THE COMMONWEALTH CRISIS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1679, 4 May 1904, Page 18

THE COMMONWEALTH CRISIS.

LABOUR MINISTRY SWORN IN. congratulations from the , ; '■ LATE PREMIER. ■ . MELBOURNE, April 26. Mr J. 0. Watson ha® formed a Ministry. The personnel is a® follows: Prime Minister and Treasurer—Mr J. 0. Watson (member for Bland, New floutli Wales). Minister for External Affairs—Mr W. M. Hughes (member-for Sydney West). Attorney-General—Mr H. B. Higgins {member for Melbourne North). Minister for Home Affairs —Hon E. L. Batchelor (South Australia). Minister for Trade and Customs —Mr A. Fisher (member for Wide Bay, Queensland). Minister for Defence —Mr A. Dawson (a Queensland Senator). Postmaster-General— -Mr H. Mahon (member for Cool gar die, West Austruof Executive Council —Mr G. McGregor (a South Australian Senator). Mr Watson waited on Lord rvorthv e, Governor-General, and submitted ,/.e name® of the Ministry. The new Ministers are to be sworn in to-morrow. It is understood that when Mr Watson meets Parliament to-morrow he will ask for an adjournment for two or three weeks to formulate his programme. Excepting Mr Higgins—who is a clever though somewhat meteoric Pailiamentarian, and a steady supporter of labour—all the Minister® are members of the caucus. Mr Trenwith’s long-standing rupture with the Trades Hail barred his inclu.sion in the new Cabinet. The Deakin Government held its final Executive meeting to-day. Lord Northcote was present, and took official leave of his late Ministers. It is stated that the Hon. C. C. Kingston's health prevented his joining the Ministry at present, even if he had been willing to do so. There is a general feeling that Mir Watson should be given a fair trial when be meets the House. It is rumomred that Mr Watson has a satisfactory understanding with Lord Northcote regarding a dissolution. The keynote of the speeches at the Eight-hour Demonstration luncheon was the triumph of Labour and rejoicing at Mr Watson’s selection. Many members of the Commonwealth Parliament were present. The chairman (Mr Gaye), in proposing the toast of Parliament, hoped that the new federal Ministry would stand the test, and he twisted that when it went down, if it did go down, it would t_so as a solid party, with the Labour g flying. If Labour could not cany on as a solid party, lie trusted it would not attempt to carry on at all. Mr Tom Mann said that democracy was more clearly seeing its goal. It must make headway with tho gradual escape from the domination and control of the capitalistic faction. Mr G. H. Reid, in denying the statement that he approved of Mr Watson being sent far, added: “If Lord Nortbcotte (the Governor-General) acted on the advice given by Mr Deakin, then Mr Deakin assumed a very serious responsibility, and took a course which may be discussed with advantage by constitutional writers.” Mr Deakin states that he did advise Lord Northcote to summon Mr Watson, on the grounds of high principle and common sense, and that he is prepared to defend his action tvhen the proper time comes. A peculiar situation threatens to develop over Mr Deakin’s announced intention that his party will occupy the benches previously occupied by the followers of Mr Reid. Mr Reid claims that there is no case on record where a third party has been invited and taken office. Mr Deakin had, he stated, created embarrassment for himself,, and as .the rightful Opposition still exists liisT'arty must occupy the benches recently filled by the Labour members. no t . ' MELBOURNE. April 27. Mr Dawson urns: •■once Premier of Queensland for a -few days, Mr Fisher being also included In. his short-lived Cabinet. ... Mr Batchelor, in South Australia, served for a time in the last Government under Sir . Frederick . Holder. Nona of the others have been in office, though Mr McGregor lias led the Labour party in the Senate during the last, four year®. / ’ .. .. Four of the new Ministers are Protectionists, and three are Freetraders. ; Both of the leaders are reticent. Mr Deakin (the late Premier), referring to certain rumours that an attempt would be made to defeat the. Government today, declared that hp*' would not countenance such a move) : The new Cabinet Should be given an opportunity to submit a policy, and until that time no attempt ahouKd, in his opinion, bo made to turn the Ministry out of office. Mr Reid declined to eay anything, reserving bis views till the House meets. - Many rumours are current regarding a probable coalition, but first of all the rival claims of Mr Deakin and Mr Reid

