The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1913. THE VOICE OF DEMOCRACY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 102, 30 April 1913, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1913. THE VOICE OF DEMOCRACY.

For the cause ikat lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance. For the future in the distance. And the good that we can do.

One of the most significant of recent political developments in Australia is the inclusion of the Initiative Referendum in the Federal Labour party's programme. Tho announcement that this step was to be taken was formally made by Mr. Fisher in a policy speech which he delivered at Maryborough a month ago, and the whole question is so important that n special interest attaches i to the views then set forth by the Federal Premier. "At the present time," said Mr. Fisher, "the voice of the people . of the Commonwealth is heard at elections every three years. During the intervals the people speak through their representatives in Parliament. The Government of the Commonwealth is thus broad-based on the people's will. But in the din of fierce party contests good ideas may be unheard, and sometimes, , when heard, unheeded- That is not , good for the Commonwealth. It is proposed to bring the Government of the people nearer to themselves by means of the Initiative and the Referendum." The means by which these great instruments of democratic government are to be> made available under our present constitution may be shortly stated:—(l) The Government will at an early date in the session pass an Act to provide the i machinery whereby a prescribed number 1 of electors may request Parliament to i legislate in a certain direction. (2) Such legislation, or any other originating ' in the usual way in Parliament, may, ; upon the required number of electors so ; in the proscribed way, be submitted to the people of the Commonwealth by way of Referendum. "In this way," concluded the Prime Minister, "the people will be able to initiate legis- ' lation and to veto it. The control by : the electors will thus bo not only technically, but practically, compete, as well as continuous." The fact that the Federal Ministry has adopted this "plank" into its platform is sufficient proof that the proposal finds , favour with a large section of its sup- , porters. But there is a good deal of evidence to show that many people who are not precisely members of the Labour party or adherents of the Labour Govern- - ment, also favour the suggestion. The Melbourne "Age," which stands for perhaps the largest body or progressive Liberal opinion in Australia, has for some time past strongly advocated the Referendum, and its arguments summarise effectively enough the case for this rather attractive-looking innovation. The "Age" contends that the Referendum, when conjoined with the Initiative, represents the highest achievement of modern Democracy. The line of argument on which the "Age" chiefly depends lis that the Referendum, especially in the form of the Initiative, would obviate most of the evils of party government. No doubt Australia has suffered a great deal from the three-party system, and it is the knowledge of this more than anything else that seems to inspire the "Age" propaganda. A system which "renders it nearly always an impossibility for the people's wishes to be carried into effect and continually obliges members of Parliament to betray their promises to the electors," could certainly bear improvement. And, even if we discount the "Age's" charges liberally, we may admit that the existing methods of legislation, even in the most democratic countries, leave a good deal to be desired. But the question whether such defects can be remedied by the Referendum is entirely another matter. No doubt there is something in the argument that the Referendum would "make narrow, class legislation impossible, and prevent any chance majority in Parliament from using its power to create privileges for its friends or to oppress its opponents." As Goldwin Smith once put it, "the people are not in fear of their re-election if they throw out something supported by the Irish, the Prohibitionist, the Catholic. or the Methodist vote." And so the "Age" has declared boldly and uncompromisingly for the Referendum as the one pystem that can abolish these evils for over, and render Australian Democracy something more than a name. Now. though all this sounds plausible enough, we arc by no means inclined to admit that there is no case against the Referendum. The chief argument on which the "Age" and the Australian Labour party both depend, is that the Referendum is essentially sound in prinj ciplc, because it carries out the theory of Democratic Government to its logical [ conclusion. But it might be argued on I the same lines that every member of a democratic community ought to take a i personal and active, part in administration as well as legislation; which is obviously absiwd. The experience of the whole political world, and moTe especially of the most progressive and democratic States, has shown that the only practicable way of enabling the people to govern the country is through 1 some form of representation. As to the .general theory of the Initiative, that, as Mr FishCr says, many good ideas are lost because they do not find adequate expression in Parliament, the most, appropriate answer is that whatever' its defect?. the Parlia- : mentarv syetem, lo some extent, '.'saves us from tho dciuge of "crank"

legislation that might overwhelm us if every single citizen had practically the right to propoee a new law. The eccentricities of enthufikete always need to be kept in check 'by the calmer judgment of experienced legislators and administrators. The "Age" aseuree us that the history of the Initiative and Referendum in America gocß to .prove that .the vote of the people on the whole is always cast in favour of moderate and judicious laws. "In no Bingle instance yet, in any part of the world , , hse any Socialistic project been carried' by the popular initiative. On the contrary, every such proposal has been vetoed by an overwhelming majority." Thie is certainly encouraging; but even if vieionary and illogical echemes are generally thrown out when submitted to the people's judgment, we mnet consider also the ceaseless trouble and expense involved in dealing with the proposals of amateur legislators. 'Moreover, in regard to the Referendum, we are by no means convinced that it is possible on most subject* to secure a eatisfuetory expression of puttlic opinion in this way. There aTe few great public questions which admit of being cast in so simple and comprehensive a form that they can be answered by a plain "Yee" or "No." Thie is the fundamental weakness of the "Referendum, and" •we fail to see how it can be got over. We are therefore disposed to hope, for Australia's own sake, that her people will consider the whole question very carefully 'before they decide to accept ■Mr Fieher'e scheme; more especially if, as the "Age" dceires, them is any idea of embodying it in the Federal Constitution.