THE REFERENDUM BILL

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2298, 31 October 1914, Page 6

THE REFERENDUM BILL

The House of Representatives has not often betrayed a more confused and tangled state of mind than it did yesterday afternoon in debating and voting upon the Education Committee's report upon the Bible-in-Schools petitions. Apparently the Education Committee itself was in little better case, for it brought down a recommendation that the Referendum Bill should not be passed although it was shown that the chairman of the Committee (Me. Thomson) had ruled that this particular clause in the report was irrelevant, and that it had been included in the report only by an oversight due to tho hurry' of a final meeting. No doubt Mr. Dickson, in moving that the report be referred back, had some idea of putting members "on side," but he certainly accomplished nothing of the kind. The most extreme opponent of the Referendum proposal would not contend that the voting of 46 to 17 represented the state of feeling towards the Bill, but the ultimate adoption of the Committee's report on the voices was a sufficient indication that members were chiefly anxious to shelve the question for the time being. .The debate which preceded the division throw little light upon the position and less upon the views of individual members. Mr. G. W. Russell was clearly against the Bill, while Mr. J. B. HiNE declared ' with equal emphasis for the full and unrestricted right of the people to settle the question at stake by a Referendum, but, generally] speaking, members were not illuminating in their utterances. Mr. Atmore, though he opposed the motion to refer back the report, appeared also to favour the Referendum proposal, though he spent most of the time at his disposal in accusing the Government of pusillanimity. It was rather amusing to hear •an avowed democrat like Mr. Hindmarsh declare that in matters of religion the people were not to be trusted. Mr. Isitt may also find it difficult to reconcile his opposition to the_ Referendum with his general political professions. One striking feature of the fragmentary debate was that while several members emphasised the danger that a minority might be coerced by.a majority, practically nothing was heard of the counter possibility that refusal 'of a referendum might entail coercion of a majority by a minority. It is not to be pretended, however, that the Referendum proposal was in any substantial sense discussed or considered in the House of Representatives yesterday. What the wholly inconclusive debate and division did disclose was that members were by no means ready to come to grips upon the subject. The outcoirm will be that it will be made a political issue at the coming elections, and in many instances will overshadow the ordinary, party poliey questions. This is to be deplored, but members have only themselves to blame for neglecting the opportunity to afford the people the right to.- settle the matter for themselves by direct vote at the ballot-box.