COMMONWEALTH.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIV, Issue 78, 28 September 1907, Page 12

COMMONWEALTH.

The figures presented to the House of S6presentativ.es by Sir William Lyne (fays the^ Sydney Telegraph) throw an _ ominous ,, light upon the financial course that „the Federal Government is now shaping. In 1902-3 the Commonwealth feturncd £8,204,563 to tha States out of * total revenue of £12,105,937, but this year out of £13,745,200 it only proposes to give them £7,779,2C0. If tha States .received back the same proportion of their money now as they did four years , £50, thay would get £9,843,829, which .$, oyer £2,000,000 more' than the present Budget allots, thqm.' Mr. -Kideion, the Premier of Queensland,, in .his speech on the Financial Statement, ; spoke of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the State. He said: — .At the conference . held, in Melbourne in October last year « general- resolution was agreed to em- • Bodying a principle which, I think, is Wsehtial" to ' tho satisfactory settlement of this important and difficult question, ' aairiely, '{hat any s'chenie should provide for 1 '^a) i- Giving financial, security to 'States': (bj leaving the Commonwealth intl the several Stales financially independent, each within its own sphere." In my opinion this is certainly the ideal ■we should seek to attain. Nor do I believe that any settlement will be satisfactory or- final, that fails to realise this ideal. The Melbourne conference also adopted_ Sir John Forrest's proposals concerning the proportion of Custom^ and "Excise 'Yevenue lo bo paid to the States after' 1910, ' with the important 'amendment fi that a new arrangement fho'uld ho embodied in the constitution, and should not be . revocable at will of ■ th'e Federal Parliament after 1920, as Sir "John proposed. Another conference was. 'held in 'Brisbane in May last, at which Sir John. Forrest, speaking on ■bshalf -of the Federal Government, stated ho could not agree to an amendment of his proposals 'as adopted by the State representatives at Melbourne. This statement by 'the Federal Treasurer induced -tha majority of State representatives >to withdraw (heir amendment, although thiy still beliaved that ths amendment 'was - accessary to secure the - -financial independence of the States, ..'jftid ,tbdy only agreed to surrender tho gorn.tr in tha hope that their acceptance 0/ the. -Federal proposals would ensure a , KtUejnent..of tho question. As Mr. J. M t Davies "I think a settlement upon the lass satisfactory basis would bi .better than no settlement at all." For my own part, I did not agree with this -contention. I' felt strongly that it ..was our d,i\ty to tho Slates we repre.■enied.tp abide by the resolution arrived _%t in Melbourne on this point. • t "As events have turned out," Mr. - ttCukt-on continued, "this important con..ce/SSJbrL, has ha,d no effect whatever in ; indncing ths Federal' Government to agree to the settlement, for Sir William ~~ 'Cyne, in his Budget speech on 18th ' August last, stated that such an arrangement, however desirable to ths States, be quite impossible in -/iew of 55» public expenditure, which must be carried jut by the Commonwealth. There are, as' everyone recognises, inhoierit difficulties iv the way of satisfactory 1 "fcfettlciuent- of this question, but ■These difficulties becomo impossibilities * when- wo have one Federal Treasurer on bshalf "of tha Federal Government agreeilijjf with ths Stats representative, and .'•Vss than three months aftbrwards anli3th»r Federal Treasurer repudiating tbo whols arrasgannnt. Such a measuro -of protection as the States now enjoy under the Braddon esction may terminate? at the' clo3e of 1910, and unless ' .some settlement of this question can be ' arrived at before that time, we shall •^fion bo entirely at the mercy of the .Federal. Parliasipnt as to whether any, _*nd, if any, what proportion of our -• Cuntoms and Ezcise revenue will be - tvyoilibls for State purposes. " - "._ What (askp the Argus) has brought ' Mr. Watson, leader of tha Federal Labour party, back into the paths of - moderation and commorusense ? This is the question every Student of politics wili ask after reading the address of the hon. member at the bazaar of the Political Labour League. Certainly the I&Lt. Wat-son who spoke there is not the Mr". Watson we hive known before. It t „$& not the Mr, Watson who declared at .'the Labour Conference held in Sydney r£hat,tfl be. a socialist should be a sine for everyone who joined- the -vaults ' of tfia Labour .party. We know "110 actual Tsxand of socialism so mild, so , fl ip^:e,3piyely watered down, as that which - tie expounded' on Saturday. It cannot (says the Argus) be Fabian socialism, for that society avow- ' 'e/lly "aims at the reoorganisation of - 'society by the emancipation of land and industrial "'capital from individual and "* dr^sfoWnersJiip, and the vesting of them '■'ir'th© community for the general bene- •*-' fit-.-" -It is not the socialism of the English' Labour party. It h certainly not ""7 tire socialism -of the Political Labour '- ; Ife*gue, unctep whose auspices the ad- ' 'dfa^'was delivered; for that body submitted 'to the" last federal Labour Conferen.ee the objective — "It is the object _. p£..the Australian labour organisations to obtain control of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange." ' These things all mean a revolution, going down, to the very roots of society^ iind a cEange"~bf the whole basis upon j>rogi|e^s baa up to the present •^oeeir -made, > " • ' " Bu& Mr. .Watson, (the Argus continues) is,, to-day against all these things. H» scoffed the idea that the members of t,tjier]t<abppr party are. revolutionists. He ' :-—'* Where they joined issue with fhpir extreme Socialist friends was that ', .'. they~re'fused to believe that while hu- , -," .ipjap nature remained as it was, and until ■the- natural process of enlightenment and civic 'education had advanced much f ur!',ther,,tban. jt had, no complete system of Pocjalism^.gquld do anything else but j ' break -down.*' This declaration, we ad- | mit at once, means, not revolution, but Involution. Jt relies for its ends upon the ordinary development of human na- ''. Cure and human society, and, in so far „ •$ it does that, it carries 'with it the asBent of al l who look forward hopefully to the progress of the race on the up.Ward path. What we have always de'aounced is the folly of those who assert >-.<'that the evolutionary process can be dis- „. jiensed with, and that society can bo transformed in a generation into somo- •. thing quite- different from what it is today. But the question remains : What fraa brought Mr. Watson on to our side?