WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19451, 28 March 1933, Page 9

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

SECESSION MOVE. Western Australia on April 8 will indicate whether it wishes to secede from the Commonwealth. The Secession Movement has the powerful backing of Senator Lynch, President of the Federal Senate, and of the Premier (Sir James Mitchell). Its chief opponent is to be Senator Sir George Pearce. Sir George is not in high public favour, as many consider him the chief limb of “the Federal Octopus”; and his anti-Secession meetings in Perth are certain to rouse high feeling and cause bitter recriminations, states the Sydney “Daily Telegraph.” Here is an attempt to summarise the cases made out for and against the movement. First, the Secessionist case: The Secessionists say:— “The history of the Commonwealth fiscal policy affords no hope that any reasonable reduction in oppressive tariffs will be granted by any Federal Government of whatever party it is composed. Yet these tariffs have caused the collapse of primary industries. Therefore, let us take front the Fede- , ral Parliament—by seceding—its power of proclaiming tariffs for us. “There is nothing unconstitutional in this A pious hope is expressed in the preamble to the Constitution that the partnership of the States will last for ever, but this is no part of the Constitution. “The alternative to Secession is unification. Western Australia must suffer certain ruin and extinction unless it makes some drastic change. The Commonwealth has filched many State rights, and in return does little for the people but tax them to meet obligations that are largely the result of extravagance, “The proposal for a convention to consider the smaller States’ disabilities is only a red herring across the trail of the main question, and the people should vote for Secession, if only to convince the Federal authorities that Western Australia demands fuller justice than it is now receiving. Case Against. Such are the arguments made for Secession. Those advanced against it “It is impossible for Western Australia, even if it approved Secession, actually to secede. The deed of partnership entered into when the State federated precludes such action, Wes.i ern Australia's financial condition | makes any idea of independence from Federal engagements or support imi practicable. If the State had retained t control of the Western Australian • Bank and the sinking funds, the out- ; look for the secessionists would have - been better. • "Benefits now received in o.d-age ) pensions and other services could not be provided by an independent State, r “Defence has been ignored by the Secessionists. Instead of attempting the impossible the disruption of the Federation it would be better to obtain the support and co-operation of , the other small States, and force re--1 forms through a convention to con- ~ sider anomalies or injustices that have developed siince federation. ° “Such a protest and such a proced- . ure would gain the support of those working for the smaller States in the , larger Federal centres. } “Protection is the accepted policy 1 of most Australian electors, and to ° obtain the revenue necessary to main:S tain an independent Western Australia n the tariff there would have to be ° higher on most goods than it is at prey sent. Ordinary constitutional means offer the best method of bringing about 10 the Federal tariff adjustments which Western Australia demands. Disrup!r tion of the Commonwealth is unthinkable.” , . „ r ,y At the moment most people in Western Australia seem to think that ie Secession will be affirmed by a very )r large vote. Secession is supported by an active, militant organisation, and an undoubted desire for a change is abroad in the State.