Commonwealth of [9 1fAHCH, 1898.] Austrnlia Bill. 210

Sir .J O:SEl'II ABBOTT.-Yes.

~h. ltEl D. -I know that I have often had to consult either my friend the Speal<or or the Clerk of the Assembly as to whether the Bill would come within

;.;uch a defiuition.

Sir ,JosEPII ABBOTT.-Yott conl<l not

introdnee into the Upper House a Health Bill, because it ineidcutally created an

office.

)Jr. HElD.-Exactly; we han; enrcd

that t>tate of thin6s in cl ansa 54, bn t no one ever iutcnded, I think, to take away the coutrol of tho public exchequer from, not. the House of Heprcscntntivo~;, but the Ex­e<:ntive Government. 'l'he Governor means the Executive Comt<:il, and the Gorenwt' sends a mcs~nge bocnnse the Executive

Couneil originates or h; prepared to sanc­tion the origination of a Bill involving cxpeudi tu re, and if that eontrol were taken out of the hands of the Exceutivc GoYermncnt, no financial system would he

possible. Private members might bring in Bill,; involving a drain on the Treasmy, perhaps very popnlar, but en­tirely out of season iu vh;w of the state of the public fhumccs, and the Govern·

mcnt would be thrown into '' n:ry uude­;:;imulc position. The GovcrmnenL should bt \'e this control that no measure which will involve a drain on the Tre:mury­nnd you cannot distinguish a~:> to the amount of the drain-can come in or go into law without the sanction of the Executive Government, ami that i~:> wh,tt a mcs~ago means. \Vithout sueh a safe­guard, 1 thiuk wc would be put into a very undesirable position.

Sir GEOHGE TUHSER (\iicturia).­

If I followed my right honorablo friend

('Mr. Reid) correctly, this Bill does not

carry out hi~ wishes, because no message is necessary for the pas~age of a Bill w bich

contains provisions appropriating fines or penalties. The Bill declares that that

shall not be an appropriation at alL

~11'. REw.-lt would require a mes,;age

Oll a diffen:nt ground-the ground that

it involved the expense of administering the Act.

Sit· GEOHGE TUltNEIL-'l'hi:; would

im"olro the expense of administering the

Act. Mr. HKIIl.-Y cs; but we get the same

point in a different shape. Although not attempting to appropriate money, it would

still be a l\lmtcy BilL

Sir GEORGE 'l'UHXER-ln elau;,;c 56 it i::; provided that it shaH not he lawful to pass any vote, resolution, or proposed la\\' for the appropri<ttion of any part of

the public revenue, until a message hus been sent to the House in which the appropriation originates. 'l'hat as>;nmes that a propo~al to appropriate a pat't of the public revenue can originate in the Senate. I do not think it can do so under this Bill.

:\[r. Mc:}[I!,LAX.~~Snbject to clause 54.

Sit• GEOJWE TUHSER--Not cYen Hndcr clause 51. l\Iy reading of the Bill is that nothing whidt is nn appro)Jriation

of the pnblie reyennc within the moaning of the Com;titution eau originate in the

Scll<lte. Clause 54 provide;; that law~ ap­propriating any pnr·t of the public revenue

shall originate in the House of lteprescnta" tives; that is, all laws which in any shape or form appropriate lHl blic revenue must originate in the Home of Hepresentativcs; hnt then, to rid of the dif!lculty in

to the small lllatters, we have dc­chll'cd that a proposed law which deals with certain fines and payments for ser­vice~ shall not be tal<en to appropriate revenue at all.

Mr. REm-It does not coutain words

to this effect-" and ::;hall not be deemed to be a Money Bill because it entails ex­

pem;e on the public exchequer." So snch words as those are in.

Sir GEOHGE TURNER.-We have not

used the words ''Money Bill" in any clause. A J\loncy Bill is a wider expres­

sion than a Bill appropriating revenue.

Mr. BEm.-But the appropriation here

is of fines, penalties, fee;; for licences, or

2102 [!J )IAncrr, 1808.]

foes for services nndot' the propo;:;od law. As regards expenditure under a proposed

law out of the public exchequer, it is not made necc;;sary to haxe a message in connexion \\'ith that.

Sir GEOH<iE TU1\::.(ER--1 admit my honorable friend'R that this is very limited in its operation. It deal.; only with or demand, or payment,

or appropri:ttion of fee,.; for liceDocR, o1· It is very limited, time it does seem

fee;.; for servioes.

but at the same

to me that you the i:lemtte any

e:muot lll

A ppropt·iation Bill.

'rhercforo, it is misleading to ~Jay, in clause 5G, that the message is to be sent to the House in which the appro­

priation originated, because there I:>

only one Honse in 'rhieh the propo~cd

expenditure can possibly he originated, and to have the 8eetion uniform, it

does seem to be necessary to ~ay---and in faime;;s also to ont exactly the poxition----tlmt the message can be

sent only to the House of llcpresentatin~s. If 1 thought that the Senate could origi­mlte any expemliturc of the nature described iu elauso ;)4 as appropriation, 1 wonlcl in~i~t that the message shonld be sent fir,;t, bceauxe so loug a,; a

mes:mge has to be ;-;cnt-, :>o long !ulf; the Government of the day the control that it ought to have over the expenditure. A:o

it appears to me that that appropriation within the meaning of eLnt::se D4 can arise only in the House of Repre1lentati \"e;;, 1 think the message ,;lwuld be limited to that Hou'le only.

:\1r. BAUTO::\ (New Sonth Wale;;).-1 I shall he understood as ha,-iug an­

,;wered my honorable friend (Dr. Cuck­bnrn) merely to the extent of the question he asked, which was whether a Dill, :tR I

understood him, for one of the pnrpo~es indicated in the first subsection of clause 54 would neees;;arily require a mcs,age. It seems to me that the \Yord~ in the fmb~ ::;ection of clause DJ arc so strong: that such a Bill Blmll not be taken to appro­priate, are so withont limitation that, it

[Si1· Gr:.or·ue ':Puruer~

is reasonably clear that such a Bill would

not require a message under clamm 56. But, as Dr. Cock burn points out, there still remain two other cases, and those are the cases of a yote or rewlution, and thoro i~

nolhing ahont the yoto or resolution which he spcnh of in the prorision in the first part of clan8c so they stalld out llll­

gualified, and it must be th;\t they would reqnire a mec;;;age. Xow, what arc these yotes or resolutions? The Yotes or re;;o­lutions that are meant here, accon]iug to practice, may be the votes or re;,;o. lntions whioh afterwards find their con·

c~rete form in Hi!:><, and the renl Ljl\C~tion is \Ybether we need trouble about the

words "vote or resulntion" at all~

w hcther they ncc•d en:r ha YC been in any of the Constitution Acts. EYcn if I am right in thinking that a llill of the character indicated in the ftrst pmt of clause 54 does not require a message, still I do not find anything in the Consti­tnth:n to do away \Yitli the necessity of a

message, even in the Senate, for a vote or rewlution, if sueh a Yote or resolution is taken in the f:lenate. Hut now let us come to the pnwtical side of the que~tion. Uuder this Cou~litution, w·ith the Ministry pnwtically responsible to the HousLJ of J:teprcsentatiycs, m; they IYill be if thi:o Constitution i" i,; it likely that a :Minister rcspom;ible to that Hm1Re, no matter which Ilom;e he ;;ib; in, will cn'r bring down a HH'b~age to the Senate'? It ~cem;; to me t<> be mo~t unlikely that he will, nurl therefme there is not any serious

difHeulty.

~h. ISAACS (Victoria).-! would like to point out "·hnt we did in Adelaide. c\s the Bill 8tood in 1801, and it stood before an alteration was made in Adelaide,

dau;.;e 56 mn as folln"·s :

It shtdlHot be b11 ful for the House of Repre­seHtaLi vrs to p~:ss any Yote, rcsolntiou, or la Vl

for tho ;cppropri<ttion of n,uy part of the pnhlic renmnc or the protlncc of any ta-x or impost to a11y plll·pose which has not been first n•com­

tnewletl to tlmt. House hy messe1ge of the fioyerum·-Heneral in the ses;;ion in >Yhich tho ,·ote, resolution, or law is ]Jroposetl.

That ''"as altererl iu Adelaide, as follows:-

It shall not Le hwfnl for the Senate or lhe House of Representatives to pass rmy \'ote, r-esolution, or proposc<l law fol' the appro­priation of any part of the pnl>lic revenue or moneys to any purpose which has not been tirsc recommcmletl to the How;e in which the propoc<<1l fol' approprifLtion origitmted !Jy mes­~;t.ge of the (:oYernor"({ener<1l in the ser>Hion in \Yhich the nJtc, resolution, or law is proposc·tl.

Then the word~ which I ~eek to Yiz., " in \\ hieh the propooal for a ppm­

pri<ttiun originated," were inserted iu At le bide, beeau;;e the \wrtl "Senate" 1m:;

iJt:;ert<'d in the fir::~t li1w, a~ well as the IYords "the House of Heprm.;culnlin:~,'·

\\ bieh had stoud there

.JJr. U'Co:->:\01<.-lol\ 11ill remcmlJc!'

(hat there \\':IS 110 diflicnlty thNt, rlt'CH!I;<e

at th:tt time the proviso to elansc J4 had

H•Jt boon iwwrtcd. .J[r. lSA.\CS.-Thc

uitllenlty.

was nut the

Mr. U'Co~:mu.-No; that is the ditti­enlty now.

i\J.r. 1SAAC3.-1'ho uilliculty is that in Aclelaido we altered d:mse J.J- w as to

t~tawl-

Proposcd laws lmviug for their nmin object. the ap]H'<•primion of any part of the pnlJlie rc1·emw or money>, or tlw imposition of any tax or impoBt, shall originate in t.!w House of lteprcseutat ivos.

\\'lwn it waN recognised by the in,;ertion

of those worus that thoro wonltl be Bills

which wore for the appro]Jriation of mcmcys, but in respect, of which Hills

ap[ll'O)Jl'intiOll W<LS not the main oujed, it bc;:amo necessary th,tt we Klwultl insert, in

elan,;c !'il), '' pnwisiou that a law for appro-or vote or rc,;olntiun for appropria­

ti•.lll in the Senate nlc:~o req uircd a message. But when wo altered th•1t agnin in Sydney,

and added a pnn·iso, it beea!lle perfectly

elenr that th<?re eould l1c no appmpriation

in the ordinary ;;ense 11hieh conld uate in the Sc•m1.tc.

seem~; to me that; we hfwc to go hnek, in

regard to ela nse 56, horn the po~ition

we took ill Adelaide. We have to ,tl·ike

ont the reference to the Senate, which has

.Australia Bill. 2103

!Jceu demo Ly the Drafting Committee,

and we have also to strike out the words

" the House in \\ h ich the proposal for

appropriation originated."

.J.Ir. BAin'OX.--( 'onld not a Yote or re­

wlntion originate in tho Senate? Tcch­

' nic,tlly it. could. .Jir. ISAACS.~Thm·c i,; nothing to pro­

! 1·eut the t-icwtte from voting jnst a;; it i pleases, hut an impruper Yote wonld not

1 han' the slightc:;t weight.. Jt i" necessary , to put in thetJe word~, because if they are

pnt in it wilt not be for the Senate

to pas:l a Yotc or resolution for appropria­

tion in the ordinary SCH:iC' at aiL Clau,;e

!JG cover,; vote~, re,;olution;;, and propo"od

law:-;, if the nmcndmcut, J be

e<tnied, it will not he lawful to pas,; a vote

or n:Holntiou or propo"ed law till the mcs­;;ag-o authori:dng the appropriation ha"

fir,;t come to the Hou~e of Reprcscuta­

tivc:,;. It will be po;;c~iLlo for the Senate to appropriate pnblic revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation in the sense of

fine~, peeuniary penalties, or fees for lieen;;es or scn'ices, because that is ex­

pressly provided by elause G4 not to be au appropriatiou. In this eounexion, I

slwul'J like to point out that there is a passage in the tenth edition of Jlay which seems to me somewhat at variance

with the 1vord~ of the mlo of the Hou;;e of Cornmom upon which the 2i:3rd htancl­

ing order of the \'ictorian Assembly is based. The passage to which I refer will be ftmnd on page [!'17. it is as fnllo1rs

Heln.:rn!ion of Common/ pril·ih'fft·'·- The claim to exdnsi\·e lcgishttion over ehargos im· posed upon the people was fot·mcrly ex tended by the Commons to the imposition of fees and peenniary penalties, :~ml to provisiom which touched the nhHie of suing for fees and penal­ties, aml to thcit· applimtion when recovered; an(l they (lenietl t<; the Lonls the power of deal-ing with these m~•tters. The rigid enforcement of thio daim pr<J\'ecl ineonvenicnt, an<!, in 1841>, the Counnons a<lopletl a st1mding order, based on a resolution passed in 18:31, which gave the Lonls power to de,,], hy Hill or amendment, with pcctmiary penalties, fodeitnres, or fees, when the ol1ject of their legislation w"s to Reelu·c the exec:ntion of au Act; provicletl Umt

2104 Commonwealth of [9 )IAHCH, 1898.] Australia Bdt.

the fees were not payable into the Excher1uer, or in aid of the public revenue ; and when the Bill shall be a private mn for tt heal or per­ional Act.

I fl.m rather inclined to think that that proviso is incorrect, and I would ask the leader of the Convention to consider it. I should like to add that it is important to include the words "vote and resolution" in this clause, because a vote may not be a harmless thing. When a Supply Bill is passed to be applied to the sati;;faction of ~neh votes as may be agreed to l>y the Assembly iu, say, "the present session of Parliament," each of tbrse votes is m1 au thorir,<etiou nudcr t lw tenus of the Act of Parliament for the disbursement of money.

.Mr. HAHTOK.-Therc is a difference n1

the Commons' resolution as to fees. Fees arc not within the allowance in any ease where they hrwe to be pail! into the Exchclpwr.

Mr. I:-5AACS.-If the lwnorable awl learned member \Yill loo],; at page 830 of il[ay he will see that the text of the pro­viso appears to be at variauce with the litanding order.

The CHAJRMAN.-~The pmctiee of the House of I,ord~ is to pa;;;s Bills con­taining pro\'ioion~ making appropriation~, appointing officers, ~~nd so on, bnt. the Commons take no notice of the~e pro­YI~IO!lK. ln former times they used to print them in different type, b11t ] bel~eve in later times they do not en;n do that. 'l'he p1·ovisions are printed in the ordinary type, and they are passed by the House of Commons as though they were not there. They are supposed Hot

lobe in the Bill, though they really are in it.

.Mr. ] SAACS.-I believe that that is so, bnt I cannot find, in the: standing order under w hi eh it is done, the proviso that in nil eases the money mnst not go into the public revenue.

Mr. BAHTON.---That is provided in the second sub-section of the 44th standing order of the House of Commotts.

JJfr. l8aac8.

Mr. ISAACS.-ls not that sub-section entirely distinct from the first sub-sec­tion?

Mr RmToN.-Tbe first sub-section deals with pecuniary penalties aud forfeitures, the second sub-section refers only to fees.

Mr. ISAACS.~ If the proviso does apply, I think we onght to reconsider the first part of elanse 54.

Question--That the words proposed to be in;;erted be so inserted-put.

The committee divided-

A:r;'s Noos

)lajority agaiust amendment

Mr.

17 26

lsaaes' l ' 9 ... I

An:s.

llarton, E. Berry, ~ir 0. Brown, N. J_ Brunker, J. X. Deakin, A. Glynn, 1'. :\I. Higgins, H. B. Leake, G. Mel\Iilhm, "--

O'Connor, R. E. l:'eacovk, A . • T. Q.nick, Dr. ,J. ~ymon, ,J, H. Trenwith, IV. A. Turner, Sir G. Walker, J. T.

1'ellcr. I8aaes, I. A.

1'\0E>i.

Ahbott, Sit· J. P. Braddon, Sir E. K. C. 11riggs, H. Carrnthers, J. JI. Clarke, :\L .J. Coeklmrn, Dr. J. A. Urowder, F. T. Douglas, A. Downer, Sir ,1. \\'. FOJ'l'est, Sir .J. Fraser, S. Fysh, Rir P. 0. Grant, C. H. Huckett, .J. \Y.

Hassell, A. Y. Henning, A. H. Holder, }<', \\".

Howe, .J. H. Kingston, C. C. Lee Steere, Sir J. (~. Lewis, N. E. :Moore, \\'. Holomon, V. L. Yenu, H. IV. Wise, B. R.

Teller. Gm·don, .J. H.

Question so resolYed in the negatiYe.

The dause, as amended, was agreed to.

Chmsc 56B (Dead-lock provi:sions).

Mr. BAitTON (New South Wale:;).~-It is my intention to move the omission of the first paragraph of this clause, that being the portion which was carried by

Commonwealth of [V .MAUCH, 1898.] A1cstra/ia Bill. 2105

the honorable and lcamcd member (Mr. Symon) in Sydney, but I find that

notice lws been given of O:ieveral amcnd­

nwnt~. I therefore think it right that

opportunity slwnlcl lle allowed for the

mo1·ing of those arncmlmen to. Then I ;;h<tll ~at,i,;fy my objed hy

the first paragraph if it is put

The CIIAIH}fAX.--In order to enable

the paragraphs of thi:-; elause

Pttragntph (l).-If the House of Representa­tiH!S passes any proposed law, and the Senate l'C·

jcets the same, or fails to pass it, ot· passofl it with nmcnumeuts to which the Hon"e of Hept·u~enta-1 i \·cb will not agree, n.nd if the { ~o\'el'not·· ( ;cncl'al thereupon dissolves the Hm1s3 of l·{cprescnt;L­tivc,, an<l if, within six months aftet' s1wh <lis­solution, the House of Representatives, by an absolute majority, t~.gaiu passes the pr<•posed law, with or without 1my amcmlmcnts that may lmve hccn ll1<Hle or agree<! to hy the Senate, aml if the Seuate again rejects the pro­posed law, ot· LLils to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the HnnHe of Rcprc;,en­t1ttb·cs will not a~;ree, the Govenwt·-( ;en em! may dissoh·e the Senate.

)lr. SYMON (South Australia ).-I do

not pmpo:;e to moYe the fit·st amendment

of which l ha 1·e gh'eu uot.icc. What I propose to do is to moYe my ,;eeond

amendment---

That, after tlw word '' RcpresentatiYcs" (lines B~7) 1 t.he follo\ving ·wonls he inscrtt.•tl ~-''·which dissolution slmll not t<tke phtecwithin six months of the expiry of the House of Represeut1tlives hy clllnxiou of time."

A~ honora1lc member~ will recollect, this elau>:~e include,; two alternative method;;

by whieh at lea:st the first ,;t1lge in the prol1osed ::;olution of the imaginary dcau-loek dittieulty j,; to be arrived at.

The fir,;t method is that which was t:arried

in upon my motion, aud dcal;s with

what has been referred to shortly as the

enuseeutivc disf5olution. There is to be a

of the House of Hepre­

supposing upon a serious

quci:ltion nf public importance there io a

disagreement between the two Hou~c~.

After the return of the new House of

Hepre.~entativcs, if they re-affirm the

measme m regard to whieh the disso­

lution took plaee, and there i~ still a disagreement hctwecn the Hou::;es, the

Senate mu~t go before its constitueuts.

That wns the first branch oi' n

and follmYing that tht:re wu" the other

~uggostion about the joint meeting of the

two Houses. The other whieh

wn,; embodie<l tent<Lti n:ly--in both were embodied tentatively--was that ill the C\·eut of difmgreement tbere should lJ<:

a flimnltaneons dissolution of the two

Honse~. Aml c;uperad<lcd to that came

the ultimate Inode of reaching wlmt \\'Ml

hoped to be Jinality, by a joint llll'etiug of

the two HouBes, who should nrri\'C at

a dcci~ion 011 the Gondition,; ~;pccilled.

Now, the amendment 1 propose in tlan~e

!JGn~thnt i~, the tirst of the two altcr­

natil·e amendments- i~ intended to

hriug that first one into lmrmony wilh

the ::;econd, ::;o that we may then have the

two on iuent,ically the same footing a;; to

the periods whieh are to elapse before the position ;shall arise indicnted by the

amendment.

:::iir .JoH~ FommoT.- That i~ the ::;ccoud

paragraph. i\fr. SYl.-fOX.-.No; it is the first para­

graph. Sir .J on~ FunuE~T.-Yon want <lll altor­

nati YG sy8tcm still. ~It .. SYMUN.-Xo, I llo not 1mnt nu

altcmatiYe SJ:-;tcm. I pl'Opo;;c to adhere a:; strongly as I em to the fir~t a1terna­

ti ve, that is, that the ::5cnate shall not be

dissolved nntil after there has been a disso­

lution of the House of lteprcsentati ves. Sir JoHx FoHHEciT.- I rlo not think we

are the right com·~e of procedure,

and I am afmid we t:lhall get the:-:e thing~

mixed up, ~lr. Wr:,;E.-Would it uot be more t:on­

venient to take a tc~t vote on the que,;! ion

whether the fir~t two \\'Ord~ of dause !'i6B,

"If " cl hall stanrl! Mr. BARTU:\.-I thought of ;;nggcsting

that.

~lr. SYMO.JS'.--Wc camwt deal with

thi~:~ matter without re-opening the whole

2106 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

of the solution of dead-lock,; and I think we ,;hould deal with it at one~.

Sir .TonN Fonnm-l1'.-Dut we must haYc

to Yotc on.

Mr. SYl\IOX-I am quite aware of tlmt.

l\lr. Jturrox.-W c: mi;;ht take a test

vote on the qnestion whether the fir~t Jive word~ of the d<tuse-~" lf the Huu,;c of

Ht:preseubttivcs," ~hull ~tand p<trt of the elau,;c. lf tho~e words arc titru.:k out, I

will moYc the omisBiou of the rest of the fir;ot pcmlgraph. If they are allowecl to

remain in, then the whole of the rest of

the paragraph will be open to nmend­mcnt.

l\lr. SY::\IOX.-I see no oLjcetion to

tlmt. All I want is that we .~hall have the whole 1-mhject to deal with. I should

like to nssist in shortening the time we

occnpy over it in every W!ty I possibly

cnn, so that we may arriro at a decision

of thi~ question to which we haYe all

dorotOtl great attention, n.ml which is the mo~t trouhlcsomc, as it is the moHt im­

portfmt, matter that we have boon coli·

ccnwd with for Home time past. But I Wttnt to Hay to Sir John Forrest that my

amendment does not affect lhc pos~ibility or to»ting the alteruath-e which he sug­gests, and which is intended to prevent the dissolution of the :-lcnatc.

;.iir JOHN FORBEKT.--Then we to ha\·e joined force,;.

}lr. :-lYMOX.-Ro we shall fon:cs. Down to the wonl::; "will not agree, in the r;econrl last line, i-lit· John Foncst.'s

amendment and mine are identicaL \Ve

are absolutely at one.

Sir .Jorrx FormE~T.-Then let \18

that part.

Mr. SY.\ION.-01' conrr;c, there ought

to be no confusion as to the votes \Ye

Sir J oux Fo!lHE~T.-~(J m amendments

arc not in exm:tl.v the same word~ Jown to

the wnrcb "willuot agree, lmt substau"

tially they arc the flame.

1h. i'L\ION.---I think

tical. [Mr. Symou.

are iucn-

Sir .JoHN FomtEST.-No, I assure you; I Jmye them.

Mr. SYMON.-1£ my right honornblc

friend will point out any word in my amendment that varies from his own amendment down t,o the poi11t I have

I ;,hall be very happy to give way, but I think he will find that thry arc the same down to the srcond hmt line.

Sir J nhn Forrcst proposes to ,;tt·ike out the word,; "the (~orcmor-Goncral nrny

diNKolvo the Senate," and to insert the wilrds "House of Reurosentative,; mnv prc:;cnt an addretiS to the Governo;. Ueneml the facts, alHl pray­

that n full conference of the

and having et NonQt.ltnc•nn

go, when the proper

that eonstitucncy to get the mandat.c of that constituency. \Vb,tt the occ<t"

~i<m is to be when that il:l to be brought alJOut, it i" for thi~ Con\'Cmtion to determine. Dnt I think that is the only diifcl'enee between Sir .John For­rest's amendmeut and mine, namely, that be does not like a dissolntion of the Sen­;lb.', and propo:-;cs to aYoid it. by snb~ti­

t.lting directly a joint sitting of the two Hom;cs. I think tbtt is the

\'1:->1011

adopting :Mr. if \H' take

Bnrton'~ bug­n diYision on

whether the pro­then

go on to moYe the amend-

ments, and Sir ;John Forrt:st, voted ag<tin>it Mr. Brnton's amendment, if it is

pnt that way, will be able to insert his

own \\'ords after the words " will not agree.''

~ir J om; F<mlmST.--Yon had on the paper a notiee of an amendment which

yon were going to move, nnd those are

Commonwealth of [9 ~[ARCH, lf"98.] A?tstralia Bill. 2107

the words I copied in framing my amend­

meut. Mr. SYl\ION.-I Jlnd that Sir .John

1-'orro>~t is quite right. I ha(l the dau,.;e

repri ntod. Sir ,loll:> FonREKT.- .\ little hit altere(!

iu the l\Ir. ~Yi\lON. ~Only the wor1b "on

that. aceount." Hir.lorrs l''onrm,.;T.-AnLl also the \\'onls

" the r;anw!' .Mr. SY'JfON.-At any mte, \\'e 11ill ha Ye

an of comparing them. I do

not think there was any altcmtion in tmb:stance.

Sir .Jon:s- Fotum,.;'t'.-No, I think uot;

hut iu the word~ there w:tR an alteration.

Down t0 the 1nmls "will not agree" we

are substantially in ncconl.

Mr. SYMON.--·And I hope we ;;hall

be sub~tantially in noconl and absolutely

,.;ucecssful in the end.

Mr. It-u.~cc~. -·Yonr congratnhtious are rather

~.Ir. SYi\ION. Of comse, they are

i\lr. Ho nth \Y a lee).-While I 1vish to eliminate the first para-

graph of olan~c tiK· nmondmcnt carried Mr. Symon in

Sydney, I do not wi;;h to snbmit my pro-iu nuy such m1y as will prevent, if

my be the amendment of the rest of thi;:; lf I move the

omi~siou of the whole of the parngrnph,

the question will then he-" That the ~word~ prnpo:-~ed to be omitted ~tand part

of the clause ; '' aud if the Con yeutiou resoh·e th:tt qnestion in tlw affinuatin',

and <lefcat my amendment in that IHty,

the wordR of the parngrnph \\'t!llill not he

~nbjed to further amcnrlmont. Thert'for(•,

if I moved the :unenc1 ment in that way, and f<liled to carry 111.'' [ ::>hould deprive honorn ble members of the oppor~

tnni ty of amending the Ho11·­ever, I do not propose to do that. I pro­

pose to ll!OYC the omission of the fin.;t five word,; of the clnnse-" If the House of

Itepresentativct-~." If tho Convention

decide that these words shall stand part of the the remainder of the paragraph

will still be open to any other amendmeuts

honomble memiJen; wish to mbve. If those words arc I shall take it that honomble rnornhcrc; will ac;>;ent t!J the

elimination of t11e \1 hole ]mm graph- the

eon~:~ocntiYe flis~olntiou.

'Jlr. "-!..,E.--That will uot iuturfNe

with i-iir .John \•'rn·w~t ·~ proposed amend­

ment.

:-iir .Jorr:s- FomtEsr. ye~, it will.

i\Ir. lL\.HTON.-1 hope tbiH cxplana­

tiou will make the matter ~~~:u·. If my ;tlllcndment is <·onfine<l to the omi%iou of

the \\'onls-" If the House of Rcprenbv

ti n·s," pro JiiJ'nui, and if the :unendnwut

i.~ not carried, the rmuaindel' of the pam­

gmph will be open to amendment ; whibt if my amewlmcnt i;; it will i>c

taken as a test yot<', H!l(l as an iwlieation

that we arc to strike out the whole of the

pamgmph.

Mr. WlSE.-~-'l'heu Sir John Forrest\;

amendment could come in.

Mr. llAHTON the "·ay wouU be nb:-mlntoly dear for flir .John to move an amendment in

pamgraph. If the whole

omitted, it 11ill still Lo open to be

Sir .John Forn::;t. to mo1·c an nlternntirc paragraph to tH ke it.~ place.

Sir ,Toux Fn1um,.;r. -·What arc you going to move ill itc; place 'I

l\lr. BA ltTOX.-What I am

mqve in it:; pl~we is "nnthiug." eliminate the paragraph

my amendment i~ l:al'l'icd, ami

to

I wish to

If the \\'hole

p<tragraph is omitted, room \l·ill he

el'cn then, for the ~nl;c;titution of :mother

paragraph. I therefore beg to move-

That the word~ "If the House of Hept·esen· tatin:os" he omitte<l fmm the first paragraph of t:hHt~e 3th>. n

Jf my amendment is carried it will be

taken a;; an indication that the committee

wi>lh to get rid of the whole paragraph.

1\lr. KixG:;TOi'I.-Aud ha1·e no provi.c;ion for dead-lodu.;.

2108 Commonwectlth of [!J l\lARCH, 1898.] .4ustmlia Bill.

Mr. BAHTON.-'l'hat amendment by Mr. Symon was carried in Sydney at a time when it was the opinion of the majority of the committee that there should be l::iOrne provision for a dissolution of the Senate, and when a proposal for a simnltnneom; dissolution of the House of Representatives had not been brought forward. A 1111111 bm· of member:,; voted for Mr. Symon's amend­

ment as Home means of dealing \Yith pos­sible eam;es of dead-locks-! will not sny prob<tblc, but possible de11d-loeks. Those members, after having \'Otet! for the amendment, were of opinion that the ;;imult:uJcmts dis;;olution was a better pro­vision, nml they, therefore, vote1l for the latter iu the hope that the firt:lt paragmph might afterward::; be eliminated. I have alw.tys felt that it is ,;ufficient to pmvide for a sirnnlt<lneons dis~olution of the Senate and the House of Reprcsentati Yes so far as you proYide for dissolution~ ari~ing under the circnmsbuu;es laid down here. It must be recollected there i,; nothing in the p:trugmph, und it would perlmps not be easy to put anything in the paragraph, to specify what will lmppen when either Hou::;c i,; in fault. \Ve ar·e bounll to nssnme, under the cil·cumstances t~neh m; arc indicated here, that each House is ueting from a scm;e of public duty. It wonld, therefore, be an injustice to the Hou~c of Hcpreseutatives that in all cases of conflict the House of Heprcsentatires nmKt be dissolved before the idea of di,;­sol ving the Semtte is t:tken in tu eon-8idemtion. 'l'he other pamgra ph gives lmwc to dissohe the two Houses simul­taneously. But I wi;;h to come lmck to the argument that if the Uovernor is tu resene the power to dissolYe the two Houses simnltaneon~ly, he will still have the power of dissolving the Hon::;e of Rcpresentati \'CS without ahio dissol Yiug the Senate, if there is any fault on either side-and it is as likely the fault will Le on the part of one House as it is that it will be on the part of the other. So you provide for circnmstances in which some­time~ one House will be wrong in the

[frlr. Barton.

result and sometimes the other Hou::;e will be wrong in the re~;ult, and to all t he,;e circumstances ;yon apply the one undeviating rule that, before the Senate is di~solvecl, the Hou:-;c of Rcpre,;cutativcs shall be dissolvet!. I do not thi:ll;: that i~ just.

Sir .Jou~ FuHHBHT.-It i8 the ca~e nuw. Mr. B}d\'l'OX.-Where ;yon ha Ye to

a;;eertaia the opinion of the people of the Commonwealth as to >t question which lnts dh·ided the two Hou8es, and which they ha1·c not succeeded in solving, the general plan i~ to take the ,;cnfl0 of the people in the way that i;; proposed in the second paragmph-hy a double di~~olntion. Tlmt. I lake to Le a sufficient provision. I am OIHl who thinks that uudcr this Coustitn­tion dead-loch will be very infrc<Jneut. It would have been well if public opinion had stopped at the provi;;ion~ which are made in clauses 54 and 5;). But public opinion has not done that, and demamls oomcthimr more. \Vhilc dead-locks are, in the opinion of mo;;t m; here, unlikely, and while we think there will be very few, and that most of the causes of them have been provided against, the public are of opinion that some further pro. vision is ncces»ary in case dead-lock,; do occm. \Yhat should that llrovi:,;iou be 7 It r;honld not Le embodied in the pro­vision which give;; liberty to do sueh an uuj ust thing as to dist:lol ve the Hou~e of l{eproscn ta ti ves before the Senate, when the fault rnay uot be the fault of the House of Hepresentati\·es nt all.

Sir J ouN FoHHEtlT.-What is done now 7 ~lr. BAltTON.-In most of the colo­

nies only one House it:lLlissolved. I qnito a1lmit that there rnay be something incongruous iu that. At the ~amc time, my friend will remember that in ~ome of the colonies the Second Chamber· is a nominee House, and it is not mneh u~e dissolving that.

:\Ir. Snwx.-lu our colony (South Ans­tralin) the Second Chamber is elective.

~Ir. BAHTON.-And in other colonies the Secoud ChamLer is elective, and no

Commonwealth of [!J \cfARCIT, 1898.] Australia Bill. 2109

Ministry has yet dis,.,oh'ed the Scconrl Chamber in case of u dispute.

Jir. Snrox.-The mere exbtencc of the power has proYidcd the remcd,"-

Mr. BARTON.-'l'hc mere existence of the power bas provided the rcmerly, and so 1 c;ay with reference to thi;; proYiso. H you proYide for a simultaneous dissolution the more exiAtence of the power is like] y to proYide the remedy.

l\Ir. I:iAACs.-Js thrct not because the vote of the people, on a cli'lwhttion of the Lower Hottse, governs the whole qnestion1

Jir. BARTON.-That m>ty be so, to a certain extent. I am not inKemible to the fnet that in the Federnl Constitution the vote of the nmjority of the people, as dis­tinguiRhell from the majority of the Yotes in the "eparate "tates, wonld he the strong vote, and in the end the prcntiliug vote. I do not think you eonld make a Consti­tution in this form the scheme of rcsponsiLle govcmment, un\e;;;; yott have confidence that that won\(\ be tlw result. I han:~ myself no fear hut that that would be the result. Bnt it iH an nnjust thing to giYe sneh a power 1vhere c:ireuntstance,; only mm dc•monstrate 11·hich llonRe i,; in the right. It would he unjn'it to give the power to dissolve one of the Houses first, whether the House dissoiYed were ill the right or in the wrong. The difference between this Co11"titution and those of the Ht:paratc colonies is a very strong one. \Ye have not in any of the colonies a Second Cham­bm· which rests precisely as the Fir~t

Chamber does, on the popnlar vote, and which is supported by pre~;iscly the Hame Ruffragc. In the Commomn'nlth, both H onses appeal to co11stitueuts polisessing the same wfl'ragc and Yotillg in the ;;;amc wny. lt iH true that one House to the whole Commonwealth, !md the other appeal;; to the states separately. 'l'hat is the difference in the position of the two Houses. But the body of electors are really the same body acting in two different capacities. That may Le a sub­ject of some complication, hut it is

pcrh<lps the inevitable result of a Con­stitution sueh as this, when the utmost has been done to liberalize the com­position of the Second Chamber. We haYc done our utmost to liberalize the composition of the Second Chamber, and we luwe put ourselves in the posit.ion that, if it is right to dissolve one of those Houses, it i~:~ right to dissoh·c both. If there is to he a right to dissolve the nu­offending Chamber as well as the other, we shall be doing an injustice, "·hich T certainly think ought not to be contem­plated by a Constitution such a~ this, w hi eh in every other particnlar makes most stre11nous c!Iorts to be just. I do

not wish to detain the committee at greater length at this stage. I believe the pnwision whid1 Jlr. Symon obtaitted the insertion of in Sydney was eom;enteu to at a tinw when it was not thought the provision for dead-locks would go further. \Vhen it was fonnd that the argu­ments in fnyour of a clontJ]e dissolution prevailml-wc \Yore getting on tmmrds the encl of a sc~sion tnmeaterl throngh yarions circmnstnuce~, particularly in refcre11ce to the colony of Queensland­it was thought wise to go back at that stage and move the recommittal, so as to eliminate my houorable friend's provision. But the men who voted for the donblc di;;solution did :'lo in the fHll belief that, before the Constitution wns finally adopted, the })l'Ovision for the eonNecntive dissolu­tiou would be struck out. I think I haYe rlone a clnty to the Convention in endea­vouring to tn.ke the sense of honorable members on this snbject.

Sir .TOHX FORRES'I' (Western Ans. tmlia). -I sinccrcl_r hope tlmt we shall he able to come t.o Rome rcm;onahle decision on this matt,er without any lengthy debate, I may say, in the be­ginning, that [ ha;·e all been opposed to a provision for dead-locks. In Sydney I voted in favour of omitting such a pro­vision, feeling that the same force:-; which regulate public life at the present time will be in existence when we have a

2110 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.) Australia Bill.

Federal Parliament and a Federal Govern­ment, and that disagreements will be much more unlikely under a federal form of goYernment than under our local Pt~rlin­

ment. 1 desire that the prouednrc to be followed in the future should be based on t.he procedure we have alway~ followed, and arc following now, and on the proce­dure which exists in the great mother countr_r. If a difference occur at the pre­sent time between two Houses of Parlia­ment in any of the colonies with elective U ppcr Houses-and several, including that which 1 represent, have elective Upper Hom;cs---there i<J no provision fot· a di;;­solution of the Upper House. During the last quarter of a century, no diftcrences have occurred between the C ppcr and Lower Chmnbers of Anstmlia. Eaeh Hou:se has re::;pectcd the othet·, and a common interest lw.s generally settled the matter. Bnt honorablc members de· sire th1~t they shall be Ycry safe. They want to prol'itle for every possible contin­gency that may and are not content with the practice and of the .Houses of Parliament in England.

1Ir. HEm.~ You are not satisfied as to the money clause~>.

Sir JOHN FOlW.ES'l'.~:Memuers want everything settled, and settled precisely in their own wn.y.

Mr. IsAACS.~ You want to follow the practice of those Houses, and tell us that is fcdcmtion.

Sir JOHN FOllRES'l'.- We have l;c.:u able after a dcfeat-­

Mr. HEm.~ What~ Sir .JOHN J;'OJU\EST.-A. defeat. }lr. HE!ll.-\Yhat on? You cannot tell

us. Sir JOHN FOHREST.-Thoso who de­

sire that no provision should be made for dead-louks-and had a very respect­aLle following, as to some of us, at any

themselves in a minority, were content to provide some means of dealing with dead-locks, should they occur. With that view, Mr. Symon moved the fir;st paragraph, the first two

John Porrest.

or three words of which we are no\\" dealing with. Mr. Symou's was a sort of compromise. It wa~> not at all in accord­ance with the wishes of myself and many others, bnt we ncccptcd it, and we carried it, very much to the diBappointment of thor;e who wished for the referendum, and

to the whole mass of the people 011 every conceivable trifling occasion.

Mr. REw.~Or to the High Court. Sir JOHX FOltHEST.-However, the

provision was inserted in the Bill. And then Mr. Carmthers-1 hope he is pre­sent, because I have something to ~ny

about him~and my right honorablc friend (Mr. Rcid) proposed the second

~[r, REID.-1 wa8 the real culprit. Sir JOHN FOltltEST.-And we were

induced to support these two honomblc gentlemen by a promise which was not cn.rried out.

Mr. HEm.~N ot a promh;e. Sir .JOHN FOHltEST.~Yes, a promi::;e

which was clearly understood uy me when I g<we my support to those two honoraLle members, and if it had not been for my support and that of other~> the second paragraph would not have found a place in the Bill. \Y c were promised that, in the event of thttt paragraph being carried, dissolution of the Senate would be avoided. l am willing to say for the honorable members to whom I have a1luded that when they gave this a~~nrauce it wa;s in good faith.

Mr. HEIJ).-1 never gave any assurance. Mr. IsAACs.~Who gave the assurance 1 Sir JOHN FORREST.-The right

honorable member (Mr. Rei d) and the honorable member (:J.Ir. Carruthers).

Mr. HEID.~Oh, no. Sir JOH~ FOlUtEST.-At any rate,

l\Ir. Carruthcrs gave the as"urance to me, and I understood that Mr. Rcid \\'afl behind the assnranee.

Mr. PEACOCK.-\V hero was the nssur­anee given~

Sir. JOHN FORREST.-ln Sydney. Mr. Carruthers said means would be taken

Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill. !2111

to eliminate from the clause, <lS proposed by }fr. Symon, the provision as to the dis­solution of the Senate. T do not know wltether Mr. Symon's memory is the smnc as mine on that point.

i\Ir. Snro~.-I remember tlmt. Sir .JOHN FOimEST.-Tt is clearly in

my mind, ancl on that unclcrstamling I voted for dealing with dead-locks hy means of a joint meeting of the two Houses with a t hrce- fifths majority. .\Iy friends were unable, and I admit the difliculty, to do as they hoped they would he able to do. 'flmt their intention 11·as to eliminate from this clause the prm·ision ns to the dissolution of the Senate, I am absolutely TJ(HJtJvc. However, it \me; not done, aml therefore 1vc find these tlw clause,; wmc­what in opposition to one another, ancl two or three altcrnati 1·cs gi n!n to the GovcnmHmt of dealing 11·ith the matter. That is an altogether uns;tti::;factory plan, because in my opinion we should have one method of scLtlcment, ancl not two or three. I have, however, tried to exr>lain the reason 11·hy dwse opposing elements fiml a place in the Dill, that is, w far as my vote influenced it. 'l'bc propm;al that l favour is that the Senate should not he disso!Ycd at all.

.\Ir. IVHHc.-Yote with Mr. Barton Oll the next division.

Sir JOHN FOlWEST. -1 shall do llothing of the killd. I distrust the hon­orablc member when he comes to me with a gift. I should like to see some simple plan adopted. l do not want to sec any dispnte bet11·ecn the two Houses rarriecl on for months anclmont!Js :,;imply in order to gmtify advcllturous and aspiring poli­tirians.

Mr. ltEI D.-The refcrcllclum is short, sharp, and deeisi Ye.

Sir.J 0 HX FO HHEST. -The referendum i~ mmieldy, and would not he offccti ve. l\Iy objection to the dis:mlution of the Senate, as proposed in the Bill, 1~

that it would giYc the .Executive Uo­vermnent too much power. It is an eugmc th<tt could be used by the

Executive Government to coerce the Senate. Payment of members has always been a potent iufluencc ill preventing a dissolutirm, and sinee its introdnction clis­solutions have been almost unheard of. There w;rs an exception in the case of X cw South \Yales, but as a rule :.Iinistcrs are unwilling to ask for a dissolution, kno\Y­ing, as tbey do, that their friends will be thrown out in the cold, and that their pay 11·ill be ::;topped. That is one reason 1vhy dissoln tions will not be Ycr_r frcq nent nnder this Constitution. \Vith reg-m·d to the refer­euchun, l can understand the people in a colony like Vic:toria, which is compamtivcly small in nrea, ami 11·hich has a metro­politan press that circulates evcry11hcre within its boundaries, taking a very keen interest ill any dispute bct\vcen the two Houses, bnt is it likely that the people of Tasmallia, of Qneellsland, of \\' estern Aus­tralia, or of South Australi;t 11·ould take any great interest in a matter of the kind? Look at the clnily press. Even in the city of J\lelbonmc the report:; of our proececl­ings that arc published by the newspapers arc as meagre ;ts possible. This shows tbat the people of"\ ustralia arc uot takiug any very keen interest in 1rha t 11·c are doing. The press know what the public want. If a subject is interesting to the ptlblic they will not llcglect it. You nee(] not look further than the sporting new:; to ascertain what interests the people of Yictoria, all(], in fact, the whole of "\u~­

trali'l. 'l'hc sporting nc11·s i8 wry full, but cYen m the city of }felbonrne only very ~hort reports arc 1mhlishcd of the procccdillgs of this Com'ention. I s~t~', therefore, that it is too much to expect the people of distant colollieR to take any keen interest in any question in dispute between the two House~, and it will be found that the referendum will only be taken adnmtage of by t.hc people in the crowded centres of population. That is my opinion. If other honorable members agree with me, why cannot we devise some simple and more speedy method of meeting the difficulty? lf the

2112 CommonUJealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] A ?tstmlia Bill.

Honscs cannot ttgrcc, even after a disso­lution of the one House, then let them meet together, and lot a three-fifths majority determine the matter. I men­tion a three fifths majority, but that is a point on which o;-ery honorable member may have his opinion. That would be a much better plan than having either a simultaneous or consocu ti ve dissolution, ami trying to kiek up a row in every part of Anstralia, when the people do not perhaps care twopence about the particu­lar que;;tion in dispute.

Mr. REm.-Would it not be ::;impler to lmve one Chamber, and to get rid of the House of Itepresent~ttivcs ~

Sir JOHN FOH.REST.-Do you want that?

M I'. REw.--With thi;; Constitution.

