The Amending Power. During the Federal Campaign of 1898-9 the strongest opposition was offered to the Constitution on the ground of its alleged rigidity and the difficulty that would be experienced in practice in carrying alterations. It was argued that the conditions precedent to an amendment imposed by section 127, viz. :-an absolute majority in both Houses and a majority of people voting in the majority of States, enabled any amendment to be blocked either by the representatives in the Senate of a small minority of the Australian people, or by a small minority of the Australian people in the subsequent voting, should the Senate ever pass the amendment by an absolute majority of its members. This criticism was based on the assumption that all proposed alterations of the Constitution would involve questions of State rights or State interests; that all proposed alterations would be adverse to the less populous States and that such States would systematically combine in voting against Constitutional changes. It ignored the fact that in the bulk of questions possibly arising the Australian people in all the States would have a community of interests or of sentiment either in supporting or of opposing modifications in the instrument of Government. It also lost sight of the cohesive force and practical working of the system of responsible government nor had it the prescience to forecast the possible evolution of two great Federal parties under whose influence most of the Constitutional references would become party questions, consequently that the people in the more populous and less populous States would vote yes" or "no" in response to party cries and on strict party lines irrespective of State boundaries. This is what has actually happened. We present elsewhere a tabulated statement showing the results of the various Constitutional references to the people. There have been, in all, four referenda occasions three of them in connection with general elections and one on a day apart from elections. In all eleven distinct and separate questions have been submitted to the people on these four different occasions. Two only of the proposed alterations of the Constitution have received the required number of affirmative votes. These were "the Senate Election Referendum in October 1906 (see Constitution, section 13) and "the State Debts Referendum in February 1910 (see Constitution, section 105). Both these amendments secured the necessary numerical and State majorities. The "Financial Agreement Referendum" (1910) (see Constitution, section 87) was rejected by a numerical majority of 25,324 "noes," the majority in three of the States voting "yes," and the majority in three of the States voting no." This amendment therefore failed on two grounds, viz. :The want of a numerical majority and the want of a State majority The Constitutional alterations submitted in April 1911, apart from an election, were rejected both by a numerical majority of noes and by a State majority of noes. The Constitutional alterations submitted in April 1913 were rejected by a numerical majority of noes; there was an equality in the State voting, three States being for and three against. None of these amendments have, therefore, been lost through any rigidity of the Constitution. |