cHAP. I] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 937 
whether or not the new arrangement will be more satisfactory 
than the old. 
As far as appears, the proposal of a referendum for deciding 
matters of dispute between the two Houses is not at present 
favourably regarded in any part of the Dominions. 
The Bill introduced into the House of Lords in 1911 by 
Lord Balfour of Burleigh to provide for the taking of a poll 
of the parliamentary electors went much beyond anything 
which exists in the Colonies.! It is true that in the Common- 
wealth and in Queensland there is provision for a referendum 
in cases of Bills being rejected by the Upper House, but these 
provisions differ considerably from those in Lord Balfour’s 
Bill, and in particular there is no provision for an artificial 
majority such as that laid down in s. 10 of the Bill, which 
required that the total affirmative vote in the United 
Kingdom must exceed the total negative vote by not less 
than 2 per cent. of the latter vote before a Bill could be 
presented for the royal assent. This provision in Lord 
Balfour’s Bill was clearly and unquestionably, as compared 
with Colonial laws, undemocratic. In the case of the 
Commonwealth, and in the case of Queensland alike, the 
requirements of the law are satisfied by majorities, and there 
is no attempt to secure an artificial majority of 2 per cent. 
Completely without parallel in the Dominions was the 
provision proposed to be made by the second section of 
Lord Balfour’s Bill for the reference to the people of Bills 
which had been passed by both Houses of Parliament, but 
against which a petition signed by not less than 200 members 
of the House of Commons, praying that the Bill might be 
submitted to a poll of the Parliamentary electors, was 
presented to the Crown. In no Dominion is there any 
provision or any suggestion of a provision that an Act which 
has received the approval of both Houses should be passed 
upon by the people, and the requirement of an artificial 
majority of 2 per cent. would add strongly to the obvious 
objections to such a provision. It is true that the Labour 
party in Australia has advocated for years the use of the 
referendum for challenging laws passed by the Parliament, 
just as can be done in Switzerland in certain conditions, but 
it is clear that for this particular proposal there is no popular 
demand in Australia generally, and this special view belongs 
to the socialistic propaganda of the Labour party, which 1s 
completely out of harmony with the wishes of many of the 
people of Australia. 
! House of Lords Debates, vii. 657 seq., T13 seq.