Australia Rejects Wider Powers Bill

Northern Advocate, 21 August 1944, Page 2

Australia Rejects Wider Powers Bill

SYDNEY, Ths Day. Australa has rejected the Federal Government’s appeal for additional powers for the post-war period. Clear "No” majorities have been recorded in four States—New South Wales. Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. South Australia and Western Australia show small “Yes” majorities. To carry the referendum the Government needed a "Yes” vote in four States as well as an aggregate majority of electors. Victoria earlier had a majority for "Yes,” but changed to a “No” majority. Figures for the Commonwealth at present are: "No,” 1,733,978; "Yes,” 1506,846, giving a "No” majority of 227,132. Figures for the States are: — New South Wales: “No.” 694,773; “Yes,,” 586,742. Victoria: "No,’ 507.550; "Yes,” 491,169. Queensland: “No,” 225670: "Yes,” 136,728. South Australia: "No.” 150,280; “Yes,” 158,373. Western Australia: "No,” 87,785; "Yes.” 92 837. Tasmania: ’“No,” 67,920; “Yes,” 40,997. Although all the votes have not been counted out. of the total enrolment of 4,407,507 electors, subsequent counting is virtually certain not to affect the referendum’s fate. The surprise of the polling was the strong “No” vote in New South Wales, where the Government was confident of its largest “Yes” majority. The greatest rebuff to the Government was in Queensland where all 10 electorates returned “No” majorities. The Government had counted on strong support from farmers in all States. The New South Wales and Victorian rural votes went right against the referendum, but in South Australia and Western Australia farmers voted solidly “Yes.” It is believed that a high percentage of the electors failed to vote, while the number of informal votes registered has been abnormally large.

The service vote, numbering nearly 800,000, remains to be counted. While the majority of servicemen are expected to vote “Yes,” the result in the “No” States cannot be affected, and the rejection of the referendum Ls therefore certain. Many strange Features Among the strange features of ihe poll ing were that New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, which have nabour Governments, voted strongly for “No." while Victoria and South Australia, with non-Labour Governments, returned “Yes" majorities. Ten New South Wales Labour electorates voted “No.” The prestige of the Curtin Government must suffer heavily as a result of the referendum. The setback is its first since assuming office in October, 1941. Mr. Curtin has been accused in some Labour quarters of only half-hearted support of the referendum. The only t.vo States where Mr. Curtin appeared personally—South Australia and Victoria —were the two where the “Yes” vote has been strongest. Illness during the final week of the campaign prevented Mr. Curtin’s appeaarnce in New South Wales and Tasmania. “A chance to give Australia unified powers has been lost because the people cannot trust those who would have wielded them,” declares the Sydney “Sunday Telegraph” editorially. “Those powers are stilt necessary. But many good Australians who realised that, were stung by resentment of recent maladministration into a vote of censure. “New South Wales has had the sharpest experience of Government bungling, bullying and weakness. And the electors of New South Wales have given a sharp answer to the Government's appeal for more power. Only a year ago they expressed overwhelming confidence in Mr. Curtin and his colleagues. The voters yesterday did not distinguish between Mr. Curtin and the wild men whom he tolerates. If he wants to regain public confidence, the inference is plain.” “The sweeping No vote was not against constitutional reform, but against the submitting of 17 questions for one answer," said the Federal Opposition Leader (Mr. Menzies). It was a warning to the Federal Government that democratic Liberalism was not dead. Curtin’s Comment Expressing disappointment at. the referendum result. Mr. Curtin said he was prepared to give careful and sympathetic consideration to any positive proposals submitted by the “No” advocates, because they and advocates of the referendum apparently believed that the present powers of the Commonwealth Parliament were inadequate. Mr. Curtin added: “The approach to the people at the referendum was made under all kinds of difficulties and was prejudiced by the Commonwealth's preoccupation with the war. and by irrelevancies which have marked every referendum submitted since the Federation was established.” There is no likelihood that the Government will proceed with any of its proposals in the States which supported the referendum, nor will it regard as operative legislation passed by the New South. Wales and Queensland Parliaments, which adopted constitutional amendments framed by the Constitutional Convention in December. 1942. There is already conjecture among political observers on the possible effect of the vote on future Labour policy. While it is true that the result of the referendum cannot affect Labour’s tenure of office, and that the history of most referenda reveals the non-party nature of the voting, it is certain that Ministers, in carefully analysing the trend of the vote, may see a number of pointers from which they may profit. Further, it is inevitable that some Ministers, at least temporarily, will lose prestige through the defeat of the Government’s proposals.