-

time must be specified in case we come to any arrangement about it. Of course, it would be ridiculous to suppose that we should retain the right for a hundred years, or for a generation even, to come in on the same terms as the Original States. All we suggest is some reasonable time. Then I will not detain you, sir, by dwelling upon the second or the third amendments; that relating to the option to our litigants to have recourse to the Australian Federal Court the High Court; and that dealing with an arrangement relating to co-operative devensive arrangements by the Commonwealth and New Zealand. They are simply matters of practical utility, and I base our request principally upon their reasonable and practical nature. If no amendments are to be admitted now, they, of course, cannot be dealt with at all. Nor should I advance the suggestion that the Commonwealth Bill should be delayed or a referendum to the whole people of Australia be made necessary for those two amendments. But, if the Bill is to be dealt with, if the Bill is to be amended, then I hope that those two amendments will be fairly considered. That is all I ask. I may say before sitting down that it is not the wish of the Government of New Zealand to delay the Commonwealth Bill in any unreasonable manner. So far from desiring to do that, sir, if any means may be found can be found by which our interests can be safeguarded without putting the people of Australia to any expense or inconvenience or unreasonable delay, no one would be more glad to see that than the Government of the Colony of New Zealand.

Mr. Chamberlain: I should like to ask the delegates from Western Australia and New Zealand one or two questions, and probably some of the delegates might also wish to have further explanations. In the first place, I would like to ask Mr. Parker whether he has considered that if his proposal is accepted, there would necessarily be delay in regard to Federation, because, I understand, he admits that if that proposal is accepted, as he makes it, there would have to be a further referendum, and that would involve certainly a great deal of delay, and possibly some risk, and I would ask him whether he has considered any way by which that delay might be avoided on the assumption that the delegates generally and their respective Governments were favourable in principle to his proposals? || Mr. Parker: I agree with you, sir, that it seems to me there would be perhaps some little delay. In the event of course of the amendment that I suggest being adopted, I take it, it would be necessary to have another amendment to the third clause of the Bill, which names the Colonies that have accepted the constitution clause to the effect that, if Western Australia

an addition to that within a certain time

accepted, she should be included as an Original State in the Procla mation. The Bill provides for a proclamation proclaiming the Australian Federation. But I would not ask, I would not dream of asking for this amendment if it alone necessitated a referendum. I do not think it would be fair to the other Colonies to ask for this concession, if it put the other Colonies to all the expense and delay of another referendum to the people. My point is this, that, as it is suggested that the Bill will be amended by the Imperial Parliament as it is proposed to amend

it

|| Mr. Chamberlain: No. || Mr. Parker: The Bill || Mr. Chamberlain: Pardon me, I do not think that any decision has been come to at the present time. Mr. Parker: Oh I beg your pardon I should have said suggested. Mr. Chamberlain: Suggested from outside. No statement whatever has hitherto been made on the part of the Imperial Government. || Mr. Parker: I was misled by the memorandum that was sent to me. || The Attorney-General: The argumentative memorandum. || Mr. Parker: It was suggested that the Bill should be amended, and the clauses of the Bill which it was proposed to amend were struck out and the alterations put in. || Mr. Chamberlain: I see. All I want to say is, that up to the present time anything of this kind has been in the nature of personal suggestions, as a result of conversations; no official or formal suggestion has been made. || Mr. Parker: Then I might put it in this way, sir, that if the suggestion that has been made that the Bill should be amended in certain particulars is carried out, then the reason that is given why the amendment that I ask should not be adopted is no longer a reason, the reason being that it would require another referendum to the people, because I take it that if this minor amendment which I suggest requires a referendum to the people the much larger amendments that it is suggested to be made by the Imperial Parliament as regards the Privy Council and the Merchant Shipping would certainly require a referendum to the people, but I would not ask for this amendment to be made on behalf of Western Australia if it alone required a referendum to the people. || Mr. Chamberlain: Well, then to make the matter perfectly clear I will put this hypothesis to you. Suppose either that the Imperial Government makes no amendment or that it makes its amendments in a form which does not require any further reference to the people, in that case have you any way to suggest by which similarly the object of Western Australia can be carried out without such a reference and consequent delay. || Mr. Parker: I think, sir, from my perusal of the memorandum that was furnished by you, sir, to the delegates, that you draw a distinction between the constitution as contained

in the Bill and what are known as the covering clauses. Well, is not this matter as it affects Western Australia more in the nature of a covering clause than a part of the constitution? How can it be said to be a part of the constitution? It is merely an allowance to Western Australia of its duties for a term of years. An alteration of that kind would not be an alteration of the constitution, therefore, I submit, sir, that if the alteration as to appeals to the Privy Council does not require a referendum, much less does an alteration of this clause giving Western Australia its duties for five years require any reference to the people. Mr. Chamberlain: Then, Mr. Reeves, may I ask you with regard to two of your suggestions, namely, the reference to the Court and the arrangements for mutual defence. Do you urge that it would be desirable in any case to introduce those into the Bill? Would it not be rather a matter for subsequent agreement between New Zealand and the Commonwealth? | The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I think, sir, that they would come into the Bill quite as properly as the special arrangements relating to Western Australia. I think there is more than one point in the Bill which might be regarded as of a local character a quasi local character. For instance, I think the defining of the locality of the proposed capital might be said to come under that head. There are distinct references to Western Australia in the Bill. I am not sure whether there is not a distinct reference to Queensland some reference to Queensland. The Hon. E. Barton: There is a special power to divide that State into electorates for the choosing of senators. || Mr. Chamberlain: But any such arrangement clearly, if introduced into the Bill now, would involve the delay which we all deprecate, would it not? You cannot suggest that those could be introduced by way of covering clauses, can you? The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I do not suggest in regard to those two. I do not to-day suggest anything one way or the other, except to say first of all with Mr. Parker that if the Bill itself is to be amended then I think that they could properly be put in. If the Bill is not to be amended, then it becomes a question. If we once know that it becomes a question of suggesting what course is to be taken. I do not yet know that the Bill is not to be amended.

