The Northern Advocate "NORTHLAND FIRST" Registered for transmission through the Post as a Newspaper. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1944. AUSTRALIA SAYS “NO.”

Northern Advocate, 21 August 1944, Page 2

The Northern Advocate "NORTHLAND FIRST" Registered for transmission through the Post as a Newspaper. MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1944. AUSTRALIA SAYS “NO.”

THE Federal Government of Australia, believing l that it ,should have greater powers than it now possesses to regulate State legislation during the five-year period following upon the ending of the war, submitted 17 questions to a referendum of the electors of the Commonwealth. The vote was taken on Saturday. It resulted in a “no” verdict, the electors refusing, by a substantial majority, to grant the wider powers sought by the Federal Government. . This verdict, while it must be disappointing to those who realise the need for ensuring uniform conditions in the States of the Commonwealth during the early post-war period, is not surprising, for it had become clear that the people of Australia were confused and uncertain about what might happen if the wider powers were granted. They evidently came to the conclusion that it is “better to bear the ills we have than fly to others we know not of.” With few exceptions, the Press of Australia has stressed the desirability of investing the Federal Government with the powers sought, but it has been emphatic that definite assurance should be given to the people of the States that only in national emergency would the powers be used. In the latest stages of the referendum campaign the main argument of opponents of the proposals hinged upon the question of faith in the Federal Government, suspicion of its intentions being strongly stirred. The result of the referendum cannot be said to give a clear reflection of the people’s political thought, for while States which possess Labour Governments elected by big majorities voted against the granting of wider powers to the Federal Labour Government, States with anti-Labour Governments voted for the proposals. > tf . Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the ‘ no vote, the result cannot be claimed by Mr. Curtin and his Labour Government as a vote of confidence even though the circumstances in which the referendum was held were not conducive to dispassionate voting by the people. It is interesting to recall that the referendum was the outcome of a long and perplexing political controversy. Almost two years ago the leaders in the State Governments agreed that, in order to make smooth the transition from war to peace, 14 legislative powers enjoyed only by the States should be temporarily transferred to the Federal Government. Four of the six State Governments turned down this agreement, which was accordingly wrecked. The opposition was based on reluctance to surrender even temporarily the constitutional rights which States regard as a bulwark against interference with State autonomy. This attitude, however, gradually developed into suspicion of the Curtin Government’s aims and intentions in regard to extremist legislation of Leftist character. In February last the Federal Attorney-General, Dr. Evatt, urged that constitutional reform to the degree defined in the Referendum Bill was essential if the Government was to have power to legislate on post-war reconstruction. He consequently argued that the need for constitutional, reform should be met without bringing into question the policies the Government might try to apply. Apparently, however, the people feared that the Federal Government might do more than transfer to itself powers already possessed by State Governments, and accordingly refused to grant the wider powers, despite the undertakings of Mr. Curtin and his Ministers.