The Dominion. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1912. TINKERING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1603, 21 November 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1912. TINKERING WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

' With the debate in the Australian House of Representatives upon' tho Government's now set of Referendum Bills there begins what will be a long and strenuous fight. - The Ped.oral Government _is seeking 'to-in-duce the Australian people, to reverse its decision of eighteen months ago. It was proposed that the Constitution should Toe so altered as to give the Federal Parliament many, or most, of the powers of controlling trade and- commerce -which are how' exercised by the. States; and to give it power also to v nationalise any industry whatever. The Government is this time bringing in ,six Bills, each providing for a referendum. Briefly, these six proposals are, that the Constitution should-be amended to enable the Federal Parliament to pass legislation (l) dealing with all commerce excepting trade and aommerce on railways within any single State, (2) dealing with corporations, (3) dealing with work and wages, -and all the problems arising there(4) establishing arbitration .machinery for - application to the railways of the States, (5) controlling trusts and monopolies, (6) providing for the nationalisation of any trade or industry declared by resolution of Parliament to /lie a monopoly. The new proposals differ insome respects from the proposals rejected so emphatically by the nation last year, but the differences do not affect the underlying principles. It is difficult to understand upon what grounds the Government bases its expectation that the country will treat the proposals with more kindness this time than last year.. As a matter of fact the Government has supplied the country, during' the interval, with l Eome good reasons why it should not be entrusted with any greater powers under the' Constitution than it at present enjoys. In moving the second/ reading of the first of the Bills, the Attorney-Gen-eral, according to to-day's cabled summary of'his speech, claimed that the { Constitution could not be considered "a finished product tha'; could stand for all time." Nobody will question so obvious a trutli but Mr. Hughes is one of those who think that it is quite wise and natural to alter the Constitution just as often as its wisdom clashes with the idea or the political necessity of the moment. In., America, ■■fortunately, long custom, has got tho party leaders into the way of leaving the Constitution alone,,and of never even wishing, much less seeking, to amend it just because it stands in the way of their temporary policies or party programmes. In Australia the Labour politicians regard the Constitution, not as a good foundation for long and steady building, but as an inconvenient obstacle to the enforcement of their ideas of the moment.' The strength of the opposition which will meet this second attempt of the Government to substitute unification for the federal principle lies in the unwillingness of the States to hand over their proper powers. But the most flagrantly immoral of the six proposals is the last in our list. Were it not set down in black and white, one could hardly believe that any Government would seriously propose that any business whatever should lie nationalised which the two Houses chose to declare a monopoly without having to give any proof of the fact. At tho present time both the House and the Senate are entirely under the thumb of the Trades Hall, and if the Government's proposal wero agreed to, no business would be safe. The Caucus would merely order that such-and-such an industry be declared a monopoly, and declared a monopoly it would be, for the members of the House and the Senate must obey their masters in the Trades Hall. Not long ago a full exposure was made of the. scandalous fashion in which the Government used puhlic works construction in Melbourne as a moans of presenting armies of loafers of the , right colour with large sums of pub-

lie money. One can easily understand that the Labour Government wishes to secure unlimited powers of nationalisation, so as to possess unlimited means of squandering the national substance in providing "work" in return for votes. It will probably be sufficient for the nation that the present Government is unfit to be trusted with the greatlyenlarged authority it is seeking. But quite apart from that fact, thero_ is the consideration that the necessity for altering tho Constitution as proposed has not been demonstrated. The Constitution is only twelve years old, and it is wearing well. Twelve years is a very short time in a nation's life, and a politician who. thinks that vast national changes take place almost from day to day thereby shows his incapacity to understand the large facts which are the background of all politics. Actually, all that has happened is that Mr. Hughes and his allies have got some ideas of their own (by no means politically disinterested ones, cither) and care for nothing but the violent enforcement of them, if possible.