A REFERENDUM

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 74, 28 March 1930, Page 10

A REFERENDUM

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

WHAT IS REQUIRED

(From "Tho Post's" Representative.!

SYDNEY, 20th March.

Before very lung another nation-wido referendum will bo taken in Australia on prooosals for a vital amendment of the Federal Constitution. TJi« i-«is>r;x. Party is. undaunted by the fact that so many-similar rcfcrcnduins in the past have been defeated, and has come forward with ideas far more drastic than those presented by any other Government. The most far-reaching proposal is that the Parliament should have tho right to amend tho Constitution without submitting tho questions to a referendum. A second proposal is that tho Commonwealth should be given complete powers in industrial matters only. The major proposal seems certain to be defeated, though it is far too early to make a reliable forecast. The minor proposal may bo agreed to. The point made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) in advocating the granting of full powers to tho Commonwealth Parliament, is that Parliaments in other, parts of tho world are untrammelled by what in Australia are called State rights. It must be remembered that the States are very jealous of those rights, and that they will not surrender any of them without a great fight. Therefore, tho States, whether governed by the Labour Party or otherwise, may be found fighting tho Federal authorities. It is certain that the Nationalist Governments will1 fight, and the Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Bavin) has already announced his attitude in that direction. Mr. Scullin maintains that tho Federal Parliament should represent the people with a broad national outlook. He says that there has been great difficulty in the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court, because changes in tho personnel of the Court have brought about conflicting views. For that reason important changes in tho Constitution should not be left to the Court to decide, but to Parliament itself. "Parliament will not know where it is if it relies on the vagaries of the High Court," ho said. "By a decision in 1920 the High Court held that a State could not interfere in interstate free trade, but it said that the Commonwealth Government could interfere. The Constitution never intended that. There is also great uncertainty as to the company law. There has been too much litigation and delay in determining whether Commonwealth legislation is upheld by the Constitution." ■ Mr. Scullin has directed attention to the fact that a recent Boyal Commission proposed many important changes •to tho Constitution, but every time an. alteration to the Constitution was proposed it was. necessary to hold a referendum at great cost and turmoil. It was probable that % every word in the existing law relating to conciliation and arbitration had cost £ 1000 to decide its meaning. Under the Constitution today tho Commonwealth had no power to intervene until a dispute extended beyond the borders of one State. The two recent judgments of the High Court in the coal dispute had shown that it was not possible to make such a dispute1 by serving claims on the parties concerned. Apparently there had to be a real dispute, an actual stoppage of work, a strike or a lock-out before the Federal authorities could intervene. He was not criticising the Court for its judgment, but merely pointing to the urgency for an amendment of the Constitution. It was common knowledge to the people of Australia that there was a dispute in tho coal industry in which the whole country was vitally interested, yet the Federal Government could, do nothing. It is explained by Mr. Scullin that the founders of the Constitution thirty, years ago recognised that changes would be needed in it as the countryj progressed and as new problems arose, yet there had been no substantial changes. The only alteration that could, be regarded as important was that in. 1928 which enabled the consolidation, of State debts. With free trade and commerce between the States, aeroplane services linking them up, and wireless, there never had been a time when Australia was more united, but its unity; was not revealed in the Constitution. Very early in the history of the Commonwealth it was discovered that there were weaknesses in the Constitution, and one Judge, described it as "the weakest in tho world." There wero four attempts up to IDI9J to alter.the Constitution by giving thai Commonwealth full industrial powers,but all of them failed. This lias made, tho Federal Government impotent mi many directions. But its impotencyj has not been confined to industrial mat« ters. For instance, under the Constitution it can build a dockyard for navy] purposes, but it cannot keep it opeiu The ■ Constitution provides that it cannot bo used in times of peace for general work, but must be reserved solely; for naval work, and used in time of! war. One of Labour's greatest arguments is that the Parliament of the Commonwealth has less power than the Parliament of New Zealand. "Can it bei said," it is asked, "that Australian members of Parliament are less to be trusted than New Zealand members, and that Australians are less" able to govern themselves than New Zealanders?'*