PEOPLE OPPOSE CHANGE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 110, 12 May 1930, Page 7

PEOPLE OPPOSE CHANGE

WORK OE KEFEEENDUM

AUSTRALIA'S EXPERIENCE

fifteen of the eighteen questions which have been asked the Australian people have been answered, by referendum, in ,the negative, says the '' Manchester Guardian," discussing the proposals of United Empire Party to obtain Empire Free Trade. Can it be supposed that Mr. Baldwin .or Lord Beaverbrook would have more success in Britain, than Mr> Hughes and Mr. Bruce have had in Australia? ;And could Australians be expected to take very; seriously an Imperial trade scheme dependent upon ratificationr by referendum of the British electorate, with taxes on food as the,predominant issue? Theoretically the referendum is _;* democratic instrument. Actually in, Australia it has proved a rigid and at times reactionary device; a bar to poll' tical progress. If in the Commoiwealth, where public opinion is more fluid than it is in England, successive (Governments have found it impossible to secure the electors' assent to necessary constitutional changes what hope have the Conservative party of obtaining a majority of votes for an intensely unpopular "reform" such as the introduction of food taxes'! The framers of the Commonwealth Constitution realised that the conditions prevailing in Australia at the end of the last century must change from time to time, and that the Constitution must be rendered capable of being changed with them, especially in the direction of modifying the predominance of the States. They therefore provided for amendments by referendum of the people, which seemed a safe andyet reasonably flexible mode, of constitutional adaptation.; A STRAIT-JACKET. In reality the result has been to.convert what was meant to be a ..pliant Constitution into a strait-jacket for the Commonwealth. On sixteen questions during the past quarter of a century Labour, Liberal, or Nationalist Governments have implored the electors to agree to alterations of the Constitution. Only three times have they, been successful, and these appeals related to minor changes on whictt the Commonwealth and States" were agreed. On all other questions referred to them, the voters have resolutely withheld their consent. ; In 1911 and 1913 the Labour party sought power to, legislate with regard to corporations, trusts, and monopolies with whose 'operations, held to.be adverse to the people's interest, the State* were unable or unwilling to deal. _ Approval was refused, as it was again in 1919 and 1926, when the Nationalist party applied for somewhat - similar powers. In each case powerful com-mercial-interests; some of them of foreign origin, were arrayed against the Government, and enormous sums were spent in newspaper advertising to defeat the proposals.', It was found that public opinion was much more amenable to intensive. propaganda in a referendum than in a general election, when the personal influence of the candidates was a counteracting factor. The weaknesses of democracy, and especially its fear of change, were successfully exploited. ; ;.•';'.., ' ,/ INDUSTRIAL POWERS. The heaviest referendum battles, however, have been waged around the successive attempts of the : Commonwealth to enlarge its industrial powers,' the Constitution having given it authority to deal only with inter-State industrial disputes. Both Mr. Hughes and Mr. Bruce sought, at intervals of years, tojjersuade the electors.to .', extend the Federal powers and to end- the calamitous system of dual i (Commonwealth' and State) industrial arbitration. Mr Bruce actually had the^ assistance ' of the Federal Labour Party in his last campaign. But in vain. The employing interests,-the "State righters," and the advocates of "Safety first" won each ttime, and to-day Commonwealth and State powers are divided even in. relation to such a national disaster as the protracted coal dispute in • New South Wales. MR. HUGHES'S WAY. The "Manchester Guardian,?', in a recent leading article, raised the question of the form.in which: the subject of food taxes would be referred .to the people. It is interesting to cite the Australian experience on this point..ln addition to the constitutional alteration referendums, consultative referenduma were taken; in 1916 and 1917, on the subject of conscription, for the war.Mr. Hughes, Labour Prime Minister irt 1916, had been unable to carry his party with him on this issue, and it was decided to take a poll of the people. But' Mr. Hughes was too shrewd a campaigner to ask the electors straight out whether they favoured conscription. To have done so would have been to invite defeat,'just as surely as Mr. Baldwin would invite a rebuff if he were bluntly .to ask the workpeople of Britain whether they wanted a dear-" er breakfast-table. This was; how Mr. Hughes framed his question:— "Are you in favour of the Government having, in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service, for the term of this war, outside the Commonwealth, as it now has in regard to military service within, the Commonwealth?" 'I The answer was in the . negative. Three of the six States voted in favour «nd threo against. la the followingyear Mr. Hughes tried again, and this time he "popped the question" in an. even more ingenious form: "Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing" the Australian Imperial Force abroad?" "DIVIDED THE NATION." The voting was virtually the same. Apart from the merits of .the national service /controversy, the result of the campaigns was to discredit the referendum system, which distracted and divided the nation in its participation in the war, and imparted an extraordinary bitternesß to post-war politics. Thus 15 of 18 questions put to the Australian people have- been answered in the negative. Can it be supposed that Mr, Baldwin or Lord Beaverbrook would have more success in Britain, than Mr. Hughes and Mr. Bruce have had in the Commonwealth f And could Australians be expected to take very; seriously an Imperial trade scheme dependent upon ratification by referendum of the British electorate, with taxes on food as the predominant issue? An Australian Minister negotiating such a scheme in London would be constantly open to suspicion, at home of compromising the domestic tariff system to which the country is irrevocably pledged, and his Government would hardly.care to run that risk with the' knowledge that what has come to be regarded in Australia as the "instrument of negation" would have to be employ, ed before the agreement could be put into effect. All of which is very consoling to the opponents of dearer food, but hardly encouraging to those Empire Free-traders who are proclaiming * bloodless victory over Mr. Baldwin.