RIVAL POLICIES IN AUSTRALIA

Southland Times, Issue 24229, 12 September 1940, Page 8

RIVAL POLICIES IN AUSTRALIA

Promises By Labour

Leader

PRIME MINISTER’S STARK APPEAL

SYDNEY, September 5.

The leaders of the two main Australian political parties—Mr R. G. Menzies (U.A.P.) and Mr J. Curtin (Labour) —have delivered their policy speeches for the election on September 21. Mr Menzies has made no glittering promises—Mr Curtin a lot of them —■ though both insist on full use of the nation’s resources in Australia’s war effort.

Mr Curtin was far more moderate than many members of his party had hoped for, and attacked the Government on only well-established and traversed grounds of criticism. It contained. little to warrant hopes of galvanic leadership. Abolition of petrol rationing, increase of the soldier’s basic rate of pay from 5/- to 8/- a day, and a higher guaranteed price for wheatgrowers were among the items that were obviously bids for votes. In taxation, he promised a transference of part of the heavier war-time burdens from the working class and middlerange incomes to those on the higher scale. Monetary policy included nationalization of banking and interest rates. Social legislation promised included increases in old-age and widows’ pensions, and family allowances. LABOUR’S BID FOR VOTES Despite Mr Curtin’s emphasis of Labour's “inflexible support of the British cause,” Mr Menzies stated that his chief impression of Mr Curtin’s speech was that there really was not a war on, and that consequently the bidding for votes with promises of individual money in hand was going on merrily. “When will the Labour Party realize,” Mr Menzies added, “that our security in what we already have depends entirely on winning the war, and that that is the job which requires the whole of our concentration?”

In spite of its promises of brighter and better days—promises the average man regards in war time as Utopian—the response from all sections has been lukewarm. The man in the street is suspicious of the story that Mr Curtin told, . He is asking: “How, with the burden of war-time finance upon us, can Mr Curtin carry out promises which would be lavish even in peacetime?” There is a widespread belief that the glowing offers Mr Curtin holds out are merely an expression of the catch-cries and political methods which the public in the last few months has shown that it is anxious to discard.

MR MENZIES’S FRANK DEALING

Mr Menzies’s policy speech, in contrast with his rival’s, was a stark, austere, appeal for “a clear and unambiguous authority” to fight the war and win it. He said that the policy of the Government was to organize on a just basis of equality of individual sacrifice all Australian resources so that every ounce of effort should be exerted for Australia’s own safety, the freedom of the British Empire, and the future of the world.

Reiterating his offer for a National Government, Mr Menzies said that, if returned to power, he would continue to do all he could to induce Labour “to share on a full and fair basis the responsibilities of government, and to present to our common enemies a united national front.” The choice for the electors was whether at this stage authority was to be left with his Government or handed over “to a party or group of parties, largely inexperienced in administration, with mixed ideas about the war, and confused and everchanging policies in relation to its conduct.”

“Our policy has no subtleties or reservations,” Mr Menzies said. “It means an all-in war effort, and each man doing his bit, with increased taxes, reduced imports and fewer luxuries.”

Search fails to reveal in the policy enunciated a single political pretext or lavish promise customary at election time to beguile electors. Everything is staked on the broad and paramount promise to subordinate everything, including mystic formulae, to the prosecution of the war. It may be a poor attempt to woo the electorate, but the sincerity that scorns use of political subterfuge has won widespread approval. PRAISE FOR LEADERSHIP Indeed, the speech has done much to defeat the criticism that had arisen, especially in Sydney, of Mr Menzies’s leadership. For instance, The Sydney Morning Herald, one of the severest critics, praises the speech as an “utterance which will greatly enhance ■ Mr Menzies’s reputation and strengthen his claim to the war-time leadership of the nation.

“The Prime Minister,” the paper adds, “called on the Australian people to face the stark realities of war, to refuse to believe that the hard, rough road before them could be smoothed by political devices, and to choose their future leaders with an honest appraisement of what their choice involved. This frank dealing is suited to the mood of the electors today. For hundreds of thousands of voters, party catch-cries and posturings have lost their meaning. They know well enough the danger confronting then - country.”