LABOUR'S BRAINS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 62, 10 September 1910, Page 9

LABOUR'S BRAINS.

COMMONWEALTH MINISTRY'S TROUBLES. (From Our Australian Correspondent.). SYDNEY, 3rd September. The proof that Labour, generally gpeaking, is not especially gifted with brains, is in the fact that it remains Labour. For, as soon as a labourer develops brains, he is likely to become a capitalist. True, that money-making brains are only one kind of brains ; true, that capitalist* arc created by other things as well as by brains ; nevertheless, as between Capital and Labour, the presumption is fair that Capital has a larger share of acumen, or it would very soon cease to be Capital — and that Labour has the lesser share, or it would rery soon cease to be Labour. Most Australasian capitalists have risen from the ranks of Labour by virtue of their superior energy, shrewdness, determination — by virtue, in one word, of their superior brains. Doubtless, meanness, unscruploußness. and chicanery have helped 'some of them; but these qualities are at least as likely to ruin a man as to help him, because they arouse opposition at every step. To most Capitalists average honesty must be conceded, or there ia no explanation of their stability. So that in the industrial pudding, Labour is the bottom layer because, on the whole, it has not brains enough to be the top layer. The proof of the pudding is in the Commonwealth eating. Here, for the first time in history, Hob-nails rule a Constitutional State, with a power limited only by the Constitution. Already the Cabinet has found that ideals and competent subordinates will not supply the place of constructive intelligence poised on administrative ' experience. Probably, under the pressure of experience, that intelligence will be found and developed in the Labour ranks ; but meanwhile matters are in a mess. There was a good deal to be said both for and against the Commonwealth notes scheme ; but in abandoning the profits of the new currency, except in so far as the income from invested credits may represent a profit after expenses are paid, Mr. Fisher lost the chief argument for creating a new currency, at all. The amendment of the Commonwealth Arbitration Act amounts only to a postponement of difficulty: it ia a political evasion. The Commonwealth' land tax scheme is another project which keeps the word of promise to the ear, and is practically ceif&in to break it to the heart. Mr. Fisher's recent utterances indicate that the Government does not consider itself bound to more than an affirmation of the principle of land taxation by the Federal Government; and New Zealanders can understand how weak a reed the plan of taxpayers' selfassessment is likely to be in the absence of a Government Valuation Department. The Commonwealth Bill relies chiefly on the New Zealand law, which in some points is clearly unsuited to Australia. New Zealand, indeed, is being frequently quoted nowadays in regard to arbitration, land tax, and workers' compensation ; and always with respect. But there is really no one in the Labour Cabinet, and possibly no one in the Labour Party, who understands the intricacies of land taxation ; and to much Opposition criticism there ha 3 been no effective reply. The Bill, indeed, is quite likely to break down constitutionally on the self-assessment ground ; for how is the required uniformity of taxation to be preserved when fifty thousand taxpayers apply each his own basis of valuation? It is true that the Bill lays down a uniform rule for ascertaining the basis ; but if this rule is not uniformly applied, -will the result amount to the uniformity of taxation which the Constitution requires? Does tho essence of taxation reside in the Bill's uniform theory or in the taxpayers' variform practice? If the Bill passes without change on this point, there will be room for the High Court to deliver an interesting judgment. ' Mr. Fisher is steadily taking the line of least resistance, and is making concessions which have surprised those who thought that the Labour ' Party would prove intolerant aud aggressive. Formally, the Cabinet is aggressive, but its practice has been unexpectedly tolerant — it came in like a lion, but is acting like a lamb.' Its task, in fact, has overwhelmed it ; and, as previously pointed out, it is marking time, "praying for night or Blueher." Mr. Joseph Cook correctly described its measures as "placards" — they say much (in order to impress adherents and keep a good face before, the public) and mean little (in Older not to commit the Ministry to any disastrous course that would ruin its electoral chances in 1913). The Labour Cabinet really does not know how to meet its responsibilities, and is sacrificing a year's time in order to get a nlastery of the situation. Mr. Fisher's contemplated trip to South Africa, in view of the state of public business, should plainly not be undertaken; and probably, if the Cabinet were able and prepared to do serious work, it would not bo undertaken. Mr. Fisher has no objection to "starring" as the protagonist of Labour, but he would not leave his duty on a "starring" tour at this juncture if he saw clearly how the duty was to be done. As it happens, the Prime Minister's absence suits the Labour policy of the moment ; it -will furnish another excuse for marking time, and ostensibly the union of South Africa justifies the visit. Actually nothing justifies the visit in the existing Australian circumstances, when so much urgent legislation is awaiting passage and administration. But, since it is not clear in the existing Labour circumstances that Mr. Fisher will do any Australian good by remaining here, the objection to his absence is one of principle chiefly. Yet his projected trip is causing difficulty in the Labour Party itself. Mr. Hughes, the Attorney-General, has become the most prominent member of the Cabinet in virtue of his keen critical intelligence, his talent for debate, and his general party popularity. But by a section of the Parliamentary Party he is tolerated rather than liked or trusted — somewhat as Lloyd George, with a character and intellect approximating the character and intellect of Mr. Hughes, is tolerated rather than liked or trusted by the British Cabinet. The outstanding ability of Mr. Hughes is undeniable ; but his characteristic vehemence is apt to irritate friends as well as foes, and it make 3 his colleagues uneasy. They are never sure that he -will meet a difficult situation fairly, or that he will not unexpectedly do the party harm by some impetuous speech or action. He lacks equipoise. So, in opposition to Mr. Hughes, a section of the party is pushing Mr. C. E. Fraser to the front. Mr. Fraser has energy and intellect that give heat without flaming unduly; and his head is reputed to be level. A number of Labour members, and possibly Mr. Fisher among them, would prefer that while Mr. Fisher is absent a rearrangement of portfolios should give Mr. Hughes less power and Mr. Fraser more. Mr. Fraser is, however, too much of a political novice, and Mr. Hughes has too much political mana to make a scheme based on these ideas feasible. Besides, Mr. Hughes, considers, and probably a majority of the party considers, that he has earned the office of Acting-Prime Minister; and m fact he is in the eyes of the public the most obvious man for the position. There is little doubt that he will get it, and no doubt that an effort will be made to guard against risk by securing

his agreement to say or do nothing of moment without the approval of his colleagues. Thus another force will be added to the other forces that combine to prevent Labour's first year of Parliamentary control from making any change that Will deeply affect the life of the people. The principle of arbitration, and the principle of land tax, are already approved by the electors. Since the Labour Party will apparently fail to make the practice effective or more effective, it will really do very little to justify Opposition criticism. That result, at present, is the res\ilt which the Cabinet wishes to gain.