1948 Australian rents and prices referendum

The Prime Minister Ben Chifley summed up his arguments for the proposal in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 May 1948 as:

First, because rising prices threaten the value of wages or salaries, and of savings, and undermine the stability of the economy.

Secondly, because price control by six controlling authorities in the States will not work - the choice is Commonwealth control or no control.

Thirdly, because the Government can be relied on to administer price control sanely, to decentralise as much as possible, and to remove controls as supplies become adequate.

Fourthly, because a stable Australia will be a maximum help to Britain and to a world struggling back to economic health.[3]

The Leader of the Opposition, Robert Menzies summed up his arguments against the proposal as:

First is that the Federal Government's campaign of fear, with its predictions of chaos and of soaring rents and prices if the referendum is defeated, has been thoroughly and rightly discounted from one end of Australia to another.

Secondly, the State Governments, including, of course, the Governments in those States which still have Labour Administrations, have all acknowledged that the powers of the States are ample, and have declared their willingness to undertake control, if necessary, when the Commonwealth retires from the price and rent fixing field.

The third point, now generally recognised, is that this is in no sense a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of controls. ... This is a referendum simply to determine whether the controls involved should eventually revert to the States or whether they should be given to Canberra for ever. ... everyone in the Commonwealth is doubtless aware now that whatever the result of Saturday's vote, the present Federal controls will continue for some considerable period.[4]