WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 70, 24 March 1933, Page 2

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SECESSION IvJOVE

CASE FOR AND AGAINST

Western Australia orf April S will indicate whether it wishes to secede from the Commonwealth, \- - The Secession AloYemcnt has'"the powerful backing of Senator Lynch, President of the Federal Senate," and of the Premier (Sir James.Mitchell). , Its chief opponent is to be Senator bir beorge Pearce. Sir George is not in high .public favour, as many consider him the chief hmb of ",t.he Federal Octopus"; ana jhia anti-Secession meetings in Perth are certain to rouse high .feelino- alu i cause bitter recriminations/states the Sydney "Daily Telegraph."- - Here is ah attempt to summarise tho cases made out. for and against the movement. ■ First, the Secessionist case: ~Tha Secessionists say:— ■■ '•.-.' "The history of the .Commonwealth fiscal policy affords no hope that 'any reasonable reduction in • oppressive tariffs will be granted by any Federal Government of whatever party it is' composed. Yet these tariffs have caused the collapse of primary industries. Therefore, let us take from the Federal Parliament—by seceding—its power .of proclaiming tariffs for us. "There is nothing unconstitutional in this. A pious hope is expressed in the preamble to the Constitution that the partnership- of the States will last for ever, but this is no part of the Constitution. ■ ''The alternative to Secession i 3 unification. Western Australia must suffer certain ruin and extinction uules3 it makes some drastic change. The Commonwealth has filched many State lights, and in return does little for th'a people but tax them to meet obligations that are largely the result of extravagance. "The proposal for a convention to consider the smaller States' disabilities is only a. red herring across tha vrail of the main question, and tho people should vote for Secession, if only to convince the Federal authorities that Western Australia demands fuller justice than it is now receiving." CASE AGAINST. • Such are the arguments made for Secession. Those advanced against it are:— "It is impossible for Western Australia even it it approved Secession,actually to secede. The deed of partnership entered into when the Stats federated precludes such action. Western Australia's financial condition makes any idea of independence from • •t ederal engagements or support impracticable. If the State had retained control of the Western Australian Bank and the sinking funds, tha outlook for the Secessionists would, have been better. "Benefits now received in old-a<*a pensions and other services could not be provided by an independent State Defence has been ignored by the Secessionists. Instead of. attempting the impossible—the disruption of the •t ederation—it would be better to ob-' tain the support and co-operation of the other small States, and force retorms through a convention to consider anomalies or injustices that hava developed since federation. : ■ - ■ PEOTSCTION . POLICT. "Such a protest and such a procedure would gain the support of those working for the smaller States in tha larger Federal centres. "Protection is the accepted policy of most Australian electors, and -to. obtain the revenue necessary to. maintain an independent Western* Australia" the tariff there would have to-be higher on most goods than it is at present. Ordinary constitutional means ofier.the best method of bringing about the Federal tariff adjustments which Western Australia demands. Disruption of the Commonwealth is unthinkable." At the moment most people in Western Australia seem to • think that Secession will be affirmed by a very large vote. Secession is supported by aa active, militant organisation, and an undoubted desire for a change i s abroad in the State.