VITAL REFERENDUM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 194, 15 August 1944, Page 5

VITAL REFERENDUM

AN AUSTRALIAN ISSUE POLL NEXT SATURDAY (Special Correspon den t—N. Z. P. A.) Reed. 5.5 p.m. Sydney, Aug. 14. The Commonwealth Wider Powers referendum will go to the polls on Saturday. Its outcome, to which no reliable guide has been offered, must je of far-reaching importance to jost-war Australia. The country has peen split into two camps, with a Lmall, but perhaps vital, percentage of “neutrals.” Latest public opinion surveys give i’he “no” case a slight margin, with so far undecided voters holding the balance. The “yes” campaign, however, has taken a sharp reverse in the illness of the Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, who, heavily preoccupied with the problems of coal and manpower, lias made only two public speeches in the referendum’s support. Cancellation of his Sydney and Brisbane engagements this week may spell the ifference between its success and defeat. Much importance was attached to Mr. Curtin’s visit to Queensland, where the Federal Government is reported to be out of favour. Political observers give the Govern(j '.ent sound prospects of carrying the Jay in New South Wales and Victoria. ".Vestern Australia may also vote “yes.” South Australia and Tasmania are doubtful, with the "no” cause slightly in the ascendant in the last-named State. Queensland is expected to vote “no.” Damage, to Labour prestige will be considerable unless “yes” predominates, because it would be the Government’s first public reverse since assuming office. ♦ The often bitter referendum campaign has seen some surprising alignments and dissentions. The chief “no” protagonist, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. Menzies, has numbered among his unsought lieutenants the former New South Wales extremist Labour Premier, Mr. Lang. The First World War Prime Minister, Mr. Hughes, has ranged himself on the “yes” platform beside the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Archbishon Mannix, whose differences with Mr. Hughes on the conscription issue have passed into Australia's history. The sole surviving author of the Constitution which the referendum seeks to amend is the first Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. Sir Robert Garran. He shares with Sir Isaacs (former GovernorGeneral and former Chief Justice of the High Court) the legal championship of the “yes” case. The Sydney Morning Herald, which has supported Mr. Curtin consistently in the past, recommends a “no” vote as a “much-needed check to the growing insolence of office, and to all those who value regimented effic’ency higher than individual freedom.” Th? paper adds that it still sees “no effective rival for Mr. Curtin’s role of the nation’s wartime leader.”

Meanwhile the influential Murdoch (Sir Keith Murdoch) chain of newspapers, customarilv onnosed to Mr Curtin, sunnort the referendum.

Writing in the Melbourne Herald, Sir Keith Murdoch says that failure to grant the powers sought would mean “grave losses and penalties, instabilities, soaring costs, disorderly shortages and over-supplies. “The immediate political and social effects would be bad, but, worst of all, wo would lose our initial impetus on the path toward national strength,” he writes. “We would be seething and quarreling about the entrance gates instead of going forward in a sensible and orderly unit.”

Sir Keith adds: “There are some who distrust the Curtin Government so much as to deny them any increase of authority. With this view I have considerable sympathy. One can distrust this Government, however, and contest its objectives without making the quarrel a cause of general injury and chaos in rehabilitation.” “Australia must have a workable Constitution,” declares the Sydney Telegraph. “The referendum is not a party issue. Above all parties and personalities is the fact that we cannot deal with modern problems under the limitations of a horse-and-bug document. The present position is in absurd contrast with that of every other Empire Government.” The vital nature of the issues involved in Saturday’s polling are assessed by Sir Keith Murdoch, who writes: “Refusal of these powers to the central Government of Australia will mean a faltering and an unhappy development of provincialism and weaknesses, where there should be striding for betterment and development on complete national lines. It will mean finally the destruction of the country.”