Australasia was L20, the average sum assured per policy L285, and the
average number of policies per 1,000 of the population, 70. Compared
with the United Kingdom, {260} Australasia has a considerable advantage
in the first of these figures, has the proportion reversed in the
second, but wins by more than two to one on the last, which is the most
interesting as a further indication of the prevalence of the instinct
of providence among Australasian workmen.[6] Prior to the recent
crisis the working classes had availed themselves largely of the
opportunities which Building Societies offered to them to secure the
freehold of their homes by payments spread over a term of years; but a
run upon the deposits lodged in these institutions, which set in
towards the end of 1891, and continued during 1892, affected them
disastrously, and the large majority of even the soundest of them were
obliged eventually, owing to the heavy withdrawal of deposits, to close
their doors. Though some have since been re-opened, upon terms agreed
to between the shareholders and depositors, their business has
collapsed for the time, the amount of advances in Victoria having
fallen from over two millions in 1890 and in 1891 to less than a
hundred thousand pounds in 1893.[7] In the apparent absence of
statistics of the number of freeholders in several Provinces, no
general idea can be formed of the extent to which the working classes
have, through Building Societies and otherwise, invested their savings
in the acquisition of {261} freehold properties. The only figures that
I have been able to obtain give the estimated number of owners as
30,600, 91,500, and 184,500 for New South Wales, New Zealand, and
Victoria respectively. As far as the two latter Provinces are
concerned, the total populations being only 699,000 and 1,174,000, it
is absurd to suppose that the electors, a large proportion of whom are
freeholders, will be captivated by the advocates of the Single Tax. It
cannot too often be repeated that the Australasian Governments, all of
which are, to a greater or lesser degree, aiming at the multiplication
of small owners or perpetual lease-holders, are rendering it
practically impossible that an agitation for the confiscation of land
values should be successful, and are fostering the growth of that class
of settlers which is believed to be Conservative in the best sense of
the word. But large estates, except in the case of certain kinds of
pastoral land, are doomed to extinction, either in the natural course
of events, owing to the costliness of labour, or from the pressure of
heavy graduated taxation, the workmen of Australasia being thoroughly
convinced of its justice as a means of raising revenue and of its
efficacy as a means of causing land to be subdivided or placed upon the
market. They have also, as has been seen, supported legislation which
has authorised the re-purchase and subdivision of landed estates.
{262}
Lastly, they have realised since 1890 that, for the furtherance of
their aspirations, the strength of their Unions should be devoted
mainly to the promotion of the representation of Labour in Parliament.
The great strike of that year has been described so fully that it is
unnecessary to say more than that a strong combination of labour, which
had made itself master of the situation, was confronted upon the
outbreak of hostilities by rapidly organised but powerful associations
of employers; that the struggle, which spread over the whole Continent
and New Zealand, terminated in the success of the latter, and that the
workmen realised that, even had they succeeded, the victory would have
been won at too heavy a cost in the misery entailed upon themselves and
their families. Many of them were dissatisfied with the generalship of
their leaders during the strike, and realised that the exhaustion of
their funds rendered them unable to engage again in a huge industrial
struggle. In the following years low prices, the financial crisis, and
the consequent scarcity of employment and fall in wages, further
weakened the Unions and intensified the conviction that strikes should
be superseded by the ballot-box. In some Provinces, also, it was felt
that the rivalry of parties had degenerated into a contest between the
ins and the outs, and that progressive measures would not be passed
until Labour had entered as a compact body into the arena.
I have discussed in the earlier chapters the {263} history and results
of Labour representation in several of the Provinces, and have shown
that the Labour Party has been successful in South Australia, where it
has formed an alliance with the Government, though maintaining a
separate organisation, and in New South Wales, where it has held the
balance of power between the Protectionists and Free Traders, but has
failed utterly in Queensland, where mainly through its own fault, but
partly through the astuteness of its opponents, it has occupied a
position of antagonism to all the vested interests of the community.
