BREAKING UP?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21146, 2 October 1930, Page 10

BREAKING UP?

AUSTRALIAN PARTY. MR HUGHES’S FIRE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) ; ’ SYDNEY, September 18. There were many who predicted that Mr Walter Marks, one of the breakaways froto the Nationalists before the last Federal election, would not for long be content with the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Mr W. M. Hughes, who brought into being the Australian Party. This party, according to its founder, would sweep . the polls because of its non-party character, which sounds as paradoxical as it really ie. Petty jealousies and disputes have crept into its councils to make it appear erroneous to suggest that it stood for Australia first. Mr Hughes is. still as fiery as ever. Advancing age has not slowed down his brain or made him any the less willing for a fight. He showed that when he issued a booklet condemning all the home truths that had been uttered by Sir Otto Niemeyer. It was because of this book that he lost his right-hand man, Mr Walter Marks, and the loss has come at a time when stalwarts can ill be spared, for the Australian Party is just entering on its first real fight with the commencement of the New South Wales general election cdmpaign. The defection will have serious results for the party, for above all things there was need for it to show that it was united and in earnest. The statement issued by Mr Marks best explains Ms action. Here it is:— “1 voted against the Bruce-Page Government because it intended to evacuate the field of Federal arbitration without a mandate from ’ the people, and also because this matter was not brought before the party. The same applies to the prosecution of the late Mr John Brown and also to the withdrawal ofthat prosecution. They did not-come before the party. Mr Hughes has erred in the same manner. As one of the founders of the Australian Party I had no knowledge whatsoever of the advent of his booklet, ‘Bond or Free.’ Though I was with him in Melbourne throughout last week at the Australian Party’s first Victorian conference, and when the booklet was being published in Sydney, he never mentioned the matter to myself or to the conference. Whilst agreeing with many of his contentions, there are several others on which I cannot'follow him, more especially the bitter, satirical, personal attack on Sir Otto Niemeyer, a distinguished guest of our Commonwealth. “I do not agree with all of Sir Otto’s contentions, but he was our guest. The same applies to certain references in the booklet td England herself and to the Bank of England. It is not sporting, and without a doubt it is non-Austra-lian. In short, the position is "hot of my making. I was in no way conferred with, and so cannot be bound to follow the lead set. I will still continue as in the past-to work for all the people and not for any one section.” He had not considered whether he would rejoin the National Party.