The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1961. N.S.W. Retains Its Upper House

Press, Volume C, Issue 29503, 3 May 1961, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1961. N.S.W. Retains Its Upper House

The Labour Government of New South Wales received a serious rebuff on Saturday through the rejection of its plan for abolishing the legislative Council Frustrated in its attempts during the previous two years to have

an abolition bill passed by both Houses, the Heffron Government was forced to resort to the ultimate test provided by the constitution—a referendum of the electorate. The referendum campaign, which opened on April 5, afforded ample opportunities for reviewing the arguments for and against a bicameral legislature. Communist support for the Labour abolitionists was much more of an embarrassment than an asset; and Mr Heffron hastily rejected the Communist Party’s offer of a formal alliance against the Liberal and Country Parties, and other groups defending the Upper House.

Both sides found difficulty, against competition from television shows, in arousing public interest. This probably helped to increase the almost hysterical fervour with which charge and counter-charge were levelled. To many of his opponents’ accusations, however, Mr Heffron was unable to reply quickly or firmly enough to reassure those who, with the Leader of the State Opposition (Mr Askin), feared that theCommunist Party was spending “huge sums” to destroy the foundations of democratic government, and that the abolition of the Council could lead to continuous one-party rule, loss of freedom, and corruption in public life.

The overwhelming vote against the Heffron Government’s policy revealed afresh the destructive divisions within the Labour Party and their effect upon the party’s power to rebut criticism by its traditional

opponents. For upwards of 60 years—indeed, for as long as the ParliamentaryLabour Party has existed—die constitutional issue has been of paramount importance to the party, which professed to see in the Upper House the last preserve of a wealthy, snobbish autocracy, capable of impeding programmes of social welfare. From the history of the Legislative Council it is plain that the Labour Party missed its best opportunities of abolition because it could not count on the unanimity of its own members, many of whom were reluctant to destroy an acknowledged safeguard against hasty or ill-considered legislation. Moreover, time and the growth of an egalitarian society invalidated the Labour charge that the Council was open only to privileged classes. Against the modest cost of maintaining the Council—estimated at 9d a year a head of the State’s population—could be set real benefits derived from the specialist advice of men and women who otherwise might not accept public office. Mr Heffron’s critics confronted the electorate with a long list of highly contentious legislation which they claimed would be quickly enacted after the abolition of the Upper House; and Mr Heffron was put in an impossible predicament. No worse damage was done to his cause, however, than through its disavowal by Mr J. T. Lang, the former Labour Premier who in 1926 and again in 1930 tried unsuccessfully to abolish the Council. Particularly by disapproval among the more moderate of their supporters, Mr Heffron and his Cabinet should now be deterred from further attacks upon the function of the Council, though not necessarily upon its composition.