Mr. Wise so well put it: the genius of the Federal Parliament will be equal to any necessity that may arise and will mould the machine which we entrust to their hands in a manner that will redound to the credit of Australia and the advantage of its people. I have never been able to see any fatal result to all that is best in responsible government in a recognition of the individual as distinguished from the corporate responsibility of ministers. Mr. ISAACS: Responsible to whom? Mr. GORDON: Responsible to both Houses of Parliament. Just a word on the question of the powers of the Senate. A great deal of interesting history has been quoted as to the genesis of the American Senate and the intentions of its founders. I do not think this helps us very much. The flowers of a hundred years have bloomed and perished on the graves of these gentlemen, and the political machine they constructed has acquired an importance which they may or may not have intended. Mr. ISAACS: Because it was asserted, then, that it was not intended to make the [start page 325] Senate of the United States an Upper House. Mr. GORDON: Whoever made that assertion uttered one which is comparatively idle as affecting the point at issue. The genesis of the American Senate has not much more to do with our present position than the evolutionary struggles of our anthropoid ancestors have to do with our actions in this Convention. We have to consider the Senate as a going concern, and to gather what lessons we can from it as it exists to-day. Equal representation in the Senate is necessary, and this is I think generally conceded. I lay it down as an absolute proposition that if we are to make this a fair partnership we must have equal representation in the Senate. We have had two excellent speeches from an intellectual point of view from Mr. Higgins and Mr. Deakin, but both of whom appeared to look at the question with one eye shut. The remarkable ability and the great learning of those two gentlemen enabled them to conceal the fact that they had not fully mastered the federal idea. Neither of them has been able to see the essential difference between an Upper House in a homogeneous State and a Senate in a Federation. I am quite unable to follow the hon. members, who are both generally logical, and combine with logic rhetorical brilliancy. When they have time to think about this important difference they will, I hope, come round to my view of the question. There is nothing in Mr. Higginss argument as adduced from Mr. Bryces book to the effect that the equal representation in the American Senate has been of no service in preventing infractions of States rights. Mr. HIGGINS: I say there were no differences of interest. You might as well say there was no steep hill because there was a brake in the wheel of your buggy, The brake turns out to be unnecessary. Mr. GORDON: If I am at all misrepresenting what the hon. member has said, there is no one more sorry than I am. I understood him to argue that the equal representation in the American Senate had not been of use in preventing differences in the States. Mr. HIGGINS: No differences of interest arising between the large or populous States and the small or less populous States. Mr. GORDON: The conditions here are not similar to those in America. In America the Government does not own the railways, telegraphs, and post offices. Dr. COCKBURN: The post offices.
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:50:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015