“BOND OR FREE?”

Hokitika Guardian, 25 October 1930, Page 7

“BOND OR FREE?”

(Sydney Bulletin). W. M. Hughes, the cx-Prime Minister —in fact, the exest-Prime Minister any country ever had—has cast a pamphlet upon the waters in the expectation, no doubt, that it will return alter many days bringing a shoal of Labour votes with it. Apart from that, its purpose is not very clear, although above the crashing chords 3nd reverberating thunders we hear Air Hughes asking Australia whether it wants to be “bond or free.” Mr Hughes himself seems to have no doubt about which it should prefer. Others however, may. For this freedom is not all it is cracked up to be. Most of us have willingly surrended more or less of it in return for rights and privileges of one sort and another. Civilisation indeed is based upon two tilings, among others—the surrender of liberty by the individual, and the •strict performance of the conditions attached to it. But even if freedom were a wholly good thing, it would be too late in tile day to l’nake the choice which Mr Hughes suggests. For Mr Hughes himself and the other politicians chose for us long ago. In order to provide l)s with that public ownership of utilities which lias been in the Labour platform for over forty years, ; ml which every other party has gradually j accepted, they have loaded us with j bonds—over one thousand one hundred • millions of them, With the cash ve | got in return for the bonds, we have j built ourselves railways, tramways, postal and telegraph services, roads, harbours, 'clocks and bridges; have bought ourselves cattle stations, abattoirs, quarriejs, fish-shops and pubs. And to a list already infinitely long, Mr- Hughes added a fleet of trading ships.

Public and private obligations are in essence the same. When a bank—the Saving Bank, for instance—takes our deposits its freedom is at once limited. It may do only such things -.s will permit and enable it to pay the interest agreed upon and return the principal at the appointed date. When a man borrows money to buy or build a house he is,no longer entirely free. He may not loaf to his heart’s content or spend all that he pleases on himself. His liberty is surrendered to this ex.tent; lie must so arrange his life that he can pay the ; interest and instalments of principal as they fall due. So with Australia. Having sought the money and gladly accepted it, its freedom is now strictly limited, it must order its life in such a way that it can pay the interest and instalments of principal as they fall due. To put it to Australia that it can now choose whether it will be “bond or free”, is therefore entirely misleading and characteristically mischievous. No doubt there is a way to escape nil this, and that is the dishonest way of repudiation. Of course, Mr Hughes does not believe in repudiation; with all his eccentricities there need be no doubt about that But unfortunately 1 he may unwittingly put- ideas into -he heads of men who are not honest

enough to be frank repudiationists. It may, for instance, be sufficient to suggest to such men that they are, and should be, quite free to order their lives and the lives of their fellows as they please. The frank repudiationist says: “I can have a good time if I don’t pay, so T won’t pay”. The other the political humbug,, says: “Humanity and civilisation demand that we maintain our present rates of pay and conditions 0 Labour, along with our present standard of living. We may not be able to pay our just debts, but that, you will see, is humanity’s and civilisation’s fault, not ours.” Surely it is time we refused to lend ourselves it, the dishonesty of the political ulventuier. It is he who nTore than any other is responsible for our financial and industrial distress. It is he who is mainly responsible for our crushing burden of debt, because it was he who discovered that the easiest way to get votes was to buy them with other people’s money.

And supposing the workers 'of New South Wales are persuaded to give such political adventureres the chance they ask for, what must the result lie It is quite possible that the Australian holders of our Government bonds could bo paid their interest. The taxpayer could he hied and still further bled for the- purpose. But one half of our total debt we owe to people overseas. No amount of taxation will pay our Interest debt to these holders. What one large section of the community does not seem yet to realise is that we have contracted to pay our overseas interest in gold, and no amount ot tax money will pay a pound of it. We, not having the gold, must export ihe goods that will sell for gold; and + e find a sale we must compete in price with the products of all the world on the same market. Had the prices of the last few years been maintained we might have kept up our recent costs of production and still found a market. With falls in prices averaging about 40 per cent, goods at the old costs could not possibly find buyers. This means, in plain words, that those who advocate the maintenance of government and other costs are as surely repudiationists as the maddest adherents of Moscow. If these gentlemen could win anything for the workers by this policy it could be better understood. But they can hope for nothing.

The prosperity of the last few years prior to 1930 yvas built upon heavy overseas borrowings Once we bilk our creditors, our foreign borrowing is at an end. We shall therefore be then in the same condition as we are today. And to make a permanency of our deplorable condition seems a poor thing to aim at and scarcely worth while being a rogue for.