EXTRA POWERS REFERENDUM

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 278, 21 August 1944, Page 4

EXTRA POWERS REFERENDUM

Australian Voters Reject Federal Appeal STATES DIVIDED EVENLY ON ISSUE

(By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright i (Received August 20, I 0.0 p.m.) SYDNEY, Aug. 20. Australia has rejected the Federal Government’s appeal for additional powers for the post-war period. . , Clear “No” majorities have been recorded in three States— New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania. Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia show small “Yes’ majorities. To carry the referendum the Government needed a ‘‘Yes vote in four States as well as an aggregate majority of the electors. Though only 3,087,259 votes have been counted out of a total enrolment of 4,407,507 electors, the'subsequent counting is virtually certain not to affect the referendum's fate. At the close of counting last night “No” had polled 1,598,415, and “Yes” 1,418,312 votes, giving a “No” majority of 180,103. Informal votes numbered 120,532.

Progress figures In the various States were:—New South Wales: “No,’’ 654,519; “Yes,” 560,710; "No/’ majority 93,809. Victoria: “No,” 456,487; “Yes,” 458,261; “Yes” majority 1783. Queensland: “No,” 210,810; “Yes,” 129,705; “No” majority 81,105. South Australia: “No,” 139,139; “Yes,” 153,845; “Yes” majority 14,706. Western Australia: “No,” 76,631; “Yes,” 79,409; "Yes” -majority 2778. _ Tasmania : “No,” 60,025; “Yes,” 37,547; “No” majority 22,478. The surprise of the polling was the strong “No” vote in New South Wales, where the Government was confident of its largest “Yes” majority. The greatest rebuff to the Government was in Queensland, where all 10 electorates returned “No” majorities. The Government had counted on strong support from farmers in all the States. New South Wales and Victorian rural votes went right against the referendum, but in South Australia and Western Australia the farmers voted solidly “Yes.” It is believed that a high percentage of electors failed to vote, while the number of informal votes registered has been abnormally large. The service vote, numbering nearly SOO,OOO, remains to be counted. "While the majority of servicemen are expected to vote “Yes,” the result in the “No” States cannot be affected and the rejection of the referendum is therefore certain. Among the strange features of the polling were that New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania, which have Labour Governments, voted strongly for “No,” while Victoria and South Australia, with non-Labour. Governments, returned “Yes” majorities. Ten New South Wales Labour electorates voted “No.” Government Prestige Suffers. The prestige of the Curtin Government must suffer heavily as the result of the referendum. The setback is its first since assuming office in October, 1941. Mr. Curtin, who has so far not commented on tlie outcome, has been accused in some Labour quarters of only halfhearted support of the referendum. The only two States where Mr. Curtin appeared personally—South Australia and Victoria —were/the two where the “Yes" vote has been strongest. Illness during the final week of the campaign prevented Mr. Curtin’s appearance in New South Wales and Tasmania. “The chance to give Australia unified powers has been lost because the people cannot trust those who would have wielded them,” declares the “Sydney Sunday Telegraph” in a leading article. “Those powers are still necessary. But many good Australians who realized that were stung by resentment of recent

maladministration into a vote of censure. New South Wales has had the sharpest experience of Government bungling, bullying and weakness. And the electors of New South Wales have given a sharp answer to the Government s appeal for more power. Only a year ago they expressed overwhelming confidence in Mr. Curtin and his colleagues. Voters yesterday did not distinguish between Mr. Curtin and the wild men whom he tolerates. If he wants to regain public confidence the inference is plain.” The sweeping “No” vote was not against constitutional reform but against the submitting of 17, questions for one answer, said the Federal Opposition leader, Mr. Menzies. It was a warning to the Federal Government that democratic liberalism was not dead. The referendum originated’ in a law passed by an absolute majority in both Houses of Parliament in Australia last March. The object was to alter the Constitution so that the Commonwealth would have power to deal with certain aspects of the post-war period instead of relying on separate action by each State. The Administration held that the country would pass through a specially difficult and dangerous post-war period covering five years, and the Constitution Alteration Bill was therefore drawn up for that period. By that time, it was contemplated, more permanent measures could be instituted in the light of the experience gained. The referendum submitted to the electors for approval contained 14 powers and three safeguards. These deal with reinstatement of servicemen; employment and unemployment ; organized marketing; companies; trusts and monopolies; profiteering and prices; production and distribution of goods; exchange and borrowing of money; air transport; railway gauges; national works; national health ; family allowances; the Australian aborigines. The three safeguards deal with freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion; and delegated legislation.

It was declared that these additional powers together with the existing powers of the Commonwealth would be adequate to permit the carrying out of an Aus-tralia-wide policy of post-war reconstruction. Unless a further amendment took place before the end of five years any Commonwealth law passed under any of these 14 powers would cease to operate after that period. None of the powers granted . would overrule Section 92 of the Constitution, which provides for interstate free trade. As regards the aborigines the Constitution as it stood enabled the Commonwealth to legislate for the peojile of anv special race except the Australian aborigines.