FEDERAL POLITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20823, 16 March 1931, Page 8

FEDERAL POLITICS.

The Scullin Government having survived the challenge of a noconfidence motion by the help of an otherwise hostile faction of the Labour Party, the anomaly of its continued existence in such circumstances is great enough to have aroused detailed comment from so far afield as London. The hopeless state of disunion that has developed in the Labour ranks is shown by the expulsions which are being decreed, and by the public campaign Mr. Theodore is conducting against the Lang policy and those who advocate it. It is natural to wonder how long a hoiise so divided against itself can avoid falling. The air is full of speculation and forecasts. It is suggested that if the Senate rejects the Government's Fiduciary Cur-* rency Bill, the Labour Party may be persuaded to close its ranks and appeal to the people for the abolition of the Upper House. In terms of the Constitution, the appeal to the people must be in the form of a referendum, since abolition of the Senate would be a constitutional amendment. If the Senate rejected the proposal—which is required to pass Parliament before being put to the popular vote—a delay of three months must follow. If the House of Representatives again approved the amendment, and the Senate again rejected it, the vote could be taken nevertheJess. However, the history of the referendum in the Commonwealth does not encourage the idea that the Labour Party's scheme would succeed —provided always the factions did unite for the purpose of furthering it. With insignificant exceptions constitutional amendments have always failed to survive the ordeal of a referendum, and there is nothing to suggest a vote on the fate of the Senate would result differently. The whole idea is alien to the spirit of the Constitution in any event. A device is provided to meet the situation when the two houses disagree—a double dissolution and an appeal to the people by a general election. That is not only the constitutional, it is the logical way out of the impasse if Senate and House cannot resolve their differences. Incidentally it is the democratic way, to ask the verdict of the people on the broad issues in dispute, not on an artificially created one like the abolition of the Senate. But that, probably, is what the Labour Party wishes to avoid in its present condition, and on the indicated mood of the people.