AUSTRALIA TO-DAY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3291, 11 April 1917, Page 24

AUSTRALIA TO-DAY.

(From Oue Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, March 28. When the second ballots are complete and tho predilections of tho nine soldier members known, it will probably be found that the state of parties, in the Now South Wales Parliament will be: Nationalists 58, Labour 32. In other words, the P.L.L. Party will have increased its numbers by 10, which is only a fraction of what it expected to do when, in response to its clamour, a general election was held. Honours wore even in the city mid suburbs. Th:» Nationalists hu-vo obtained their majority in the country electorates. An analysis of the voting gives the following totals:—For the Nationalists, 290,000; Labourites. 247,003; Independents, or difficult to distribute, 41.C00. On a basis _of ?rorortional representation, and assuming hat tho 41,000 'lndependents, etc are eaually divided, tho Nationalists would have 49 seats end tho Labourites 41 in a House of 90. . Whichever way the matter is regarded, however, the fact remains that the State which dismissed tho conscription proposa with so pronounced a- majority has voted for tho pro-conscription Nationalists as against the anti-conscriptiaA Political Labour League. The fact \ha.t Labour WiJ trying to Introduce conscription sentiment into tho election made it difficult to forecast the result. The result has proved to be exactly what might have been expected had the" conscription issue been ignored. The Nationalists are a combination ot Liberals and Moderate Labourites against the Extreme Labourites; consequently a considerable section of Labour votes went with tho Moderate Labourites to the Nationalists. Although the P.L.L men roared their fury whenever their body was associated with the 1.W.W., the electors could see a sinister connection, and that fact, above all others, has probably ended the domination of the Labour machine in this State for 6ome years. The casual reader may well ask how. in these circumstances, the discredited P.L.L. received so large a total of votes. Is this a true representation of public sentiment in New South Wales? There are several factors which, when explained, remove the sig- * nificance of the vote against the Nationalists. First, the P.L.L., quite unfairly carried the Labour banner, although all the men who have hitherto led Labour in State elections were with the Nationalists. "Vote Labour" is a religion among a great mass of people in New South Wales—a course followed with a slavishness and a lack of independence of mind that New Zealandcrs would find incredible, and yet proved often enough by the type of men put into the Australian Parliaments, This section of voters, of course, supported tho P.L.L. Then among tho more intelligent people there is a bitter prejudice either against Mr Holman and all his works or against the pact which resulted in the fusion of the Holman and Liberal Parties. These people either voted spitefully against the Nationalists or did not vote at all. The poll, comparatively, was a small one. Le6S than 50 per cent, of the people on the roll •exercised their vote, and it is obvious enough that the P.L.L. aroused all its supporters to voting pitch. Tho other underground factor which affected, the election, apart from the anti-conscription sentiment, was the Boman Catholic vote. There is no doubt that this was excited against the Nationalists, and that in some electorates it had a pronounced effect. Only two prominent opponents of the x P.L.L. machine lost their seats in remarkable circumstances. Mr Meagher, the Speaker and Lord Mayor, lost the Phillip seat, which ho has held easily for many vears. He was beaten by aMr Doyle, president of the P.L.L. Mr Meagher is a very prominent Roman Catholic, but, owing to his attikide on oonscription, he lost the sympathy of the Church, as well as suffering • expulsion; along with Mr Holman and Others, from tho P.L.L. He did not join the Nationalists, but remained an Independent. A campaign of incredible virulence was waged against him by a combination of extreme- Labourites, aiiti-conscrip-tionists, and Roman Catholics, and he went under. But Mr Meagher has never lacked courage, and in a newspaper interview he has flagellated the men who fought against him by underhand methods. He will probably soon be again heard of in politics. Had he chosen to oppose conscription there is no question that he would have been leader of the State Labour Party to-day, and a future Premier. Tho other remarkable defeat was that of the ex-Premier and sturdy democrat, Mr M'Gowan, who had represented Redforn for a lifetime. He had supported conscription—he would not " desert his bovs at the front," he said, — but no one believed that the constituency which he had fought for for so long, even although it comprised a large _ area of slums, would desert him. He himself was confined to bed, tho result of a buggy accident in Tasmania, but friends worked hard on his behalf It was no use. A youth whom he had personally befriended, an ex-pupil of the-Sunday school of which he is tho superintendent, beat him •by a majority of thousands. REPUDIATION OF OONSCRIPTION.

