The Australian Commonwealth Bill

c Essays AND Addresses ON The Australian Commonwealth Bill by Henry Bournes Higgins. One of the Victorian Members of the Australasian Federal Convention, 1897-1898. Member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. /Melbourne: The Atlas Press, Block Place. 1900. PREFACE. ° K>7^0 o T has been suggested to me that it would be well to put into book form such as I could collect of the articles Iwhich I wrote, and of the addresses which I delivered, in relation to the question of accepting or rejecting the Australian Commonwealth Bill. The object is to put on record the principal grounds on which the bill was opposed by so many thousands of voters in Victoria and in New South Wales, and to show the gallant, uphill fight—which was to a great extent successful—for a constitution more flexible, for a Federal Parliament more amenable to the will of the people who are to live under the federal laws. Those who voted against the bill on the first referendum in the face of much ignorant calumny and abuse, can congratulate themselves that to them are due, in a pre-eminent degree, the improvements made at the conference of premiers held in January and February, 1899 ; and especially the improved provision for solving “deadlocks” between the federal houses, and for enabling the voters, by a “ dual referendum,” to overcome the obstruction of either house when an amendment of the constitution is required. Even more could have been achieved but for a certain pedantic tendency to imitate the United States constitution, in faults as well as in merits, and but for the failure of the political leaders for the time being to apprehend clearly what was wanted, and what the circumstances of the time made it possible for them to obtain. The addresses which appear in this book were written, but they were not, except in one or two minor instances, read to the audience. They indicate the staple of numerous discourses. No literary or special merit is claimed. But it is claimed that these essays and addresses bring into prominent relief the essential fallacy of the assumption that consti tutions must be rigid—the mistake of those who would guard against possible temporary mistakes of the people by placing mechanical obstructions in the way of adjusting the constitution as experience may dictate, and as the novel conditions which must arise may render expedient. In the course of the years to come, when the people of Australia realise that the Law Courts can sit in judgment on the legislature, and can treat a law as invalid because of its being beyond the powers of the legislature, the fundamental importance of flexibility and plasticity in the written con stitution will be even more apparent than it is now. But that which was a bill has now become an Act, binding as law throughout the Empire. The time for criticism has passed ; the time for obedience has come. It is now the duty of all good Australians, whatever were their objections to the bill, to give loyal assistance to the constitution, and to aid in working out to a successful issue the problems of our Australian Commonwealth. B. B. BIG BINS. INDEX. PAG 1 1. The Convention Bill of 1898 ... ... 5 Address at Geelong. 2. “The Federation Forum” ... ... ... 37 From the Argus newspaper. 3. The Convention Bill ... ... ... 69 Articles in the Daily Telegraph. 4. The Premiers’ Amendments ... ... ... 81 Address at the Working Men’s Club, Richmond. 5. The Problems of Federation ... ... 99 Address at request of Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society. 6. Manifesto of the Democratic Federal Union 7. The Proposed Act for Australian Federation 12i Contemporary Review, April, 1900. 8. The Commonwealth Act as Altered ... 141 The Federal Convention, consisting of ten members elected by popular vote in each of the colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, o/ members chosen by the Parliament of West Australia, finished its labours at Melbourne on the 16th March, 1898. The following address was delivered at Geelong on April 18, 1898r The Convention Bill of 1898. HAVE called this meeting for the purpose of laying before you, my constituents in Geelong, some thoughts on the I Federal bill, which by your goodwill, I have assisted in framing. I have not forgotten—I shall never forget—the very handsome way in which the electors of Geelong indicated their confidence in me on the day of the election for the Convention. Nearly 45,000 electors of Victoria marked me as one of the Vic torian ten; and of these votes I had nearly 2000 in Geelong alone. You then put me in a position of great privilege, but of greater responsibility. As a man comparatively new to politics, it was a great privilege to mix with so many of the most distin guished politicians in Australia—men who had the invaluable experience of the working of Constitutional Government in five colonies, and who have—many of them—acted as responsible Ministers of the Crown. I should have been most stupid if I did not learn much that is useful from them, and most ungrate ful if I did not acknowledge it. Taken as a whole, the Con vention contained as strong men as you could find in Australia. But I find that for this reason alone many are inclined to vote for this bill without fully considering it. They say that a Constitution which the ablest statesmen in Australia have, with so much labor, assisted in devising, must be the best constitu tion that can be obtained, and ought to be accepted as of course. That is a mistake, The stronger the men the harder is the tussle ; and the harder the tussle, the less is each strong man able to impress his personality on the result. When the Geelong football team meets foemen worthy of its steel, the goals are usually fewer, or more evenly balanced in number. One strong man wins on this point, and another on that ; and the result may quite possibly be an inconsistent, incoherent, and ill-digested constitutional scheme. Perhaps some of you may think that I ought to have spoken sooner. I deliberately abstained from doing so, in order that I might not take any course rashly, fresh from the heat and ex citement of the debate. If I had given my views directly after the convention, I should have said unhesitatingly, but with deep pain, “ This bill will never do.” But I was urged—and I think rightly—to reconsider the bill in quiet, after some interval, and see whether, after all, notwithstanding what seemed to me to be its serious blemishes, I could not recommend that it be adop ted. The cost of the convenaion to Victoria in money alone, will be, I suppose, some £10,000 or £12,000 ; and I should so 6 much like to be able to recommend the hill—to see some direct fruit of our labours. It is now a month since the bill was com pleted ; and I tell you that during that month my responsibility has been pressing on me like a nightmare. The people of Vic toria have last week had the opportunity of reading m the papers what their Premier, Sir George Turner, has to say about the bill; and his utterances, his advice, naturally and properly, command more attention and interest than anything that I can say. Well, I find that after a careful examination of the clauses, he feels him self justified in recommending the bill. But let me warn you that you must take the recommendations of any of the delegates with much caution, with much of the salt of qualification. For we are under a strong temptation to favor the acceptance of a bill on which we have bestowed so much labour. Every work man likes to see some direct result from his work. I never saw such hopeless and vacuous workmen as soldiers undergoing punishment in a barrack yard, who had to carry cannon balls and pile them up in one heap, and then carry them and pile them up in another, and so on from heap to heap. For they laboured and they achieved nothing. Even the mere sense of loyalty, and respect for one’s colleagues is a strong incentive to recom mend this bill. Then is also the desire, the legitimate am bition, to have one’s name go down in our annals as one of the framers of the Federal Constitution for Australia. So it is not by any means remarkable that you find most of the delegates concur in favor of the acceptance of this bill. It was so in connection with the bill of 1891 ; it will always be so in every such undertaking. But you—the electors—must judge for yourselves—must not forego the duty which you are under, as trustees for posterity, to consider the bill on its own merits. Trustees for posterity—trustees for posterity! We are making for posterity a contract from which they are not to get out. You have never had so momentous a political question to face before. It is proposed that you shall bind, under an “indis soluble constitution,” your children and your children’s children for all generations. If you once come under this bill, you and your descendants must stay under it. Marriage is a big, a grave undertaking ; but it can at least be dissolved by the death of one of the parties. This constitution cannot be dissolved by the death of any person, or of any number of persons.

Load more