In Victoria the Labour Party acts usually with the Government, but
seeks to obtain its objects by the exercise of its strength more than
by friendly negotiations. In New Zealand no distinct Party was formed,
but the working-men representatives threw in their lot with the
Government and, by consistent support, helped to secure the imposition
of graduated taxation and the enactment, among other measures, of a
compulsory Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and of a large number of
Industrial Statutes.
A great similarity of aims and aspirations can be traced between the
different Labour Parties if we ignore side issues and exclude that of
Queensland, which is affected by the taint of aggressive socialism.
Judging from the respective programmes and from conversations which I
have had with many of the leaders, I find that, subject to certain
exceptions {264} which I shall mention, they are united upon the
following propositions:--
Manhood or adult suffrage, shorn of the plural vote, should be the
basis of representation in the Assembly. The Legislative Council
should be abolished, as it prevents the wishes of the people from being
carried into effect.
Direct taxation should consist of graduated death duties and graduated
taxes on incomes and land values.
Parliament should secure to every worker for wages sanitary and safe
conditions of employment, and immunity from excessive hours of labour.
Machinery should be provided by Parliament by which industrial disputes
may be referred to an impartial tribunal.
The workers should protect themselves not only against foreign goods,
but against undesirable immigrants, whether they be Orientals or
indigent Europeans.
The consideration of these questions, and of the wider issues with
which they are concerned, will cover most of the points of recent
interest in Australasian politics.
(1) It is doubtful whether Responsible Government, in the sense of
government by a Ministry which carries out a definite policy approved
by the country, and, in return, receives allegiance from its {265}
supporters in Parliament, has ever been acclimatised in Australasia
except in New South Wales under the influence of the late Sir Henry
Parkes. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, when it was sought to
transplant a delicate system, hallowed by conventions and dependent for
its success upon the election of a special class of representatives,
among a community necessarily ruled by men who had little experience of
public life? Australian Parliaments, save on the rare occasions when
some important issue, such as that of the tariff, has come to the
front, have not been divided on ordinary party lines, and have amused
themselves with the excitement of a constant succession of new
Ministries selected on personal and not on political considerations.
New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria, to take three Provinces
at random, have had, respectively, 28, 42, and 26 Ministries in 40
years. The policy of the Opposition has often been almost identical
with that of the Government. Again, coalitions between former
opponents have been of frequent occurrence; the Ministries formed by
Messrs. Deakin and Gillies in Victoria, and by Sir Samuel Griffith and
Sir Thomas McIlwraith in Queensland, are recent instances of this
tendency. In some rural constituencies, also, candidates appeal to the
electorate on personal grounds and are not required to declare their
adhesion to a party. I was struck, when present at the elections in
South Australia and New Zealand, by the subsequent animated discussions
in {266} the newspapers as to the probable effect of the changes in the
personnel of the Members upon the prospects of the Government. This is
the more noticeable from the fact that the freedom of action allowed to
representatives has been curtailed since the return to Parliament of
Labour Members, who are pledged to a definite programme and have put
forward questions on which there is a distinct line of cleavage.
