PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND FEDERATION.
In the debates of the Federal Convention I was naturally much
interested. Many times I regretted my failure to win a seat when I saw
how, in spite of warnings against, and years of lamentable experience
of, a vicious system of voting, the members of the Convention went
calmly on their way, accepting as a matter of course the crude and
haphazard methods known to them, the unscientific system of voting so
dear to the heart of the "middling" politician and the party intriguer.
I believe Mr. Glynn alone raised his voice in favour of proportional
representation, in the Convention, as he has done consistently in every
representative assembly of which he has been a member. Instead of
seeing to it that the foundations of the Commonwealth were "broad based
upon the people's will" by the adoption of effective voting, and thus
maintaining the necessary connection between the representative and the
represented, these thinkers for the people at the very outset of
federation sowed the seeds of future discontent and Federal apathy.
Faced with disfranchisement for three or six years, possibly for
ever--so long as the present system of voting remains--it is
unreasonable to expect from the people as a whole that interest in the
national well-being which alone can lead to the safety of a progressive
nation.
Proportional representation was for long talked of as a device for
representing minorities. It is only in recent years that the real scope
of the reform has been recognised. By no other means than the adoption
of the single transferable vote can the rule of the majority obtain.
The fundamental principle of proportional representation is that
majorities must rule, but that minorities shall be adequately
represented. An intelligent minority of representatives has great
weight and influence. Its voice can be heard. It can fully and truly
express the views of the voters it represents. It can watch the
majority and keep it straight. These clear rights of the minority are
denied by the use of the multiple vote. It has also been asked--Can a
Government be as strong as it needs to be when--besides the organized
Ministerial party and the recognised Opposition--there may be a larger
number of independent members than at present who may vote either way?
It is quite possible for a Government to be too strong, and this is
especially dangerous in Australia, where there are so many of what are
known as optional functions of government undertaken and administered
by the Ministry of the day, resting on a majority in the Legislature.
To maintain this ascendancy concessions are made to the personal
interests of members or to local or class interests of their
constituencies at the cost of the whole country.
When introducing proportional representation into the Belgian Chamber
the Prime Minister (M. Bernhaert) spoke well and forcibly on the
subject of a strong Government:--
I, who have the honour of speaking to you to-day in the name of the
Government and who have at my back the strongest majority that was ever
known in Belgium, owe it to truth to say that our opinions have not a
corresponding preponderance in the country; and I believe that, if that
majority were always correctly expressed, we should gain in stability
what we might lose in apparent strength. Gentlemen, in the actual state
of things, to whom belongs the Government of the country? It belongs to
some two or three thousand electors, who assuredly are neither the best
nor the most intelligent, who turn the scale at each of our scrutin de
liste elections. I see to the right and to the left two large
armies--Catholics and Liberals--of force almost equal, whom nothing
would tempt to desert their standard, who serve it with devotion and
from conviction. Well, these great armies do not count, or scarcely
count. On the day of battle it is as if they do not exist. What counts,
what decides, what triumphs, is another body of electors altogether--a
floating body too often swayed by their passions, by their prejudices;
or, worse still, by their interests. These are our masters, and
according as they veer from right to left, or from left to right, the
Government of the country changes, and its history takes a new
direction. Gentlemen, is it well that it should be so? Is it well that
this country should be at the mercy of such contemptible elements as
these?
How often have I longed to see a Premier in this, my adopted country,
rise to such fervid heights of patriotism as this?
M. Bernhaert is right. It is the party Government that is essentially
the weak Government. It cannot afford to estrange or offend any one who
commands votes. It is said that every prominent politician in the
British House of Commons is being perpetually tempted and tormented by
his friends not to be honest, and perpetually assailed by his enemies
in order to be made to appear to be dishonest. The Opposition is
prepared to trip up the Ministry at every step. It exaggerates
mistakes, misrepresents motives, and combats measures which it believes
to be good, if these are brought forward by its opponents. It bullies
in public and undermines in secret. It is always ready to step into the
shoes of the Ministry, to undergo similar treatment. This is the sort
of strength which is supposed to be imperilled if the nation were
equitably represented in the Legislature. In the present state of the
world, especially in the Australian States, where the functions of
government have multiplied and are multiplying, it is of the first
importance that the administration should be watched from all sides,
and not merely from the point of view of those who wish to sit on the
Treasury benches. The right function of the Opposition is to see that
the Government does the work of the country well. The actual practice
of the Opposition is to try to prevent it from doing the country's work
at all. In order that government should be honest, intelligent, and
economical, it needs helpful criticism rather than unqualified
opposition; and this criticism may be expected from the less compact
and more independent ranks in a legislative body which truly represents
all the people. Party discipline, which is almost inevitable in the
present struggle for ascendancy or defeat, is the most undemocratic
agency in the world. It is rather by liberating all votes and allowing
them to group themselves according to conviction that a real government
of the people by the people can be secured. When I look back on the
intention of the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution to create in
the Senate a States' rights House I am amazed at the remoteness of the
intention from the achievement. The Senate is as much a party House as
is the House of Representatives. Nothing, perhaps, describes the
position better than the epigrammatic if somewhat triumphant statement
of a Labour Senator some time ago. "The Senate was supposed to be a
place where the radical legislation of the Lower Chamber could be
cooled off, but they had found that the saucer was hotter than the cup."
