AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 3, 3 December 1931, Page 8

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

MINISTRY’S DOWNFALL. DEBATE DESCRIBED. Describing the debate in the Australian House of Representatives, which resulted in the defeat of the Government, the representatives of the Sydney Morning Herald states that every seat in the public galleries was occupied, and many spectators had to stand. People talked in whispers. They walked in oil tiptoes. They glanced anxiously at the clock. Members came in. They smiled at one another nonchalantly—then suddenly looked serious when' the necessity to smile had passed. Ministers took tiieir seats as though they wished it to be known that, as far as they were concerned, nothing was likely to happen to cause them worry—and in doing so they showed how really worried they were. MR BEASLEY. Mr Beasley, who was to move tho motion that might result in the defeat of tlie Government, looked paler than, usual. Through the long question time he sat back, sfioulders bent, arms folded, with an occasional glance at a mass of papers on his desk. Senators stole into the chamber—tlie first of these were Senators Dunn and Kao, the lone representatives of the Lang party in the otlier House, but it was not long before more tfian a dozen were present. At 3.29 Mr Beasley rose to move the adjournment of tho House to discuss tlie methods adopted by the Government in tlie select-oil at men employed in connection with its grant for tlie relief of unemployment. There was a perceptible stir through the House. Contrary to tlie usual practice every member sat up and listened. The occupants of the public galleries craned forward. The Treasurer joined tho Prime Minister at the table of the House.

Then members heard the speech that lead to the defeat of the Government —a defeat that up till the last moment many had regarded as unlikely. The prologue was over. The drama had begun. The principal actor held the stage. And ail the rest of the cast, ail the audience, and ail tlie bewigged and uniformed stage hands, listened to the words that poured with unaccustomed rapidity from iiis lips. The reason for this rapid speaking was soon evident. Mr Beasley had much to say, but, under the Standing Orders, he had but 20 minutes in which to say it; therefore, he raced against time, while his supporters, line the seconds of a fighter, told him at intervals how long ne had to go. His main complaint wus that in New South Wales supporters of the Federal Government liau been given preference in employment under the relief scheme, and that, in Dailey, they had been guaranteed employment provided they supported tho Federal Labour party. The Government, he said, had informed its Parliamentary supporters of the method it intended to adopt in allocating work, and, in doing so, it provided an opportunity tor them to have their Irienas registered; the result, said Mr Beasley, was that, by the time public applications for work were called, the lists—in New South Wales at any rate—were almost filled.

Then Mr Beasley turned his attention to Dailey and Cockatoo island dockyard. A sum of £SOOO had been made available for work there. The dockyards management had decided to give preference to men who had been employed there previously, but, in the meantime, an organisation had been set up in the Dailey electorate to collect names. Mr Alacpherson, a paid organiser for the ’ ’Bailey-Theodore political party,” and an organiser for Mr Theodore, was sent out to collect the names in Dailey for relief work ut Cockatoo and, said Mr Beasley, he possessed sworn statements which afnrnied that men were promised work at the dockyards provided they undertook to support Mr Theodore at the next electiou.

THE ULTIMATUM

The names of 100 of Mr Theodore’s supporters, continued Mr Beasley (speaking even more rapidly as time went on) were handed to the Cockatoo Island officers, who were told that more were to follow. Apparently all the 500 to receive work at the dockyard were to be Air Theodore’s friends. Then came the ultimatum. Mr Beasley requested a select committee to investigate his charges, which, he said, should not be allowed to pass without being examined.

Act 1 of the drama was over. But there was no curtain—Mr Theodore was on his feet before Mr Beasley was seated. The Treasurer, in an at times heated speech, characterised the charges as sheer peuijlity. He denied that he had given any authority for the collection of names, or that he had any knowledge of it. Anyone who had said he was acting on Mr Theodore’s authority was telling a falsehood. Mr Theodore categorically denied each of Mr Beasley’s charges, and said he had acted no differently from any other member who received requests for work.

And with unfeigned sarcasm Mr Theodore referred to the hardihood of supporters of the Lang Government, which had used its political power to give patronage of the worst kind, coming into Parliament to criticise a Labour Government. ‘‘When were you a Labour man?” interjected Mr Ward. Mr Theodore said he had nothing to apologise for in connection with the matter.

The drama proceeded apace. Several had their say, but it was Mr Scullin who infused into the proceedings the first touch of realism. The time for the expiration of the debate—two hours —was drawing to a close, and there was speculation whether the motion would he “talked out.” Mr Scullin read the Government’s instructions to the manager of the dockyard, in which it was stated that no preference was to be given to anyone. Mr Scullin said he would not agree to the setting up of a special committee or commission, but he personally would investigate any specific chnrges. “We will have an election, then,” shouted Mr James. That was the first real indication of how things were shaping. “You can have it then,” shouted back Mr Scullin. “If you want to take the business out of tbe hands of the Government, you can have an election.”

When the cheers that arose from the Opposition had subsided, Mr Scullin added, “But it is a mighty poor *sue-—the hunger of the people.” , Yo J he sorry you said that,” shouted Mr Gullett. I rei tat it. We have said a score of +hu e p \ hat \ hen we lost control of this Parliament we would not carry on,” replied Mr Scullin. That statement was probably the be ginning of the end. Any hopes of a compromise vanished. The gauntlet had been thrown down. Quickly it was seized by Messrs Lyons and Page, the leaders of the two Opposition parties, who lost no time in saying that they supported Mr Beasley, and any doubts as to the sincerity .of the Beasley group were dispelled when Mr James said that Mr Scullin had burned his

bridges and there would be an election now. Mr Latham had scarcely started to speak before Mr Eldridge moved that the question be put. There was a division, the entire Opposition crossed to join the Beasley group of five, and the “gag” was carried with cheers, by 37 votes to 32. The adjournment motioin was agreed to on a similar vote—more cheers—-and the House at once rose. Bo the curtain fell. Within the space of a minute the Chamber was empty! eTtaLk! lobbies were a buzz of exat-j