The Gisborne Herald IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1950 ANOTHER ELECTION IN AUSTRALIA?

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23288, 24 June 1950, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald IN WHICH IS INCORPORATED "THE TIMES." GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1950 ANOTHER ELECTION IN AUSTRALIA?

(CONSTITUTION AB difficulties which have Been temporarily averted in New Zealand by the Government’s “packing” of the nominated Legislative Council have resulted in a deadlock in the Australian Federal elected Senate, and if the Opposition remains obdurate, as present indications suggest, there is likely to be a general election in Australia within the next few months or early next year. Three major policy measures of the newly elected Mcnzies Government have been either rejected, amended unacceptably or frustrated by the Labour majority in the Senate. In fact, until yesterday, during the four months Parliament had been sitting only one bill, a minor measure, had been passed by both Houses and the Government had been unable to give effect to its mandate. Yesterday the important Child Endowment Bill was forced through.

The two main stumbling blocks are the Anti-Communist Bill and the Commonwealth Bank Bilk To meet objections to the former Mr. Menzies has made amendments, but the Opposition says lie has not gone far enough. It wants the onus of proof that a person is a Communist to be on the State, trial by jury and wider rights of appeal. Such amendments in the opinion of the Prime Minister would kill the bill, and lie is prepared to go to the electors on the issue. Opposition Speaks With Two Voices

The Opposition is not completely united in the course it is following. The caucus vote, 41 to 18 in favour of insisting on amendments, indicates that there is a not inconsiderable section of opinion prepared to compromise. While there is a section of Labour opinion that is not anxious to face another election at present, the main issue seems to be whether a state of emergency exists and emergency powers are necessary. In speeches to unionists Labour leaders have frequently left no doubt as to their concern about communism, t o I lie extent of implying the existence of a state of emergency requiring drastic action. In Parliament, however, within the past few months they have spoken with another voice. As a result the conviction must be growing in-the public mind that a considerable section of the Opposition, under the cloak of anxiety to protect civil liberties, is bent on stultifying the bill for party political reasons; in other words, that they prefer to aim their shafts at the Government rather than at the Communists. The Opposition leader, Mr. Chifley, on the second reading of the bill said: “I do not want anybody to think I see any virtue in this legislation.” That was frank. In the past year, it is reported, the Opposition has developed a wholly new sensitivity on the subject of trial by jury and the onus of proof. Last June the Coal Strike Act passed by the Chifley Government prescribed that the Arbitration Court should have power to fine and/or imprison (for up to six months) an officer of an offending organisation, and that the officer should be deemed guilty unless he proved that the offence by the organisation was committed without his knowledge. The onus of proof was placed on the individual; there was no trial by jury; there was no provision for appeal. All the rights the Opposition is now clamouring for were withheld then. 1 Bank Bill Another Stumbling Block

Another major issue that is likely to result in a deadlock is the Commonwealth Bank Bill, which provides for the establishment of a Bank Board of 10 members. Mr. Chitley says be will not budge one inch in his refusal to accept such a board. The measure has been rejected by the Labour controlled Senate. The Upper House has also delayed the bill designed to reform the voting for that chamber and avert a deadlock there. It has been referred to a select committee comprising seven Labour members. The spectacle of the Senate holding up Government legislation has again caused attention to be focussed on its reform. As matters stand now, it is conceivable that even after another election involving both Houses there may be a stalemate in the Senate, causing a further delay to legislation. One would expect such a situation to he intolerable to the electors. In view of the dissatisfaction in New Zealand with the functioning of the second chamber Australia’s experience is interesting although there, it must be stated, only hotheads appear to be advocating the abolition of this portion of the system of democratic government. The Sydney Morning Herald commented recently: “The Senate has been a grievous disappointment. It has never functioned as a true States’ House and only occasionally as an effective House of review. It is apt when controlled by the Government of the day to be a pale reflection of the Representatives, and when not so controlled to be an obstruction to legislation. Seldom has it attracted the best political talent.” According to the same newspaper, proportional representation was not the answer. While making it impossible for one party to sweep the Senate it did nothing to bring Senators into closer contact with their electors. The Sydney Morning Herald says the strengthening of the Senate is the best answer to revived rash talk of its abolition.

Cable messages yesterday emphasise that crucial issues confront the people of Australia which need to be settled as quickly as the existing constitutional machinery will permit. We in New Zealand-can count ourselves. fortunate that while our problems are similar to those of Australia they may he resolved more easily Also, in the avoidance of future difficulties, we have Australia’s experience to guide us.