/
19110928_reps_4_60.xml
8428 lines (8428 loc) · 511 KB
/
19110928_reps_4_60.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1911-09-28</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para>HouseofRepresentatives. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1911-09-28</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker</inline>took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS</title>
<page.no>877</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">No-ConfidenceMotion. </para>
<para>Debate resumed from 27 th September <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 876), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline></para>
<para class="block">Deakin - </para>
<para>That, in the opinion of this House, the preferences in obtaining and retaining employment recently introduced into his Department by the Minister for Home Affairs are unjust and oppressive; prejudicial alike to the public interest, to the Public Service, and to the relations between Parliament and the public servants. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - My only reason for speaking to the motion is to endeavour to enable the country to realize the evils which are likely to follow the adoption of the pernicious practice of giving preference to unionists in appointments to the Commonwealth Public Service. Honorable members on this side have stated that this is the introduction of the American system of spoils to the victors a criticism to which honorable members cannot fairly take exception, because the Minister of Home Affairs himself hassaid that he thinks it only right and proper that the members of unions should receive some recognition for returning the Labour party to office. Parliament, however, must deal with administrative acts, not from the point of view of party advantage, but as they affect the national interest. Even members of the Labour party realize that a false step has been taken, and many of them, if free men, would object to what has been done. I have great respect for many of the Labour members as individuals, but 1 am sorry for them as nominees of the Political Labour Councils of Australia. Every man on the Government side is bound to vote as a duly constituted majority of the Caucus may determine ; not one of them is able to give his support freely to all legislation which he may think will benefit the community. The party is obliged to vote for class legislation, not for legislation having in view the national welfare and the development of the country. Australia has a population of about 4,500,000, of whom about 1,500,000 are bread-winners, and, according to officialfigures, there are fewer than 200,000 registered unionists. I have said before that the unionists, all told, registered and unregistered, do not number 300,000. Is the community to be ruled and dominated by this small minority ? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CARR, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Carr</name>
</talker>
<para>- Certainly not. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>-The unions dominate the party to which the honorable member belongs. He and his fellows represent the Political Labour Councils of Australia, and are forced by their pledges to support preference to unionists. They cannot speak and act as free men, as we can. Each one of them is bound to support the decisions of the Caucus. My constituents allow me to exercise my own discretion in supporting or opposing legislative proposals, as I consider them advantageous or harmful to the public interest, but honorable members opposite are not free to do likewise. Could the honorable member for Corangamite oppose the granting of preference to unionists, which has been introduced at the dictation of his masters, the Political Labour Leagues of Victoria ? On the platform he and others were careful to say nothing about this. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the honorable member support preference to unionists? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, because I do not believe in giving preference to anything but ability. Ministers should not have regard to the interests of one class only, and favour that class to the detriment of the taxpayers as a whole. Neither they nor their supporters are free men. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>-I am willing to allow the honorable member considerable latitude, but he may not impute improper motives. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>877</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am merely sympathizing with the members of the Labour party. Like the fox inAEsop's fable, having lost their tails, they want us to cut off ours. They would make the Commonwealth a close borough for Labour. My object is to broaden their views, so that they may pay regard to national as apart from class interests. I desire honorable members of the Labour party to consider for a moment what must be the effect of legislating for a class interest. Their political labour unions comprise only a minority of the people. It was said last night that the Labour party represents the trade unions of Australia, and I wish to say at once that I have nothing to say against trade unionism, conducted on fair lines, although I have at all times something to say against political unions. The present Administration - whom I always describe as a Socialistic Government - claim to be a Labour Government, but they do not represent labour as the Opposition do. We represent those who have to find the capital wherewith men are kept in continuous employment, and it is upon this employment that trade unions have been founded. I favour trade unions, but am opposed to the political unionism which dictates to the Labour party, and insists upon their so providing for preference to unionists as to prohibit free men from obtaining a livelihood. As the result of this Ministerial ukase, all avenues of employment under the Federal Government will be closed to the non-unionist - the free labourer. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINLAYSON, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Finlayson</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member cannot refute my statement. The Minister of Home Affairs in his official memorandum directed that the preference must be absolute. He may twist and distort his words as much as he pleases, but he knows what was in his mind when he- issued that circular, and he knows that it was intended that the preference should be absolute. In that memorandum he also directed the preparation of what has been correctly described as a black list - a list of non-unionists in the employ of the Government. Why did he ask for such a list? Was it not that the free worker should not get a straight deal? Think what has happened in connexion with strikes in Victoria alone since the Labour Government came into power. For the twelve months ended 30th June last, there were seventy-five strikes in the Commonwealth, and since the present Government have been in office we have had in Australia more industrial disputes than ever before. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L4X</name.id>
