Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 4608x6656 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail
Hide article pages Show article pages
  1. Page 1
    Page 1 thumbnail
  2. Page 2
    Page 2 thumbnail

Article text

On this Page 1
FEDERAL DISSENSION.
With considerable justification,
the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has
again taken the Leader of the
Country Party (Dr. Page) to task
for his apparent unwillingness to
co-operate with the Government in
its "recovery" policy. The fact :s
that Dr. Page in office is a vastly
different political figure from Dr.
Page out of office, and that since
the passing of the last Bruce-Page
Ministry he has been a mildly
irritating thorn in the side of the
United Australia Party-and the
Lyons Govermnent.
As an opponent of high tariffism.
Dr. Page won the support of the
primary producers. a seat in the
Federal Parliament and the leader
ship of the Federal Country Party.
As joint leader of the IBruce-Page
Ministry, which indulged in an un
precedented orgy of tariff building,
he was a staunch defender of the
policy of his Government and must
bear his full share of responsibility
for its high protection policy. There
were numerous occasions when, had
he chosen to do so, he and his
Country Party followers could have
voted the high protectionist Cabinet
out of office; but they did not do
so. For his part in the creation
of Australia's tariff difficulties, Dr.
Page was roundly criticised by
primary producers' organisations
throughout Australia.
Then Labour had its day--and
went whole-heartedly about the
work of raising tariff barriers still
higher. For their pains, Mr. Scul
lin and his followers were turned
out of office, with heavy-casualties,
at the last Federal elections. The'
former leaders of the United Ais.
tralia Party. Mr. Bruce and Mr..
Latham. stood aside in the interests
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2).

of unity, and Mr. Lyons was com
missioned to form, a Government.
Despite the overwhelming strength
of his own party, Mr. Lyons held
out the olive branch to Dr. Page
by offering him and his party three.
portfolios in the new Cabinet.
Possibly deluding himself that his
star was still in the ascendant. Dr.
Page demanded the right to nomi
nate which three portfolios his col
leagues would take-a condition
which, as Mr. Lyons put it, "no self
respecting Prime Minister could
accept." The move for unity thus
failed, and Dr. Page and his fol
lowers were relegated to the com
parative obscurity of the corner
benches.
Since that time the Federal
Country Party, through its pro.pa,
ganda department, has maintained
a running fire of criticism against
the Government, despite the fact
that the Lyons Ministry has at least
taken some steps in the direction of
a comprehensive revision of the
tariff. Whether those steps are ade
quate or not is another matter. In
primary producing communitiesb i
is held that the Government has not
gone nearly far enough. The fact
remains that the Government haf
acted along the lines of the policy
on which it was elected to office, and
along which Dr. Page knew that it.
was proposed to act when h(
flirted with the idea of allying him
self and his party with the Lyons
Ministry. It is idle for Dr. Page to
plead' now that had a member of his
party been appointed Minister for
Customs, the tariff policy of the
Government would have been differ
ent, for his followers would have
represented only an impotent minor
ity in the large, combined body of
Ministerial supporters. In the light
of these facts, and bearing in mind
Dr. Page's attitude during his pre
vious association with a high protec
tion Government, supporters of the
Country Party may well wonder
whether he would have been so scath
ing and so persistent in his criticism
of Federal tariff and financial policy
if Mr. Lyons had granted his de
mands-and allowed him to select his
own three portfolios. Is it not more
probable that he would have become
.as ardent a defender of Mr. Lyons
as he was of Mr. Bruce-while they
were colleagues in office 2
Of course, while Dr. Page was so
.staunchly defending the Govern
nent of which he had the honour to
,be joint leader, he did not command
the unanimous support of all of his
'followers who did not happen to have
places in the Cabinet. There was,
-indeed, a memorable instance of this
during one of Mr. Bruce's visits to
Western Australia. At an important
town in the Great Southern district,
Mr. Bruce was accorded a civic
welcome. One of the speakers
was a Country Party member of
the House of Representatives,
who assured the assemblage that
Mr. Bruce had done more for
Western Australia than any other
- Prime Minister. When Mr. Brucel
rose to reply, he acknowledged the
-compliment. "But," he said, "1'
should like to remind the honourable
member that on practically every
-occasion on which my Government
was seriously challenged and its fate
was in the balance, he voted against
me." Mr_ Bruce then changed the
subject. while the honourable mean
ber recovered his composure.
Quite apart from the tariff, much
of the criticism levelled against the"
Government by the 'Leader of the
COountry Party lacks the ring of
sincerity that might be expected in
the utterances of a former Federal
Treasurer. For instance, his state
ment that taxation remissions
.should have amounted to £20,000,000
·instead of the £9,000,000 effected by
the Lyons Ministry will be regarded
.as nothing more than irresponsible
nonsense by anyone sho has studied
the Budget figures and monthly re
turns for the current year and read
the report of the Auditor-General
for last financial year. Mr. Lyons
has challenged the doctor to state
categorically the means he would
have adopted to make possible the
remission of a further £11,000,000 of
taxation and at the same time the
provision of £3,000,000 for the wheat
growers for the current year. Dr.
Page's reply if he accepts the chal
lenge, will be read with interest.

$