body of representatives, aiming at the democratisation of the
constitution and willing to support whichever party makes the highest
bid for their votes, have but to remain united to achieve their object,
especially when it is in accordance with the natural evolution of
Parliamentary government. The Labour members have a definite programme
upon which all their efforts are concentrated, but are chary of giving
their views upon other questions, as their votes, in consequence of the
common pledge, will depend on the decision of the majority of the
party. Great indignation is expressed at the "caucus" meetings, at
which the votes of all are thus determined; but it is difficult to see
wherein the conduct of the Labour members differs essentially {52} from
that of the representatives who support one of the principal parties in
the State. In both cases certain main objects are sought and
individual convictions are, on occasion, subordinated to their
attainment; the only difference is that, in the latter case, the action
is taken voluntarily in order to maintain a party in power; in the
former, its expediency is determined by the majority of those who are
united in a common purpose. On the other hand it must be admitted that
the Labour Party display, at present, all the irresponsibility of
independence, and have often acted in such a manner as to justify the
hostility of their opponents. During my stay at Sydney they attempted,
on one occasion, to convert the Assembly into a court of judicial
appeal; on another, to interfere with the actuarial calculations of
insurance societies.
The importance of political safeguards is accentuated not only by the
accelerated movement in the direction of constitutional change, but by
the increasing belief in the efficacy of State control and state
interference. During the session of 1896 the Government brought
forward measures dealing with the conservation of water, the public
health, adulteration, and the regulation of coal mines and of factories
and workshops, the passage of which would necessitate a considerable
increase in the number of State officials; and the Labour Party, the
transference of whose support would place the Ministry in danger of
defeat, have shown, by their votes in the past, {53} their conviction
that all new public works which are in the nature of a monopoly, should
be constructed and owned by the State.
The scope of my inquiries in New South Wales led me in directions which
have caused me to emphasise the darker sides of political life; but I
wish to guard against the inference that similar shadows could not have
been found elsewhere, and have touched upon the subject in my general
observations upon Australasian tendencies. In fact, I may add, I was
drawn into my particular line of study at Sydney by the knowledge that
New South Wales had taken especial precautions, except in regard to the
unemployed, against the evils which I have here sought to summarise.
The predominant note in that Province is one of hopefulness: the vast
pastoral, mineral, agricultural, and other resources of the country,
the harbour at Sydney which renders it the natural centre of the
foreign trade of the Continent, and the rapidity of the recovery from
the crisis of 1893, are calculated to inspire confidence in the future;
as are the high average wages of the working classes, the low cost of
living, and the short hours of labour. But the most impressive sign of
a healthy national life is the readiness of the democracy to recognise
the dangers inherent in its rule, and to divest itself voluntarily of
some of its powers, in the interests of pure and upright government.
[1] "New South Wales; the Mother Colony of the Australias."
{54}
III
_PROBLEMS OF QUEENSLAND_
The agitation of Central and Northern Queensland for separation from
the South--The "Kanaka" traffic--White and coloured labour on the
plantations--The Sugar Works Guarantee Act--The irregularity of
employment in the sugar and pastoral industries--The conditions and
opinions of the shearers--Assistance to dairymen and producers of
frozen meat--The Labour Party, its history and prospects--Criticisms of
the Government--The principles of State action.
In the Southern Provinces of Australia, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide
are not only the political capitals, but have become naturally, from
their geographical position and other advantages, the points of
departure of the trunk lines of railway and the centres of commercial
and intellectual activity. In the case of Queensland, Brisbane, which
was selected as the capital because settlement was almost confined to
its neighbourhood, had to compete with several other good harbours; it
is situated at the south-eastern extremity of a vast territory, and is
connected only by sea with the northern parts above Bundaberg. The
existence of this means of communication caused successive Governments
to {55} postpone the construction of a coastal railway in favour of
lines running from East to West which would promote the development of
the pastoral resources of the interior by affording access to the
nearest port; but these lines, which start from Brisbane, Rockhampton,
and Townsville, and have a respective length of 483, 424, and 235
miles, have tended, by increasing the importance of the latter places,
to foster in their inhabitants a feeling of jealousy at the supremacy
of the former and of antagonism of interests with the South. The
climatic conditions also are divergent: the Centre and South are
semi-tropical; the North, which lies wholly within the tropics,
contains a low fringe of fertile land along the coast, suitable for the
cultivation of sugar, and the cause of the constant struggles which
have surrounded the question of the employment of coloured labour.
