The Timaru Herald MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1937 AUSTRALIA’S REJECTION OF REFERENDA.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20670, 8 March 1937, Page 8

The Timaru Herald MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1937 AUSTRALIA’S REJECTION OF REFERENDA.

“Marketing by Governments must end in disaster,” Mr Stanley Bruce stated when speaking to a conference of Australian farmers and settlers a few years ago. “For heaven's sake,” he said, “don’t let Governments come in and do your marketing for you.” This feeling has evidently prompted Australan electors to reject the proposals which were put. before them on Saturday on the question of altering Section 92 of the Constiution and allowing the Commonwealth Government to control marketing between the States. The necessity for the referendum on marketing control arose as a result, of a case which weut before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council some months ago, when a ruling was given that the Commonwealth legislation providing for the marketing of dried fruits was unconstitutional. In explanation of the question which because it meant an alteration to the Constitution had to be put before the people, a member of the Federal Parliament stated recently that “Parliament is seeking to equip itself with power to enable it to establish artificial price-levels for the protection of those engaged in primary producing industries.” In opposition it has been pointed out that there would be the difficult question of estimating a fair price, and moreover, that Australian consumers should not be saddled with higher prices. The failure of Government marketing schemes in other parts of the world has also been quoted, such as the Stevenson plan for rubber marketing, wheat marketing in Canada and the United States, ami coffee in' Brazil. It was further claimed that a “yes” vote would revive the old “Border barbarisms” with custom houses and officers at the border towns ami river crossings. That in effect was one of the strongest arguments against the amendment to the Constitution, because to the casual observer of Australia’s progress, advancement is measured by the degree of harmony promoted between the States. RATI'. LIABILITY ON CROWN-OWNED HOUSES. One of the most important Governmental pronouncements that has been issued from the Prime Minister’s office within recent months was given out in an interview last Friday by the head of the Government. For some months many local authorities have been considerably perturbed because of the indefiniteness of the Government’s attitude to the rate liability on Crown lands within the cities and boroughs, where State housing schemes are to be carried out. For years, one bugbear of municipal finance has been the unsatisfactory relationships between the local governing authority and the Crown, as owner of properties which have been abandoned by owners unable to meet their financial obligations to the State as the principal mortgagee. The issue is paramount to-day as the State promises to become the owner of hundreds of houses in cities and boroughs in all parts of the Dominion, and it is most important that the position of the Crown should be delined. The issue has been brought to a head by a communication the Commissioner of Crown Lands has addressed to the Lower Hutt Borough Council: “In future,” says the Commissioner, “the State will pay rates on Crown lands in proportion to the amount of rent received. Thus, if the rent was received on the property for only six months only half the rates would be paid.” Tt is important to note in this connection that the Municipal Corporations Act contains provision for municipal authorities to remit a proportion of due rates in the case of properties being reduced to non-revenue carrying condition, and the State, as represented by the Government, should not expect preferential concessions. It is therefore of some moment to have the Prime Minister's statement on this important question:

“There need be no anxiety about the Government paying rates on Crown lands,” says Mr Savage. “This means, of course, that the State will pay rates in municipal districts in which its housing scheme is being carried out. We have neither the desire nor the intention to injure local bodies or deprive them of their rights. Although the Prime Minister does not define the Government’s policy in exact language, we think it can be said that the Government seems to approach the problem from a businesslike point of view. But until the Government makes a pronouncement on the lines of pre-election criticism, it will not be easy for the municipal authorities to determine the precise attitude of the Government in relation to the large amounts of arrears that are owing Io city and borough authorities from end Io end of the Dominion, on properties that reverted to the Crown during the depression. It is, we think, the bounden duty of the State to meet its obligations in a just manner, particularly in relation to municipal authorities which must of necessity each year cut their coat according to the cloth as representing the annual budgeting based on Ihe estimated income that will flow into their coffers from the rates that have been levied. “TAIL LIGHTS” FOR PEDESTRIANS. At least it can be said that one proposal put forward in all seriousness by the grave and reverend seignors assembled at the annual conference of the Justices of Peace Associations of New Zealand, will attract Dominion-wide attention. The discussions indulged in by the Justices ranged over such a variety of questions, that anyone sufficiently interested in the deliberations of the conference will, ere this, fee] inclined to ask themselves if there is one subject within the ambit of the laws of the Dominion that the Justices do not feel competent to discuss. It. is not surprising, however, that the proposal put forward in all seriousness, that pedestrians’ should be compelled to wear something in the nature of a “tail light” while walking on country roads was not very fully discussed. The conference took the line of least resistance and decided “that the attention of the Minister of Transport should be directed to the need for some means of protection for pedestrians on the roads.” It is not surprising that several delegates rather feared to approach the question in a serious mood; and one or two delegates regarded the discussion on the remit as mere waste of time, because the Conference would belittle itself in the eyes of the country. No conference worth its salt ought to care “two straws” what the country thinks of its decisions. The need for some protection for pedestrians on country roads is recognised by all, and anyone who can devise some simple plan to give that protection will earn the eternal gratitude of pedestrian and motorist alike. As a matter of historical fact, the man who first suggested that the streets of the cities should be asphalted, much less thousands of miles of highways, was held up to ridicule by people who lacked the vision possessed by leaders in I he march of progress down the centuries of time.