The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 31, 1948. AUSTRALIAN REFERENDUM

Grey River Argus, 31 May 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 31, 1948. AUSTRALIAN REFERENDUM

Qnce again as in almost any occasion of a referendum Australia has voted “No.” Excepting federation, it is hard to recall a “Yes,” verdict, whether upon conscription, State rights or trading questions. This time the issue was whether the Commonwealth Government should take over fijom the States entirely the control of prices, rents and charges. Every State has decided negatively, and it is notable that the strongly Labour-minded State of Queensland has given nearly a two-to-one majority aaainst the proposed change. While it is admitted by the Opposition Parties that this vote is not at all an anti-Labour vote, the Federal Opposition Leader sees some consolation in the fact -that the “Yes” total is relatively lower, so far, than that in the last referendum. It is said also by the Opposition thai; the Government counted on a majority at least in New South Wales. On the other hand, it is as well to recollect that the Government had in mind more than merely the desirability of uniformity in such controls—which are, of course, expected in many quarters to continue operation under the State. The Prime Minister slated that an adverse vote could reasonably be regarded as a public majority in favour of at least, a Large measure of decontrol regarding prices, rents and charges. Specifically he hinted that-, as so many opponents assert, subsidisation of prices with Government money could doubtless be regarded as unnecessary for a people who voted against

tlic principle on a national basis. “No” campaigners doubtless gained support by claiming that no notice need be taken of any suggestion that ho subsidies might be continued to keep down prices in the event of a “No”' majority; The Government, they said, would not risk such a rise in prices as decontrol might entail, as it would prove a political mistake when it came to the Parliamentary voting. Although State righters and traders and landlords and lawyers and all the others who might anticipate regulation in the event of a “Yes” verdict have now gained their end as regards non-unification of controls, they cannot rest assured that the status quo shall continue. The Federal Government finds a huge sum .for subsidisation. and in, some periods the wheat growers and other primary producers participate and it must feel sorely tempted to curtail this outgo when it has to finance so many new • departures. Defence debt, pensions and other liabilities are now being probably augmented b'y the health scheme, including medicine, which' in some degree will draw upon the Consolidated Fund at least occasionally. Therefore the Government might, be expected at least to vary, its policy strictly in conformity with the principle that the States shall themselves finance their own controls, leaving the Federal Administration to attend entirely to other matters. It is however, a mo al certainty that were butter, wo 1, wheat or other primary products to slump in future, the farm-:s would line up solidly for anoth ;r substantial dose of the good old Federal subsidy. Nevertheless, the vote itself on Saturday is not to be ignored. The Government therefore should take it gradually into account and lessen its own particularly . share of responsibility for subsidies gently in the direction of culling them down leaving it to the higgling of the market, to find new price, rent and charges levels. One thing is certain. Vendors cannot extort more than the public is willing to pay. If stabilisation should begin to vanish, it is not only buyers, but sellers who will experience the effect. State Governments may indeed satisfy their communities, and if so, it is up to nobody to grumble. State ' Governments nevertheless have a custom of going to Canberra pretty regularly with their caps in their hands for financial consideration. Three, if not four, of them, are, at the same time, jealous of their rights, and may have a case in the sense that Federal regulation might be more rigidly bureaucratic than local control. It may also be an advantage that the people should feel that what began as a war or emergency measure should not go too far and become rigid and permanent. Supply and demand always must prove the vital factors, and no amount of regulation., could alter this. In other words, the correct policy is to encourage production, while not prompting over-production.