DEPORTATION.

Evening Star, Issue 19000, 23 July 1925, Page 6

DEPORTATION.

Theek were some Interesting passages in the debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill which the Federal Honse of Representatives recently passed. The highly controversial part of it provides for the deportation of people, not Australian born, who offend against the industrial laws. This was construed by Mr Charlton, Leader of the Opposition, as a direct blow at the Trade Union Movement in Australia. It is a curious thing about the Labor policy that it looks with a coldly critical eye on the immigrant who comes out to work, but that it takes to its arms the immigrant who comes out to disturb work and make precarious the livelihood of the members of trado unions. The Post-master-General reminded Mr Charlton that, though Labor Governments wore in power in five out of the six States, not one of them had taken advantage of the Commonwealth Government’s offer to lend them money at the nominal rate of interest of 1 per cent, for works to absorb immigrants. Yet the main argument of the numerous Labor members who opposed the Bill was that it was specially directed on political considerations against tho industrial classes. The same plea was raised as was heard here when the AttorneyGeneral announced the decision to deport Noel Lyons—that the offender had a right to trial by judge and jury. Trial by jury has become almost a byword in some of the Australian States. The police in Victoria aro said to have become disheartened in their attempts to lay the leaders of notorious criminal gangs by the heels because of the difficulty of getting juries to convict, not so much because of sympathy as because of intimidation. Labor members described the Bill as one of those hysterical pieces of legislation that were sometimes brought down by Governments which were incapable, inefficient, and futile—an admission of their own inability to govern. The task of government is not made easier when the opposition comprises' 1 men who unite to excuse or champion those who threaten the base of the country’s star hility. Partly on that account Australia has been tho refuge for all kinds of undesirables. Many of them have possibly been kicked out of other parts of tho Empire. Such legislation' as this latest Bill has been necessitated by special circumstances of which the Labor objectors are fully aware, hut which they discreetly avoided in making their protests, for it would appear that they, too, are liable to bo the victims of intimidation, Peportatiog is

an inherent right of self-government. One of the traditions of our race is tlio liberty ,of the. subject, and freedom in the expression of opinions is not lightly to bo repressed.. But for a. long time British law has drawn a distinction between the mere holding of opinions subversive of the existing state of society and of opinions accompanied by acts of a revolutionary nature. One champion of these revolutionaries (Air Brennan) described them as social idealists, and advised the Government; “ Pull off your dogs of war, and deal with the matter in the only spirit with which you can deal with it —the spirit of conciliation. Realise that you are dealing not with one niton, but with bodies of men. Abandon your policy of coercion, and get hack to conciliation. Drop all this talk of foreigners and Communists, who register a vote of about 800 when the tost is made, and face the real issue—a contract between men and men.”

The absurdity of such a surrender was promptly hared by Air Foster, a South Australian representative, who said that in South Australia there was a sane Labor Party. South Australia had none of the wild, reckless Yarnubankers or Sydney Domainors, or the equally reckless men that wandered around Brisbane. Ninety per cent, of Labor men in South Australia welcomed the provisions of the Bill, ana in his opinion outside the wrecking red wing 80 per cent, of the Victorian trade unionists would thank God that this desperate relief would be provided from a desperate condition that was destroying unionism, as well as industry, in every part of Australia. Some interesting information on tho internal affairs of the unions was given by Air W. AI. Hughes, who in industrial and political affairs has in his time played many parts. He narrated to tho House that he had been present at maritime union meetings wdiere twenty-six or twenty-eight men constituted a majority, and had declared a strike of 3,000 men. That might be an extreme case, but the extremists were always bold, and the moderates always timid. The extremists shouted down the moderates. If a man dared to oppose the cliques of a union he would not get a decent ship. Air Hughes continued that not ten men in 100 on the waterfront to-day would support Walsh ami his methods. Ho was not going to advocate that tho men should go against their unions, but he would say that the unions themselves should act and by their authority endeavor to stop tin's most lamentable occurrence. He did not believe that the removal of either Walsh or Johannscn would prevent tho trouble. He did not know the extent of their authority in the union, hut if the men inside tho union allowed themselves to he led away by cither of those men it was their own responsibility. This tyranny over the unions from within has been stressed so often that it is about time that the matter was put to tho test. And the greatest supporters of its being tested should he the Labor members in Parliament, elected largely by the trade union vote. They have an opportunity of assisting the trade unions to manage their own affairs on a democratic system, yet they strenuously resist it. Jf the theory put forward by Alessrs Foster, Hughes, and others is correct, these Labor members would thereby he jeopardising their places in Parliament. Yet seemingly they court that risk with perfect nonchalance. Either the theory is totally wrong, or else Labor political organisation gives a curiously distorted reflection of genuine Labor opinion.