This referendum folly is as mad an idea as I have heard in years. Dutton must rule it out

The coalition went to the 1949 election promising to ban the Communist Party; the legislation to do so was the first item of business when the new parliament met. The Communist Party Dissolution Act (which passed the Senate with the support of the ALP), was successfully challenged in the High Court, which struck it down by a 6-1 majority. Menzies decided to call a referendum to give the parliament the constitutional power the court had held that it lacked.

The referendum was the great political event of 1951. It divided both sides of politics. Labor split between those who followed the Labor leader Doc Evatt in opposing the referendum, and the conservative Catholic MPs (who would later formally split the party and form the DLP) who supported it. Many prominent Liberals also campaigned against it. Many Liberal-voting families were divided, including the Howard family. John Howard told me once that while his father supported the proposal, his mother was strongly opposed.

Loading

Although the referendum was widely expected to pass easily – a result predicted by opinion polls, then in their infancy – it was, to the shock of the government, narrowly defeated. (The national vote was 50.6 per cent to 49.4 per cent against; it achieved a majority in only three states.)

The result was not, of course, a vindication of the Communist Party; it was a vindication of political freedom. It was also an expression of the public’s respect for the High Court, and its misgivings about politicians thought to be subverting its decisions.

The 1951 referendum is commonly regarded as the great stain on Menzies’ liberal escutcheon. It undoubtedly damaged his reputation. What is overlooked by historians is that until the 1949 election, Menzies had always opposed the banning of the Communist Party, on orthodox freedom of speech principles, in the face of pressure from the right wing of his own party and, more stridently, from the Country Party. When his party room adopted the policy at a meeting in April 1948, the Daily Telegraph reported that Menzies had spoken in opposition.

There is no reason to believe that the Daily Telegraph had any greater commitment to accuracy in 1948 than it does today. However, on this occasion it was right. Later that year, at a private lunch at 10 Downing Street, Menzies confided to the British prime minister Clement Attlee that he did not privately agree with his party’s new, more illiberal position.

Nevertheless, as party leader, he led the fight and, thank goodness, he lost it. It was probably his worst mistake. It was also instructive. In later years, after the Labor split strengthened Menzies’ political position and the Petrov defection elevated yet further public concern about communist treason, he resolutely resisted attempts, led by the voluble anti-communist WC Wentworth, to have another referendum.

Menzies had learnt from his mistake. Dutton should learn from Menzies’ mistake too.

An unwanted referendum, without bipartisan support, to overturn the High Court? It is as mad an idea as I have heard in a long time. If it is indeed under consideration, that consideration should stop right now.