The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, July 19, 1941. AUSTRALIA’S EXAMPLE.

Grey River Argus, 19 July 1941, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, July 19, 1941. AUSTRALIA’S EXAMPLE.

It might .be unfair Io the National Parly to deny their sincerity when they base advocacy of a. National Government on an expression of fear lest national unity in the war effort might not survive a general election campaign. It is nevertheless a very weak and unconvincing argument. It betrays a false idea both of the solidarity of the country in the war effort and of the obvious lack' of solidarity outside of the Avar effort that exists in Parliament itself. There has been no instance given by the Opposition in. which the war effort has suffered through the absence of any of their members from the Government. One instance .indeed, might, be given, and one only; but is the very instance which the National Party is anxious that nobody shall mention. This is Ihe refusal of the Leader to enter the "War Cabinet, which has absolute control of Ihe Avar effort. The presence of two former Nationalist leaders in that Cabinet has demonstrated the Government’s eagerness for national unitv in everything that counts icgarding the greatest question of Ihe day, and it can only be assumed that in remaining outside of the War Cabinet the present Opposition Leader has all along his eye upon matters quite apart from the war effort, such as party politics and electioneering objects. So much is confirmed when the speeches of the Nationalists since Parliament resumed are studied. They can find in actual fact no fatJl with Hie Avar effort, but devote themselves to complaints about things Avhich concern z the Government’s internal policy, such as hours of labour, social security, and commodity prices. HoAvever, the public will be apt to make a comparison between this Dominion and the other Hritish Dominions. Avhich have all deemed “national” governments dangerous and unnecessary. Take as an illustration the case of Australia. There the Government is composed of tAvo Parties, and its history, even since before the Avar, has been one of internal quarrels, revolts, and cross-purposes. The Prime .Minister is at the, moment in a most uncertain position, and 1 '.t may reasonably be presumed that in proclaiming his own preference for an administration which would include the Labour Party, his anxiety is to squelch the manoeuvres of politicians who are supposed in the Avar crisis Io he his loyal and devoted I'olloAvers and supporters. Admittedly, our Government has had to face criticism on the score that it has in Avar policv acted somcAvhat drastically, not to say autocratically, but it has always been able in the long run to prove that its alacrity and authority have been exercised with foresight and good results Nobody Avould for a moment question the bona tides of the Australian Government’s Avar effort, hut there is far more chopping, and changing there, with far more complaints of class favouritism in its administration during the Avar period than ever there have been in. this Dominion. Nobody could say that the workers have been favoured hero in a manner inimical to the con-

duct of the Avar, whereas there are workers who are persuaded that the war effort has been borne by thcni to an extent greater than perhaps any other class. There is indeed one ground of dissatisfaction among certain opponents of a distinctively .Labour Administration who are anxious to avoid an election and have instead a National Government. That ground is one not existing yet in Australia, and it is that war profiteering is simply not allowed in New Zealand. This complaint is rampant in Australia and in other Dominions as well. At anyrate, New Zealanders in advance of the general election have in Australia a very good object lesson in the futility and even danger of composite administrations which lack that moral unity which is absolutely necessary to face the unprecedented problems facing every Government at the present moment.