POWERS REFERENDUM

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 249, 18 July 1944, Page 5

POWERS REFERENDUM

Confusing Argument In Australia

VITAL ISSUES INVOLVED (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Special Australian Correspondent.) (Received July 17, 7.5 p.m.) SYDNEY, July 17. Prospects for the wider powers referendum to be held on August 19 should be made clearer by the conclusion of this week’s short session of the Federal Parliament. Both the “no” and the “yes” supporters are certain to make the widest use of this Parliamentary platform for their campaigns. The “Trust in Curtin” slogan which swept Australia at last year’s Federal elections will again be an important keynote in the Government’s appeal to the voters. It is believed that Mr. Curtin’s prestige will override such “no” arguments as that: (1) a “yes” vote wuold he a vote for industrial conscription; and (2) that the Government intends to perpetuate rule by regulation instead of by Parliament, These were two of the main points stressed by an Opposition spokesman during the past week, and both drew sharp retorts from the Prime Minister.

Tlie referendum is now dominating the Australian news pages. Voters trying to assess the merits of the vital issues involved are being confronted with a confusing mass of argument. The newest instance is a difference of high legal opinion as to whether sub-section four of the referendum proposals would restrict the present powers of members of Parliament to move for the disallowance of any regulation. Recent revelations of abuses under the censorship and commodity quota regulations have made bureaucratic control a sore subject with Australians. Its extension would be fiercely resented. Two Melbourne King’s Counsel, Messrs. Ham and Fullager, were joined by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Menzies, K.C., and the independent member, Mr. Spender, K.C., in declaring that passage of the referendum would so curtail Parliament’s power. An imposing array of Crown and Government constitutional law authority was supported by the former Chief Justice, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and Mr. C. Weston, K.C. (chief counsel for the successful appellant newspapers in the recent publicity censorship dispute), in the view that Parliament’s powers would not be weakened. Future of Private Industry.

One important section of the community eagerly seeking authoritative, advice on what the passage of the referendum would mean for its members comprises those interested in private. industry. While Mr. Curtin has given private industry broad assurance of its place in Australia’s postwar planning, there is a belief that if the necessary referendum powers are granted, the Government intends to enter into-direct competition with private enterprise. Industrial executives confronted with tlie necessity for planning post-war rehabilitation of their own businesses fear that, a large section of private industry may thus be edged out of business by Government-owned and operated factories —with consequent serious unemployment and shortages of consumer goods. Meanwhile, responsible political opinion is that the Government now has a fighting chance of carrying the referendum. An independent survey taken a month ago predicted its narrow defeat, but since that time vigorous campaigning by its sponsor, Dr. Evatt, and the triumphal return of Mr. Curtin are believed to have resulted in a, slight but discernible swing in public opinion.