Proposals for the extension of the franchise, for the abolition of the
plural vote, or for the imposition of a tax on incomes and land values,
are such as divide the electorate into two camps and perpetuate the
division in the House. This state of things, combined, perhaps, with
the financial crisis which raised problems demanding continuity of
administration for their solution, has contributed to the greater
stability of Ministries. Another factor, which has given
constituencies a greater hold on their representatives, and has tended
thereby to make them adhere more closely to one or other of the
parties, is the payment of Members, which has now been adopted in all
the Lower Houses except that of Western Australia, and in the Upper
Houses of South Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand. Australia has
been confronted with the difficulty experienced by every young country,
that the men who should naturally enter Parliament are prevented by
commercial or professional duties from devoting the necessary time, and
that, in the absence of men of leisure, constituencies {267} are much
hampered in their choice of candidates. The payment of Members, it is
needless to say, offers no inducement to the successful merchant or
lawyer, but has increased the competition among men to whom the salary
is an inducement. My inquiries as to its effect upon the tone of
politicians have elicited mutually contradictory replies. On the one
hand I am assured that the attractions of the salary have led men to
resort to disreputable practices in order to be selected as candidates
and to seek to retain the fickle affections of their constituents by
similar means; on the other, that necessitous Members have been raised
by the salary above temptations which their poverty made it difficult
for them to resist; and such temptations must increase in number with
each extension of the functions of the State unless it be dissociated
from political influence. It is clear that a knowledge of the inner
life of a Parliament could alone supply materials for the adequate
discussion of this question, and that a similar consideration applies
to the discussion of the effects of State socialism upon political
morality. The possible abuses are many: railways may be constructed
with a view to popularity; the rents of Crown tenants may be remitted,
and borrowers may be allowed to fall in arrears with the interest on
their advances; subsidies and bonuses voted by Parliament may be
misapplied; and the unemployed may be conciliated by unnecessary public
works. Personal corruption, I am confident, {268} does not exist, but
that safeguards have been felt to be necessary is proved by the
appointment of independent Railway Commissioners by New South Wales,
Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and New Zealand, and of Public
Works Committees by Victoria and New South Wales. In the latter
country, as has been seen, the Commissioners have been most successful,
but New Zealand has reverted to the system of political control, and
Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia have reduced the number of
Commissioners from three to one. This change, which must have lessened
the efficacy of non-political control, was advocated on grounds of
economy at a time when all forms of expenditure were being cut down to
the lowest point. In Victoria the Leongatha Labour Settlement has
diminished the difficulties connected with the unemployed, and its
administration has been studied by the other Provinces with a view to
similar action. The general political tone is healthy, and is
stimulated, in all the Provinces, by a high-class press, which uses its
great influence in a conscientious manner. But, as long as Treasurers
can balance their accounts by recourse to loans, and are tempted, as is
inevitable, to apply borrowed money to placatory enterprises, the
dangers which are necessarily connected with State socialism are
multiplied tenfold. They would be lessened if the objects for which
loans might be contracted were defined, as has been suggested, by Act
of Parliament, {269} or if Federation were to eventuate at an early
date and the right to borrow were limited to the Federal Authority.
In New Zealand alone have I found direct evidence of the misuse of
political patronage. Upon the third reading of the Appropriation Bill
in 1896, Captain Russell, the Leader of the Opposition, made use of the
following words: "I maintain that for years past the administration of
the Government has been anything but good. They have hunted for
popularity and they have hunted their enemies. They have hunted their
enemies to a very great extent. You find positions which were capably
filled by old and valued servants now filled by friends of the
Government. We have a system of espionage in existence which is
disgusting.... The Civil Servants should not depend on the favour and
their popularity with Ministers for promotion, but rather on good
