RENEWING THE MANDATE

Evening Post, Issue 67, 17 September 1934, Page 8

RENEWING THE MANDATE

At this stage no more can be said with certainty than that the Lyons Government of Australia has had its mandate renewed. At the time of writing the United Australia and Country Parties have 42 seats, the Scullin and Lang Labour Parties 22, and 10 seats are doubtful. If the doubtful seats are distributed in the same proportions as those already decided the United Australia Party will be by far the strongest single party and stronger also than any other two parties. It can he defeated only by a combination of three parties (and even this is not certain at present); but as such a combination of Country Party, Federal Labour, and Lang Labour is out of the question it need not he seriously considered. What is possible is that, lacking an absolute majority of its own, Mr. Lyons's Government may be worried more than it was in the last Parliament by the necessity of conciliating the Country Party. This will arise, not because there is any chance of Country and Labour acting together against the Government with intent to wreck it, but because skilful political manoeuvring may lead to the Country Party being used by Labour to embarrass the Government.

Of this there is little danger if the Government and the Country Party are wisely and honestly led. On the major principle before the voters in the election the Government and the Country Party were in agreement. They stood together against the socialisation of credit or nationalisation of the banks which was the bait dangled by the Labour Parties. On tariff questions, however, they were not in such complete accord. The Country Party would go much further in the removal of protection than/the Government has been willing to go. But here again there is no prospect of Country and Labour being more nearly of the same mind than Country and Government. Labour inclines more to protection than the Government does. The possibilities of trouble from a three-cornered Parliament, then, can come only if the Country Party thinks to exact too high a price for refraining from voting against the Government. Even this possibility is remote since the Parliament will really be four-cor-nered, and the Country Party, to do ! any damage, must ally itself with [Lang Labour—its opposite corner. Such an alliance must appear to | honest electors as unnatural as a J geometrical attempt to prove that opposite corners make a straight line. The real danger, therefore, of Australia's progressive recovery being retarded hy political disagreements is small. But the position will demand sincerity and straightforwardness in the leaders, with restraint in pressing purely party purposes and a willingness to meet the wishes of others in carrying out a national programme, not subject, to sectional control.

It is interesting to consider how this result may be regarded as pointing to the probabilities from an appeal in New Zealand and what lessons it offers. We think it would be a mistake to consider it a proof that the electors are not ready here for Labour and its radical remedies. In Australia, it must be remembered, Labour had its opportunity to prove what it could do before the depression and in the early years of the trouble. So far as Mr. Scullin was concerned it was shown that he had no magical cure, and Mr. Lang made a mess of his effort. Though voters | have short memories some of them must remember this and be decidedly sceptical of Labour's promises. Jn New Zealand, however, Labour's promises have never been put to the tost, and there are possibly many optimists who ihiuk Jhc^ cquld he

carried' out. Another factor is the existence in Australia of a separate Country Party. Here, except to a limited extent, there is no separate country vote. Generally, we think, country voters are intelligent enough lo see that they obtain more by supporting a Coalition Government which their leaders dominate than by pursuing an independent policy. The danger in this Dominion lies not in a Country Party arising but in a weakening of the Coalition by failure to give reasonable consideration to urban interests. This is unlikely to lead in the meantime lo the growth of a separate urban party, but it may easily lead to a disaffection "of so large a body of town voters that the existence of a Coalition Government may be imperilled. We do not wish to see disunion leading to weakness; but if it is to be avoided there must be a correct appraisement of the value of town and country —not a superficial and one-sided judgment that country interests must be served at all costs on the plea that whatever helps the country is good for the whole Dominion. saying has already had too wide and too careless an interpretation.