RULER OR RULED?

Evening Star, Issue 20780, 30 April 1931, Page 15

RULER OR RULED?

WHAT IS A LEADER? HE WHO DARES BE UNPOPULAR (1) Politicians follow public opinion instead of leading it. (2) All parties alike reflect general public extravagance. (3) The Australian Federal Government (Labour) hesitates to cure extravagance of which the Labour Party was not the sole cause. (4) The Nationalist _ Opposition is “ more intent on scoring against the weakness of the Labour Government ” than in constructive criticism. (5) The Theodore proposals are “no more amenable to the charge of ‘ inflation ’ than is the indiscriminate floating of Treasury bills to meet current deficits in revenue.” (6) One evidence of the failure of politicians (all parties) is that the cost of Australian Federal departments has risen from £6,100,000 in 1907-08 to £34,897,000 in 1929-30, apart from all interest. Bruce helped to build it and Scullin hesitates to cut it down. The above six points have been drawn up in an attempt to epitomise an analysis of the Australian disease by Mr Benjamin J. Hoare, a veteran Australian journalist, in the ‘ Melbourne Herald.’ NOT A VOTE-MENDICANT. A New Zealand reader may at once note the point that whether the Forbes “ cut ” is right or wrong, whether its method is wrong or right, or whether one agrees or not with the Forbes programme, yet it is indisputable that Mr Forbes by his actions has freed New Zealand from indictments No. 1 and No. 2. Ho lias dared to stand against public extravagance; he lias dared to attempt to lead public opinion; and ho has dared, in doing so, to invite unpopularity. A party manager, looking at such a manoeuvre by a democratic Government, may say; “It is magnificent, but it is not party politics.” But if democracy cannot stand the test of a Government that dares to be unpopular, what is the use of"democracy S’ Nine-tenths of Mr Hoare’s article is a reproach of Australian politicalparties for not attempting to do what Mr Forbes has dared to attempt to do. The difference between a Government that dares bo unpopular, and a Government that dares not bo unpopular, is the main difference to-day between Australia and New Zealand. And it is a tremendous difference, being mainly moral. , Of course there are material differences, such as the difference between the cost of seven Governments and the cost of one. And this difference means' millions, yet it lias less significance than the willingness or unwillingness of Governments to dare unpopularity in a crisis. “ I am affaid,” laments the dissector of the Australian disease, “ that the time is past when our Parliaments are willing to bravo unpopularity through a sense of duty.” TOO TRUE A REFLEX. Mr Hoare, as. indicated above, is not caught by tile cry that the whole guilt is Labour guilt, nor by the cry “ hands off the Public Service.” Ho writes: “The Public Service is a sheltered body, exempt from the sacrifice which everyone is sustaining. Its cost is improviclently wasteful beyond all denial. . . . The Bruce Government splashed on the expenditure in hundreds of thousands and millions, and now we have their successors refusing to meet the times by any redactions.” All the reductions in State expenditure and other economies that should have followed Australian Federation thirty years ago have boon lost because politicians have “ succumbed to tiro general spirit of wholesale profusion,” ilnd have been “ too true a reflex of the people.” Does this mean that Democracy is debauched by its voters, but may be saved by leaders (few indeed) who count not votes but principles? Mr Hoare does not directly answer that question, but ho writes: “Weak men fail in their duty through keeping too keen an eye on the- ballot box votes.” Over-governed! Miss-go-verned ! THEODORE PLAN ON ITS MERITS. Without attempting to minimise the Mungana scandal, Mr Hoare does not consider it a reason for refusing to consider the Theodore financial scheme on the scheme's merits. Those merits are not affected by the circumstance that, owing to “ the weakness of the Prime Minister,” the man who is Federal Treasurer is a man under a cloud. • In principle, Mr Hoare does not see why a fiduciary issue in a crisis should ho condemned without examination by people who accept the war policy of the British Government that mot a crisis by issuing £260,000,000 additional notes against her gold reserve. Further, Mr Hoare cannot see that the remedy for Lang repudiation policies is to tear to pieces the Theodore scheme; or that mutual recriminations between the. Labour pot and the Nationalist kettle will remedy the blackness of the outlook. His whole article seems to he a plea for leaders, who will lead, not follow. Whore, in Australia, arc they?