Sir JOHN FOIUtEST.-'fhen why do not you ad vocatc it ? By following the plan I am suggesting we shall be going along a well-beaten track and not along tracks that will lead, we do not know where. We slJOuld be following the pre­cedent of the British Constitution, w hi eh provides that the Lower House may be dissolved. That is the plan that has been adopted iu every British colony, and that is all that we want. By a dissolution of the Lower House we can most effectually ascertain what the opinion of the pnblic is, becan~e the people will take an interest in a genom! election, although they will not take an interest in a referendum when thet·e is no one ac;king for their votes and trying to gain seats in Parliament. By a general election we get the votes of the

people.

Mr. lf>AACfl.~Will yon consent to be bound by the result 1

Sir JOHN FORRES'l'.-1 say that if the two Houses cannot agree, they should meet together and settle the matter in dh;pute. The world has not been nmde for to-day or to-morrow, and \Ve are not dependent for onr existence or onr well­being upon the passing of any measure immediately. If there is a grave dispute,

[Sir John Forrcs~

no one loses much by delay. Under this Constitution the Senate will be con tinually changing'. EYery three years one-half of the members will go out. If they arc opposed to what is the popular Yiow they will not be re-elected, and in six yeal's it will be possible for the people to alter the whole personnel of the Senate.

Mr. PEACOCK,-The Government may be dead in the meantime.

Sir JOHN FOlmEST.-It doe:; not matter about the Government being dead; we haYe to think about the country, and whether I am in the Government or the honomble member i:; in the Government the country will go on. This desire to coerce the one branch of the Legislature is wholly opposed to my ideas of consti­tutional government.

Mr. PEACOCK.-You ha Ye not had any experience yet of an Upper House.

Sir JOHN FOHHES'I'.--Beemu;e yon have been unable to got particular mea­sures passed you wnut to lwse only one House, and you had better say HO.

"Nfr. Hmn.-And that the l:pper House. Sir JOHN FOHHEST.--='l"o, to have

one House; to hnve the control of that House, and to do as you like. I ~;hall op­pose Mr. Barton':; amendment, as I am not in favour of the first part of the clause, at any rate, down to the word "agree," being struek ont. I hope that those honorable member;; who voted with .Mr. Symon for the insertion of the words will not ehange their opinions now. \V c were ind need to snpport the second part of the clause on the understanding that the words pro­viding for a dissolution of the Senate wonld be excised, and that understanding hm; not been carried ont.

Mr. WISE (New South ·wales).-! hope that there will be no confusion as to what we arc voting for. I would have risen to order when my right- honorablc friend was speaking, bnt that I did not want it to appear that I desired to stop him in the remarks he was making. I would now a;;k you, Mr. Chairman, whether the de­bate should uot he confined to the

Commonwealth of [H \LmCll, 1898.] A usl·mlia B-ill. 2113

discu,;~:;ion of tbe llimple bsttc pre~entetl

the firm . .'llr. 13;trton'~ nmmHlmcnt / That

ii>~ue is tbi,~ -all(l I think it ha::; been mis­

nppt·ehcnded by the Jlight Hon. Sir John

Forrest --that if tlw Houclo of Hepresonttt­

tires is di~sull'ed, the Senate shall aho be dissol vcrl.

Sie ,Jou:-~ FumlE~'I>-No. :\It-. Wl::iE.-H there i::; to ben dis>Snlu­

tion of the Senate, the <[llCtltion i~ whc•ther it i~ to 1J,: ~imultancolli:l or eom;ecutive

with the dissolution of the Hom;o of Representative:; ?

Sir JoHN FonnE:sT.--We have not got

to that yet.

1\fr. WlSE.-We want to get to that

al:i soon as po::;sihle.

:\lr. ;:.Jnw~.~l3efore there ii:l a di,;so­

lution of the !:lcnato, there must be a

dis,;olution of the House of ll.t:pre,;en­tatin•s.

Mr. WlSK-Whnt we have firbt to

decide i~, whether ~>ub-l:lcetion (1) is to

staud. If it i~, tlum, of com~e, Sir J uhn

1-'onest'~ proposal eamwt be macle.

Mr. bL\toK. -T es, it; can.

.Jlr. WISE.--1 can understawl .Jlr.

8ymrm clc!liring to a vote in f<tvour of

his prorlosition from tho~>c who are really

oppm;cd to it.

Mr, SnwK.-Nu. 1-:lir JoHK FoHHE~>T.-\Vhat tlw lion.

:\lr. Bartou said wa~ that if the words

were struck out that wott!d be an intima­

tion that the 1-irst part of the dause was

to go. If the words arc retained, any hoHtm11Jlc• member ean propose to amcml the remainder of the clau;;e in any 1my he may de:-;ire.

Jlr. WISK--Tlmt is what 1 am pnint­

ing out. If the words "If the Hmmc of

Heprosentatives pass auy proposed law"

arc stnwk out, that is to he a test vote a:>

to the whole of the fir~>t Hub-section. 1\{y right honomble friend dc&ircs to ha vc the

Jir~t sub-:secLion struck out.

~ir JoHN FonnERT.--.Sot the whole of

it. :lir. WISE.~He will into technical

difficulties if he does not. The first words [ 13:3]

oi the right houumble HlOtuber\; amend­

ment, !Vl priutc•d, ar<C-" If the Senate

rejec-t (I!' fail to pass.'' He ectll move the

ini-lertion of these words aftct· the tir~t

sub-seetiuu has been struck Ollt. He can

make it a test q neslion as to whether

there shall be a simultaneous or conseeu­

ti ,-e dis;;olution. Mr. Symon, in nskiug

th>lt it shall Le a comocu tire disHolution,

grent adroitne~s in persuading

Sir John Fnrrest to vote with him, but

lhat will not be a straight vote. If the

honorai.Jle member will consider the

mntter, he will see that, by votiug for

i\Ir. Symon, he will be \'otiug on a ques­

tion which i::J to decide whether there i:> to he a eouseeutive uissolutiou.

.Jh. SnwK.~Nothing of the kind.

iHr. WlSE.-Tben it will not be a test vote at. all. If we desire to take a test

Yote upon this question, let it he a clear

test vote. I uut!erc;tuod .'lh. J3arton to

~ay that the te~t vote was to be on

the qnestiou of whether \\·e are to have a

consecutive or a simultaneous di;;solution.

When we have dealt with that it will

he open to Sir John Forrest to submit his

ameudmeut.

Chainnan tlte chctir at one o'clocl.: Jl.'lli. The cm,wtittee Yawned at

minute,< past tH'O o'clock ]!.in.]

i\Ir. KY.'l-lU~ (~uuth Au~tralia).-1 am srHTY to refer to the matter of pro-

but I am snre tlmt my honorablc

ami leamed friend ( :\Ir. \\'i~e) war; not

"crious when he said that I gave expres­~>ion to tho views I did in order to

oppcncut;; to my proposal to yote with

me. I do not wish that. I do uot wi>lh any ono who is an opponent of the whole

of my provi,;ion to Yotc for it 011 any

ansnmption tlmt, at some time or other, he

may be able to rmeeecd in doing what he

wiilhes him,;elf. ft is a cnstnnmry form of

military tneties, if you cannot llUCceed in

defc<ating yom opponent;,; wheu they are

united, Ll1at you must try to defeat them

in detail. My bonorable friend i~ quite

right in that, but as it comes from one

2111 Commonwealth of [9 }lARCH, 1898.] .Austmlia Bill.

who is oppm;ed to the Yiews which Sir

J o!m Forrest and m pelf hold in substance,

it loscH, perhaps, Kumc of its weight. Now, the proposal of my honorable friend (Mr. Barton) is to take a vote on the first word:-~. l do not sec how it can be a successful te;;t Yotc on anything, beeause }[r. lkuton says that if the words be

retained, then it. is competent for any one Lo move a subsc(ptcnt amemlment. If the \\'Ol'lb, therefore, are retained, Sir

.John Forrcst, who agreeR with me as to

the dissolution of tl1c House of Representa­

tives in the first instance, will be able to move his amendment in substitlttiou for

what I wish at the end of the clnuse, and

therefore the whole thing would be settled. If, on the other hand, the words are struck out, tlmt means that the whole

clause goes by the board, and it driYc:> out of this clam;e the proYision for the dissolu­tion of the HonNo of l{eprescntativc~, upon

which those who voted for it before arc

agreed. l\fr. W!~E.-1 do not think that ic; the

intention. Mr. SY:\10:\'.---But it is the offcet. I

do not \\ bh that there shonlcl he any rnis­apprchen:,;ion on t ltnt ;;eore. The only difference between my honorable friend (Sir John Forrcst) nmlmyself is that which arises at the end of the pnragntph after the '1\·ord "agree,' whf·re, instead of lun·­iug a llissolution of the Senate, which I propoiic, Sir John Forre;,;t ~ayfl-" I do not wish for a cli~solntion of the Senate, but for

a joint sitting of the two Hom:cs." That could be moved by \vay of amendment,

and, if he were defeated 011 that, we could

fall back upon what was demo in Sydney

-the dissolution of the Senate, and a joint

sitting of the t\YO Houses. So that the cmn·so is olem· that way. On the other hand, ii the whole were ;;trnck ont, the

eourHc iN not clear, becauNc you defeat

what my houorable friend has no inten­tion of defeating, if hi;; own propoHtd is

uot carried.

M•·. lSAACS (Victoria).-The po:-oition,

it seems to me, is this· Jf we keep in [~b·. Symryn,

those words which the leader of the Con­YCUtion has moved to excise, we mu;.;t keep

in n provision for an :tlteruative disso­

lution. Mr. WrsE.-That is the intention, at

any rate. :\lr. ISAACS. That will be the neces­

sary cffcet uule~s we ~trike out the whole

of the seeowl ptu·n.gmpll.

1\lr. SY:IIOK.-\Yould you kindly put that point 1

1\lr. ISAACS.-T ,;ay that if the word;;

whieh i\lr. Deuton has lllO\'ed to excise be retained, then, unless the committee omit the second paragraph of clause 56n, it will neecssarily retain the provision for an altemative dissolution.

:Jlr. Snwx.-Oh, no. Mr. ISAACS.--That must be the effect.

Mr. Sn10~.-If the committee deeidc to retain the second portion.

::\Ir. JSAACS.--Ye;;, I ~ay uules;,; the second portion is excised.

:Mr. Snrox.--Cert11inly.

:.\lr. JSAACS.-If the sc>eond portion is· Btrnck out it only 8trikes out the provi;;ion

for an alternathe dissolutiou. If that portiou is ;;trnek out, he then come~ with

greatel' efteot ami greater facility to his propo~al on the seeond sub-section, w hi eh i;; really to ent ont from that :>eeond sub­~eetion the proYisinn for dissolnt i:m. S1r ,John Forrest do<'s not agree at all with the first sub-section.

;y1r. SnroN.-Yes, with all of it except tlw dissolution of the Senate.

Mr. JSAACS.-'l'bnt is all there i;; in it. :.\fr. SY.IIOK So ; there is the disso­

lution of the House of Hcpresentatives. ::\Ir. lSAACS.-'l'hat is prvvided for

afterwards in the Bill. If you take out the

dissolution of the Senate that is all there is in this first sulH:;eetiou. To provide

in this sub-section simply for a dissolution of the House of ltcprcscntativcs is nothing.

1\lr. HrGGIKs.-Thcrc i~ no use trying to

persuade Sir John Fon·est about this; he will stiek to his own opinion.

11r. lSAACS.-J simply wish to point

out that if Sir John Forrest is desirou:; of

Commonwealth of [9 :V!ARCil, 1898. J Australia Bill. 2ll5

m1 al tenmtivc di~solntiou of the two

Houses, the House uf Heprescntu.ti I' CS first,

aud the Senate a ftcr\Yards, he will vote

for the first snh section. 'I' he honorn ble

gentleman knows that in another part of the Bill it is already provided 1htlt the

Governor may dissolve the House of

Rcpreseutati ves.

Sir JonN Fmmmrr.--But there i;; nothing

about a couseeutivc dh;solutiun.

Mr. JSAACS.--'l'he honorablc mmnbcr

doe~ not catch \rhat I am Sttying. In an­

other part of the Bill it i;; provided that

the HonHc of Representative:,; may be dis­

solved.

Sir JonN FmmEsT.-\Ye know that;

that has nothing to do with the C pper

House.

Mr. ISAACS.-Quitc so. Let me go on to ,;tate further tln1t the first ~:~ub­

section of clause 56 provides nothing at all except 1 his, that, in addition to dis­

solving- the Hou~e of Hepre~entath·es, you may dissol vo the Sou ate after\l"ard~, eon­secuti\·cly or alternatively. If Sir John ForrcHt snpport~ Mr. Symou's sub section, he supports the proposal b dissohc the

Senate.

Sir .JoH:<i FoRREtl'l'.--No, I propo~c to

move all amendment in to th<lt.

~fr. ISAAC~.-Jn the Recond snb-sec­tion it is provided that if the two Houses

do not agree, there may be n simultaneou~

di~soltt tion. :VIr. \VtsE.-Sir John Forrest can move

it in the second sab-sectiou.

Mr. ISAACS.-lf the only particular iu

which Sir John Forrest differ,; from the

second snb-~ectiou is with regard to sinml­

taneons dissolution, all he has to do is to

exeiso these and he c:urics his

point. He may do as he plca:>e~, btlt I

warn him, and he will find that I mn

perfectly right, that when he Yote~ for

the firBt ;;ulH>cctiou, if, unfortunately, he

~honld carry it, he will be either ;,tuck

with the alteruatiYe diRsolntion, or else

we slntll have to cut 011t the \\'hole of the

second sul.J ;:;ection.

Sir .JOHN FoRnEST.-So we will.

Sir GEonr.r.: 'l'un;-;rm.~1 do uot think

you will. Mr. JSAACS.- Then we shall have

the Hill in a state of confusion. I

should like to say <t word about the

merits of the matter. I do earnestly hope

that the committee will tnko thi:> as a

tc•st YOtc a1> to whether thoro '>hall be

;m altemati vo dissolntiun at. all. '[hat

i;; the point on whieh I am going to

Yotc That IH the aspcet in which the leader of the (_',,tnention Ita~; plaeecl

thP mattct· before the committct~, and \YP 111ay thoroughly nnclerstand that

1 we arc not to be embarrassed by trivial

matters of procedure snch as those

raised by Mr. Symon awl Sir John

Forrest. I take it there cannot be• any­thing more unjust than that \\"hen a dis­pute aric;e;-; between the two agontH of the

people-the two Houses of the Legislature

--ono must always and nudor all cmweiY­

ablo cirenmst,<tncoll be assumed to he in

the wrong. It does uot matter what the

I natnre of the objection of the Senate may be to a Bill pre~entcd to i c by the House

of HepresontatiYo'!. 1 t doe,.; uot matter

whether it is a total or n partial ion.

J t does not matter how public opinion ha::;

been mauifested throngh the prc"s ot· by public meeting~ or othenYiRe. It doeH not matter lHm· large the majority is

in the House of 1teprcscutatin:s that

carried the propo;;a] ; bnt, simp1y bc­

cmtsc the Seuate chooses to deny the ad­Yi::s;tbility of pa8~itlg th<tt measure into ln\1·

1 as the House of Hcpres<:ntatii'Cll wants it,

the House of Hepre~entativc~ is a:;sumed,

forKooth, to Le in the wrong. Then the

pusition taken Ll)' by tlto:>c who advocate

the altomn.ti \'e di,;w]ntion is thi,.;: Let

tlJo Bonsc ef H(Tll'<'~cntativcs go to thL'

country; lot the Hon;;c of Heprescnta·

tin~s, and that House alone, the

ri~ks. If they c•Jme hack with the Yenlict

of the countl'y in their fanmr we can

gracefuliy .riel<l : we t:tkt: no

the scnator~:~-u,me wlmtcYcr. \Y c do not

bm vo pnblic opiuion, but in taking up thi<l

position of absolute refusal we drive the

2116 Cornrnonwenft h of [9 ALmon, 189R.J

other Hou~e either to go to the country, or, nndcr the pcnalizin2; influence of

a to yield ng,tin,;t, thc>ir

LeLter judgment pmetically the rights and requirement,; of the people. Why shonld that bel \Ye have had enough of it. in the colonies. When Sir John Forre;.;t referred to what had taken place in this colony, he brought forward a set of cir­cum;;tancc~ that tell very heavily ugninr;t

his su:.rgoHtiou. He says-" \Vhy will not a dissolution of the House of Representa­tives alouc be enough 1" For the simple reason that he will not take the next neee~:~snry step that is to allow that dis" soln ti(lll to determine the matter. He

would If the Hom;e of Representa­tives were disso!Yed, and they came back strengthened in their previous opiniou, then the Senate will not yield; that dh,~olntion wa~ for the whole people, and it does not bind the Senate in any wa,\', True it is, you have a majority in the two large colonic~, but the three colunie~:~ ;;endiug in a minority of represen­tatives to that Honl:ic have decid•:'(l to np~ct the proposition, and, therefore, that <lissolution hl to go for nothing." All the expense, all the trouble, all the risk, b to go f,lr nothing. lf Sir John Ji'orrest i;; willing to accept the po8i­tion as it would be in England or in thi1:i

that a dissolution of the Lower Hou~e is to govern the matter finally and deci~ively, 1 am willing to accede to tlmt. But he will not take that po~ition.

Sir JoH:s- FormEST.-That is not the rule here, even.

l\fr. HL'tACS.-Of eoursc, it ii:l the rule. Si1· Jonx Fommsr.--lt does not follow. Mr. lSAACS.--It mnst follow. Sir Junx Fomm:>T.--Ob, no. .Mr. ISAACS.---\Yhat is a dissolution for?

Mr. Snl<lX. --Then there wonld bo no clead-loek.

Mr. ISAACS.-Tlutt would rid of the doa•l-loek. The dead-lock wunld hare been the o:w~c of the di,solntiou, and the dissolution would have been resorted to to settle that dead-lock.

[Mr. J.,aar,,

.\fr. Mc:MILLA:\, --Does uot a dead-lock

generally lead to a compromise, not to an absolute settlement?

\lr. lSAAC:::>.-I do !lOt know what it lead::; to, except that it shows that the other Hon~e IY<li'l wrong, and the other Honse mu;st gi\'e way partially or totally. l\ly honorablo friend knows that no less an authority tlmu :-:ir Frederick Polloek ],as pointed out very recently that the reason \\'hy there arc no cloud-locks nudcr the British Constitution is not because opposition is tolerated on the part of the l~pper Chamber, but hecanse by the working out of the Con~titution it i,; found that iu the h•st resort the voiee of the people at large mu:st gcwern; and when he gives hb eclcbmtcd illustration of a mechani:;m whereby tlle hour hand is governed one set of works, the minute hand by another sot, and the striking part

a third set, with no moans whatever of making them work in unison so as to tell the coned lime, he point:; out that in England, nud,~r the British Constitution, that i:; ::;olved by making the popular

verdict the absolute decisive factor. :\fr. GLYXX.-Beoaw.;e they are like the

clock. The same nl<tehinery moves both HonlleR practically.

MT. lSAAt'S. ~ Yery likely. I am pointing ont, in answer to Sir John For­rest when he invited our attention to the British Constitution, that in the last resort it i~ not hecanllc the power is e,1ually divided among the Houses, but beeau,;e in the last re!lort there is only one pmYer~-the power of the people at large. vYheu we are invited to make no provi­Hion for dend-loeks, bcoau~c we are told that dead,Jocks will not occur, heeansc the good sen;;c of the people, the ;sense of the House~, will a 1·ert them, I ~ay that i;; Hot the experience nnder the Briti8h Constit n t.iou.

Sir JonK F(nlRES'l'.-l think it is.

1\Ir. IS~~AUS.--It \\as not nntil 60 years agu that that principle was for­nmlly engrafted on onr Constitution-the Constitution was, in fact, changed to that

Commonwealth of

extent that the Home d Lunls emmot

w ithstrmd the Ynicc of the people.

Sir .JoH:-< Fot:HE~T.-\re haYe hnrl n.l

dead lockii for twenty :·e,tr;-; in tlH·~e eolo-

:.\[r. TSAACS.~Why1 Bee,ttt:.;e tlw mll­

couw of the wr: hc\YC lmtl i'l tbtt the people here by their dech;h·e Yoiee

govern the ;dwle matter u~ thny d.ll i11 England, and uo Upper If om;c ;yill clam

to ;-;taml again':\t the voice of the people

spoken at a general election.

Sir .T orr~ FurmES'l'.--\Vlmt do you waut

the prcrl"it-:iou for at. all?

M!'. BAJrro:>.-I wonld point. out that I

am not makiug my propo.,;al on any

that the >::leu,tb is an 1:· ppe!' Honi')c.

:.\[r. IS,\.\CS. --l\Iy honornhlo frio1Hl did

not use the argument that Sir .John For­

rc~t user! when he invitt>d our attention

to the Briti;;h Contititution, and a~ked us

to ~tand on ;vhat hn called the beaten

track of that Cou~titntiuu. I nm an­

sweriug hi,; argument, H\1Cl T am that if we• arc to take tlmt Htaml \\'0

should follow it out to its logienl rc~n\t.

Sir ,TOIL'i FnriliE:--T. ~I said the Co!lsti­tntion~ of the.<e eolonic:<, too.

:Ylr. JSAA(';c-;, The CoHstitutiou:-; or tbese colouics arc 1vhcu the appt:ul 1nts lnttdc from the ( ~lrcun,,­lantl l'nrliawent, in their celcbmtc•d di,;­putc, to the• Privy Council, tll'-'Y were tPl•l

that the Lcg:ishttive Coun('i] aud the

laLiYc ,\e>scmbly there should ~taud in these

matters in tlw same, or :ts twarly as po,.;-1

slb!e in the san1e, relative ac, the

two Hnus\:~ in Engbud. Therr;fnrc·, if we

the British Constitutiou a~

the the uenrer we to it in

that respeet the better. Irepen,t tint we \Yill the position that the Yoiee

or the people at will determine these

m::tttcr,;. \Vbcthcr "e tttke that ro,td or

the view~; w hi eh htlVe been pnt

nnd ;UJlOtlg'--lt them t]H; \'iCIY pl!t >l~t'.

.Barton, it brillg~ ns ronnel to this position:

[n any it i~ nst, it i:; irm.tion:tl,

tn penalize tlw Hom;c of llcpreseutativcs

A~lsl'l'alia Bill. .c:l17

tir.-;t iu :tll <tlld lmt-e the

Snmlc in a tot:tlly ditfen'nt <l

\Y her(', to U>)l) the \Yord:-; of a cclt•­

bmted enmie opn:t, it <'Hil di,.,play it~

·~ hProlstn without ri;-;k."' Sir .JoH:\ FmutE<;r.-~TlHt is very c;bde.

Sir J•:nWAlW BlL\JlDON ('l'nsnmuin). -I ri~e princip:tlly to point ont the poKi­tion in which I think we are placed n t the

present 1110\ll('llt. 'I'hat position, ;F; r see

it, is thi~: Tlmt if the (\mvcntion agree to the amomhnont to ;,trike out c~rta in

won],; at the CO'lllllCllC('IllC'llG Ot the p:tt':t­

graph, it nH•nns that the par,tgrnpli will lw c;trnck ont, ami tlwt JJnt·hing whid1 i~ contaiucd in that pamgmph can be

with the nrnendment to ~trilw ont the par:tgrnph, it will ilt:tml aml be open to any amendments huuom.ble lllcmLerK

may thi11k lit to propose, Perbap~ the leader will trll me if I mn ri.L~ht in ;;o

nnderstnnding the positi(>ll 1

:.lr. lhn-rox.---That is \'('l.V lll'ar it. :-:-iir EDWAHD BlUJ lTJOX.~I ;ronl<l

like to S<l_Y, way of reply to the AUor­ney-Gt·ncral of Viclorin, that hP, to my miml, hn,; a(h·:mcecl cmJc]n,dYe nrgmnents

why there ~honld he no tlis,;olntion of the

:-ionnte, Ilc <n.ni, :ltHl s:tys 1·cry propt·rly,

thn t the Yoi.:e lH•t·ctofon: in these ec;lonicc> has, through n dic<~oLt!on uf the

As,:euilJly, bronp;!tt the Conueil to rea~on

:md preYcnted ch::ul-lnek~. ] f that be RO

<ts between a How;e of . \,,scmbly ami a

Couneil cl••etc<l on a diflicrent

franehi~<\ or in some en'''" nrJt elcetcrl at all lmt nomiwttcd, how much mot·c ~o will it Le the ease wlwu the nppeal lll:Jde to the cnnutry h,lc the memhcrH of the i lon~e of

will be an appeal made to

the same electorate as the Scunto would have to appeal to? The whole people of the (~ommonwe:tlth would be the

appealed to by member~ of t!to House of

all(] if there Wtls a cEo­solution of tlw Senate the members qf thnt I-IottBe w.m!tl haYc t-o appeal to pro­

the same com;titncncy, that is, to

the whole clcetoml body of Australia,

2118 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1891:1.] Australia Bill.

Mr. WISE (X ew South \Yales).-1 hope that we ~;hall not drift into a long debate through a misunderHtauding of the pro­cedure. I rise, to ask you a ques­tion which, I hope, will limit the discussion to a prceibe issue. The question I dc:siro to ask is \Yhethcr, supposing 1fr. Rn·ton's motiou to exciHe the:;e words be carried, he intimated that he desires that vote to be taken as a test vote upon the question whether there should be a consecutive or a simultaneous dissolu­tion, it will still be competent for Sir John Forrest to move the amend­ment in his name which i,; in print 1 I uudc·sbtnd that the leader of the Con­vention desires that the que~:~tion \Yhether ther(, ,;honld be a crmsecntiYe or a flimul­taneous dissolution should be settled once m1d for all. I do not think it is neces,;nry to di,;e11,;s that question. Argumeuts upon each side have been heard ad nausearn, <~nd all that is ncee,;sary uow is to vote upon it. But it appearH to lw thought that if the proposal of the honorable and learned member (Mr. Dm'ton) were c:trried, ina,.;­mueh as by implieation it wonld exci;;e that part of the chmse which provides for the dissolution of the House of Represen­tatives, the right honorable member (Sir John Forrcst) \Hndd not be able to nHn·c his amendment. I desire to know whether, if the proposal or the leader of the Con­vention is earried, it will still be CC>lll­

pet cut to the right honorable member (Sir John Forrcst) to move the amend­ment of which he has given notice 1

Mr. SYMOX (South Austr,;lin ). -Before you, sir, ansiH'r that que~-;tion, it i8 neces­Hary to put another. lf it is de;.;ired to take a test vote upon the question whether we shall have the simultaneous or the con­seentiYe dissolution, and the amendment of the Uig:ht Hon. :-lir .Johu Forrcst is de­feated, will he afterward;; be able to bHp­

port or mon1 a proposal for the adoption of the eou;;ecntiYo di;;t;olntion ?

Mr. Wt~g. -Certainly not. )Ir. SY:\IOX.-lf the mneudmcnt of

the High t If on. Sir John Forrcst is

negatil·ed, he wants to support the con­secutive dissolution. But if you take a test vote now as to whether we should have the consecutive or the >::imultaneous dissolution, the right honorahle member will be shut and, to use a popular phrase, he will have only one "go" for his money.

Mr. WisE.-Let him moye his amend­ment now.

'l'he CHAlRMAN.-I take it that, in­mnnnch as paragraph (1) provides for the consecutive dissolution, if the eonunittce strike it out that will be an indication that honorable members do not \nmt the l:onsecutiYc dissolution, and it will be impossible to re\·erse their decision iu this committee.

~Ir. W nm.-~ The g uestion I asked was whether, supposing the amendment of the honorablo and learned member (1:fr. Bar­ton) were carried, it would still be com­petent to the Hight Hon. Sir .John Forrest to move his amendn,cnt 1

Sir JOH~ l,'OLlREST (Western Aus­tralia).- If the honorahle and learned mcJuber (\Ir. WiHe) would look after his CJ\\'11 bn:;;incs~, and let m; look after ours, 1

think we ~hould get on better. I would point nut that the honorable and learned member (\Ir. Symon), and myself are both willing to allow the words of the first paragraph a;-; far m; tho word "agree, " in line I !'5, to stand. T, however, should like to see the word~:~, "the Governor­General may dissolve the Senate," at the end of the pamgraph, struck out. I think that the question might be put that all the \Yonls of the first paragraph as far as the word "agree" stand pttrt of the clanse, and then both the honomble and learned member (Mr. Symon) and myself could vote with the AyeH. Of eourse, if that question wore negatived the remain­ing word;; of the paragraph would haYe to be struck out, alld we should be free to go on with the sceoud paragraph.

Mr. Domsos.-Why not moYe your amendment first ?

Commonwealth of [9 .:\1ARCII, 1898. J Australia Bill. 2119

Sir JOHN FO.RREST.---1 understand that the amendment of the honomble and leamcd member (J.fr. Synwu) i~ before nnue.

Mr. BARTON (New South Walc~).-It seem:'~ to me thnt the com~c I originally

indicated would haYe been the right oue to pursno. [ wish to leave ont tile first

pamgraph; but I indicated that it would suit my purpose to allow any amendments which honorablc members wi~h to make

in that paragraph to he moved. Theu, if the as amended, contains any

with which I I can

do .not wish to in a diftiou lty. Imps the best

any honorable member

It occurs to me that per­

thing to do wo11ld be to withdraw my and to leave

the field open for :my amendments which

the honorable member (1\h. and

the Riglit Hon. f:lir .John Forrest ma_y wibh to propose. If, after these amendn,ents have been dealt wii h, the paragraph is

still objectionable to me, as retainiug a principle or prineiples wit,h whieh T dis­

agree, I shall ask honoralJlc tncmbL'l'S to vote it.

:\fr. llnrton's amendment was, by lea Ye, withdrawn.

\lr. ::iL\lON (::iouth An~tmlia).~l shall not press the second mncndruent of which I ha l'e notice. lt 1Hltl been :;uggested

the word" agree," iu I me 13, of the clause carries

out the intention of the }tight Hon. Sir .John Forrcst and The 11orcls following the word " agree the honorable member desires to strike out,

with a Yiew to other word~:>. I

think that we might take a direct vote

upon the of the right honoruble

member, and, if it is negatived, we ean

then deal with the remaining words of the pamgraph providiug for the cousecnti vc

clissolntion of the Senate. Sir JOHN FORREST (\YeHteru Aus-

tmlia).----1 to ntOI"e-

That tdter the wor<l "ttgrec" (line 13), the WOI'lls he iu~erted :-"then the House

of RepresentatiYes may present an address to the Governot··lieneral reciting the facts, aml praying that a fnll coufereuce of the two IInuses of Parliament may ho convene<! : A!ld thereupon the Gon>.t·um·-Uencml may convene sndt cnnference: And if the propose(! law he affirmed l,y a m<tjority of three- fifths of the mem!Jors prcgent, aml vocing thercon at such conference, it shall he deemed to h<tYe both Houses of Parliament, tm<l shall l1e pl'e­sentc<l to the UoYernor-(;eueral for the Queen's assent.:~

:\lr. GLYNN (Sonth Anstrali.t). I shonld like to point out that the putting of this amendment will render it impos­

sible for au.Y one to more an runo11dment

ill the earliet· part of the paragm ph. A many honorable tucml,er~ 1uay be

willing to sn pport the propo~a l of the leader of the ConvcHtiou that the first

paragraph he strnck ont ; but it

does not follow that they will sup­

port the second paragraph, for the :sinmltaHeOnt:l dissolutiou, in the form in which it stands in the Bill. The

tint paragraph proYidcs that the seeond passing of a mea~ure by the House of Heprescutative~ must hu by an absolute

majority ; lmt the see•Jml paragraph doe:-; not. Thtlt is a Yery nmterial difthcncc.

Sir .JoriN FoHnE,;T.-If the honorable

aud learned member ha~ any amendment

to propose, I shall be willing to 1rithdmw mine.

Mr. GLYXX.-I was goiug to suggest, in yiew of the fuct that the le~tder of the Convention desires to retaitl only the pro­visions of the second that it might be desirable t<J amend the first pam­graph to make it provide that if a Bill were pas;.;ed the Honsu of

one session, and in the nux t

\\·bother after an eluction or an

absolute majority before or an ordinary

majority ~tfter an and were then

rejeeted by the i-:lenate, you

by way of the sinmltaneons dis~olution.

~ow, tltat wonld be a qualification of the sccrmd part <1f 1 he chtust) as it bc­

eaue the sec:ond part really provides for

the JOint diHsolntion on the rejection of

21~0 Commonwealth of l!J MARCH, 18!J8.J

the Bill, the mcasnrc having been passed

by tlw House of Hcpresentatives by :m

ordiwtry majority.

. TllC CHA!R~IAN.-I would suggest to

honomblc members that we had better deal with one thing at re time. We arc

dealing now \Yith the first paragmph of 5G:>. ·when we have determined that, we

can >lficnY:lrds ~trike out the s<?cond para­gmph, or amend it so rar a~ i~ not incon­

~istent with wlmt we lmvc then done.

Mr. GLYNN.-But it might he con­venient to make a modification in the first

paragraph tb:tt would affect the ~econd

paragraph.

Sir JoHN FonnEsT.- I will be very willing to withdraw my amendment if the

hunoralJlc member wishes to attempt to

do that.

Mr. GLYNN.-Oh, never mind; I will propose an amendment on the scco1ld

par:tgrnph.

Sir JonN FunnES'L'.-All right.

:\lr. HlGUl~S (Yictoria).- Wbate1·er may be rrrguable, we want hm:iue;.;~ clone.

This proposal of Sir John FmTcst's will

not s:ttisfy the populations of the larger states, i.s disagreeable to the inhabitants of the smaller states, and will not achieve the purpose of any particulat· party.

Dr. Q1TICK(Victoria).-I hope no action will be taken to destroy tl10 dmu 1-luek pro­visions as settled in t-lydncy, at any rate, in so far as the double dissolution is con­eome<l. I regard with a considerable

amonnt of nneasiness the pruposnl which now proceeds from Sir ,T uhn Forrost. I am apprehensive it is intended to break

the settlement of the dead-lock provisions

a~ determined in Sydney. I am willing

to accept reasonable provisions as em­

bodied in tbo Bill for the settlement of dead-locks. I am willing to loyally adhere

to this compromise.: but if any effort to

disturb this settlement iB snccessfnl, I

venture to say it will be a disastrous sort of arrangement.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-! do

not quite agree with Dr. Quick. If there had [ 1lfr. C/lynn.

been any settlement at Sydney we onght to be very chary about distmbing· it, but

there was no settlement at Sydney. What

'' c did there, as Mr. B:utnn has pointL'cl unt, was that, near the close of our ses­

sion in Sydney, after we haLl <lcbatccl the matter with great exhtmsti\'Cness, a!Hl

earnestness, and with n sincere desire to

settle it, we \H're unable to arrive at an absolute settlement, all(] the alternatiYe

clissol ut ion was inserted, in order that we should have both these things in the Bill

for consideration in the interval. After

cliscnssions and di Yisions on the referen­dum, there was also inserted, at the in­staru~e of the representatives of ::'I ew So)Ith

\V rrles, a provi~ion for the joint sitting of

the two Houses, but there \Yas no ~ottlc­

ment. Therefore, we 11istnrh nothing by

what wo nro doing now, but we are about to arrive nt a settlement, if wo cnn, a!Hl thm;o of us who are strongly iu favour of

the consecutive dissolution, rend who do not want to see the Senate umler the per­

petual menace of the Executive Uovornn~ont of the day, wish to assure the HouHo of

Hepresentatives that if it disagreeH with

the Senate, or if the Senate disagrees with the House of Hopresentatives, it shall be

on the ground that they do uot represent the voiee of the people. And we sny they shall be asked to go before the people to a~certain whether they han', or have not, a mandate to supprnt the particular measure abont \i'hich the disagreement has arisen. 1 f they come hack from the appeal to the people with tlmt mandrrte,

the same result will follow as Mr. IHaacs

pointed ont. The Senate 1Yill give W!l.Y in all probability. If it does not; if the

issue is so mornentons that the Senate feels that it is impossible it should give

way--Mr. l'EACOCK.-'fhat is not the question

we are un now.

l\Ir SYMOX.-Parclou me, it is. :Mr. PEACOCK.- l'hat does not arise

under the proposal of Sir John Forrcst.

Mr. SYMON.-Somc of us desire to

retain the consecutive dissolution. We

Commonwealth of [0 \Luwrr, 1898.] A ustmlia .Bill. 2121

may be right or wo may bo wroug·; that is for the Convention to determine. Sir ,Tohn Forrest I prefer, iustt>ad of di;,­

solviug the Sotltltc· at nil, th,;t, immediately afttJl' the rliRsolution of the House of ltcpre-

Hentntivcs, and the

tht•rc shall Le n House;.; to wlve tlw

contiuu-

g<JO(l. The houomblo mcml,et· il<tys-" l

want to moyc nu amendment to have that decided." Now, if t.ho Convcmtion arc

those of ns who Yotc 11ith him on

that aml'!Hlmeut, thcu vomes the of the COlltlCCUtii'O Ui8:-iil]ntiou of the

Senate, on whieh the right houorahlt: member fnlh baek. Therefore, it seem~

tn nw that the trlle way is to btke the is,;ue ou the amendment as to 11 hether

there >;hall ho a sitting immediately there i,; ui:'a<,::rer'flH'llt 8llh~cquent\y to the dissolution of the House of HeprcNcuta­tivcs and the disagreement eontinuing, or whether there 'lhall be a dis~olutinn of the Senate first. That scomN to 111e to be the

IHSl\C.

Dr. vun o·on1n· ., r- :-;

dissolution of the Son a tc 1

'i\lr. SY,\lON.-Certainly not.

the

~ir JOHX DOWNER (South Australi:l). -l rlo not quite agree with tho;;e who

say we dirl not come to a resolution at our la;;t session in Syuncy. 1 think that we did. It is true that the resolution wo rame to \HIS not in the form in which this proYi,;ion appmrs in the Bill. llnt lwuor­nblo mmnbers who h:we the whole history clearly in their memoricR will recollect that my houorable am1 learner[ friend's amendment IYR~ carried first. Then, that

being unsatisfactory to ma11y members

of the eommitt.eo, the provision which

i~ in tbe seeoud parngraph of elauRe li6B 1n1s mov•·d. And, a.lthough l op­

posed it--I am just speaking rtbout my understnndiug of it-I rentnro to Nay that

it the deliberate vioii'K of the

majority of the committee, and that the first paragraph would have been struck

out if the Rtanding orders would have

alloweil thllt to hf' (lone. Bnt that could

not lle dom:.

!\fr. DEAKTN.--Henr, hear.

Mr. McMILLA:"!. 'l'he objcd of onr

S,rrlnc.y decision was tn give time to eon­:-;ider the matter.

Sir .JOHN DOW'NEH..--1 am :>gainst the whole thing-.

Mr. PEACOCK.-\Vhat whole thing 1 Sir .JOHN DOWNER-I am

any provi;;ion for de;td-loc.ks.

.Mr. HtiHJJNs. The cat is ont of the bag.

Mr. 1\'Icm.-Yon cannot ctuTy this Bill without it.

Rir .JOHN DOWNEH.-Tlmt is simply

the honorablc llHclllbor's opinion. But I am merely stating fairly what I, 11·ho am agt1inst thi,; elau~e nltogethcr, recollect as being the history or \l'hat took place at thl' Sydney meeting;. Certainly the second parngraph was intended to be in ~llbst<tnco the fir;;t, only the standing orders did not allow the fir:-;t paragmph to be dealt

\Yitb.

~Ir. lVtcMJLL\1\.~-·It wa~ not a fina.l settlement.

Sir JOHN DOWNEI-t.-Each man has

to nnswcr for himself. \Ve must reach Hunlity about everything some day. I

thought, al!(l still think on recomidcra­tion, that, rather than incur any serious risk to the caw;e of fedemtion-al thongl1 I disapprove wholly of thi» elmtSL', ::md

have disapproved of it-J will accept this second paragraph mthct· than canHJ nuy daugl'l' to federation, because r think that danger to fedemtion wonlu be a greater evil than this incident of federation.

Sir EuwARD BnADDON.- What serio11s do yon allucle to 1

Sir JOHN DOWNEH.-1 look on all

these provisions as being useless.

~h. HwmNs.-A good tory principle. Mr. WAJ.KEH.~Unnecessary. Sir .JOHX DOWNER---I look npon

anything of this kind as being unneces­

sary. T listened with pleasme to the speech

of the Attorney-General of Victot·ia, who,

2122 Commonwealth of [!J MAHCII, 18!J8.) Australia Bill.

with his usual clearness, dem0m:trated, although I do not agree with the conclusion at whieh he arriYcd, that this is the result. But, with his usual lucidity, Mr. Isaacs showed us how the people mnst rule, n.ml how a dissolution of the Honso. of Hepre­seutt.tti Yes mn:;t of operate on the Senate. :\lr. Irmacs was reasoning from a different altog·ethcr, bnt I accept his for a moment.

~Ir. IsAACS.~-\Vill you concede that as a prineiple in .:10 Constitution?

Sir JOH:\ DOWNER.-! listen to my friend's argument;;, and he will not complain if I follow them for a moment.

Mr. IsAACt:;.--You will not follow them far enough, t ht.tt is all.

Sir ,JOHX DOWNER. While 1\Ir. Isa~ws that the prindplcs of inter­nal government shonld apply to federal administration, he showed, or thonght he showed, that the Yoiee of the people had to rule in the and that, although the Leg'isbti ve Council \Yas not dissohed, still the dis~olntion of the Legisln.ti ve

Assembly re:mltcd in returning member:> with an authority which opemted as a mandate to the members of the Legisla­tive Council. Either my honorablc a\Jd learned friend thinks that argument will apply to federation or he admits the argu­ment has nothing to do with the question. As I am certain my honorable friend would never nse· tlll argument which had nothing to do \Yith the subject, I suppo;;e he thought his argument was relenmt to what we are discussing.

:V[r. Hmm;.;s.-Yon are very logical. i::lir JOHN DOWNER-Lookiug at the

matter from this of view, I say my friend has shown m: there is no necessity for anything at all -that the power to dissolve the Ho11se of Representative::-~

would be all-sntiicicnt, ami that the Yoice of the people, as given in the clcctioHN,

would be so express that the Senate would he unable to resist it. I am deal­in!!,' with this matter from my friend's point of view. Tf I be asked whether l agree with that point of I ;,;ay I do

[Si>· John Downer.

not agree with it a hit. I do not think there i;;; any pos~iblc relevancy between the intcmal constitution of the Htate and that \rhid1 the Federal Constitution will be. All t.hot>e ameudments that are being attempted are intended to weaken the power of the state~ and iucrca;;c thl' po\ver of the n umerieal majority.

l\Ir. HromN,.;.-Why should they not?

Sir JOHN DOWXEH.-Whatever form the amendment:; arc put in, tht>y all lmve the same obj cct. 'l'hey all intend that in the long run the st<tte~ have to sacrifice their individuality and authority, and become subservient to the vote of the majorit.Y of the general pcotJle of the

eolony.

.\fr. McMn.L.\:S.--Do yon say yon will

the >;ettlemont?

Sir ,TOHX DOWNER-At the pre~ent time I Hay that if 1 am eonviuced~ because l haYe to be eonvinced--~that

it would be rtcceptcd as somcthiug which would be sati:;i'aetory to the majority of the members here, ::;o thtlt they may go to their constituents und recommend it to

thorn, I would mdlC'T agree to what I call

the Sydney sottl\:mcHt than see the oau;.;c

of federation in dan~rer. Bnt I do not know. I sup1Jose \\'e Bhall ha Ye a pro­po~ition for a general rdereudmu in a

moment or two, and then we :-;hall all be adrift again. 'V' e shall hnYo uo certainty, whether we stand the resolution come to in Sydney or uot, that we nre any nearer the good understanding which should cxi,;t ttrtldlgst us in order thnt our

influen~e mny be bronght to bear 011 our eonstituc11ts. So tar as I am eouccrned, J mean to my judgmeut at the present time in order to see a little further how this thing ~~ }.Iy owu dew in the matter iH uot altered in the bmalhc~t The more argument and di~cussion there is, the

more l ~ee that there is only one of two way~. One way is not to consider sueh a thing a::-: dead-locks, but. to Lauish the word, nnd :cave the solution of the

Cornrncmwea1th of [9 )lARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill. 2123

difficulties to the good feeling of the

people and the good working of the Con­

st.itnLiuu. The other way is the proposal

of )lr. lteid to subject the state'S

popular referendum, alJ(l thereby

their indi vidnality.

Mr. HoLDEH.-Why not disen;,;s one thing at a time 1

Sir JOHX DOWNER.~! think it would he much hotter if we \\·ere to dis­

cuss one thing :tt a time. The r111ooi'"'"

is very much involved, seeing that the

whole ground is covered in clause 59. ::\fr. HOLDER·-You will sa Ye time if

you take oaeh point separately.

