Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/350

310 in their antagonism to Germany. He was in London for a long term during the war, and in 1919 was in Paris as the Australian representative to the Peace Conference. One result of the World War had been to define the status of the great British dominions as that of really independent nations under the Crown. Mr. Hughes at the Peace Conference took full advantage of this new status, and vigorously fought for his idea of a peace much more punitive in terms to Germany than that actually agreed to. He was always in opposition to Mr. Wilson, often in opposition to Mr. Lloyd George. He wanted from Germany a full indemnity covering all war costs. He objected to any authority being granted to the League of Nations over ex-German territories in the Pacific which, he contended, should be straightforwardly annexed to Australia. Curiously enough, in this attitude Mr. Hughes was much more vigorously supported by a section of the British public than by his Australian constituents. He was acclaimed by many of these latter, but, returning to Australia, did not find the nation united under his leadership. His Cabinet was afterwards in a constant state of crisis, and early in 1921 it was rumoured that he would give up the Prime Ministership and come to London as High Commissioner, an office which Mr. Fisher had just vacated. But Mr. Hughes attended the Imperial Conference in London in June 1921 as Prime Minister.

The Constitution and the High Court.—The Federal constitution, in safeguarding the Federal power from trespass by the states and the power of the states from trespass by the Federation, necessarily set up a system of conservative check. But the full extent of that check was only understood when a High Court began to interpret various statutes in the light of the constitution. Already a considerable amount of the legislation of the Australian Parliament has been declared ultra vires by the High Court. Some of the decisions affected political issues so deeply that it was sought to amend the constitution so as to facilitate "Labour" legislation, but this effort failed. The power to amend the constitution is subject to many safeguards. A proposed amendment must first have the approval of an absolute majority of both Houses of Parliament; it is then submitted to a poll of the people, and to pass must secure (a) a majority of the total votes cast; (b) a majority of the votes cast in a majority of the states. If the three largest states voted "Yes" and the three smallest states voted "No," though the total Australian vote was "Yes," the proposed amendment would still fail.

In 1906 the Australian Parliament had passed an "Excise Act" which was intended to enforce what was called "the New Protection." A high protective duty had been placed on agricultural machinery, and at the same time an excise duty on the same machinery manufactured locally, with the provision that the excise duty should be remitted if the manufacturers paid "fair wages." On June 26 1908 the High Court declared this Act invalid, on the ground that it was not what it purported to be—a taxing Act, but rather an Act to regulate wages within a state, a thing which the Federal power was not competent to undertake under the constitution.

The first two Australian Parliaments devoted much time to discussing a Federal Industrial Arbitration Act, which included in its control state railway servants. This inclusion was nullified by a High Court decision that it was an unconstitutional interference by the Federal power with the affairs of the states. In the Trade Marks Act the Australian Parliament gave trade unions the right to register what is known in the United States as the "Union label," a mark showing that certain goods were manufactured by trade-union labour only. The Australian High Court (Aug. 1908) set this part of the statute aside on the ground that such a "Union label" was not a genuine trade mark, and the proposal to register it as a trade mark was really a subterfuge to assume control of labour conditions which were outside the province of the Commonwealth.

Not only Federal legislation but state legislation has been vetoed. An Arbitration Act in N.S.W. had sought to give the widest powers of regulating industrial disputes. In a series of five judgments the High Court gave such a strict interpretation to the provisions of that Act that it was more than half destroyed. (The High Court is the only court of appeal in cases affecting the constitution, and is with the Privy Council an alternative court of appeal in all other cases.)

In 1911, and again in 1913, 1915 and 1919, proposals were submitted to referenda for amendments of the Federal constitution which would legalize for the future the Labour legislation which the High Court had vetoed: all were rejected. The Australian constitution, as interpreted by the High Court, remains a barrier against any great development of socialistic enterprise on the part of the Commonwealth Government. In its working the Australian constitution has proved the most conservative instrument of Government within the British Empire.