-

Mr. Chamberlain: Well, then there is only one other question that I wish to ask; can you state what is the opinion of New Zealand or of your Government with regard to the question of Appeals. You are, of course, aware how that question is left by the constitution. What opinion has been formed; if you could express any opinion upon it I should be glad? The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: Yes, sir, I am authorised to say

Staatsarchiv LXIX.

12

this: the Government of New Zealand will be very glad if the appeals to the Privy Council can be preserved the right of appeal on constitutional points. That is in view of the possibility of their coming into the Federation. They recognise, however, that it is a very large question a matter of Imperial concern, and by no means their sole or peculiar affair. They confine themselves therefore to expressing a hope that some way may be found, if possible, satisfactory both to Her Majesty's Government and to Australia, by which this right of appeal may be retained. Mr. Chamberlain: Mr. Parker, have you any observations to make upon that point? || Mr. Parker: I have no instructions whatever, sir, from my Government. || The Hon. E. Barton: It would be very important in the course of my duty to know from Mr. Reeves whether he had been authorised to suggest any time as that which his Government thinks should be allowed for New Zealand to enter the Commonwealth on the terms of an Original State. Of course, she may possibly have those terms under the Bill as it stands, in the event of her applying for admission after the Bill has become law. || The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I think I might say, Mr. Barton, that I have a very wide discretion, and what I interpret to be a general discretion with regard to these terms from our Government. || Mr. Chamberlain: What time do you sug gest? | The Hon. W. Pember Reeves: I should suggest seven years; that would be a minimum. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: I should like to ask Mr. Parker this: there is a very strong difference of opinion in Western Australia, is there not, Mr. Parker, as to the propriety of the amendments you suggest? || Mr. Parker: I do not know that there is a very strong adverse opinion to these proposed amendments. Of course, one could quite understand that there is very often an agitation against Government proposals, but taking the opinion of the Legislature, I think I am justified in saying that the Legislature, the Upper and the Lower House, are almost unanimous in favour of this proposed amendment. The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: There has been considerable popular agitation against the amendments has there not? || Mr. Parker: I do not think there is any popular agitation against the amendments; there has been agitation amongst the people in favour of Federation. || The Hon. E. Barton: In favour of the reference of the Bill as it stands? | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: As it stands. In many cases petitions have been prepared with that object, has there not? | Mr. Parker: I believe there is a large petition presented to Parliament. I am not a member of either House, but I know from hearsay, and seeing it in the papers, that large petitions numerously signed from the goldfields and elsewhere were

presented to Parliament asking that the Bill should be referred to the people -the Bill as it was drafted. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Is there not some petition signed by 30000 people in the course of forwarding? || Mr. Parker: I only know from what I see in the papers. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: That is so, is it not? || Mr. Parker: I believe that is so, judging from the papers; but it is a petition for Separation, not Federation. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: And the opinion of the goldfields is altogether against the amendment you suggest? || Mr. Parker: I do not know. I dare say the opinion of the goldfields may be against it, because you must bear in mind that the goldfields population is purely a consuming population; the remainder of the Colony is a producing population. Of course, these duties add to cost of living to a certain extent, but a Government which has various communities to look after must study the interests of the whole: it cannot sacrifice all the agriculturalist and infant industries merely for the benefit of the goldfields population. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Then may we take it that the consumers of Western Australia, as opposed to the manufacturing and producing population, are in favour of the Bill as it stands, and the agricalturists and producing population are in favour of the amendment? || Mr. Parker: I will not say the consumers as a whole, only those on the goldfields. I do not think the consumers anywhere else, except on the goldfields, would object to the amendment that I particularly refer to. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: It is the Parliament which prevents thereference to the people at present? || Mr. Parker: The Upper House. | The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: The Upper House? || Mr. Parker: The Upper House is apparently of opinion, or a majority are, that Federation would be so detrimental to Western Australia that they would not allow the Bill to be referred to the people. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Are you not of opinion, Mr. Parker, that if the Bill were referred to the people it would be accepted by the people of Western Australia? || Mr. Parker: It is impossible to form an opinion. || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: I want the benefit of your personal opinion? || Mr. Parker: I should be very sorry to say that there was a majority in favour or a majority against. I believe the whole of the agriculturalist and manufacturing interests people interested in manufactures, and a great many of the consumers as well about the coasting portions, are against Federation, on the terms of the Bill as at present drafted, but the goldfields population, || The Right Hon. C. C. Kingston: Very strongly in favour of it? Mr. Parker: A large majority of them who come from the neighbouring Colonies are wholly in favour of Federation. | The Right

of course