SEEN FROM OUTSIDE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 108, 8 May 1923, Page 6

SEEN FROM OUTSIDE

For eight years Mr. W. M. Hughes was Prime Minister in Australia, and for many years before that he was fighting in the front rank. His fighting days are not over, but he has taken off his armour for a spell, and now stands aside to review the battle. He knew the Labour Party from the inside and the National organisation from the inside, so that he may justly claim special knowledge when he writes of both from the outside. He has done so in the Sydney "Daily Telegraph," and his article is of more than passing interest. In the first place, he declares that he is not going abroad to fill high office, nor is he engaged in political intrigue. He believes that there is yet work for him to do in politics. He stands for Australia, and as the National Party in its principles and platform declares for those things he considers essential for Australian welfare he will continue to support it so long as it gives effect to those principles. Having made this declaration he proceeds to review the records of the parties, and his review shows that he considers the qualification attached to his promise of support is not merely formal and empty. In the Nationalist camp, he says, there is danger from reactionaries who wish to get back to the "good old days" which were in truth very bad days for all but themselves. The best organisers for the Bolsheviks are the reactionaries.

The danger within the Labour camp he regards as even greater. He does not accuse the rank.and file of having changed their views, but they have allowed extremists to obtain control. In the old days the Labour Party stood firmly for Australia. It pressed forward along constitutional paths, redressing ailcient wrongs, levelling the walls of privilege, and opening wider the gates of opportunity for all. Frankly for the under-dog, it yet did not preach class warfare. "It stood for the rights of the Empire, as it did for the rights of its own people. Its wagon -was hitched to a star, but its feet were firmly planted on solid earth." All these things, Mr. Hughes maintains, have been lost.

Here, then (he writes), is a. party led by men who are "Internationalists"— whatever that may mean—at heart; who at best are giving lip service to the Empire; who talk about a White Australia but worship at the shrine of the Soviet whose citadels are ringed about with Mongolian mercenaries; who stand for the,- class-war and force in place of tlie rule of law ; who have thrown over Parliament and. Responsible Government, and who preach false economic doctrines that must eventually destroy the material prosperity and undermine the character of the Australian people. He excludes the Parliamentary leaders from his condemnation, which is directed against those who really control the party. Whether that control can be changed again he does not say; but he holds that until it is the Labour Party must continue to lose the confidence of the people. The dangers which he outlines are the dangers which also face New Zealand. Here we have a Labour Party dominated by extremists who are "Internationalists" at heart and who cannot, until they change their views, command the confidence of the great bulk of the New Zealand people. Here also we have the danger from reactionaries. The majority of the people stand neither for reactionary doctrines nor revolutionary extremism '; neither for class privilege nor class war; and the future lies with the party which eschews both reactionary and extremist control and appeals to the people on a platform which .will promote the welfare of all.