The establishment of Queensland as a separate Province dates from 1859,
and was at once followed by an extension of population to the Northern
districts, and a few years later by the growth of a demand for
separation, which culminated in 1871 in a petition to the Crown, in
which the desire was expressed that the country to the North of the
Dawes Range, which lies between Gladstone and Bundaberg, should be
created into a new Province, on the ground that the absence of regular
communication between the capital and the Northern settlements rendered
good government and the administration {56} of justice very difficult
and uncertain. During the succeeding years the agitation flickered in
the North and was latent in the Centre, which had been conciliated by
the construction of its railways and appeared to have identified itself
with the South. Some ten years ago the Northern members pressed their
claims very strongly, and more recently the Central members have
petitioned the Crown, sent a deputation to the Colonial Secretary, and
brought their case before the Queensland Parliament.
The arguments advanced by the Northern and Central separationists are
similar in character, and if recognised as valid in the case of the
Centre, must be doubly so when applied to the North, owing to its
greater distance from the capital and the difficulty of communication
with many of its outlying districts. The boundaries adopted by the
separationists are those laid down by the Real Property (Local
Registries) Act of 1887, under which the Province was divided into
three parts, of which the Northern contains 255,000, the Central
223,000, and the Southern 190,000 square miles.
The claims of the Centre, to which I have been able to give more
attention, as I spent some time in that district, are based not only
upon alleged unjust apportionment of expenditure, defective
administration, and financial hardships endured under the protective
tariff for the benefit of Southern manufacturers, but upon the inherent
and inalienable right of a community of free British people. It is
{57} pointed out that Central Queensland is in a more advanced position
than were Victoria and Queensland at the time of their separation from
New South Wales; that it returns less members than the city of Brisbane
and the country within a radius of ten miles of it; and that the
Northern and Central members, even if unanimous in favour of
separation, would only number twenty-seven as against the forty-five
representatives of the South, and are bound, apart from the
constitutional aspect of the question, to look to the intervention of
the Imperial Government. The most important utterance from this source
is the reply of Sir Henry Holland, now Lord Knutsford, to the Northern
deputation, in the course of which he said that "there is no instance
of recent years, since the Colonies attained the greatness they have,
of the Imperial Legislature passing an Act interfering with the
administration of one of those great Colonies, except at the request of
the Colonial Government. Therefore I say it is difficult, if not
undesirable, to deal with such a question as this unless we have the
authority, on a desire expressed on the part of the Colonial
Legislature, or unless there is some case made out which is absolutely
overwhelming;" and Mr. Chamberlain recently stated, with reference to
Central separation, that, even if local agreement had been reached, the
difficulties and risks attending any attempt to divide the Province
were, under existing circumstances, very great. He clearly appreciated
the hostile feeling that would be aroused throughout {58} Australia by
any interference on the part of the Imperial Authorities with the
internal government of an Australian Province. As the separationists
do not hope to obtain a majority in the Queensland Assembly, they are
likely to be ardent advocates of Federation, especially if a clause be
inserted in the Constitution which would enable the Federal Government
to subdivide a Province without the consent of its Parliament.
The Southern members are influenced by the fear that, under separation,
they would lose the Northern and Central markets. To meet this
objection, a resolution was moved in the Assembly by one of the members
for Rockhampton that the separation of Central Queensland was
desirable, but on such terms that the interchange of natural products
between the two Provinces should continue to be free from tax or duty;
but the proposal, which was seen to be fraught with endless
difficulties, has not been regarded seriously. The question has also
arisen in what manner the liability for the public debt would be
distributed in the case of separation, but it is contended that the
matter would be settled under the Imperial Act of 1861, under which
both Provinces would jointly be liable for the whole debt, and
machinery is provided for arbitration as to the proportion of it which
would be borne by each of the Provinces.
