LABOUR'S WAY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 130, 4 June 1931, Page 11

LABOUR'S WAY

GAOL FOR ITS CRITICS BILL MAY BE BOOMERANG (From "The Post's" Representative.) SYDNEY, 28th May. In the midst of tho worst economic crisis in the history of Now South Wales, the Labour Government, under tho control of Mr. Lang, is doing nothing to relieve the position, ' but instead seems bent on bringing forward irritating and provocative legislation with almost ludicrous provisions. Its Law .Reform Bill is a easel in point. This has at least one noteworthy object in these times of depression—that of cheapening the cost of legal proceedings,—but that is not of much benefit to tho worker who; cannot find a job, or tho family whose savings aro tied up in tho defunct Savings Bank, or to the manufacturer Who finds that, he must continue to <pay the same w,ages oven though the cost of living has been reduced 15 per cent. There is another provision which eliminates tho distinction between barristers and solicitors, and makes it illegal for eitkfer to wear, their wigs when they appear before a State Court. Is that sort of thing going to bring the State back to normal in double-quick time? Does a starving m.arii care whether a lawyer dons a wig or not? Does he. caro whether there arc lawyers? PENAL CLAUSES. Tho outstanding. feature of tho Law Eef orm Bill, an umbrella measure which seems to embrace everything, is the provision which gives the Government power to send its critics to gaol. If the penal clauses were to go through as they stand to-day, two1 years' Imprisonment and a fino of £500 could bo inflicted "on any person who orally or in writing, or iv any newspaper or printed publication, spreads false reports or make 3 false or unfounded statements as to tho policy or powers of the Government, or as to the administration of any Government Department, or as to tho policy advocated by any member of the Executive Council, or as to the conduct of any such member whether in rela'.ion to his official duties or otherwise." This is taken to mean that practically anything said in criticism of a Minister is liable to land the critic in gaol. There is one thing to be remembered, and that is that the penalties are so great that an accused person would have the right of trial by jury, and juries aro always reluctant to convict where the punishment exceeds the crime. The section became all the more ludicrous with the proposal that it should be made retrospective—until when it was leff; in doubt. LABOUR'S OWN FEAES. It has just been revealed that the Bill was drawn up without tho Labour caucus or the ruling element at the Sydney Trades Hall being consulted. Both realise that a Labour Government will not bo in power for over, and they fear that the clause referred to may have a boomerang effect, and hit back at Labour when Labour is in Opposition. So instructions went forth that it should be toned down. And it will be toned doi.ji too. The Trades Hall Council will see to that. The council also objects to another clause, which defines sedition. It is recognised that, if .the Bill became law and a Nationalist Government was elected, there are few members of the Labour Party who would bo able to escape gaol. It was pointed out to Mr. Lang that if the Bill were passed, the Labour movement would be silenced, when in Opposition, just 'as effectively as the Nationalists would be silenced to-day. The Bill might be very detrimental to the interests of Labour unions and Labour officials. The speakers at the caucus made it clear that they were not concerned about the Nationalists or the "capitalistic Press," but they wanted to protect tho Labour movement. NO CHANCE OF PASSING. Of course, there is not the slightest chance of tho Bill being passed by the Upper House, which has already been successful in having shelved . one of the essential features of the Lang Plan —the control by legislation of interest. Labour's support in the Upper House is dwindling, and even its own supporters are now showing signs of further revolt. It is safe to say that in a House of S6 Mr. Lang can now depend on only 24 votes.' No wonder he is desirous of abolishing the Legislative Council, which stands between him caul the realisation of his ambitions. So far he has been the loser in the battle of tactics with the Council, and as tho abolition question is still before tho Courts—Mr. Lang has groat hopes thut tho Privy Council appeal will go in his favour—his hands are tied. The Council has been careful not to throw out any measure* which would givo Mr. Lang the right to say to the Governor that he was being obstructed. By various ways it contrives to postpone tho legislation to which it objects—and it objects to almost everything. The Trades Hall Council is now asking every Labour member of tho Council to sign a pledge that he will vote for anything and everything Mr. Lang will propose by way of legislation. Such tactics are resented, and it is believed that within another week Mr. Lang will have fewer supporters in the Council than he has to-day. His hatred of tho Council can readily be understood. The Council is the only body that has over thwartod Mi. Lnng—and Mr. Lang does not like being thwartod.