Among all the political unpleasantnesses of Australia there will be nothing which the future historian will regard more unhappily than the present scramble of the wrangling politicians to repudiate' conscription. Before October 28, the ardent men who supported the system said it stood for a fcacred principle, based on loyalty, duty, and honour. On October 23 it was refused —denied by a combination of Anarchists, Labour bosses, pro-Germans, misled democrats, and timorous young men and old women. A million electors voted for it, inspired by motives that the most bigoted zealot dire not question : some 60,000 more electors voted against it ; And so public-spirited men and women went wearily forth again in quest of recruits. Oneo more they told the noisy youths of Footscriy and Woolloomooloo, and the tennis-playing sons of landed families that "their King and country needed them," and they reminded the racecourse habitues of their fellows' supreme sacrifice on the frozen plains of Plainly, but it was like holding a crucifix before the German beasts in Northern France. .Sir Ernest Shackleton stood before a huge recruiting meeting and urged young Australia to find its soul, and some thousands of men listened to him uncomprehendingly. At the end. eeven recruits came forward ! And some of them were obviously unfit. Australia is now providing less than one-third of the reinforcements asked for. And what of the ardent politicians who urged the equitable system of conscription? Are they hurrying, in view of these later developments, to convince Australia that she

was mistaken? Thoso who hoped so knew not tho salary-loving politician of Australia. Mr Holman and other leaders of the NewSouth Wales National Government, greatly fearing tho revival of tho anti-conscription howl, declared most emphatically that the conscription proposal was dead, and that they would oppose its resuscitation. They aro now comfortably back in office. Mr Hughes and his associates, who formerly stood forth as the apostles of conscription, finding themselves faced with a general election, and believing that they must choose between principles and office, have unhesitatingly abandoned principle. • They havo assured the bigots, and the old women and the timorous that they will not seek to escape the people's verdict on conscription. A very vigorous leading articlo in the Ago presents tho view of what may yet prove to be tho majority of Australians: "Britain calls continuously for our support —a Britain menaced with an' accession of perils and imminently faced with a military campaign of unprecedented magnitude. Why is it that tho people of Australia are behaving so Callously and displaying an improvidence so utterly insensate? The answer Is to bo found in the fact that they are in the grip of two opposing political factions, each of which impudently calls itself a ' Win the War Party,' but neither of which has found courage to formulate a- policy bearing tho least relation to the war. We can help Britain in one way only —by providing her with troops. We can provide her with troops _in one way only: by accepting and enforcing tho principle of universal service. These are axiomatic verities which can neither be disputed nor disproved. Yet Fusion and Labour are both going to the country out-shouting eacff other in the repudiation of national service. What wonder, then, that tho people are disregarding their duty and blinding themselves to the true significance of the happenings in Europe? Both Fusion and Labour fear and hate the issue of conscription. But the issue must be raised, for it involves the fate and welfare of the Commonwealth. Of all tho issues that can and will be debated in the approaching contest it is the most important, the most vital—the one which it is most absolutely essential we should review and re-decide."

Last week, in Sydney, Mr Hughes made a statement which distinctly conveyed the impression that he accepted the people's verdict on conscription as final, find that he was done with the matter. Last night, at Bendigo. ho said: "The Govern -vent accepts the verdict of tho people as given on October 28. It will not enforce, or attempt to enforce, conscription, either by regulation or statute, during tho life of the forthcoming- Parliament. If, however, the national safety demands it, the question will again be referred to the people." Mr Hughes is like a man who has a ferocious bear by tho tail. He would willingly have no further acquaintance with the animal, and yet, in his personal interests, he considea-s it undesirable to let go.