GAOL FOR CRITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20886, 30 May 1931, Page 11

GAOL FOR CRITICS.

PROPOSAL BY LABOUR.

BILL IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

PENALTY FOR FALSE REPORTS. [from our own correspondent.] SYDNEY, May 21. In the midst of the worst economic crisis in the history of New South Wales the Labour Government, under the control of Mr. Lang, is doing nothing to relieve tho position, but instead seems bent on bringing forward irritating and provocative legislation with almost ludicrous provisions. Its Law Reform Bill is a case in point. This bill has at least one noteworthy object iu these times of depression—that of cheapening tho cost of legal proceedings—but that is not of much benefit to tho worker who cannot find a job, or tho family whose savings are tied up in tho defunct Savings Bank, or ; to the manufacturer who finds that ho must, continuo to pay the same wages even though tho 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 either to wear their wigs when they appear beforo a State Court. Tho questions aro asked:—ls >that sort of thing going to bring the State back to normal in quick time ? Does a starving man cat o whether a lawyer dons a wig or not ? Docs lie care whether there are lawyers! Drastic Clause in Bill. The outstanding feature of tho Law Reform 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, two years' imprisonment and a fino of £SOO could bo inflicted "on any person who orally or in writing, or in any newspaper or printed publication spreads false reports or makes false or unfounded statements as to the policy or powers of tho Government, or as to the administration of any Government department, or as to the policy advocated by any member of the Executive Council, or as to tho conduct of any such member whether in relation 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 punish-

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 bo made retrospective—until when was left in doubt. Boomerang Eflect Feared. It has just been revealed that the bill was drawn up without the Labour Caucus or the ruling element at the Sydney Trades Hall being consulted. Both realise that a Labour Government will not be in power for ever, and they fear that tho 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 down, 100. The Trades Hall Council will see to that. The council also objects to another clause, which defines sedition. It is recognised that, if tlie bill became law and ft Nationalist Government was elected, there are few members of the Labour Party who would Ije able to escape gaol. It was pointed out to Mr. Lang that if the bill were passed tho Labour movement would bo silenced, when in just as effectively as the Nationalists would be silenced to-day. | The bill might be very ci.etrimental to tho 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 the Labour movement. Barrier o! Upper House. Of course, there is not tho 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 tho Upper Houso is dwindling, and even its own supporters are now showing signs of further revolt. It is safo to say that in a Houso of 86 Mr. Lang can now depend on only 24 votes. No wonder ho is desirous of abolishing the Legislative Council, which stands between him and the realisation of his ambitions. So far he has been tho loser in tho battlo of tactics with tho Council, and as tho abolition question is still before the Courts—Mr. Lang has great, hopes that the Privy Council appeal will go in his favour —his hands arc tied. The Council ha-3 been careful not to throw out any measure which would give Mr. Lang tho right to say to the Governor ihnt he was being obstructed. By various I ways it contrives to postpone the legis- | lation to which it objects—and it objects j to almost .everything. Tho Trades Hall Council is now asking ! every Labour member of tho Council to

fign a pledge that. lie will vote for anything and everything Mr. Lang will pro-

pose 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 today. His hatred of the Council can readily be understood. The Council is vhe only body that has ever thwarted Mr. Lang—and Mr. Lang does not like being thwarted.