UNREST IN CANBERRA

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27679, 8 June 1955, Page 13

UNREST IN CANBERRA

‘Revolt’ Against Cabinet

Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 9 p.m.) CANBERRA, June 7. Although, on the surface, feelings seem to have simmered down in the Government parties after the “Wentworth affair” of last week, undercurrents of dissatisfaction are still being felt among a number of Liberal back-benchers. The are dissatisfied. with the Government’s record and the present membership of the Cabinet, and they would likte to see a reshuffle. Today the situation is back to where it was before the Wentworth “revolt.” The only thing Mr Menzies’ backbenchers have learned from that episode is how not to go about “bucking” the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. The lesson was provided Mr William Wentworth, a mcnb°r of one of Australia’s oldest an I ’ * st-known families. He is one of 1? - Liberal Party’s most colourful figure”,. Mr Wentworth was described by one political commentator recently as “eccentric, gifted, tenacious and unforgiving” and by another as “a man of outstanding intellect, insatiable appetite for work, inquiring mind, and fallible judgment.” The Canberra correspondent of the “Sydney Morning Herald” said of him: “He has clashed with Cabinet’s judgment on communism, financial policy, communism, uranium development, communism, the unification of rail gauges, and communism. He is probably the fiercest and most vocal antiCommunist in Australia. He is also pre-occupied with what would happen if Australia ever found itself at the receiving end of the Communists’ atomic weanons.”

During the Federal Parliament’s five-month “Christmas” recess, Mr Wentworth took a world trip at his own expense to study civil defence overseas. He came back with civil defence plans for Australia and determined to force action on the Cabinet. Civil Defence Bill The Cabinet was equally determined not to take any, protesting that Government plans for civil defence were being formulated. When Mr Wentworth introduced his private member’s civil defence bill in the House of Representatives to get things going, he soon found he was not getting any support from the Government—or even his back-bencji colleagues. However, a new element entered the situation when Mr Wentworth, in retaliation for the lack of support, attacked the Government at' a joint Government Party meeting. His attack came just at the time when a number of other Government members, each with his own political hobby horse, wanted Cabinet action on something or other. And they all wanted action on the Cabinet itself. “Frustrated” Back-benchers

The political writer of the “Daily Telegraph” said that Mr Wentworth, to some extent, was a symbol of the restlessness among the Liberal backbenchers. He said: “Here are the frustrated—frustrated either because they cannot get power, or they feel let down by a Ministry made complacent from Opposition feebleness.

“None of the so-called rebels seems to have a real grievance against their leader, Mr M-.nzies. Their only grudge against him seems to be that he allows the incompetents and the lazv the shelter of Cabinet.” Thus Mr Wentworth found himself with a show of support, not for his bill, but for his right to bring it forward.

Mr Menzies clamped down on the “revolt” when he told a meeting of the Government parties that if Mr Wentworth’s bill were passed it would mean the resignation of the Government. None of the back-benchers was prepared to go that far. The "Sydney Morning Herald” political correspondent said: “If there is any argument about how many members wanted to stage a ‘rdvolt’ in an effort to force a Cabinet reshuffle last week, there is no doubt that every Government member wants the reshuffle without the revolt.

“Ironically, Mr Menzies privately agrees v’ith them. “And s .» the position has arisen that, although the Wentworth episode is over, the back-benchers’ demands for more vigorous government and more vigorous Ministers are still in the air.