PEOPLE TO DECIDE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26635, 4 December 1947, Page 5

PEOPLE TO DECIDE

ISSUE IN AUSTRALIA PRICES AND RENTS CONTROL WIDER POWER SOUGHT BY GOVERNMENT

From C. R. Menliplay, N.Z.P.A. Special' Correspondent Rec. 9 p.m. SYDNEY, Dec. 3. An attempt by the Chifiey Government to secure public consent to permanent control of rents and prices by the Commonwealth is regarded by the Opposition as another phase of an all-embracing socialisation scheme which began with the Banking Bill and the attempted acquisition of airlines. The issue will be decided by referendum in February or March, but already there are indications that the banking controversy will vitally affect the voting. The Opposition is convinced that the people will vote against the Government because, first, they will be scared by the word “ power,” as they were in the referendum of 1944, believing, rightly or wrongly, that the Federal Government has more than enough power already, and, secondly, they will vote not on the merits of price and rent control, but according to whether, or not they approve of bank nationalisation. The relation between the Rents ana Prices Bill, which has just passed the House of Representatives, and the Banking Act, now in the hands of the courts, is not obvious unless both are considered as parts of a general socialisation policy. How easily the banking issue coula be introduced into the prices debate was demonstrated last week by the Opposition Leader, Mr R. G. Menzies He said that he had once advocated some centralisation of powers, but that he would now view it with horror, as the Government had just demonstrated with the Banking Bill how ruthlessly it could exercise its existing powers without regard for public opinion. The Opposition is not opposed to price control, but believes that it could well be exercised by individual States. Government members, headed by the Minister of Immigration, Mr A. A. Calwell who has improved his status during 'the debate, say that differing political complexions of the States might mean divergent laws and resultant chaos. “This is not a Bill to destroy anyone’s liberties,” said .Mr Calwell. “It is a Bill to protect everyone.”

“Surprising effrontery is being displayed by the Commonwealth Government after its previous rebuffs in asking the people to amend the Constitution,” says the Sydney Morning Herald. “Bureaucratic rule, with its delays, anomalies, abuses and favouritism, is still flourishing long after hostilities have been concluded and de-

mobilisation completed.” Whether a referendum will be a fair test of Government policy is a matter for conjecture. The odds are always against the Australian public agreeing to vital changes in the Constitution such as are involved in the present proposal.