for the leadership have to be settled. Much will upon the meeting of the respective parties this afternoon. » There is likely;ho be a contest over the sitting accommodation.. Mr Dear kin persists that lie is leader of the Opposition, and intends to occupy the front Opposition benches. The Deakin-Reid compromise is a temporary arrangement. Mr Reid wrote to Mr Deakin stating that in order to remove the immediate difficulty and to prevent an undignified situation, he was willing that Mr Deakin should rise first after Mr Watson's announcement, and make a statement, which, as retiring Prime Minister, was justly expected from him, Mr ' Reid to rise next as leader of the Opposition de facto, leaving the question de jure for subsequent consideration. Mr Reid also offered Mr Deakin the free us© of his room, without vacating it himself; th© offer to have no bearing upon any possible issues with reference to the political situation. Mr Deakin replied, accepting Mr Reid’is proposal, as a happy way out of the difficulty, and explaining that he had uo personal object in pressing for a right due, as he believed, to those associated with him. He hoped it would be possible before the House reassembled to come to an understanding on the course to be pursued. The Ministry was sworn in during the forenoon, and met the House at 2.30 p.m. It was crowded, and there was simmering excitement. Members of the Slate Government, under arrangement with Mr Reid, took seats in front of the Opposition bench, along with leading Readites, Mr Deakin and Mr Reid sitting side by side. Mr Watson announced the personnel of the Ministry, and asked for an adjournment till May 18th, to formulate a policy. Mi- Deakin congratulated the Government upon its accession to office. His party was proud to give the assurance that it would receive the utmost fair play. The Opposition wouild freely exercise the light to criticise measures. The Government represented a minority in Parliament, and held office only by the goodwill of the Opposition—-of two Oppositions, in fact. The situation would not remain long as it was. The Government in power must occupy its position by the direct voice of a majority of the House. He was satisfied the Government would propose no chimerical schemes, and he viewed its advent with no allarm. The sobering responsibilities of office would restrain the more irresponsible members from forcing them too far. He thought the Government was entitled to the adjournment. Mr Reid also congratulated the Government. He would offer no objection to the adjournment. The one outstanding fact of the general election was that if one party was to rule the Comnionweallth, it was that it should not be the Labour party. The reign of politeness must soon some to an end, and the Government would have to face the time when it would have to justify it® claim to represent- the majority in Parliament and tho convictions of the country. Sir John Forrest protested against the Government accepting a commission without having a majority. Mr Watson expressed thanks for the generous reception of the Government so far. Replying to criticisms, he claimed that the general elections returned almost an equal number of members of the three parties, so on that- ground Labour had just as much right to take office as the other parties. On the vital question at issue, the Arbitration Bill, they had a greater right than any other party to claim the support of members. He hoped shortly to obtain such support as to divide the House into two instead of three parties. He promised a full exposition of the Government’s policy when the House reassembled. The motion for adjournment till May 18th was agreed to, and the House then adjourned. Prior to the meeting of Parliament this afternoon the Deakin and Reid parties held camcus meetings, but the results hare not been disclosed. The Senate adjourned till May 18th, after stinking the Navigation Bill and the Merchandise Marks Bili off the order-paper. SYDNEY, April 27. The “Sydney Morning Herald,” after a reference to the exclusion of outsiders and the - want of experience of the Ministers, says:—“Had it been a Ministry composed even in part of moderate men, with any chance of appealing to the majority of the House, there might have been some reason in the call for time. As it is, the reasons are all strong against granting a lease of life. Time granted would be time wasted, and the tendency will be to play upon the worst instincts of members in their efforts to retain office. To allow the Watson Government to hold office for any length of time will certainly not help us abroad, and while it s will, probably disgust the electors of the Gomanonwealth and pave the way to an enduring coalition, the danger is lest in the interval the unrest will prejudice the immense interests and responsibilities of Australian union.” The “Daily Telegraph” says:—“The personnel of the Ministry is of little consequence. In any case it would have to take instructions from the caucus. If wholly and solely an apprentice Government, the question is: Why should it

be necessary to risk the affaire of the Oommonwealth in such hands when old and tried politicians are so plentiful ? There may be a possibility of understanding a majority like that composing the Deakin and Reid parties stultifying itself for the sake of getting a Ministry of all the talents, but when this course is taken —as it must be to allow a Government of political apprentices under the tutelage of a secret caucus which avowedly bolds the interests of one section of the people paramount over those of all other sections to leign for a single day, the matter goes toe-far beyond a joke lb remains, however, to be seen how this curious political freak will be looked upon by the House', winch need not submit to be made ridiculous one moment longer than it has a mind to.”

LONDON, April"2s. Mr Watson has forwarded a cable message to the English press, setting forth his intentions as Prime Minister. Commenting on Mr Watson’s assurances, the “Daily Chronicle” declares that Ire intends at the cutset to pursue a cautious policy, and he is equally anxious with British investors to have it known that lie is opposed to recklefes expenditure. The journal adds: “His caution regarding preference will impress the public favourably. A full responsibility of the office will have a sobering effect upon the welder spirits of the party, if Mr Watson can control them as he hopes to do.” MELBOURNE, April 26.