<electorate>INDI, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MOLONEY, Parker</name>
<name role="display">Mr PARKER MOLONEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- How does the honorable member arrive at that? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not desire to deal with the honorable member. If I did, I should say something regarding the offensive allusions he made last night to the honorable member for Wimmera. "He ought to have had a little more sense, and to have shown better taste. I wish, however, to confine my remarks to the question of preference to unionists. Honorable members of the Labour party know how they have been forced into this policy of preference to unionists against their own better sense. I appeal to them to endeavour to induce their masters, the Political Labour Leagues, to reconsider the question, and to agree to their withdrawing the order issued by the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Home Affairs - and probably a similar direction has been given by other Ministers - in regard to preference to unionists. Is this what Democracy has. brought about ? When the people a' little over ten years ago agreed to federate, did they imagine that Australia would be captured by Socialists who would introduce class legislation. I admit that one of the planks of the Labour platform is " preference to unionists," but I never heard it discussed in Victoria. In not one instance was it discussed on the Labour platforms in this State at the last general election. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JOC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BATCHELOR, Egerton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Batchelor</name>
</talker>
<para>- How many Labour meetings did the honorable member attend? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Four or five. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFP</name.id>
<electorate>WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOSTER, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr RICHARD FOSTER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Did the honorable member interject at any of those meetings ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. I knew that if I did, I should be treated as many of the free labourers were at Sunshine and in connexion with other strikes. I knew that I should be taken by the back of my neck and ejected, and that probably a lump of iron would be thrown at my head. By means of preference to unionists - by means of coercion and compulsion - the Labour party are seeking to force all free labourers into unions. The honorable member for Corangamite, who is supposed to represent a rural constituency, knows that when the present Minister of Trade and Customs held office in a previous Administration, a deputation from the Trades Hall urged him to impose an export duty on wheat, and that the Minister said that his sympathies were with the deputation. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to show that this question of preference to unionists must affect the growing and exportation of wheat. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member will be out of order in following that line of argument. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- 1 wish to show that those who represent, or misrepresent, rural constituencies- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>878</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am satisfied that the farmers who voted for Socialism last year will not vote for it in 1913. I am confident that some honorable members opposite who are opposing the progress of rural industries will know this Chamber no more after the next general election. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have called the honorable member to order several times, and I ask him now to confine his remarks to the motion before the House. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have been drawn aside by interjections. We are today a free people, but shall we continue to be if honorable members opposite continue to obey the behests of their outside organizations? If they do we shall be deprived of our liberty and freedom. The Labour party should remember that the freedom, the liberty, and equality which we all enjoy were won for us by our forefathers, and were handed down to us as a priceless heritage to cherish and uphold. But by granting preference to unionists in the way they are doing Ministers are placing a bar sinister on the escutcheons of nonunionists, and seeking to keep them out of the Public Service. Other people appreciate their freedom and equality even if the Labour party do not. Honorable members opposite would reduce the people to the level of serfs by means of this preference to unionists. By coercion and compulsion they desire to bring all into the fold of the unions. In a free country any man who cherishes his freedom should be allowed to do as he pleases-, and merit, and not membership of a union, should count. I have nothing to say against unionism. I believe in it. Let me tell the honorable member for Corangamite that nearly thirty years ago I was one of the first men to introduce the eight-hours principle in a large business in which I was one of the partners, and that stands to my credit to-day. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4Q</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
</talker>
<para>- But the honorable member has changed since; he does not practise it to-day. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not changed. If the honorable member goes to my place where my men are working he will find that they have an eight-hours day, and are paid time and a quarter for anything over that period. That has been my custom for years. My motto is freedom and not coercion. These are facts that cannot be denied. The party opposite must consider that they are legislating for the whole of the taxpayers. I have never yet asked a man or woman in my employ how they vote. Those whom I employ do not believe in .political unionism, but unfortunately honorable members opposite do. In fact, they have to, because they owe their positions to it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Higgs</name>
</talker>
<para>- How does the honorable member know? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know probably better than the honorable member does. If he wants it I can read him the pledge thathe signed before his nomination was accepted. I know all about that pledge. There are probably three semi-independent members on that side, but the rest of them have taken the pledge. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHANTER, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Chanter</name>
</talker>
