NO COALITION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22398, 20 October 1934, Page 23

NO COALITION

AUSTRALIAN PARTIES TENSE FEELING (From Oue own (..okkesi’ondent.) SYDNEY, October 11. There is general regret at the failure of the negotiations instituted by the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons) with the idea of forming a composite Government in which the United Australia Party and the United Country Party would have Cabinet representation. As a result of the recent Federal elections the U.A.P. no longer has an absolute majority in the House of Representatives although it is still by far the strongest party, The move for a coalition was made in the hope that a thoroughly stable Government would be able to continue the work of reconstruction, so ably started under the leadership of Mr Lyons. However, when the Country Party met in Sydney this week it was clear that the animosity displayed before the elections towards ' the U.A.P. had not disappeared, and even though the differences of opinion do not appear, on the surface, to be very great, the Country Party made demands that were summarily rejected by the Prime Minister.

The blame for the failure of the negotiations must be accepted by the Country Party, which has lost many friends because of its attitude. At the same time it is felt that Mr Lyons was a little hasty in declaring that he would not consider the position any further, but would proceed to form a Ministry from his own followers alone. At the elections the people very definitely declared for a policy upon all the main principles of which the two non-Labour parties were agreed. ' On matters of finance, unemployment, foreign trade and the rehabilitation of the primary industries there is no dispute, and it is suggested that these are big enough to command a unity of effort. The alternative to a composite Ministry is a state of political uncertainty, which might prejudice the industrial and commercial recovery of Australia. The Labour parties can be depended upon to make the most of the situation, and it is conceivable that they might succeed in bringing about the defeat of the Government at any time. „ The point on which the negotiations broke down is not quite clear, but it may have concerned the demand by the Country Party for four portfolios, instead of the three offered by Mr Lyons. The United Australia Party has 32 mcm'bers against the 15 of the Country Party, and it is open to question whether the Country Party’s demand was a reasonable one. It might be that the demand, that the leader of the Country Party should be the Deputy Prime Minister was the stumbling block. In support of this demand it is pointed out that Dr Page has had a wide experience in Federal politics as a member of the Eruce-Page Government, and that this should warrant his appointment to the senior portfolio. On tariff matters the demands of the Country Party seem to be more reasonable than, generally expected, and these should not have caused the breach. The Country Party asked that there should be an inquiry by ’he Tariff Board into the wisdom of a degree of Protection in certain industries which, it claimed, added unduly to the cost of other industries and was not justified by the amount of production or of employment that was gained. The soundest protectionist, it is pointed out, could uot take exception to such a request. The sudden collapse of the negotiations has left a rather tense feeling which will not help to establish confidence. The Country Party is bound _to resort to bargaining tactics, which might seriously embarrass the Federal Government. One of the leaders oT (ho Country Party has already said that the party will obtain more by remaining out of the Cabinet than by entering it. In advocating its own particular policy the Country Party will always be on sain grounds, for it will have no Cabinet responsibility. Australia will hope that the Country Party does not abuse the power it has gained by being given the balance of power.