New Hughes Party

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 766, 12 September 1929, Page 9

New Hughes Party

LATEST PLAN IN AUSTRALIA Governor-General Considering BRUCE RECOMMENDS DISSOLUTION (United I*.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) Received 9.5 a.m. SYDNEY, Today. IT is announced that, as a result of the political crisis, an attempt will he made to form a new party consisting of certain Labour Parliamentarians and the dissatisfied section of the Australian Labour Party', to he led by Mr. W. M. Hughes. An official of the Australian Workers’ Union figured prominently in this move.

It is regarded as not unlikely that a lew of Mr. Hughes’s former staunch friends of the National Party, who were expelled from the Labour ranks for advocating conscription during the war, may range themselves behind him. It is practically certain that Mr. Hughes will be ostracised from the National Party, along with the other members who rebelled against the Ministry. Yesterday morning, after a meeting of the National Party at Canberra, the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Bruce, went to Government House and requested the Governor-General, Viscount Stonehaven, to grant a dissolution of Parliament. His Excellency promised to make his decision known later. DECISION AWAITED Subsequently Mr. Bruce announced in the House of Representatives that be had tendered certain advice to the Governor-General, wluo was considering the position. The Prime Minister then secured an adjournment of the House until today when, it is expected, his Excellency's decision will be disclosed. The consensus of opinion among the Nationalists is that those members of Mr. Bruce’s party who crossed the floor of the House last evening to vote with the Opposition, and by so doing wrecked the Government, should be ejected from the party and denied endorsement in the event of a General Election. Lieutenant-Commander W. M. Marks, Nationalist member for Wentworth, whose last-minute defection caused a sensation, explained yesterday that a plank in the party’s platform permits freedom of speech and action. If Mr. Hughes had not moved for the postponement of the abolition of the Arbitration Court he would have taken that course himself. HUGHES CALLED WRECKER

The crisis is the subject of lively discussion in all parts of Australia. The majority of the influential daily newspapers are standing behind Mr. Bruce and his Ministry in their action in seeking a dissolution. The remainder of the newspapers express the opinion that the Prime Minister was ill-advised in attempting to abolish the arbitration system without a special mandate from the people. The Melbourne “Argus” remarks that Mr. Hughes must now take the

responsibility for liis action. “Pie is a leader without a following,” it saj's, “a wrecker with no power to reconstruct.” Mr. Bruce warned the members of the House before the division was taken, says the paper, in the following words: “If you are all determined that this issue shall go to the people, well, we will all go and get their answer. Many of those who so insist will regret it.” UNIONS ON PARLIAMENT PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THEIR RULER LONDON PRESS OPINIONS (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) LONDON, Wednesday. The news of the defeat of the Commonwealth Government is given prominence in the London newspapers. "The Times” says: "It was always clear that the question behind the Arbitration Bill sooner or later must go before the people. They alone are competent to decide it. for upon it, so far as can be judged, depends the social, the economic and political future of the Commonwealth. “The people have to choose, pot between Mr. Bruce and Mr. Hughes, nor between Mr. Bruce and Mr. Theodore, but between the rule of Parliament, and the rule of the trades union managers and those behind them and the rule of Socialism and the anarchy which accompanies it. That Mr. Bruce will lose heart and abandon his post now that the battle has been joined, seems to be wholly incompatible with his character and his past.”

The “Morning Post” says; “Experience in Australia, as elsewhere, proves the folly of outside intervention in the affairs of industry. The best hope for peace lies within industry itself.”

The “Daily News” asks: “Can anyone deny that Australia’s experiment in industrial arbitration has been a failure?” It goes on to say: “Compulsory arbitration in industry lags even further behind than does compulsory arbitration in international affairs.”