FEDERAL POLITICS.

Evening Star, Issue 11678, 10 February 1902, Page 1

FEDERAL POLITICS.

Sir William M'Millam delivered a forcible speech at Sydney on January 14, in reply to Mr Barton’s recent deliverance at Maitland. Sir William is deputy-leader of the Opposition in the Federal House of Representatives, and indeed—considering Mr Reid’s frequent absences and disinclination for'tbe details of committee work—he may be regarded as the virtual chief of the Freetrade party. His ability and enthusiasm are unquestionable, but we cannot help thinking that he is apt to damage his case by over-emphasis of language. Effective as his Sydney speech was in many respects, it would have been all the better for some modification of the violence of the wording, and some softening of the party spirit displayed. Granted that the Barton Government have laid themselves open to criticism in connection with the tariff and other matters, they have not been guilty of that obvious political turpitude which aione could justify Sir William M'Millan’s unmeasured epithets, and it is by no means certain that such extravagant language is nob calculated to play into Mr Barton’s hands rather than to compass his fall, “ An infamous tariff ” (repeated again and again)—“flagrant vio lation of pledges”—“ignorance of the grammar of the Constitution”—“there never was such a case of falsified pledges ” —“ ignominious failure ” —such are the vituperative flowers which Sir William scattered throughout His address; and we repeat that the circumstances hardly justified the exhibition. “We are now in the midst “ of a most momentous crisis in the affairs “ of Australia,” he declared at the outset of his speech; and it is noticeable that it always suits an Opposition speaker to as sume that the national affairs are in a very critical condition. Lord Rosebery adopted the same line at Chesterfield—“ in a grave “crisis of the country I will endeavor to “ add my ideas to the common stock ” thought it was by no means certain as to where the “ grave crisis ” came in. Sir William M’Millan started with a sort of synopsis of what he proposed to say, and perhaps we cannot do better than quote a portion of this summarised indictment of the Ministerial policy and administration:—“l propose to-night, in the first “place, to show that four Ministers of rie “Crown, three of them representing, or “misrepresenting, New South Wales, and “ one of them the Prime Minister of Aus-“tra-lia—(groans)—have flagrantly violated “the pledges upon which they went to the “people of this country, and demanded “ their franchise. ... I shall then “ show you that this is not merely a moder- “ ate tariff, as the Prime Minister said “originally in Maitland it would be, as be “reiti Aed the other night that it was, but “it i. all through a highly protective and “in many instances an absolutely prohibi“tive tariff. I shall show that this “ tariff in its effects means the destruction, “to a large extent, of fhe commercial in- “ forests of New South Wales, and of the “port of Sydney. . . . . And, finally, I “vill show that the sooner you people rf “Australia force this Parliament to the “country again the better it will be f»T ‘•your industrial life, the better it will be “for good and solid government, and the “better it will be for your prestige among “the nations of the world.” This is a pretty large order (and we have omitted some of the charges), and a careful perusal of Sir William’s speech hardly show's that he fully discharged his stated task or proved Lis case. And we say this in spite of the fact that we are in agreement with him on toe general question as between Freetrade and Protection. He seems to take no account whatever of the extremely difficult position in which Mr Barton and his colleagues found themselves when they faced the tariff question; and somehow the whole tone it

the speech suggests a suspicion that Sir William M*Millan and his friends would have opposed the tariff and the Ministry whatever the proposals might have been. It. is true that Sir William declares that In would gladly have accepted and supported such a policy as was enunciated by Mr Barton in the first Maitland speech. In that speech “revenue without destruction” was shadowed forth as the policy of the prospective Ministry. Sir William McMillan, in his magniloquent way, “arraigns” Mr Barton and his colleagues “at the bar of public opinion” in that they have attempted to carry out a totally different policy. “Mr Barton also said that no “ State could claim to dictate its policy. “ And yet in getting at the tariff we find “one State dictating to all the rest. Then, “the Prime Minister says that we must “ have a business tariff, a practical tariff, a “real Federal tariff. Now, I say that if ir Mr Barton had gone to the electors of “ New South Wales with his tariff he never “ would have been returned for West Mait“land, and instead of having ten out of the “ twenty-six returned as Protectionists they “would not have had five.” Be this as it may (and such retrospective hypotheses are always futile), we are bound to say that the general tenor of the Ministerial tariff was very much what we expected both before and after the Maitland speech. It was equally certain that any sort of protective tariff—and a protective tariff of some sort was inevitable—would provoke the cry that Victoria was dictating to the Commonwealth, and mat the interests of New South Wales were being neglected. We do not say that; the tariff was the best possible tariff under the circumstances, and it may be admitted that Sir William M'Millan adduces many plausible examples of inconsistency and apparent folly. Moreover, it must be allowed that the tariff proposals have been largely modified at the instance of the Opposition, plus the Labor party, the result doubtless representing a decided improvement. Nevertheless, we say that the indictment brought against the Government is of far too sweeping a nature, and that Sir William M“Mil]an failed at Sydney, as Mr Reid failed in the House of Representatives, to show clearly what fiscal policy Mr Barton ought to have adopted with a view to giving the greatest satisfaction and conserving the interests of the various States to the greatest possible extent. Sir William declares that there was “a direct scheme and conspiracy to injure fhe port' of Sydney”—a statement which is really a little too ridiculous, considering that the Prime Minister and two other Ministers are residents and representatives of New South Wales. Sir William announced that ho and his friends intended to continue doing their best to make the tariff “revenue-producing and as moderate as possible”; and, in so far as 1 there is scope for improvement, it is to he hope! that they will be successful. It is only -o be regretted that Sir William did not ft the same time do his best to make his speech “as moderate as possible.” It would have been much more effective and convincing.

Sir William M'Millan made the most of Mr Barton’s blunder in the matter of tbe Federal Contingent, and he is not to be blamed for so- doing. The labored explanations of the Prime Minister and the Gover-nor-G-eneral have been quite unsatisfactory, and it will be a long time before tbe Ministry hear tbe last of this sorry business. Bir William, observed that “ one of the great “objects of Federation was to do away “with the six discordant voices, and s : x “impotent Governments, and to have one “strong national Government that would “ speak at all times and take the consequences for all Australia.” Yet at the first really important opportunity of speaking for all Australia the Federal Government had utterly failed to rise to the occasion, and had gone perilously near to damaging tbe prestige of the young nation. Sir William did not disguise his opinion—probably shared by a majority of Australians—that a much larger Contingent should have been offered. In fact, Mr Barton’s offer lacked both promptness and liberalitv.