THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1929. AUSTRALIAN ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20385, 14 October 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1929. AUSTRALIAN ELECTION.

The general election held in the Commonwealth was claimed to be concerned with one issue only, whether the Federal Arbitration Court should be abolished, leaving the Commonwealth with jurisdiction over the maritime industries alone. If the decision of the elector really has been confined to this single question, the verdict, on the present state of the count, is sufficiently decisive. The returns are not yet by any means complete. By the time counting ceased on Saturday night there were still votes to enumerate, and, in accordance with the electoral system, preferences to distribute in constituencies contested by more than two candidates. Yet, though the labours of returning officers are far from finished, enough is known to show not only a vote completely adverse to the industrial proposals Mr. Bruce had made, but a sensational "landslide" against the Nationalist-Country Ministry. On the present figures the Government is defeated, casualties among Ministers themselves have been heavy, Mr. Bruce has had a desperate fight for his own scat, with the result not yet certain. The Labour Party appears assured of returning to power with a majority sufficient to leave it independent of any outside support. Its long sojourn in the wilderness, uninterrupted since the disruption over the conseriotion issue in 1915-16, is ended. A sweeping change such as occurred in NewZealand last year, in Great Britain a few months ago, and, to a smaller extent, in South Africa recently, has now been witnessed in Australia. There was a further precedent for it, nearer at hand, in the Queensland election of May, when a Government —a Labour Government this time—fell after holding office for 14 years continuously. The Bruce-Page Administration has followed a welltrodden path.

Next to the actual outcome of the election as affecting parties and the fate of the Government, interest has centred on Mr. W. M. Hughes and his four associates by whose action the Government suffered a defeat in Parliament. Mr. Hughes moved the hostile amendment, the other four supported it, and so the way was prepared for an appeal to the country. The five have all been returned with substantial majorities. Mr. Hughes won North Sydney by a margin that leaves nothing to be argued. The Nationalists sent Dr. Nott, a fighter held in high esteem, who has to his credit a sensational win over Mr. E. G. Theodore in 1925, to oppose Mr. Hughes. The Labour Party did not contest the seat officially, but thero were two other candidates of Labour leanings. Mr. Hughes has triumphed over them all, showing conclusively that his fighting qualities have not diminished with the passing years. If, as has been alleged by opponents, he had struck at the Nationalist Party in revenge for his deposition from the leadership in 1922, he is amply revenged. In addition, he is assured of his seat in Parliament again in circumstances that amount to a personal triumph. Yet it is not apparent that Mr. Hughes has done himself any good, if, as has been further suggested, his aim was a return to office under any conditions he could obtain. When he was the head of a movement that wrecked a party during the war, he came out of the upheaval with the office of Prime Minister firmly in his grasp. He has repeated the first half of the performance in 1929. He says the result of the election has loosened the grip of the paity machine; it has not, however, affected the Labour Party machine in any appreciable way. It was assumed that Mr. Hughes hoped to bargain with Labour after the election. On present appearances Labour has no need to bargain with anybody, and can scarcely be imagined making voluntary offers to Mr. Hughes. He has achieved his proclaimed purpose by playing a leading part in the defeat of Mr. liruce's proposals, but he has not remoulded his own future so far as can be seen at the present time.

In this election Australia lias again rejected an attempt 'to alter drastically the industrial laws as administered liy the Commonwealth and the States. The exact position is very complicated, for little adjustment of it is possible without an amendment of the Constitution. Any proposal lo this end must he submitted to a direct vote of the people, and the history of the referendum since (lie date of federation shows that the chances are heavily against success when any question is put to the test. Mr. Bruce tried, in 102."), lo have the powers of the Commonwealth extended in the industrial field. Feeling on the question crossed party lines. Some sections of the Labour Party advised the electors to vote "Yes," some Nationalists urged a negative vote. The outcome was definite rejection of the issues submitted. The legislation he introduced this year was in the opposite direction. Jt

amounted to an abandonment of powers the Commonwealth could exercise but was not bound to, hence it did not call for a referendum. Mr. Bruce claimed that it was already approved by implication, through the defeat of the 1025 proposals. The country has denied this, leaving a further inference, that it prefers to have things left as they arc. Nobody suggests, however, that their present condition is satisfactory; there has been, indeed, a great amount of direct complaint about the confusion and overlapping consequent on the existence of both State and Federal awards. Yet one moro attempt to regularise the position has ended in complete failure. In the excitement of a change of Government this fact will probably be forgotten for a time, but the problem of the industrial laws will emerge again, the election just held having contributed nothing positive toward its solution.