ALL OR NOTHING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26793, 9 June 1948, Page 4

ALL OR NOTHING

In speeches before the Australian referendum on granting the Commonwealth Government permanent powers to control rents and prices, Mr Chifley argued that families in the lower income groups had to be protected against sudden rises in prices and that stability could be maintained only through Commonwealth control. Twice before these powers had been asked for and refused, and this time the verdict of the people* was again a definite “ No,” but the sequel has been different. Mr Chifley has announced that the Commonwealth rent controls will be lifted in two months and the price controls in three months. This is a volte-face from the attitude he adopted in his campaigning, for his Government has already received an extension of the period of operation of these war-time emergency powers and could have sought a further extension with little fear of opposition. The sudden lifting of controls was not an issue at. the referendum. Indeed, there was agreement on both sides of the House that controls were necessary while shortages existed and that they should be lifted gradually as conditions improved. The electorates voted against giving the Commonwealth' Government permanent authority, but Mr Chifley, with what has been termed “an exaggerated deference to the wishes of the people,” has immediately taken action to dispose even of his temporary authority. Mr Chifley evidently wanted all or nothing. This “ exaggerated deference ” is a most charitable interpretation of an action which bears a strong resemblance to an irresponsible fit of pique. There was no obvious necessity for such a step. • The result must be to place a considerable embarrassment on the State Governments as they hasten to legislate for this decentralisation of powers. Queensland has had a Profiteering Prevention Act since 1920 which should meet its needs, and New South Wales is expected to pass similar blanket legislation. West and South Australia have virtually been controlling rents for the past year, and Victoria has passed a rent control Act but has not yet created the machinery to implement it. The gap, therefore, is pot complete, but a certain confusion is almost unavoidable. At the worst there could be a period of chaos for which the Commonwealth Government would be directly responsible but which, perhaps, could give it an excuse for magnanimously coming to the rescue and welcoming the rebellious family back to further . regimentation. Public opinion, however, seems to have hardened to a degree where the people would actively resent such bare-faced opportunism. There is another possibility that may favour Government. The threatened lifting of subsidies would leave it with £30,000,000- in hand and, with the expected surplus of revenue over expenditure, the Government could afford to make substantial tax remissions _ which would supply a useful line of propaganda before the next elections.