The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1931. A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 July 1931, Page 6

The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1931. A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

Since his return to power the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. J. T. Lang, has added a full chapter to the political history of his State. Whether it is one of which New South Wales will feel proud is another matter, but there is the explanation that Mr. Lang and his colleagues have had to face economic conditions which demand acceptance of facts as they are and not as they could be presented by political manipulation aided by loan monies left to posterity to repay. The Ministry of which Mr. Lang is the head won its position by assertions that the need for economy stressed so earnestly by its political opponents did not exist, that a smaller rather than a greater return of labour for high wages was possible with benefit to the State, and that the depression, which even a year ago looked ominous, was a capitalistically created scare, which need not be treated seriously. Events have proved the hollowness of the Labour Premier’s claims to the role of political prophet. For the first time in Australian history a sovereign State in the Commonwealth has defaulted in meeting its public liabilities, and unemployment is worse than ever, for the refusal of the wage-earning classes to recognise that increased output is necessary to overcome the lower prices obtainable has led to wholesale dismissals in public as well as private undertakings. By the sheer force of circumstances Mr. Lang was obliged to share with the other States’ authorities and

the Federal Government a conference for the rehabilitation of Australian finance. At that conference the Federal .Prime Minister spoke plainly. He said, in effect, that at that time Australia could pay about twelve shillings in the pound and the conference, must find some method of bringing back solvency within the next few years. To do so within cine financial year was beyond the Commonwealth’s resources. A scheme wrts proposed, and has received a large measure of approval from the creditors of Australia. It necessitated certain action by State legislatures for the reduction of State expenditure, which was impossible without fresh legislation. In most of the States this has proceeded without any constitutional questions being aroused. It is otherwise in New South Wales. Mr. Lang first announced his intention of -I‘edueing all salaries and emoluments paid by the State to a maximum of £5OO a year. The crudity of this suggestion was too much for even a Labour caucus to swallow, and as an alternative a special graduatedtax was proposed rising from one shilling in the pound fol* incomes of over £4 a week to five shillings for incomes of £lOOO a year, in addition to the existing heavy income taxes. The Bill passed the Ldwei* House in the State Assembly, but has been rejected by the Legislative Council, its opponents tllete including members of the Labour Barty, who are, in fact, executive officials of some of the largest Labour organisations in the State.. The Premier asked the Governor, Sir Philip Game, to appoint sufficient iffiw.meiiibets to the Council to enable'the Government’s will to prevail, but the request was refused, and a constitutional issue, of some importance lias thus been raised. Tho reasons for the Governor’s decision have riot been made public, except that he is known to have suggested that a conference of all political parties should be held before tho “swamping” of the Council wa§ determined upon. The suggestion was turned down by the Ministry, which takes the stand that a Governor of a self-governing State must, accept the advice of his Ministers without question. Tile Labour .caucus has referred to the ruling given by the Colonial Office in the dispute between a New Zealand Ministry and a Governor in the early nineties of last century. The then Governor, Lord Onslow, was instructed that he should have accepted his Ministers’ advice and received nominations to the Legislative Council. But the conditions differed from those in New South Wales. The Ministry had received a mandate from the electorate, its proposals commanded the united support of the party in power, and the proposed appointments to the Council were suggested after full negotiations had failed to show out of a deadlock. In New South Wales the Governor appears to be urging that negotiation must precede “direct action,” and the opposition of certain, of Mr. Lang’s followers to his proposed legislation seems to indicate that the suggestion is worth acceptance. It will be interesting to see if the Labour caucus will permit the constitutional issue to be forced. If it is, and the Governor must give way, there will still remain the bitter hostility of some of the largest and most militant labour organisations towards Mr. Lang’s proposed legislation. No one knows better than the State Premier the cost of such, opposition, particularly when it is a question affecting the pocket of every member of those organisations.