FOR AND AGAINST

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21924, 8 April 1933, Page 9

FOR AND AGAINST

SECESSION CAMPAIGN WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MOVE. (From Ogb Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, March 30. The announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons) that a vote by the people of Western Australia on April 8 in favour of secession from the Federation would have a serious effect on the credit of the Commonwealth has attracted general attention to the referendum. Up till now people of the eastern States have regarded the secession movement as something not to be taken seriously, and the referendum as a move to satisfy the whim of a disgruntled Government. Everybody knows that if the referendum is carried secession will be impossible. However, Mr Lyons has revealed the serious aspects of the whole business, and he is’ so impressed by these that he has gone to the west to advise the people to think twice before they vote—to tell them how the reputation of Australia would suffer abroad when it became known that such a large and important State was anxious to break away from the rest of Australia. The leader of the secession movement is the Premier of Western Australia (Sir James Mitchell) who says that his sole objection to remaining within the Federation is that his State cannot pay the cost. “ The contribution we are called upon to make to maintain the Commonwealth,” he says, “is far beyond what the originators of the'Federation dreamed would be required, and is much more than we, in our relatively undeveloped condition, can afford. The cost of federation was estimated at 2s fid per head. The revenue collected by the Commonwealth in its peak year reached £ll pei head. For the year ended June 30 last Western Australia contributed to the Commonwealth to the extent ol £3,701,000 by way of taxes and that amounted to approximately £9 per head of the population. In addition to that sum, however, we actually contributed a very large amount to the manufacturers of the eastern States on account of the excess cost of Australian-made goods over and above what we could | have purchased such goods for elsewhere had it not been for the policy of protection. This additional sum has been calculated by the State Government statistician at £2,178,000.

“A statement prepared by the Commonwealth Treasury shows that the Commonwealth expenditure in Western Australia during the same year on invalid and old age pensions, maternity allowances, and interest and sinking fund on our portion of the war debt amounted to £2,166,000, and we received from the Commonwealth in grants and sinking fund on the State debts another £913,000, making a total of £3,179,000. Therefore, financially we should have been £2,700,000 better off for the year had we been out of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has,, rightly or wrongly, pursued a policy of high protection. That policy has resulted in building up large secondary centres in the eastern States, and is providing employment for thousands of workers in Sydney and Melbourne, but it is not a policy that helps Western Australia. We are confined almost entirely to primary production, selling our surplus goods in the world’s markets in competition with the world, while we are compelled, because we are members of the Commonwealth, to buy our requirements in the protected markets of the eastern States —probably the dearest market in the world. I repeat, we cannot continue to pay the cost.” Why is there a secession movement in Western Australia? It is generally agreed that the answer is: Because of disabilities or a stimulated consciousness of disabilities. These disabilities can be defined under the following general heads: — 1. Isolation —geographical, political and social.

2. Area in relation to population. 3, The restriction of State finance through the encroachment by tho Commonwealth on tho more productive fields of taxation.

4. The incidence of tariff policy on primary production. 5. Manufacturing handicap. 6. The absence —or an assumed absence —of sympathetic understanding of the State’s special problems.

Sir Charles Nathan, leader of those parties which are opposed to secession, says that the Federalists are in agreement with the secessionists that disabilities exist, but they do not agree with them always as to the nature and degree of those disabilities, and they do not agree with them at all as to the hopelessness of any remedy short of secession. He goes on; “Even if the causes of discontent are at bottom simple, the discussion of them has been confused, and no adequate elucidation has been given to the tremendously important financial considerations involved. What the occasion calls for is a sympathetic understanding between the east and the west, and I am hopeful that the Prime Minister will lay the basis for such an understanding. I look for a definite declaration that the whole position will be made the subject of comprehensive and competent review; that the fact will be recognised that the State, with its small population, has territorial responsibilities in which the Commonwealth should generously share, and that some satisfactory working formula will be found by which our State Treasurer will know in advance what contribution he can expect.” It is certain that one effect the secession campaign will be a decision by the Federal Government to grant a greater measure of assistance to the small, struggling States.