I have no intention of discussing Australian politics. All that I shall attempt is a little portraiture, without the slightest “touching up.” In 1910 Labour was triumphant at the elections. Looking through the list of triumphant candidates, I observe there were two labourers, a bricklayer, five miners, an engine-driver, an engine-fitter, a plumber, two farmers, a hatter, a traveller, a tailor, a pattern-maker, a quarryman, an orchardist, a watchmaker, a physician, an agent, two barristers, and three journalists. Was there ever such a Parliament as that? Of “middle-class” men there are very few; of so-called gentlemen scarcely any.

In 1912 the Liberals were returned to power in Victoria. “Liberal” in Australia is the equivalent of quasi-Conservative in England. There is really no “Liberal” party in the English sense of the word. The members of this party in Australia are Protectionists. The “Conservatives” are Free Traders, and also upholders of the “classes.” This is by way of explanation. An Englishman does not easily or rapidly disentangle the political threads in this new country. They are much more complex than at home. The old English “Radical” party is represented here by the Labour party, which exceeds in its demands the programme of the Birmingham and Bradlaugh schools of the ’eighties.

The chief interest of the 1912 elections lay in the fact that for the first time the principles of preferential voting were put into practice. And it must be admitted that the experiment, with one exception, proved a great success. It was an experiment which might with great advantage be tried in England. In Australia, as in England, three-cornered contests work much harm and most manifest injustice. The introduction of a third party in an election has had the effect of splitting votes, and of returning to Parliament one whom the majority of the people would not and did not vote for. Preferential voting removes this anomaly—this injustice. For the benefit of any who do not understand its working, I may be permitted to explain the method. Three candidates offer themselves for election. Of these only one may represent the constituency. The three, we will suppose, represent only two interests, but for reasons of vanity or gain, in place of a single issue between two opponents, one of the interests is divided between two persons, each of whom has his advocates. Under the old system, as I have said, this rivalry was often fatal to the interests of the majority of the electors. While two quarrelled over the dainty morsel, the third, and least desirable, made off with it. But under preferential voting the electors are compelled to vote, in the order of their preference, for all three candidates. Unless they do this the voting-paper is rendered null and void. If one of the candidates secures an absolute majority over the other two—that is, if against his name the figure 1 predominates in numbers more than equal to 2 and 3 together—No. 1 is at once declared elected. But if No. 1 on the list has only a relative majority—that is, if Nos. 2 and 3 together outnumber him—then the votes given to No. 3, the last on the list, are taken from him and divided, in the order of preference, between Nos. 1 and 2. It may happen that the position of No. 1 is thereby so strengthened that he gains an absolute majority, in which case he is declared elected. Or it may happen, as in one case it did, that in the order of preference the votes taken from No. 3 and added to No. 2 give to the last-named the absolute majority, in which case he is declared elected. All parties are agreed that the system has worked excellently in the last election. The actual will of the majority of the electors has triumphed. In this matter, as in the other matter of voting by post, the Old Country has something to learn from Australia.

In 1911 the Referendum was submitted to the Australian people. To the astonishment of the Labour Government Australia voted “No” in the most emphatic manner to the proposals contained in the Referenda. A year previously Labour swept the boards; then the reaction came. The Government asked too much at once, and it adopted the policy of “all or nothing.” Had its proposals been more modest, the Referenda would have gone through without doubt. Thousands of people who would have voted “Yes” for many of the separate proposals were compelled to vote “No” for the scheme as it was presented to them en bloc. Great numbers of men were genuinely sorry to have been compelled to say “No” to certain of the proposals made, but the way in which the good and the bad were mixed together left them no alternative. The most regrettable thing was that, as the result of the voting, certain vicious monopolies continue to drain the purses of the people. The general feeling is that these monopolies should cease at once. Take the case of one city, in which is a fruit “ring” which keeps up fabulous prices for fruit sold retail. Apples, which are sold wholesale at half a crown the case of forty pounds, are priced at one penny and twopence each in the shops. And for oranges, which in England sell for one halfpenny, threepence each is demanded. There is apparently no power available to prevent the leeches of the ring from continuing their business. Then there is a fish ring, which outrageously robs the public. Fish in parts of Australia near the coast costs three times the price charged in England. Wood, which “up country” can be bought for six shillings a ton, costs twenty-five shillings in the capital. So also is it with coal, which is sold at an inflated price. And the public suffer and pay. If that part of the Referenda which had reference to this kind of thing had been detached from the rest, I believe it would have been universally approved, but the policy of “all or none” deprived the people of the boon.

Again in 1913 certain referenda were submitted to the Australian people for their decision. The questions were drawn up by the late Labour Government, submitted to the Governor-General for his signature, and circulated all over the Commonwealth. Every elector, male and female, had placed in his hand a complete statement of the case. Not only were the questions submitted, but upon the same pages the pros and cons of the case were set forth. The Liberals used their best arguments against the proposals, and entreated the electors to vote “No.” The Labour men used their best arguments, and urged the electors to vote “Yes.” The proposals were very simple. They were frankly Socialistic. They included the nationalisation of a number of industries, the fixing of prices for commodities, the destruction of trusts, and similar measures. The sacred formula of Labour in submitting these proposals was: “Shall the people rule?” The Liberals, on their part, steadfastly resisted the proposals on the ground that some of them were unjust, and that others were unnecessary, since it was alleged that the State already possessed sufficient power to deal with unfair monopolies. At first it was thought that the “Ayes” had it, but in the final count it was seen that the referenda were lost. Two facts stand out very clearly: the “Ayes” have gained considerably since the last time referenda were submitted, and the voting has been remarkably close. It is clear to all that the Commonwealth is almost equally divided in its opinion about the matter. We may take it as certain that each side put forth all its effort, and that, therefore, the late decision of the people fairly represents the state of mind in the country for some time to come.

More moderate referenda, and a different personnel, might have ensured victory for the proposals. For it is certain that there needs to be some change in Australia in certain directions. Faulty government in the early years of the life of Australia has produced, without doubt, certain abuses which ought to be swept away. The cost of living generally and the prices of certain commodities in particular both point to underlying radical wrongs which the referenda sought to remove. There can be no doubt that Socialistic ideas are gaining in Australia.B Labour is solid, and it is a force to be reckoned with. It is also a growing force. And if a conflict is to be avoided in the future, the principle of Christ will have to be applied, and men must agree with their adversaries while they are in the way with them.

The question of Protection or Free Trade is one upon which opinion is sharply divided. In all the Churches the best men take opposite sides in the matter. It is unwise, therefore, to introduce politics in any shape or form into pulpit or upon the religious platform. One party affirms Protection to be the insanest policy that Australia has committed itself to; another claims for Protection all the virtues. The practical facts are that for good clothing one pays 50 or 60 per cent. more than in England; house rent is higher than at home; taxes are lower; paper and printing are much dearer; furniture is very much dearer; tea is cheaper, but sugar is 40 or 50 per cent. dearer; books, of course, are dearer. A pamphlet which at home would sell for twopence costs sixpence in Australia. And so with other things. On the contrary, fruit is much cheaper, where the “ring” does not operate. Beautiful large eating apples sell for half a crown the case of 40 lbs. A large, juicy pineapple costs fourpence or sixpence. Bananas are cheap. Australians do not regard as “dear” what I should. They balance wages and expenditure. Many incomes are larger than in England. The great question has yet to be settled in Australia whether, after all, Protection does protect—the right people.