PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G. 489 



them the late Miss Catharine Speuce, of Adelaide, and Professor 

 Nanson, of Melbourne University. In 1897 Tasmania made the 

 experiment of conducting its elections according to a modification 

 of the Hare system devised by the Attorney-General, Mr. Clark. 

 This was the high- water mark of success in Australia for many 

 years. 



In 1900 interest in the subject was enhanced by the drafting 

 of the Federal constitution. By this time the upholders of propor- 

 tional representation had been reinforced by a new body of men 

 who, whilst equally firmly convinced that the existing electoral 

 system should be improved, differed in detail entirely from the 

 upholders of the Hare system. This new body advocated the 

 principle of the "party list" as against the principle of the 

 "transferable vote" advanced by Hare and Mill. The most 

 authoritative exposition of the " party list " principle in print is 

 •outained in the book entitlecl Proportional Representation, 

 by Professor Commons, and the best defence of the idea in Aus- 

 tralia is to be found in a book bearing the same title, and wi-itten 

 by the brothers Ash worth in 1900. Both parties made elaborate 

 public expositions of their views in the hope that some clauses 

 giving effect to them might be inserted in the Electoral Bill. Both 

 parties were disappointed. The framers of the Bill decided to 

 retain the existing " majority " system of voting with all its 

 defects, and every Federal election since that date for the House 

 of Representatives has been fought upon it. For the Senate elec- 

 tions a system of voting known as the Block system — even more 

 indefensible in theory — was adopted with results upon which I 

 need make no comment. They are fresh in the memory of all 

 of us. 



SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY. 



There is no doubt whatever that if the partisans of the ' ' trans- 

 ferable vote " and the " party list " systems were to renew their 

 discussions now, the nature of them would be very different. The 

 political horizon in Australia has changed so completely since 1900 

 that arguments which were quite valid then are now either falsified 

 or subject to considerable modification. It would seem then that 

 the time is suitable for a re-statement of the whole case from a 

 point of view which is not that of the partisan of either of the 

 opposing systems of proportional representation. In 1900 each 

 party was trying to embody its ideas in the Electoral Bill. In 

 1912 the most profitable thing for us to do is to accept the elec- 

 toral machinery and bend our energies to solving the practical 

 problem of devising an instrument whicli will adjust itself to 

 existing conditions and, with the nearest approach to perfection, 

 register the wishes of the electors. 



