REFERENDA PUZZLE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19648, 6 September 1926, Page 3

REFERENDA PUZZLE

COMING AUSTRALIAN POLL DIVISION OF FORCES. e ie CONFUSION AAIONG VOTERS. SYDNEY, August 26. t The proposed amendment of the Ausf tralian Constitution for which permiso sion will be sought from the Australian s electors on September 4 by way of red ferenda have created the greatest poli:r tical puzzle since federation came into t being. Even the war-time conscription :- referenda created no greater schisms s in the various parties. How wide are z these divisions may bo judged that g extreme Tories and the extreme indus;e trial wing of the Labour Party are )- united in fighting the referenda, ese pecially that dealing with industry and a commerce. Another indication is that y two .great Australian newspapers, s- which generally see eye to eye on matg tors political, are now in opposite s camps. Whereas the "Sydney Aforning c Herald” is supporting Mr Bruce in a !- "Yes” vote for both proposals, the "Alclbourne Argus” is opposing the •industry and commerce referendum, and .advising electors to give an affirmative 'Vote on the referendum proposing to give the Federal Government power to 'preserve essential services in the event lof industrial or other trouble. ’I If close followers of politics, such as ■S these papers represent, are so confused, s what the average voter whose interest n in politics can be described only by the >_ adjective of "mild?” To say the least, *’ the great majority of electors arc con--8 fused. They are wont to follow party [banners. Yet, when parties are divided, I these guides are lost. The staunch e |Labour man, for instance, is in a quanidary whether ho should take tho advice ;of Air Al. Charlton, leader of tho Fedn eral Labour Party, to vote "Yes” to r the first proposal and "No” to the | second, or whether he should take the trade unionists’ "tip” and vote a solid "No” to both. The Nationalist rank and file is in similar plight. Are s they to follow their Federal leader’s urgings to give an affirmative vote on t both, or arc they to do as Mr Bavin, e the New South Wales State leader, and j other prominent Nationalists are doing and vote "No” to both, or as still some , s other Nationalists are proposing, a g /‘No” to the first, and a “Yes” to the j second? l s A Listless Campaign. c All this puzzling changing of the political chess board has resulted in h one thing—it has almost killed public 1 interest in the referenda. Tho camJ,' Ipaign for and against is listless. Aleetings for both sides arc poorly attqndcd. The proposals arc not mentioned in casual conversation, as politics gen.n orally figure in the few Aveeks preceding an election. Yet the proposals be'r fore the people, if they could only Tea's lisc i + , are more vital than a general election.

Both sides agree that the industry and commerce referendum, arising from Mr Bruce’s election-time pledge to impiovo industrial matters, would give the Commonwealth power to legislate when, no industrial dispute is imminent, whereas now a dispute must be affecting more than one State before the Federal authority can deal with it, and also that it will have power to legislate for companies when no industrial matter is involved. To the argument of referendum supporters that arbitration in industrial matters is nation-wide and cannot be dealt with in the watertight compartments represented by the States, those against the referendum urge that tho States as a whole are better fitted than the Commonwealth to deal with industrial questions. The former believe that the proposed amendments will eliminate overlapping and conflict of awards; the latter are of opinion that the concentration of power is inimical to the development of each State, and a proposed large draft of power would mean practical unification now and actual unification later on. Varying Points of View. This unification argument figures largely in the “anti” arguments, and another belief held by opponents of the proposals is that if the Constitution needs amending, it should not be done in the "patchwork” fashion now being proposed. On the "essential services” referendum the issue is rather dearer. Those in favour say that the powers asked for are only those possessed by every other Government in the world; Labour, especially the industrialist wing, says that the power may be used to crush unionism and break strikes, and therefore is inimical to all Labour interests. Air Bruce and his supporters allege that opponents of the proposals arc raising bogeys to defeat the proposals by saying that the tribunals the Commonwealth will set up will be composed of tyrannical fanatics. Opponents, on the other hand, say that all the ghosts are being raised by referendum supporters. This view is expressed by the "Sydney Daily Telegraph,” which says: "The thing is what might be done under the new Constitution the carrying of the referendum would bring into existence. It is easy enough for Mr Bruce or anyone else to give his assurance that the new powers would not be misused. Very likely. But if that be a sufficient reason for handing the rights now possessed by the States over to a power to be appointed by a Parliament elected not on the principle of one man one vote, why not tear up the whole Constitution which safeguards those rights?”