<para>- Exactly the same as the honorable member's pledge to the People's party. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not belong to the People's party. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHANTER, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Chanter</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will read the pledge that the honorable member signed. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have never signed a pledge in my life. The honorable member can read it as much as he likes, but if he says it is mine the statement is false. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have repeatedly asked honorable members .to cease these continuous interjections. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- In the mind of ' every honorable man who stands for liberty, freedom, and equality of opportunity, preference to unionists means the thin end of the wedge of corruption . It means offering a premium to men to become unionists in order that they may help to return honorable members who are supposed to represent the labour interests of the Commonwealth. While honorable members opposite say that they represent the great bulk of the electors of Australia as a whole, they know as well as I do that they represent only a section, and that by their pledges they can represent no one else. F reference has been insisted on in their case, and was part and parcel of the pledge they gave to their party. They are now obeying the behests of that party, as its nominees. Speaking from this bench as a free man to men who are not free, I ask them to consider the fact- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to a point of order.- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>-Order ! On two occasions I have called the honorable member to order for a similar remark. I ask him not to repeat it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>879</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Those remarks were called forth by interjections. I did not mean to repeat them, and now withdraw them. I want honorable members opposite to realize whither they are taking Australia. Their action must eventually mean chaos. Preference to unionists on the lines adopted by the Minister of Home Affairs must mean absolute preference and the black-listing of all the men employed in the Public Service who are outside of the ranks of unionism. We have been told by the Public Service Commissioner that there are between 18,000 and 19,000 temporary employes in the Government Service. Are all the non-unionists among those men to be coerced into unionism by the policy of preference ? Are they to be forced to surrender the freedom they now possess? I hope not, but I think they will be, because they must desire to retain their positions. One of the chief objects of preference to unionists is to make Australia a close borough for labour, and to still further strengthen the position of the party by the adoption of a policy which has been called by members on this side " spoils to the victors." I hope there will be offered a general equality of opportunity, that the preference to unionists order will be waived, and that the Government will rise superior to the occasion. I am satisfied that that is what the people want. They do not want this whittling away of the Constitution, on the lines attempted by the Government last session in connexion with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The provision for preference' to unionists in the Act of 1904 was inserted practically as a <inline font-style="italic">quid fro quo</inline> because the unionists were to give up their right to strike. We have heard honorable members opposite say since then that they will never give up their right to strike. There have been more strikes since 1904 than at any previous time in the history of Australia. <inline font-style="italic">In</inline> connexion with the preference to unionist provision which was placed in the Act by the united wisdom of .the House, the people of Australia have been practically sold like bullocks at Newmarket. I do not think that 95 per cent. of the electors of Australia know to-day that that section was inserted in the Act, although it was put there for a reason, and provided that preference could be given only on the direction of a Judge of the High Court. As soon, however, as the present Government took possession of the Treasury benches, they swept all those safeguards to one side, and on the 26th April of this year they took a referendum to ask for enlarged and extended powers. The people, as they well know, denied those to them by an overwhelming vote. I do not want to impute motives, but in all probability Ministers are now trying to do all they possibly can in the interests of political unionism before this Parliament expires by effluxion of time in. 1913. After taking away all the safeguards surround- ing the preference to unionists section in the Act of 1904, they have now done by administrative act 'what the electors pf Australia said at the referendum that they were not to be trusted to do. Last year, in connexion with the amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, they brought down an amendment to the effect that "preference shall be given to unionists." After honorable members on this side had pointed out that that proposition was unconstitutional, a hurried caucus meeting was held, and the amendment was made to read that ' ' preference may be given to unionists." These are facts which no honorable member opposite can deny. Preference was given in 1904 only on certain conditions with a view to allaying industrial trouble, but instead of that effect being achieved, the party opposite are extending industrial strife. We know what happened recently, and what happened at the Sunshine Harvester Works, and other places, just before the referendum vote' took place. To-day, through organized effort, ill-feeling is being created, and now this proposition for preference to unionists is brought in. I want to see that feeling of unrest and distrust allayed, and legislation introduced in the interests of the people as a whole, and not in the interests of a section. I appeal to honorable members opposite, although they are pledged and bound, to meet in conference those whom they represent - that is, not the electors, but the Political Labour Councils of Australia - and tell them what evil results are likely to ensue from their recent action.. They know that what I am saying is correct, because they have threshed it out in the Caucus, and many of them agree with my remarks. Unless something of that kind takes place, as surely as night follows day the year 1913 will see those benches vacant so far as that party are concerned. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>880</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Howe</name>
</talker>
