N.S.W. POLITICS.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16780, 23 April 1926, Page 8

N.S.W. POLITICS.

CHARGE AGAINST NATIONALISTS. in XT TO COUNTRY PARTY'. Tim Nationalists defeated llm Abolilion Mill 1 1 y ‘The most disgraceful treachery in the political history of flic Siule." according to llm Premie! 1 (says a Sydney paper). In a statement Mr Rang a.lso ldnled that the Nationalist election campaign is aimed largely at (he Country Party. “Mr Ravin's announcement that he is about lo organise tlm Nationalist forces throughout the country centres will lie, interesting tidings lo his friends of tlm Country Party,” said Mr Rang. "That intensive organisation is necessary is shown lay the fact that in a representative Assembly of ninety members Hie Nationalists can claim only thirty-three supporters at most, it is a pitiable position to be in, but there it is, as the direct result of three years of Nationalist misrule, extravagance and muddling. For a party placed in such a deplorable position by the electors only nine months ago, to clamour for another general election is surely the very acme of impudence. Apparently Mr Ravin thinks that whenever the Nationalist majority in llm nominee House smothers Labour legislation llm Government should appeal to ihe country. I don’t agree with him. “I think elections once every three, years are as many as tlm public and Urn business community will tolerate. “Apparently .Mr Ravin would have one every few months if Hie nominee House kicked over llm traces, f do not recognise, the rigid, of cither the Leader of the Opposition or Ihe Nationalist nominees to declare when fill election should take place. The Constitution and Parliament are supreme in this matter. “I cannot help smiling at Mr Bavin's mock indignation over the termination of pairs, and my alleged dishonour in uqrging Labour Councillors not to pair vvil.li Nationalists. Seeing that llm Nationalists defeated the Abolition Rill by the most disgraceful treachery in llm, political history of llm Stale I heir claim to be regarded as honourable must disgust every clean-thinking citizen. “Ten members of the nominee House who signed a pledge lo vote for abolition deliberately violated their solemn word of honour, and a leading Nationalist who challenged the Government lo bring in an Abolition Bill—definitely promising to support it—coolly dishonoured his jjrnrnised and voted against the Bill, lias the immaculate Mr Bavin no word of censure for these men? Has he one standard of honour for Nationalists and another for Labourites? And can he tell us what subtle influence made Messrs Bryant and Percival cross tlm floor at the eleventh hour without giving anyone Ihe least indication of their intention?

A Parallel

"Mr Bavin appears In he taking a very keen—anil, nn doubt, wholly ]>af riolin —interest in the internal quarrels ol' the Labour Parly. lie finds that Ihe A.W.li. sec 1 ion am! the so-called Magralh-Tyrrell section were once, at loggeflieads and are now in perfect accord. Jf lie pursues his studies a little further he will lind that a* one time Mr Holman and Air Hughes vilified one another as only experts in mud-slinging can do it. He will find that in the days when Messrs I.amend, Carmichael, and oilier ‘great’ men were connected with the Labour Parly the conferences were no less noisy and acrimonious than to-day. tint it, all comes out in the washing. When alt (he conference wrangles are over the old unity returns, and Labour is as solid as ever. The delegates to Labour conferences did not graduate in schools of etiquette. They come from Ihe farm, the foundry, the factory, the office, the mine and the shearing-shed, ami they carry on their conferences as free men and women, exercising the right to say exactly what they feel

‘‘l lrusl. .Mi' Bavin will enjoy his oryanisin;;' labours. 1 can promise Unit his aclivities will lm carei'ully watched am] bis arirunieiiLs answered.'’