Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1946. Labour and the Upper House

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 September 1946, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1946. Labour and the Upper House

JF the slurs to which Legislative Coun- Q eillors were subjected b.y members t< of the Government when they were in r Opposition were a fair and honest expres- j sion of their attitude, there was. indeed good-ground, for the expectation that wdien x they came into po.wer the Upper House t would vanish almost overnight. The fail- A ure of Labour to redeem the promise made < in its earlier thunderings against that . Chamber is indeed difficult to explain. In ■ fact it is common knowledge that among , the rank and file of the party there-have for long been rebellious murmurings against the attitude of their political leaders in this respect. In view ol these circumstances it is not difficult to understand the motive of the official Labour press in attempting to defend the continued existence of the Upper House. Tn an article which is more noteworthy for the bitterness of its language than for reasoned argument, we have been told by the Labour press that our only complaint is against the Chamber’s present membership which is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Government. We do not. know the policy, if any, of the Opposition on the question of the future of this section of the Legislature, nor, for j that matter, do we care. What we do advocate, however, is that the Chamber should be either made , elective or abolished. A Comfortable Haven. Wliat the apologists for Labour’s extraordinary somersault never, mention is that the continued existence of the Upper House is not necessary for the implemcn- : tation of the Government’s programme. Indeed no amount of political camouflage can disguise the fact ?bat it has merely been transformed into a comfortable haven for many of the Labour 1 arty s veteran stalwarts, at a yearly cost of thousands of pounds. What Governments failed to do 50 years ago, in the days when the Upper House did serve a useful " purpose, has no bearing on the failure of Labour to redeem a promise, which in the redeeming would, lessen the drain, on the. pocket of the already harassed taxpayer. ' If Labour is satisfied with the pi.esent i constitution of the Chamber, if its pi ess is genuine in its advocacy of its continued 1 existence, it is up to it to prove io the electors that the Upper House serves a useful purpose and that it is necessary for the good government of this country. | Such an explanation would no doubt be received by the community with the | keenest interest. If it docs not feel, disposed to undertake such an exposition of the doubtful merits of the present system, j and it is indeed unlikely that it will ] attempt it—what little sense of responsibility it has left should at least urge it to agree that the whole question should be submitted to the electors for their decision. It was the opinion of Mr. Savage j that the Upper House should be abolished | and it may be confidently asserted that | if a poll of electors could be taken on the subject, the result would be such as to surprise even the most zealous of Labour’s | apologists. The plain fact of the matter is that the large number of appointments S i to the Chamber which the Government has j made since it took office represents a sheer waste of public money. ? Is Labour Satisfied?

Is Labour satisfied that the policy it is pursuing in relation to the Upper House has the approval of its supporters, let alone the community generally? Will it assert that it has.’ ' Will its press deny that Labour’s altered approach to the question has caused concern amongst its own followers? Will it deny that there is a large group' of dissentients in the party rank and file, and will it attempt to prove that there is not? These are questions which call for an answer, and. in answering them the Labour apologists would do a better service to the community than by launching vitriolic attacks on all who ha ve the temerity merely to suggest that all of Labour’s policy may not be for the good of the country generally. As we remarked on a recent occasion, nobody really c oncerns himself these days to know what the Council is doing. Indeed, apart from a few speeches on matters of topical m terest. it appears to do very little, its work being largely of the rubber-stamp type for Government legislation., It is recalled that Labour, before i ■ became the Government, vas loud in its expressions of approve o single-chamber government, but, i 16 outbursts of its. zealous apologists w follow the line of “my party— always right,” are to be taken as a criterion t 1(> chances that it will ever return o ia advocacy 7 arc indeed slim. Instead t le e ec tors will be asked to contribute t lousanc s of pounds in taxation yearly to ensure contrnued existence of a us ’ , ; cence on the body politic. Labour s a, erec | approach to the question furmsies J • one more example of the extent o u nc public considerations have become su dinate to party' interests, and as indefensible.