The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1929 BRUCE AND THE SPIDER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 765, 11 September 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1929 BRUCE AND THE SPIDER

THE legend about Robert the Bruce and the spider has been reversed in the Federal Parliament of Australia. Instead of the spider’s fall inspiring the Bruce to try and try again for triumph, the spider caused the downfall of the uncrowned “Kingof Canberra.” But since that kind of metaphor might wound the susceptibilities of the principals in Australia’s greatest Parliamentary sensation for some years, it had better be replaced with plain words. A snap vote on a hostile amendment to the Government’s drastic Bill providing for the abolition of the Federal Arbitration Court brought about the defeat of the Bruce-Page Ministry by the irreducible minimum majority. The irony of the Opposition’s snatched and narrow victory lurked in the unpleasant fact that the Government’s defeat was due to the bitter transition from old friendships to malevolent enmity. The attack was hurled at the Administration by Mr. William Morris Hughes, a rebel Nationalist, and it was completed by Lieutenant-Commander W. if. Marks, hitherto considered to be one of the Nationalists least likely to desert his chief in a crisis. But then, Mr. Marks also always has been a friend of Mr. Hughes, and since both use or have used an acousticon for listening to acrid debates, perhaps a bond of sympathy made old friendships stronger than the new. In any ease the Prime Minister was politically betrayed by rebellious and disloyal members of his own clan. It is not surprising to learn that the intransigeant Nationalists caused a sensation and an uproar by the method and moment of their malicious foray against their own party. The Bruce-Page Government had every reason for anticipating a win in a crucial test. After the general election last year it resumed administrative office with a comfortable majority. The composite party mustered 30 Nationalists and 12 Country members, against the Labour Opposition with a solid voting strength of 31 members, plus two free lances, or rail-sitters Or even wobblers, one calling himself a Progressive and the other claiming to be an Independent. Discontent in the Nationalist camp this year, however, led to the expulsion of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Mann, and obviously has occasioned the spirit of revolt among others. The House of Representatives contains 75 members; only 69 members voted on Mr. Hughes’s disruptive amendment. In any ease, the singular Bruce-Page Ministry has been reduced to that stage of defeat and humiliation which leaves a Prime Minister without an alternative to quick resignation. Mr. Bruce apparently believes that he possesses the right to seek an immediate dissolution of Parliament with the privilege of contesting an emergency election as the Government Party—an advantageous position. This belief already has been challenged, not officially as yet, but speculatively by avid and probably wistful partisans. The latest reports from Australia foreshadow Mr. Bruce’s resignation today, and cover all the conjecture as to whether the Governor-General will grant a dissolution forthwith or send for either Mr. Hughes or Mr. J. H. Scullin, Leader of the Labour Opposition, to form a Ministry and carry on the administration of the Commonwealth. It would be foolish to predict with any pretence at accuracy the outcome of a dramatic political situation. Many piquant possibilities arise for speculative consideration. If Mr. Hughes were called on to form a new Ministry, which party banner would the ambitious little man raise as an appeal for electoral favour? Nationalist or Labour? He has led parties under each standard, and both have felt on different and numerous occasions that they have had enough of his leadership and mercurial peculiarities of temperament and tactics. Doubtless Mr. Hughes himself could be happy under any party banner provided it were held aloft over him as Prime Minister. His natui-al place in polities is among the Socialists, but they may not he willing in any circumstances to throw over their own leader, Mr. Scullin, who is a competent captain of the Labour guard. Meanwhile, the tranquillity of Mr. Bruce has been disturbed violently and viciously by an old friend who has become an implacable enemy. THE CALL OF THE PACIFIC AS a member of Parliament Mr. A. Harris, of Waitemata, has the cardinal virtue of enthusiasm. In the cause of the Harbour Bridge, Summer Time, and many matters of purely local interest, he has been an ardent and enterprising campaigner. But it is doubtful if there will be wide endorsement of his belief that it is time another Parliamentary delegation paid a visit to the Pacific island dependencies. His solicitude for the welfare of subjects in those remote places may be wholly admirable. Yet such intense regard on the part of any member of Parliament might he better demonstrated if the particular member paid a visit in a private capacity. Without the possibly embarrassing presence of party overlords, he could then conduct his inquiries and investigations with the utmost freedom. There would, too, be less risk that, on arrival at Samoa, he might be mobbed by the Man. After all, even the Mau must have its principles, and an M.P. travelling alone, and detached from all the imposing panoply and splendour of Parliament, is far too isolated and defenceless to be a fit target for noble rage. It is possible that on massed excursions business may be combined with pleasure. Yet there remains a lingering suspicion that the visit of the "last Parliamentary delegation to the Islands made a remarkably inconspicuous contribution to The solution of administrative embarrassments and difficulties. Such an impartial observer as Sir Apirana Ngata even voices the belief that the seed of subsequent dissension in Samoa was plaj 'ed when the Mokoia took her happy freight to the Islands on the last Pacific picnic. Though this might seem a gross slander on the capacity of the excursionists for leisured statesmanship, the fact remains that, if there was dissatisfaction in Samoa before the obliging New Zealand members of Parliament paid their “goodwill call.” it was not manifest in the acute and unpleasant manner since exhibited. If Sir Apirana Ngata bolds such crushing views as these, his influence as Minister in Charge of the Cook Islands should preclude the possibility of another similar excursion. Quite apart from the prospective return that the country and the Islands would secure if members were treated to another outing in the Pacific, the finances of the Dominion should for some years yet be reserved for efforts from which a genuine return is better assured. There have been many other Parliamentary delegations sent on tour in New Zealand. One of them was taken up to the “roadless North,” wliic-h is still in much the same roadless condition as it was when the delegation enjoyed its trip. Naturally the elector will appreciate the urge which leads members to cast about for some means of filling the recess to the country’s advantage. But the Island trip has been done once, and it is time for a display of originality. Why not a trip to Sydney—to see the Harbour Bridge?