The Constitution Alteration (Prices) 1973 was a bill proposing amendments to section 51 of the Australian Constitution which would give the Commonwealth legislative power over prices. The proposed changes to the constitution were not upheld, with Australians voting against the constitutional alteration.

The Whitlam government proposed the amendments to the constitution reasoning that by granting increased power to federal government over prices they would be able to control inflation, which at the time was increasing significantly. These factors contributed to an economic environment in 1971 that was generally considered strong, with the AUD rising to $1.40, unemployment at 2% and economic growth rising 5% per year.

However, in the same period, inflation rose steadily to 7.3% as average weekly earnings rose to over 10% per annum. Australia's inflation post World War II averaged around 2%. Therefore, this increase in inflation was very significant at the time. In October 1973, the Arab-Israel conflict quadrupled world oil prices, triggering global high unemployment and high inflation or "stagflation". They also criticised Labor as hypocritical, because as the opposition Labor scrutinised the Liberal government for not acting on inflation which at the time was in a more stable state.

Whitlam argued the Labor Party had inherited 'stagflation' from the previous government who had instigated wage rises and created circumstances for an overvalued dollar. Whitlam offered several policies to address the issue, such as famously cutting tariffs by 25% across the board. Opponents of the tribunal criticised its ineffectiveness, arguing that the tribunal had no real power in effecting market prices and thus curbing inflation. The ineffective nature of the tribunal was under fire with Snedden ironically calling it the Prices "Exemption" Tribunal. However, supporters of the tribunal argued that it was effective in holding back price rises. The first Prices Justification Tribunal Annual Report identified the difference between prices originally proposed to the tribunal and the prices found to be justified by the tribunal was $253 million. Additionally, the existence of the tribunal made companies more cautious about price rises, although the effect of this is unquantifiable.

Question

The question appeared on the ballot paper as:

Public opinion polls

Numerous polls were published before the referendum by reputable polling organisations. Overwhelmingly, these public opinion polls predicted that voting intentions were to affirm the referendum.

A poll published in The Age on 6 December predicted:

  1. The government should have the power to prevent, where necessary and logical, at times of global economic uncertainty the excessive rise of prices in essential commodities. A "No" vote would safeguard federalism, ensuring that an already centralist government would not gain additional power, which is essential in maintaining democracy and individual liberty.

A Melbourne-based newspaper, The Age, summarised the debate: "If you hate inflation, love your country and trust Gough Whitlam, vote "yes"... If you hate controls, fear the unknown and believe Bill Snedden, vote "no"..."

Minor parties

Other minor party stances included support for the proposal by the Australia Party and Aarons Communist Party. Opposition to the proposed changes were supported by the Democratic Labour Party and Maoists. Additionally, separate legislation that gave pricing power to state governments such as New South Wales, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory meant that giving the tribunal further power over prices would contradict this existing legislation. However, this period proved this consistent relationship was not the case suggesting a causal link between the decrease in domestic prices and monetary targeting. Inflation began to decrease with the establishment of indexation, decreasing from a peak of nearly 20% in 1975 to 10% by 1977.