Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1931 THE CRISIS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 7 August 1931, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 1931 THE CRISIS IN NEW SOUTH WALES

ALTHOUGH New Zealand, in common with most countries, is passing through a critical period and drastic measures are being taken to meet the emergency, it is many degrees removed from the serious financial plight to which New South Wales has beon brought by maladministration, extravagance, a refusal by the Socialist Ministry to face stern

realities, and, last but not least, by repudiation. The fact that we have had honest administrators —even if they were not. far-seeing—should give us cause for thankfulness, but that does not prevent our feeling sincere sympathy for our fellow-citizens across the Tasman whose chief contribution 'to bringing about the present crisis was that, deceived by obviously extravagant promises, they returned to power the already discredited Lang and his followers. Despite the fact that financial disaster threatened, Mr Lang refused to consider the question of cutting down expenditure, talked of borrowing and spending on a lavish scale, promised to restore the 44 hours week, and to. reverse the Civil Service reductions in salary effected by his predecessors. 111-advised as these proposals were, his reckless and irresponsible utterances concerning all political and financial institutions which might dare refuse to bow to. his will—this unconcealed bitter enmity was even more alarming. Small wonder that when the Socialist Party was elected by a substantial majority in October ■ last grave alarm was evinced by most of the Australian press, while serious apprehension was expressed by many of the leading British newspapers in regard to Australia’s future.

Unfortunately those fears have proved to have been well-founded. Within six months the Lang Ministry had increased fourfold the wages levy, had repudiated Australian and overseas debt interest, increased unemployment, almost exhausted tho State Treasury, and utterly broken the State Savings Bank. Mr Lang refused to join the Loan Council —the sole reliable souice of tho loan money he had promised —and then, after much bluff and blatancy signed the Melbourne agreement which he proceeded to do his best to wreck. At last he appealed again to the Loan Council for help—adopting his usual unconciliatory manner—but the Council properly stipulated that financial assistance would not be given unless the New South Wales Government was prepared to honour its interest obligations. A main condition imposed by Mr Scullin, hederal Prime Minister, was that the State must cooperate with the other States in giving effect to the Premiers’ plan for the restoration of financial equilibrium. But Mr Lang, instead of bringing his State’s legislation into harmony with the programme which the other States have been compelled to adopt, persisted in introducing fantastic legislation such as the Bill to reduce the salaries of all public servants to £SOO a year, regardless of agreements or the responsibilities devolving upon those holding the higher salaried positions. He was fully aware from past experience that there was little, if any, prospect of the Legislative Council passing his drastic proposal. As the cables told us this week the measure was materially amended by the Council by introducing a graduated scale of reduced salaries. A deadlock followed. There is irony in the fact that this crisis should have been reached on a Salaries Reduction Bill exactly when there was no money in the Treasury to pay the salaries of officers of the public service other than a few sections singled out for preferential treatment—tram drivers, conductors and railwaymen. Mr Lang, we are told to-day, has expressed the hope that the impasse would be overcome by the week-end. As the Melbourne “Argus” pertinently commented only a few days ago:

There would bo no doubt about the course to be taken by any other Premier who had failed as lamentably as Mr Lang has failed. Mr Lang would not be in office to-lay had ' it not been for his blatant and repeated assurances that New South Wales could act independently of the Loan Council, that he could raise the money necessary for carrying on public works, that lie could restore the pay of civil servants and others to the standards which prevailed before the Bavin Ministry reduced expenditure. On the election platform he gave no hint of public repudiation. On the contraxy, he denied that the Labour party would ever be associated with such a policy. Notwithstanding that he has proved false to all his professions, he persists in adopting a tone which suggests that he is the victim 'of some combination of malign forces. A free Legislative Assembly would long before this have dismissed Mr Lang. While he has the votes of his Caucus, however, he can l’elain the office of Pi'emier; but other Governments which have dealings with him are bound to regard the fact that he holds his position with no moral sanction whatever. They cannot be expected to grant money which they hold as trustees for other people to a man who has repudiated his public obligations, and who insists that repudiation is the best plan. There are outspoken critics of Mr Lang who do not hesitate to say that his object is to Sovietise New South Wales and ultimately the whole of Australia. Some of his actions and proposals have certainly been based on Soviet principles. Even if Mr Lang and his leading supporters are not frantic revolutionaries, bent on violent destruction, there is no gainsaying the fact that throughout his public career Mr Lang has displayed a profound ignorance of all the fundamental principles .of economics, politics and finance, and has shown an utter disregard of the consequonces of either his words or his actions. It is possible for a reckless and irresponsible demagogue to bo more hai’mful to his country than even an incendiary bent upon the overthrow of the whole existing social and economic order. To which category does Mr Lang belong? There wus great rejoicing in Socialist-Labour circles last October when the Lang triumph of extravagant promise over a policy of economy and prudence was announced. It is difficult to believe that the same tactics will succeed again so soon. We trust, for Australia’s sake, that the electors of New South Wales, in the light of experience, will see iho position in a truer perspective and voto for sane Government when the time comes. It was said when Lang, with his impossible programme, was returned to office that while there might be jubilation over the immediate result, the election might prove to have given Socialist-Labour the most awkward and, for itself, the most disastrous victory it had ever won-—disastrous not only in Australia but elsewhere. Time will tell. The deplorable tactics of Mr Lang have certainly not helped the Socialist-Labour cause.