Federal Convention

Hokitika Guardian, 19 December 1921, Page 4

Federal Convention

OPPOSITION THROUGHOUT j AUSTRALIA. I SYDNEY, Nov :«). ' The proposal of th e Prime Minister, (Mr Hughes) for the creation of a National Convention to revise the Constitution of the Commonwealth as outlined in the Bill which he introduced into the House of Representatives this uveek has raised a storm of protest throughout Australia. So unanimous has been the opposition to the measure In its present form that already Mi Hughes has promised to recast the BiH. Tho measure departs from the p> active adopted with the previous c nventions in two important particulars. Ono is that the principle of equal representation of the States is abrogated; tho ; her is that tlr o members of the condition are to be cliosen partly by the State Parliaments and the Tied oral House.

Altogether 111 members arc proposed ,of whom 75 will he elected r.n the basis of the divisions for the House ol Representatives, 18. will he chosen b> j members of the federal Parliament, and the State Parliaments will elect three members each. Of the 18 members to he elected hv the Federal Parliament six will be chosen by the Senate and 12 by tho House of Representatives. The dominance of tlq* populations as distinguished from the States is therefore preserved right through the Bill. In tho first l'Vderi-i Convention of 1891. which framed the basis of the present Constitution, the system of election comprised a delegation of seven from each S'ate, nominated by the various Parliaments. Tho second, in 1897, which framed the actual Constitution, consisted of ton representatives from each State, elected by the people voting in each Slate as a‘ whale. Tt is the proposed departure from the principle of State equality that has brought forth sue I,strong critcism Trie Senate elect, o don tho latter principle regards the proposal as a move to dimmish its standing in tho Federation, to curtail its authority and then destroy it. The smaller States were immediately up in arms at the suggestion that they should mot have equal representation with’ the larger States, and three of them— Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania -have already carried strong motions of protest, describing tho proposal as outrageous and unreasonable. In the House of Representatives it-

self the opposition is even more pronounced. Even Mr Hughes had to admit. to being much discouraged when the whip had come to him and told him that he could not find anybody in favour of the Bill. Members ot the Country Party offered general objections to the method of election. They favour a wholly elective convention, each State being divided into li.vq constituencies, each of which would return three members. They also propose that the election should take place on the system of proportion-

al representation. Tho Labour Pnrv claims that the whole idea of holding the convention is a waste of public money at a tune when economy is needed. They point out that an election for representatives for the convention will cost over £ 100,009 and a like expense will he incurred for the subsequent referendum upon the alterations to the Constitution suggested hv the convention. Members of the p'artv claim that no one is better fitted to deal with the suggested alterations to the constitution than the members of the Federal Parliament. There is no doubt in the minds of most members of the Federal 'Parliament that the convention will develop into a- purely party assemblage. And many of them are positive, too, that unless the Prime Minister makes a radical change in his proposals, the Bill will never be translated into an Act.