A PUZZLE

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1926, Page 4

A PUZZLE

AUSTRALIAN L RHFEBKNd

, PARTIES DIVIDED. SYDNEY, Aug. 20. Tho proposed amendments ol the AtsiW-dian Constitution for which permission will be sought troni the Australian electors on September 1 tli oy wav cl leleieiula have i rented the greatest political puzzle since federation came into being. Even the wartime conscription referenda created no greater schisms in the various parties, flow wide arc these divisions mi.iy be judged that extreme Tories and tho extreme industrial wing of the Labour Party are united in lighting the referenda especially that dealing with industry and commerce. Another indication is that two great Australian newsapurs, which generally see eye to eye on matters political, arc now in opposite camps. \\ hercas the 1 Sydney Alorning Huraltl” is supporting Air Bruce in a "Yes” vote for both proposals. tho “Melbourne Argus” is opposing tho industry and commerce referendum, and advising electors to give an affirmative vote on the relcreuiluni proposing to give tho Federal Government power to preserve essential services in tho event of industrial or other trouble.

if close followers of polities, such as these papers represent, are so contused, what of the average voter whose interest in politics can be described only by the adjective of “mild:’” In say the least, the great majority of electors are confused. They are wont to tollow party banners. Yet, when parties are divided, these guides are lost. The staunch Labour man, for instance, is in u quandary whether he should take the advice of Air M. Charlton, lender of tho Federal Labour Tarty, to vote “Yes” to the iirst proposal and “No” to the second, or whether he should ta,ko tho trade unionists’ “tip” and vote a solid “No” to both. The Nationalist rank and file is in similar plight. A.re they to follow their Federal leader’s urging* to give an affirmative vote on I mill, or are they to do as Air Bavin, the New South Wales Stale 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?

A LISTLESS CAMPAIGN. All this puzzling changing of the political chess hoard lias resulted in one thing it lfts almost killed public interest ill the referenda. The campaign for ami against is listless. Meetings for both sides are* poorly attended. The proposals are not mentioned in casual conversation, as politics generally figure in the few weeks preceding the election. Vet the proposals before the people, if they could only realise it, tore more vital than a general election

Both sides agree that the industry and commerco referendum, arising front Air Bruce's 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 betoro. 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 lint arbitration in industrial matters is nationwide, and cannot lie dealt with in the watertight compartments represented by the States, those against Die referendum urge that the States as a whole are better fitted than the Commonwealth to deal with industrial questions. 'l’he lfriner believe that the proposed amendments will eliminate overlapping and conflict ot awards; the latter are of opinion that the concentration of power is inimical to ( .the development cf cinch State, and a proposed large draft of power would mean practical unification non- anti 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 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 Lalxwr interests.

Air Bruce and his supporters allege tl:;it opponents of the proposals are raising bogeys to defeat the proposals by saying that the tribunals the Commonwealth will set up will he 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 tiling is what might be done under the near Constitution which the carrying of the referendum would bring into existence. It is easy enough for Air Bruce or anyone else to give his assurance that the new powers would not be misused. A cry likely. But if that be a sufficient reason for handing the rights now possessed by the States over to »i 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?”