The necessity for some form of decentralisation has been recognised,
and partially acted on, by {59} successive Ministries since 1877, when
a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the best means of
bringing about a more equitable distribution of the revenue. The
system of Local Government, introduced in 1878 and extended in the
following year to rural districts, lessened the direct control
exercised from Brisbane, and handed over to elective Municipal Councils
and Divisional Boards the expenditure of the revenue raised for local
purposes. In 1887 local registries of titles to real estate were
established at Townsville and Rockhampton, and Sir S. Griffiths
introduced a Financial Districts Bill, to divide the Province into
three districts and to provide for separate accounts of revenue and
expenditure. The Bill was not passed, but separate returns have since
been published, which do not, however, give a full statement of the
contributions of the different districts to the revenue. In 1892 the
same Minister introduced a Constitution Bill, in which he proposed to
place Queensland under a federal system of Government, a General
Assembly of the United Provinces, and three Provincial Parliaments. In
the course of discussion the number of Provinces was reduced from three
to two, to the exclusion of the Centre, which was to retain its
connection with the South. The Bill passed the Assembly, and was
thrown out by the Council, principally on the ground that it had not
been supported by the statutory two-thirds majority. The Central
Separationists were naturally opposed {60} to the Bill in its amended
form, and public opinion in the North was equally hostile. It was
pointed out that the expenses of government would greatly be increased,
even more than under territorial separation, and that the powers of the
Provincial Parliament would be so limited, in the absence of control
over the railways and the customs tariff, that the North would not
enjoy the enhanced prosperity which, under an entirely separate
Government, would make it indifferent to the additional expenditure.
The appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court to reside at
Townsville, and, since last year, at Rockhampton, has lessened the
expenditure and loss of time involved in legal proceedings initiated in
the Northern and Central Districts. In the Ministerial measure dealing
with the election of delegates to represent Queensland at the
Australian Federal Convention, which failed to become law owing to an
insoluble deadlock between the two Houses, it was proposed that, of the
ten delegates, three should be elected by the Northern and two by the
Central Parliamentary Representatives, a greater proportion than would
be warranted by their respective populations as compared with that of
the South. The Premier, Sir Hugh Nelson, defended the liberality of
this proposal on the ground that "it is of the utmost importance that
in any federal constitution provision should be made for the division
of existing Colonies and the terms on which such divisions shall take
place;" adding {61} that "the Northern and Central districts have a
perfectly legitimate aspiration: they are looking forward to the day
when they will be formed into separate states."
The above remarks embody the views of many South Queenslanders who look
forward to eventual separation, but are not prepared to advocate it at
present; the Central separationists, on the other hand, contend that
the question is ripe for immediate settlement, and, as a proof of
popular feeling in the matter, point out that ten out of the eleven
representatives of Central Queensland are pledged to separation, and
that numerous petitions were handed to the late Governor, Sir Henry
Norman, on the occasion of his tour through the district. Personal
observation and inquiries directed to all with whom I came in contact,
have convinced me that the enthusiasm for separation is greatly on the
wane in the Centre, owing to the strength of the Labour Party, which,
in 1896, carried a majority of the Central seats, and to the inevitable
reaction which succeeds a period of excitement. The owners of property
and tradespeople of Rockhampton have everything to gain by a change
which would make their town the capital of a province; the miners at
Mount Morgan and the shearers are indifferent, though the latter,
judging from a conversation which I had with some twenty of them, have
a vague idea that under separation the Labour Party, of which they are
supporters, would be in a stronger position; and the pastoralists, who
{62} direct the principal industry of the community, are practically
unanimous in their opposition: they have obtained the railway which has
opened up the Western Downs, and they dread the predominance of the
Labour Party and of Rockhampton, the inhabitants of which, they
maintain, have shown little regard for their interests.