As Kevin Rudd could attest, a Cabinet minister resigning in protest against their prime minister is at a distinct disadvantage in managing the domestic political ramifications when they do so from the other side of the world. In Watt’s case, this was especially so given that he was dealing with a prime minister as wily and manipulative as Hughes. Hughes accepted Watt’s challenge to table their cables in parliament, but he ensured that his perspective and not Watt’s was the one put before the members and the people. He was also critical of Watt for leaving Australia unrepresented at an important conference due to his impetuous resignation.
Watt couldn’t give his side of the story as he was slowly returning to Australia via the United States, the side trip a chance for him to recuperate from his work stresses. It was only in October 1920 that he could address the House of Representatives, whereas Hughes had done so in July. Even given the slow media cycle of the time, Hughes’ version of events had gone uncorrected far too long for Watt’s response to have much of an effect on public opinion. While Watt did manage to paint a picture for the parliament of Hughes’ inefficient meddling, he also left a clear impression of paranoia. Watt alleged that his demise was all part of a Hughes conspiracy, that even the trip to London had been intended as part of a grand plan to nobble his ability to negotiate and provoke his resignation: ‘I was sent abroad, there to be discredited which, doubtless, suited the Prime Minister’s ambitious schemes better than my quiet withdrawal from office.’12
Such conspiracy theories were as unconvincing then as they are now. There was plenty for Watt to hold Hughes to account for. By convincing himself of such a far-fetched theory, he gave his opponents, Hughes now chief among them, a chance to discredit his judgement. It was a sad end to a treasurership that had had much potential.
Afterwards
Watt was quiet in the immediate aftermath of his resignation statement in the House of Representatives. He was generally not an active participant in the House of Representatives debates, though he did intervene from time to time as a government backbencher critical of Hughes’ approach to various issues, particularly his old hobbyhorse of separate dominion representation at international negotiations.
Meanwhile, Hughes’ grip on power was fading, with a burgeoning Country Party working with dissident elements in the Nationalist Party to disrupt Hughes’ dominance. Watt was a more-than-willing encourager of these moves behind the scenes, although he was careful not to do anything that might leave an opening for the election of a Labor government.13 He was very critical in the House of treasurer Stanley Bruce’s 1922 Budget, which he saw as high-spending and interventionist, and there was occasional speculation that Watt would lead a breakaway party centred on Victorian members of a similar liberal persuasion. But when the Victorian Liberal Union was formed, Watt did not join. He was effectively an independent member of parliament.
When Hughes eventually fell at the hands of the Country Party, there was speculation that Watt might be that party’s preferred candidate for prime minister. The Country Party leader, Sir Earle Page, did think well of Watt, but there is little evidence that he was ever a serious chance of being preferred over Bruce as the new prime minister. In fact, when the Bruce–Page Cabinet was formed, Watt did not even get a ministry. Perhaps his well-earned reputation for petulance counted against him, as well as his earlier attacks on Bruce when he was treasurer.
However, Bruce and Page were no doubt aware that Watt would make a formidable critic, a situation best avoided. As Anderson writes, ‘his independence and critical powers made it dangerous to leave Watt on the backbenches’.14 So Watt was offered the speaker-ship of the House of Representatives, which would take him out of the game politically. Watt accepted the role, which came as a shock to many. He became the first former federal treasurer to become speaker; Sir Bill Snedden would become the second, fifty years later.
Watt’s abilities served him well in his new position. His confidence in the House, his experience of parliamentary practice and his penchant for independence made him a good speaker. But after three years he announced he would not continue in the role. This could have been motivated by parliament’s move to Canberra, given that Watt’s attendance plummeted once the move from Melbourne was complete.
Watt did not often speak after stepping down as speaker, although in keeping with his passionate and informed interest in federal–state financial relations, he did cross the floor in 1927 to vote against the abolition of per capita grants to the states. Watt did not contest the 1929 election, and he was not an active participant in public life during his retirement. He died in 1946.
An Evaluation
William Watt has substantial achievements to his name. However, his career was at its most productive during his Victorian premiership. His time as federal treasurer was dominated by the struggle of dealing with the fiscal hangover of World War I and, when he was acting prime minister, by the challenges of dealing with a headstrong, roaming prime minister. This all ate away at Watt’s energy and health, and led to him becoming an insulated, paranoid treasurer at the end of his term.
Any objective analysis of Hughes and Watt’s working relationship marks them both harshly. Hughes was not a good manager of his ministers and did nothing to foster a collaborative approach. As the head of government, it was Hughes’ obligation to ensure there were clear lines of communication and responsibility within the government, particularly during his lengthy absence from Australia. Hughes failed to do this.
Watt cannot escape criticism either. He was an accomplished and experienced politician by the time he became federal treasurer. He had led an administration at the state level and knew that a head of government was the primus inter
