As Others See Us.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17112, 6 April 1921, Page 6

As Others See Us.

The Dominions—Australia and New Zealand, at any rate—have in,recent yoars become so accustomed to"*praise that they are apt to believe that the foreign observer never sees anything really good until he comes within sound of the long wash of Australasian seas. The truth is that while the foreign visitor does see much in Australia and New Zealand that he cannot but wholeheartedly aumire, he sees a good deal that ho does not admire, but he usually allows his experience of colonial hospitality and goodwill to prescribe the tono of his criticisms when he publishes any. This is not good for either Australia or New Zealand, which need, more than'most countries, the tonic of candid dispraise by honest, competent, and well-wishing visitors. New Zealand has, wo hope and believe, outgrown that childishness which believed that this was "God's own country" by every test, and will not resent the frank criticisms appearing in Lord Bryce's new book on "Modern Democracies," which were summarised in a cable message in Monday's paper. These, the newest democracies, have got no nearer than any other countries, he says, to solving the problem of government of the whole of the people with fairness to the whole of the people. Much of what he says of the disappointing results of "demo- " cratic" government in Australia is, of course, potentially true of New Zealand.- Australia has had the fullest opportunity to show the world that Labour government is democratic and efficient, and makes easy the diffusion of sweetness and light; and everyone knows that Labour in power is not democratic, not very intelligent, and not in the least favourable either to .plain living or high thinking. New Zealand now, whatever may once have been its hope, expects nothing from Labour government except craziness and shabbiness. Some of Lord Bryce's observations on. Australia, however, are not .merely potentially, but actually, true of New Zealand also. Tne level of attainments of our polticians, for example, is, as in Australia, a low one. We have in' Parliament some men of great ability and firm character, but it must be admitted that intellectually and spiritually many of our politicians are only too perfectly representative of the intellectually and spiritually backward section . of the people. Few, indeed, are-so backward as not jto feel wonder' arid pity when they tiitik'i.\of ..the infatuation of- the Communists in Russia. Yet they are fewer still .who can realise that their own, willing acceptance of .''the State" as. a kind of universal Providence is just ■ as strange and pitiful. Australia's case is in this respect worse than New Zealand's. There the 'practical working-put of State enterprise arid State ownership provides a very striking example of the truths that the ''democratic" idea is,, in Lord Bryce''s-wo"rd8; "that the State's "duty is not to get work done by "paying wages for it, put to provide "wages arid find work."'We in this country have so far, been spared (the extreme. consequences of State paternalism, ,but.;everi here there is evidence enough iof the evil of replacing individual effort and enterprise by a State bureau' arid a nationalised industry. Sir Arthur CoriariDoyle, who on most subjects outside spiritualism is a shrewd land' sane critic, has been supporting Lord Br^ce ? s:lstrictures. upqn public ownership in 'Australia. Like Lord Bryce, he refuses to argue from the furihappy, political case of Australia that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the ■Australian character, and we are sure they are both; right. What is wrong;wjth Australia and New Zealand is their failure;, of their neglect, to measure l themselves. up to the older co'uriitries.iAs they, grow, and the means of communication and comparison improve, they will repair this defect. Time, will force them into it. But in the meantime they are too. well content with themselves. In most of the things of-the mind they are as peoples very backward indeed, and they do riot know,