THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1931. AN AUSTRALIAN CRISIS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20812, 3 March 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1931. AN AUSTRALIAN CRISIS.

So strong is the feeling of some opponents of Mr. Lang's policy that, in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia, they arc bent on secession from constitutional attachment to that State in order to be rid of hiin and his political methods. That this is by no means idle talk is proved by discussions in the Queensland Cabinet, tho decision of a convention including members of the Federal and State legislatures, and tho unanimous resolution of the first of a series of large public meetings. The feasibility of the idea may be questioned, even the wisdom of piopounding it; but these considerations only add to the evidence that a very grave situation has arisen as a result of Mr. Lang's policy and Ins insane determination to brook no criticism of it. So extreme a measure would not have deliberately advocated unless the situation created by Mr. Lang were honestly believed to be despeiate. "There is a growing tendency in Queensland in favour of secession from the Federation," said that State's Minister of Railways lately; "we are watching the position very closely, and it would appear that, if Mr. Lang's financial schemes arc given effect, wo would be better on our own." At a Cabinet meeting on February 17, the Queensland Government discussed the question of secession very fully; no definite decision was reached, but steps were taken to ascertain the constitutional position in the event of a decision to secede being favoured later. Queensland lias attempted to carry out the Niemeyer agreement, with the result that, while the Budget may not actually be balanced at the end of this financial year, there will be only a small discrepancy; and there is reported a strong repugnance in that State to be reduced, in the eyes of the world, to the level to which Mr. Lang is dragging New South Wales. Hence its Government's serious consideration of secession, on quite different grounds from those that have been taken in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. Practicable or not, the idea is being seriously weighed. It is in New South Wales itself, however, that this talk of secession has been most vehement. What is reported of the convention at Armidale, at which plans to form a new State, to bo named New England, have been approved, shows how deep is the resentment of Mr. Lang's actions. In this instance, secession from the Commonwealth is not in view, and the promoters of the idea have made this clear. What they seek is separation from New South Wales. The Northern New State Movement, as their organisation is frankly called, arose years ago, as an outcome of grievances against Labour Governments. Its adherents number many thousands. Five years ago a case for separation was stated before a Royal Commission, which found that the utmost limit of reasonable taxation to be borne by the region was the amount then prevailing, £3 103; since then taxation has doubled, and the policy of the present Government has brought feeling to the boiling point. South of Sydney there has been a similar movement, and the two bodies have agreed to work in close conjunction. A rural revolt, determined on breaking away from Sydney, has thus steadily assumed greater proportions. So much for a mere outline of the rise of this crusade. It has been given point and vehemence by happenings since Labour got back to the Treasury benches, and there was needed only Mr. Lang's financial policy to rouse it to fury. Throughout . this week its campaign is planned to proceed ; the meeting at Wagga Wagga which has expressed its mind so emphatically is but one of an arranged succession. At this meeting the leader of the movement has made reference to the possibility of Mr. Lang's prosecution of him for sedition in counselling secession. The reference is to be understood as an answer to Mr. Lang's threat in the Legislative Assembly a few days ago to take such action against any advocate of secession. Those who counsel seceding claim that it is Mr. Lang who has acted unconstitutionally in his determination to rule without Parliament, and that the course they have taken has been thrust on them by his choice of methods. It is to be said of the secession movement that it is a desperate expedient and not the first and best thing to be done at this juncture. There is a good deal of truth in the charge that Mr. Lang has acted unconstitutionally. He has denied free speech on the floor of the Assembly, by having the closure applied to prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking to his motion of censure on the Government; he has set himself to weaken and abolish the Legislative Council; and it has become perfectly obvious that lie has

assumed the powers of a dictatorship. The Trades Hall, as master of the Labour caucus, dominates the j political situation, and it; has used methods that no democracy can be expected or should be asked to tolerate; it has made organised assaults on public meetings and generally practised lawlessness and disorder. Nevertheless, the call of the hour ought not to be for a disintegration of the Commonwealth that, would leave Mr. Lang to carry on unchecked in a smaller State, even though this disintegration might be brought about, as many have urged, by petition to the Federal Parliament and a referendum. Better far would it be to organise opposition within the existing political arena, to use every endeavour to purge Parliament of its piratical element, and to wrest mastery from Mr. Lang and his myrmidons by employing the rules and liberties of popular government. This should not be impossible. The more desperate the situation has become, the more likelihood there is of a sane reaction by a majority of the electors. This preferable method will demand patience, but the benefit for all Australia would be ample reward.