AUSTRALIA'S NO

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 56, 8 March 1937, Page 8

AUSTRALIA'S NO

Greater "powers" have long been sought by the Commonwealth Federal Government and latterly by the United States Federal Government, each of which has lost cases in the Courts. A new chapter in the already j long history of Australia's struggle for greater Federal, "powers" closed on Saturday, when a popular constitutional referendum resulted in the defeat of the amending proposal that was framed to give greater "powers" of Governmental control of inter-State trade. At the moment of writing the, position of the aviation proposal is obscure. But the facts of the other proposal ("marketing") are arresting. For years, by the co-operation of Federal Governments, of State Governments, and of the trades concerned, restrictions have been enforced upon the movement inter-State (from State to State) of certain foods including butter and dried fruits. To this, the Governments concerned, and the trades concerned, expressly -agreed. The people of Australia tacitly agreed, or were assumed to agree. Yet when, by litigation'■of an individual, the constitutional power to regulate these foods inter-State is denied by the Privy Council, the Australian people rise up and smite the proposal that would enable this 'long-established. inter-State tradei control to continue.

Is it to be assumed that the people from the beginning opposed such a^ form of farmer -protection,' and that the consumer majority was; only waiting its opportunity to rebuke its Governments and to strike for freer food? Or is it that the majority dreads the further extension of food controls, and" has registered a bread-land-butter protest against all inlerState restrictions? Or (worse still) is it a political protest against Federation? A popular vote may be variously interpreted—and some people may regard it as a mere mood of the moment—but Mr. Lyons himself takes the more serious view and declares Saturday's polling to be an anti-Federation vote:

There can be no denying that there is a spirit of anti-Federation abroad today. This is .the attitude of the Australian people, and it would be no good trying to misconstrue it.

While it would be unwise to hasten to the conclusion that Australia needs an Abraham Lincoln, the Prime Minister's interpretation must be listened to with some alarm. A consumer revolt against a piece of Federal machinery that puts up the price of butter and dried fruit.would be comparable with a consumer revolt against a tariff that raises the local prices of manufactured goods. The consumer might vote equally against a tariff —if it became subject to a referendum. But to say that the vote means hostility by the Australian people against Australian unity in its present form goes beyond the limits of a consumer revolt. With an almost empty Australia, this is the least favourable moment for fc decline of national unity.