honest service, and that is not the case now. Why, a Civil Servant
dare not come and speak to an Opposition Member for fear of that fact
being reported to the Ministers. (An Hon. Member: No!) It is all very
well to say 'No,' but I am acquainted with dozens of Civil Servants in
Wellington, and they will not come and speak to me in the street for
fear of being reported."[8] In his reply the Premier made no attempt
to meet these charges, which I have quoted because I have gathered
corroborative {270} evidence in different parts of the country, though
it is not such as admits of being adduced as definite proof, and
because the Minister of Lands made an exceedingly candid admission
shortly after the elections. In the course of a speech delivered at
Geraldine he is reported by a Ministerial newspaper to have said: "They
had endeavoured during their term of office to do what they could in
the interests of the Colony as a whole, but they had been very badly
treated by two classes of the public at the elections. In the session
of 1895, they would remember, the Government passed a measure to give
relief to pastoral Crown tenants who lost a large number of sheep in
the snow. The Government did this in the interest of the people as a
whole, as they thought, but how had they been treated by the people
they helped in time of distress? (A voice: Very badly.) Yes, there
might have been one or two exceptions, but generally speaking they
fought tooth and nail against the Government. Then, again, the
Government saved the Bank of New Zealand and the Colony from ruin, but
still the old leaven of the Bank fought and voted against the
Government at the elections. He considered this very unfair on their
part, considering what the Government had done for them."[9] Sir
Robert Stout, a former Premier of New Zealand, has also brought a grave
indictment against the Government, from {271} which I quote the portion
referring to appointments:--
"By the Statute Law of New Zealand, no one who has been a member of
either House can be appointed to any position in the Civil Service
until he has for twelve months ceased to be a member of Parliament. A
vacancy occurred in the position of Sergeant-at-arms, and it was
announced that an ex-member, who had at the elections retired in favour
of a Ministerial candidate, had received the office. When Parliament
met, the appointment gave rise to much discussion. Ultimately a large
majority supported the Ministry in conferring the appointment
temporarily, the official appointment to be made at the end of twelve
months. If this had been the only flagrant violation of the law it
might have been overlooked; but it is only a type of what has been
done. The Civil Service Reform Act, 1886, provides that no one, save
an expert, can be appointed to the Civil Service unless he enters as a
cadet. Some departments, such as the railway, postal, and telegraph
departments, are exempted from the provisions of the Act. The cadets
must obtain their positions by competition; the examination is annual.
The Ministry, however, appointed some cadets out of their order, and
some who had never even submitted to an examination at all. There is a
provision for "temporary" clerks. When vacancies arise in the service
these are given to {272} temporary clerks. The policy of "spoils for
the victors" has been openly defended. To carry out this pernicious
system the law has been violated. It has been said that only those of
the 'right colour' of political opinions should receive appointments in
the Civil Service."[10]
However great may be one's sympathy with the efforts of the Government
to encourage settlement and to promote industrial conciliation and
arbitration, one cannot but rejoice at the increased strength of the
Opposition, which will be sufficient to enforce greater purity of
administration and the enactment of legislation which will prevent a
recurrence of the evil.
The realisation of the dangers of an unmuzzled democracy has caused a
widespread anxiety which has been displayed in vehement but, for the
most part, unsuccessful opposition to proposed changes in the
constitution of the Assembly. New Zealand and South Australia have
adopted adult suffrage, coupled with the abolition of plural voting;
Victoria and New South Wales manhood suffrage, associated in the former
case with the plural vote but not in the latter. In Victoria, the
Conservatives, if I may so characterise the less-advanced party, have
put forward a proposal which is unique in Australasia. They suggest
that, while each man should continue to have a vote, the present plural
votes should be replaced by a second vote which {273} should be
possessed equally by all freeholders whatever be the size and number of
their properties. They believe that they would thereby place the power
in the hands of the more stable elements of the population, and that
they are not unlikely to be supported by the freeholders, who
constitute nearly two-thirds of the electors on the rolls for the
Assembly.
