AUSTRALIAN AFFAIRS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 4625, 2 April 1902, Page 4

AUSTRALIAN AFFAIRS.

The politics of Australia are at present a very mixed and varied quantity. The Commonwealth Parliament is not in harmony with the several State Parliaments. There is talk of secret compacts between the State Premiers to minimise the authority of the federal Ministry and conserve State rights. The casual observer sees that there is considerable public indifference to the' doings of politicians, while the several Ministries, and particularly the federal, are neglectful and incapable. Almost daily may be seen instances of the incapacity of Australian political leaders. . Indeed, so flagrant has become the ineptitude and weakness of the federal Premier that those organs of public opinion which supported him are now expressing serious doubts of his ability to successfully lead the Commonwealth. The “Daily Telegraph” of Sydney has again drawn attention to tho fact that New Zealand is leading Australasia in questions of Imperial concern, and it is anxious that the federal Government should awaken to a sense of its responsibilities. Dut Mr Barton is weak and vacillating, while Mr Seddon is strong and resolute. Though Mr Barton disclaims sympathy with Mr Seddon’s naval policy, he puts nothing forward as an alternative proposal, and the inhabitants of both Australia and New Zealand are ready to endorse the views of a statesman when

presented with the force of conviction. After all, there can be no rivalry between the Premier of New Zealand and the Premier of Australia. Our Sydney contemporary may complain pf Mr Parton being content to “play second fiddle ’ to Mr Seddon, but, then, that will not change their relative positions in the Australasian orchestra. No one but a leader of men can take the lead, and Mr Barton’s best friends are ready to admit that as a leader he is an utter failure. The weakness of the federal Ministry, which is apparent at almost every turn of the political wheel, is solely duo to lack of leadership. After months of preparation, the Ministry allowed its tariff to be mutilated beyond recognition ; and although Mr Barton believes that the imposition of a duty on tea is necessary to prevent the financial embarrassment of some of the States, he does not intend to seek the re-commit-tal of that duty with a view to the prevention of that financial pressure which is already manifesting itself, among the Australian States. While the Commonwealth Parliament is frittering away its time and energy in quarrelling with respect to the right of States to legalise and carry on “sweeps” on racing events, it is neglecting larger concerns. It may be right that Mr Barton should attempt to suppress “sweeps,” but such a matter as this might very well have been postponed until a Federal High Court was constituted, and a case submitted for its consideration and decision. If any friction should arise as to the rights of States, the Federal High Court would be able to determine the issue in the light of the Commonwealth Act. For the federal Parliament to attempt to dictate to the various States in matters affecting a correct reading of the Act on which union is based is but to intensify grievances and widen the cleavage now apparent hetwe-m the States and the Commonwealth.

Meanwhile, the more thoughtful members of the Australian public are keenly scrutinising the doings of their overgrown Legislatures, and urging a policy of constitutional reform. Those who are foremost in this matter were'most earnest in the cause of federation. Mr George D. Men,doll, a Victorian of some standing and an ardent foderationist, has drawn attention in the “Ago” to what he describes as “an overgrown Legislature”; and when one considers with what a multitude of councillors the island continent is governed, there must be agreement with Mr Mendell’s contention, Australia has seven Governors, fourteen Souses of Parliament, and seven hundred and fifty-one polfticians to look after the government of three million seven hundred and fifty thousand people—a politician to every five' thousand of the population! Compared with other countries of similar proportions, the expense of governing Australia is enormous. The legislative bodies are ponderous and extravagant for the amount of work they do. When the federal Parliament was established, provision ought to have been made for the curtailment of the cost of State administration. Even the federal Parliament might cost less, without iosng in efficiency. Canada is greater than Australia In size and population, yet, according to the Canadian Year Book, the Dominion Parliament costs £28,000 for 294 members, while the Australian Parliament runs up a bill of £115,714 for 111 politicians. But the State Governors of Ontario and Quebec receive £2OOO a year, while the Governors of New South Wales and Victoria receive £6OOO each. It is computed that the cost of administering Australia has increased by from £BOO,OOO to £1,000,000 per annum since federation, and the people are beginning to wonder why they supported so strenuously the institution of a form of government that brought them unity at such an extravagant cost. Federation was to have concentrated, solidified and preserved. It has, so far, only succeeded in dissipating public confidence and exciting State jealousy. This may be the fault of those engaged in the administration of the Commonwealth, but so far as the facts stand, the people in Now Zealand may congratulate themselves that the —i.vJora of their statesmen and their own judgment held them free and untrammelled by a'form of government which already calls urgently for reform.