PARTY STRIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 173, 23 July 1936, Page 17

PARTY STRIFE.

INTERNAL TROUBLE.

AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. COUNTRY MEMBERS RESTIVE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, July 15. On Tuesday the Liverpool Plains electorate council of the Country party held one of its periodical meetings, and its president, Mr. E. J. Sherwood, made a statement which has attracted much attention and produced a considerable amount of surprise and resentment throughout the State.

.Tlio substance of Mr. Sherwood's remarks was that it was highly probable that at the next Federal elections "the pact between the U.A.P and the U.C.P., would be discontinued." The reason given by Mr. Sherwood for this threatened defection was simply that a large section of the Country party objected strongly to the tariff restrictions recently imposed on Japan, as these would mean "a severe loss to our staple industry." He admitted that Britain and Australia might well object to Japan's action in swamping our markets with cheap manufactured products, but he contended that Australia .should not have felt called upon to undertake the heavy responsibility of reprisal and retaliation oil behalf of the whole Empire, and he argued -hat the Country party could not continue to support a Government which had sacrificed its highest interests in this way.

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the narrowness and indeed the selfishness of Mr. Sherwood's outlook. The obviously reasonable reply to his complaints and threats was made by Mr. Thompson, M.P., a prominent member of the ' U.C.P. He said that the Nationalist Government had on the whole administered the affairs of the Commonwealth in. a satisfactory way, and "if the Government lasted its fu.ll term and its work had been in the opinion of the U.C.P. useful and beneficial to Australia," the Country party must support it. "If the Government," he said later, "can justify its policy on national grounds, the party should support it." This is certainly a publicspirited and statesmanlike utterance, and the U.C.P. will do well to take it to heart.

Strong Sectional Feeling. But sectional feeling in the U.C.P. is undoubtedly strong, and even Mr. Thompson felt compelled to assure his hearers that if, within a reasonable time, the policy of imposing heavy duties on Japanese goods had proved injurious—"bad for the wool industry," he explained—and if the Government then refused to retract, the U.C.P. could not be expected to support it. "If the wrong thing has been done," he concluded, "the party will not allow political expediency to stand in the way of its duty."

Mr. Sherwood's attack upon the Federal Government's fixed policy and Air. Thompson's less aggressive but still disturbing profession of faith have produced something like a political sensation here. Air. Lyons thought it worth his while to announce publicly to-day that the "pact" between the U.A.P. and U.C.P., which Mr. Sherwood threatens to break, does not actually exist— there is only a "friendly arrangement" between the parties and no formal agreement; and the Prime Minister sees

no reason to believe that these amicable relations are likely to be disturbed or repudiated by either party.

Of course, if the U.C.P. refuses to support the Federal Government and puts up its own candidates ( against C.A.P. men at the next elections, it will not matter much whether there is a "pact" between them or no.t; and if the U.C.P. decides to strike out a line of action for itself and divide the Nationalist forces, Labour will surely win a groat victory. Mr. Lyons' remark is thus to a large extent irrelevant.

Antagonism Deprecated. A comment much more to the point has been offered by Sir Arthur Trethowan, M.L.C., who is chairman of the Country party. He deprecates any suggestion of antagonism between the U.A.P. and the U.C.P., he evidently believes that Mr. Sherwood had 110 adequate ground for the ominous warning just issued, and lie sees no reason to doubt that at the next general election the U.A.P. and the U.C.P. will still be allies, supporting a common policy against Labour. As a matter of fact, the U.A.P. wing of the Nationalist party lias good ground for uneasiness. The members of the Country party are bent so resolutely on pushing the interests of "the man on the land," and are so determined to sacrifice all other considerations to the well-being of the primary producer, that many U.A.P. men have begun to regard the U.C.P. extremists as only a little less dangerous to the common weal than the Langites themselves.

This is the case in New South Wales, where the United Australia party, under the guidance of Mr. Stevens, supported consistently by Mr. Brunner and his United Country party "loyalists," have managed to hold their ground without serious difficulty, but the United Australia party cause is in a much worse predicament in Victoria. There the United Country party extremists under Mr. Dunston broke away from the Nationalists altogether and joined hands with Labour to unseat their United Australia party rivals. The combination of the United Country party and Labour forces has been powerful enough to keep the United Australia party completely in the back-ground since the accession of the Dunston Government to office, and the United Australia party stalwarts—Sir Stanley Argyle, and his "Fascist" lieutenant, Mr. Kent Hughes, and their personal following—remain "true to the old faith." But this enforced inaction and the consciousness of lost opportunities' have proved too much for the moderates of the United Australia party, who have decided that they must do something to assert themselves. Led by Mr. Macfarlane, eight or nine United Australia party members have formed a "cave," practically challenging the authority of Sir Stanley Argyle and announcing that they will support "such of the United Country party's legislation as is in conformity with a Liberal outlook and not against the interests of the United Australia party." The United Australia party has only 24 members in the Victorian Assembly in a House of 64, and if four or five more United Australia party men join the rebels, Sir S. Argyle will lose his position as party leader. This may be in itself a small matter, but it illustrates the extent to which, throughout Australia, the ascendancy of the United Australia party is being underfcinvd by revolt and defection, and its strength is palpably diminished by the hostility, covert or avowed, of the 'United Country party.