The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, SEPTMEBER 8, 1920. A LABOUR GOVERNMENT IN DIFFICULTIES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 296, 8 September 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, SEPTMEBER 8, 1920. A LABOUR GOVERNMENT IN DIFFICULTIES

An interesting electoral contest is in prospect in Queensland. Tho Labour Government of that State has reached an end of its financial tether—that is a point on which its supporters and opponents are able to agree—and although a general election would not full due in ordinary course until March or April next, Mr. Theodore and his 'colleagues propose to ask' for a dissolution almost immediately, and to go to the country in October. This decision is prompted ostensibly by the Government's failure to obtain the loan of $9,000,000 it recently attempted to raise in London. The facts connected with this borrowing failure were fairly fully outlined in the cablegrams at the time. Admittedly it was accounted for in part by the enactment in Queensland of legislation which involved a repudiation of existing contracts. One of the measures to which exception is taken is a Land Act, which was twice rejected by the Legislative Council, and only passed, early this year, after tho Government had made numerous additional appointments to that Chamber. Legislation dating back to 1882 forbade the Land Courts to, raise pastoral rents by more than fifty per cent, above the rental for the preceding period The Land Act, passed as stated, removed this limitation.' 1 Another measure denounced as repudiatory is the Brisbane Tramways Purchase Act, which authorises the Government to acquire tho tramways without paying the owners (British investors) such' compensation as they are entitled to under their original contract, concluded some thirty years ago. Mil. Theodore made a snecial visit to London to promote tlie nine million loan, and when English investors declined to risk their money in Queensland securities he angrily accused them of interfering with ' Queensland _ sovereignty and of attempting to dictate to the State Government. Anything more than a cursory examination of the facts makes it manifest that this is merely an attempt to set a bogus issue before the Queensland electors There is no evidence that English financiers are attempting to interfere in the government of Queensland. As a matter of fact, the cause of their offending is that they have no desire to invest their money in Queensland, and no doubt they perceive particularly good reasons for refusing to do so under existing conditions, As an Australian commentator points out, the failure of the nine million loan is merely a symptom of the whole trouble, "which is the essential crudity, ruthlessncss, ,and recklessness of an Administration at the mercy of a revolutionary trades hall system." In alleging that it was asked in London to barter the political freedom of ( the State for loan favours, the Queensland Labour Government is simply setting up a bogey. Its real trouble is that under the methods to which it is committed—methods inaugurated by Mr.' T. J. Ryan, now somewhat uncertainly placed in the wider field of Commonwealth politics, ana continued by his successors in office —it has run the State financially to a standstill. The actual issue in the impending election is whether the Queensland voters are to reinstate or dismiss a Government whose record, by Australian standards, and indeed by •those of tho English-speaking world, is without a parallel from the standpoint of reckless squandering and management. The results of five years of extreme _ Labour rule in Queensland were pithily summed up the other day by the Sydney Bulletin. One of the principal items, this journal points out, is_ the transformation of the best-paying State railway system in Australia into the worst. The following table shows the net railway revenui? of the several States in _ the last _ year of tho Dcnham Liberal Ministry in Queensland and in tho last year of the Thcoiore Labour Ministry for which figures arc available: —

Set Revenue From Railways. 1914-15. 11)18-19. ■£ 9. d. .£ S. ,1. Queensland ... 4 5 7 p.c. 0 15 5 n.c, N.S. Wales ... .'I 12 0 „ 3 1!) 10 „ VV'estraliiL St 0 „ 1 14 0 „ Tasmania 2 2 0,, I 10 ] „ Victoria 2 0 7 ~ 3 15 (I „ S. Australia... 1 15 10 „ 3 0 3,,

From the highest interest-earning railway system the Labour Government rcduccd Queensland to the lowest earning. The Bulletin further points out that Queensland is more heavily taxed per capita than any of the other States, and four or live times as heavily as some of them. Since 191G it has increased its debt per head faster than any other State, and more than twice as fast as the average. Its debt per head is higher than that of any other State, except West Australia, which lias a statutory sinking fund, while Queensland has none. Incidentally' it is noted that the nine million loan was the biggest peace loan ever asked for in a lump sum by any Australasian State, even tins most, populous, and that a far larger proportion of the Queensland debt is held in England and a far smaller proportion in Australia than in thfl case of any other State. In lighl of these facts, it is easy to understand why Mn. Theodore and his political associates have seized so eagerly upon the pretext of an injustice done to Queensland bv British investors. The Labour Government plainly stands convicted not only of destroying the confidence of external investors, but of strangling useful enterprise within the State.