At present the Labour parties are engaged in onslaughts upon the
Legislative Councils with a view to their ultimate abolition, but are
prepared to accept, as an instalment, any proposals which would cripple
their power. They concurred heartily with the Bill introduced in 1896
by the Government of New South Wales and rejected by the Council after
it had been passed by large majorities through the Assembly, which
provided for the reference to a popular vote of matters in dispute
between the two Houses. Similar measures are also advocated by the
Governments of Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania; while in New
Zealand, it is proposed that deadlocks shall be obviated by a joint
session of both Houses, which shall sit as one Chamber. It may be that
an Act of 1891 which, as will be seen, tends to popularise the
Legislative Council in New Zealand will account for the less drastic
character of the solution put forward in that Province. It is probable
that it will become customary in Australasia to submit distinct issues
to the electorate, on a separate ballot-paper, at the time of a general
{274} election. The Government of South Australia ascertained in this
manner the popular wishes in regard to religious instruction in State
schools, and the payment to denominational schools of a capitation
grant for secular results; and the recent "Alcoholic Liquors Sale
Control Act" of New Zealand provides that Local Option polls shall be
taken concurrently with the election of representatives. Under
references similar to that in South Australia, it may be objected,
Ministers may be supported on their general policy, but be required to
introduce a measure to which they are opposed. Such a position,
however, would not apparently be regarded as inconsistent, as most of
the candidates in South Australia stated their willingness to give
effect to the popular vote, in whatever direction it might be
expressed. Disputes between the two Houses will, I believe, be decided
similarly, on the score of the expense of a special poll, unless the
issue be such as to demand an immediate settlement.
The first line of attack of the Labour Members is thus seen to be an
agitation which aims at enabling the electorate of the Assembly to
override the Council; the second is directed at its Conservative
tendencies. The policy pursued depends upon the constitution of the
Council: if it is elective, it should be so modified as to become a
Chamber of paid representatives, subject to no property qualification
and elected upon a wide franchise, such as the South Australian
Council, in which a combination {275} of Ministerialists and Labour
Members has been able to obtain a bare majority. If it is nominated,
the life tenure should be superseded by nomination for a short term of
years, which will enable successive Ministries to introduce a new
leaven of persons who are in touch with popular feeling, and will be
prevented, by the limit placed upon the duration of their appointments,
from being subjected to reactionary influences. The Council, that is
to say, is to become a mere machine for registering the wishes of the
Assembly. The only success which has hitherto attended this agitation
is the enactment in 1891 of a measure in New Zealand which limited to
seven years the duration of subsequent appointments; but the Government
now desire to abolish the life tenure, and they are followed herein by
New South Wales, by providing for the gradual retirement of all the
members who hold their seats for life. They also propose, whether
seriously or in order to cast ridicule upon the Council, that women
shall be eligible for appointment to that body. In regard to the
general position of the nominated Councils, which are not limited as to
the number of their members, it may be stated that the Imperial
Government decided, upon a case submitted to them from New Zealand,
that the Governor should accept the recommendations of his
constitutional advisers in the matter of additional appointments.
Strangely enough, the Premier of Queensland, the only other
Australasian Province that has a nominated Legislative {276} Council,
though a strong constitutionalist, aimed a blow at its prestige in a
proposal, which he carried through the Assembly but not through the
Council, that the former House alone should be vested with the power of
selecting the delegates to the pending Federal Convention.
Before leaving this portion of the subject, I must mention that other
proposals affecting the form of Government of the Provinces have been
discussed in Parliament and are likely to attract serious attention.
Theoretically, indeed, it has been asserted, apart from the question of
the power of the Upper Houses, and the point is of interest as showing
the ideas germinating in the minds of Australasian politicians, that
five changes are required in order that the Parliamentary machinery may
be brought into proper relations with the people: the election of
Ministers by the Assembly; continuity of representation in the
Assembly, to be secured by the division of the country into
constituencies returning two representatives who retire alternately at
fixed periods; the Swiss form of Initiative and Referendum; and the
right of a certain proportion of the members to convoke a special
session of Parliament, and of an absolute majority of the electors in a
constituency to require the resignation of their member. The first and
second of these reforms, as I have shown, are included in the programme
of the Ministry of South Australia, which, however, in spite of its
success at the polls, has not pressed them forward {277} during the
first session of the New Parliament. Continuity of representation
could easily be arranged, as all the constituencies return two members.
An Elective Executive Bill has been introduced in the House of
Representatives in New Zealand and received a large measure of support,
though it was opposed by the Premier and the leader of the Opposition.
The idea has taken a strong hold upon the imagination of the Labour
Members in all the Provinces.