The long illness and death of my ward, Mrs. Hood, once more gave to my
life a new direction. History was repeating itself. Just as 40 years
earlier Mrs. Hood and her brothers had been left in my charge on the
death of their mother, so once again a dying mother begged me to accept
the guardianship of her three orphan children. Verging as they were on
the threshold of manhood and womanhood, they scarcely needed the care
and attention due to smaller children, but I realized I think to the
full, what so many parents have realized--that the responsibilities for
the training of children of an older growth are greater and more
burdensome than the physical care of the infant. The family belongings
were gathered in from the four quarters of the globe to which they had
been scattered on my giving up housekeeping, and we again began a
family life in Kent Town. Soon after we had settled, the motion in
charge of the Hon. D. M. Charleston in favour of the adoption of
proportional representation for Federal elections was carried to a
successful issue in the Legislative Council. The Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick
suggested the advisableness of preparing a Bill at this stage. A motion
simply affirming a principle, he said, was not likely to carry the
cause much further, as it left the question of the application of the
principle too much an open one. The league, he thought, should have
something definite to put before candidates, so that a definite answer
could be obtained from them. In New Zealand, Mr. O'Regan, a well-known
solicitor, had also introduced into the House of Representatives during
1898 a Bill for the adoption of effective voting. Unfortunately members
had become wedded to single electorates, and when a change was made it
was to second ballots--a system of voting which has for long been
discredited on the Continent. In France, it was stated in the debates
on electoral reform in 1909, for 20 years, under second ballots, only
once had a majority outside been represented by a majority inside the
Chamber, and the average representation for the two decades had
amounted to only 45 per cent. of the voters. Writing to me after the
New Zealand elections in 1909, the Hon. George Fowlds (Minister of
Education), who has long supported effective voting, said, "The only
result of the second ballot system in New Zealand has been to
strengthen the movement in favour of proportional representation." And
Mr. Paul, a Labour member in the Dominion, is making every effort to
have effective voting included in the platform of the New Zealand
Labour Party. Further encouragement to continue our work came when
Belgium adopted the principle of proportional representation in 1898.
The closing year of the century found the Effective Voting League in
the thick of its first election campaign. There is little doubt that
the best time for advancing a political reform is during an election,
and it was interesting to note how many candidates came to our support.
We had an interesting meeting at Parliament House for members just
about that time. An opponent of the reform, who was present, complained
that we were late in beginning our meeting. "We always begin punctually
under the present system," he remarked. "Yes," some one replied, "but
we always finish so badly." "Oh, I always finish well enough," was the
pert rejoinder; "I generally come out on top." "Ah," retorted the
other, "I was thinking of the electors." But the doubter did not come
out on top at a subsequent election, and his defeat was probably the
means of his discovering defects in the old system that no number of
successes would have led him into acknowledging. From the two or three
members who had supported Mr. Glynn in the previous Parliament we
increased our advocates in the Assembly during the campaign to 14. The
agitation had been very persistent among the electors, and their
approval of the reform was reflected in the minds of their
representatives. We inaugurated during that year the series of
citizens' meetings convened by the Mayors of the city and suburbs,
which has been so successful a feature of our long campaign for
electoral justice, and at the present time very few of the mayoral
chairs are occupied by men who are not keen supporters of effective
voting.
The Hon. Theodore Bruce's connection with the reform dates from that
year, when he presided at a meeting in the Adelaide Town Hall during
the temporary absence of the Mayor. A consistent supporter of effective
voting from that time, it was only natural that when in May, 1909, the
candidature of Mr. Bruce (who was then and is now a Vice-President of
the league). for a seat in the Legislative Council, gave us an
opportunity for working for his return, against a candidate who had
stated that he was not satisfied with the working of the system of
effective voting, we availed ourselves of it. So much has been written
and said about the attitude of the league with regard to Parliamentary
candidates that, as its President, I feel that I ought to take this
opportunity of stating our reasons for that attitude. From its
inception the league has declined to recognise parties in a contest at
all. Its sole concern has been, and must be to support effective
voters, to whatever party they may belong. To secure the just
representation of the whole electorate of whatever size, is the work of
the Effective Voting League, and, whatever the individual opinions of
the members may be, as an official body they cannot help any candidate
who opposes the reform for which they stand.
I remember meeting at a political meeting during a subsequent general
election a lady whom I had known as an almost rabid Kingstonian. But
the party had failed to find a position for her son in the Civil
Service, although their own sons were in that way satisfactorily
provided for. So she had thrown in her lot with the other side, which
at the time happened to gain a few seats, and the lady was quite sure
that her influence had won the day for her former opponents. Leaning
forward to whisper as if her next remark were too delicate for the ears
of a gentleman sitting near, she said, "Do you know, I don't believe
the Premier has any backbone!" I laughed, and said that I thought most
people held the same belief. To my amusement and astonishment she then
asked quite seriously, "Do you think that is why he stoops so much?"
There was no doubt in her mind that the missing back bone had reference
to the physical and not to the moral malformation of the gentleman in
question.