The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1944. DISTRUST OF "WIDER POWERS”

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 279, 22 August 1944, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1944. DISTRUST OF "WIDER POWERS”

Though certain of the problems which the Commonwealth Government sought to solve on Saturday last by means of the “Wider Powers Referendum” are peculiar to Australia, the broad issue at stake was not. It was an issue claiming wide interest, inasmuch as it was concerned with State regimentation of the people, and the centralization of government controls over manpower, industry and enterprise. Judging from published comment throughout the referendum campaign, the majority of Australian people rejected the Curtin Government’s plea for extended powers, over and above State authority, for five- years after the end of the war, not so much because they disagreed with the view that planned, co-ordinated national effort in certain directions would require to be continued into the post-war era, but because of their distrust of remote,-bureaucratic control of matters affecting the everyday affairs and personal liberty of citizens. The choice put before Australian voters was a simple one, but it was this very simplicity which caused widespread doubt, particularly so—as it has turned out —in such strongholds of Labour as New South Wales and Queensland. At the beginning of the war the Federal Government took power by means of a National Security Act to extend the authority it possesses under the Constitution. This extended authority has been wielded for nearly five years, and-the proposal put before electors on Saturday last was pimply that more or less the same expedient arrangement should continue for another five years dating from the war’s end, in 'order that rehabilitation and reconstruction might be administered largely from Canberra, instead of from the State legislatures. There was no question of separate issues for different phases of the rehabilitation programme. The proposal lumped all Commonwealth emergency powers together, and electors were required to say “yes” or “no.” No doubt there would have been room for compromise in respect to certain specific controls. But in the absence of provision for selection, the voters could not give the Federal Government extended powers in any one direction without granting them in others. While most people have taken into account the need in wartime for .some centralizing and strengthening of national authority, there has developed, not only in Australia but also in this Dothinion and elsewhere, a strong distrust and disapproval of governmental interference and dictation. Experience has shown that what, may be gained in cohesion, standardization and die allocation of national effort is liable to be outweighed in loss of initiative, lack of contact, waste, delay and the muddle caused by bureaucratic unfamiliarity with essential! details of affairs over which authority is exerted. The Australian public, by its decision on Saturday, has determined that this cumbersome I and irksome system of remote, dictatorial and often blind control must | not be encouraged. In doing so it has given expression to a view very widely subscribed to in this country.