ion. I sympathize with it in the great task in which it is engaged, and on that account I make some allowance for the attitude of General Hertzog, who is engaged in political pioneering work in a new form of government for a portion of the British Empire. I assert that no analogy can be drawn between the conditions in South Africa and Australia. New Zealand has also been cited as having a unified system of government; but that country cannot be compared with Australia. Comprising about 100,000 square miles its area is little larger than that of the State of Victoria, less than one-third that of New South Wales, and one-thirtieth that of Australia. The physical and social conditions of New Zealand and South Africa do not admit of the constitutions of those countries being regarded as examples that Australia should follow.
– What about the British Constitution?
– Leaving out Ireland, Great Britain comprises less than 100,000 square miles. The country is densely populated and easily capable of being governed from one centre. Surely there is a great difference between the conditions in the Motherland and those in Australia, with its vast distances and its population scattered round the seaboard. Out of its 6,250,000 people, 2,500,000 live in two of the big coastal cities.
The. Government’s proposal is that we should change the present method of making an alteration of the Constitution so that “ after the lapse of one month from its origination in a House of the Parliament “ it must be “ passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and be assented to by the GovernorGeneral.” That would be a most drastic step to take, and it has been described by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) as almost audacious. And it is. Let me point out what it would actually mean. At the present time certain procedure is laid down in the Constitution as to how an alteration may be effected. A proposed amendment must be agreed to by a majority of the votes cast in the aggregate, and a majority must also be secured in a majority of the States. Thus the power to amend the Constitution is left to the people. But, by the bill that power is to be taken entirely from the people, and is to repose in the Parliament, which is to decide on any alterations it chooses, and later on, if it so decides, submit its proposals to the people. It is a catch cry with honorable members opposite who have spoken on this measure, that all legislative power comes from the people; that the people are allpowerful. If so, let the people decide these matters before Parliament adjudicates upon them, instead of turning the position round and allowing the Parliament, without authority from the people, to alter the Constitution as it wishes. Under the Government’s proposal, an alteration would be submitted to the people after it had been made, and at the next general election. That is an undemocratic proposition, and one that no sound constitutionalist would admit. It is also one that no Labour Government, prior to the present Ministry, has ever brought forward. Until now it has never been suggested by the Labour party that this power, inherent in the people, should be taken away from them and vested in the Parliament. I submit that the attitude of the Government will require a good deal of justification before the electors will be prepared to endorse it. They will wish to know why this power should be taken from them, why any clique for the time being, why any oligarchy, why any section that may be returned to power for three years, should arrogate to itself the right to say that a power previously vested in the people should be placed in its hands. That is one aspect of the matter that will demand the keenest consideration of the electors, when these proposals are submitted to them.
We have been told that members of the Labour party are reasonable men, and the electors might well entrust them with this power. The Prime Minister, when speaking on the proposals, remarked: “What did we do in regard to the roads? Did we not give the States full power under the Roads Agreement?” Certainly, but that was purely a minor matter. That surely does not indicate to the people that, because the Government gave back to the State a power that should never have been taken from them, everything that the Prime Minister and his party may do in the succeeding years will be of the same simple character.
Complete self-government for Australia as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
No Imperial federation.
Administration on advice of Australian Ministers only, subject to the control of the Commonwealth Parliament. All legislation, except such as appears inconsistent with Imperial treaty obligations to be assented to on the advice of Australian Ministers only.
No further imperial honours to be granted in any circumstances to Australian citizens.
The Commonwealth Parliament to be vested with authority to create new States and provinces.
The Senate to be abolished.
The High Court of Australia to have final jurisdiction in all Australian causes.
The principle of adult suffrage to be embodied in the Constitution.
The initiative, referendum, and recall.
I am impressed with the extraordinary inconsistency of the Government in regard to trusting the people, and I refer to it again. Apparently the Labour party is prepared to permit the people to initiate legislation, and, in certain circumstances, express their will by referendum, but in regard to the alteration of the Constitution, the people are to have no voice. That power of amendment is to be exercised by the people’s masters - the Commonwealth Parliament, forsooth! The proletariat, from whom, honorable members opposite tell us, all power comes, is to be subordinated to this Parliament, and will be able to express itself at the periodical elections only after the elect of the people have done their will with the Constitution. One of the greatest obstacles that the Labour party will have to surmount, when supporting the referendum bills on the hustings, will be the proposal to make the Commonwealth Parliament paramount over the people. Parliament is to amend the Constitution as it thinks fit, whittle away the powers of the States, alter the whole constitutional face of this continent and then, two or three years later, go to the people and say, “ This is what we have done.” This is not in accord with the democratic spirit of the Australian people, and is opposed to the democratic professions of the Labour party. Honorable members supporting the Government will have difficulty in defending this proposal, particularly in Labour electorates.
The Labour platform provides distinctly for the abolition of the Senate, and both the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) and the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Coleman) frankly admitted that to be the objective of their party. I invite the electors of the smaller States to note that clear enunciation of the Government’s policy. The shield and buckler of the smaller States is equal representation in the Senate, and so greatly did they prize that protection that they insisted upon a provision being inserted in the Constitution that it should not be altered without a referendum of the people. The Labour party proposes now not only to destroy that safeguard, but to do so without consulting the people by referendum. Giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the Constitution, Professor Shann, of the Western Australian University, said “ that at the present time there is a consolidation of power in the three small States to veto any amendment which would enlarge federal authority, but that veto will hold good only till New South Wales and Queensland be divided into new States.” In other words, the protection of the smaller States is in the present composition of the Senate, but it will continue only until new States are created.
As further evidence of the real danger that threatens these States, I cite the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) at the recent Eight Hours Day dinner in Melbourne and the speech of the Attorney-General (Mr. Brennan) in this House when defending the two referendum bills. Both emphasized the enormity of 600,000 voters in the three small States being able to prevent the carrying of a referendum. Nothing could be clearer than the intention of this Government to destroy the safeguards and protection which the small States were conceded when they consented to enter federation. The Government cannot justify this policy, because, so far, referendum proposals have been defeated, not by the small States, but by the aggregate vote of the Commonwealth.
The preamble to the Constitution refers to the federation as “ an indissoluble bond “. That phrase is used because the union was an honorable contract made by the various States, assuring all parties to the union of certain specified safeguards.
That the powers and privileges and territorial rights of the several existing colonies shall remain intact, except in respect of such surrenders as may he agreed upon as necessary and incidental to the power and authority of the National Federal Govern ment.
Nothing could be clearer than the words in which that great statesman sets out the honorable understanding upon which federation was agreed to. That was the basis upon which the States agreed to enter an indissoluble union. The States would not have come into the “ indissoluble “ union unless they had been assured of that measure of protection, and this Parliament has no right to put before the people proposals which would involve the breaking of that compact..
When federation was decided upon, and Western Australia, after protesting that what has happened would happen, joined the union, everybody hoped, perhaps believed, that the Federal Parliament would be the cement to bind the States together, leaving them to fulfil their proper functions without interference from a body that had its circumscribed area of government.
How different it has turned out! We have six States, poor and needy, and a rich, bloated Commonwealth ending each year with fat surpluses that are the sign manual of bad government.Bit by bit the Federal authority is growing at the expense of the States. We are drifting, as sure as