Sir JOHN DOWNER--That is cxnctly

what 1 do not moan to (h. If \Ye on

out thi:,; and that we shall at last

have to insert something we do not like at

niL It i,; much "·i~er for tlS to deal with

the whole thing at once, aucl under;.;taml

"·hat we nrc doing. 'I'ako a te,;t vote if you like ; that i~ what l would IYish. Bllt

Sir Hiehard Baker eannot ~ny tlmt :my vote is a tc~t vote. It i~ rrnite impos::~ible

for us tu prore11t a qnostion put nftennuds. It is impo;;,iblc by

t,his and that to deal

with the qncstiou at nll. )h IIuunm.~Suppo:;e now tlwt we

put ,;omething in 'l

Sit· .JOHX DO\VXEH..--lf the eom­

mittec: will strike out the whole of the paragraph and put nothiug in [ will go

with tltem Dut the Sydney settlement~--Mr. lf'AACs.-Tltere was no i":iydney

;;ettletuellt.

Sir J 0 H N DO W SEll. ~In a ,;en se there

The committee divi(]ed­

Ayes Noes

15 28

~Iajority ag;tinst the amendment 13

AYES.

Bmddon, Sir E. N. C. Grant, C. H. Briggs, H. Hassell, A. Y. Brown, N. J. Lee 8teere, 8ir .J. <+. C!arh, M. J. Lewis, N. E. Crowder, F. T. 1l ·hson, H. lluuglas, A. Downer, ~ir ,T. \V.

Allhott, Sir .T. P. Berry, Sir G. Brunker, .T. X. UarrutherB, .J. H. Cockhnm, lk J. A. lk:t kin, • \.. Glylln, P. J\.f. n urtbn, ,J. H. Har;kett, ,J. \Y. Henning, A. Tf. Higgins, H. B. Holder, F. 'L Howe, .T. H.

Moore, W. Venn, H. \\'.

Tdlf'·r. Forrest, ;-;ir .] .

Not:~.

Leake, (;. ::VIc:Ylillan, \\-. O'()onnor, R. E. Pertcoek, A. ,J. Qniek, Dr. J. Reid, H. H. Solomou, V. L. :-: ymon, .r. rr. Trcnwith, \\". A. Turner: Xir t :L Walker, .J. T. Wise. H. lL

Isa,cs, I. A. Tclhr. Kingston, U. C. Barton, E.

Quc:;tion ~o re,;olvu(l in the negnli vu.

cl:mth Wale~).- [ as thi~ tiEctter has

debated both in Sydm•y and hero, we »honld tn\;c an early Yote on

the par<tgrnph.

~lr. KlXG:-:iTOX (South Auc;tralia).~f

shall be found supporting tite relentiOJl of

the pruvi~ion for a eonRocutirc as well a~ a double dissolution. lt oecnrs to me that,

was not. It wa:; Yotcd for

with wide dilference~ of

whatever was the necessity for proriding · alHl in ~;ome meam; for the tH:t.tlement of dead·

that "e11se there was no settlement. There

11 a:; a lli"tinct vote in the result

of which i:> rcprc;cnted iu the ~ccond

parngmph, rmd that 1 do not think 1ra~

intended to be couclusiYc. lwant to hear

a little more of other proposab 11hich may

be J,mrle Lcfore I eled in whiel1 way T

~hall vote.

Question-That the word~ proposed to

he inserted be so

locks in Sydney, it lws ueen greatly in·

crea::;cd Bincc then by the intruductiou of

debatable matters in eonnexion with which

it iR very thnt there may be n conflict ol' state interests and of the

interest::; of the people <li-i a whole. I allude

p.trtieu!arly tn tlH.: powl'r which i~ given

to tlw Feclcml Parliament to deal witb

q uec>tionc> of milway construction nml ox­

tension in n state, and I allmle, ahJve all,

2124 Commonwealth of [0 :\fARCJI, 1898.] A11stmlia Bill.

to the fact that there is for ever confided to the Federal J>arJinment the duty of distributing amongst the states, in such

proportions as they please, a sum which

at tbe very outset will be between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, and which as time goes on must increase. 'l'bcre is no mbject on which there i~ more likely to lJC a conflict amongst the states--a scramble-, a bitterness, a trouble--than this, and we should be altogct her want· iog in onr duty if \VC did not do all we can for I he purpose of ;;ecnring harmony between the representatives of the states in the Senate, and the people of the states themselvcH, and harmony al;,;o between the Honse nf Heprcsentatives aml their constituents. \Vhcn this provision waR origina1ly proposed by the Hon. Mr. Symon, in Sydney, I confess that I did not sec the full force of it, but the more one examines it, the more it appears to be just and fair and right so far "s the Hom;e of Hepresentutives is concerned. If you have not a provision of this sort, what is the position? Although the House of Representatives may have had o;ome dis­pute with the Senate iu a Parliament which has cecL~ed to exist, and although they may lmvc gone to their constituents, and secured from them t1. fresh mandate, if they come back and renew the di~euss1ou, a,nd the Senate hold fast to their origin a 1 position, you cannot scud the Senate to their constituencies witbont sending the House of RepresenttctiYes also.

An HoKOHAllLE ~h~lllER.-Again 1 Mr. KINGSTON.- Yes. Is thnt fair 1

'l'he members of the popular House would be subjected to two dissolutions before the Senate were referred back to their constituencie8 for an expression of their views, and that seems tn me to he a mon· strous proposition. Why should we do anything of the kind?

Sir .JOHN DowNER.-Why should we do

anything at all~ ~Ir. KINGSTON.- I have already dealt

with that point. I oay that, bytlw introdnc­t,ion of fresh matter into the Bill, we have

[J'Ir. Kingston.

increased the prob;1bility of dead-locks aud disputes to an alarming extent, and we should be wanting in our duty if we did not do w hatcver we could to provide a facile me<ms of ascertaining whether the Senate, as well as the House of Hcpresontath·es, were supported by their emmtitncnts.

Sir JunK FonHEWI'. -'l'bnt iR the sceond provision you are dealing with.

).fr. KINGSTON.-1 am referring to the two.

Mr. HIGGTNS.-Do you intend to sup­port both 1

~h. KINGSTON.-! do intend to sup­port both. 1 do n0t think there i8 any room for doubt as to the course I propose to take.

Sir ,JmrN FonnEST.-A double dissolu­tion after a single dissolution?

Mr. KINGSTO~. -Yes, as an altenm­tive, at the option of the Executive.

Mr. fsAAc~.-How will tlmt test, the :-:lennte 1

Mr. KIXGSTON. In the firrlt instance, there will be an eleetion for the House of Representatives, and that will test the feeling of their constituencies. Then you will have the option, if the dispute is still continued, of Heading the Senate to .their constituencies.

:Mr. IsAACr<.- Donble expense. Mr. KIXGS'l'ON.-· An expense not to

he lightly undertaken. Look at it in this way. There has been a dispnte on a live question-and we can only anticipate that powers of this ~ort will he pn t in to force in eonnexion with lire qucst10m;--and in the natural order of things there is a dis­solution by expiration of time. The House of Representatives go to their eoustitnen-

and are fortified by the expression of

their views. The members come back fresh from the country and renew the contest. The Bill is carried by the necessary statu­

tory majority, and sent up to the Senate; and are we to be told that the Senate can still Altl10ugh there is very good ground for believing that you have the mandate of the constituencies in favour of the proposal which you nmkc, we will

Commonwealth of [9 !\LARCH, 1898.] AUiltralia Bill. 2l:J5

hohl fast to our position, and nmke you go through the idle form of goiug to the people n sceoud t;mo before you C<lll ask

ns to test our i"'~ition by goiug to our eonstitncnts "7

Sir ,) onx FortH]llt>T.- -I did not propose that.

Mr. KINGSTO:'\'.-I am happy to say that my twnorablc friend's proposal was ucgativcd, and now we lHl\'C the pro­po,;nJ of the original Bill before us. .My po~ition is thi,;: As long a'l both Houses feel that they are liable to the same test <tml the ,;a me penalty as regards being sent to the oonstitnencies, you will do away to a very extent with the probabilities of di~:~;lgreement.

)fr. Hwmxs.-Is not that a.usworccl

the seeond pamgmph, if yon have a sinml­taneous dissolution 1

::\lr. KINGSTON.-Bnt thi8 i:> the po;;ition 1 put to the houorable member: A House of Assembly, fresh from its constituents, rcuows its contest with the 8mw.te, awl i;; it f,lir to rC<Jnire

that Hou:-;e t£) again go to its constitu­ents by means of a donble dissolution before yon can req nirc the Senrtte to be

~imilarly teBted ? I think not. I do not think that a clause of this kind will often

be required to be put into operation. l think the very mor,tl effect of it would secnru all that is req nired. .And T would ;.;ay in this eonncxion, as wa~ ,;tatc'l \Ir. Syuwn when he originally introduced the that it is founded on South Australian legi,.;hUion. 'I'he position there is that if in any Parliament a Bill 1s by the H ou;.;o of A,;sembly and rejceted by the Council, awl in the nPxt successive Parliament it is :-;imilarly treated by the f.egi~lative Council, either both Hon;;es can be di:;solved or writ" can be is>iued for the election of a third of the members of the Legislative Couucil

uuder eireumshmoes in w hi eh no fresh writ~; will he ~ub.,;equeutly issued till the nmnborB arc reduced by vacaucio;; or re­tirement~ to the number originally named in the Constitution. ~We have never had

to have actual recfJUrse to a provision of that ':iort, hut t.ho effeet of it, 1 believe, ha~ boon to eonuncc to mueh greater harmony between the two Chambers of

Legislature-harmony ::>neh a~ we arc striving to 1:\Ceure in the Fodeml Parlia­ment whieh is to be e~tablishecl.

Mr. IsAAOs.-Becam;o you 1.J;we only

one constituency there-the people of South Australia.

l\Ir. KINGSTON. - W o have various disti'iets.

Mr. bAACi':i.- Yes, but still--

Mr. KIKOSTON. Furthermore, there is a greater difference in the character of the eonstitnenoie~ there than there will be nmlor the Federation. Of course, there is n property qunlilieation there, n,nd there is

no such difference in regard to the federal franchise; but so far as t,ho Federal Parlia­ment is eoncerned, although the difl't?rence in the grouping mny be greater, I venture to assure my honorable ccnd leamed friend that there i~ u greater difference in the position of the two Chambers iu the South Am;tra liuu Parliament than there will be in the case of the Federal Parliament. The po;;ition, therefore, for which 1 contend in eonucxion with the retention of this ehwso, i~ that you do not require in all ca;;c~ before you ('an sc•!JCl the Senate to it;; constituencies that the House of ~-\.s­

seln bly ;;hall accompany it, but that there ::;hall be power af! it were, the House of As,.,ornbly !:s fret:h from it~ con:-~titneub:;,

to with the useles~ form of "end­it again.

.Jfr. bAAC!.~.-But that is not the posi­tion under this elnuse.

Mr. THE:\WI'l'H (Victoria). ~-It ap­pe,u·s to me that the fimt of these dauses is extremely unjust, and h; likely to lead to an nnfair use of the Constitution. It proposes in the event of a dispute between the two Honse~ to penalize, by a contlecu­tive, or a pnmpective consecutive, dissolu­tion, one Howse. Then we might ha vo a dii;pute nrising between the two House8, in whieh, if there were <>ny considerable

2126 [9 :\IAncH, 1898. J Austmlia Bill.

prcssnre, the Secon(l Chamber might say -"\Yell, we will \Yait a bit, and bide the

result of the di:s:solution of the House of

Assembly." Xow, that ~eems to me to be altogether im<Juitahle.

Mr. SYA!U);. --Why ;;honldnot they 7 :\Ir. THE:IWITH.-Voe the rmlHOJl that

it will lK~ very much in the natnre of a

gamLle. The Sceond Chamber may ;;ay and Rei: a~ if it helievccl that iu this con­

tlict "it it: all to uothing with ns; if the Assembly i,; sent to its constitnents, and

lmfl a majority after it has been so sent in favour of the proposed law, Wl' will

give in"; whereas if there were a double

or a joint dissolution, upon further dis agreement of a character that became so acute that it eonld not Le otherwi~e

settled, the po:;ition would Le entirely different, ami there wonld be equal pros~

,;ure upon toth HonscR to concede. YVith the pro'lpeet of a consecutive disso­lution there i:> n0t equal pressure ou both

House,;. It :;ecms I o me thttt, a;; both House~ a.rc of the Com;titution, both

Houses ought, iu obedience to their duty to the people, to do everything they can to concede whate,·cr is reasonable to the opiuionH of e<tch other. When they both have eqmtl obligations in this uonnexion, they will both have the fear of equal pressure to indncc them to concede, and in the event of a dispnte becoming so acnte that, in obedience to their \'iew of what was right to their constituencies, neither How;e could concede any more, and there \\'l\S still a difference between

them not capable of beiug bridged over

without a di~solntion, ~urely the penalty should be on bolh Houses, lt'jd uot Oil one

only. It ;;cems to me, therefore, that if

the first c1Hu8e were struck out, and we were left with the clau;;e providing for

a donble dissolution in the event of a · dead-lock which conld not be settled by

any other means, \Ye ~honld be placing

(aB we to place) both brauches of the Legi;;laturc on exactly the same

footiug, both liable to the same penalty.

l~eea use it is a penalty. [Mr. :J'rcnwith.

~fr. WALKER.-It will be t\ greater penalty on one Ilouse than on the other; in the one case the term of election i8 six:

years, and in the other only tln·ee.

Mr. 'l.'HENWTI'H.-·lf both Houses are di~;;nlved the penalty is the same. The penalty i;; tlw turmoil, the trou bl;', and

the expense of a general election. That is a penalty whieh hnuorable men, feeling that thPy are llgl1ting fairly in the in­

terests of the people they rcprescut, IYill

uever shrink from incnrriug.

lVlr. WALKEn.-Thc penalty iuvohcs the sacrifice of a seat tenable for six years

in the one ease and not in the other.

'jfr. TREN,VITH.- The penalty is

equal; there is no six years invohed in the dis::;0lution.

Mr. IVALK~;n.-The members of the

Senate will, at any rate, stand to forfeit the second half of their term.

Mr. TRENWI1'H.--'l'hcrc is no Huch

question involved in tile dissolution. The penalty i~-; the po~sible loss of the scat.')

the members hold, and the expense, labour, and tnmble of au election. It

seems to me. in this matter, what shou l1e considered is the intcresrs of the people; and it i.~ in the intere;;ts of the people that they ~hould he relieved, as far as practicable, from unnecessarily frequent. elections, beeanse, while a general election i;s an expense and <l hardship upon repre­sentatives, if it is extraordinary or prema­tnre, it is also an expen~c and a hardship

upoH the people who· take part in it, who must lose time in voting, and ·who

111USt occupy time in making themsehes

acquainteJ with the views of the candi­dates in connexion with the election.

Sir EDWARIJ BHAIHJOc<.-'l'heu why ex.

teud the evill

Mr. THE~IVI'l'H.-It seems to me

that ~'OH minimize the evil by making a dissolution joint instead of eom;ecntive,

because otherwise one House can, in the

most airy manner, submit the other House to dissolution without any fear of

a penalty upon itself; but if both Houses

Com-rnonn'eaJth of [!l MARCH, 18()8.] Australia Bill. 2127

are to be rlissnlvcd, iu the cnmt of their unt l1cing able to agree, yon luwe a mnch ~rcatcr inducement for them to co1ue to nn :tgn'ement, if that he at all possilJle.

:':lir EJJWA lW BIL<\DDO::>.-- Y on admit that

the Seuatc wuuld to the Yote in fayour of the llonbe of Repre­

sentative~ 1!

.\11'. 'l'HE~WITH.-That is not the entirely. lt would more fre<juentiy

after a dif.lsolulirm than hcfore. ~fy

1·iew h; that if yon ]11\Ye a Constitution

wltieh entnib upou them the po~:;iLility or facing their eunstitucucics, ~·on will make

both House~ more careful not to tmlosH they h:wc very strong reasons for

sn But if yon haYo one House

only to be sent to the r:onnt.ry, yon

offer no iudneemcnt to the othct' House to

be n•a:o,mable. They will say in :m airy

nl>HHH'r -·"It tueaus that they will

ha re to go t"o the country. If instead

(>f tlwt, we had to go to onr cnn~tittwnts we would giw in to the 1rishe~ of the

comnnmity." They would llllH:h more frequently come to a disngteemeut that would lead to a dissolation of one Hon~e,

than they 1ronl(l if they knew tht:,l' would thentselve~ haYe to l!:O to the country con­cmrently. :'\ly view i~ tlt:tt we arc not to frame a Con:<titution that will lead to diicisolHtion;,; \\'e arc tu fnune a Con­stitntion which will lead to ngrec­nteut between the tl\'o HonRes, and thus avoid dead-locks. \Ye are only a di~,;olution in order that if a

Hnch :11J ae~tt.e character that no agrconwnt eau be imluecd by any other method, we

the final resort of referring to tlw pc•npll', Hot to the olcdcm; of ouc House, hut

to the electors of both Honset~. l hope that

this 1·icw IYill be mrcfully oousiucrecl l>y honorable member,;. l know that n

mtm ber of honomblc member~ feel that the Scuate

::llr. Dc,nJLA:".---ls an nbominati<Hl.

::111'. TRE:-,"\VTTH.-1 do uot say that,

but I feel that as the provisions are being

pa~sed in this Bill they will be an abomi­

nation. A large number of houomble

member.'! desire that the Senate should be the dominant Hfm~c. I am confident that a lllllll ber feel that the Senate

will he the dominant House.

:Jir. SDIOK.-Thore i~:> no chance of that

nnder this Constitntiou. The Senate has

bee:n gradually reduced to impotence.

:Jlr. THEXWI'l'H.-1 am very much

afraid that in thi" Con;;tiwtion as we have

it the Senate will be, to a prcj udicial ~lllrl uanefu] extent, dominant ill l'Ci'i~tiug

that the desire.

Mr. IY CSE.-~ Why, under this Constitu­tion, the Seuatc 11·ill be the democratic

Hou~c.

Mr. 'l'UE.:\WITH.-It is ea8y to say that ; but a deelaration of that ebnacter proves nothing. The democratic House

will be the House in which all the people are represented equally. The Senate will

not be such a House ; it will be a House in which the in one constituency will lutve eight or nine times as nutch

politir:al power as the people in another coustitnency. How any one can declare that that \\'ill be a democratic Hon~e, I cannot nnder~Stand:

Mr. DouULAS.-Becansc I hey are to be cleetecl by the public they arc not democratic.

Mr. Tltt:NW ITH.-I have not said that , but 1 say that, lweau~e one sedion of the public is eight times more powerful

than another section in the election of the Senate, it cannot be democratic. I hope there will be very few cases of disagree-ment Lctwecn the .Hon~cs. l am inclined

, to think thcr0 1vill be very few, bnt, if i disagreements arise, as undoubtedly they

will, there onght, if this Constitntion is to

be equitable, to be penalties-if there are

penalties for disagreement-inflicted on

both Houses. I am not asking for any

concession or favour for the House of Hcpresentative,; <my more than for the

tienate, but I am nrgiug that no con­sideration or favour should be giYon to the :':lenatc which is not given to the House of Representatives.

2121') Cornmonwectlth of (!J MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

Sir Jam; PoRUEST.~ Yon are not giving i

the Senate the S<UilC powers, but you want to inflict the same poualties.

Mr. 'rRENWITH.-No, beenm.;e to give them tlJe same powers would render federation absolutely impossible.

:\fr. MdfJLLAS.-lt is not \YOI'th while discussing that qnostion.

~~lr. 'l'REN,YITH.-1 agree with that, and, if' honorablo me m bors will pardon me, I will decline to take note of any fml het· interjections. It seems to me that the point I have urged i~ worthy of cons:dern­tion. \Ye are framing a Constitution which must be accepted by the people. Whatever honorable members may think about the system, they must know that there is <t very strong prej ndicc in the public mind, in, nt any mte, two of the colonies, ngainst the Second Chamber, or what they have been accustomed to call the upper House. Rightly or wrongly, that prejudice exists, and the prospects of federation turn upon lhe prejndices of the people not being unduly roused. There is a very gmvo danger that their prejudices, as I will call them for argument's sake, will lead to the de­feat of federation. I confess that there have been hitter reasons in this and some of the other colmlies for those pro­

judices. At any rate, the prejudice is there, and if a proposition goes to the people for their sanction that obviously pmmli;-,es one House, there will be a strengthening and spreading of that prejudice which will be injnriou~ to the carrying of this Dill. I earnestly hope that honorable members will decide to adopt this provision, which may not, and in many instance;; I believe will not, lead to a double dh;solution very frequently. lf we do not provide some remedy, there will be an inducement offered to one House to remain in its condition of o1Jnti­!lacy, knowing that it hm.; nothing to lose --that it has tirst the power of penalizing the other Chamber and then it can back

down. [11fr. Trenwith.

fllr. DUBSOX (1\<smani,l).~~-We dis-cmsed the river" (] no:stion for ten we

five days dirmussing the nihmy rates, and a whole day nnd night in di~­ettssing one clause ut. our la:,;t sitting. Therefore, 1 think we may be pardoned if we devote a few hours to the discussion of

one of the most important questiom; in relation to the Constitution. The subject

is divided into three pnrts. First, there is the point expressecl by cir .John Downer ~- that our Constitution is so admirably framed that tlw cause::; of dead-locks have been diminished almost out of existence, and the ordinary dis­agreements which will htkc place about social and indu;;triul legislation do not want these dra,;tic changes which hon· m·able members arc suggesting.

Mr. DEAKtK.-'l'he l'remier of South Australia ha~i expre,;sed exactly the oppo­site opini::m.

Mr. DOTISO_:>i'.--1 <tm <<ware of that. From the king of democrats, m; the Pro· mier of South Austmlia i;;, and from the first lieutenant of democmts (Mr. 'l'rcn· with), we could expect no other gospel ; but it does not follow that that gospel will be one of pro:>pcrity for the people of Australia.. I believe firmly that this iH a bogy, and that we waut no provision against dead-loch and disagreements. I am of opinion that thoro is no dailgor of do>td-lock;,;, lJUt now we are going to ha.ve such a provision made, and I admit the feeling of the Conven­tion is against me on that point. Are we to have a consecutive dissolntioil, or

arc we to htwe both Houses sent to the Hame people at the same time ? The siumltaneons disr;olution for which :Mr. Kingston has argncd would be a very great blot on our Constitution, and l do not follow him in the ttrgurnents he has used. Both these Houses are elected by the

sume people under manhood suffrage, but they have not both the same privileges. When ~Ir. Kingston asked-" Why should nne House be penalized more than

Common'wealth of [9 ~Lu~cH, 1898.] A uslralia Bill. 2129

another~" I ~·ould say for the s:mple reason that the House of ReprcsentatiYPS has all the fimmcial privileges. It dic­tates the financial policy of the country. It controls the public purse; it forms the Government, and it unmakes the Go­vernment; and with all these privilege~, does it lie in the month of my honorable friend to say that both Honses should go to

the country together~ Why penalize one House more than the other 1 That is a false way of putting it, bnt even if it was trnc it is an unfair way to put it. The IIon~c which dictates the policy, the Honse which brings in some financial scheme, onght to have the eonragc of its opinions, and if it is satisfied that it is right, \\'hen the other House refnses to pass its mea­sures, it ought to be proud to go to the country, face the music, and a verdict from the people.

Mr. HIGGIK3.-This does not apply to financial measures only.

Mr. DOBSON.-I am perfectly well aware of that, but my houomble friend (Mr. Isaacs) was arguing that both Honses should be penalized togct.her. He was arguing that it wonld be most unfair to send the House which controls every­thing to the conntry withont the other. I am arguing that it is t.he logical sequence of things-it is fair play, ju8tice, common sense. The Senate has no power in con­nexion with finance and revenue compared to the House of Assembly, and therefore the House \\'hich brings in financial mea­sures onght to go to the eonntry first. I can hardly conceive that there can be any arguments on the other side in favour of n simultaneous dissolution as strong as those in favonr of making the House of Representatives go to the country first.

Mr. IsAACs.-It may have just come back from a general election with a policy indorsed.

Mr. DOBSON.-Tf we provide by-and­by that it shall not be dissolved until after the expiration of six or twehe mouths, it will get rid of that objectiou. Surely my

[ 134]

houorahlc fricud'~ tou doeR not do away with the argnments I h:t\'0 been using~ I think that the Senate will haYe the cmnmon sem;e, nud the intelligence, and Lhe patl'iotism, in llinetcen cases ont of twenty, to follo1r the poliey of the House of Represen tatiY<>.~ \V hen it has rcceutly eotne back indorsed with a ycr­diet by the people. 1 join i:>s!le IYith :.Ir. Isaacs, aml I regret to ha1·e to issue with so n:ry leamed a memLer. He sail! that the argument as to the Rouse of Lords, instead of being an argu­ment in fa.vonr of Sir John 11·as an argument against him. 1 think Sir

John Fon·est was perfectly t in \Yhat

he said. Mr. Isaae~ pointed out that the British Con'ltitution allows the will of the

people to have its way. The J3riti.-;h Con· stitntion, as it is written, does nothing of the kind, beeansc tbc House of Lords to-morrow Cilll reject a financi<ll measure if they Jiku. Bu~ the House of Lord::; never refuse to curry out the will of the

people, with some exceptions rrhich 1 will poiut oHt; not hccamoc of the Com;titu­tiou, but because of their common sense, because they are in touch with the because they know their duty, and be­ennse they help the Honse of Commons to work properly and intelligently the two-Chamber system.

J\fr. IsAAcs.-Becan~e it is part of the Constitution now that they shall not do so.

~Ir. DOBSON.-In order to demolish my honorable friend absolntely, let me give bim one or two illustrations of what the Honse of Lor(b have done. When Sir \Villiam Harconrt brought in perhaps the most democratic tax w hi eh the English nation or the people of any colony have ever seeu, the House of Lords pasf!ed it without a murmur. I believe the Duke of Devonshire did make a Yery few mnrnJurs; he said he eon Id not keep up Chatsworth, and the people of England would be

deprived of the p!easnr-e of seeing hi~

beautiful country residence, bnt the House of Lords passed the Bill. What

2130 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

did they do when the Home Rule Bill came u}l"l It came up to the House of Lords, bael,ed, according to Mr.lsaacs and l\lr. Higgins, by the verdict of the people -~backed by the Gladstonian Government. Did the House of Lords then regard the verdict of the people 1 No; the House of Lords ventured to think that the verdict of the people '.YaS wrong, and six years ago they absolutely rejected the Bill. Now, you find that the House of Lords, looking iuto the far future, and weighing this momentous question, which involved the separation of the empire, were right, and the people were wrong. That is the benefit of your bi-cameml system.

Mr. GLYNN.-~Yon are dealing with ttrge as~nmptions now.

:Vlr. DOBSON.~Let me give my friend (::VIr. lsaacs) another illustration.

Mr. HIGGINs.~But. that is a wrong one.

Mr. DOBSON.~What did the House of Lords do when the Gladstonian Govern­ment sent up an Employers' Liability Bill --a most democratic measure, in favour, I suppose, of the miners' and labour organiza­tions throughout the United Kingdom. The House of Lords put the Bill into the waste-paper basket, and absolutely refused to carry out the will of the people, be­cause of their common sense and their desire to do what they thought was fair. And what do you see now~ Three or four years pass by, another Bill goes up to make the employer absolutely liable, with a limit as to amount, for injury to his cmployL, not making any part of the damage which is done fall on either the Government or the employ\>, but making it all fall on the employer. This Bill, introduced by :Vfr. Chamberlain, goes up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords, being in touch with the people, de­siring to work the bi-cameral system pro­perly, and tleeiug that the Bill has elements of fairness in it, what did it do~ The Bill ''as passed, beeanse it was in accordance with common sense and reason_, whereas

[Mr. Dob.son.

the Bill sent up by Mr. Asquith was not in accordance with what they thought was fair play. Here is Mr. Isaacs using this argument against Sir John J<'orrest when the right honorable member is perfectly right. I hope that I have given enough illustrations to show that Mr. Isaacs is wrong. If you have the most democratic Constitution in the world ~and your press is never tired of telling you that you have-you have the most democratic Constitution iu the world principally because you have both yonr Chambers elected on the manhood suf­frage system. There is no difference be­tween them. The whole of the men, and the women, too, in South Australia, elect your two Chambers. When you then talk about sending the Senate to the people, are you not wrong 1 Is not the price you pay for that democratic Constitution, is not the price you pay for having both Houses elected by one man one vote without an element of conservatism about it, that you cannot send that Chamber to the people until the democratic Honse~the House that controls and initiates the policy~has gone there first 1 If the Senate was elected on a property or conservative franchise, I could believe more than I do now in the argument that both Houses ought to go together. But, considering that they both come from the same people without their being any difference whatever, surely the House 0f Representatives should go first to the country, and then if it comes back indorsed with a verdict from the people, the Senate being elected by exactly the same electorate, ought to pass the measure, and if it does not it will be on account of some great step forward which means indus­trial or social revolution. In that case, what is the meaning of the bi-cameral system if it is not to give to our people the safeguard of having a Second Cham­ber in your Constitution, which cannot be frightened or coerced by being told that it has to go to the elech)rS also 1

Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill. 2131

I therefore hope, as we have rejected the amendment of Sir John Forrest in favour of the Senate never going to the people, but of both Houses voting together, that we will shrink from having a simultaneous dissolution, but will make the House of Representatives responsible for its policy, face the electors first, aud then after that you may dissolve the Senate if you like. I do not approve of it, but I suppose we will have to consent.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).-! in­tend to vote for the excision of the first paragraph. I had some doubt as to what I would do until Mr. Dobson got up, but certainly the analogy he drew between the House of Lords and the Senate, endea­vouring to support the action of the Senate by the history of the House of Lords, has determined me to oppose the first part of the clause. If the Senate is to be at all analogous to a House in which I believe three form a quorum, in which a good many members may vote by proxy, within which some mem­bers never go once in six the Senate is to a House like that, I am not going to do anything to protect it.

Mr. DoBsON.-You do not answer my arguments.

Mr. GLYNN.--I do n0t know where your arguments came in; you were deal­ing largely with assumptions.

Mr. DOBSON.-I was facts.

Mr. GLYNX.-The honorable member said that the House of Lords were the saviours of the unification of the empire by the fact that they saved public opinion from having precipitated the em­pire into disintegration. 'l'he honorable member was really dealing with assump­tions there.

The CHAIRMAN.-Does the honorable member think that this is strictly relevant to the clause 1

Mr. GLYNN.-I am afraid that it is not relevant to the clause ; but, unfortu­nately, the bad example of going off at a

tangeut was set to me by the last speaker. I rise principally to mention that, although I shall vote for the excision of the first paragraph, I shall endeavour to amend the second paragraph in the direction I previously indicated. I am desiron:,; that it should provide that when the Senate has rejected a measure passed by the House of Representatives by an ordinary majority, if in the next session, without the inter­vention of a general election, that mea­sure is again passed by the House of Representatives by an absolute majority, or after the intervention of an election by an ordinary majority, and is again rejected by the Senate, the Governor­General may dissolve both Houses. If you allow the dissolution of the two Houses directly a disagreement occurs, you prevent the Senate from exerci;;;ing its functions as a check upon the Lower House in staying the hand of precipitate legislation, but the provision that I desire to see carried into effect will not penalize the Senate, and at the same time it will prevent any dead-lock.

'l'he CHAIRMAN.~I would point out to the honorable and learned member (Mr. Glynn) that if he votes against the first paragraph of the clause, and ths.t paragraph is omitted, he cannot put into the second paragraph a provision of very much the same effect as the provision con­tained in the first paragraph.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-! rise to point out to the honorable and learned member what you, sir, have just stated, that, if the lirst paragraph is omitted it will be impossible to mould the second paragraph in such a way as would accomplish his purpose. I agree with him that we must be careful that we do not give undue weight to the arguments of those who support the simultaneous dissolution, be­cause that arrangement would have the effect of practically penalizing the Sen­ate for doing the work which it was appointed to do. 'l'he Senate is to be con­stituted upon a twofold basis, and for two purposes. It is to be the States House,

2132 Oomra,omuealth of [9 MARCH, 1898,] Au.st1·alia Bill.

and that is the only circumstance which gives it dignity and lends it strength. We are also creating a bi-cameral system of legislation. No one has ever disputed that that is what we are doing. One of

the essentials to the system is that the Senate ~:~hall be a revising and suspending Chambet'. In so far as it will be the States House, it should not be subject to any dissolution at an, If it is there for the purpose of protecting the freedom of the people and the integrity of the states, you 011ght not to menace it in any shape or form. It is only in respect to its functions as a revising and suspending Chamber that you have any right what­over to subject it to dissolution or to any other form of coercion.

Mr. HIGGINS. --E yon dissolve the Senate as a revisin~,[ Chamber ;you must also dissolve it as a States House.

Mr. SYMON.- -I know that that fol­lows. It is because we, who, in Adelaide, resisted any kind of concession, and re­sisted the proposals for settling dead­locks suggested by the houorable and learned member (Mr. Wise), feel the pressure of the cause of federation that we are willing to make this great stride for the advancement of the cause, and to submit to the Senate being dissolved. I would not support a proposal allov.-ing the Senate to be dissolved if it were not that I believed that public opinion, certainly in some of the larger colonies, desires to have some control over the Senate by f\

provision which will allow it upon occasion to be sent to its constituents, of whom they form part. What I want to point out to honorable member::; is the danger of disregarding the consitutional rule that, when you are dealing with a revising and suspending Chamber, you are paralyzing its functions and reducing it to a condi­tion of impotence if, the moment it dis­agrees with the other House of Legisla­lature, it is threatened with dissolution. It is ll. perfect farce-a ridiculous mou­srrosir.y-to pass a proviRion of that kind.

[Mr. Symon.

Mr. Fn.AsEn. -According to your theory, the Senate will uot disagree with the Uouse of Representatives at all.

Mr. SYMON.-I do not believe that there will be serious disagreement upon one sn bject of legislation in a thousand. Of course, we must not expect perfect immunity from the ordinary causes of dif­ference between Houses of Legislature; we must submit to that. But we know per­fectly well that dead-locks, brillging about a kind of temporary wreck of constitu­sional government, are next to impossible. They haYo never occurred in America, where the Senate is clothed with all kinds of executive and other powers, of which, if I may use the expression, the Seuate created iu this Constitution has been despoiled. Here you have a Senate which cannot possibly be a class Chamber. Whether it will or will not be the demo­cratic House, as the honorahle and learned member (Dr. Cockburn) and others of us think, it cannot possibly be a class Chamber, because it will be elected upon absolutely the same suffrage a:. the mem­bers of the House of Representatives.

~Ir. HwmNs.-'l'hey have dead-locks frequently in America, and they always end in favom of the Senate.

l\ir. SYMON.-:l\Iy honorahleand learned friend is mistaken.

Mr. IsAACS.-No, he is perfectly right.

Mr. SY~ION.-Not at all. There have been differences there, bnt there has never been a dead-lock resulting in the stoppage of civil government, which, of course, is what a dead-lock really means.

:Mr. IsAACS.-The people have had to give way.

Mr. SYMON.- My honorablo and learned friend has solved the whole ques­tion in that remark. Common sense, the genius of the English-speak\ng people for goverument, always leads to the settle­ment of these matters.

Mr. DEAIGN.-You have three divided powers of government, unable to work in harmony.

Commonwealth of l9 'MARCH, 1898.] A u8tralia Bill. 2133

Mr. SYMON.-They are unable to work in harmony for a moment, and a disagree­ment comes, but a settlement i;; R.rrived at and the machinery goes on again.

Mr. DEAKIN.-The mut:hiue politics go on.

Mr. SYMOS.-It has been proposed that where the two brant:hes of the Lr:gis­latnre do not come to an agreement after an interval of tht·ee years, w hi eh would give ample time for the consideration of the subject-matter of tll'l disagreemeut, they should meet together as one body and settle the question by the determination of the majority of members, the two Houses voting together. What is the good of our seeking to create a Senate at all if the moment it exercises its powers the Executive Government is able to say­" You shall be sent about your buF>iness" ~ A man would scorn to hold office as a Senator under such conditions. It would be a pusillanimous position to hold. However opposed the measure sent to the Senate might be to public feeling, or to the sentiment of the majority of the Senate, this body would not be able to set its face against it in order to secure time for fm'thcr cont~ideration.

Because if it did, the majority of the other House, who would be represented of course by the Executive Government, would say-" Unless you withdraw your position or assent to ~ome compromise, whether you like it or not, you must go to your constituents." I ask honorable members is that the position they are going to place the Senate in 1 H is a position to which I, for one, will never assent, and if the alternati,·e of the con­secutive dissolution is a double dissolution, that is, the moment a disagreement takes place there shall be a simultaneous or double dissolution, then the Senate will have to exercise its functions at the peril of having to go to its constituents, and that, I say, will be a serious blow to

this Constitution. Those representatives who come from the hu·ger ccllonies must remember this, that whilst it might not

affect the smaller colonies so much as the larger colonies, it will have the most disastrous effect, because you will have six ~euators going to their constitn· ents as against 25 ot· 26 going to their eonstituents from the House of Represen­tatives at the same time; and the six men from the Senate IYould be practically overwhelmed by the power of the repre­sentatives from the Lower House who were going to their constituents.

Sir WrLLIAlii ZEAL.-That is what they intend.

:Mr. SYMON.-Possibly. I do not say whether that is the intentiou, but I take leave to point out, in all seriousness, with every desire to have as perfect a Constitu­tion as human brains can devise in this conuexion, that we should take care that they do not emasculate the powers of the Seuate as they will do, I emphatically believe, if they put it in the power of the .Executive Government of the day, repre­senting a majority of the House of Repre­sentatives, to >lend the Senate to its constituents for doing the very thing it was brought into bei11g to do.

Mr. TsAACs.-Or for refusing to do it.

Mr. SYMON.-No, not for refusing to do it. The Senate is answerable to its own constituents. There is not a man in that Senate who will hold· office for more than three years.

Mr. HrGGI~s.--Six years.

Mr. SYMON.-He has to go to his con­stituents every three years.

~fr. HrGGINs.-Every six years.

Mr. SYMON.-Half of the senators have to go their consr.itncnts at the end of the first three years.

Mr. HIGGI:-<S. But each senator is elected for six years.

Mr. SYMON.-Half of the members of the legislative body have to go to their constituents every three years; aud will not that keep them in touch with the manhood aud womanhood suffrage of the eolouies 7 Of course it will. To say that you arc to he apprehensive of all sorts of

2134 Commcm/wealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

evils to the Constitution when the interval between one election and another is so short as that is to do injustice to the ordinary courage of humanity.

Mr. IsAACS.-That would be a good reason for not dissolving the House of Representatives at all.

Mr. SYMON.-I say that that is the principle which underlies Mr. Dobson's argument, and that is the analogy with the House of Lords and every other Second Chamber which exercises the function of a revising and suspending Chamber. If it exercises that function, you are to give it credit for honesty and bonafides. If it is still out of harmony with the Lower House, let the Lower House go to their constituents, with whom the Upper House says the House of Representatives is not in harmony. If the members of the House of Representa­tives come back from their constituents with a mandate for that particular piece of legislation, this Senate, like every other Second Chamber, will be bound to give way. If the Senate do not give way, then I say, at once, and unhesitatingly, send it to its constituents. That is the propet· course to be adopted. As to the House of Lords, it has no constituents. But that fact is all the stronger in favour of my view in regard to the Senate, because, if the House of Lords, having no constituents except the general expression of public opinion, yields to the views of the people ex­pressed through the House of Commons, returned after a dissolution, how much more will the Senate, answerable to a constituency, yield, under similar circum­stances, in the same way 1 If the matter in dispute is one of vital importance to the state the Senate may hold out for a time against the first mandate of the people, but, beyond that, it will not hold out for one moment. Therefore yon will have a far better Constitution, and one not merely free, but also just, beyond all the experience of the past, if you leave this a consecutive, and do not make it a simultaneous dissolution.

[ft-lr. Symon.

Question-That paragraph (1) of clause 56n stand part of the clause-put.

The committee divided-Ayes 28 Noes 17

Majority for the paragraph 11 AYES.

Abbott, Sir J. P. Holder, F. W. Braddon, Sir E. N. C. Howe, J. H. Briggs, H. Kingston, C. C. Clarke, M. J. Leake, G. Coekbum, Dr. J. A. Lee Steere, Sir J. G. Dobson, H. Lewis, N. E. Douglas, A. }lc.Millau, W. Downer, Sir J. \V. Moore, W. }'orrest, Sir J. Solomon, V. L. Fraser, S. Venn, H. ,V_ Fysh, Sir P. 0. ·walker, .J. T. Gordou, J. H. Zeal, Sir \V. A. Grant, C. H. Hassell, A. Y. Teller. Henning, A. H. Symon, J. H.

NoEs. Berry, Sir G. O'Connor, R. E. Brown, N. J. Peacock, A. J. Brunker, J. X. Quick, Dr. J. Carruthers, J. H. Reid, G. H. Deakin, A. Trenwith, \V. A. Glynn, P. M. Turner, Sir G. Hackett, J. W. \Vise, B. R. Higgins, H. B. Teller. Isaacs, I. A. Barton, E.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN.-The question now is that paragraph (2) stand part of the clause.

Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-With­out in any way commenting on the vote which has just been given, I trust I may take it as expressing the opinion of the committee that what I, at all events, term the Sydney compromise will not be interfered with. I should have preferred to see the alternative removed. But the committee have decided otherwise, and I, in very few words, desire to reiterate the opinion I expressed in Sydney, that i~ is desirable the second sub-section should remain as it is in the Bill, so that the Ministry of the day shall have the option of dissolving either one or both Houses. I have never disguised my opinion

Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] .Australia Bill. 2135

either here or elsewhere that this alarm about dead-locks was, to a very considerable extent, imagination. I have spoken as strongly as any one against the intro­duction of any of these mechanical and artificial devices for overcoming dead-locks. But I am not blind to the sentiment out­side this chamber. I know the ghost of dead Victorian controversies is ;;till alive and walking, and it has walked outside the limits of this colony into New South Wales. I do not hesitate to declare, as I did in Sydney, my deliberate opinion that unless we make this concession to tbc popular opinion, even though we may think it popular ignorance, on the question involved in the second sub-sec­tion, we will very seriously damage the prospects of the Bill, if we do not alto­gether destroy our ability to recommend it to the electors. I never made use of an expression of this kind at any period of the debates before. I have studiously re­frained from saying anything of the kiud. But I do believe that this is the most critical part of the Bill so far as the opinion of t be New South Wales voter is concerned, and I trust the committee will do, as I believe they intended to do by their last vote, adhere strictly to the com­promise arrived at in Sydney.

}fr. SYMON (South Australia).-! beg to move-

That in the second paragraph all the words from "If the House of Representatives" down to " by efflux ion of time " be struck out.

This is to raise the issue which Mr. Wise hal:' just pointed out, as to whether we are to retain an alternative method or process of dissolving the Senate and the House of Representatives. I venture to think that that would be a manifest absurdity. It would leave untouched the last part, which was introduced in Sydney, in order to secure absolute finality, at the instance of Mr. Reid and :Mr. Carrnther:s. With that last part I wish to say I entirely agree. If after the dissolu.tion--

Mr. PEACOCK,-lt is no good talking.

:Mr. SYMON.--As I have said, 1 agree wit.h the last part, though no doubt I may be altogether wrong.

Mr. REm.-Never mind, yon are on the winning side.

}fr. SYMON.-That is something. Sir GEOHGE TuaNEH.-For the present. Mr. SYMON.-I am quite willing to

~till adhere to the method of reaching absolute finality by a meeting between the two Houses. What the majority should be is a matter open to discussion. Without repeating what has already been said, I move that the first part of the second paragraph be struck out.

Sir GEORGE TURNER (Victoria).­Up to the present I have not been able to take an active part in the discussion, although I should very much have liked to do so. But I do feel that now we have arrived at such a critical moment in con­nexion with federation that, no mt~tter

what the cost may be to myself, I am bound to give expression to my Yiews on the subject. I do entreat those who voted with the majority, if they desire to see all the colonies come in, not to press too far the advantage they have obtained by the last division. I had to appeal earnestly in Sydney to houorable members to give the larger colonies the concession which was given in the second part of the clause as an alternative. I felt then that to have a dissolution of the House of Representa­tives, and then a dissolution of the Senate, was something that it would be impossible to take to our people with any hope of succeo;s. I did trust tbat at our meeting here iu Melbourne we would have left out the first provision, and wonld have rested entirely on the operation of the clan8e which made a double dissolution the mode of determining those difficulties. However, we have by a considerable majority de­cided we will not do that, and I earnestly hope that by as large a majority we will decide to have this alternative proposal. I feel the gravity of this present moment so greatly that I am bound to urge as strongly as I eau on all those who are

2136 Commonwealth of L9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

friends of the moYernent not to press too far what has Leen done. I lJelieve that if they do-aml I say this without any heat and not in any way as a threat-! believe that if they do take out this second portion of the clause as proposed by Mr. Symon, they are ruining any chance we in Victoria have of carrying this Fedend Bill.

Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).-M<\y I ask my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Symon) to withdraw his proposed amendment for a moment 7 I want to insert some words which were in the clause as passed in Sydney, but which have been omitted, no doubt, with a view on the part of the Drafting Committee of eliminating the first paragmph. Now that that paragraph has been restored, so to speak, it will be necessary, in order that the clause may read properly, that the words I have referred to Le restored.

Mr. HwGr~s.-Wonld you not put in Mr. Lyne's amendment first 1

Mr. ISAACS.-No; that comes lower down. I move ·-

That in the fourth line of the second para· graph, after the words " Governor.General may," the words "instead of dissolving the House cf Representa.tiYes alone " be inserted.

'rhesc words \rerc taken out of the dause, as I believe from the internal appearance or the clause, by the Drafting Committee, merely because they anticipated the first paragraph would be struck out.

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).--! ask leave to withdraw my amendment for the present.

'l'hc CHAIRMAN. - The honorablc member (Mr. Symon) had better move to first strike out the words down to "may." J f the words proposed by ?\fr. Isaacs arc inserted, Mr. Symon cannot strike them out afterwards, at1d the best plan would be for Mr. Symon to move that all the words be struck ont down to "may" in the fourth line.

Mr. BARTON (New South \Valcs).­Before we go any further I have a sugges­tion to make. Now that we have attained consecutive dissolution, J should like to

[Sir George Turner.

see some means by which those proceed· ings can be treated alternatively. I suggest th,tt it would be better, in lien of using the words "instead of dissolving the House of Representatives alone," to follow ton certain extent the wording of the first paragraph. It would be better, I think, if after the word "agree" the words were inserted, "and the House of Itepresenta· tiYes in the next session again passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects the same, or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to whieh the House of Heprescntatives will not agree." Then the two proecedings stand on the same footing, and it would be compe­tent for the Govemor·General to adopt either of them, and, in choosing one or the other, to see that the same processes were gone through before he applied the remedy of eonsecntiYe or simultaneous dissolution.

Sir GEOHGE T<;nNER. That ought to be so.

~fr. BARTON.-That ought to be so. .Mr. O'Connor reminds me that, as the matter stands now, if the words of Mr. l:;aacs were iusertcu, and the Honsc of Representatives passed a law which the Senate rejected, or failed to pass it with amendments to which the House of Representatives had agreed, there could in· stantly be a simultaneous dissolution. Ja. stead of that, I think it wiser that the simultaneous dissolution should be on the sam\l footing as tlw consecutive dissoht­tioa, aud that the same proccBs !lhould precede it. That was the intention of the Convention in Sydney, and I think it is the intentioa now. I beg therefore to move-

That the following words be inserted after 1 he word •' agree":-" and the House of Repre· sentatlves in the next session again passes the proposed law, and the Senate rejects the same, or fail~ to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representative do not agree .. ,

The CHAIRMAN. The position is this: The Hon. Mt·. Symon has moved to strike out all the words down to" efiiuxion

Commonwealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.) Amtralia Bilt. 2137

of time." Inasmuch as prior amend­ments ha\'C been suggested, Mr. Symon is willing to withdraw his amendment for the present. Mr. Barton now wants to intro­duce certain words after the word" agree." If those words arc inserted, Mr. Symon cannot then move to strike out the words down to agree. In orde1· to enable every issue to be voted upon, it would be better for the honorable member to move, as a test question, the omission of all the words down to "agree."

;}<!1·. 13ARTOX.--In dealing with the first paragraph I withdrew my amendment in order that cm·taiu other a1m:ndments might be considered without lot or hin­dmncc. Then I asked for a vote npon the paragraph. I would ask the honorahle member to consider the words on which he is now moving his ameudment as paragraph (2). It is only as a matter of print that they are not so. If that were doue, the honorable merr,her's amendment could Le dealt with, and then the other words could be put as a paragraph.

The CHAIRJ-1AN.-I would point out that we have adopted a uniform procedure right through. We have never separated a paragraph. 'l'he words in the second paragraph really form only oue paragraph, inasmuch as it all hangs together. The procedure we have adopted all through is the procedure I have suggested. If I put the question that all the words down to " agree " be struck out, and if that is not carried, Mr. Button's amendment can be put. If it is carried the rest of the words can he strnek out.

Mr. SYMON (South Austmlia).-Pm·· baps you, ~Ir. Chairman, will forgive me for pointing out that although the paragraph is not divided in print, and the two parts of it are connected, I wish the second part, as to the joint meeting of the two Houses, to be attached to the first para­graph as the final method of settling thr. question of dead-locks.

The CHAIRMAN.--! think we ought . to adopt a uniform procedure.

Mr. SY:MON.-Then I shall move my amendment in the form you suggest­that all the words down to "agree" be strnck out.

Mr. GOIWOX (South Australia).-! have been one of the stannchest sup­porters of my honorable friend (Mr. Symon) in all his exertions~ bold and brilliant as they have been-to maintain the power of the Senate, but in this proposition I think he is making a mistake. I would ask those honorable members who repn:>sent the smaller states to vote for the clause as it stands, especially if it is altered as sug­gested by Mr. llarton. That is as much as we can expect. The position is ex­ceedingly grave, and I appeal to those who· like myself have been loyal sup­porters of the powers of the Senate not to assist the honomble member in his amendment.

Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT (Xew South Wales).-When the Hon. Mr. Symon sub­mitted his proposal in Sydney I was one of those who voted against it, and who took every possible step to defeat it. I regarded the m<ttter then as being fairly and satis­factorily settled. l voted to-day for the r0tcntion of th!.!sc word;; in the clause, for the reason that I thought that it was settled. I said in Adelaide and in Sydney that I had uo great fear of dead locks, be­cause sooner or later the will of the people would prevail, although it might not pre­vail as rapidly as some politicians might desire. I intend to vote against Mr. Symon's proposition, and to support the amendment suggested by Mr. Barton.

Sir JOHN FORREST (\Vostern Aus­tralia).-Whilc I ~:~hould be very glad indeed to do anything that would meet with the general approval of houorable members, and while 1 desire now, as I have always desired-perhaps more than some honorable members think, but I know my own feelings best-to assist honomble members who have great responsibilities ltml great obligations, I cannot believe that the insertion of these two provisions in the Bill will commend our work to those

2138 Gommanwealth of [:YfARCH 9, 1898.] Australia Bill.

who come after ns. What are we asked to do 1 We are asked first to give the Go­vernment of the day power to dissolve the Lower House. We are next asked to give the Government of the day power to dissolve the Senate, and then we are asked to give the Government of the day further power to dissolve both Houses. This is very cumbrous machinery, and the wisdom of honorable members should have enabled them to devise some more simple plan. The simple plan that I suggested has not been entertained. I have never seen in any Constitution alter­natives given as to procedure. The Minis­try of the day may say that they will go this way or that they will go that way; but surely to goodness we ought to lay down in the Constitution some one effec­tive plan for meeting the difficulties that are likely to arise. My own amendment having been lost, I have no very strong feeling about either of these provisions, but I am not prepared to assent to the insertion of both of them in the Bill. We ought to adjourn the debate, with a view to some better plan being devised.

Mr. HIGGINS.-I thought you wanted to get home.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-I am not going home for a week now. If the discus­sion is proceeded with I must vote with my honorable friend (Mr. Symon) to strike out the alternative procedure. At the same time, I should be only too glad--and I recognise the responsibilities of honorable members who represent Vic­toria and New South Wales-to join in formulating some plan which would be looked upon with favour by them; but I am not going to make myself a laughing­stock-for this is really what it comes to -by voting for these two systems. They were never inserted in Sydney with the view that they were to be permanently incorporated in this Bill, but with the view of one taking the place of the other; and the second paragraph was inserted, I point out again, by the representatives of New South Wales (Mr. Carru thers and Mr. Re id)

[Sir John .Ji'orrest,

with a view to avoiding the dissolution of the Senate. That was the object they had in view, but that object has not now been carried out, and those who voted with them in Sydney are now asked not only to vote for the dissolution of the Senate consecutively, but also to give the Government of the day power to dissolve both the Senate and the House of Repre­sentatives simultaneously.

Mr. BARTON.-If a disagreement takes place twice in two consecutive sessions.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-I do not think it is a reasonable settlement, and I shall not vote for it.

Mt'. REID (New South Wales).-! think I ought almost to apologize to the Con­vention for speaking at this stage, because I really think we are rapidly approaching a position in which it becomes perfectly immaterial what amendments are passed and what are rejected.

Mr. lsAACS.-Hear, hear.

}!r. REID.-I feel extremely depressed by the shape in which this Bill is. I am profoundly impressed with the feeling that it may fail to command the support of the majm-ity of the people of the colonies. I feel that to attempt to secure a supreme and final authority in this Commonwealth on the part of a small minority of Austra­lians against a large majority of Austra­lians must break down. When we view the source from which the revenue is to come to carry· on this Commonwealth, and when we find that time after time those who represent a minority of the taxpayers gain their way and mould this instrument, which was to be designed to express the national will, in such a way that when the national will is expressed it can be indefinitely thwarted.

Mr. DoUGLAs.-What are we here for1

Mr. REID.-Upon my word, only some heavenly intelligence can describe how the honorable member got here.

Mr. DouGLAs. -The right honorable gentleman need not be insultin~ in his remarks and behaviour

Comr1wnwealth of [9 }lARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill. 2139

Mr. REID.-The honorable member is so perpetually interrupting

Mr. DouGLAs.-Oh l oh l what about

you 1 Mr. REID.-1 endeavour to interrupt

so as to throw a little oil of lubrication over our proceedings, but my houorable friend's voice always seems to be leading me to the vicinity of a steam saw-mill.

Sir EnwARD BRADDON.-Are you lubri­cating the proceedings now?

Mr. REID.-I regret to say, in reply to the representative of the smallest of the colonies, who has so steadfastly trampled upon the rights of the majority of the people of this country ---

Sir WrLLLHr ZEAI,.-Rubbish ! The CHAilUIAN.-Order1 Order! Mr. DOUGLAS (Tasmania).-! rise to

a point of order. Has the right honorable member (Mr. Reid) a right to designate us in that way~

The CHAIR1fAN.-I do not think the right honorable gentleman's remarks were out of order. It was strong language that he used, but whether it was tasteful or not is not for me to decide.

Mr. REID.-It is distasteful for me to have to sit here week after week and notice that the almost invariable result is to subordinate the wish of the majority of the people of Australia to an absolute minority ; and I cannot sit here any longer without expressing--

Mr. DouGLAs.-! rise-­The CHAIRMAN.-Order! Mr. REID.-Without expres::~ir.g-­Mr. DouGLAs.-I rise--The CHAIRMAN.--! must a<>k the

honomble member (Mr. Douglas) to lwep .order.

Mr. REID.- Without expressing to this Convention my profound disappointment that proposals the most fair and equitable in character are rejected and overwhelmed by what is practically a solid phalanx of gentlemen absolutely detern1ined to prevent this Constitution from expressing the will of the people whose taxes will maintain the Commonwealth. Now, sir,

there is actually an opposition-now that these gentlemen have gained all their own way and have prevented o, dissolution .of the Senate-there is, I say, actually a serious attempt to prevent, as an alterna­tive, the dissolution of that body.

Sir JOHN FoRREST.- A simultaneous dissolution.

Mr. REID.-The simultaneous dissolu­tion of the Senate; I thank my right honorable friend for the correction. What presumption is there that the House of Representatives, when a difficulty arises between the two Houses, must be the House that fails to represent its con­stituents, and must be the House that is to be first sent to its constituents as a punishment for the difficulty which has arisen 1 Because, so far as the re­presentatives in either House are con­cerned, it has a penal effect upon them to send them to their constituents. And this settlement which has been arrived at to-day amounts to this : That there is a presumption that the House of Represen­tatives, by the part that it has played in the dead-lock which arises, should be pun­ished and sent about its business, so that the electors will have an opportunity of electing it again. Now, what presumption can there be that the members of the other branch of the Legislature may not be to blame, and that the members in the Lower House do not really represent the people ? Because it is no question ttbout a referendum. It is a question of an appeal in both cases to the electors ; and yet Sir John F orrest suggests that we ought not even to give the Executive the option of sending both Houses to the people at the same time, which contention I say without hesitancy can only be based upon the underground presumption that what is called the Upper House is sure to be right.

Sir J OH::il FoRHEST.-I did not say that. Mr. REID.-But you always act us if

it were so. The right honorable gentle­man's course of action all through this Convention has been based upon a solid

2140 Oorwnwnwealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] A~utralia Bill.

attempt, designed to make the Senate master of the situation, and to make the representatives of the people-viewing the people as one nation-pla.y a subordinate part. What is the meaning of the opposition to this proposal b11t that 1 When we have two elective Houses, does not the House of Represcnt.ati ves play a humiliating part when, if a difficulty arises between the two Houses, it must go first, without rhyme or reason, to the electors 1 Of course, the right honorahle gentleman and those who support him are gentlemen for whom personally we have the highest respect and esteem, and they are, I admit, fighting a brilliant and successful battle for the colonies they represent.

Mr. DonsoN.~For the people of Aus­tralia.

Mr. REID.~The honorable member as a man to voice the wishes of the pe::>ple of Australia! 'l'he honorable member t.o assume to speak in the name of the people of Australia !

Mr. DoBBON.~I don't.

Mr. REID.-It is a most uufo1tuuate thing that so far the men who should have the mos.t right, by their position, to

for the people ol' A nstralia,have had to speak with very little weight in this assembly. But I make no complaint of that at all. We are l:ere as equals, to do our best to bring about the formation of a sound and wise Constitution. My honorable friends may be absolutely just in all they are attempting to do, but as one who wishes to see this enter­prise so concluded that those who will hnve to bear the heat and burden of great battles to make this the law of the land shall be put in such a position that they can go to the electors and conscien­tiously recommend this l3ill, I feel bonnd to say that I seo no prospect of doing that. I hoped that I would never raise my voice to prejudice any man's mind lll};ainst this measure. However much I am bound to disapprove of it in its pre­sent state, I hoped I would, for the sake .

[Mr. Reitt.

of union, abstain from saying a word or using my influence to divert a vote from this Bill, even though I personally could not adopt it. But I want to be put in a better position than that~I want to be put in such a position that I can go before the people of New South Wales, who have so large a share in this matter, whose con­sent to this Bill is ll.bsolntely necessary, so that we may be united-I want to be pnt in such a position that when the vote is to be taken, I can go from one end of the colony to the other and ask the people to accept this Bill. If this battle between the rights of the larger num­ber of the electors and the taxpayers of Australia is always to be decided against the majority and in favour of the minority; if this is to be cartied so far that in the parliamentary difficulties be­tween the two Houses, on the very face of the Constitution there shall be planted an iuequality, so that the members of the House which represents the nation shall be punished by a deprivation of theit· seats, while the other House, where the states are represented, and which is deserving of all respect, is saved an appeal to the electors, how can I be expected to do that '1 If a difficulty arises between the two Hou:ses every fair-minded man will say we must not in this Constitution raise any pre­sumption against either one House or the other; that since the difficulty is a matter between the two Houses, and it has reached a phase at which a reference must be made to the constituents, that there is no rule of honesty or equality which should com­pel one set of representatives to go to their coustituents, lose their seats, an.i fight a battle, while the others, 'lvho may be to blame, whose views may be abso­lutely oppos~d to the views of their own constituents, may sit quietly by and sac the result of the battle ; and if it is fonnd that, though the senators are wrong, after the others come back from the heat and burden of this great political contest, they ean quietly pass the Bill and r!;)taiu their seats,

Commonwealth of [9 MAROH, 1898.] .AustraUa Bill. 2Hl

Sir JOHN FORREST.-That is the case now.

Mr. REID.-Where 1 Sir JOHN FonnEs'r.

colonies. In all these

Mr. REID.-Well, I am not advocating that.

M1·. BARTON,-There are no two Houses with the same suffrage in the colonies.

Mr. REID. - I am not advocating that; and how different is the position in my own colony. Even taking the views of many of my respected opponents who champion the cause of the Upper House -even these gentlemen will admit that our Upper House would never attempt to chdm many of the rights put in this Con­stitution. The whole spirit of the Con­stitution is being deformed and twisted in such a way that no man who has any sort of belief in democratic government could possibly support it; and this is the last straw.

Sir Jom> FonREB'l'.-Oh, oh! Mr. REID.-I speak as one having

some knowledge aml experience of A us­tmlia. :My honorable friend happens to represent some very successful gold­fields at one extremity of the cont.inent, hut I am brought more in touch with the great bulk of the Australian people, and the honorable member may allow me, at any rate, to have some knowledge of their feelings.

~ir WILLJA)f ZEAI,.~His opinion is as good as yours.

Mr. REID.-Absolutely so. I did not want to bring the hornet out of his uest. I absolutely admit that. All that I ask my right honorable friend is that he will allow me to have the right to express my opinions without interruption. I am not under the iron rule of my honorable friend in 1my way. I am at liberty still to express my opinions free from his in­terferenee, or the interference of the Pre­sident of another Legislative Council. We have had a little too much of this ..

Mr. DouGT<As.-Is the honomble mem­ber in order in abusing members in this

way 1 We have had q nite enough of that.

The CHAIRMAN.-! think the right honorable gentleman had better address himself to the question.

Mr. REID.-I ask your protection, sir, from the interruptions of my venerable friend. If he were any ordinary man I would not ask your protection, but he possesses so much vigour and agility.

Mr. DouGI,AS.-I again ask is the hon­orable member in orded

The CHAIRMA~.-There is no point of order.

Mr. REID.-If my honomble friend did not possess such extraordinary agility I would not ask you, sir, to protect me, but I am afraid every moment that the hou­orable member will fly at me. I hope my honomble and venerable friend will permit me to proceed with my remarks. I say we have come to the last straw. When this distinction is sought to be established, when the two Houses are in conflict, between the one House and the other, I say at once that I feel so keenly the difficulty of the task which is left to me that I am bound to speak in the plainest way. Honomble members of this Convention come to me time after time, and say to me~-" Now, Mr. Reid, it all depends on you. If you only fight the battle of this Bill, all will be well. We all look to yon." But I am sorry to say, that when I endeavour to put this Bill in a shape which will enable me to go to the people and nKe all the weight of my energy in its favour, I receive very little considemtion from those gentlemen who so lightly invite me to fight the battle of this Bill.

Mr. HowE.-You get f111 your own way.

Sir JOHN FoRREST.-We expect courtesy from you.

Mr. REID.-It may be that I get all my own way, although I am not aware of it; but I am anxious about another and a vastly more important matter, that is, that the people of these colonies shall have their rights fairly recognised, which

2142 Commonwealth of [9 ~lARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

is of infinitely far more importance to me than whether I or any other member of this Convention gets his own way. I feel deeply oppressed by a feeling that even in the best possible shape we may have the gravest difficulties in persuading a ma­jority of the people to support the Bill.

Mr. GoRDON.-Cheer up. Mr. ItEID.-I do not need to feel any

personal emotion of sorrow in this matter, because if, unhappily, our desire to accom­plish this bond of union fails it is not the people of New South Wales who will need to be most anxious. It is not the people of New South Wales who will need to be most concerned or alarmed. I do llot speak in that sense at all, but I feel that this Bill is so rapidly losing its national character that our prospects of getting the national approval for this Bill will fail. Talk as we may about the referendum, talk as we may about the democracy, this Bill cannot possibly pass unless we ga.in the good-will and support of the democracy of Australia. What earthly use is it for us to put this Bill before the people of Aus­tralia, unless it is in some sort of shape that, at any rate, convinces them that those who, in an especial manner will represent them, will have some sort of fairness and equa­lity in the distribution of political power 1 Now, it is in these cases of dead-locks that the Constitution endures its greatest strain. We may hope-and it may well be that in the future all the fears about which we are exercising ourselves so anxion£>ly will prove to have been abso­lutely groundless-that these two Houses will be composed of men who will be able to settle all their quarrels in a manner that will involve no risk of serious col­lision. That is a fate which we all hope to be in store for the Commonwealth. But when we have to meet the critics of the Bill, when we have to go be­fore a more or less hostile audience and find all these difficulties harped upon, all these difficulties fully and pain­fully represented, we then, I fear, will

[Mr. Reid.

find that people want something more than a pious trust in Providence that all will go well. They want to see on the face of this machine some sort of confi­dence that it will work well, that it is designed to work well; and one of the best contrivances for making the Constitution work well will be a contrivance to secure, when difficulties occur, that the two Houses of Parliament can go to the people upon some terms of equality aud fair­ness. There is no sort of faimess in the consecutive dissolution of the two Houses of Parliament. It leaves the ease and the comfort of the situation entirely to the members of one House, who may happen absolutely to misrepre­sent their constituents. I do not ask for that in this matter. All we ask is that, at any rate, there shall be some power to send both Houses impartially I do not say to receive the verdict of a majority of the people of Australia-to their respective constituents; and unless some arrangement of that sort is made, I think honorable members ought to see that it is impossible for us to take up this Bill with any sort of enthusiasm, with any sort of confidence, that any of our efforts will succeed in gaining for it the stamp of popular approval.

Mr. BAR'PON (New South Wales).­This will be a convenient time for me to say that I believe we shall deal more effec­tively and more calmly witl1 this proposal if we are not impelled to our decision under any sense of heat that may have been caused by the very vigorous speech of my right honorable friend.

Mr. SYMON.-Do you think that speech will advance conciliation 1

Mr. BARTON.-I do not think I ought to be asked that question. I think there is every excuse for any member of the Convention who feels that, by any means, steps are being taken, or are likely to be taken, which may make his chance of carry· ing the Bill in his colony a weaker chance. Therefore, I think every consideration is to be given to any honorable member who,

Commonwealth of [9 }JARCH1 1898.] Australia Bill. 2143

under these circumstances, talks with some warmth. I am not about to express any critical condemnation of the speech we have just heard. We all know that my right honorable friend feels and speaks strongly on many occasions, and we must, I think, always recollect that amongst the most successful and powerful members of such bodies as this are to be found men who, on occasions, will speak with the whole strength of the feeling which they enter­tain. But, sir, I do think there may be an influence caused sometimes by extreme warmth of speech which does not tend to the peaceful solution of a difficulty, and I think there may be a possibility that some of my honorable friends, who have fallen under the la::h of the right honor­able member's criticism, may be somewhat aggravated for the moment, although I believe they will see before very long that this is a mere ordinary case of warmth of debate.

Mr. Gmmox.~-Tt is only a cracker, not a lash.

Mr. BA:HTON.-I do not share in my right honoraLle friend's extreme fears, for the reason that I do not yet see in the Convention a sign of the acceptance of the amendment of my learned friend (Mr. Symon). I believe that the majority of the Convention will reject the amendment, and retain the lJower of simultaneous dis­solution, as an alternative to the second dissolution which has been carried. I be­lieve that will he found to be the strength of the feeling of this debate, and therefore I am not going to express any want of confidence in the Convention in that regard, because I believe that they will act in that manner which will tend to secure the proper appreciation and support of this Bill when it comes before the electors of the various colonies. I do not share the opinion of my right honor­able friend (Mr. Reid) when he says that this Constitution is rapidly losing its national character. I have watched the formation of this Constitution ever since the first Convention in 1891, and so far

·as the constitutional side of the Bill is concerned, I can freely affirm that every amendment on that side of the measure that has been made has been made in the direction of that democratic feeling which has the sympathy of my right honoraLle friend (Mr. Reicl). In making the suffrage of the Senate the same as that of the other House ; in providing that nnder circumstances even the Senate cnn be dissolved; in making a dozen other amend­ments on the constitutional side, we have departed from the Bill of 1891 exactly in the direction in which popular feeling has moved. I think the Convention is to be congratulated for its appreciation of popular feeling, and I believe it will give that appreciation still greater scope in the remaining course of the Bill. Therefore, I am not now expressing any want of con· fidence in the Convention. I believe it will do not only what it considers right, but will consider, within just bounds, that which is wise to secure the popular support, without which this Bill is mere paper. We are very nearly arrived at the hour at which we generally adjourn in the afternoon, and I suggest to you, sir, that you should leave the chair a few minutes earlier than is usual, be­cause I do not want the speech which has been made to be replied to in a speech of equal warmth at the present stage. I believe the consideration which will take place in the meantime will tend to the greater success of our efforts.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-The reply will be cool enough.

[ T!l,e Chairrnan left the chair at forty­eight minutes past four o'clock p.1n. The committee resumed at half-past seven o'clock p.rn.]

Mr. McMILLAN (New South Wales).­I am sorry that the right honorable mem­ber (the Premier of New South Wales) is not in his place. It is just as well, per­haps, that, by the moderate tactics of the leader of the Con vent ion, a pause was made after that very bombastic attempt

2144 Cornrnonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Rill.

of his to pnt reason and judgment aside, and to appeal to the passions of the audience.

Mr. WISE.-It was a speech humiliating to New South Wales.

Mr. MdHLLAN.-There are only two reasons why an honontble member should rise to address himself to this Convention. The first is that he wishes to state his views, and to give a reason for his vote. The second is, and it is a very worthy one, that when he finds that many are waver­ing, he should get np and do what he can to influence theit· decision in his favour. This is not a House made up of belligerent parties, but a great Nf1tional ConYention, sitting in a calm and pure atmosphere to fmme a Constitution for all Australia. It is natural that any honorable member in such a body should try, by the most persuasive language, to win votes to his side of the question. But the right honorable member has followed a third course. It seems to me that in this, and in many of the heated speeches which he has made at different times during the sittings of the Convention­speeches which have done an incalculable n.mount of harm-it has been his de­sire, instead of soothing and persuading honorable members, to irritate them, and to render them antagonist!e. Why, in a Convention like this, should we have it reiterated, ad nauseam, that some of us are tories, and some democrats, th1tt some of 11s do not represent the opin­ions of the people, whilst others do 1 Have not four-fifths of the members of this Convention been elected upon the broadest possible suffrage 1 And is not each one equally a representative of the colony from which be comes? The right honor­able member, and, I think, all the official members of the Convention, if I may call them so, have received the utmost respect from what I may call the private members of the Convention. We have recognised the position of responsibility occupied by the Ministers of the Crown here, and I my11elf have often stifled my own feelings

[hfr. McMillan.

in deference to them and to save the time of the Convention. But I think it is a pity that some of those who have been insulted and maligned did not take a sterner course at an earlier period of our sittiugs. I feel that during the remainder of this session, whatever may be the view~:~ that any honorable member has arrived at caln1ly nnd deliberately as the result of the operations of his intellect and his conscience, they sho11ld be re­spected. We have no right to be flaunted and to have absolute insults hurled at 11s

by certain honorable mctHbers, and at­tempts made to threaten liS into snbser­vienct>. There is no need for 1my of this braggadocio. It is only the small man, the man who feels weak, and who wants crutches to walk with, who indulges iu that sort of thing. .\ly right; honorable friend (the Premier of New Sonth Wales) is a man of great intellect, of large ex­perience, of wonderful eloquence, and he has no right to resort to the mere dodges of the hustings in an a;;semhly like this. Now, sir, as to the q nc::;tion that is before us, I have myself followed a prin­ciple throughout the whole of our pro­ceedings as f,drJy and faithfully as I could, and that was this- that when, after the heat of controversy, any principle that was con::~idered vital was embedded in this Uonstitution, I was detennined not by any side· wind or by any disi ngenuons dodge to take away the elements of strength from that broad and vital principle. Now, let us look at this matter, which is really historical in its effect. I never made a fetish of equal representation; but it is clear, and nobody has allowed it more clearly than the Right Hon. the Premier of N cw South Wales, that it is not possible to have representation of the states without equal representation.

Mr. Hwmxs.-That was the mistake he made.

Mr. McMILLAN.-But when that was agreed upon I desired to be faithful to that principle, and that principle involved a strong St4'ttes Chamber, guarding the

Commcmwe<tlth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] Auslmlia Bill.

right8 and principles of the states as laid down in this Constitution. And from the

very beginning-and I say t hi;; with all

respect-many of the men "'ho reluctantly

gave way to that equal states' representa­

tion, with the exception of a few who had

the e<mrage of their opinions, have been

trying· throughout the whole of our pro­

ceedings to fritter away the value of that

great right. ~ow, how arc we going· to det\l with this mtttter before ns ~

J have a1way" looked upon this Se­

cond Chamber, not merely in its posi­

tion as a 8tates' rights CIHl>mber, hut

as cnrrying out tho principles of bi­

camen<l g•wc1·nment. And as time goes

cm, and our ~tates incrca~e, and our federal

feeling grows, and the federal strength

beco-mes greater, I believe that the bi­

cameral ehameter of this States House will he highe1· than oven its States House prin­

ciple.

~Ir. HIGGl~tl.-Wc all agree in that.

\lr. \Ic.\IJLLAX.-Thereforc, I ask­" Do· we believe honestly in the principle

of bi-cameml govemment; do we beliDYC that for many year~, pct·haps centuri-es to

come, men will not be trained so etfecti vely

in po.litics, i11 public life, and the people

will not be trained ;;o effecti vcly in this

kind or government, as to make it pos;;ible and prudent to do aw:~y with somB snpremo

check of this kind, imposed with the view

of giving time for the people to think'!" ~ow, I do justice to hotJOl'<tLle mBrnbers

opposite. I think that, although many

would prefer to have only one Chamber, especially in lne<d Legislatures, :still, if we

erect a- Second Chamber, I am sure that

my honorable friends do not want willingly

to em'l.sculate it. I am sure they will

allow that that Chamber mnst be compe­

tent, a.nd that it mnst have snflicicnt

strength in it to can·y out this mandate,

arud that any provision which 1\'ould pnt a

tlwet~t npon it would lmng '' sword over itH life, would render it impotent, and would at the smnB time pJlevent honombl.;,

high-dass men of intellect in the countl:y from coming into it. Now, l want to

[1:!5]

see that position pre11en·ed in this Hou11e.

Aml I do Rny that if you create any

mnchiuery which, uuder the guise of ser­

tling dead locks, will really be nRed to

create dead-locks, you will :>trikc a Llow

absolutely at the power and dignity of

that House. It is very cnrious to note

the evolution of feeling, or of opinion,

thronghont the whole of this question.

In the Bill of 189l there was no pnwision

fur dead-locb. When we met in Adelaide,

my houorahle friend (Mr. ~Wise) and other~,

with fear and trembling, prop<l;,;ed some concrete views ; bnt it is only very lately

that the idea of having absolnte finality

has dawned upon us at alL ! o-my distinctly that those who be lien: in the

national referendum for fhmli ty arc

the only people who have the cunrage of

theit· opinion. If you do not have the

national rcferendmu, by whieh you wiH get at the absolute majority of the people,

then any other finality i::> absurd. But I do not believe there is :my necessity for

snch finality.

:\Ir. HwmNs.-Yl'll speak from the

c:msenatire reactionary point of view.

Mr. WrsE. -This has nothing to do

iYith eonservati re~ or liberalism. :;\<lr. HrGGINs.-I think it has.

The CH AIRMA::\'.-- I mn~t ask honor­able members to allow \fr. McMillan to

addre;;s the Cll[lir wit hont interruption.

Mr. MdHLLAN.-If the whole of the tnembers of this ConYent.ion were photo­

graphed, and a stranger were asked to pick out the m;m who i~ the most

typical tory of us all, he wonld pick out m,v friend (Mr. Higgins). There must be

an absolute diYoree in that gentleman

between his political inclinations and his aetnal intelligence.

1\It·. HwGI:>s.-JJo you not mean a dif.

ference between my appearance and my intelligence?

.Ji[r. ~fcMILLA~ ... -'l'herc is no doubt a

difference between your appearance cmd­sometbing else. I will just refer to the

propos<d at the end of the second para·

grapb-the proposal that the two- M'{)uses

2H6 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

shall meet togcthrr. Will anybodpay there is real finality in that 1 It is no doubt a piece of machinery to create :tlnality in the meantime, but i~ it a finality that gives confidence, or satisfies any body ? It is nothing of the kind. I hope that the pro­posal \rill be throwu out, and that some meaus may Le found of reverting to \\hat we did in to what I call thi;;; ridiculous proportion between the t\\"O House;;. I hope there may be some means of ayoidiug \rhat I think is one of the greatest blnnders that has been pcrpe­trnJed in the Couvention. I should have

spoken my mind on this point only for my absenc<J from lSydney at the time. If anybody had told us at the beginniug of onr meeting in Adelaide that omch a radical would lmve beeu made as the di~solntion of the Senate, one half of the members, ;.;o.enlled tories, would have almost had tlwir hail' turned. And uow, forsooth, because certain conservatives--! forget the other part of the vocabulary of my honomhle aud learned fricud-thosc reactionary conRcnativos--

Mr. Snmx.-},ntiquated. Mr. ;.[niiiiLLAS.-I will not say anti­

quated. But because certain rcacti(lnary conscn-ativcs s:cy they al"e willing to go so far as to disflohc the Senate, believing that that may bring about a settlement, and that that is sufficiently fur to go ou a stage of coercion, are they to be told they do not represent the great democracy of Amtralia? The thiug i1-1 absolutely absurd. The \my the:oe words have beeu bnndicd about in this Couveution is abmlntely absurd. Whatever anybody can blame me for, they cmmot convict me of incou­;;istC'ucy. J said in Syduey, as I said in Adelaide, that I was \villing to agn;e to a reasonable mode of settling dead-locks if anybody could pnt in a concrete shape an

arrangement that would not absolutely annihibtc the principle of federation; that would uot ub;,;olntely interfere \l"ith the strength of the Som•te, which is the

of the people aud of the eonn·

try under this ~y:-;tem of bi-cameral [Mr. 11fc}}fillan.

goYcrmnent. I voted against all these pro­posals in Adelaide aud Syducy, the propo~al of :\fr. Syrnon. 1 stopped at that, and 1 go no further. 1 am entirely

opposed to the simultaneous dissolution of the two Houses. What is the position? Are not the whole of these proYisions framed to <leal with the settlement of questions initiated in the House of Representatives 1 The attaeking Houscir;naturn.llythe House of ltepresentath-es, which frames the lation, and surely it is enongh to say that after the House of Representatives has been t.o the country, in the way we have been accustomed to in carrying on onr business under the British Constitution, if there is not a settlement of the dead-lock with the Senate, which we originally uever intended to dissolve except in the ordinary way, and which ill snppo;;ed to represent the continuity of our nationai then, n~ u lm;t resort, the Senate may be dis­soh-cd. 'rhat is as far a;; it it> possible for concession~ to go.

Mr. IsAACS.- Do yon mean a simul­taneous dissolution?

Mr. Mc:\iiLLAN.---1 mean a di8solntiou first of the House of Hcpr<:ti<:ntati vcs, nnd

then, if that fails to bring about a ,;ettlc­mcnt, a dissolution of the Senate. H on­muble members have said th11t this may never be puc into and that is pro­bable. They say that it will be, to a certain extent, a detelTent, but I do not want to turn a deterrent into a coercive threat.

Mr. HoLDEH.- \\"hut if that does not settle the dispute ?

Mr. McMILLAN.-'rhen I say, leave it alone. \Ve are dealing now with a written

Con;.;titntion, ami with a Fcdcml Govern· mcnt, in which the rig·hts and privileges of the states arc preserved. If, after all these arrangements and all this circumlocution, a law is not pa8~ed it will bo better to wait until the people have made them­solyc,; thoroughly acquainted with the subject. One of the curses of m;Jdern politic~> is the desire to legislate on eYerything. Om Appropriation Bills

Commonwealth (9

will be iu no bonan1:1e the

of au Approl'riation Bill \Yonld be to a ren>lution. There i::; no fear of

Senate attemptiug to veto nuy law that

is necessary for the gtJvommeut of

the country, and the on!,:· law~ that would attempt to YCto, a~ a rule, \\'nttlll

he such as were experimental, and snch

all the people pmb,tbly difl not want.

The,;e arc my feelingcs in the nmttcr. I

am S!>ny that the eom·ersi<lll h<t~ goue

''0 far that T now fincl my1>clf ~<'!'a­

rated from houorabll: mctuher;; wli'J h:tY'o

Yotod ~ido b_,. "ide 1ritl1 me 011 tlti~

{pw~tion, who clirl not bclieYc "olutiou for dcau-lockK, 11ho thought

that the prilH:iplc,; of common seme, of

common ymtriotitHll, ancl of rnntn;tl eon­cc~sion, 11·hich ha 1·c distiugni~lwd English

~tatt'smen anrl Eugli~h lugi,;[ation wonlu

opumtc in tlw future iu the Commonwealth

of },_u~tralia, aud who ::z:tid, as our fathers

uid, >iO \Yi]J \Ye do.

:-)ir .JOIIN FOfutEST (Weostcrn Au,;­

tmlia).-Thc thanlu;, not only of

but of mtmy honorable membcrl', arc dne to the Hon. Mr. :\1 dii llau for the \'Cl',Y

high-toned and f!·encrous ~petwh that he ha,; been good enough to deli1·er. My own indination at the pre~cnt time \Yould be not to say anything, bec<tUI:le I, ll'ith felt very Jllnch pained ;1.t the we had to li~ten to from the Hight Hon . .:\lr. Jtcid~ If I did not represent a great uolouy, and if I had uot its intere~ts

to cmJsen·c, I certainly would not rbc

at the present moment to "''Y <tnything. Bceau,;e on an ocr.:a,.:ion of t hi~ ,;urt many

will think that the less 1re ,;ay tl.c bettc·r.

I recognise quite as fully-or, at any rate,

I dc;-;irc to rccogui:,;e as fnlly---a:s does my right honomble fritmcl (Mr. l\cid) the

groat responsibility that re~ts upon him in

regard to this Constitution, auu in regard

to the work we arc C>trryiug OIL No mw,

I think, will dc•ny that a great re:-;pon~i­

bility~-probably greater than that ll'hich

rest~ upon motl t of liS-rests upon him.

I wi~h tu aeknowledge that most frankly.

Bnt \\'8 must not forget that we are here

21H

\Y c lmvc been elected the nt riou~ colonie:;; to come here as

tlwir rcprcHcntatiYes, lmt we come e,;pe­

ciall,Y·, and the whole matter originated,

on an inYit>1tion from New South \Yales

that we shoulcl as:-;cmblc and confer \Yith of that colony iu order

:wcl fm'nl a Federal Constitntiun would bind ns more closely to­

than we arc :t t the pre::;en t hill('.

l'iow, 1 am nfmid th;tt tbc right huuomhle

in the t•loqnent-[ think it

that he was addrcHsing a rupr,'scn­

taiive snch as we have the

honour to be, mu] he must have thought

wmw political g<tther-

,;omewlwre in his own 1 rlo

not kuow that. I have the betlt

uf any one iu this Chamber to find fault

t>omcwhat bntf'([ll0 But

I wish to say thi8 : That if over here or

ch;ewhcrc I ha1·e 11aid anything that wa~

not in ta;;te, or that was rnd'.\ I it, ami :ohonld be the fir~t to with-

we ha YC' not come here to

colonies either, trca ted other than

1 take

courte~y.

to hear onr

of onr

courtesy. I ha Ye n0t eo me here to be

tnld tlmt 1 repref·ent a <:olouy far away to the west, and that I rcpreHcnt a fc1Y go](].(]iggcn; or a fe11 g(•ld-field~. I htn·e not

eomc here to be ttdd that the of

:'\ew South \\'ales are entitled to any

more eon8idcratiou than the I

, ha Ye the hononr tu represent. am not

herl' a,; a ~nppliant asking for

from ::my one, or desiring frvm 1\ ew South Wnlcs. But I am here a:;; the rCjJl'(Ji;ClltatiYe of H ><P>I-U''fl\'Pl'>ll

trying: to the bc:'!t oi ;md

ability to do my Lluty, und iu that

unty llOt dc;.;iring to obtain fmm

anybody. T take it that c\'cry individual

2148 Cornmonwealth of (9 }fAJWH, 1898.] A ustr·alirt BUI.

in every one of these colonies-in \Vestem Australia u:~ well as in every other colony -is a~ mueh interested in this Comtitu­tion us any other individual in any other part of Australia. An individual in Xew South Wales or in Victoria (which are the two largest colonies) hn.s no more interest in this Constitution than an individual in the country I have the honour to represent. \Ve arc as self-reliant and capable of managing our own affitirs and interests in one part of Australia as they arc in other part;;. In fact, if I wished to use the boastful language of my right honora.ble friend, I might say that 160,000 people in Western Australia nuse as much revenue as 500,000 in his colouy. There­fore, every man, woman, aud child in \Vestern Australia is as self-reliant as three in the colony he comes from.

Mr. CAHRU'l'HERS.-::s'ot under this Con­stitution.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-I do not know what will be the case iu the fntnre, but that is the case at the present time. Why uo I say these things~ I say them with this object : To show Mr. Reid that we, wlu come from Western Australia, and I am sure I can speak for the people in other colonies, care not for his threats, and will not be cocl'cccl. Now, a<> to the merits of this qnestion. They have heen shown very clearly by Mr. M.cMillan, so that very few words are required from me. As he SKid, the idea of dissolving the Senate never occurred to the Convention in l 891, and it occurred first, I believe, when it was suggested by Mr. Wise in Adelaide, and he received uo support.

Mr. DEAIUX .--I proposed it in 1891.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-But I think the honora.blc member got no support.

Mr. DI<~AKIN.-Very little.

Sir JOHX FORRFBT.-In Adelaide it received Yery little support. It received much greater support in Sydney thn.n was ever ltuticipatecl, and now we arc told by the right honorable gentleman that if he does not get the double dissolution-a

[Sh· John Forrest.

simultaneous dissolution-the whole fabric of this Constitution will come to naught; that he will not be able to say to his people that it is a Constitutiou worthy of accept­ance, because, fonmoth, there is not em­bedded in it the simultaneous dissolution of the Hou~e of lteprosentatives and the ~enate. 1 regret to see that there is all ove1· this colony, and in New South Wales, and, I think, in 8outh Australia, a de­termined dislike to the Legislative Coun­cil-the 1.; pper Hou<>e, as it i8 called. I do not know why that should be, bnt the fact remain;; that houorablo members, even in this Convention, cannot divest themselves of the idea that the Upper Houses, which they 80 much dislike in their own colonies, are to be 1·epresented in this Constitution in the Senate. Those honorable members, however, who do not like the Upper House in their own colonies, forget to tell us that thi!:l Upper House is to be elected by the same people, ou the same franchise, as the House of Represcntati ves, and that it will be more representative of the mas~es of Australia than the Lower House which will only represent eertain dis­tricts.

1\ir. HIGGINs.-Only 30,000 or 40,000 electors in yonr colony.

Sir JOHN FOHRES'I'. - Honorable members know very well that I have been opposed all along to any dis­solution whatever of the Senate. I have been opposed all along to any provision to prevent dead-loeks, believing, like my hon­arable friends (Mr. Bartan and Sir John Downer) and many other members, that the good sense and patriotism of the people will be quite sufficient in the f11ture, as it has been in the past, to meet any diftlculties which may arise. I have given way, certainly unwillingly, to try and meet the wishes of those who desire that the Senate shall be dissolved. Now that we are going to have a dissolution of the Senate, I care very little whether it is a consecutive dissolution, or whether it is a simultaneous dissolution.

[9 ~IAHC!i, 1 l-\9f{.] 2149

:\Ir. \Yr:cm.-It. makes a very great uif­fereuee to New South Wales.

Sir JOHN FORREST.-The bouorable

member will make himself helicre that

anything will affect New South Wales.

He rlicl not say so i11 Adehide. 1 suppose

he is gathering up these ideas ns he goes

along, and he will tell n~ that the whole people of New South \Vales think n8 ho thinks, when, perhaps, he ktwws very little nlJout it.

