YES OR NO IN AUSTRALIA

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 55, 6 March 1937, Page 8

YES OR NO IN AUSTRALIA

Whether the Commonwealth Constitution shall be amended 'to legalise the marketing devices applied in the dairying, dried fruit, and certain other trades is being voted on by the people of Australia today. These marketing devices determine what shall be. exported and what shall be consumed locally for the purpose of obtaining for the farmers (mostly smaller farmers) a better price, than export parity price, for their locally consumed products. The devices had been in operation for years, and there was no political demand for their repeal; but in so far as their operation required Acts of Parliament, the Acts were open to legal challenge on constitutional grounds, and at last the constitutional challenge reached the legal apex (the Privy Council) and there succeeded. The Commonwealth Government did not, like Mr. Roosevelt, blame the Judges who found the law to be unconstitutional, but proceeded to ask the Australian electors, by referendum, to amend the Constitution. If the electors today vote No. the Government may be forced to obtain the same result by S. bounty system, paying the bounty only to those farmers or growers who agree to observe the export quota and Ihe inter-State quota. But it seems to be agreed that no bounty system would be as easy and satisfactory as the system whereby the growers themselves regulated for years their export and inter-State trading, until they were stopped not by any political resistance but by the Privy Council. Giving a political twist to a legal accident, Messrs. Lang and Beasley have been leading a Labour attack on the proposed amendment of the Constitution. History shows that Australian electors generally

go to constitutional referenda polling booths in a negative mood. To be on the No side is considered to be an- advantage equivalent to winning the toss in a Test match. Messrs. Lang and Beasley simply could not resist the opportunity, although,- in the matter of giving the Federation greater powers, Labour has led the way, and their present obstructive practices seem to be quite inconsistent with Labour's past principles.