AUSTRALIAN ELECTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23044, 21 November 1936, Page 28

AUSTRALIAN ELECTION

UNEXPECTED PROPOSAL OPPOSITION FROM MEMBERS (From Our Own Correspondent; SYDNEY, Nov. 11. The news has leaked out that the Federal Government is planning a House of Representatives election next March (when the Marketing Laws Constitution referendum will be taken), although the life of the present Parliament is not due to end until December, 1937. An amazing situation has developed as a result of the premature disclosure of the proposal for a rush election. On the one hand, the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons) is regarded as having practically committed himself to sending the House of Representatives to the country; on the other, almost unanimous opposition to this course is expressed by the Parliamentary United Australian Party and also by the bulk of the Country Party, and the majority of Cabinet professes complete ignorance of an election move.' Feeling is growing among members of all parties and in public organisations that there is no reasonable excuse for taking the House of Representatives to an election in March. It is emphasised, first, that for no reason other than political the proposal aims to cut the life of Parliament by nine months, and, secondly, that the Serrate cannot be taken to the country earlier than 12'months before retiring senators vacate their seats, and as the next retiring batch of senators will not end their term until June 30, 1938, the country will be faced with two Federal polls within 15 months. Prominent New South _ Wales Ministerial members maintained that not only would a pre-Corona-tion election, held concurrently with the marketing referendum, prejudice the success of the referendum, but would also tend to divert public attention from the real political issue. “ The Coronation is an Em-pire-wide ceremony of a patriotic character,” a leading member of the U.A.P. said. “It will be a historic occasion for a display of loyalty and devotion to the Throne, and has no political significance whatever.”

The Country Party.leader (Dr Earle Page) favours an election, as he believes that his party has nothing to lose and perhaps something to gain by it. Yet, when the early election proposal was first mooted some time ago by New South Wales members at a party meeting it was laughed to scorn and Mr Lyons was moved to deny publicly the likelihood of such a thing. Apparently there has been much activity behind the scenes since then. Those Ministers who have not been admitted to the confidence of the Cabinet “Inner Group” are resentful of the apparent decision to proceed with plans for dissolution of the House of Representatives without their knowledge. Members are even more resentful, particularly those who consider that they may lose their seats —incidentally nearly 12 months’ salary. There is a definite fear In the U.A.P. that an early appeal to the people, allied with the marketing referendum, would benefit the Country Party at their expense. Influential U.A.P. members express the view that semi-industrialised seats would be thrown away to the Laboua Party on the marketing issue. The net result of this, they claim, might be to change the balance of power as between the Ministerial parties or at least so to reduce the, predominance of the U.A.P. as to necessitate a larger Country Party representation in the Cabinet. . , A Country Party objection which is echoed by some U.A.P. members is raised on the ground that the chances of carrying referendum, especially in metropolitan areas, would be jeopardised by linking it with a general election and so involving it with political issues. It is also claimed that if the referendum fails —as is widely feared—it would not only seriously affect the Government’s prospects of success, but would deprive the Government of a strong election plea later that the Commonwealth’s efforts to assist marketing were baulked by Labour opposition. At the moment it seems to be a trial of strength between those who believe that the marketing referendum would be a millstone about the neck of U.A.P. hopes, and those who think it will enhance the Government’s chances of remaining afloat.