Mr. \Ynm.-I do not agree with them. Sir .JOHN FORltEST.~I am wry glad

to hear thnt. ::\-11'. WrsE.--But I recognise their be­

liefs. Sir .JOHN FOl1RES1'.-I do 11ot

believe that they know much about these

matters. l do not believe that many per~ons among the masse;; who have votes cm·e two straws whether it is a ;,;ilnul­taneous di;;solntiou, or whether it is n

oonsecntive dissolntion. I make bold to

say that, and I believe I am not very f;tr

off the mark. W c have been told that

thiH will \neck the Constitution, and

that that will wreck the Con~titution,

that we cannot go back to our eoustitu­ent:o with this or that. \Ve have been told this but I want to point

out to honomble members tlMt, although l come from a fm· <lis taut conn! !'.)', wiLlt not n. very large population, it is just a;; difficult. for me to convince the 160,000 persous over there as it is for the Premier of Victoria or the Premier of New t:lonth W a Ios to convince his 1, 000,000 people. 1 think perhap;; it is more difficnlt in my case. \Ve know very well in the ca;,;e of

Victoria aud in the ease of New South

Wales they will be able, when they

the Bill passed, to show their people that

there is a great futnre before them, a great

profit, and a great outlet for their indus· tries and their prodnce. But we will not

be able to show the 160,000 persons in \\'o~tern Australia that tlmt is the

case. I shall not be able to do it. I nmkc bold to say, and I !mow it to be trnc, too,

thnt it will be more ditlioult for me to

coll\'ince my 1GO,OOO people>, lH!C;m::;e I shall han~ to show them that they will

pnt mouej' into l heir pockctt>. That is

what I will uot be able to ::;how. I lmYe

SHirl, ove1· aml over t1:J;ain, that the desire

for free nmrket;; and for an outlet for their

produce is strolli,;CI' in the miuds of the people of these colonies than i;; their

desire for nationhood. That is the lever

which is nrgiug thl'tn on, and thut lever is abl'ent in the case of Western Australia. Therefore, when people talk about the Jifliculty they will hn \'O when they go lmdc

to their culouieH and their people they only think (Jf themselve~. They think thatl 'wd those who arc like nw, in \Vcstem Aus­

tralia, Tasmania, and So nth Australia, will have no difficulty whatever; th:n the

small nnm her of people there arc less

intelligent than the l)('ople in their lrrrge towus; that they are noc so careful of their own interests, and that therefore they

will be em;ily bambomJed. I do not think

that will be the case. My idea of the tnsk

before me is, thnt it is far more diflicnlt

than it is for any other Premier in this Convention. I agree with my honom lJle

friend (Mr. :\LcMillan). If~--after there has been a di8solntion of the Lower Htln;;e ftud, after a reasonable time, a dJs~o­

lntion of the Senate-they eannot ngrPe, 1 do HOt· t]Jink they wanL tiw htw. .\ly i(lea is that we r:·hould better wait mrlil they do agree. It will be a law which

ib a great i11vasion 011 the rights of tt

hu·go number of people, some uew-fanglcd idea pttt forward for c;ome purpose or other. It seems to me that that ldnd of la \1' can very well wait for a time. \Ye know very well that people are careful of their 0\\'11 iutcrcstc;. \Vo have 1wver had

a case yet in any of these colonies where

the epper House has ever interfered

seriously with an Appropriation Bill unless there has been an attempt on the part of the Lnwer House to coerce the other.

Every year we pass our Appropriation Bills through the Legislntnres without a

word. ln the Constitution of Western Ans·

tralia, as in this Bill, there is a provision

2150 Comnwnwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] A ustmlia Bill.

allowing suggestions to be made hy the Upper House, even with regard to the pro­visions of an Appropriation Bill. Attempts have been made there by members of the Council to hare these suggestions put for­ward, but they have never succeeded. Therefore, ihe experience \\'8 have to guide us shows that all these difficulties whieh are imagined in the minds of imaginative people will uot exist when we to busi­ness. \Ve have all gone far enough.

Those who believe in no dissolution of the Senate at all have agreed that there slmll be a dissolutiou. Furlilcr than that l nm wJt preparctl to go.

Mr. THE~\VlTH (Victoria).-Tt seemR to me that an extremely nndesimble toue has invaded Oil!' dhwussion. Tu my opinion, there was ample justification for the boat di;.;plnyed by the right honomble gentleman who has just re~:~umed his seat. l think it was n mistake npou tbe pnrt of the Premier of Xcw Sonth Wales to adopt the tone which he did, though I entirely agree with the argument" which he used. The Premier of '\Vestern Australia has pointed out that iu the Bill of 1891 there was no reference to a dissolu­tion of the Senate. He ha;; pointed out tlmt in the successive mectin~s of the Convention the idea of a dis>wlntion of the Senate has received grcn tor and

suvpnrt. Thctt is the truth, and it is a ::~igniJie,tllt sign of the pro­grcs,; whieb i~ place in all tho colonies. \V e on~ht not to shut our eyes to tl10 het that there ir; growing with immcu;,c rap;dity in the miwl~ of the people n fccliug t lwt there mnst be some means of (jlliekly ;;ettling diKllllLes ari~ing

between thciragents. Mr. DoBSOK.-'I'hat is at varhmce \lith

hi~tory, and common ;;cn:-;c. .:\lr. THE"!'l'WlTH. The honorable

member will rmrdon me for not taldug up time iu (\c,lling with the historical aspect

of .the q nestiou. I hear an honorable iutcrjeet "The Trades Hall.''

You will p:trdou me for that l have never mcntwued the Tmde;:; Hall in

[Sir John .Pm-rest.

this Convention. I have never referred to that section of the commnuity which I may be mid most distinctly to represent. Yet this is a question which will have to be settled by that section of the com~

mnnity.

Sir EDWAHD BnADDOK.--No; we have to

settle it.

:Nir. HoLDEB.-Thc people lmve to settle

it.

Mr. TRENWI1'H.-It will have to be settled nltinmtely hy the people of Aus­tralia, and in Australia 80 per cent. of the people \nn·k for wages, aud belong to the lrtbouriug elas,;es. I have llever before referred, nor do I intend to continue to refer no1v, to thi;.; seetion of the com­tmmity, and l think that the interjeetion was a most uugntr,:ful one.

:\fr. PEACOCK. - lt wa~ m very bad

whoever made it.

l\fr. TREKW I'fH.- It was certainly not warranted tJ)' any aetion of mine at any sitting of the Convention. I was pointing out that n. certain feeling is growiug up. If we are in eamest about federation \Ve cannot afford to disregard the opinions 0f the people. Like the right bouorablc member ,John Fu1 we m;ty be of opinion that the people know very little abont tlH:'~e matters : bnt we must not for­get. that, whether they know littltl or much nbout them, tlwir vote is the final issue to \Yhich the Coustitution i~ to be :mlnnittud, so far ae> Anstralia is eonceme.J. I would therefore urge it upon houor;tblc member~ most carucstly, am! ll'ith ,,n the forn: of which I am mpable, that the Coubtitntion has in il; principles which arc extremely dir->tasteful to the bnlk of the people. Bnt federation itself is so alluring that the people may be in­

duced to !lC:cept the Constitution with all its fanlt:-;, beeam;e of its material ml vantnge~>, nncl, perhaps, because of ad~

which nppeal to them more in­

directly--it~ sentimental adrant.ages-thc ad vantage, for in~tance, to be derived

Commonwealth o.f [9 ),lARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill. 2151

by wiping out the geographi­cal lines by which the colonies are

and creating a nation which shall secure among the coun­cils of the nations of the earth. 'Ve should, therefore, if we can do it with­out sacrificing principle, be willing to put into the Constitution any bait that may be to the IJCOple an added l'CHSOll for

accepting what, on very many grounds, sec to l>e fraught with serious

danger. Wlm!cYer may be the fault" of the manner in w hi eh the Premier of Sew So nth 'Vales dealt with this 'l uc"ltion, he told an important truth when he said that we had anived at the most critical point of the di.,;cns:o;ion. ~W c ought to be prepared to concede everything that we can fairly :md honestly concede, cnm though the put forwnrd rtre not exactly approved hy onr judgment, so long as we can see no serious in them. Jf it be trne that there b no serions clangor in providing for the di8solution of the Senate after a dh;soln­tion of the Hou~e of Representatives has taken place, there ean be no seriou!:l dan­ger in giving the rdtcrnative to the Execu­tive of the day to either dissolve the one Hou;;e as a test, with the intention, if need he, of dis~olving the other later on, or to nissolve both Houses at once. As I pointed out when T spoke in regard to the first pamgraph of the clause this morning. there is a be it ri(!ht or be it wrong, that the Convention has aimed at making the Senate unduly ~trong, t<J the extent of making it the dominating Cham­ber. The opinion i!:l held outside that the Convention, im;tcad of the Senate a House of revision and of reason­able , has aimed at making it the dominating power in the CommonwerLlth. I am not that this i:; the aim of honornble members. So far m; I crm, I am, and always haYe been, tmxions to say m>thiug t') hurt or nfrcn(l Lhc feolin:,r~ of any honorablc member.

Mr. DollllON.-Do you believe in reason-able 1

Mr. TRENWITH. --I do.

'\h. DOllf'ION.--Y ou said thn,t the people want to lut\'e everything settled quickly.

Mr. 'l'REXWITH.-I want to have things scttled quickly, eonsistent with reasonable delay. To have things settled slowly may m eau unreasonable vexing annoying delay, sneh as in some countries of the world has led to revolution. The honorable member spoke about history. EYery one kmnn; that in England in 1R32 if there had been greater delay in conceding what mu; the wish of the people thcre won hi have been a bloody revoln tinu among one of the most. peace­ful nation~ of the earth. J)clay may extend until it becomes so nnheamhlo al:! to lead to violence npon the p;ut of people who hate violence. That is what I moan when I speak of real:lonahle I do not menu the ;;ettlement of a quel:!t.ion dnring the currency of a wave of passion, of popnlitr delusiou. But surely there is nothing in the Bill, o1·en with the pro­vision frw a douL!e dissolution, which reqnirf's the sPttlcmcnt of matters in such a hurry as to deny rcasouable delay, care­ful consideration, exhanstil'e ami the perfect understanding of the questions presented.

Mr. Donsox.---How long wonld your Parliament take to settle bi-metallism or the question of old-age pensions 1

Mr. TREX,Vl'l'H.-1 do not think I am called on to ;,;ay how 1 would gi1·c my Parliament to settle either or both of those questions, for tiYO reasons. One i:.;, T have not et Parliament all to my­se If, alHl porhap;; that is a sufficient rert80JJ, so thctt I need not state the other. I a;;k my houornblo fdcnd (who I hc!icl'e desires fedemtion, a:; I bcliev,l almost all, if not ab'>olutcly nil, the representatives in this Conveutiou to believe me when I say thrtt I am able to speak on this point with an authority tlutt perhaps 110 other mem­ber of tbis Convention pus~esses. "Trades Hall " was interjected at me, and it does happen, from the position tlmt I hold, that

2152 Cvrrmwnwealth of [9 .MAROH1 1898.] Australia Bill.

I n.m brought iuto contact with the masses of the people iu all the colonies in a way that llO other member of this Convention 1s. Aw1 pos;;cssing the know ledge that I do of the feelings of the great majority

of the people who are to Yote on this Bill when it is presented t.o them, I haYe no hesitation in saying that unless thh; clause is carried, they will leave me and others who oarnc&t ly de::;ire fodemtion, and who are willing to swallow a few provisions extrernely repugnant, becanse important to the whole issue, without an argumeut that the carrying of this clause would give ns. Honomule membors know that there is a strong feeling, rightly or wrongly, that in thir:; Constitution there should be a pro. vi::;ion as to the ultimate settlement of the dispute for a reference to the people of any que~tion at issue between the two House'! of Parliament, hy moans of the referondnm. I see no hope of that being carl'ied, n1ld the fttd of that being out of the Constitution will have an immense efl'ect in turuing many persons against this Bill. GiYen this uouble dii:i~olution, I and other" who think with me that there :-;hould be a. referendum, feel that federation is so importa.nt, and the possibilities for these colonies nudcr it Qro so great, that, desir­able as it b, we may forego the referendum, hopiug for the future to produce it. And we have thus placed in our hands an argument we may n~c, aud that will enable us to say to the people-" lt is true that this Con,titution is not nearly so perfect as it ought to be from a demo­cratic point of 1·iew; but, aftur all, it is more perfect than most of the Con:>titutions of the world, and although it doe;; not contain the princi pie of the referend nm, which we uelieve to be a jnst and proper

principle, it has at least such a terror to the Upper House against uncertain, har­assing, nnd wettrying delay, thrtt if they unrea;;onably re~ist a measure desired by the pcuple, they may be dissol vcd and sent to their constituents the ;;ame as the other House of tbe Federal Parliament." Now, I do beg honomhle members to try

[i"lfr. 'l'rl:nwith.

-I do not want to bouueo them, and I do uot want to threaten that this Bill will not be 0arried, hut in view of the importance of the issue-- to weigh in their minds whether thoro i~:~ not sn!tl.

cient danger in thi;; proposal from their point of view eyen to j nstify them in doing

something whioh they con~ider i~ not rea­sonable, in view of the responsibility of wrecking all the work we have heeu doing if they decline to do thi~. I, therefore, eamestly hope that this clause will he carried, I a:,;smc honorahlc members that I was nerer more iu oamest in my life than when I stated th~tt if thit; chtu!le is carried it will go a long way to soften the

objeetions which there are to some of the provisions of this Bill-provisions which are highly objeeti01mble tu the people of this colony.

:\Ir. WISE (New South Wulcs).-Al· thongh I have already spohn very briefly upon this clause, I, with much hesitation, desire to obtrude my opinions for a second time on the committee ; becanse I am satisfied that we have reached a most critical point in om deliberations, and that the vote wo are about to give ii:i preg· uant with the future of either fedenttion or disnniou. I am not going to ropeat the regrets which have been expressed from all side~ of this chamber at the speoeh delivered by the Uight Hon. the Premier of New South \Vale:s. I share in those regrets for the reasons which have been expressed.

.Jir. REm.-And r accept them all. :VIr. \YISE.-But I do appeal to tho

committee to consider the position of those who, while they diti~ent from the views of

the right honorahlo gentlenmn, are deeply in earnest in their desire to carry this Bill through, and successfully to meet the opposition which, unquestionably, we are going to meet. in New Sonth Wales. It hm; been my lot whilst this Con ventiou has been sitting to pay two or three visits to ::.low South \Vales, and 1 have returned each time more r;tartled perhaps than I can express by the strength of the wave

[ 9 .. \lARCH 1898.] .Austmlin Bill. 2153

of provincial feeling that is passing O\'er

our colony. I believe that we ean explain the misapprehensions that at pre~eut h<tvc taken hold of om· people, hut W(; ~lmll have infinitely more difficulty in exphi11ing

them if t!w~c who arc to us, who

mi8HHdcr~taud what i:s going on here, and

who invent argumentii agnin.~t u:-; whc11

they cannot find argumcut;.; fr•Hll onr pro­ceedings- if those opponeuts can ~ay with

truth l hat the settlement whieh has heeu

aeceptct1 for many months us a sett lcment which was arrived at in Sydney ha~

been depm·tcd from here·. If we were

dealing with this nmtter now for the tirst

time, and if the same strength of feeling

were expressed aR has been cxpre:;secl to·

day by .\lr. Symon ;mcl Sir John Foncst,

I belici'C J sho1Jld be fouml Yotiug ll'ith those gentlemen agah1st this clau::>c. But

I haYe never clisgui::;ed my conYictiou that this clau;;c is a mere concc~o-;ion to populnr

ignoranee. ~till, a" a practieal politichm,

\Yishiug to got thiH Bill through, I recog­

ni~e that the public of Amtmlia ha n' ac­

ecptecl this clunsc a~ it stntHb, unci tlw dif.

fcronco between altering a proposal of this

kiud and refusing !o aceept it in the fir,;t

instance, i" sufficiently marked for it to be mmece~sary for me to emphasize it further.

'l'hc ditlicnlty is that if tbis danse is st.rnck out tho~e who arc the enemies of fedemtiou 11ill scrutinize the divi;;ion list,

and will flnd t.lwt it is stnwk o11t the

Yotcs of the three s1mtllur eulunie~>. .\lr. UnJ.DEit.--rrbe thrPc smaller colo­

nic~ do not. Yotc :mlidly iu auything.

i\lr. R11rmN. Tlnit will not lJC so.

~fr. \YJ8E.--- I hope 1 mn not mis­unden;too(]. I am only expressing my own particular opinion.

.Mr. H.OLDER.-If the clause is struek

out it will be by the Yotes of Vietoria and

Sew South \Vales.

~Ir. WISE.-With the exception of two

votes from Victoria and two votes from

::\ cw So nth \VnJes, the votes will be re­

prcsentatiYc of \V estcrn Anstmlia, South

Anstmlia, and Tasmania. I am speaking

of the majority of the voters.

HoNOHABLB 1\h:mmnH.-Ko, no.

~lr. WfSE.---1 mn only sn,yiug if it ir; strn<:k out; I lwpc it will nut be.

.\fr. R-\RTOX. It is too early for such a prediction n~ that.

.\fr. WlSK -I 1llll not prophesying,

and I am afmicl I am mhmnderstood.

I am only 11rging that if the same vote is given on this (]_ue;-;tion as on the

there will he tt certain nmouut of jnstifi­

cation for the statement that the majority of the representatiYes of t.he three Rmaller

Htn.tos hnYc out weighed the vote of the

other colonies. My hore and trust is

that the vote \\ill be altered, and my cndeaYour i~ to induce honomblc member~

to alter it, but if the s;mw votes are g-iven

tu strike onl thi~; chll1~e as were p:in~n for

ret<tiuiug the other elause, there ;\'ill be a ecrtniu <lmonnt of jn..,tiflcation for the

:-;tntcment to which l have rcferr,"l Tu l"l<tying thi;-; f am spt~aking of the enemies

of federation in ~ ew South \Vnles, he­

pretend to >ipeak for auy Aml IYhat would the vote,;;

l'tlllSC I do nfJt

other colony.

be gi vcn for'? They wonld be given to

alter an arrangement that has already

been arrircd at. If this were bt'ing

mic;ecl for the tir;;t time, lwonlll he ready to

Yote for the other ;,ide, if HIJ.}' ;-;treugth of

opinion IHJ,; exprcKsed. Why I do not go over to the other side I will ~how; and it

\\'aB <lll in Sir .Tohn ~'orrcst's

spceeh tlwt c:wsed me io rise for the pur­pose of empiH.tsizing my npini<Jll. Sir John

Forrest said there wnH very little difFer· once betweeu ~uccessive dis;;ulution and

simultaneouR di~solntiou. I agree with

him; hut there is 11 difference which has

no:'<sC>Ssf'd the opinionK of the public, and

which, if we ip;Hore it, will prejudice the

Bill certainly in ~ew South \Vales, a11d,

I am assured by l\1 r. Trenwith,

in Victoria ahm. I» it worth while

to break a compromise which, after

all, is a ~mall ulf\ttcr, bnt which the

think of importauce for hi'lt01·ical

reason;;l l tru:>t that it will in no way

whatever he interfered with. I 8hould he

2154 Commonwealth of [9 "MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

found strenuously opposing the referendum in any form whatever, or any armngement to depart from a compromise which is thoroughly understood throughout Aus­tmlia, and which has been t(elnctantly

accepted by a great rmwy, and, on the whole accepted, it may be, with great

advantage. .N1r. ~Ic:\IrLLAK.-It was not aecepted

by the Convention in that \\·ay. .Mr. WISE.-'l'lrehonomble member may

be right in saying that it was not accepted by the Convention in that way, but it has been accepted throughout the country in that way. And it has thi;; greater admn­tage. The riddle of fedemtion i.~ how to reconcile responsible government with the Federal Constitution. There is only one way to solve the riddle, and that i:; to give the Executive of the day comvlote CO!l­

trol over every part of the parliamentary machinery. You eannot th11.t complete control unle~s you place it in the power of

the Execnti ve todit-~sulve both Houses at the same time. Whether the Executive Go1·em­ment will or will not work under thc;;e con­ditions only the future will iuform n~. Bnt it gives n fair opportunity to responsible government to work on lines with which

we arc already familia.r. If we leave

matters as tl1cy stand, we shall clo:se the mouths of those >vho &'ioy there has been a wave of tory feeling which justifies them in opposing the Bill they were previou,;ly prepared to support. I ought to apologi"'e for using the word tory, although I am

only using the word which we hear from our opponents. T do not like to sit down without entering the strouge"'t possible protest agnimt the suggestion, which I am

sorry to say came from )fr. Higgins in an interjection, that there is anything in this proposal at all correhttive between liberal and tory. There iH no analogy, and there never will between the Hon~c of Representatives and the Senate and a Lcgislati ve Council and n Legislnti vc A~sembly. The sngge~tion is utterly mis· leadillg ami chugerous to the cause of

federation. [Mr. Wi.,e.

.Mr. HOLDER (South Anstralia).-It is important thn t some remarks shotlld be made in respect to the suggestion thrown ont by the last speaker. It has been that if we take a eertain conrsc the electors in ~ew

South Wales will belieYe that that result was secured by the union of three colonies against two. I have seen state­ments iu the press, said to ha ye been made by a member of the Convention, whieh also went in the same direction. I take this opportunity of making the most defi­llite declaration on this point-a deela­ration which can he supporterl by any­body who will take the trouble t.o look through the reeords--tlwt on hardly any occasion lmYe the representatives of the thr,·e colouics referred to voted ~o!idly together ag<tinot the solid represen­tati \'OS of the other colonic~. On almost every import>tnt diYi;;ott there hal-e been some representative:; of Yietoria ag<tiust the rest, and some repre,;cntativm; of New Scn1th -wales against the rcHt, and the representatives of South Australia have almost alm1p been equally dh·idcd. The representative,; of W estem Australia and 'l\um1ania hrwu freq ucntly hnd some of their 1mmbor on one side, while other:; with some of the representatives of South Anstra lia have voted with the larger colonies.

..\1r. RmTOC\.-Tlle \\·hole thing iH a pnre fabrication, which a ghUlee at the minute,; will dispen;e.

..\lr. HOLilER.-lt is a pure fabrica­tion, and, because I think that ought to be said iu the most clear nml outspoken way, I felt compellell to ri~o after Mr. Wise to make tltic; statement, so that it might find an echo fmm one end of the pro­posed Commonwealth to the other. Aud ttO\V I ~hould like to say a word or two on the point before the Couvcntion. I \lish to repeat what I said two or three \I'Ceks ago a:> b the difticnltie:> of one c0lony being the difHeultic;; of all. If it is hard to ge~ 80,000 \'ote<i in Kew South \Vales, or a :mftieiunt number of votes in Victoria,

Cmnmonwcalth of

that is n hardship which will be felt by all

the colonic,-;. It is onr lHl~ineso;, ns n whole.

to help ::\cw Soath Wal.:s to OYcrc:mlO

her difiiculties, and it i,; f,Jr the other

colouies to help us in Honth "\nstmlitt

to o1•ercorne our ditlieultic:-;. We arc

hem iu one sense reprc;;ontin:;

but \Ye nru here in a lnrf!"Cl" and better

sense a" the represcntatiYe~ of Australia,

just as in a Parliament there arc men re­presenting given distriets, but, taken

altogether, they reprcseut the whole eonn-

And 1 feci that, apart from the

hononr of the position we hold a~ repl'c­

sentiug our own colonic~, we nre rcpl'('·

~cntatiYeH of Anfltralia. fhe diffienltic;;

of A n:>tralia arc our ditficultic~. lf 11·e

had hnd that in rniwl dta'ing the :-;!tort

time before dinner, and ,;omc til\le ;;[nee··-·

if we lmd thought more of the Ferlemtion

we are bnilding up than of little personal

feelings-some unplcasan tness might I m ve

been S<tvc•d. \VIwt i~ the (jl!C»tio!l we

hnvc to disens~l ltcally, when we sec how

small it is, we will be smprised at the time taken on:r it., and the heat CI'OlYed.

We lmnJ nlrcarly dctm·mim•d that nmler cc:rtain conrliti;m,; there mnst. tir11t lle a

di~sulntiou of tile> Hmvic of ltepresenta

tiYc,.;, and, if tlw rli~]Jllt(' n dit>sulnthn of the Senate. b it desired

that altcrnati1c power ~lmll be gircn tn

the }Jiuic;try to June wore dissolution'?

No~hing r,f the kind. If thnt were pro­

posml we unnld mHlcrsl;and the warmth.

'J'li(• proposal is to gin; to the Execntive

the power, if eircmn;;tancc,; in their view

demand it, and the conditions sunouuding the r:ase rc<tuire it, to di.-;:;ohc the Ifonses

Himultancously, in"tcad of k1.dug them dissolved 1dth period of ~orne month~

het1rce!L l,; the qncstio11 worth all the

fet,ling that ha~ been exhibitcd?

Mr. :\fc:VI11.LA:-<.-llo you think it wonl<l

be Hseclm; an altcrnatil'\', ;11td not

adopter! <1~ a practice l

\1!·. HOLDER.-That int0rjeer.ion ll':\lls

to a liUnt!Jl'l" ol' con~idn;:.tin:;s whieh

2155

frienrl (Mr. Mc\Jill<w). I do not hesitate

to say that these cuses of deadlock will

be manng,~cl by the Exccutii'C that

they will eomc up as nenrly as possible

before a g<:neml election of the House of Representatives. That would be taken a,; tlw opportunity for making the anpeal to the eleetor:-:, and the simultaneott:s di~~o­

lntion would be the exeeptioD, and not the

rnle. SP"ing that tlltit is so remote tt con­

tingency, and that it is only to be resorted

to as an alternative, is iL worth while to

fight ally lmtger about the matted We have decided that thr two HuuNes may be

di,;sol red, and :-;nrel,v we may now decide

that they may be db~olr"cl together

in;;tead of apart. That it> the and arc we ,.;r,ing: to risk the IYhule ~clwmc nf

fcdcr:1.tinll upon it! :-:urcly, having done

the rwtjor thin;, we may do the miuor

thiDg-, and fi·l a;;~ist the two greatc;;t

eolonie~ in the group in g·ctting- this Constitution hy the people.

Sir EDWAHD BJtADD,)N (Tasnumia).

--It i;; to spcaic ou thi~ qnes·

tion without rn:l king some rdc·rence to

the remarkable utterances of the Higl1t

Hm1. 1\lr. lteid. [ fdt no te-mper nbo~1t

them at the time, uml I feel 1w tc•m­

per about 1:hem now, altbongl1 he

1nadc a charge ac:,:ni,;st thL:

representatives of the smaller xt;!tcs-·-n cbtrge \Y h ic h \Yils i u some sen~cs In­

<licron~, aJHl in every IY<ty iuesensn ble.

l•'or in~t;l!lui, he :mid that the reprc~cnt.a­

tivcs of the ;:;rnallcr stat,;:-; l1ad 110 infitt­onec in the ( 'onvcu\ion. It is jnit bce;msc we have intlueucc, ami han! Leen aL!e tn cany Oll<" or two that he lwH

thought fit to make this attack upon 11s.

My was 11ot one of HJI).!'Cr, bnt of

regrct-~rcgret U~<tt the lender of this

mol·emeut, to whom we have Leen loyal

from the ti1uc when he askc'd u~ to met>t

him in Hobart in 1895, should have

Kt n1ek a Uow at ferler•tlion more serion:;

tban nny b!o\\' r.hat can be delil'cred !wre-

u ite!' ],y e1r;e. Thne \Yi-lf-5 l]l)

OCC<l~:i!~;ll i"or it. 'l'lw ( \111 Yl'li ti• 111 1 h.Y a majority, lliUi carried the poiut to

2156 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] A ustmlia Bill.

consecutive dissolntions, and has shown that it is in favour of this remedy for dead-locks. I, personally, have always been in favour of the dissolution of the Senate as a means of disposing of diffi· culties when the two Chambers cannot agree. It iil simply childish to say that, because some of us hesitate to accept au alternative and si mu ltaneons dissolution, ruin must fall upon the fabric of the Constitution. If these opinions are held

by some persons in the larger states, very different opinions arc entertained in the snmller states, not by those who are occasionally stigm:"ttized as tories, but by the most liberal members of the com­munity. I ~honld like to qnote a few words on the subject from a radical sout·cc. They are as follows:·-

It is ahsnrJ that there should exist a distrust of the manhoo'l suffrage ou which the Senate, unlike any Legislative Couneil, will be baseJ.

Under the Constitution as it now stfl.nds, with a little circumlocution, the majority vote of two states-though it may be the minority vote of the Commonwealth-will rule the five states.

If the Australian Senate is to he a useless and ridiculous cipher, it hatl better vanish from the Constitution ~tltogether. The trick of offering the small stf\tes a Senftte, and, ~tt the sallle time, taking from tlmt Chamber every vestige of effective authority and power can excite only tho contempt. of serious and honest politicians.

1'hat is not a tory utterance. It is the radical sentiment of Adelaide.

Mr. 'l'nE~WlTH.-Who is the author 1

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-l do not know who is the author.

Mr. HEm.- It is a wonder that you do not put it down to me.

Sir EDWAHD BRADDON.-The right honorable member is capable of anything, and he may have written the article from which these words are taken for the

Adel(Lide Advertim·. During this short debate we have heard :,;ome extraordinary al'guments in justification of the vote to be given for a double dissolution. Mr. ~Wise tells ns that it is a concession of

[Sir Edu•w·rl Bracldon.

which he disapprores, but which is to be made to popular ignorance. Let us instruct the people so that this popular ignorance may be dissipated, and we shall then get a vote on a fair issue.

Mr. HIGGINS.~Very few will agree with Mr. Wise on that matter.

Sir ED,YARD BRADDOX.-The hon­OI'able member al~:~o said that if we were now dealing with the :;ubjeet for the first time he would vote againt the double dis­solution. One wonders \Yhat he would do if it came to a third vote, seeing that he voted against it on the first occasion, and in fannn· of it on the second.

Mr. DoUGLAS.--He would not vote at all.

Sir EDWARD BHADDON.-I hope that in this matter we shall be guided by reason, and that we shall not be misled by any threat of the frightful consequence~; that will ensne if we do not pass the clause. We have conceded, and willingly conceded, so far as I am concerned, the form of dissolution proposed by the Hon. Mr. Symon, and we might very well rest satisfied with that, knowing as we do that a.n occasion for the application of theBe dead-lock provisions will very seldom, and probably never, arise.

:Mr. BARTON (New South W<tles).-1 am not going to make a speech ; l am only going to ask if I may not appeal to the consideration and patriotism of the Convention to come to a vote upon this matted If arguments on the question can be answered more satisfactorily than they ha. Ye been answered, of course I hare no right to ask for a division to be taken now. But is there not a great deal of work ahead of us l Have we not been sitting here for seven weeks to.morrow? Is there anything new uuder the sun, or under the electric light, that can be said for or against this proposal1

Mr. ISAACS (Victoria).- In view of what the leader of the Convention hall said, I refraiu from making· any obser­vations on this particular branch of the

subject.

Commonwealth of [9 MAHCH, 1898.] Au8tralia Bill. 2157

Quet>tion-That the words down to the member desires tbe words to read--" and word ''agree " proposed to be struck out if in the next session "'!

t>taml part of ihe paragt·aph-put. Mr. IsAACl:i.-Yc:<. The commit.ce divided-

Ayes 28

Noes 12

~fajority against the amendment 16

:-lir G. Hriggs, H. Brown, X .. J. Brnnker, .J. N. C'larke, M .• J. Coekhurn, Dr. J. A. Deakiu, A. Fysh, ,'-'ir P. 0. Glyun, P. M. Uordon, J. R. Grant, C. H. Hackett, J. W. Higgius, H. B. Holder. F. W. Howe, J. H.

AYE~.

Isa;tcs, I. A. Kingston, C. C. Lewis, N. E. O'Connor, RE. Peacock, A .• r. Quick, Dr. J. :-lolomou, Y. L. Trenwith, \\'. A. Turner, ~ir (;. Venn, H. \V. Walker, J. T. ·wise, B. R.

Teller. Barton, E.

NoEs.

Bratl<lon, Sir E. N. C. Leake, G. Dohson, H. Douglas, A. Downer, ::-lirJ. \V. Forrest, Sir ,J.

Lee Steere, Nir J. U. Me.Millau, W. Moore, \f.

Hassell, A. Y. rPeller. Heuuing, A. H. Kymon, J. H.

(:.lncstion so resolved in the affirmative.

'Mr. BAHTON (New South Wales).-! now beg to move the amendment whieh I indicated before the debate closed-

That there he inserted after the word "agree" the following won Is :-''and if the House of Representatives again passes the pro­posed law, alld the Senate rejeets the same, or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree."

Mr. n;~\ACS (Victoria).-May l be allowed to put one ma,ti er to my honorable and learned friend-whether it will not make the amendment clearer if be in­serts the words " in the next session," in the first portion of the amendment, w as to make it apply both to the House of Representatives and to the Senate~

.M:r. BARTON (Kew South Wales).-! understand that the honorable and learned

Mr. BARTOX. -I httve no objection to that, and I ask lecwe to amend my amend­ment aecordingly.

The CHAHtMAN.-The amendment is~-

That the pamgraph he fnrLher amen•letl by lll~vnmu the following words after the word "agree '':-"and if in the next session the Honse of H.epresentati\·es again pll,sBes the proposed law, ll,nd the Senate rejects the same, or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representath·es will not agree."

The question is that the 1\'0rds proposr;d to be inserted be so inserted.

:Yfr. GLYX~ (South Australia).-! will call the attention of the leader of the Con­veution to the fact that in thi;,; proposed amendment it is not required that the second passage ,;lmll be an ab:>oluto majority, but in the other case-in the first part of the ehl.u~e-the second pass-

must be by an absolute majority. I nuderstaud that the leader of the Con­vention wiDhes to preserve perfeet uni­formity in this matter. Of e,1nr~e, if it is intended that there shall be a difference it is all right, but it struck me that the omission might be a slip.

Sir JOH~ HmREST (Westem Aus­tralia).-! should like to ask \Yhether the leader of the Convention has not over­looked a point with regard to the interval between the two sessions l As the pro­posal stands, the two sessions might be within a day or two only of each other. 'I' here i:; nothing to prevent the Government proroguing Parliament, and summoning it a few days afterwards. It seems to me that t.here should be some interval pro­vided for. I call attention to the matter.

Mr. BAHTON (Sew South V{ale~).~l will point out, Sir Richard Baker, that there is a prompt remedy for that state of thing~. If the Government were to resort to the mere trick of pro· rogning for the purpose of getting

2158 Con&JiwiW'(rllth of [H MAI\CH, 1898.]

<l secoud vote on the ~ame quc~tion in the

way ~i r ,T olm Forrest con tmry to fair , let alone the :-;pirit of the

Con~tituti!Jil, the unpopularity ur ~uc:h a

:;tep amongst their own supporter;;, to ;;ay

nothing nr the public outside, would be

their puni~lmwut, aml there would be a

very hc•a vy that they woulll kt re

'o pny for doing su. We ldlllmt\'e such :t

matter to the wi;sdom of the people wh<J

1rill have to deal with it.

Sir JoJIK FoRHEST.-·--In the fir~t para­

gntph we ha n• prodded for an interval of six nJonth:; between the two :sec-,;ions.

Mr. TL\HTOX.-But that is a different

thing. ln the provbiou relating to the

concurrent dissoluti,m, the order of things

i~ this: If the Hon~e of ltepre;;cntativc~

passes the law, aucl the :-leuate it,

nr fail~ to p:1ss it, or make;; omendmeut;;

which nre unt ::~reed to the Hon80 of

Her•res!.'uLa ti vcs, nml the Governor-General

(lissolvcs the Home of Heprcsentatives,

t in s1x mot1ths after the clissolntion,

if the House of ltcprcsentati res again

passes the proposed law by att absolute

nmjority, the Senate n,hl,y uc di8sohetl if the sJ.nw cliifercuce occnrs ag:ciu bct11een the two HmtHC'-1. But that is a limitation

to pre\'Cnt delay. That is the oLject of the

;.;ix month;.;' int·erval i:t the first part of the claui-!e-not for the purpose of bringing

about undne kH:lte, but for the purpo;.;e of

preventing nnclue delay, and undue haste would be ill for the Governnwnt tlwt pro­

posed it,. X ow, there is no particularly

undue del>ty, 1 take it, if the whole of the

next session i,; allowed within which the~e

~:~teJ)S arc taken. 'IVith to the abso­

lute nwjorit_~-, I ;tm di.;;inclined to make an

exaction of that sort. lt is not like the

case of a con;;eeutive di~so],Jtion. lt i:s a case where there arc disagreement~ be­

tween the Houses, and I do not sec that in

that case an absolute majority is required.

The mere aetion of the principle of re­

sponsible gorcrnmcnt, whieh is applied to

both Hou~c~ at the s:unc time, it> suffi­

cient ;,;eeurity for t!Je due execution of this

provision. [ 11-b-. Ba>·lon.

.\lr. SYMON (Suath Anstntlia).---My

honomble friend say,;, in reference to the

po;-;t~ibility of this internd being a very short one, that uo doubt l';u]i.tment or

the Executire would take eare to guard

against thnt. 1 think that as we arc

dPaling with vm-y toolH in this pro·

vi;;ion, and intrustiug to the Executive a

Yery drastic power, we ought to he carefnl

that then: i;.; some nmmnnn1 inten->11.

Therefore, l t;> mo1·u-

That the amendment lJc amen< led by insertiug <Lflcr the word "if" the followiltg wcm], "after an interval of six months, or iu the next sc,sion, whichever slmll he the longest in­tcrvnl."

'l'hat i:; tl:eeon~ecut,h·e dissolution, awi you !ut ve a di8solu tiou interfering before the

~cnate is interfered with. I do not want

to make the interml too long, but I want

to nw.ke it eertnin that there shall be an

interval, and I think six months ifS the

~hortef>t tlwt should elapse,

Mr. O'CONNOlt (Suw South Wales).

~The amendment of 'IlL ~ymon is the

exact reverse of the ]H'ovisions in the

former elnu;;e. The' provision;; of the

forn1er ehm'le are for the purpose of ncces­Hitatiug ,;pecd. If thi~ amendmc11t were

earricd it would insi:-;t 11 pon de lay, aud the qne;;tion can only become so urgeut as to

make it neceHsary b t he~e pro­dsion~ "·hen it is of such a nature that it must be put through as c'arly as possible.

If you prevent that by carrying the ame11dmenr, this remedy will, in many

cases, be of very little an.til.

}fr. SYMON.~'l'hen 11·hy say in the next

session at all1 If the objcet i,; to have it done any speedier, there is no neee~sity for

my honorable friend'-~ amendment.

An HoNOHABLE ME~IDER, - One day might make a ne\Y se~~iun.

Mr. O'UONNOl1.-~-We do not want a

new session at alL The whole object of

the amendment is th:u some interval may

elapse, and the honomble mcmter says

next session ; tlmt may be more than six months, and the bonorablc member wants

it to be at least six months. If the next

Commonwealth of [9 ~fARCII, 1898.] Australia Bill. 215!)

seRsiou iH more than six months, what Illlll'C i~ wanted?

jfr. ~YJION.-That IS il' the matter is

urgeuL Mr. O'COXXOR-'L'heu, if it. i:< mgent,

re;;iBt }fr. Isn<~c;;' amendment.

~it-. THEXWTTH (Vietori;l). -·1 Bulnnit there is some jnsWieation for the sngge'l­tion that there ~hould Le ~;omc ~pccitied

time. The object of rC<JUiring t1vo ;;es~ious

clearly is that there shall Le an interval, bnt it i~ extremely dc:,irahlc that the interval shonld he a rea:sonnble one, he­cause we may as~urnc that before a dis­pute has arrhed at an acute stage there has been some time and tronbln taken ovei' the propooecl legislation. It wonld uot be

uule~s in the opinion of one or both Clulm hers it was neee8~ctry. There­fore we rnn'it lie careful that we do not haYc undue delay m eouuexion with

Iwcessary legislation. If ::\Ir. Symon would do what is freCJncntly done in Vic­tori<t in ;;onncx:ion 1vith measures in which

it is propo~ecl there Ahould be an interval before they are submitted and Yoted ou, fix six weeks in.~tend of six months, you might he assurell that there will be sub­stantial delay. You would be sccnred against an unfair ruRh.

Mr. DDIO:\.-Tint is all we want. Mr. TH E~\\'ITH.-T nnd•:rBtallll that. Mr. ::'JJc;\liJ.L\N. ->-)npposing a measure

was spmng yery suddenly upon the l'ar­liawt>ut, and stHldcnly rcjeet.ed, it would not come under the considerati<m of the public at all.

~fr. Tlt~~XWl'rH.-I respectfully sub­

mit that a Itte;umre Yery ,;wldenly,

andsudclenlyrejected, would not be likdyto be a measure abont which this part of d10 Constit n tion would be bron{!ht into cxeen­tiou. .Measure~ of importanc(', ;,uch as will creHte cli:.;pntes between the t11·o Hon~cs, arc sure to be IJ!Casun'~ di:;cuo;scd

a•: considerable length in h:1th IfmJgc,;,

aucl, "" Mr. Uc:tkin point" out, the ~enate

i~ not coerced into dealing with them. Tiw SeuM.e can take its ticnc, even though the House of H.epresentatives sends up a

me<tsnrc. It is not bound to deal with it the d>ty it receives it. Therefore, I sub­mit there is jn8tltication for the pro­

posal, and 1rc shonld concede it, even if

it is distasteful tn nl'l.

.J1t·. 14nros.-·Will the honomble mem­

ber allow me to poiut out the neceRsity for a longer interval than is given in

Victr)l'i~t? This iH a ConmJOllwealth .matter,

aud you haYe the whole of Australasia to cou:sider, and not one colony, if you are to

get an expression of opinion.

~fr. 'rltE:\'\YTTH.-Of course, I am very anxiom that 11e should in this eon­nexiou carry cl proposal, if posc;ible, nearly uuauimtmsly.

Mr. flnwx.-Make it three months.

:Hr. TltEN\\Tl'H.·-Persona.lly, f rose to point out that ~ix months is too long ;

but pcrhal"' three months would be a rea­srmable interval in \'iew of the fact that ~uch an extensive area ha,; to be considet·ctl. I am reminded that in parts of \'{estern A ustralin a letter takeH three weeks for deli Yery. Therefore, we should require

· more time in \Vestern Anstmlia than in Victoria or X ew So nth Wales. However, if the honomble member will accept three

mouths, I will support him.

:\lr. 1YCO.:'\NOH (Sow Sonth Walcs).­I hope the amendnwnt will be pas~ed as proposed. For such <t matter as three months, is it worth while to make a pro­viRiou in the Oon,titutiou? 'l'he nccessnrv

to he taken by the Governmm;t itself will at lea,;t insure that delay, and, on the other hand, it may be Yery impor­

t;wt to put the thing through in the pu h­lic interest~ with so much rapidity that it wonld be impo~;;iblc to allow the exact time in the Oou~titution. After all, it is not worth t ronbliug about.

Sir .JOHN FOI\REST (Western Aus­tmlia).- Mr. O'Connor overlooks the fact that the Senate may not put it through; there i~ a little safeguard there. llut it seems to me that the words proposed by Mr. lhrton, if they mean nnything, mean another ordinary session. That is the

2160 CommO'nwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] A ustmlia Bill.

intention of the honorablo member moving it; but the way in which it will be done will be to make a special session, as was done in South Australia, wh•.:re I believe that was done in order to get over this very difficulty. A new session was summoned three days afte1· the termination of the other session. If that is the object of the honorable member­to try and rush the thing through by summoning another session immediatJly~­I am sure it mmnot be the intention of Mr. Barton. I am sure that, in his mind, another session meant n notber ordinary session,; but seeing that the ob­ject of the mover can be frustrated, sttrely some reasonable interval should be made. I think three mouths tt nmsouable time, and it is certainly little enough. 'l'he honor­able member (:Mr. O'Connor) seems to forget that although you can take a horse to the water you cannot make him driuk. Therefore, the sending of a Bill up to the Senate doe;;; not make the Senate pass it.

Mr. O'CoNNon.-'l'ha.t will give you all the more time.

Sir .JOHN FORREST.-1 know that it will, but, at the same time, I think some interval should elapse, because if it is pro­posed to have another session it does not mean a manufactured session fot· the pur­pose, but an ordinary scsflion.

~It'. KlNUSTON (South Anstralia).­My right honorable friend (Sir John For­rest) is a little in error as to what hap­pened iu South Australia. It was not any attempt to apply a provision of this sort. What happened was this: The Legislative Council threw out a Taxation Bill by carrying the motion that it be read this day ,;ix mouths. Under these circum­stances it conld not be re-offered for their consideration, and as it had been proved to the satisfaction of the majority cf the members of that Chamber that they had made a mistake Parliament was prorogued, a new se;;siou was r:onvened, the Bill was sent up again, the Council revcr:sed their vote, and the Bill was carried. This has nothing whatever to do with it.

[Sir John Forrest.

.Mr. DEAKIN.-It was done to oblige the Legislative Council.

f>Ir. KINGSTON.-lt was done to as~ist the Govemment twd to oblige the Legislative Council ; to enable them to correct their mistake at the earliest possible date. I am very glad to reflect that they took ad vantage of the oppor­tunity which W<'S offered. I would like to point out that if the proposal which is uow suggested is adopted, we shall be whittling away this clause. Ail it left

, Sydney it provided that if the House of Representatives pas;.;ed any propo~ed

law, and the Senate rejected the same, or failed to pass it, or passed it with amendments to which the House of Hepresentatives would not agree, the Govemor-Geueral could thereupon dissolve the House of Representatives. Nothing whatever was said there of a second session of P<trliament. What is the proposal uow 1 \Ve have already agreed to alter the clause so as to require a second passing of the Bill in a second seHsion ; but, not content with that, it i~>

::mggested that a certuiu interval shall interveue. Where is this to end 1 l sub­mit that the matter eau be fail'ly left to the discretion of the .l~xecutive Council, and that there is uot likely to be any abuse of power. A~ regards the instance cited by Sir John Forrest, if there had not been the opportunity to give the Legis­lative Conneil a chance to reconsider their vote and alter their determination the finances of the colony would have been thrown into the greatest disorder. So here, if you limit the clause in the way proposed, I think it will be a great inconvenience.