Industrial Disputes.—Australia has elaborate machinery in Commonwealth and state Arbitration Courts for the settlement of industrial disputes without strikes. But strikes are very frequent and do grave damage to the development of the country. They are directed against the state as an employer as well as against private employers. The strike on the Victorian state railways in 1903 was followed in 1908 by a strike on the Sydney state tramways. Both of these strikes against state employers failed. New South Wales in 1908 altered its industrial arbitration system, and, this alteration being resented by the trade unions, various strikes followed. The next year (1909) more serious strikes broke out on the Broken Hill (N.S.W.) silver-mining and the Newcastle (N.S.W.) coal-mining fields. Stern measures were taken by the New South Wales Government to repress these strikes, and the leaders in the strike movement were arrested and some of them punished with imprisonment. In 1910 there were strikes of tramway-employees at Perth (W. Aus.) and of transport workers at Adelaide (S. Aus.). In 1912 the tramway employees of Brisbane came out on strike because of a slight grievance against their employers (a private company). The leaders fomented a sympathetic strike on "syndicalist" lines, calling out the workers in every industry with the avowed object of preventing all business. Serious riots accompanied the strike. The state Government acted with decision, and the strike disorders were crushed and the syndicalist movement defeated.

The World War did not stop strikes. In 1914 and again in 1916 there were serious coal strikes. Working-days lost through strikes in successive years were: 1913,623,000; 1914, 1,090,000; 1915,583,000; 1916, 1,678,000; 1917, 4,599,000; 1918, 580,000; 1919, 5,652,000. The losses in wages through strikes during the period 1913–9 were estimated at £8,500,000—big figures for a country of which the total pop. is only 5,000,000. The statistics as to the methods of settling strikes force the conclusion that the legal industrial arbitration machinery is not effective—of 460 disputes settled in 1919 only 38 were settled by the state Arbitration Courts and nine by the Commonwealth Arbitration Courts.

The Tariff.—The Australian tariff is protective, with a rebate on some of its rates for British productions. The first tariff passed in 1901 was mildly protective; the second passed in 1908 was more stringently protective but made a "preference" concession to British manufacture. Successive changes since have been always in the direction of higher protection, keeping the Imperial preferential element, and (in an Act of 1920) extending it to other dominions of the British Crown. In the attempt to quicken the growth of Australian production a system of bounties was instituted by legislation in 1907, 1912 and 1918. Bounties are paid on the local production of certain agricultural products (cotton, rice, coffee, cigar tobacco leaf, dried fruits, fibres, oil); of preserved fish; of iron and steel; of shale oils; of sugar, if grown by white labour; of combed wool or wool "tops" exported.

Defence.—When the Commonwealth Government took over the defence of Australia from the states in 1901 there existed for land defence in the various states very small forces of regular troops, used as instructional cadres and as garrisons for the forts; small forces of militia, enlisted under a voluntary system and paid for about 16 days of drill and camp training a year; further small forces of volunteers, not paid at all, and giving usually but scanty time to training. The total of these forces was 25,873, of whom a proportion could be counted as efficient. Naval defence, apart from the existence of various small craft, was entrusted to the British navy, and a yearly subsidy (up to £126,000) was paid to the British Admiralty on condition that a fleet of a certain strength was maintained in Australian waters and certain facilities given to Australians wishing to enter the naval service.

At first the Federation did little to disturb these arrangements. The fleet subsidy was continued and extended. The military forces were taken over as they were. But the Defence Act of 1903 gave indication of a new spirit. It made provision for the enlistment of all able-bodied males for defence service in case of war. An amendment proposed by Mr. W. M. Hughes, then one of the leading members of the Labour party, that this universal obligation to military service should be accompanied by a universal obligation to training for service, was rejected. But it was inevitable that in time the one should follow the other. Mr. Hughes constituted himself the parliamentary champion of compulsory training for service, and—assisted outside the House by the National Defence League, of which Col. Gerald Campbell, a volunteer officer of distinction, was the moving spirit—eventually secured the acceptance of the principle.

A series of Acts from 1909 to 1918 gave Australia a military system under which, with few exceptions, the whole manhood of the country is trained to the use of arms. Under this system, at the age of 12, a boy must begin training (chiefly physical culture) as a junior cadet. Training as a senior cadet begins at 14 and lasts until 18; it comprises drills equivalent to 16 full days a year. At the age of 18 the obligation to undergo adult training begins, and lasts until the age of 26. This adult training consists of the equivalent of 16 full days' drilling a year, of which not less than eight shall be in a camp of continuous training. In the case of the artillery and the engineers the training extends to 25 days a year, of which not less than 17 must be in camp. There are certain exceptions, including one making provision for those who have conscientious scruples against bearing arms; these however are trained for the hospital and ambulance services. The thinness of the population in some districts