Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1940. PARADOX IN AUSTRALIA.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 24 September 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1940. PARADOX IN AUSTRALIA.

WITH the opposed political parties in Australia of one mind ’ in declaring for an all-in prosecution of the war, the election of Saturday last has resulted at best in a rather closely balanced division of strength which is bound to impede in some measure an efficient war effort. Whatever the result of the final, count may be in House of Representatives seats still doubtful, and in the Senate contest, it is unlikely that the Menzies Government, though its return appears to be assured, can obtain, in this election, any very considerable majority. This paradoxical state of affairs evidently is one upon which Australia cannot be congratulated. The fate and futuie of the Commonwealth, like those of every other democracy in and beyond the Empire, depend on the winning of the war. l et, with the war in a supremely critical phase, the Australian political parties and the people of the Commonwealth have allowed themselves to be split and divided over relatively minor issues.

In justice to the Federal Prime Minister (Mr Menzies) it must be noted that before the election campaign opened, he proposed the formation of a National Government and offered five or possibly six Cabinet seats to the Labour Opposition. Tn his election speeches, Mr Menzies said the combined Government parties (the United Australia and Country parties) asked foi “a dear and unambiguous authority” to fight the war and win it. He said the policy of the Government was to organise, 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.

The Federal Labour Leader Mr Curtin, now threatened with defeat in Fremantle, reiterated, in election addresses, the determination of his party to support wholeheartedly the war effort of the Government, but sought to justify his party’s rejection of the proposal to form a National Government on the ground that if the invitation had been accepted, internal dissensions in the Cabinet would have blocked Labour’s policy of granting increased pay to soldiers and adequate allowances to soldiers’ wives and children. Mr Curtin also declared his conviction that if Labour had been in power during the last three years, Australia’s war preparations would have been more advanced, particularly in the field of industries related to defence. He claimed that if the Government had adopted his policy of 1937, Australia would now possess a powerful air force, manned by 10,000 trained airmen.

At a dispassionate view, the essentials upon which the two parties and their leaders are agreed must be regarded as outweighing immensely the issues on which they stand divided. Common sense and loyalty to the vital interests of Australia and those of the Empire appear to demand a union of effort to win the war, and the postponement of al] secondary issues until it has been won. The outcome of the election may have been, however, rather to intensify than to modify divisions. The peculiar combination of agreement on essentials and division over relatively minor details obviously has denied to the people of the Commonwealth the opportunity of giving a clear and unambiguous mandate.

Prior to the election, Mr Menzies stated 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 prospects of adjustment on these lines are perhaps not particularly hopeful, but the formation of a National Government in Australia is as much as ever to be desired as a means of averting the further dissipation of time and energy which ought to be concentrated undividedly on winning the war.