Australia’s Election

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 20

Australia’s Election

The Federal election campaign in Australia has given no reason so far to expect a change of government. As expected, Vietnam and defence policy generally have appeared as major issues; and the average Australian, perhaps more conscious than the average New Zealander of possible threats to his future security, will not vote for withdrawal from Vietnam and the repeal of conscription. The Labour leader, Mr Calwell, remains adamant in rejecting compulsory military service and in insisting that Australian forces should not be employed, except as “ part of United “Nations forces for the maintenance of peace”, anywhere but in “ Australia and its environs ”—presumably Papua-New Guinea. This would mean dismantling Australia’s entire defence system and repudiating, in large measure, Australia’s obligations under the A.N.Z.U.S. and S.E.A.T.O. treaties. It would mean, specifically in Vietnam, deserting an ally, the United States, on whom Australia must rely for protection against aggression, and with whom she is closely associated in a policy of forward defence in South-east Asia. Conscription was first introduced in Australia by a Labour Government, and it had been expected that Mr Calwell’s party would retain it at least for home defence. He has said, however, that the abolition of conscription would be the first act of a government led by him, and that all conscripts in training would immediately be discharged. The Vietnam force would be recalled as soon as possible after “ consultation ” with Australia’s allies. On the domestic front the differences between the major parties—for it is hard to see Mr Barton’s Liberal Reform group making any impact, for instance, with its defence policy of armed neutrality and complete independence of alliances—are illustrated by Mr Holt’s moderation and Mr Calwell’s prodigality. Mr Holt, with every justification, has said that the economy is in good shape; his Government would endeavour to expand it further by assisting wool promotion and by encouraging farming generally and the production of beef in particular by a large water conservation programme. Proposed advances in education would include the creation of a separate Ministry of Education, a proposal also included in Labour’s policy. Some extension of housing benefits and social services is cautiously projected. The Labour Party, by comparison, has been lavish in its promises. A Labour Government would double maternity allowances, increase child endowments, abolish the means test, re-establish free hospitals, and remove the charge on the patient for drugs. It would provide free hearing aids, artificial limbs and other surgical appliances; free dental services for children and students to the age of 21, and special education grants for the State Governments. A new housing programme and more generous assistance for the arts do not by any means exhaust the catalogue; and the Labour Party still manages to suggest the possibility of cuts in taxation. Mr Calwell put the modest price of 300 million dollars on this programme and said each item had been carefully costed—a claim which the “ Sydney “ Morning Herald ” rejected out of hand as “ com- " pletely untrue ”. The cost, said the newspaper, quoting carefully prepared estimates, could not be less than 600 million dollars a year and might go as high as 750 million dollars; Mr Calwell, making his last bid for office at 70, was trying to bribe his way there “ more recklessly than ever before ”. No doubt promises on such a scale will attract some support. But voters, however apathetic during an election campaign, are ant to make their own realistic aopraisals. Saturday's poll is likely to reflect a hardheaded understanding among the Australian public that social benefits, no less than the priceless benefit of national security, must be paid for the hard way—out of the taxpayers’ pockets.