AUSTRALIAN UNITY: ONE MORE CHANCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 80, 1 October 1940, Page 6

AUSTRALIAN UNITY: ONE MORE CHANCE

In any circumstances, a General Election held in time of war is regrettable, though it may be necessary. But when a General Election held in wartime produces indecisive results indicative of a possible second General Election —which in

turn may prove indecisive —common sense naturally revolts against such a piling on of the agony. A single dose of General Election medicine in wartime may not be beyond endurance; a double dose would put a double tax upon war-effort, without much prospect of any gain to democracy. Moreover, in the peculiar case of Australia, where the different methods of electing the two Chambers (the Senate and the House of Representatives) incur the possibility of a Government majority in one and an Opposition majority in the other, the drastic cure of a "double dissolution" is prescribed by the Constitution, which aims to end the deadlock by sending both Chambers again to the electors. The result of operating this clause of the Constitution would be a General Election over again on an even bigger scale, since it would include the full 36 Senate seats instead of half of them. Yet the added fraction would constitute no guarantee that the even results marring the first General Election would be absent from the second.

Acceptance by the Official Labour Party of a liberal number of seats (reported to be five) in the Menzies Cabinet (representing United Australia and Country Parties) would have avoided the General Election recently held. Had Official Labour accepted Mr. Menzies's offer, the result would have been, in effect, a National Government. Unfortunately, Official Labour refused the offer, hoping that the General Election would give Official Labour a clear majority. This the General Election has not done. It has, however, reduced the Government majority, and is producing such a state of parties as will give no party —if Mr. Menzies's anticipations of the election figures are correct — "such a majority as will give that party clear authority and power." Assuming the Prime Minister's anticipations of the final state of parties to be correct, it follows that Official Labour's refusal of the Menzies pre-election offer has not given Official Labour power, and has not completely wiped out the Government's majority, but has left all parties comparatively powerless. Yet even in the face of this evidence of the divided state of popular opinion as recorded by ballot, it is cabled that Official Labour's participation in a National Government is improbable. Mr. Menzies is, however, doing his duty by again taking the initiative to the extent of inviting the two leaders of the two sections of Labour (Mr. Curtin, Leader of Official Labour, and Mr. Beasley, Leader of Non-Communist Labour) to a conference with himself and the Country Party Leader (Mr. Cameron) to consider the forming of a National Government or any other co-operative step to stability. A former Leader of the Country Party, Sir Earle Page, has sunk former antagonisms in a call for an all-Australian Government, which would have power to take such big steps as making available, to the" United States navy, Australian bases. The more countries like Japan lean to one-partyism, the more rigid grow democratic party divisions. Is this, in a critical time, good democracy? Sir Earle Page thinks not. Any sensible person thinks not. Bui partyism loves to stick in its old ruts.