Mr. 1SAACS (Yietoria).--1 very much regret that so fair and just a proposal as we are now dealing with, the double dis­solution, in this case, should be granted with such difficulty and hesitation, and atte111pted by limitations to be rendered almost worthless.

Mr. Bnowx.-No. Mr. ISAACS.-lt is so, because if you

introduce an artificial restriction which

Commonwealth of [9 1.Lmcn, 1898.] Austmlia Rill. 21Gl

m.nnot be got rid of by the con•ent of both sides and all parties, you. are patting into the Constitution something which may impede its working. Why cannot we trust the powers .Ministerial ami le~i~­

lative b work this properly and fairly 'I I should like to put one considm·,ttion to Sir Jolm Forrest and to Mr. Symon, who fear that the new session will be called on unduly quickly. What is the object of it 1 It is in order that the !louse of Representatives may again pass the Bill. Does either of my honorable friend~ think that the members of the House of Rcpre scntati vcs are going to do anything unfair, anything improper, to hasten a matter which will end their own existence as a House- which will drive them to the country.

Mr. Donsox.-Neither House will e1·er

go to the country.

Mr. ISAACS. -That will be the result. They cannot :;end the Senate to the coml­try without going there themselves, and with aDamoeletian sworu of that sort hang­ing over them, I think they will be in no hurry to cut the hair which su8penus it.

.Yir. It.EID (New South Wales).-Tiu:re is another point I would like to mention, and it is one which might happen at the very beginning of the Common \\'cult h. \Ve have fh:cd in the Con<;titution the neces­sity to pass a Fedeml Tariff within two years after the e.stablishmeut of the Common wealth. The Parliament cannot very well begiu work until, say, three months after the establishment of the Commonwealth. There may be a tremen­dous amount of trouble and difllculty, first in the Lower House to the Bill canied through, and :~econdly in the Senate, and it might hapveu that at the close of all the difficulties connected with the Tariff it would be necessary to bring about n disso­lution of both Honses in order to get a settlement at all. Now, this stipulation that there shall be an interval of six mouths between the sessious--

:Mr. TRENWl'l'H.-Or three months. [ 1:36]

Mr. ItElD.---I nndcr~toou it was f:iix. months.

Sir JoHN DowN~;n.-Or a second session at all.

Mr. HEID.--·I nHlt'r;tanrl th,tt .Mr. Bttrton'H amendment proposed that there should be a rejection in one !lC'l'liou, and then that the Bill should have to go up

agai11 in a snb~equcut ses;;ion. It mig:ht be that the qnc.-;tion on whieh tile two Houses were at dill'erenec might be one of the most l'itttl eonseq nonce to tiJC wcll­bcin;; of thJ Common wealth, I end itlft, perhaps, to a st<ttc of the utmost tcusion and crmfntiion. \Vhy should we make tll'~ Constitution s J inflexible tbat in a time

of supreme national interest, to get n matter settled, we should have to wnit three months? I think we must trnst the Parliament a little in matters of that sort. During the debate,; in both Honses the me>tsnrc and its merits will come very prominently bcfure the people of the CommmJwcalth, and there is no time

stipulated in tl,is provision which wonld compel the Upper House in the second session to dispose of the matter iu a sum­mary way. The Senate will lHl I'C the matter, to a very large extent, in its own lmuds. 1'here is uo powet which can pre­YCnt the Senate from fixing n reasoHable time ahead, perhaps a month ahead, for the Becond reading of such a Bill, in order to secure itself against any clan­ger of that sort, if it feels that there is any necesi'lity for it. If the House of Represent<ttives were to attempt to jockey the Senutr, because it had nut dealt with the lJi\1 iu six weeks or two mouths, such tactics could only recoil on the head<~ of those who used them ; they eonld not benefit them in any way. I therefore, in view of the fact that if these troubles ever occur they may occur on a matter of snpreme c·onsequence to the

people, feel that an unreasonable delay over it may produce incalculable injnry to the public interest. It is better to !Pave this matter in the hands of the Parliament, especially for the reason I mention, that

2162 Oomrru:mwealth of [9 ~:fAncn, 189!:1.] Australia Bill.

the Senate itself, on tho ;;ocond occasion, eau it,;elf sutlieient time heforo it

allows tbe Bill to get into such tt stllte that the Exe<:ntive eau exercise the power of dissolution.

Sir JOHN DO\VXEU(SouthAm;tralia). -It appears to me, on the argnmeut of my right honoral>le frieud (Mr. Heid), that there is not the slightest necessity for a second session at all.

}fr. HEm.-I will take that if you like. Sir JOHN DOWNER-You might just

a~ \Yell proyidc that during the same ~:>cssion the matl er can be reconsidered.

'.\Ir. HEID.-Wcll, we will take it that

\vay.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-No, you will not take it either way, because I object to both ways. My right honorable friend

ueed not suppose that I was mentioning this for the purpose of agreeinf! with him. I was mentioning it for the purpose of 'lhowing what I consider an absolute

danger. Mr. HIGGINS.- You Yoted ngainbt this

sub-section altogether. You wanted to make it nugatory.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-Now, what has that to do with it 1 Will my honomble friend, \Yho is an equity lawyer, and highly logical, lc;ne me alone for a minute ·1 If he will, I shall be much obliged to him.

Mr. Hwmxs.-Ccrtainly, if yon are afraid of being attacked by a logical man.

Sir .JOHN DOW.NER.-'l'herc IS no doubt that we arc slowly frittering the thing away. We began frittering it a way when my lea rued friend (Mr. Symon) proposed in New South \Vales some way of euriug dead-locks when there should not have been any way at all. "Dead-lock" i~ a word inYented hy the masses of the people to represent their determination to override the legiti­

mate ex cm cisc of the powers of the Constitntiou hy those who arc autho­rized to exercise them. We establish bodies with jurisdiction well defined,

[ 21--Ir. Reid.

co-ordinate if yon please, m· not co-ordinate if you ; and we intend that both ~ides and the people shall ag-ree before any measure can become law. \Yhen they do not agree, we say it is well that the measure should not become law, and be­CiHISc they do 110t agree somebody calls it a dead-lock. Who calls it a dead-look ?

Nlr. TRENWITH.-Only the people. Mr. REm.-'fhe most dangerous ele­

ment in srJciety. Sir JOHN DOWNER-I agree with

that, and probably no one knows better who they arc than the right honorahle gentleman who interjected.

Mr. REm.-Quitc right. I have found

them here. Sir .JOHN' DOWNER-And I, too, have

found them here. I nnderstood that they wore found in consideruble form during to day, though I was not here at the time

when the greatest development took place. A Coustitution is intended to balance itself, and to be founded upon an agree· ment of the people and the states. Laws are not intended to be passed unlcl's the people and the states agree, Agree by what means? By the throwing in of the dap-trap term "deitd-lock," and by the giving to one branch of the Legislature a distinct superiority over the other branch ! That is what these dead­lock provisions mean in plain and simple English. However, we have said that we arc going to make provision for dead­locks. I deeply regret that any proposal was ever made to tamper with this ques­tion.

Mr. 'l'BE1\WITH.-\Ye have done with that now. Let us discuss what is before us.

Sit· JOHN DOWNER-I was very sorry for an interjection which was made when the honomble member was speaking, and perhaps if he will leave me alone I \Yill discuss the question before us. I say that it will be a pity if we make what is intended by the leader of the Con­vention to be a matter of substance­because we know that he would not

Commonwealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] A ustntlia Bill. 2163

propose anything which was not a ·matter of substance-merely a matter of form. _From that point of view I hope that the amendment will be carried. If another session could be held next day, there would be no necessity for another session at all ; the matter might just as well be considered again in the .same session.

Mr. SniON.-The proposal is a perfect delusion.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-The thing is a perfect farce and a sham.

Mr. REm.---The whole thing. Sir JOHN DOWNER. -Yes, the whole

thing. Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Youare making

it that. Mr. REm.-You made it so long ago. Sir JOHN DOWNER-I am afraid

that we are frittering away the principle which should underlie the Constitution.

Mr. HoLDER.-You are fritteriug away the value of this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-In what way 1 Mr. HoLDER. By supporting this

amendment. Sir JOHN DOWNER. I do not

understand the honorable member, and I should like to hear him explain him­self. I have the greatest ersteem for him, but I have the sincerest doubts as to his views upon certain a;spects of the federal question. If you arc going to put into the Constitution a provision to the effect that there shall be two sessions when one session may follow the other at an interval of a day, the provision is a delusion and a sham. What is it you want to do~ What did we do in South Australia 1 That is where these ideas came from. I wish we had never had any provision of this kind there, because then we should never have heard of it in con­nexion with this Constitution.· The idea was to afford an interval of time in which the popular mind, as expressed in the House of Assembly, would have an opportunity for reflection. There must be a certain interval between the two sessions, in which public clamour

nJight eease, in which a more quieted condition of mind might ensue, and from which a calmer judgment might result.

Mr. KINGS'l'ON.-You were the Attorney­General in the Government that passed it in South Australia.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-I am not com­plaining.

M:r. REm.-You put them up to the dodge, probably.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-Well, I am very sorry. I dare say my right houor­able friend has many things in his career to regret.

lVIr. HEm.-1 have not to regret meet­ing you.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-And I have never regretted meeting my right honor­able friend, but I have regretted many things that I have heard him say.

.Mr. REm.-I regret that I cannot re­turn the compliment, beeause I have never beard you say anything.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-Well, I am not going to be rude; I am going to be civil. As far as the precedent from which this is taken is concerned, the idea, good or bad, waR, at all events, thorrJnghly ilHelli­gible~that you should inte1-pose an inter­val during which public excitement might more or loss cease, and a calmer judgment prevail.

Mr. KrNGSTON.-How did you provide for the interval in 18821

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Wcll, I am not going to be cross-examined by the Premier of South Australia just now.

Sir GEORGE TuRNER.-By your own colleague 1

Sir JOHN DOWNER-I prefer deal­ing with the subject we are now discussing. We distinctly provided an interval, as the Premier of Sonth Australia must admit.

:rvir. KrNGSTON.-Only a dissolution. Mr. SvMoN.-That i':l better than an

interval of three months. Sir JOHX DOWNER.---Yes; that is

better than nothing. It may be insnffi· cieut, but at all events, it is something. But now it is provided that without

2164 Commoowealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

dissolution, after both Houses have met­the House which represents the people and the House which represents the ~tates­and lmve solemnly passed this constitu­tional decree, having performed the very functions for which they were created, which was to exercise independent judg­ments, although the results might ,end in disagreement, we are actually to de­stroy the authority of the Senate. How ? By the very next dtty forcing them to meet again, and go through the same form, \Vithont any interval sufficient for the public excitement to be allayed. Y on pretend yon are doing something when, of course, you know you are doing nothing. You call them together again next day to repeat their disagreement, without a single circnmstance having in­tervened, either from lapse of time, the expression of public opinion, or anything else-to meet again, and stmight off settle the question on which they disagreed the day be fori?. And if they do not agree, you bring in what Mr. Holder wanted to bring about, which is the domination of Aus­tralia, and t'f the states of Australia, by a

numerical majo!'ity. Mr. REm.~No, if they fix such a short

interregnum, you can make up for it by taking longer to deal with the Bill a second time.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-Yes, if you are treated that way, you have the power in your own hands.

Mr. REm.-1 do swear that the honor­able member would take a long time.

Sir JOHN DOWNER-I know that my right honorablo friend, judging pro­bably from the time I am taking now, thinks that in such a cnse I would take a long time, if I wet'e in the Senate. I ad;nit that his surmise is quite right in my case. I admit there are persons on whom this terrorism could not be practi;;ed, or on whom, if practised, it would probably not be effective. But I am thinking of persons of weaker minds and wills, and I say that, as far as this Constitution is con­cerned, it is absolutely necessary to put

[Si1· John Downer.

some provision in this Bill which will strengthen the Senate and prevent it being intimidated in the way indicated. We have been frittering away the first pt·inciples of the Federal Constitution long enough.

Mr. HowE.-There is nothing left.

Mr. HEm~Nothing left? You are due for your old-age pension if you say that.

The CHAIRMAN.-~! must ask honor­able members not to hold conversations across the table.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-There is some­thing left.

:Mr. Ho wE.-Very little.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.--Oh, yes, there is a good deal left. I am not going to say there i;; very little left, even to please a friend whom I respect. At the same time, I do not want to ;;cc any more taken out. \V e have nmde a great cardinal departure from the first principles which ought to regulate federation. That is the principle of the eo-ordinate power of the state>~ and the people. We have established what we think a responsible Government, and we will have to wait to find ont how it works out. A majority think they have made the Senate responsible entirely to the majority of the people. Now, not satisfied with having done what is a direct invasion of the principle on which federa­tion can alone exist, they want to go Rtill further, and to dwindle away the last re­maining hope of the states-the hope of retaining some portion of their individu­ality. Frail as the amendment is to meet the necessities of the ease, still it is some­thing, and I shall vote for it.

Dt·. COCKBURN (South Australia).­! do not attach much importance to the insertion of the words "three months." The Senate may not be averse to the dis­solution, but quite willing to accept the arbitrament of the people. In such a case it would be a mutual convenience to join issue and consent to two sessions.

:Mr. SYMON. - Suppose they are not willing P

Cormnonwealth of [9 lVIARCH, 1898.] Amtralia Bill. 2165

Dr. COCKBURN.-I say it may be a mutual convenience to take two sessions with no very great interval between. On the other hand, if there be a wish for delay, there is all the necessary machinery to hand. The new session would have to be opened in due form, and, I suppose, there would be somethitig iu the way of an address in reply. \Ve all know what that means if the members of the Honsc wish for delay. The Bill would aho have to go through all its stagel:l.

~ir. SY.:IlON.---Bnt sec how unpopular such dchty would make the members.

Dr. COCKBUHN.-Not necessarily, if they were in the right. A;.; I have said, I do not attach much importance to the iu~ertion of the words, because l think the Senate, representing the people's rights, would not be nnwilling to face their constituents, and would he likely to agree to the necessary steps. Later ou I shall move to alter the six months to twelve months. In the meantime, I do not think this matter of the insertion of the words of importance, and I shall not vote for their inclnsion.

:Mr. McMILLAN (~ew South Wales). -I think there is a very simple way of looking at this question. Surely the Senate would not reject a Bill, unless there was an important reason for doing so. I can scarcely imagine the Senate reject­ing a Bill which would put the finances into any difficulty-say, the usual Bill for the expenses of the country. But, if the Senate did reject a Bill in calm judgment, is it not a farce to think that nnder three months that judgment would he rcversed1 Surely it is only common sense that there should be a reasonable interval for con­sidemtion1 After the large amount of rhetoric on this subject about delay, caution, and prudence, it seems ridiculous to talk about a delay of three months to gi vc consideration to a great question.

Mr. TRENWlTH (Victoria).- "\Vith great respect, I submit to tho;;e who arc

objecting to this provision that they are

fighting a shadow. If they meant any­thing when they said there must be two ses&ions they meant that the House of Representatives should have some interval to reconsider its position. It is no use to sRy that the Senate can delay it. Delay is not what is r.;quired as the nltimate end of a dissolution, but agreement, if possible. It would he just as well to say that a measure should be twice considered in the same session, as that there should be two sessions without an interval. I think that one session should be sufficient, but if there is to be a second consideration it ought not to be possible for Parliament to be pro­rogued for a day, to meet again in a state of heat and temper, and to pass the Bill without discussion. That is not the object of lH"oviding two sessions, and I would submit to my honorahle friends, who in the main agree with me, that this it> not a point worth fighting· about. It is admitted generally that the Executive will allow some reasonable time, probably not lesl:l than three mcmths, but it is urged that there may tJO occasions when, if a Bill is not carried, the whole of the finances of the Commonwealth will be thrcwn into confusion. That could only hap­pen on the rejection of an Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Mc:\HLLAN.-Which would mean revolution ?

:Mr. TRENWITH. Yes, and that is inconceivable. Delay in passing an im­portant Taxntion Bill might em barmss the Executive very materially, but it could not cause such embarrassment as would throw the whole of the fitJanccs of the country into confusion. If a 'rreasnrer with a heavy deficit introduced a scheme of taxation, with a view to meeting that deficit, it might be extremely important to him that he should get the Bill passed, but if he did uot he conld go on for three months increasing the deficit. If the question of a second session were be­fore us I should argue against it, but

as provision ha<J been made for it, it

2166 Commonwealth of (9 ~fARCII, 1898.) Australia Bill.

should be a second session such as we are accustomed to, with some reasonable interval. I would strongly urge 011 my honorable friends the desirability of conceding where we can concede. That is \Yhat I have always been urging on those who have been opposed to me, and I now make the appeal to those who agree with me. This is a point we can concede without any serious danger. There may sometimes be considerable inconvenience, but that will be all. I hope that the discussion of this matter will not occupy much more time, bnt that we shall say that we are prepared to make concessions wherever we can, in order that we may obtain reasonable concessions when we come to ask for them ourselves.

The CHAIRMAN.-Do I understand that Mr. Symon wishes to amend his amendment by making the period speci­fied three months instead of six 7

Mr. SY:\ION.-Yes, sir.

The amendment was amended accord­ingly.

. Mr. O'CONNOR (New South Wales).­I do not think that the honorable member who spoke last has really appreciated the seriousness of this limitation. Now, we have dealt with two ways of settling these dead-locks. The first was the proposal of :M:r. Symon himself; and the second is that which is now under con­sideration. I think it is very desirable that the method in both these proposals should be the ·same. Now, under Mr. Symon's 1)roposal, there is no interval at all required ; and if honorable members look at clause 56B they will find that a Bill may be sent up, sent back, and, in the same session, sent up again, and upon that a dissolution of the House of Repre­sentatives may take place. Now, what is the reason why there should be a differ­ence between the method of treating the measure under the second proposal and under the first proposal of Mr. Symon ~ If there is a good reason in the one case there is a good reason in the other, and

[Mr. Trenwith.

it appears to me that it is very desirable that a uniform method of dealing with the matter should be adopted in both cases. There is also a second reason, and, I think, a strong one.

Mr . .McMrLLAN.-Is there not a delay betwePn the two dissolutions ~

Mr. O'CONNOR.-We are not discuss­ing that point.

Mr. IsAACS. -There is no spcci6ed delay.

Mr. O'CONNOR.-- The delay that would take place is not the delay of a dissolution, bnt the delay in the period of sending np the measure to the Senate the second time. Under Mr. Symon's first proposal there is no delay. The measure may be sent up a second time the same session. Why should there be a delay of three months i~ this case 1 What is the object of it 1 l:iurely the only object is that the country may be informed abont the measure in all its details, and may learn the merits of the controversy on both sides.

.Mr. TRENWITII.-That is not the only object. It is that the House of Repre­sentatives may have time to consider all the arguments, and whether it will insist on sending back the Bill.

~fr. O'CONNOR.- Surely that is a very weal{ argument. If the House of Representatives, which has had a mea­sure before it, and which must have known in a general way the nature of the measure as it passed through, surely when the measure comes before it a second time it will know its own mind with regard to it. 'Vhat is more, it can take any time it likes in considering the measure.

Mr. IsAAcs.-Both Houses can. Mr. O'CONNOR.-Both Houses can

take as much time as they like in dealing with it. A fair answer to .M:r. Trenwith is, that both Houses have the matter in their own hands to take what time they consider fair. •

Mr. DEAKIN.-And neither House will be unanimous.

Commonwealth of [9 MARGII, 1898.] A ustmlia Bill. 2167

Mr. O'CONNOR.-Quite so. The Senate will have it in its own hands to deal with the matter within any time it thinks flt to take to deal with it.

Mr. Snro::>.- But it is for the House of Representatives to consider whether they will take the matter any further.

Mr. O'CONNOR.-They can take three months if they like, but you want to force them to take three months -th:tt is the whole difference. Why force them to take

three months with regard to '" measure which, perhaps, as pointed ont by Mr. Heid, may be a measure which it may Le imperiously requisite for the good of the whole Comrnmrwc1tlth should be passed as soon as possible 1

Mr. ls,ucs.-They would not unduly hasten the matter.

Mr. O'CONNOR. -No doubt they would not. The only object of delay i;; that the country may be informed of the contrm·crsy and learn its true bcarint;s; and surely that can be done in the inter­val which must take place before the Bill ean be submitted to them. What are the steps which must take place 1 'fherc is first of all the discussion in the House of RcprescntatiYcs, then the dis­cm;sion in the Senate, then pnblie interest must be oeeasioned through the matter being one of eontro\'Orsy between the two Houses; and the mea,;ure mnst be Hcnt np again, and again discussed. 'Vhat is the value of newspapers if during all that time the whole merits of the controversy from beginning to end arc not placed fnlly before the public 1 But not only that. 'I'he measure is rejected, and the Govern­ment decides to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives. ~ow, there must be at least six: or scnm or eight weeks before a general election C<lll take place, and during the whole of that time there i:> discussion in the country. The q uickcst time iu which we cm1 arrange a general election must lJc six or seven weeks in a country so extensive as the Common­wealth; and during the whole of that time

diseussion goes on Also. I say that those opportunities for discussion are so ample that it is impossible to understand that in the interests of fair discussion and the in­

formation of the public on these questions there can be any neeessity for further delay. I say, leave it to Parliament to decide. If you do so, the ordinary operations of parliamentary procednre will gh·e abundance of opportunity for discnssion ; but if you limit Parliament, and prevent their sending the matter forward when neccssa~Y, two effects will follow. lu the first place, there may be irreparable delay; and iu the second place, I think it is highly desirable that while the contro­versy is fresh in the minds of the })Cople, while Parliament has just discussed it, and is informed of all its bearings, as

soon as an election can be brought about, the issues should be placed Leforc the people. I hope thtlt, this claw;;o having been passed to certain powers of dis­solution in order to settle this question, it will not be frittered away by tying the hands of the Executive who have to use this important power, which may thns be rendered of very little val ne.

.J1r. DOBSON (Tasmauia).-I fear l ha\'e not the courage to say all that I feel with regard to the blot 'vhich ha8 just been pnt upon the Constitntion.

Mr. HEID.-Ts this in order?

The CHAllt.\IA~. --The honorablc member if:! not in order in reflecting on a deci~ion of the committee.

:\'fr. DOBSO~.-I think I have n right to express an opinion that the clause be­fore the committee will, if passed, be a·

blot upon the Con~titution.

The CHAIIL\L\N. The honorablc member i'l quite in order in doing that, because we ha vc not yet passed the elauHe.

Air. DOHSON.-I am going to express my opiuion upon the amendment of :\fr. Barton. I wish to say that I do not ap­

prove of it, and that I intend to support the amendment of ~fr. Symon. But 1

2168 Commonwealth of (9 MARCH, 1898.) AtJstralia Bill.

regret that Mr. Symon has consented to alter the term from six to three months, because I canuot understand a man who has had experience of legislation imagining that you can give due time for considera­tion in important matters in three months, and I am more than surprised to hear the arguments of Mr. O'Connor, who actually argues against three months.

:Mr. HoLDER.-·You waut to put a few more holes into the clause, so that it will not work.

Mr. DOBSON.-Tbere is rwt a single honorable member, except Sir .John Downer, who has tried to point out how what we haYe done 1\nd what we are professing to do is going to work. Let me say how I think it will work out. In ordinary times legislation will go on, and members of both Houses will display patriotism, intelligence, and industry, and will appear to do what is right for the eonutry. But in n time of excitement, when there is a battle, say, between capital and labour, or in connexion with some other social question, that will be the time when the Constitution will be tested. I submit that the committee by w!I<tt it has d·me, and by what is hdore the Chair, are taking away the state rights for which we have been work· ing for mouths. The committee has been depriving and robbing the states of eqnal representation in the Senate, aud abso­lutely doing away with the safeguards of the bi-cameral system. Honorable members are putting into the hands of the Federal Exeouti re such powers, such altcrna­ti ves, and such engines for coercion us you will not fin11 in any Constitution in the world. I think the lauguage I have just uttered is not the language of exaggeration, but is the language of absolute fact. If it is not a fact, let any honorable member tell me of any Constitution in the world which giYes to the Executive Government -to the Premier and his )1iuisters, who have the control of the public revenue and the financial policy of the country­the same power as we have given to

[•Vr. Dobson,

them in this Constitution. Then, sir, when the time of popular clamour comes, nnd the members of the Federal Govern­ment want to retain their seata, by giving way to the popular clamour, which is ~;imply history repeating it;;elf, the way has been paYed and made just as easy as it possibly can be. 'l'hey haYc only to pass their Bill, it is then rejected by the Scnn.tc, the Parliament is prorogued, and another session is convened according to my friend's (Mr. Symon's) amendment within three months. It is little ClJOugh time I should think for all Australia, to make up its mind. But "No," say my friend Mr. O'Connor and some other mem. bcrs-" Let the Go1'emment call a session the next day, let the session last but one hour, and enable them to pass their Bill, and then they have the states and the Senate at theiL· mercy. The Bill comes baek to the Senate, and if the Senate rt:jects it then there is thil'l double dissolu­ti'Jn."

11!1', REm.-But there will have been lo11g debate~ in both Houses during the first session.

Mr. DOBSON.-Yes, <tnd it has taken more than one long debate, as my right honorable friend knows to his advantage, to settle several I] uestions in thi~ Con. nmtion. The right honorable member knows that this Bill wonld have been utterly different if we had not had three or fonr long debates on different questions. I therefore say that the experience of this Convention-an experience under which the right honorable member has gained victory after victory-absolutely contra· diets what we are engrafting in thi~

Bill.

Mr. REw.-1 should like to have them written down for me, so that I could brag about them.

:Mr. DOBSON.-Did not the right hon­omble member brag the other day when he got Uii to rererse our decision 1 Did ho not s1ty that he felt as if ho had a,

orown of ~urels on his brow 1

Commonwt•alth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Amtralia Bill. 2169

Mr. REm. -No; that is another kind.

Mt·. DOHSON.-If the right honorable member will only kaYe me alone, I will get on more quickly, and I havo no desire to

take up time.

Mr. DouGLAs.-He eanuot help it.

Mr. DOBSON.-'l'he second ses1<ion may he called after n. day's interval ; it may only occupy a day; the Bill is sent to the Senate; and then the Senate is absolutely at the mercy of the Government of the day. I ask, then, what becom<~s of state rights 1 What becomes of the good of your two Chambers 1 Honomble members seem to forget the very foundation on which the two·Chamber syst.::m rests.

Mr. BARTON.-Does not ~fr. S:rmon'~:;

paragmph which was kept in contain the very evil yon are now protesting against 1

Mr. DOBSON.-I do not think it does. The Honse of Hepresentatives has to be dissolved, and after it has been dissolved and has come back with the mandate of the conutry, when the people have spoken out, when the qnestioll has been ventilu,ted, · and tbe people lmre been educated, as they mu:'it be ut a general election, then the Senate, being elected by tho same manhood suffrage, will, I presume, in 99 case~ out of 100, bow to the will of the people, I pointeu out this afternoon bow I thought that the House of Heprescntativcs, which has all the privileges, which has the governmeut in its hands, which has the control of all the finances in its hands, is the Chamber which ought to go to the peoplo and it is quite time enough to talk of sending the Senate there when it has refnsed to pass the Bill which lmppens to bfl the mamlate of the people. What I want to refer to is, if I may say so with all respect, the very simple argument of my learned friend (Mr. Isaacs ). I can hardly under· stand how he can have attained to such simplicity when he has had an education of Victori~m politics for almost a quarter of a century. He says, when it comes to the House of Representatives seudiug this

Bill n SE'cond time on to the Senate, does anybody believe th>~.t they will be so foolish as to risk their seats or do any­thing which l11!ty scud them back to their constituents 1 Why, sir, they will send the Bill ou again to the Senate, knowing per­fectly well that, as the senators have much more difficulty to get elected, have a much larger constituency to canvass, and have to go to twice as much expense to get elected as has a candidate for election to the Lower House, we !ihall never hear of a dissolution. I do not believe we shall eYer hear of a dissolution, and that becaus.e no mem­ber of either House will care to risk his position, his comfortable seat, and charming club-house, and his .£400 a yea)·. Yon are appealing to the lower insb10ts of your future Anstralian politicians. Yon are absolutely depriving them of what would help them to be patriotic, :md to consider the interests of their country, aud yon are inviting them to consider o1lly their own interests. I do not be­Eeve that yon will have the simultaneous dh;solntion once in twenty :years. If we do not hnve the simultaneous dissolution, what will follow~ The state rights will have gone; the two-Chamber system will have gone ; we shall have deprived the people of the check of the Second Chamber. All that will be neces­sary will he to put certain machinery into motion, and after a delay of three mouths-according to the honorable and learned member (Mr. O'Connor) the delay need not be as much as three minutes-a count of heads will settle tbe question. I protest most rcspcotfully and humbly against the blot it is proposed to put upon the Constitution. 1'he honorable and learned member (xlr. Symon) showed me a Bill for the government of Ireland which he brought out with him from England. Thai Bill was framed under the direction of, and possibly by the hand of, the greate8t liberal leader that the Anglo.Saxon world has ever seen-Mr. Gladstone-and it contains the provision that if the two Houses

2170 Commonwealth of [9 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

disagree an interval of three years must elapse, or the expiration of a quinquennial Parliament, whichever is the longer period, before there can be a dissolution of the two Houses. Mr. Gladstone thought that three years was not too long a time to al­low for the education of the people and the politicians upon any important '1 uestion.

Mr. REm.-Perhaps three years were thought to be necessary for the education of the men of Kilkenny.

Mr. DOBSON. -However honomble members may differ from me, I trust that I have advanced a few arguments to show that we are doing a dangerous thing, and I, on behalf of those who sent me here, offer my prote~ts against the proposal.

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted in the proposed amendment be so inserted-put.

The committee divided-

Ayes ... Noes •..

27 17

Majority for Mr. Symon's lw amendment ... . .. J

AYES.

Braddon, Sir E. Briggs, H. Brown, N. ,J. Clarke, M. ,J. Dobson, H. Douglas, A.

N. C. Leake, G.

Downer, Sir J. W. Fon·est, Rir ,J. Fraser, S. Fysh, Sir P. 0. Grant, C. H. Hackett, J. \V. Hassell, A. Y. Henning, A. H.

Abbott, Sir ,J. P. Barton, .!<~.

Brunker, J. N. Carruthers, J. H. Cockburn, Dr. J. A. Deakin, A. Glynn, P. M. Gonlon, ,J. H. Higgins, H. B.

[Mr. Dobson.

J,ee Steere, Sir J. G. Lewis, N. E. McMillan, W. Moore, \V. Peacock, A .• J. Quick, Dr. J. Trenwith, 'iV. A. Turner, Sir G. Venn,H. W. Walker, J. T. Zeal, Sir W. A.

Teller. Symon, J. H.

NoEs.

Hohler, F. W. Howe, J. H. Isaacs, I. A. Kingston, C. G. Reid, G. H. Solomon, V. L. Wise, B. R.

'l'eller. O'Conuor, R. E.

Question so re~olved in the affirmative. .The amendment, as amended, was in­

serted in the clause.

Mr. lSAACS (Victoria).-There is one formal amendment which I mentioned earlier in the day-the words which were in the clause originally. They were struck out because it was the intention of the Drafting Committee to propose the excision of the first paragraph. 'fhat paragraph ii:l now restored, and it will, therefore, be necessary to restore the words I have mentioned in order to give clearness to the

. second paragraph. I beg to move-

That, after the word "Governor-General," the words " instead of dissolving the House of Representatives alone " be inserted.

In other words, this amendment will give the option, in clear l.anguage, of following either the first or the second paragraph.

Mt·. GLYNN (South Australia).­Before these words are inserted, I wish to call the attention of the committee to the effect it will have in relation to the first paragraph as it now stands. If there is a successive dissolution of the two Houses there may be no cure qf a dead lock, whereas if there is a simultaneous dis­soln,tion of the two Honses there can be a cure of a dead-lock.

Mr. IsAACs.-Bnt that does not affect this question. The honorable member is dealing with a. later matter.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-! beg to move that progress be reported.

'fhe motion was agreed to.

Progress was then reported.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

::Vfr. BARTON (New South Wales).­In reference to the course of business, I shonld like to say that, inasmuch as the discussion on the :;<:coud recommittal has taken a longer time during the present week than WHS anticipated, I shall usk honorable members to sit up to at least eleven o'olock to-morrow night, and much

Q1<eensland (tnd (9 MARCH, 1898.] the Federat-ion. 2171

later if necessary. I wish to sec the business finished this week if practicable.

Mr. REID (New South Wales).-I should like, in the interest of public business, to implore honorablc members who represent some of the smaller colonies not to make speeches which pro­voke sometimes more heated retorts than onC', on cooler reflection, would indulge in.

Sir JOHN DOWNER(Sonth Anstralia). -I would ask the right houorable man who has jnst spoken not to

the speech he made this aftemoon.

The Convention adjourued at six min­utes past ten o'clock p.m.

THURSDAY, 10TH JfARCH, 1898.

Que<nsland and the Federation-Lea,·e of Abseuce: Mr. Hcr:ry-Commonwealth of AllStralia llill.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at twenty­six minutes to eleven o'clock a.m.

QUEE~SLAXD AXD 'l'HE FEDERATWN.

The PRESIDENT.-I deem it to be my duty to communicate to the Conven­tion the fact that I yesterday received n.

telegram from representatives of va1·ious districts of Central Queensland, which I will lay on the table and ask the Clerk to read.

The CLEHK read the telegram, as fol­lows

Rockhampton, Queensland, 9th :\!arch, 1898.

To the Hon. the President of the Federal Convention.

\Ye, the representatives of the people of Central Qucenslaml in the Legislati1·c A"sem­bly, desire to place on rceonl our conviction that the fctleration of the Australian colonies is absolutely essential for the safety and welfare of Australia. At the same time, we trust the Convention will make proYision in the Consti­tution for the admission of Central aud Northern

Queensland as separate states of the Common­wealth immediately it is proclaimed, and irre­spectiYe altogether of whether or not Southern Queensland desires to join.

.T. B. .FITZGERALD, H. T. HARDACRE,

\V. KIDSTO::I, J. c. STR\\"ART,

.JAsos BoLEs, J. M. Cuoss, J. l'vhJRRAY, G. s. CURTIS, A. J. CALLAN.

Mr. BARTON (New South beg .to move that the document be printed.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. BAWL'ON (New South Wales.)­

Honorable members will recollect that I stated some evenings ago, with reference to a proposed new clause relt<ting to the Queen's prerogative regarding the division of Queensland, that I would communicate with the Premier of Queensland and ask him to favour me with the views of his Govemment on the clause. I sent such a telegmm, setting out the clause at length, and asking for Sir Hugh Nelson's views upon it. I have now received the follow­ing reply:-

Home Secretary's Office, Brisbane, 2ml March, lR98.

To the Hon. E. Barton, Federal Convention. \Ye are indebted to you for the feeling of

consideration which prompted you to suggest withdrawal of Mr. ~Walker's proposed new c!ause in the Draft Federation Bill, until the views of this Go;-erwnent had been ascertainetl. \Ye do not think the clause wonld tend to pro­mote the cause of federation in this colony.

Hutm M. NELsoN.

I beg to move that the document be printed.

'l'he motion \vas agreed to. Sir JoSEPH Anno'r1'.-Mr. President, I

had risen before you put the qneetion. The PHESIDENT.--~If the honorable

member had ri~cu before I put the ques­tion, he will be perfectly in order in speaking now, if he desire~ to do so.

Sir JosErn ABBO'l'T.-No, I will not say anything.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. ~fr. LEWlS (Tasmania) moved-That seven days' leave of absence he granted

to the Hon. J. Henry, on account of urgent pri Ya tc business.

The motion was agreed to.

2172 Commonu•ealth of [10 MARCH, 1898.]

COlVIMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA BILL.

'l'he Convention resolved itself iut0 committee of the ·whole for the further consideration of the Commonwealth of Australia Bill.

Discussion (adjourned from the previous day) was resumed mt paragraph (2) of clause 56n (Dead-lock provisions).

Mt·. ISAACS (Victoria).~! recognise from the debateB which have taken place upon this clause that there is at last something like a recognition on the part of the Convention of the absolute neces­sity of providing some means of settling what are known as dead-locks. The ques­tion that we have niJw to determine seems to me to bo what is tho best and fttirest way of achieving that object. We have adopted two modes -or rather one mode v1trionsly phrased, namely, the dissolution of the two Houses of Parliament-for cll'ectuating our desire in that 1'here is also in the clause as carried at Syduey a provision for attaining finality, in the case of disputes between the two Houses, by what is called a joint sitting of both Houses. [u the first place, the very fact that this provision for a joint sitting ha$ been agreed to is <t recognition of the truth of the position that the mere adoption of a dissolution, whether it be consecutive or simultaneous, is uot sufficient. It will be easily demo11:stmted that the phtn Etgrocd to in Sydney, and that has now come up for consideration again~the joint sitting -is not only useless, but, if effective, i~ worse than useless as a moans of deciding finally the affairs of thi~> CommonweRlth. During the elections for the Federal Convention in Victoria there was nothing that was more strongly insisted upon by my :Ylinisterial colleagues and myself than this, that nothiug in the shape of a joint meeting of tho two Houses should be permitted. I tray add that no objec­tion was more cordially approved of th;tn that. l think I shall be able to show to those who say that a. dissolution in any

~Mr. [saacs.

shape will be an effectual remedy to pre­vent or to settle dead-locks that nothing can be further from the actual truth. 'Vhen we come to consider what is to be the ultimate means of deciding the affairs of the Commonwealth, we are led inevitably to the inquiry-What form shall the ultimate tribunal take 1

Mr. Donso~.~'l'here is only one form left-r.he referendum.

Mr. ISAACS.···-·-·Y es, in some shape. If I were to consult my own individual con­venience and personal comfort I should not, in the face of the enormouH opposition that has been manifested in the Conven­tion, in some quarters especially, to the adoption of the referendum, addresR myself to the subject at all, or, if at all, at any length. l hope tlmt in any event I shall not be accused when I have sat down of occupying too much time, but there is a duty that we owe not only to those who sent liS here, but to the people of all Australia, and to the eanse of federation itself. I am, therefore, impelled to ask the atten­tion of the Convention while I state once more, as succinctly a!-1 I can, the rea~ous why the provi;;ious in the Bill arc not ac­ceptable as a meam; of avoiding th~ di:s­asters which would inevitably attend such dead-locks as would, not only probably, but almost certainly, arise in the working of this Constitution as at present framed, and why some other better mode shnitld be adopted. I am uot going to question the votes that ha\'C been already given, be­cause that would not be in order. Bnt what I am entitled to do, l apprehend, is, accepting the votes that have been given, to look at their com;eqnences and consider I heir effects, and see how the Constitntiou will work with the chmses that we have already adopted. I cannot forget, sir, that on the floor of this chamber it was my duty, when in charge of the Adelaide Bill, to do all in my power to secure the acquiescence of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria in the principle of equal representation in the Senate. In that

matter I was in a considerable amount of

Commonwealth of [10 MARCH, 1898.1 Australia Bill. 2173

difficulty. After combating, much my own personal convictions :mcl my own personal desire that, if it could be avoided, federation should be obtained without equal t·eprescntation, I was forced to ask the Legislative Assembly by a majority, though not a very great majority, to accept the position. In like matmm·, I asked the same body to assent to the dual referendum in preference to the national referendum, because I desired, while con­sidering the prineiples of equal represen­tation, not to do anything that could possibly be avoided to minimize that pro­VISIOn. I did that, as I say, although I felt that there might be strong, and there are strong, objections to the adoption as a final means of determination of the dual referendum. There are conceivable cases where it would not be final, but I was willing to accept that risk, becanse I be­lieved the risk would be a minimum. I will give practical reasons and practical results that have been obtained in another country on this subject in support of that view. I was willing to accept the risk, and after considerable difficulty the Legis­lative Assembly agreed to my view. But I found that while I asked the Assembly, and through them the people of Victoria, to consider the principle of equal represen­tation in the Senate, and not to insist on the national referendum, it was in the full belief, not shared by those who still oppose me, that we should succeed at last in obtain­ing some concession in return for the very great eoncession we had made in those two directions. I was wamed that my hope was without foundation, but I clung to that hope. I clung to the hope in Sydney, and when Mr. Lyne Hrst brought on his proposal for the national referendum, before the dual refer­endum was put to the vote, I nnd my colleagues voted against the lll!-tional re­ferend urn, still in the hope that the smaller states would assist us in carrying the dual referendum. I found when the matter was examined that no one could say for an instant, or did say for an instant, that

this would put the smaller states in a wrong position. It seenred to them the full rights of efjual repreAentation from the beginning to the end of the Consti­tution. It gave into the hands of the people of the states full control of the power which had been accorded to them in the constitution of the Senate, and by no means allowed the larger populations of the othet· eolouies to override them at the hustings, any more than they did in the Houses of J>arliament. But that was refused. That proposal IVUB rejected, and theu, when the national referendum pro­posal was brought on again, I was com­pelled to vote for it. While I am thor­oughly satisfied that, if the dual referen­dum wet·e adopted it would do all that is necessary, pre;;erving the rights of the state beyond the possibility of que>!tion, it would allow the people to act by their own direct voice in the last t•esort, and say whether or not the acts or the refusal of their legislative to act should be sustained. I may be asked, and fairly asked, what 1 have, in point of fact, to sustain my opinion as to the practicability of the dual referendum. I have the fact that since 18i 4 the principle has existed in the Swiss Constitution. '!'here, in case of difference on constitutional question, the matter is referred, or may be referred, t•1 the people of the Federal ion and the people of the states, and the dispute decided by the dnal referendum. In sections 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Swil:ls Constitution can be found the provision to which I am referring. There is alw a provision, which, of com·Re, we do not seek tv embody here, that if a certainnum­ber-50,000, 1 think··~of the electnrs ask for a constitutional matter to be referred, it shall be referred to the people of the Federation and the people of the states.

Mr. DonsoN.- Is there a dissolntion of the Upper Chamber there 7

Mr. ISAACS.-No; I am now dealing with the question of whether allo~ring the vote to go to the people of the Common­wealth and the people of the states is

2174 Commonwealth of [10 MARCH, 1898.] Austmlia Bill.

effectual. I shall come to the question of dissolution in a moment. I now merely want to rid of the argument that has been used, not by some of my honorable friends from the smaller states, but by some of my honorable friends who waut the national referendum, and that alone, that the dual referendum is not sufficient.

Sir Wru.IAM ZEAL.-Have you con­sidered the cost of the referendum as applied to Australia and as compared with the cost in a small place like Switzerland 1

.Mr. ISAACS.-My honorable friend (Sir William Zeal) will see that that is utterly irrelevant to the point I am dis­C\!Ssing.

Sir Wm,rA~r ZEAL.-Oh, is it 1 Mr. ISAACS.-I shall come to an end

much soouer if I am allowed to continue. In Switzerhmd, since 1874, there have been fifteen occasions on which constitu­tional questions have been referred to the people of the Federation and the people of the states. On every one of these occa­sions-on some of which matters were rejected and on others were accepted-the people of the Federation were in accord with the states. There was not one single instance in which the majority of the states differed from the majority of the people.

Mr. Gr,YNN.-The referendum was used to give expression to the jealousy of the federal body. All measures wel'e rejected up to 1875.

Sir Wn,r,IAM ZEAL.-Of course that is irrelevant.

Mr. ISAACS.-If measures were re­jected, they were rejected by both the states, and the people. .M:y friend (Mr. Glynn) is now talking of federal laws, whereas I am talking of constitutional questions. In relation to federal laws, the matter does not go to the people and to the states, but to the people only. That is because both Houses have agreed-and, both Houses having agreed, it is not a ques'tion of settling dead-locks, but a question of putting the matter to the sovereign people by way of veto, just as

[Mr. Isaacs.

matters are now put to the Crown here by way of veto. There is no Crown in Switzerland, and therefore the nega­tive referendum, to which my honorable friend (Mr. Glynn) has referred, has no bearing on the question :1t all. I am now speaking only of constitutional mat­ters, in which there is a dual referendum; and it cannot be too clearly borne iu mind that in no instance since 1866 have the states and the populntion differed. I believe that the case in 1866 was on some question of weights and measures. Since then, for over 32 years, there has never been any difference between the states and the people. I take that to be the strongest evidence that, except in a minimum of in­stances, we shall have in the dual referen­dum a clear and absolute means of deciding disputes. .As to the fairness of this dual referendum to the smaller states, I do not think anybody disputes that for an in­stant. But that has been rejected, and I am called upon to elect whether I am prepared to abandon the question of a referendum altogether, or whether I am prepared to ask for a national referendum. When the people of the small states, ac­knowledging the fairness of the proposal that was offered to them, still aid in reject­ing it, they cannot blame me or any Vic­torian who says that the time has come when we must consider our own people. \Ye have made a sacrifice in the nature of equal representation and in the nature of the dual referendum. These were offered time after time, like the Sibylline books, and the time has arriYed when we must consider the mass of the people whom we represent-the amount of money they will contribute to the national exchequer, and their rights and liberties. Re­member that while we have offered a scheme which does not allow the majo­rity to override the minority, we must be careful how we accept a scheme which, ou the other hand, would allow the minority to override the majority. Hold­ing the views I entertain, and considering the offers we have made, I do not find

ComnW1W'IH11th of (10 ~fARCII, 1898.] A mtralia Bill. 2175

myself in a position, in loyalty to my opini.ms aurl my duty, to recede from the pm;ition of attempting to obtain some finality on those questions by means of tbe direct influence and interposition of the people themselves in cases of neces­sity. When I was a;;ked to face this question a:; to the probability of dead­]<Jcks, what did I find 11 I am in absolute accord with my right honoraulo friend (Mr. Kingston) in what he said yesterday, that this Bill, and more especially the numerous alterations we have made, are replete with liability to controverted que;;tion;,; which are likely to lead to some form of dead-lock.