<para>- We will take the risk. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>880</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Honorable members opposite have taken their chance already. To me it matters not one whit which party occupies the Treasury bench, so long as it legislates with fairness, justice, and equity to the people as a whole. I am certain that that is the feeling of all honorable members on this side. I have no desire for place or power, but I do wish to see the spirit of fair play characteristic of the British race displayed by the party opposite towards those who are outside unionism. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is asking for something that is impossible. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- It may be improbable, but it should not be impossible. I wish honorable members opposite to consider that they are supposed to represent majority rule in a Democracy, but they believe in majority rule only when they are </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Themselves in the majority. To-day let me tell them that they represent a minority of the people of the Commonwealth, and their advocacy of this principle of preference to unionists has alienated the support of many thousands who believe in many of their ideas, but object to their methods. Speaking in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that their methods and principles were the same. 1 should blush for the Leader of the Opposition if that were so. Honorable members opposite believe in coercion and compulsion to force non-unionists into unions, whilst the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that if men are to be induced to join unions it should be by an equitable and proper method - that the objective should be the interests of the people as a whole. That is the difference between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the difference between Socialism and Liberalism. We on this side desire to do what, according to our lights, we conceive to be right for the benefit of the people as a whole, whilst honorable members opposite are prepared to do anything to retain place and power on the Treasury benches. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHANTER, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr Chanter</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is that not offensive? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not mean it offensively, because I admit that in advocating and practising preference to unionists honorable members opposite are doing only what they are pledged to do. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Howe</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why should we not do what we are pledged to do? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KJC</name.id>
<electorate>GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">IRVINE, Hans</name>
<name role="display">Mr HANS IRVINE</name>
</talker>
<para>- If honorable members valued their freedom as their forbears did, they would not pledge themselves to do what is wrong or unjust. They must know that preference to unionists denies equality of opportunity to the great bulk of the workers of Australia. The Labour party represent the strongest and best organized combine in the Commonwealth, and I appeal to them in their strength to fee merciful, and deal out even-handed juslice to non-unionist workers. We can do nothing at this stage but inform the misguided electors who Voted for Labour. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">They did so without knowing Labour's objective of Socialism, nationalization of industries, the abolition of capitalism, and the nationalization of land. The electors never anticipated that this principle of preference to unionists would be enforced as honorable members opposite are attempting to enforce it to-day, against, the wishes of the great bulk of the people. In dealing with this question, I should like to say that regard must be had for our primary producers. Honorable members should recognise that in years to come we shall be the largest grain and meat producers in the world, and that in the disposal of our produce we must compete in the world's markets. If we cannot make a profit on our productions, we cannot develop our industrial resources as we desire, and continue to enlarge the avenues of employment open to Labour. The enforcement of this principle in our industrial life will tend to industrial stagnation rather, than to industrial progress, and must result, in calamity. Honorable members must be aware of the fact that twenty-five years, ago <inline font-style="italic">£1</inline> would purchase more than <inline font-style="italic">£2</inline> will, purchase to-day. That can be proved by the statistical records in all of the States, and if we adopt a course which must in-, crease the cost of production, how can we hope to progress? I wish honorable members to consider these matters, and deal out even-handed justice to the people as a. whole. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate>Bourke</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I do not think that even the most ardent friends of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat will claim that he has said much that is germane to the subject under discussion. The question is one of preference to unionists as adopted by this Government in their administration. They are assailed on the ground that they are adopting methods which are unjust and oppressive in their operation. Well, if that be true, this is not the first time it has been done. This is not something that is new. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kelly</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member mean to say that the Government should have been unjust and oppressive in. their administration? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I say that if it be so it is nothing new, since a previous Government adopted the same principle. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFP</name.id>
<electorate>WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOSTER, Richard</name>
<name role="display">Mr RICHARD FOSTER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Which previous Government? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>881</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Government of which the honorable member for Ballarat was at the head. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Forrest</name>
</talker>
<para>- As applied to the Public Service? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not speak of the Public Service. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FORREST, John</name>
<name role="display">Sir John Forrest</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is the application of the principle to the Public Service that the Leader of the Opposition objected to. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member for Ballarat told us that there were three parties in this Parliament, each of which accepted the principle of preference to unionists. Their only condition was that it should not be unrestricted, that the principle should be safeguarded and surrounded with limitations and restrictions. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Kelly</name>
</talker>
<para>- Restrictions against licence. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- But the principle was there. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- In the hands of a Court. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>882</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANSTEY, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr ANSTEY</name>
</talker>