Mr Watson states that his cable message to the London press was sent through Reuter’s agency. He declined to allow it to be published in Australia. LONDON, April 27.

The “Daily News,” in commenting upon the political situation in Australia, says Mr Watson’s position is interesting. but unstable. After the A-rbi-ration Bill .is passed a dissolution will not be far distant.

The “Financial News.” referring to the fact that there is only one member o.f the Cabinet outside the Labour party, says, considering the party’s programme, is is sorry for Australia, and not particularly hopeful for the success of the next Australian loan. The “Standard” declares that- if the New South Wales free-traders who voted to upset Mr Deakin were pledged to support Mr Watson, they would have claimed a due share of the portfolios. There is room to hope, adds the “Standard,” that the now quiescent majority will a-ssert itself. “The Times'’ says it is glad constitutional principle, power and responsibility go together and are respected. The newspaper does not expect any attempt tc apply Labour doctrines in practice will succeed, but the desire will be generally felt that the experiment .should be fairly made. Mr Watson, perhaps, does not regret the Parliamentary necessity to compromise. “The Times” heartily wishes the new Premier success in his effort to impress his followers of the wisdom and expediency of a certain measure of moderation. ; MR WATSON’S VIEWS. Interviewed after the defeat of the Deakin Government, Mr Watson, the new Premier, said:—“ln my opinion the Government has done a lot of good work for the Commonwealth in the face of exceptional difficulties inseparable from the initiatory stages of federation. S'o far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I think there is no one who is not personally sorry that Mr Deakin should be. compelled by circumstances to evacuate hia position. By his unfailipg courtesy and invariable good humour he has undoubtedly won for himself a.high place in the esteem of every member of the House. Whatever our political differences may bo there is a unanimous feeling of regret that he can no longer remain the leader of the House. I think the Government would have been wisely advised in the first instance if they could have allowed the sense of the House to be taken on this matter. After the election I admit such a course was not practicable, after the Prime Minister’s speech at Ballarat. It is undoubtedly correct that a number of those who voted against the Government did so for reasons apart from the question of including State servants. Still, a number of those who voted with the Goveopiment are in favour of including at least The railway servants, so that on the whole.! am of the opinion that had no influence l outside the question of including railway-mien come into operation, the majorily; of members would have voted in its favour.” STATEMENT BY MR DEAKIN. The late Premier, Mr Deakin, made the following statement bo the press after the fall of his Ministry: “The majority against the Government is composed of three sections, first, those who believe that the Constitution confers power upon us to include public servants of the States, and that we have a right. to exercise it at once; the second doubt that the Constitution confers that power, and think the High Court ought to determine it; and the third believe the Constitution does not confer the power but supnort the proposal in order to oust; the Government. The question of powers apart, the whole debate is reduced to the' issue, ‘ls the Commonwealth to regulate wages, hours and conditions of men rtvhom the States employ, and for whom, the States are required to find the money.to conduct their departments themselves, and to determine the rates of remuneration . It must not be forgotten that, apart their general legislative powers, the Stales are recitmed to undertake a host of duties

specially preserved.;., to them under our Constitution, dutiesmfJtbeKighest importance to their people. .. These cannot be efficiently discharged except by means of an organisation which they maintain in the public interest. ” To take the control of their employee® out of their hands would be to deprive them of their authority and dignity to a disastrous decree. Always having regard to the condition that, in my opinion, the Constitution gives no power to the Commonwealth to direct the management of State departments, the line of demarcation is this, while national rule is transferred to the Commonwealth, domestic rule is retained by the States. Why should the Commonwealth be called upon to interfere with the domestic management of the Lands Department, or of the Education Department and its schools teachers? National questions are those which affect not the officers of the State as such, but the whole of the people, without regard to the State in which they live or their occupations. The Commonwealth acts upon them because they are its eitizens. By acting on them it may directly affect the States profoundly. This the Constitution intends. It does not intend bo allow the Commonwealth to act on those members of the community who are State officers in relation to their employment. As such they are engaged by th© Legislatures to carry out the undertaking approved by their constituents, aaid subject to their decision in the various departments. The proper controlling power of these is to be found in their Legislatures and their Executives, subject to me control of the people. The national powers are intended to be applied to national purposes, and to the control of national departments, not bo the departments of State and officers of State. The States ought to conduct their own internal affairs.’'’