Mr. Donsox.~The leader does not think so.

Mr. l:SAACS.~lt h; absolutely unneces­sary to say that, in common with all the rest of the Convention, I entertain the most profound respect fur the opinion of onr hrmorable leader. And my honorable fricml (l'vh·. Darton) !mows that that is ;mid with the most unfeigned sincerity. At the same time, this is a matter on whieh we are bound to act on our own opm10n. We arc bonud not to yield on this overwhelming question to the opinion of any other man. Therefore, I am sure I &hall be excused if, on this question, which I feel is near to the heart of those who will take an active part in determining thh; question finally in the colony of Vietori<t-1 do not presume to speak for other eolonies~in dettling with this question here for the last time, I put before this Convention, with all the anxiety that I feel, the reasons why I nrge them to accept the provisions for a refer­endum. They may with me, bnt when they do, they will, I hope, sec that I have uot this matter unduly upon them, and they will not think that I have pressed it. upon them in a manner unworthy of its importance. Now, why do I think that the provision for disl:lolution is not sufficient 1 Let us consider what has already been done m the relations of the two Houses. First of

all, it nm.~t be admitted that the resolu­tions of the Parliaments in some of the eolonies~cspecially of New South Wales and Victoria~ were that some provision for the referendum should be made, and in New South ·wales an overwhelming vote was given that it should be by way of national referendun1. If my memory serves me right, the dual referendum was agreed to in the Parli~tment of South Australia also. Here we have three popular bodies all asking for the double referendum.

:\Ir. DousoN.-That was before we had the simultaneous dissolution.

:\Ir. ISAACS.- I think my l10norable friend is right, but the question of a dis­solution was before these Parliaments in every instance, and they considered that question. Having considered tllat ques­tion, they gave in their adhesion to the referendum.

:Nlr. Dousox.-I think it would be more correct to say that they gave in their adhesion to some provision for dead-locks.

}lr. ISAACS.-No; if the honorable member looks at the tabulated book of amendments ou the table he will see that the referendum was the scheme proposed.

Mr. DousoK.~Thnt is quite true, hut it was for some one provision out of three.

Mr. ISAACS.-Some final provision, and that is what we have to look to. I was proceeding to show what was done in these particulars ; that, throughout the most populous colonies there has been a feeling that, if we followed the strict line of duty, both Houses would he national. In the other colonies it has been felt that the Constitution would be unacceptable in that form ; and when the colonies yielded equal representation in the Senate I venture to say it was on the distinct understanding that, whilst one House was based on equal representation, the other House should be absolutely composed on the basis of national representation. Did the matter stop there~ No. In the House of Hcpresentatives we weut further. We went further than we did in 1891, and we conceded to the smaller ·states that

2176 CQfMIWIWJealtk of [10 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

they should not be overwhelmed even in that House-that Tasmania and ·western Australia should not hare even to put up with their fair share of representation in that House, but that they should have a minimum of five, and not four, as in the Bill of 189 L So that, instead of confining them to a proportiom1te share of representation in the House of Heprescntatives, which would give them, roughly speaking, one-tenth of the voting power in that House, they were allowed to have approximately one-sixth of the voting power. So that they not only got equal representation in their own Chamber, but they got n larger proportion thau wns fair, according to the measure of the represen­tation in the other Chamber. Surely that was thought to be enough. But no, another step was made; and now we have it in the Bill before us that the House of Representatives must neYer be constituted according to the needs o£ the population without increasing inordinately the mem­bers of the Senate. While the states as represented in the other House, while the states, regarded as units, remain states, the population, while eternally increasing, as we hope it will, is not to have the proper and reasonable number of repre­sentatives according to the needs of the population, except at the will of the Senate, that is, at the will of the smttller states, and except the Commonwealth joins in enlarging the Senate. That was the other step taken. :Xow, in regard to the powers of the Houses, before I come to the result as shown in this clause. When we come to the powers of the Houses, we find that the Senate is protected in regard to all money matters in a way that no Upper Chamber in the world is protected.

Dr CocKBUR!f. It is not an I:" pper Chamber.

:Mr. ISAACS.-It is not a House of Review 1

Dr. CocKBUUN.-It is not an T.:"pper Chamber.

Mr. ISAACS.-It is not a House of Revision-is that the argument~ Is it not

[Mr. baacs.

the Huwse in which the sober second thought of the people is to receive con­sideration 1 Is it argued that it is simply for special interests 1 Of course, it i~ an Upper Chamber in many respects.

Mr. REm.-I protest against those in­terruptions. They have often got me into trouble.

The CHAIRMA:X.-I call attention to the standing order, which is perhaps not sufficiently observed, that no honorable member shall interrupt any other hou­omble member ~vhile he is speaking. I will endeavour to see that that order is observed more strictly in future.

Mr. ISAACS.-I recognise the desira­bility of adhering to that rule, but, as far as I am personally concerned, of course, I do not object to auy interjection which may tend, as it often doe~>, to elucidate the matter, and hy drawing forth a reply, may save more than one speech after­wards. I was proceediu~ to show to the best of my ability the relations of these two Houses, and I am goiug to point ont that the relations of these liOll!iCS are such that, while the Senate has conserved to it such powers of independence as no other Upper Chamber in the world possm;ses, the nature of the subjects which are to be dealt with by these two HouHcs are more likely to lead to questions of dispute, and to protract the dispute, than in any uni­tary state. Take the one question, .for the sake of argument, of taxation of the Commonwealth :tnd the division of the surplus. They are really two questions, although properly speaking they depend upon one consideration. ·when we come, in the House of Representatives, to put forward a proposal to raise a certain amount of money, shall we not hn ve it urged that some of the states re­quire, as it was termed by one of their representative:;, financial aid? And when the surplus comes to be dis­tributed, as it will, no doubt according to what the Federal Parliament thinks just and fair, shall we not have controversie!l of the most dangerous nature as to the

Comm01ttvealth of [10 XIATICH, 1898.] Australia lhll. 2177

tUllotmt that each state is to get 1 As the Constitntion at proseut Rtauds, there is no gwwantec that any state shall get back a sqfticient amount to pay its liabili­

ties ; and no one cn,u help foreseeing that there will be struggles of a very bitter tmtnrc as to the division of the smplns. \Vhen \YC consider that these matters,

which may be regarded as state rights, state claims you may call them-but

they will be called 8tahl rightH, becattse it will be said that the Commonwealth

does not dare to allow any state to sink into insolvency-we shall have either the

larger states compelled to wait for an improper and d1mgerous length of time

to get the amount of money that is neccs·

sary for their state purpose.~, or they will be forced by the means of resistance con­filled to the powers of the Senate to yield

to demands which they may think nttcrly

nnwarrautell by j usticc. There are other

matters which are patent upon the face of this Bill which will lead,

without any difficulty of conjecture, to struggles of the same nature. And when we consider these things we are forced to ask ourselves of what effect will the dissolntion be 7 .Just imagine a cttsc that may ariHe within the third year of

the Federation, and perhaps earlier~

After nuifonu duties have been established t.hi::; contest, this scramble, for the surplus will commence. It will eommcnee, in the first when the 'l'ariff is proposed, and when the amount of money to be raised to earry on the Commomn'alth ami ret11nt money to the states i:,; nnder con­sideration. It will ahm continue ,dwn the question of the surplns is introduced, ann

the question arises as to how it is to be

distributed. 1'hen we shall find in the Sen­

ate the members for each state standing

up solidly, as a plmhtnx, for their state rights; and when the proposals arc con­

sidered by the Pal'liament, and they have

passed the House of Hepresentatives and

gone into the Senate, is it not a very prob­able state of things that we shall have

three states together, or a Inajority at all [ l3i]

c1·ents, rdusing to accede to the uroYi­sious of the Bill as sent n p by the House of H::pre~cniatives? lf it is

nrgcd by the senators of t be sll\aller

states that the safety of their colonies depends upon their stmdiness in main­taining their position, we ;;hall h:we this dead-lock, and then there is to be a dissolution. Now, let ns sec how the

dissolntion operates. The sc1mtors from

the smaller states-lYe will say, for the sake of argument, from Tasmania, and I axn not to be nnderstood as making any reflection, because I am only putting

it as a concrete case go back to their colony, and the people there are aBked " Do yon agree with om·

action in insiBting upon thiH amount of money being gi Yen to Tasmania 7" What. will the people of Tasmania say 7 They will say, probnbly--" Oh, _res, we agree with you;" or they will say-" \Ve arc nut quite snrc wliethcr we agree with

you or not; we that yon haYe stood up for n;;, and \Ye will not he so

politically nngn~tefu 1 as to reject you in favour of ~:;ome other men who wish to

accede to the de~ires of the larger colonies." Indeed, we know that personal eonsidemtions, apart from the partieular matter in •p1cstion, may come fonn~rd,

evon if the people think there is an element of injustice in the stand taken by their representatives in that regard, and, yielding to that feeling of justice, they will never charge themselves with

such ingmtitnde as to reject the men who stood forward as their champions. So the meinlJers of the Senate will come back after its dissolution on these questions,

which are most fruitful of prolonged and

difficult controversy, not with their jndg­

nwnts open. The senator,; will not then be

able to yield, as they might before haYc yielded. 'I'hey will come back with an

imperatiYe mandate to stand to the last,

and to resi,;t the claim~ of the Honse of

Hepresentntiw;.;. And then where is the

finality of the matter 1 W o may be told

-"Oh, bnt the fear of the senators going

2178 Co!nnwnwealth of fl0 :JfARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

to the country 1rill be enough to make them yield." Now, I say that is an im­proper argument, beeatJ~e it assumes that either the Senate ha vc asked for something they thought nnjn;:;t, or that they will yield to something they think unjust­that they will surrender the rights of their stnte, not for the sake of compromise, not for the sake of peace, but for the sake of preserving their OWl! seats and their owu pay. l. therefore say that so far from the dissolution clearing away that ground it will harden the matter, it will make the struggle more obstinate; it will land ns, so to speak, in a political c1tl de sac, unless we adopt some further means of termi­nating the dispute. And what are the mean:> of terminating the dis!Jnte sug­gested in this elau8e 1 '!'hat the two Houses shall meet together? Now, I seriously invite the attention of my hon­orablo friends to this propo:ml that the two Houses shall 1nect together, and I would seriously ask them how that can possibly be accepted 1 \Vhat does it mean? It meauil that whiie you have equal repre­sentation in the Senate, that while you have an nnrlnc proportion of representa­tion for the smaller states in the Honso of Iteprescntatives, thaL while you have a

ratio of ouo to two, a;; between the two Houses, so that population does not get its fair number of representative~ in the National Honse, you are then to go one step further, and, while you have already i

refused to allow the National House to be bailed upon relJresentation of population purely, and you have acceded to the posi­tion of equal representation in the other House, you arc then to take this further step, and a f<ttal step it seems to me, of introducing the principle of equal repre­sentation within the four walls of the House of Representatives, \Yhen you ha,·e united the two Houses in that Chamber. Now, I would seriously ask tl1is [Jlain question of some of those honorable gen­tlemen who haYc :mgget~ted that we wish to be governed by one Chamber; that we wish to introduce the uni·cameral system.

[.'lfr. Isaac.~.

·who is it that favours that uni·cameral system 1 Those who want to maintain the two H0nses separate, and allow the people, and the people only, to judge between them, or those who say that, in the last resort, there shall be only ono House; that the two Houses shall be united, that there shall be no longer two Houses to decide the dis­pute, but, in the last resort, one House only, and one .HouHc which has to decide the question, ll<)t by a majority, but a three-fifths majority 'l Let us see what that means in plain figures. It means that if there are five colonies in the Federation, Victoria will have 24 members in the House of Itepresentatives and six in the Senate, making 30, or one member for every ·10,000 inhabitant~. Tasmania aud ·western Australia will lHli'C five members in the House of Itcprescntatives and six in the Senate, or eleven for a popu­lation of between 160,000 and 170,000 ench, or one member for about 15,000 in­habitants. That is to say, in the final arbitrament of every legislative dispute between the two Houses of the Federal Parliament, including money matters, the question is to be decided in one Chamber, in which representation of the larger states is to be, even if you went by a vote of the majority, ono member for every 40,000 inhabitants, while the smaller states are to be represented by one member for every 15,000 inhabitants.

Mr. GLYXN.- l:; that a fair way of 1ooking at it 1

Mr. ISAACS.-I am to follow the ruling of the Chairman, and decline to depart from the path of my argument.; but let us go a step further. 'l'he ques­tion in dispute between the two Hou,ses of the Federal Parliament is not even to be decided by a majority of the members of the two Houses sitting wgether, but by a three-fifths majority, and that, roughly speaking, will mean that, in the fiua1 deter­mination of the dispute, Tasmania and 'Vestern Australia will each have one membet" per 15,000 inhabitants, while

Commonwealth of (10 MARCH, 18D8.J .A 1tsimlia B£tl. 2179

Victorin will have one member for about 60,000 or 70,000 inh>tbitant;;. Well, i;; that a stltte of things tlmt we can regard as tolerable'? And not only that; it means also the overriding of all our struggles, and the result of llll onr struggles, in regard to the money powers of the two Houses respectively. I know no more anxion~

moment in the whole history of this Con­vention than that at which we re:;olved that the Senate should not have the power of amendment in Money Bilh, and that it should have the power of sugges­tion. What will be the resnlt if these two Honses meet together 1 \Ye know there is a bitter feeling e\·cn against that power of suggestion-at any rate, there is in Vietorht; and there was a strong vote agttinst it. But. what will be the result? The Senate will say-~ "·we ctm di:,;re!:("ard that power of sug­gestion; we ean reject the Bill; we need not go into detail~ upon it., \Ye will simply reject it.; we will not trouble to ~end down suggestion:,; tot he House of ltepre;;eutativc:>, which th:1t Hou'le may regard or refuse to regard a~ it plca~es; we will not trou hle oursclvc~ to offer reacmus; we know per­fectly well that we shall be supported in our states if we are sent to them, and when we come back we will meet the members of the House of Representatives in the one Chamber with our terrific undue power of representation, and we then can finally decide whether the Bill in dispute shall or shall not pass." Jt will uot he the Senate that takes that responsi­bility. It is departing from the principle of giving them the power of suggestion instead of the power of amendment; bec~\nse that alteration was made so that the Senate, while retaining the power::; of delay and revision, could at last assume the respon­sibility of finally accepting or rejecting a Money Bill. But this ebuse does not c~uTy out that intention. This provision throws the responsibility-where 'I 1\ot on the House of Heprc:sentati ve:s solely; not on the Senate solely; but on thi,; new one Chamber-this uni-cameral institution

which has been created by this clause to decide fiuall_y, not only ordiuary subject~ of legislation, but money matters as well. And although we may be able to do that, there is no power of amend· ment--as the clause stands, there would be power of amendment ; but I do not think that was the intention with regard to money matters. Hut even if there is no power of amendment in that uni­

cameral body, still it provides that the senators come deliberate, and vote OH

exactly the same footing a<; the members Df the House of Hcpresentatives. That is to SilJ, in a final dctermin::ttion of qnes­tions affecting the public purse, the small states have an advantage which was never contemplated when we were discussing the Constitution. Therefore, it seems to me impossible to accede to that, and one is almost tempted to add to the reasons whieh present themselves, from a consider­ation of this propm;al, the rccolleetion of the Seriptnra.l denuneiation--" \Yoc unto them that join hou~c to house."

Mr. \VALKEH.-,Vhat about terrace;;~ Mr. TRENWlTII. ~-'l'lmt is unification. Mr. FrrABEn..-\Ve have never heard

that quotation before. The CHAIKMAN.-Order. Honorable

members rnm;t not interrupt the speaker. Mr. FRASER.--But we want to know

where he got that quotation from 1 Mr. ISAACS.-l have no doubt that

any allusion to Scripture would be news to some of my l1onorahle friends, but still that allusion seems to me to be applicable all the same, all(i 1 do earnestly urge upon my honorable friends that this pro­posal for the joint meeting of the two Houses, under any conditions, under any circumstances, is a matter that is beyond acceptance, m my humble opinion, by the people of the larger states­certainly the people of Victoria. Now, sir, if the referendum is refn,;ed in this Bill we shall be met by the proposition I reverted to in pa;;siug a few minutes ago, by some of rny honomble friends, that dead-locks arc a matter of antiquarian

2180 Comm<mwealth of [10 "YLul.CII, 1898.] Australia Rill.

research. I think that is the favorit.e po~ition taken up by my honorable friend (:\fr. \Viso). Ho has used it in vrtrious forms. Yesterdny he spoke of the ghost of departed Victorian controversy ; but, ~ir, that Victorian controversy lives in the memories of the people of Vic­toria, and it is u fact that if thoro is no such controversy i11 later years it is because the people of Vietoria have demonstrated that they will tolerate no obstruction to their way when eftcetmdly expressed ut the ballot-box. And when my right honorable friend (Sir John Forrest) said ye~terday that we should adhere to the British Constitution, and adhere to the workiug of the two Houses as we find them in Great· Britain, I could not help asking whether he was williug to accept the result of the gene­ral election which it; decisive in ~Eng_

land, bnt w hi eh he would not coucede would be decisive in this Federation. 1 h~we ne;'er asked that the dissoln­tion of the Honse of Hepreseutatives shou Id finally determine the quc~tion.

Honorable member!> know that I have stood as long as I could to the propo­sals which g~tvo to the states their full measnrP of protection right through, and that it iB only when [ have been driven by the eombination of votes of those who think that a national referendum is the sole means acceptable of settling these mat· tors, and those who fear the referendum in any shape or form, although they admit it is fair to the smaller states-it is only when 1 am driven from that po;;i­tion that I am forced to take up tl1is stand. 'I'hat is a not a matter to be lightly dis­posed of. W o know that that grout con­Btitutional writer and statesman, Earl Grey, in his work on Colonial Pof1'cy,

recognised the difficulty that we are seek-to bring so prominently nnder the

notice of this Con rention, and he states there most. distinctly that the result of hiH consirlemtion of the matter was that he was driven to almost admit that one Chamber was the proper means of dealing

[ 1rfr. Lmac.s.

with the legislative concems in coun­tries where you could not constrnet the Second Chamber in such a manner as to make it yield to the express \Yill

of the people. Xo ono here suggests one Chamber, and all my efforts have been to mainlx<tin the two Chambers in their integrity. What I am now fight­ing against is the destruction of the powers of the House of ltepresentatives by meaJIH of the decisive veto of the Senate. \Ve have been told yesterday nlso that we should be satisfied, because a great advance has been made on the Bill of 1891. Tbe Bill of 1891 is not the test of the question at all. The Bill of 1891 was framed by men of great ability and experienct', but who were not. elected by the people directly, and with some notable exeeptionH, whom we find in this Chamber, I am proud to say, the gentle­men there were not in aceord (may I say it with all deference and respect n with the pu blie opinion o[ the larger colonies, at all events, even in 1891.

Mr. Mc:M!l.ld.N.-The Bill of 1891 is a very good foundation, though.

Mr. ISAACS.- Well, but I am saying that it mnst not be taken as a staudard. Those who framed the Bill of 1891 were themselves appointed by the Legislatures, and natnrally they had a strong penchant for following the ,;ame principle in the construction of the Senate. And they took, in that respect, tho American Con­stitution as their guide. X ow, we know perfectly well that even in 1891 that would not have been tolerated in Victoria, and, I believe, not in .New South Wales either. When the Bill was brought np in the Parliament of Victoria, reference to our debates will ;;how that that would not. have been tolerated even at that date. 'Ye are told that \Yc should be satis­fied, because we have made a great ad­vance upon that time. 'Vhy, what was the basis of the Constitution in 1891 ~ I say again, it slavishly followed, in that regard as in others, the American Consti­tution-a Constitution framed not on the

Commonwealth of [10 MAl~CH, 1~9f'-l A1tstralia Bill. 21~1

basis of following the people's \Yill ; bn t the American Constitution, a~ the Hill

of 1891, was framed on the doctrine of cheeks and balances. \Vo know tlu\t when the groat exnmple of the ] 891

Bill, the result of the Philadelphia Con­vention, was given forth to the \YOrld, it ll'as so given by men who hated democracy as we understand it. 'l'he difficulty of working that Constitution in re;;pect of ehecks and bal;tnee?l i~ becom­

ing more prominent every rlay; nud lnst year one of the American writers, Professor

Macey, took upon himself the great duty of bringing under the notice of the Ameri­can people, in n mm;tcrly ll'ork, the ttdvan­tages of the British Constitution. W c find that Woodrow Wil,;on, all(! other

men, arc cndmwouring slowly, l!ut as quiekly a:-~ the almost inert power of the

American Constitution will allow them,

to brill;.( the American people from Con­gressional Government to Cabinet Uovern· ment-from the tyra.llny of the Legis­lature to eontro! by the dircet will of the people. When we find under thiR Constitution two House,; constmr•ted Oil

admittedly antagonistic lim•s-ou lineR

which were adopted bccanse of the jealousy l!etwcen the larger popnlations and the smaller popu!ations~-to guard state rights as t,lwy nrc called, we m·e tolrl tint tlwt is neecssary bee<mse othorwit:>c the larger popula.tions will cmloav,:mr to override the smaller. Bat when \\'e complain, n.ml ask for some solution ns to the ditlienlticH t.ha.t will arise under the Constitution, we a retold that there will never be any antagonism or attempt by the smaller ;;tates to oyerrido the larger. If th1•t is so, why haYc wo put eqnal representation into this Constitn­

tion? J t is on the opposite assumption: and

when T claim, on that u.sRmnption, tlmt we Rlwnld have lolOme means of cffednn,ting the will o£ the people at large, I ;un met with

au argument which, if it had Fill,\' snhstancc in it., would be >tn argnment to rlc•:otroy eqnal representation in th(' Senate alto­gether. I think it only right to bring under the notice of this Conventiou

fol'lll1\l1y a view that i~ tal;cn in England 011 this very Bill in this ycr,v A most ahle article appeared in the SJ!ecfrttor

of the 25th of Scptcmhcr, J 897, at the Yery momenr, lthink, \\hen our pru('ccJ­

ings had come to an eml in Sydney. There

appeared then, 011 the authority, no clonht, of the telegraphic Hcconnts of onr pro­

ceedings, the most able article I nllnde

to, that has been mentioned iu the Ar1e newspaper a very little tin1c ago.

From that article iu the Spectatol' I will

read half-<\-do~<·n !in et~, bectmse they bear

so strongly on thi,; 'Jneshou, aud because ·they giYe m the view of an impartial

writer, and oue 1\' ho i1< removed from our

controversies a~ between larger ttnd c;maller states-11 \\'!'iter who e;wnot be sn;;;pected of having the slightest interc::;t in the mat­ter as between the vrrrions eolonieR. After dealing with the po~ition of th" relation:-;

of the Hon,.;e,.;, the writer s<tys-

Obviously, therefore, il_, i6 quitL' conceil-ahle that if t.tnestiuns arose in whieh the inter· csts, rcnl ol' suppo~cd, of the more ;md the less popnlons colonies <liverge, the two Houses wonl<l come inLo <lireeteonfiict. Not less phtinly it would he of greM eouse<JlWJwc to the Aus­tmlittn Common wealth that such tlead-locks should he determined as spee<lily as may he, awl also in a sense which would commend it­self, hr >ts may he, b the gcneml <tpprol'al of the great body of the coluuist~.

I omit a few Iilw'l, because they lllCJ'ely give credit to the Convetltirm for en­

deavouring to meet thi~ mattor in a L1ir way, anJ they point out that Wl' did not take the ~;top that W<1H tn)icn in America, where the Wl1tll iilatc~ threatened to eall in military aid, am] where the lm·gu state" thrcatenl'd to use military force. TlwKc were the eircun1t>tnnccR nnder whieh the

American Constitution w11s t1dopted. Then the writer proceeds-

\Ve should have heen if the rcpre· Aentativcs of the smaller states had seen their w~ty to allow questions didding the two Houses to be made the sn hject of a simple J·eferendnm. Sneh !\ sacrifice on their part might, we think, have accelcrate<l the development of that sen­timent of common Australian citizenship which is so tlesirahlc.

2182 Commonwealth of [1 0 MARCH, 1898.] .Australia Bill.

Mr. WISE.-Who is the writer? Mr. ISAACS.-It is a leading article.

Now, there is an opinion written thou­sands of miles away, not under the influence of our discussions, the writer not we.igbed down by partiality one way or the otber__:a most masterly article, the main subject of which is the relations of the Houses ; and when the writer deals with that subject in that able fashion -whieh will be evident from the mere perusal of the article-he gives his opinion as to what is right and what is fair. '!'here· fore it seems to me that the methods pro­posed so far are inadequate. Inadequate to do what 1 IlmdeLpmte to solve the one con­stitutional question which always presents itself in these troubles, and that is to make the national law accord with the national will. The dissolution of the Senate will never effectuate that. Then, when we come to the qnestion of the referendum, I am told that the objections to it arc mainly that it will destroy, first, representative govennnent.

Mr. McMru.A:>~.-You speak of the national referendum now 1

Mr. ISAACS.- I am speaking of either kind of referendum.

Mr. Mc~hUAN.-Tberc is a great dif. ference.

Mr. ISAACS.--Of course there is a differenee. The only difi'erence is that the national referendum provides that the will of the majority of the whole people shall govem in the final result, <tnd the dual referendum provides that the ma­jority of the people of the Commonwealth shall not be overridden by a majority of the states, but that it cannot override a majority of stx1tes.

Mr. ~lcMILLAN. -But your argument refers to the national referendum, r think.

Mr. ISAACS. - The argument I am going to denl with refers to both, because it is said e(tnally of both of them that the refcrcneo to the people directly destroys rcpl·csent,,ttivc government, and, therefore, I thillk I am fair in saying that this objection, which I propose to deal with as

[•llr. J,~aacs.

shortly as possible, applies, if it applies at all, to both of them equally. Now let me clear away one or two little subjects, as it seems to me, of mystification. '\Ve have heard it clearly stated that the referendum will be destructive of reprc· sentative government and of responsible government. Let me, once for all, dis­tinguish between those two matters. Representative government is possible without responsible government. In America they have representative govern­ment, but they have no responsible go· vernrnent. Therefore, we must distin­guish very clearly between these two things. If we want to preserve represen­tative government, as I think we must, we shall have to ask ourselves, first of all, what it is. Responsible government means, as I nnderstand it, the responsi­bility of the leaders of political life, the Ministers of the Crown, to one House of Parliament. Representative government means that the people, inpmviding their legislation and supervising their adminis­tration, do so through their represen­tatives. It is of the utmost importance that we should not confuse these two matters. If we ask ourselves are we to preserve responsible govcmment, then I sny we must not have the meeting of the two Houses, because a Ministry that brings forward a proposal, and has a majority in the House of Ropre­sentati ves, and yet has to face the pos­sibility of defeat, not by its own House, but by the joint operation of the two Houses, or by this now creation in the world of politics-this uni-cameral com­bination-will find itself responsible-to what ?-not to the House of Represen­tatives, not to the Senate, hut to this joint sitting. And I can conceive no mot·e fatal blow at what we understand to be responsible government than an application of this provision to the two Houses sitting together. Therefore, this new-fangled notion directs a most serious blow at re­sponsible govemment, as well as possessing the defects and disadvantages I have

Oommr.miuJealtk of (10 MARCH, 1898.) A ~tstmlia Rill. 2183

already pointed out. Let us see as to representative government. Is represen­tative government the be-all and end-all of our Constitution~ It is a matter of commou knowledge~! have referred to it very often, and I have never heard it chal­lenged-that representative govemment, as we have it now, is, comparatively speak­ing, a thing of yesterday, beeause until 1832 there was no representati1·e govern­ment in the sense in which we possess it uow in England. 'fhe House of Lords and the House of Commons, as Bttgohot points out, with un~m:;wm·able truth, con­sisted of the same people. The gentry of England, titled and untitled, and a few govcrniug families, returned an absolute majority of the House of Com­mons. 'l'hey did not represent the people; and it was only after that memomble struggle w!wn the House of Commons assumed its new character, when the Con­stitution of England underwent an un­doubted revolution, not only a reform but a revolution, that \Ye first had the iutro­duction of real representtitive goverument. That has been made still more clear by the broadeuing of the franchise down to the present time, and it is only by the broadening of the franchise that you get this representative govemment, with one essential consideration, which I will point out directly. Therefore this representn­tive government, which has brought in its train responsible government, and whieh lms bronght also as a necessary eonscgnence with it, and a necossa t·y attendant, the supremacy of the people in it" present form is a matter not possessing even the s:~nctity of antiquity. And are we to assume that representative govern­ment in it;o; present form is to continue for ever, Rnd to continue unchanged ? T am one of those who believe thct!; we shall always have representative government, and T believe that we shall always have responsible government in Briti;.;h t:Om·

nmnitie~. I believe that they onght to he maintained to the last, and I v; ish to de­eh\ re here, once for all, that I shall never

be a party to changing the bi-cameral system to the uni-cameral system, or to destroy represontatiYe institutions ot• respom;iblo government. But, str, there is a strong and a gro\\·ing feel­ing that representative government is be­coming intldcquate by it;,elf to fulfil the duties that are imposed upon it, and when I suggest and support the proposal for a rcfercnd um, it is not with the design of supplanting representative government­far from it ; but it is with this object : That while allowing representative govern­ment in the form of the tlvo Houses to proceed unmolested, even by a direct vote of the people in any shape or form so long as they carry ont the work of the people without hitch, without prolonged obstruc­tion, then I say, when that prolonged ob­struction takes place, that is to Ray, at the crucial point where representative government fails, where it breaks down, it is time that the people should be called in to manage their own aftitirs, which their agentR admittedly are unable to HUUH<ge for them. This is no new notion. It is not confined to Victoria. May I quote the words of a man whose name will be accepted ns that of a master in political seienee? What does Gold win Smith say?-

Parliaments are losing much of their import· ance, hect.tuse the reccl deliberation is being transferred from them to the press anu the general organs of discussion, by which the grent questions are virtually decillerl, parliamentary speeches being little mnre tlmn reprouuction~ of arguments already used ont­side the House, and parli:tm<mtary divisions little more than registrations of public opinion. H is not easy to sec how ftn·, with the sprea<l of public eclncation, this pmcess may go. or what value the parliamentary debate aml (]ivisiou list will irt the end retain. If moBaJ·ehy is primenLI, Parliaments are the offspring of the ~lidtlle Ages, and for them, too, saml in the lwm glass of history mm.

Mr. BAHTO:-<.-Is that a tendency to be re~isted or euconmgcd ?

Mr. lS.\ACS.~Any tendency that the people have mattife:-;ted in the direction of liberty and self-government oHght to be

2184 Commonwealth of llO MARCH, 1898.] .Australia Rill.

encouraged. Pnrliaments are nothing but machinery, and I \Yholly dissent from the po1iition taken np last uight by some honorable gentlemen, who ~a\d that the dead-lock i;; only an invention by the mnsse':l of the people to prevent them­se! ve~ from exercising their constitutional flnwtions that were intrusted to them. I,; not th<tt puttiug the axe above its master 1 Ii:! not that placing the created above the creator 1 Is not th11t !:lay­ing that the people \Yhose lives, whose liberties, whoBe money;; are being dealt with are not the judges them,ehes, but that they ;u·e to be ctemally the govemcd, not the self-goYerned. 'l'herefore, l say that while we, from the necessities of the case, must preserve, and ought to preserve, re­pre~entative institutionsand parliamentary government, yet \\"e ought not to be blind to this: That with the growth of popn­hltiun, with the exp;wKion of social and commc1-eial and ind nstrial uecossitics re­

presentative govcmment doe:s not always

eany out the untie~ which it iB culled upon to fnltil. And that i~ just the jnnctnre where we ;;houl(l pmviclo some means of allowing the notion of the State to proceed in a healthy fashion. I may b,e told that l am all wrong.

Mr. DoBSOK.--Certainly.

Mr. ISAACS.-I am bound to be told that I am all wrong, and, therefore, if I err, l want to show that I err in most excellent company; and I will call from the camp of my advenmries a witne;;~ whose judgment they will not question, aml whose vemoity they will not deuy-tt conservative, lmt lt

eonservative who is not blind to the in­evitable tendencies and necessities of the time. I will read a very few lines w hie h I have extracted from Mr. Lecky's work, volume l, page 240.

J\Ir. ::ifcMTLI.A:N.--A liberal unionist.

.Mr. ISAACS.-Thc work was issned iu 1896, and therefore embodies, I should :say, the latest pha;;c of thought on the subject. I think that this passage answers nearly every objection that has

[Mr. Isaac.~.

been m.ise<l, or, as l conceive, can be rai;;ed to the fairnes:; of the referendnn1 :-~

If the electorate is to judge policies, it is surely less likely to err if it judges them on u clear and distinct issue. In such u c:tse it is most likely to .-.et independently, aud not tit the clictati.m of wire-pullers. It is to he rememherccl, tco, that the referendum is not intcnde(l as a sub­stitute for repr•esentntive govemment. All the advantages of parliamentary clehate wouhl still remain. Policies would not he thrown before the electorate in a crude undigested undeveloped state. All measares would still pass through Pal"ii<t­ment, and the great majority would he finally decided by Parliament. It would only lw in a few cases, aftet• a measure hacl been thoroughly discnssed in nJI its hearings, 11fter the two Houses had ginen theie judgment, that the nation would be errlled to adjudieate. The referendum wouhl he an appeal from a party majority, probahly made np of discordant groups, to the genuine opinion of the country. It would be M> itppcal <m 11 •Jnestiou which had been thoroughly oxamilled, mul on which the nation had every 1nearus of nt'tiving at a con­clusion. It \Vould !Je re clear ttn•l decish·c \"el·­diet ou a matter on which !he two branches of the Legislature had differed.

Let me come to rmothcr writer in 189i. Prnfes,.;or Sidgwick, in the secoud i~sne of his work, at page 559, having alrendy spoken about the iundvisability iu his opinion of direct legislation in ordinary ease;;, with which I need hardly say I most thoroughly Hgrce, says--

There are, however, special cases in which the direct intervention of the 11eople in legisla­tion appears tu me on the whole advantageous. The first case arises when in a Legislature construetetl on the two-Chamhcr system, it is important to a1·oicl a dead-lock resulting in a dis· ttgreement between thctwoHonses, that is, when the nrgency of the need of some !ogislation on H· particular point is generally recognised, but the Chambers cannot rcgrec on the form that the legislation is to take. Uwler these comli· tions, a reference to the citizens at large has many advantages as a met hod of terminating a disagreement. The dignity of the other Cham­ber i8 saved if it has to yield to the people and not to the rival Chamber, while hy the reference of a particular moosnre to the judgment of the citizens a more clear expression of the people's will is ohtained them a general election of representatives can gil·e. Again, the proeess is more educating, sinee a single definite issne is

[10 MARCH, 1898.] A1~stmlin Bill. 2185

placed before the eountl'y. It also avoids the involvetl in the reprcMontativc system

that; an intel'estml or a ftumtical minority of citizens may, l>y concen·.ra.tin!c: the whole \'oting power at a geneml election on a particular question, obtain a fictition~ nnjority of repre­sentatives pletlge<l to support thid tlomand.

Mr. DonsoN.-Uoth thr:se qnot<ttious

refer to real dead-locks, not to disagree­ments.

The CHATRMAN.--Ordor.

Mr. ISAACS.--I do not know the dif­ference between real dend-lockf! nnd dir;­

ugrccmeuts, and if the honomblo motnbf'r

eau give me n definition it will help HR to eonsider the matter.

Mr. Ih a ION.-Thcre h; n ver,v serious dift'crcnec.

Mr. lh;m.-I 1\'onld not like to pnt it to an Irishman.

The CHAilt~IAN. -~ The houorable member mn;;t not interrupt.

Mr. 11-:lAACS.~l shall make only one llloro rpwtatiou upon thiR snbjoot, and it is

from Cree'~ work npon direct leg-i;;];ttion.

The writer sayR, at png-e 16:-])i met popular leghltttion, nJHler proper

!nodes a:Jd forms, is ttt once democratic and couser,·ative. It ac<;onls with the tontlencies awl spirit of the Lime; it will, \\'C think, pro1·c to he '' calmi11g and consmTative institution. It will remedy S<>mc serious impel'fections of our present system of law-HH>king, aml some e1·i!s of our political life. It will ahate the rigour of our p11rty system, hreak the crushing <tnd stifling power of om· gmal p:crty machines, mul give frem· pl>ey to the politic<tl ideas, aspi­rations, opinions, and feelings of the people. It will tend to J'elieve Ull from the dominance of pn.rtisn,n pn,s~iuns, a1Hl hcl.\~e an Hle\·ating a,ud

e•Incnti Ye influence upon the voter~, hy iiHlnc~ iug the1n tn consider Iue{liSlne~ 011 their lnorits as schemes of pnlJ!ic policy iu;;teatl of as mere party pr,)posals. Pnhliu spirit will t lws be cultivate<!, llllcl intellectual exertion Htimnlated among the masses.

Writing, a~ he does, in 1892 he point;; ont that. had thoro been some snob means in

the American Constitntion of eousnlting the will of the people the American con-

11ict \HJUld in all probability h;we been avot'tecl. H,~ goes much further than we

desire to go, and further than we would

go. He think;,: that proYisiou ought to be

nmde for direct logisl;ttion in most cases. T adhere to the opinion I previously ex­

pressed, that. the Bt·itish Constitution is the hest, but it is whatever Parliament

ehoo:-;es to make it nt nuy particular

moment, and the aetion of Parlittrnent

is decitled by the will of the people. But hel·o we say, in a cast-iron fn~hion, that thoro never shall bo thiH outlet for pnblic opinion. "\V e say that deoi~ions

shall be arrived at only in a eertain fa;-;hion, and that, if they cannot be ar·

riverl at in that fm;hion, the matters in ditipute ;;hull be left undecided. l think that thi~ i~:~ utterly wrong. It i~ a mis­

take to pnt a hloek in the path of political

progress. If we are told that, by doing wlntt 1 Yentmc to advocate, we Khall Hink

the dignity of Pm•liamont and destroy re­spou~ible government, thb is my mlt!wer:

If we were to adopt the propo,;al that the m<tttcr ~honld be referred, as in some of the Ameri<,an stttte~, and aiel in Rwitzcr­

lnwl in th0 cw-;e of fodcml law;,;, to the veto of the pt'ople a ftcr 1 he two Ho11se,; of Parlia.ment arc the objection

might he mn.de that wo were, to a large extent, dm;troying parliamentary re>!ponsi­

bility. Mt'. Lnwrenoo Lowell, in a ret~cnt work npon Gnverument and p11rtie" in the 1-ltate:,; of Europo, say;; that that argument

i>! not jttstifiable, even in the case of Switzerland, bccau~e what h1kf's place there does not imp1tir the effieiency of parliamentary adion nnd responsibility. But we do not bring forward any such prol'isiom; as the_y have in Switzerlnnd. \Yo say that each House, and every mem­ber of each House, :;hall take the full

share of responsibility for his action in

supporting or repelling a measme, and

that, when the two Hot1SOI:l ugrec, there is no need for the referendHm. I

would refuse to allow :\'lcmbcrs of

Parliluneut to decline their responsibility by the adoption of the referendum in this

way. 'l'horefore, the objeotion which ha>;

been mitOccl to the provi~ion~ in fu1·ce in Switzerland in regard to fedora! laws do

not apply to our proposal at all. What I

2186 Commonwealth of [10 MARCH, 1898.] A ustmlia Bill.

say is that, when both Houses have taken their full share of responsibility, when they have that a matter is in dis­pute, and that it is the only thing that they have agreed upon-when one House main­tairu; that the people earnestly and m­gently desire the passing of a political mea­sure, and the other House just as earnestly and as strenuously maintains that the people do not desire its passing; then I say, let the people decide. I think there is one argument, and one is a short ono­with which my opponents may be credited. It is that this is a most democratic Con­stitution because the suffmge provided for is manhood suffrage. That, as I intimated a little earlier, is in my opinion an essential provision, but it is by no means a sufficient provision. ~What is the use of manhood sufl"rage, if yon so divide the con;;titnencies that the minority may overpower the majority without recourse to the direct opinions of those who form the minority 1 When ono of the Reform Bills - I think the Bill of 1867 -was under consideration in England, Mr. ,John Bright, writing to oue of his friends in :Manchester, nsed words which, I thiuk, ought to be borne in mind nnd written in the large;;t possible characters, in reply to the argument that this is a most democratic Constitution, because it provides manhood suffmge. Mr. Bright said, in effect, that dispute;; had arisen as to the extent of the snffrago, and as to whether it shonld be pure manhood suffrage or something short of that. But he continues-

I consider these differences of opinion upon the subject as of trifling importance when com­pared with the question of the distribution of seats and members. This is the vital point in the coming Bill, and unless it be well watched you may get any amount of suffrage, and yet find, after all, that you haYe lost the substance and are playing mer·ely with the shatlow of popular representation.

If his views are right, that is a complete answer to the argument that \Ye ought to be ~atisfied that this is a democratic Constitution becan;;c it contains manhood

[Mr. [SlWCS

suffrage. But, I say, if we so divide the representation as to to Victoria in the fiual arbitnunent of disputes ouc member for every 60,000 or 70,000 of the population, and to Tasmanin, and ~Western Australia one member for every 15,000, we shall not have popular representation; we shall lose that mea­sure of popular representation which we

· have bargained and fought for in re­gard to the House of Representatives. I entertained strong hopes that when this session began we should, at least, frame a Constitution that we could take back to our constituents, and not only honestly, bnt earne;;tly and vigorously, recommend for their acceptRnce. I clung to that opinion tenaciously for a long time, and 1 hope that in the end it will not be falsi­fied, and that my hope will not be frus­trated. I share the expressed opinion of the Right Hon. Mr. Heid in this regard, that we ought to have a Constitution that we can take to the people, and press npon them as a boon and a blessing. \Ve know, as the right honorable member (Sir John Forrest) reminded ns yesterday, that the material interests of the colonies guide them in a large measure.

Sir JonN Fouim:>T.-No doubt about that in your case.

Mr. ISAACS.-When we consider that Victoria will have to bear an enormous share of the burden of this federation-­

Sir JonN FonnEt>T.-Shc will have all

the profit, too. Mr. ISAACS.-When we consider that,

;ve must make soa1e allowance for the poli­tical views of the people who have to vote upon this Bill. 1 hope that that will be remembered at the bnt I fear that if the Constitution i~:~ maintained in its present form the people to whom we have to take the measure will turn to ns and will \Ye haYe heard mauy protes­tations of yonr desire to trust the people. \Ve lune heard you say time after time that the will of the people must govern."

Sir Jcm:> FommsT.~ \Ye have heard of that.

Commonwealth of [1 0 .\lARCH, 1898.] Austm,lia Bill. 2187

The CHAJR:.IAN.-I would call the attention of the honorable member to Standing Order 146, which says that-

Xo member shall interrupt another member whilst speaking, unless (1) to request that his words be t!\ken down; (2), to call attention to a point of order; or (3) to call attention to the want of a quorttm.

That stnnding order has not been observed during the course of the debate, but my attention has been pnrticularly called to it by the Right Hon . .;\lr. Reid, who requests that all interruptions of debate should be prevented.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-I w.mld submit, sit·, that we are entitled to proclaim our approval of, or admiration for, speakers' remarks, by interjecting "Hear, hear."

Mr. ISAACS.-1 was ventilating the opinion that we shall be asked when the Bill is placed m the hands of the people, and they turn its pages~ "Where is this trnst in us that we ha Ye heard proclaimed so loudly and ~o long ; where arc the provisions pntting confi­dence in our capacity, our honesty, our ability to judge for ourselves in regard to matters that concern us 1 Where do we find the embodiment of this great prin­ciple of politictd progress tlmt the people, who have to sn,.;tain the whole burden of govet·mnent, who must obey the laws which arc made, shonld have control in the making of them?" I take it that it b not sufficient that we shonld say to them­" You are free to se led yonr governors, you are free to select those who are to rule you, yonttre capable of judging of policies awl questions, aml to elect those who are to rnle your destinies; but yon are not to be allowed, when your bnsineHs comes to 11

Htand-~till, when the machine of govem­ment-which has been constructed with so much mue, and which works with so nwch oxpcuse nnd so much elaboration-breaks down, to fltep in and pnt an end to auy dist1greun~ut hctwccn the two IImtSO'i of the Legic-;lalllrc." \Ye pmctically ::>;\y to

the Y(m are to ;;cc these two

HomeR, wbich are your agents, the

mem!:lers of which you pay, checking and obstructing each other, but you are to have no voice in saying whieh of them is right, and whieh of them is wrong Rt any particular juncture." If we want to be trve to our professions, if we wish not to falsify the hopes formed of us, and the opinions that we have expressed ourselves, we shall not hesitate

to adopt a proYision for a direet appeal to the people in case of necessity at that point where representative government has failed to jm;tify the expectations of the

people, and to carry out the plain duly and purposes for which it has been created.

Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-I do not think that any one can find fault with the Hon. ~lr. Isaacs for introducing this subject, or with the tone of the speech in which he hm; given exprossip1i to his view:;. Although my honorable friend rocoguised that he was really in this com­mittee championing a cause forodoomed to failure, he ~tated with literal accuracy, that in dealing with this matter we owe a duty to the people of An~tralia. :0ro part of our deliberations will be followed more clo~cly than the discussion npon this subject. It will be follo\ved with peculiar interest, because thoro is no tlcliberative assembly I know of in whid1 this snbjeet ha,; been discns~ed. There are few, if any, writin~s upon it. The litemry contribn­tiom to the Huhjcct have been nsllally by university professors, with an inclin<ttiou towards tho consen-ati\·e prnty, awl not Ly Uwse who have had practical experience of

political affairs. That is why I hope, not at nndnc length, to follow my honorable friend and to indicate to him and to those who m:ty agree with him, that we are not, in resist­ing this demand for the referendum, con­temptuous of the wishes of those who ask for it; lmt tlmt \Ye believe we have sound and well~groundcu rca,sons for opposing the in trod nction into the Constitution in any form wh<ttevcr of thi::; pernieions principle. I intend tJ oppoBe m toto the novel and far· reaehing proposal of my honorable friou<l.

2188 Commonwealth of [10 MAHCU, 1898.] Australia Bill.

Whether he urg'eil the dual referendum or the mass referendum, my objections are equally strong to both; and, I do not know that he seriously contends for the dnal referendum. It is difficult to see how, if he advocate~ tho referendum ns a means of obtaining finality, there can be more finality iu a dual referendum than in a dissolution of the Senate. If ho ad­vocates the mass referendnm, there is the old objeetiou that it i,; unjust, because it t1estroy::; the very basis on whieh federation rest~. :My amnver to him will be directed <~gainst the referendum in any form, 1Vhen I just now made use of the "novel'' and "far-reaclJing," I, almm;t inad­rertently, smnmed up the arguments I am going to use, I admit that, hemnu;e a political proposal is new, is uot a ground for condemning it. I recognise, too, that. the potency and the extent of the conseqncuces of any proposal may be its strongest recommendation. But there is one test which, as praatical men con­cerned with the affairs of State, we ought to apply to every proposal, and one only that I know of. 'Does it suit the people on whose behalf it is proposed 1 I:,; it in accor'll with t!JC circumstance:;, the his­tory, the traditions, and the requirement~> of the Australian people 'I ' A good form of government is not the product of eon­seions effort ; it cannot be ~Suddenly con­structed even by the plank~> of a labour caucus, but is the regnJt of a national and

healthy development. It should fit the people easily, as the bark of a tree fits its trunk and branches in every ,;tago of growth, Now we, both by our British descent, and of our own deliberate choice, since wo have lmd froe institutions, have been traiued in the theory and practice of parliamentary government, which rests upon a system of representa­tion that is altogether incompatible with that power of direct legislation which is of the essence of the reft>rendum, To make use of the referendum as we do in the Constitution, for the purpose of determiuing whether the Constitution

[Mr. Wi8e,

shall be accepted or amended, is jus­tifiable upon the simple ground of necessity. There is no other way of aseer­t,tining ~Yhat the people ~Yish shall be the limits of the representative system, But when onee n. Constitution has been framed, hased on parli1unentary govern­ment, which is a eomhination of the syo;tems of Hepresentation and of Minis­terittl Responsibility, I hope to satisfy the committee that to introdnce into this Constitution, in any form, the principle of the referendum, is to introduce a subtle poisou, whieh before long will altogether destroy the vitality of l'm•liament. I will follow my bonomble friend as closely as I ean in the course of his argument, and I will take fir:st the only historical illmltra­tion which he referred to-the instnnce of Switzerland. I could not help thinking that he de,;troycd the whole value of that mJ an argument that would appe!d to n~, by tho example he gave of one case in which the referendum had been used. He men­tioned that it had been used-whether suc.

or not I did not quite catch­over a question of weights and measnres, Imagine >l referendum all over AuHtralitt to determine the weight of grocerH' ~eales! It is only in countries where such trivial matter,; can become matter,; of fir::;t moment that the refer·OJl­dum is possible or desirt\lJle.

}\,fr. ltiAACH.- Does the honorahle mem­ber say that wa;,; the only instance I gave'?

Mr. WISE.-No. Aftet· all, the valne of auy historic illul'\tration depends npon the similarity between the eircnm8tances of the country which is invoked a8 an cx­a>nple and our OWil circumstances. Is there any similarity between the or the circumstances of Switzerland, and the history and the circnmstancm:; of Australia 1 It is hardly possible in the tlrst place to imagine a greater pbpical contrast than that between the wide mid almost waterless cxp<tnscs of this country, and the high mountain::; and deep valley,; of Switzerland,

[10 JYLmcn, 1898.] Austmlia Bill. 2189

which delay the growth of town,; and separate the people by au immense of clivet.,~e loc;:' intere~t~. Indeed, sm:h

is the isulatiou ui' the several parts of that most interesting little territory, that al­mo:;t the only interest which they have in common is the love of independence. And a~; if the uivisions set by nature \\ere not wide enough, the people arc :-;eparated further hy differences of language, so that in a territory 110 larger than the western distrid of this colony, men iu the French, German, or Italian dbtriuts caunot under­stand each other's speech. ls it any marvel that, in a country ;;o peopled and so situated, local government should flourish as local government has flourished nowhere

else 1 f ll that COHlltry WC find the police, the sehools, the pnblic dmrities, the asylums, and many other matters that are the concern in other countries of the Central Govemmeut administered by the people of the commune or the canton,

meeting in their hereditary meadows, and deciding, as their number~-: permit, by the vote of every citizen on the affairs of the year. No wonder that in such a country the idea of parliamentary or representa­tive government has never taken root; and that is what makes the example of Switzerland useless to us. The Swiss look upon a Member of Parliament as a mere month-piece of a district, or estate; and have never risen to the higher con­ception of an independent representative, deliberating and deeiding in the general interest on behalf of the country as a whole. \Vhy, sir, if the referendum had not been familiarized to the Swiss by the praetice of centuries, it would have been

absolutely necessary for .:ome ingenious philosopher like my honorable friend to have invented wme like it; because, withont the referendum in t~nch a country, with the people so separated, there would be no means of obt<tining au expression of the joint opinion of the community, and no means whatever of joining its separate atoms fm· any common purpose. I am not going from mere pedantry to follow a

subjeet of this sort further. I do not know that any one would seriously point to the exn,mple of Switzerland as one that should be followed in Australia the example of a couutry with no Parliament in the sense in which we undersi<md Parliament, with no government in auy seur;e at ail, with no rmch eommu­uity of intercsb as exi1:1ts here, and with every inclinatiou to ~eparate, and very little interet>t to come together. I was astonished that my honomblc friend did not refer oH this occasion to another example which he has touched on before, that of the United States. Jle might have

done as many of those who write oH the snbjeet outside the eharnber have done, dwelt with great pride and very natural satisfaction npon the extent to which this doctriue has fouwl popularity in tlmt vast

COlrtlnllllity.

:\Ir. IAAACS. 1 did refer to it.

Mr. WJSE.-The honorable member in

his speech at Adelaide or Sydney gave us some •;;xample,; of the wide.'lpread popularity and the general ml(' into which this prac­tice had come in the United States. Any

one who takes that view might go further. I believe there is not a state in

the American l' nion, except Delaware, in which in one form or another the refer­endum is uot put into practice. There is, however, this to be remembered, when we argue by analogy from a like the United States, that one shtte differH as much from another politically as in di­rnatc ; and that of all countries in the world, when discussiug it politically or in other respects, the U nitt;d States is the one in regard to which we ought to use one of those "large maps," which Lord Sali:;bury once recommended to

students of the Eastern question. The only way in which the argument about the use of the referendum iu the United States becomes of any value to us is by ascertaining, if we eau, what the causes are which have promoted this general adoption of the doctrine.

2190 Commonwealth of [10 MAHCH, 1898.)

No one has pointed out more elearly than the author whom my honorable friend citerl-Mr. Cree-that the cause of the popularir,y- of the referendum in the United States is the growing and wide­spread distrm;t in the honesty and the capacity of the legi~lative bodies. It is the most ~trikiug development of modern politics in the United States that uo one believes in tbe power of Parliament to accomplish unything good. So ~trik­

ingly i::; this spirit manifested that­without the committee by giving nmuy instances-in some states, as

we know, Parliament is not allowed to assemble more than once in two years; and even then, in order to limit its capacity for mischief as mueh as pos­sible, it is not allowed to remain iu session for a period than six weeks. To ;;how that I am not speaking at random when I say tlutt it is this feeling of dis­tmRt and of dissatisfaction with Parlia­ment that i~ at the root of the agitation for the referendum, I would like to qnote n very ~hort passage from a writer whose book is n storehouse of all mod eru know­

ledge on thi.-; snbjeet- Professor Ober­holtzer. 'l'he title of the book is, I think, On the ""'"'·pn.rwm~,_

Mr. lsAACs.-No, 'l'he /l(fe-rendmn in A m erica.

Mr. WISE.-That is it. Professor Ober­holt~:cr says-

Side bv side with this moyement to make codes of l~ws of our Constitutions, and to restrict in mauy \ntys the powers of the state tures, has grown up a moYcment directly towards the almost entire abolition of these bodies. In nearly all the states, the development of the last few years, the connm­tions ha\·e substituted biennial for annual legish1tive sessions. These sessions, now being held only half as often, are fnrther limited, so that they llo not extend over more thrm a eertain numl>er of days. This tendencv seems to ha Ye everything to encourage it and give it greater growth. Those states whieh still retain the system of annual sessions, as, for instanee, New York and New Jersey, constantly find cause for dissatisfaction, and the feeling of distrust for these bodies is taking

[Mr. Wise.

deeper hold of the people every year. The indee<l, has reached a conviction nearly

everywhere that the powers of the Legislatures should be still further curtailed, and in lmt one state-Georgia~has there been shown any inclination to retain the original principles.

'!'hat is not the only method of limiting the powers of Parliament. Alteration after alteration has been nl'lde in the Constitu­tions of the states curtailing the subjcets with which a Legislature may deal. A catalogue of these limitations is positively startling. In some states the legislati1·e body, whether of the county or of the state itself, cannot vote it penny for the erection of a bridge, a or an alms-house; tl.ey cannot the credit of the state for a sum exceeding £100; they cannot increase the salaries of publie officers, and they cannot put a tax on limited companies, deal with the electoral laws, or purchase real estate, or establish schools. In all these matters, and even in matters of less magnitude, there is com­pelled to be a direct legislative Yote by the people. 'l'hc explanation of thic; mistru&t, and righteous mistrn~t, of legis­lative bodies in America is not far to seek Every one now knows what was not open to writers on the American Constitution a few years ago, but what has been made public in more recent memoirs, namely, that the fathers of the American Constitution were moved by a. deep mistrust of demo­cracy. They endearoured to give expres­sion to that sentiment by framing a Con­stitution, at every tmn of which the expression of the popular will should be eheekcd or dcl::tyed. In dealing with the Legislature, the partieular device was to separate the Executive entirely from that body~that fatal severance, which, it is no exaggeration to say, has caused the chief part of the politieal evils from which the United States now suffer, and has made between politics ami the pursuit of all that is good and helpful in the cormnunity, that divorce which is at the present time a distinguishing and shameful mark. It is no rash m;:;umption that if the chief executive officers had

Commonwealth of [10 nlARCH, 1898.] A~tstralia Bill. 2191

:;cats in the Leg·islaturcs of their t:~cveral

:,;tates, so that they could be responsible for the framin?: of the measures, which they have to administer, many of the grenter el'ils of American polities would IleYer have grown np. Bnt i;; this our eomlition? Do the symptoms of that political di:;ease for which the rcferen­rlum h; dcnl<tndod as a remedy exist in Australasia 1 Are onr Parliaments de­ba:;ed and venal~ Are they corrupted

by a moneyed lobby 1 Do om leaden; seek only their own private ends, and have our people lost all control over the Legislature and the Execntive l One has only to ask those que;;tions in order to have them awnvered ; and it is a matter of just pride that we can put those questions, confident what the answer will be. If then we arc uot KnJinring hnro from any of those d is oases in the body politio, which roqnire the deilperate remedy that has heeu demanded iu the United of wlHtt aYnil is it to catalogue to ns a long series of case~ in which the referendum has proved n::;efnl in that great community 1 There is, a::; in the cn;;c of Switzerland, no aualogy whatever between the political condition of the United States, with their conupt Legislature, their luck of respon~ible

goYcrnmcnt, the absence of .Ministers from tlw legislntive body--and our Parliarneuts, which are the healthy representatives of p11blie opinion, controlled by loader~> whom the people trnst, and who, beiug in the confidence of the people, are altogether subject to the direction of the people. If it were not that time I would like to illustntto :still further the utter helples;-;ness that an American feels in the

face of the corruption that is evcryw hero about him.

Mr. DEAK!K.--}.Jlcl also partly the in­cffecti\'ClHJss or their political machinery.

Mr. WISK-.My friend ha;; anticipated me. That helple~:~snes~ drive» tbo Arneri­C<lll to tho rcfcrend um beca n;.;c of the utter ineffectivene~~ of the political machinery. Again I will quote-and it is the only quotation I ~hall make-a pa~;sage

from the work of Mr. Cree, which I recommend to the perusal of all interested in the ~ubjeet. Although his book is written in the strongest terms in ad vocaey of the referendum, every argument he uses shows that his advocacy rests on a confc~;sed rnistru;;t of I\trlimneut, w hi eh cannot, in any degree, be applied to a country whore the people arc proud of their Parliaments. Mr. Croe, after spcak­

iug of the corruption and tyranny of the party machinery, and the iuability of the indi\'idnal voter to make his will felt in con~cqueuce of the tyranny, proceeds:-

Party government means supremacy of party leaders. ln those leaders is practically Yestecl the power to subjugate all the offici<tl agencies of the State to their will, so that such will becomes that of the State, and govcrmnent by the people is only a fiction instead of a fact. The leaders of par­tics frame all political issues, declare all party policies, name all candidates for office, and the electors but choose between the rival organiza­tions. But that is no more than a power to s<>y to which oligarchy of matmger" or "bosses" they will confide the control of the State.

Under such a system the party leaders clo not need to con"ider public opinion, further than its appron1l or consent may be necessary to secure the adoption of their avowed pur­poses, and the election of themselves to power. T3ut great and important as is this power of rati­fieation or rejection of party programmes and party loa<lers, on the part of the voters, it leaves them without any real positive political initiative, and limits them to a sort of negative action. A choice at the elections between corporate parties is all that they possess, anfl this not only does not invoiYe, but a<:tnally excludes, all expression of opmton on the part of the voters unless the contending parties represent elea.rly·defined conflicting policies ou specific questions, or really stawl for perrrmnent diverse views atl<l tendencies. The contentiou of the parties for the favour of the eleetors assumes the fact of the existence of one or the other of these suppose<l cases. On no other t<ssumption can the existence of party he for a single moment j nstiiied.

But :,;o far as representing a dearly-defined line of adion on speeific measures of policy is concerne<l, we m<mwt rec<ell a single case in the history of the United ~tates where any grea.t national party has done it.

I have dwelt at what may perhaps be considered excessiye length on the example

2192 [10 MARCH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

of t.he Cnitcd States; because it seems to me that a great deal of undeserved credit is being given to this proposal by the ima­ginary support it is supposed to have re­ceived from the example of the United States. I might mnltiply quotations and fill the pages of Hansard, but I will only say that no· one can read an American writer who advocates the referendum with­out seeing tlmt his advocacy has one purpose, and one purpo;;e only, namely, the substitution of the power of direct legislation for the incompetency and corruption of Parliaments. I am told there is very great feeling here that the referendum is necessary, because, although this fear of dead-locks has been ad­mittedly exaggerated, there is still keen recollection of the old Victorian contro­versies. My honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) did me the honour to adopt a phrase of mine in which I said the ghost of those dead con­troversies still walked in Victoria. May I appeal to him and to those who influence public opinion here as to whether it is not their duty to try and lay that ghost! Is that not a more patriotic purpose than keeping the ghost alive, and stimulating the fear which a bogy-haunted memory creates, and doing all to exaggerate the pos­sibilities of conflict, and as little as possible to show them in their true light. I take a view that my honorable friend ("Yir. Isaacs) · I know dissents from. I take no excep­tion whatever to the terms in which he ex­prcsRed his dissent. The view I take itl that. we must run the rh;k, and ought to run the risk, of dead-locks. It is a trite saying, but it is none the less true, and deserves to be repeated in thi~ con­nexion, that there is only one form of government in which a dead-lock is impossible, and that form of government is where the ruler is a despot. Dead­locks are the price we pay for constitu­tional liberty. Although it is trne that atl the Bill now staudtl, there are pos­sibilities of differences, and although an ingenious arithmetical calculator might be able to point out that under certain

[Mr. Wise.

conceivable circumstances those differences may not be resolved-still all the argu­ments against the roferendnm proceed on precisely the opposite presumption to that on which the argument of my honorable friend ("Yir. Isaac,;) appears to proceed. We proceed first on the assumption that we are establishing a FederaLion. All my friend's argument~, logically pnrsuecl, went in favour of govornment by one Chamber. All my friend's argument, logi­cally pmsued, oblitemt"d the distinction we have always kept before us, and which it is now too late to review. That dis­tinction is, that thiH is a union of equal states, whose equality, or, at !tll event;;, whose individuality, is to be preserved so far as is compatible with the higher interests of the community. Then there is another assumption 011 which we pro­ceed, but which, I think, my honorable friend ignored. That assumption is that federation is going to l•e worked by men who wish to keep the Federation together, and not by men who are going to use all their ingenuity to destroy it. When my honorable friend (Mr. Isaacs) q noted that memoruble despatch of Lord Grey in favour of a single Ch!unber in these colonieE he forgot, I think, the main reason that actuated Lord Grey, than whom, l suppose, a more Sttgaoious statesman never controlled the destinies of Au~;tmlia. According to my honorable friend, the only suggestion of Lord Grey was that there should be a single Cham­ber.

Mr. lsAACS.-1 did not say that. What Lord Grey said \H\S he was almost driven to believe that was the only way out of the difficulty unless he could construct a Second Cham1Jer which, while having co­ordinate powers iu some respects, could be made amenable to the will of the people.

Mr. WISE.-I am obliged for the cm·­rection. But 1 would remind my honor­able friend that the reason for L01·d Grey taking that course was that there was in the separate colonies no separate interest which could be represented

Com11ionwealth of [10 MARCH; 1898.] A 1{.<i1'f1 'irt fl/.11.

in a Second Chamber-that there was

no diversity of interest between lhosc who hold seats iu the Second Chamber, and those who hold seats in the Lower Chamber, which would justify a cre:1tion of two Chambers. Tint the essence of the Federal Constitution is that the Second Chamber is to represent interests which, although they combine in very nmny matters with the interests of those who sit in the House of Representatives, arc ueverthelcss to some extent distinct. 'l'lw Upper Chamber is a Chamber; but, what is more essential than a rcvisiug Chamber, it is to represent the st<ttes. Its separate eKistcuce is therefore j nstified; and we onght to be very careful befnrc we t<tke any that wonld practically render its existence a mere sham. 1 find that the honorablo member pre­sented his view, as one might expect him to do, with the skill of an accomplished advocate, and refrained from putting the ease for the referendum as high as it might be put. He may twit me with claiming too much, and with ignoring the fact that in this Constitution the referen­dum is only proposed for a certain specific purpose. 'I'herefore, he may say the references I have already given to America and Switzerland have little or no applica­tion: that he and his friends ate only asking fnr the rcferendutn, to use a phrase f;uniliarized since the AdeLtide meeting, as the medicine mid not the daily food of the Constitution. No ono appreciates the foree of this argument more than I do, because at Adelaide I was almost seduced by it from the straight constitutional path. It was only when I came to give, as 1 have since done, fuller attention and examination to the reasons by which the proposal was supported, and the precedents appealed to, that I have anived at the opinion which 1 believe now to be almoilt unshakeable, that the referendum in any form, under what­ever guise introduced, or for whatever purpose, strikes at the root of parlia­mentary government; because it makes it

[ 138]

possible fur a ]\Iinistry to remain in office without discrcdit~-aul 1 lay ctnphasis on

thecie words "without discredit "-when it i~:-; utl<tblo to carry through Parlia:neut the mcasurcs which it tvln·c~ttes. Let us sec for a moment how this refercndmn will work in acttml practice. I pass over the objections which arc commGn to all artificial proposals to solve a dead-lock­namely, ihat they are mlconragcmcnts i·nther than discoumg:ements to eontro­ver~y-aud deal with the objections as

they present themselves to me to this definite proposal of the referendum, whet her it is d nal or mass. One q ues­tion I would ask, and I am surprised that the matter waR not touched upon : Suppose there is a controversy between the two House~, and everything is re:tdy for putting this heaven~born device into operation-in what form is the Bill to be presented to the country? In the form that it left the Assembly, or in the form

that it left the Senate 1 If you put it in the form in which it leaves the Senate, you will put it in the pcwcr of the Senate to dictate the particular qnc$tiou tlutt will be asked. Equally, you will pnt it in the power nf the Home of Representa­tives to dictate the f[Ucstiou if you put the Bill in the form in which it left the House of Representatives.

:Yir. IsAAC~.- That is just one of the defects in this jnint sitting.

:VIr. WISE.-I am not speaking of the joint sitting now. I do nnt like it, but it has been ngreed to, and I am not going to interfere with the Sydney compromise. Speaking of the referendum, I ask those who support it so glibly as being a soh•ent of all difticulties, to put them~eiYes in the position of one who has to advise the Go\·ernor, and to consider the pructical difticnlty which will arise. If the Bill is to go to the people in the form in which it left the Assembly, \Y hat a temptation you pnt in the hands of a weak and pos­sibly an unscrupulous )finistry to placate their supporters without incurring respon­sibility ! If it is to go to the people in the

219! Commonwealth of [10 hiAucn, 1898.] Australia Bill.

form in which it left the Assembly, every Inf\ll who wants to credit with his con­stituents, or every section that the )Jinistry dc>ire to please, for the time beiug, will, or may, propose some amendment in the Bill. 'l'he amendment may be ridiculous; it may be intended as nothing more than a mere placard for the pnrpm1e of showing the constituents how hnsy their rcpre8en­tati ve::; arC'. 1t may be SIIeh <Ul amend­ment that, if it oYer bceamc law, would wholly defeat the operation of the Dill. \\'hat does it matter to the Mini~try

of the day if such amendments be included'? What responsibility will they lw,ve when they know the Bill will go to the Senate, that the Senate will reject it, that it will go thence to the people to vote upon the amendments, and all exactly a8 they left the Lower Chamber 'l Theu there is another eonsidemtion. Snppo8e a vote ill taken, and that the people declare again~t the Bi]], which was snpp•lrted by the Ministry in the Honse of Representatives, what arc the Ministry to do 1 Are they to resign 1 Are they to dissol ye 1 If they resign, and if re­sponsible government is to be coutinned, ',\hat will be the position of their succes­sors, who will be left to face a hostile rnnjority in the House of Hepresentatives, and who will have no option, except to dissolve the Parliament to hce, it may be, n hostile constituency? How can it be ~tdd that under this Constitution re­spomsible government, as we understand it, is not interfered with? 1 am going over these eon;;iderations very hurriedly, heeausc ] recognise that time presses. What, again, is to he the position of the individual mernbcd Snppo~e he votes either for or against the Bill, ar.Hl that the vote in the com;titueucy that he represents is antagonistic to the votn he ha:< given. Ts he to resig·n his seat or to continue in Pm·liamcnt open to the reproach of repre­nenting a minority l How can it be said that any 1<uch conditions as those do not interfere with the independence of the individual member 1 Indeed, I am only

[Mr. Wise.

afmi<1 of developing at too great length what mnBt be apparent to any one. Or look at the matter in this way. Suppos­ing· the Senate i1mi8til upon an alteration in the Bill. The Senate, which this device is intended to humble, may thus have it then in its power to do one of two things -either to compel a dissolution or the rc~ignation of the Ministry. That is to say, if the vote of the people is against the dew of the Ministry, the result of the referendum has beeu to shift political power from the House of Representative;; to the Senate. In any way one looks at it it seems impossible that parliamentary government can be continued as it is to­day, that Mini8terial re8ponsibility can continue a;; we know it to-day, if we transfer the final control of these matters from Parliament to a direct vote of the people. Then there is a consideration of a different character. What are the kind of is;;ucs that are likely to be s•1knittecl to the con­stituencies under this proposal ? If dead-locks do oconr, let us remember that they will be very different from the dead-locks with which we arc familiar between the two Houses in our local Parliameuts. All subjects affecting large social interests, all subjects affecting class interests, arc practically, with the ono exception of the Tariff, removed from the control and jurisdiction of the Federal Commonwealth. The matters about which disputes are likely to arise will be over the construction of the Constitution-such construction, I mean, as affects matters of procedure, not matters of la\r, which will come within the cognisance of the High Court. They will be rather matters of constitutional etiquette, mattot·s in which the general public are not likely to take a very keen interest. M:y honomble and learned friend pointed out that the first dis­putes were likely to bo brought abont by the di;;tributiou of the surplus. J eau­not imagine any !dud of disputf' more certain to solve itself than that; because so

Commonwealth qf [10

long as a dispute continues, not one of the contending parties will be able to receive any money.

Mr. IsAAcs.-That is the danger.

Mr. WISE.-S~ch a difficulty is certain to settle itself if it occurs, and the dual referendum certainly will not alter that· It is difficult to see how the mass referen­dum can do so, except by overriding in every respect the interests and claims of the smaller states.

[The Chairman lr/t the cha£r at five minutes tu one o'clock p.tn. The committee resumed at five minutes past two o'clock

p.m.]

Mr. WISE.~Before the premature ad­journment which was so kindly conceded to me by the courtesy of the committee, I was endeavouring to point out that the questions which would have to be submitted to the determination of the people under this proposal were of a very complex character, and very different from those with w hi eh we had been made familiar by previous parliamentary dis­putes; and I had just said that I thought that all matters giving riHe to a demand on belmlf of one class, that the privileges of another class should be taken aWcty, or that its own burden should be lightened, would not come within the ken of the Fede­ral Parliament, bnt were relegated to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Parliaments. Those fertile sources of disputes would therefore he absent under this Constitu­tion, and it would be more matters affect­ing the per::>onal honour of Ministers­matters which I venture to term constitu­tional etiquette-which would give rise to those disputes. Now, it cannot be over­looked that those whom we are asked to call in as umpires in matters of this kind are the uninstrueted. The referendum is an appeal from the instructed to the ignorant. I am q nite aware, sir, that the use of that phrase may be misunderstood ; bnt I know that in this Chamber we ought to speak our minds without fear that an opponent will sed;:, by using

1898.] Australia Bill. 2195

11·ords out of their context, to bring upon one either ridicule or odium. At the same time, in order to guard against misapprehension, so that my argu­ment may not be weakened on that account, I desire to say that I in no way question the fundamental principles of democratic rule. I accept frankly and unreservedly, as the cardinal dogma of popular government, that a strength and depth of good judgment and discretion are developed in the massing and union of men, wbieh is to the wisdom of the individual, however gifted, as the might of the waves of the Hea to the pools which are left upon the sand by a retreating tide. But I deny that the principles which justify a wide, or even a universal, suffrage have any application to this ques­tion of the referendum. The people are the best of what is good govern­ment, because the people are the firHt to !:luffer from, and suffer most from, bad government. Bnt to admit that in the fullest terms as a for popular rule, doe" not involve the further admission that in all parliamentary disputes--which often depend upon matters of a highly technical and which frequently involve personal which those at a distance arc not able to fully estimate-the great body of the people are the best Quotations were made by my honorable and learned friend in support of the view he took, bnt t.here is one quotation of only two sentences HO apt to the proposition I am now contending for, that I ask the rmrdon of the com­mittee if l cite it. I am urging, remem­ber, that to call in the electorate aH a whole to determine that kind of dispute which is likely to arise between the two Houses is undeeirable, from the particular nature of the questions to be submitted, and I will adopt the words of Bagehot, who says that to do so would be to submit to the government--

Of immoderate persons far from the scene of action, instead of to the government of moderate· persons close to the scene of action.

2196 Commonwealth of [10 MARCH; 1898.] Australia JJiU.

It is to accept the judgment of~

Persuns jttdging in the last t·esort, and with­out a penalty, in lieu of persons judging in fear of a dissolution, and fully conscious that they are suLject to an appeal.

Those two sentences, put in words that I cannot hope to emulate, dispose of the argument which was put forward by my honorable and learned friend, that wc ought not to count upon the fear of the Senate to avoid a dissolution as a means of getting out of the diffi­culties thttt he imagines will arise. My honomble and learned friend spoke somewhat contemptuously of the remedy provided hy dissolution, and he tilay per­haps urge that the argument that I have been usiug goes too far, because it woLild prccl ucle one who used it from ad vocatiug the settlement of disputes by means of a general election. But there is this wide difference between the determination of a question by general election aml by direct vote of the people : 'fhat iu the former case there it> allowed !Ill interval for re· flection, an opportuuity for repentailce. In the case of a geileral election, as we all know, there may be a strong wave of party feeling carrying everything before it; but we know also that before effect can be given to the expression of the popular will, as there eYidenced, the seven or eight men who are responsible for the execution of the measures they may ~:mact have a further opportunity of !Shaping that popular opinion, and, if necessary, pntting a check upon it. I am ilOt going to nm the risk of stirring up recollections of past cohtro­versies; but I appeal to any honorable member of this committee whether it is not within his own expetiehce that pub­lic opinion, as expressed By newspapers, as expressed upon the lmstinge, has been modified profoundly, bnt inost tisefnl!y, by the Ministry that eame into office, purporting to give this public opinion legis­lati n· form 1 ·It is that w hi eh makes 11

general election a real test of the true opinion of the public, and distinguishes it from that expression of public opinion

[1\{r, Wise.

which is fui·nished by a vote by means of the rdetcndum, which may be merely the evidence of some passing gust of

popular passion. 'fhere is one case that was referred to in a leading news­paper here, and the reference was so pointed that I make Eo excuse for bringing it before the notice of honorable members again. The incidont in question has occurred in a foreign conn try, so that I may cite it without danger of exciting passion here. Something might occur here of such a character, but in another form, as has occnrred lately in France ; and is there one advocate of the referen­dum who would be prepared to trust to the French people to-day a vote, aye or nay, upon the guilt of that unfottunate man, Captain Dreyfus? But still, is there one of us who doubts that, in the long run, full justice will be done to that man­either if he be guilty his guilt will be de­termined, or if he be innocent his inno­cence will be proved. \Ve do trust the people, but what we trust is the deliberate judgment of the people; and that delibe­rate judgment we obtain, not by chance votes on questions that are only imper­fectly understood, and in which the people take but little interest, but by an ex­pression of opinion obtained first in a

general cleJtion, and then more definitely voiced by tho8e in whom the people them­selves have confidence. Jn fact, the advan­tage of a general election, to use <t common phrase, is that it gives an opportunity of appealing from Philip drunk to Philip sober; bht the refe1·eudmn confines us to taking the opinion of Philip drunk or sober-and the probability is that he will be in his cups.

~ir. HlGGINS.-Why ~ Dr. CocKDURN.-Is that yom;opiniori of

the people of Au':ltralia ~ What a shttnie· fhl thing to say !

Mr. WlSE.-1 am afi·aid that there must be some literal-minded Scotsmen present, but I think I have made my meaning sufficieutly cleat. What I del:lighed to say was that there is a

Commonwealth of (10 MARCH, 1898.] A mtralia BitL 2197

danger that if a single question is sub­mitted to the people without the safe­guard of a general election, if a single question is submitted to them in the way in which we know it ran he submitted by a clever .Minister, that question may be submitted to a vote which would not per­haps truly mise the real issue between the two Houses, but it would be a ques­tion that would have all the Yiolonco and vehemence of pa1ty feeling snrrounding it. We ought not to rely upon that kind of opinion implicitly without the possibility of an appeal. U ndor the present system we have the possibility of appeal-an appeal which is frequently exercised; and, as I have already said, when, after a general election, the Ministry of the day attempt to gi\'e eflect to the wishes of. the people, these are often considembly nwditiod to the contentment and advantage of the people themselves. It is to give that opportunity of reflection and appeal that we wish for a geueml election, and rely upon it rather than upon a sudden submis­sion to popular passi()n, which, when once made, even though popular opinion may have failed to express itself aecumtely, i~ expressed irrevocably, and which, in place of having due regard to the questions likely to arise, would be expressed nine times out of ten without a full aud complete know ledge of the questions with which the people were dealing~ not from any defect in the people themselves, but from the very nature of the q nestions that arc submitted, and from the fact that, as we must all recognise, the bulk of the people in this, a::; in every other country in the world, arc quite apathetic about politicB. But I come, now, to a more important mattor-~thc argument to which my hon­orable and learned friend made allusion when he conceded that there was some strength in this particular objection that I am attempting to nrgc. It is that the referendum in this form, or in any other form, must undermine the infiuenee of Parliament. If I am asked--" H01r 1" I can only roply again by asking questions.

How can we expect that Parliament will have the same position of importance that it has to-day, when its deliberations are almost without effect, when its debates are indecisive, and its decrees liable to reversal 1 If the authority of Parlia­ment is to be maintained, we can only keep it at its present high position by making the authority of Parliament supreme, and its decrees final. If, on the other hand, the people are to act as legislatoril, then the authority of Parliament, and with it the importance of parliamentary discus­sion, must suffer diminution. I am quite aware that some of my honorablo friends attacl1 comparatively little importance to the dignity of Parliament, and I know, too, that our views on this question of the referendum must be determined on this, the central point of the argument, by the views we bold of the importance of parliamentary go­vernment. Now, I believe, without going into any lengthy disquisition, that Parliament does possess some very strik­ing advantages which we have been apt to consider of real importance. As a seat of ultimate soyereig!lty, it commands a respect, and offers an oppor­tunity of usefulness, which makes its membership attractive to men of public spirit. As an instrument of public opiuion, it controls Ministers, by q uostion­iug them upon their policy, by eensnriug them for their misdeeds, and ultimately by dismissing them from office. As representative of every class in the com­munity, it insures that every interest will be regarded, and gives to all citizens n just confidence that no grievance will go for a lengthened period unredressed. In short, Parliament combine;;, and combiues them in the highest degree, the two special advantages of the system of representation in that while it trains up a succession of competent men to undertake the ser­vice of the State, it at the 8ame time enables the people by interpellation, by censure, and by dicnnissal to exercise an

effective and prompt control over every

219tl Corr~;monwealth of [10 MARCH, 1898.) Australia Bill.

cxecu ti ve act. There is a fashion now to dis­parage the qualities requisite for successful parliamentary government, and, in that country which is often held up to us as a model-the United State~>-the popular belief is that any one man is as good as another as a representative in Parliament. I entirely dissent from that view. I believe that a country is not well served if a view of that sort is encouraged. But if Parlia­ments are to be degraded from their high position, if they are not to be supreme, if Ministers am no longer to be held re­sponsible for the passing of measures which they advocate, or the consequences of those which they enact, how can we hope that men of character will any longer seek admission to its membership~ It is cer­tain that men will not enter Parliament, except for purposes of self-seeking, unless they are assured a reasonable opportunity of doing good. But by every step by which we diminish the importance of Parliament, by so much do we lessen its attractive­ness to men of individuality and men of character. I believe there never was a period in our history when men of indi­viduality and men of character were more needed in the councils of the state than they are to-day, when a noisy section of the community--not, I am glad to say, at present a very influential one is preaching as a message of guod tidings to the poor and suffering the reduction of every eitizen in the community to one dead level of mediocrity and sloth. If we want to combat the pernicious doctrines of socialism, we can only do so success­fully by encouraging in the councils of the State those men who are trained to govern, and who have the confidence of the people. I recognise, too, that in an­other way Parliament must be degraded by the use of the referendum. I have said before, that all through history, from the time of Julius Cresar to that of the Third Napoleon, the referendum has been an instrument of personal despotism; and, in the same way, there is no weapon which will enable a ·Ministry to free itself

[Mr. Wise.

from the control of a hostile majority in Parliament so effectively as the referen­dum. How can we expect any Ministry, threatened by parliamentary complications, to avoid the obvious refuge which a measure of this kind offers : that it will not be buoyed up by, it may be a fallacious hope, but a hope which none the less would influence an ordinary Cabinet that after some months, with the influence which a Government is able to exercise over elections, and possibly the manipulation of electioneering machinery, as we have seen in other countries, they may be able to get a favor­able verdict from that great constitu­ency, the people, which will enable them altogether to disregard the opinion of the majority inside Parliament, and thus to e~cape from salutary parlia­mentary control ? It is in every way, however we may look at the question, incompatible with the rPsponsibility of Ministers as we understand it to-day --I mean by that that Ministers should insist on carrying the measures they introduce, and when they have carried them through Parliament must accept the responsibility for their proper execution- it is incon­sistent with that ):linisterialt·esponsibility a~ we know it to-day, and with parliamen­tary government as we know it to-day, to introduce in any form or shape into this Constitution the principle of direct legis­lation by the people. It is a system, too, which, for the reasons I have mentioned, ought to be denounced in the very phrases which are invoked in its support-" in the uame of public liberty" because, being a system which is destruetive of the character of public men, in the long run it, too, destroys the right which the people now possess of exercising, as they only can exer­cise, by means of parliamentary control and parliamentary discussion, effective and prompt control ovm· every act of the Executive Government. Without that power resting in the people, in the first instance, to question, then to censure, and finally to dismiss the instruments of their

Commonwealth of [10 :NLmcH, 1898.] A ui'traha Bill. 2199

authority-and only by mcam; of par­liamentary government can that right be fully exerci~ed-any form of govern­ment must become one of two things­either a bureaucracy or a despotism. The only escape is a strict adherence to responsible gonr'nment and to the par­liamentary system as we knnw it to-day; nnd, to use the phraseology \vhich has been used by those who in"i::;t 011 the acceptance of this principle, viz., to declare that those who resist it are anLi-dcmocratic, is to use words for the purpose of frigh ton­ing the timid which have not any real bearing on the argument. I quite admit that in one form the proposrtl seems appro­priate to dcmocrtwy; but I cannot help re­collecting that there iR no greater tyranny in the world than that "'hi eh is exorcised nndcr the forms of democracy when the

spirit of democracy is dead. The democrat whom I respect is not a man who [s almlys shouting flatteries to a mob, and who is willing to become the instrument of any policy, however foolish, provided that he can get a sufficient number of people to vote that it is good. The democracy I favour is one which gives to every citizen in the community an equal opportunity of self-development, and which exacts, in an especial from its chosen loaders, that they shall deserve the confidence which they receive and the obedience which they lawfully exact. To a demo­cracy of that kind the system of mpre­sentativc government is most favor­able, so tlmt I, for one, decline to be frightened from opposing the referendum by being told that to do so it> anti­democratic. I deny altogether that to oppose the referendum is to sho\\' mistmst in the people. J deuy altogether that to oppose the referendum is to show disrespect to the soycroignty of the people, because I utterly decline to ad­mit that trnst in the people is best praYed by a frequent summons to the ballot-box, or that you best vindicate the sovereignty of the people by a perpetual procession to the polling booth. I trust

the people, I know the people should rule; but history and experience 11like show that the people rule best when they arc free to make their choice of their instmmcnts, and that they rule most to their own advautai!;e when those instmments lnwc, through the iustitutions of the country, become com­petent to govern and have fitted themselves to Ratisfy the requirements of a free people. I am aware that the friends of the referen­dum brush aside considerations of thi::ddud, by the comforting reflection that, after all, if a Parliament doe,.; uot excrci,;e so mueh influence, the press will exercise a greater influence; and I think my learned friend (Mr. Isaaes) contemplated, with considemblc sati~fuction, what he terms

the " tran~fer of power" to the press. I believe I took the expression down cor­rectly. The honorablo and learned mem­ber was quoting, I think, Gold win Smith.

~Ir. IRAAC::o.-1 read that pa~sa.go to show the op:niom; entertained in places \'ery far distant from this country.

~Ir. WISE.-I arn not quite sure whether it was Goldwin Smith whom the ll'morable member was quoting.

~fr. IsAACS.-~ Y o~. He says that the real delibonttion has been transferred to the press, and that that i,; the general organ of discnssion by which groat questions arc heing virtuall:· decided.

Mr. WJSE.-For my part, I agree with the argument, and I am not at all sur­prised to find that writers on the press com;i~tently advocate the referendum. I have the greatest sympathy with the man who trio;.; to glorify his own profession, and if I wore n newspaper writer I should ad­vocate the referendum without stint of printer's ink, because I am satisfied that go1·ernment by referendum means, in practice, gon:rnment bynow~papers. Much has been and with truth, of the ex­cellence of the newspnpor press, so thn,t for me now to bring forwardargmnents to show that the press is entitled to this dominant position would be to reYiYe reeollcctions of a q uitc mmcecssttry amount of after­dinner speechification. I concede fully

2200 Comrnonweafth of [10 )L<\ROH, 1898.] Australia Bill.

all that can be said in favour of the press; but does it follow that we are compelled to admit that government by the news­papers is better than government by Par­liament 1 I do not want my honorable and leamed friend to think that I am guilty of any rhetorical exaggeration in putting this antithesis. I know perfectly well that in the columns of the news­paper which represents his views the idea that there is inconsistency between padiamentary government and govern­ment by referendum is strenuously denied. And I will confess that when I read the very able leaders in the Age newspaper insisting that there is no incompatibility between government by Parliament and govern­ment by referendum, and urging that 1 he referendum was rather a device l'or strengthening Parliament than ·for wc11kening it, I have at times felt mis­givings which might have ripened to the point of comiction if I had not been lucky 1mough to come ttcroo:s a very able work dealing with the whole subject entitled Representat£11e Government, by Mr. David Symc. In that work I find this passage :-

The press at once forms and expTesses public opinion. It performs all the functions of a deliberative assembly. There is not a qnestion of home or foreign policy that is not as fully and ably discussed in its columns as in the de­bates of either House of Parliament, and in these discussions every newspaper reader IJar­ticipates, becomes, as it were, a member of that vast assembly which may he said to embrace the whole nation, so widely are newspapers now read. Had we only the machinery for recording the votes of that assembly we might easily dis­pense with Parliament altogether.

Sir, whenever I am affected by the able arguments of the leader writers of the Age newspaper to a sort of belief in the possible compatibilit.y of the referendum and Parliament, I turn to refresh my ancient faith to this passage from the work of Mr. Symc-" Had we only the machi­nery for recording the votes of that assembly, we might easily disp€11se with Parliament altogether" ; and I resolve that, so far as I am concerned, I will

[Mr, Wise,

never give a vote fot· the construction of machinery for such a destructive purpose! To pass away from an arg·nment of perhaps merely local application, and to look at the matter in its less restricted view, I ask what, after all, is a newspaper ·1 At bottom, speak as highly of newspapers as we please, the truth is that they arc merely commercial enterprises. To say that is no disparagement of newspapers. It is certainly no denial or oblivion of the high qualities of judgment, intelligence, capacity, and honour which must charac­terize the great journalist il1 every country. It is only an admission that newspaper writers, like other people, have to work under certain necessary material limita­tions. We are all, except perhaps artists or men of letters, hedged round in the exorcise of our faculties, or the striving nftor our ideals, by the material necessities of life. Nevertheless, a newspaper has to be conducted in obedience to certain com­mercial necessities, which need not be par­ticularized here, but which tmfit it in a Yery special degree to be the ruler of a democratic conntry. The exigencies of the enterprise require that it shall be con­ducted by an almo~t absolute authority, whom the general public seldom know, whom they perhaps hardly ever sec, whom they eau never question, whom they can ne,•er hold responsible, and over whom they can exercise only a most remote and nebulous control. 'fhere may be, as Mr. David Syme suggests, no ri;;k involved in the change of masters ; but for my part I would sooner trust the destinies of the country to the worst Parliament the people of Australia would elect, than to the best newspaper the mind of man has e\·er imagined. W c have fortunately not yet reached the point when we are compelled to discuss what is to take the place of Parliament. Indeed, my complaint against the arguments of my honorable and learned friend, both to day and upon previous occasions, is that he has not shown sufficient justifi­cation for the s~rious step which he