Australasian Democracy. Henry de Rosenbach Walker
into contests between individual aspirants for office. The tendency of the last Parliament was in the direction of a clearer line of cleavage, but this was due to the cleverness of the present Premier, who included in the Cabinet his two strongest opponents whose opposition had been the more bitter that it was not founded upon differences of political opinion. Until that time South Australia had had forty-one Ministries in thirty-seven years, a constant change of the responsible heads of public departments which greatly impaired their efficiency and prevented continuity of administration. The absence of a stable majority in the Assembly gave the opportunity, and ambition and love of power the impetus, to continual struggles for office which were wholly unallied with any baser motives, as Australian statesmen have obtained an honourable pre-eminence for their rectitude of character.
The intentions of the Government in regard to the substitution of an elective executive, which have not yet been definitely formulated, may be gathered from a speech made by Dr. Cockburn, the principal advocate of the change, in which he proposed that Ministers, who would continue, as at present, to be Members of Parliament, should be elected by ballot by the Assembly at the commencement of each session; that they should appoint one of their number to be their leader, but should be responsible individually to Parliament for their respective departments; and that their corporate responsibility should be limited to matters affecting the Province as a whole, such as finance or its relations with other countries. The Governor's prerogative of dissolution would remain unaffected, but as the House would be brought into closer touch with the people, dissolutions would be unnecessary and undesirable. Dr. Cockburn claimed that his proposal was in accordance with the natural evolution of Parliamentary Government, and contended that, the area of selection being enlarged, the best men would be chosen as Ministers from the whole House and the best man for each office. Ministers would not be called upon to justify proceedings of their colleagues which in their hearts they condemned, and private members would be able to exercise greater independence, as they would not be called upon to sacrifice their convictions to maintain their friends in office, and, being allowed greater freedom on questions of legislation, would introduce many bills of an important character. Intrigue, which was an essential of Party government, would become disreputable when resorted to for purposes of personal advancement. The objection that certain members would not work together if chosen to form an administration was met by the fact that men sat in amity on the Treasury benches who previously had denounced one another to the utmost of their power. The distinctive feature of the proposal, therefore, is the indirect election of Ministers. The people elect the representatives, who, in turn, are to elect certain of their number to form the Executive. The first criticism that suggests itself is, that it is difficult to believe in the rapid elimination of party feeling, and that it is probable, granted the existence of intrigues among aspirants for office under the present system, that they would be increased tenfold when such persons sought to ingratiate themselves, not only with prospective Premiers, but with a majority of the members of the Assembly. Again, while it is impossible to foresee all the results of the change, it may be anticipated that some obvious advantages would be counterbalanced by incoherence of policy and haphazard legislation, but that a class of men might be induced to come forward as candidates who are deterred by their horror of continual party strife. Dr. Cockburn stated that no amendment would be required in the Constitution Act, as, after the election of the Ministers, their names would be submitted in the ordinary way to the Governor. The present Ministry also favour the biennial retirement of half the members of the Assembly, in order to secure continuity in its composition, and the institution of the referendum.
These proposals are warmly supported by the Labour Party. They advocate elective Ministries on the ground that the people would obtain greater control over the Executive, that stability of government would be promoted, and that the legislative efficiency of Parliament would greatly be increased. They contrast the rapid dispatch of business by local governing bodies with the waste of time and obstruction which prevail in legislative assemblies. The biennial retirement of half the members of the Lower House commends itself to them for the reason which causes it to be opposed by men of conservative tendencies, that it would do away with the form of minority representation which is rendered possible in two-member constituencies by the widespread habit of plumping. They have been foremost in their advocacy of the referendum and the initiative, and one of their representatives, Mr. Batchelor, has introduced a Bill which provides for the establishment of the referendum, and contains the striking clause that "If petitions, signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors entitled to vote for the election of members of the House of Assembly … shall be presented to Parliament praying that legislation shall be initiated on any subject, the Attorney-General shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Bill to give effect to such petition; and such Bill shall be introduced into Parliament as a Government measure." Mr. Batchelor believes that legislation would be accelerated on subjects which fail to receive attention because Ministries fear that they might alienate the sympathies of some of their supporters.
The idea of the direct consultation of the people upon a particular subject was put into practical effect at the recent elections, when they were invited, in the form of an initiative, to say whether they desired alterations in the law in regard to education. Primary education in South Australia is free, secular and compulsory. No religious instruction is permitted in the State schools, but the Minister of Education has the power, on receiving a written request from the parents of not less than ten children who attend any school, to require the teacher to read the Bible to any pupils who are present for that purpose for half an hour before half-past nine, the time at which the ordinary teaching commences. The direct reference to the people was the result of a Parliamentary resolution instigated by the advocates of denominational education, who contended that public opinion was veering round in their favour and believed that they would obtain a great accession of strength in the female vote which was to be exercised for the first time. It was couched in the form of the following questions, which were submitted to the electorate on a separate voting paper on the occasion of the general elections:—
1. Do you favour the continuance of the present system of education in the State schools?
2. Do you favour the introduction of religious instruction in the State schools during school hours?
3. Do you favour the payment of a Capitation Grant to denominational schools for secular results?
The wording of the first and second questions was calculated to act in favour of the opponents of secularism, as the first would probably be answered in the negative not only by those who support religious instruction but also by many who believe that, in the present state of the finances, education should not be free except to such as are unable to pay for it. It was not made clear whether it was intended to apply to the system as a whole or merely to its secular character. The second question would bring together all who favour religious instruction, however much they may disagree among themselves as to the form in which it should be given. During the progress of the campaign the majority of the candidates declined to express their views upon the matter, but stated that they would be prepared to abide by the popular decision.
The following figures give the result of the reference for the whole Province with the exception of the Northern Territory, which has a very small electorate:—
1. Yes … ... 51,744. No … ... 17,755.
2. Yes … ... 18,889. No … ... 34,922.
3. Yes … ... 13,428. No … ... 41,975.
The classification of the papers is disappointingly meagre, as no information can be gathered as to the number of supporters of religious teaching and the capitation grant who were favourable to the other leading features of the existing system, nor as to the extent to which the friends of the capitation grant approved or disapproved of religious instruction in the State schools. The returns show, however, that, while 90,000 votes were given for Parliamentary candidates, some 20,000 persons either did not vote at all or gave an informal vote upon the distinct issue, and that less than one-fifth pronounced against the Act as it stands. The condemnation of the capitation grant is still more emphatic, and if the supporters of religious teaching have less cause for dissatisfaction, it may be noted that in no constituency were the affirmative in excess of the negative replies, and that as the total number of votes given upon the first question