The Australian Dispute

Northern Advocate, 15 July 1939, Page 6

The Australian Dispute

't-*HE length to which the Australian workers’ unions are I prepared to go in obstructing national defence has called * forth sharp comment from the Federal Attorney-General, Mr W. M. Hughes, a champion of the workers throughout his life, who says: “Those who object to defending Australia within Australia are not fit for free citizenship.” But the sorry part of this controversy is that the workers’ unions, in the main, dp not object to defending Australia at all. Their transparent object is merely to embarrass the Federal Government, and the fact that to do so they are prepared to sprag the wheels of a campaign for national safety merely illustrates the lack of principle in party politics. The purpose of the proposed National Register is to coordinate the national effort in the event of war and invasion, and the fear of invasion, of course, refers principally to Japan. It is an ironic commentary that the workers’ unions now opposing the National Register, and threatening a calamitous industrial boycott, with all the attendant potentialities for bitterness and trouble, applauded when workers in the steel towns of Port Kembla and Wollongong refused to load iron for shipment to Japan.' . . , „ . A If there is a general boycott of the National Register, the Federal Government will have a small chance of enforcing it. It cannot fine and imprison every worker in the country. It can, however, force an election on this issue. A conclusive result either way would determine popular feeling. It is quite possible that the unions, with their appeal to mass psychology, would carry the day, in which case a Labour Government would have to accept responsibility for the defence of Australia, and would inherit the Very problems which are now proving so embarrassing to Mr Menzies and his colleagues.