LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE REFERENDUM.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In April, 1910, the Labour Party in Australia was returned to power. It had won all the 18 seats in the Senate which were open to election, and obtained a substantial majority in the Lower House. One of the planks in its election platform had been an extension of the Legislative powers of the Federal Government at the expense of the States. The Labour Government proceeded to carry the proposed laws for the alterations above mentioned by the requisite majorities in both Houses, and the proposals were then, under the Constitution Act, referred to the electors. In April, 1911, the electors rejected the proposals by 742,704 votes against, to 483,856 votes for. The Labour Government continued in office for the rest of the Parliamentary term, with undiminished strength and prestige.
My interpretation of the political position is that in 1910 Australia wanted a Labour Government, and that when in 1911 it turned down its proposals it had not changed its views as to the political colour of its Government, but merely said, " We want you to go slow over this." It is scarcely necessary to point out the moral with reference to the political position in England to-day, and the lessons we can derive from Dominion experience and Dominion constitutional practice. What seems to stick in the gizzards of our consti- tutional purists is the fact that a Government can continue to hold office after a substantial defeat in a Referendum. The Dominions, who have the only real Parliamentary institutions in the world inspired by the spirit of our own Parliament, have been careful to observe our traditions in Parliamentary procedure and practice, but they have grafted on to them a practice of their own. Would it not be well for us to take more note of their experience and practice ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
