FEDERAL REFERENDUM

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 53, 31 August 1926, Page 10

FEDERAL REFERENDUM

PUZZLE OF POLITICS

LINING UP OF FORC€S

ELECTOBB IN DOUBT.

(From Our Own Correspondent)

SYDNEY, 26th August.

Tho proposed amendments of the Australian Constitution for which permission to carry out is being sought from the Australian electors on 4th September by way of referenda have created tho greatest political puzzle since federation caino into being. Even tho war-time conscription referenda created no greater schisms in the various parties. How wide are these divisions may be judged that extreme Tories and the extreme industrial wing of the Labour Party are united in fighting tho referenda, especially that dealing with industry and commerce. Another indication is that two great Australian newspapers, which generally sec eye to eye on matters political, are now in opposing camps. Whereas the '' Sydney Morning Herald" is supporting Mr. Bruce in a "Yes" vote for both proposals, the Melbourne "Argus" i» 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 tho event of industrial or other trouble. ELECTORS' QUANDARY. If close followers of politics, such as these papers represent, are so confused, what of the average voter whose interest in politics can be described only by the adjective "mild"? To say the least, the great majority of electors are confused. They are wont to follow party banners. Yet, when parties are divided, these guiaes are lost. Your staunch Labour man, for instance, is in a quandary as to whether he should take the advice of Mr. Mat Charlton, Leader of the Federal Labour Party, to vote "Yes" to 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 they to follow their Federal leader's urgings to give an affirmative vote on both, or are they to do as Mr. Bavin, the State leader, and other prominent Nationalists are doing and vote "No" to both, or as still some other Nationalists are proposing, a "No" to the first and a "Yes" to the second! PROPOSALS ABE VITAL.

All this puzzling changing of the political chess board haa resulted in one thing—it has almost killed public interest in the referenda. The campaign for and against is listless. Meetings for both sidc3 are poorly attended. The pro•posals are not mentioned in casual conversation as politics generally figure in the few weeks preceding an election. Yet the proposals before the people, if t'i. iy could only realise it, are more vital than a general election.

Both sides agree that the industry and commerce referendum, arising from Mr. Bruce'a- election-time pledge to improve 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 iiave 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 the, States as a whole are belter 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. This unification argument figures largely in the "anfci" 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 clearer. 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.

Mr. Bruce and his supporters, sillege that opponents of the proposals are raising bogeys to defeat the propoiials by saying that the tribunals the Commonwealth will set up will be composed of tyrannical fanatics. Opponents, on the other hand, say that all th > ghosts are being raised by referendum supporters. This is ably expressed by the Sydney "Daily Telegraph," which says: "The thing is what might be done under the new Constitution which, carrying 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?"