The Daily News TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1926. LABOUR DICTATORSHIP

Taranaki Daily News, 16 November 1926, Page 6

The Daily News TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1926. LABOUR DICTATORSHIP

That extreme Labour is prepared to go to any length in pursuit of its aims, even to sweeping away the safeguards of a constitution which has stood the test of centuries throughout the British Empire, is all too plainly indicated by the proceedings at the New •South Wales Labour Conference. Coincident with the impressive avowal by the Federal Premier, in London, “that every participant in the Imperial Conference appreciates the obligation to contribute to the unity and prosperity of the Empire,” the State Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) at- the opening of the Labour Party Conference at Sydney, asserted that, 'if the party continued, to receive the confidence of the people, the Government would not only remove the nominee chamber, but also that imported Governors would become a thing of the past. Had he confined the destructive policy of his. party to these two matters, whereon it has to be admitted there exists a diversity of opinion elsewhere than in New South Wales, his boasts would not have attracted much attention, but he went on to propound a much more alarming claim, namely, that as unity is essential to the carrying on successfully of the platform and policy of the Labour Party, the Prime Minister must be given authority, in the event of circumstances arising •which, in his opinion, might imperil that unity, “to do all things and exercise such powers as h< deems necessary in the interests of the party.” A resolution to that effect was passed by the conference, only four votes being recorded against it. The onlyrational construction to be placed on such a resolution is that it virtually constitutes a Labour Prime Minister of New South Wales an absolute dictator. The safeguards of an Upper Chamber and a Governor being removed, the Prime Minister, even though he has only a bare majority in the House, can exercise unlimited power “in the interests of his party,” which may actually not represent a moiety of the electors. The unity emphasised by the Federal Premier was Empire wide, but that stressed by Mr. Lang was merely confined to a political party which happens to be in power to-day, but may be out in the wilderness at the next general election. What value some members of that party placed upon the unity was evidenced when they were given seats in the nominee chamber on their pledge to vote for its abolition, but deliberately broke their pledge—a course which many may excuse as being the lesser evil. All that the Federal Premier claimed was the maintenance of the fundamental principle of maintaining the people’s standard of living, the establishment of which was held sacred in Australia. Mr. Lang aims to place the interests .of- the party he leads above all other considerations and insists on being clothed with the powers of a dictator. When

the Attorney-General. in the .Labour regime interviewed the Secretary of State for the Dominions (Mr. Amery), in London, he contended that the clause in the Governor’s instructions empowering him to dissent from the fidvise of his Ministers, if he believed there was sufficient cause, was an accidental revival from early times, but his absurd contention was promptly brushed aside by the information that identical instructions were given to all the Governors of the selfgoverning parts of the Empire, hence it was unlikely that an exception in favour of New South Wales would be made. As a matter of fact, the Labour Government of that State has furnished conclusive testimony to the need and the wisdom of the power of veto placed in the hands of a Governor, if only to prevent a state of affairs likely to ensue 'from a political party.giving dictatorial powers. to a Premier. It could not be expected, however, that the Australian Labour Party in conference would accept the explanation of a British Minister, especially of a Government which had brought a Labour regime to an end, so returned to the attack, and passed a resolution strongly protesting against the action of the Governor “in reviving Crown Colony methods” in the State of New South Wales by refusing to permit his Ministers’ advice to prevail over his own opinions, and deploring that his attitude should result in giving an anti-Labour majority in the Legislative Council in their war against the Labour Government in the interests of the money powers of the State.” Such a diatribe is a fair example of Labour spleen. It afforded a vent for their eruptive and ruffled feelings, but is quite harmless, though indicative of resentment at all barriers to their lust for absolute power. They evidently place their own construction upon the old and . well-known motto “Labor omnia vincit,” a construction that is diametrically opposed to a short cut to supreme power. Although they claim that Labour movement stands for the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people and Will not tolerate the exercise of autocratic powers, yet they are striving their hardest to obtain and exercise dictatorial power while they have the chance to do so, heedless and reckless of the aftermath and the irreparable injuries they may inflict upon the country or State which has the misfortune to be under their sway.