Australia’s Needs

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 559, 11 January 1929, Page 9

Australia’s Needs

“One Gauge, Less Politics” London Papers Diagnosis (United I*.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) Reed, 1.12 p.rn. LONDON. Thursday. WHETHER or not Australia accepts the advice offered by the British Economic Commission." says the "MorningPost,” “we are confident that some of the best brains of the Commonwealth will be in cordial agreement with the conclusions reached.”

“The Commission mostly deprecates ill-considered development, into which politicians rush, not only in Australia but also elsewhere, without enquiring whether it will pay in money but whether it will pay in votes. Hence, there is a large, stable of white elephants which would have ruined a country of less natural wealth than Australia. ■‘England cannot afford to blame Australia for her economic policy and high protection, since we forced the policy upon her by abolishing the old wise preferential system we are now labouring to restore. “Australia, with no. single industrial centre and a very wide-scattered population, is ill-suited to that sort of development, but if England wants her to modify her policy she must offer something substantial in return. “As far as railways are concerned, it would be foolish to build more until uniformity is reached. “One gauge and less politics are the chief needs of Australia.” GENERAL APPROVAL Financial circles generally approve the tone of the Commission’s report. It is regarded as fair and businesslike, but important men are disinclined to comment on the brief cabled summary, preferring to wait until they have seen the full report. One or two point out that much of the cabled summary seems obvious. They express gratification that the

mission, after personal experience of Australia, endorses the opinions fre- \ quently expressed here regarding borrowing. expenditure and costs of production. The report reveals liVtle that is not known here. Mr. Ben Tillett said he was loath to comment, as Labour was not invited to co-operate. The report is obviously materialistic in tone. If Labour had been invited it would have looked at the matter from more angles than the mere materialistic.” i REPORT OF “BIG FOUR" AUSTRALIAN COMMENT PRAISE AND CRITICISM (United. P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) Reed. 9.5 a.m. SYDNEY, To-day. Commenting on the report of the “Big Four” economic experts, the “Sydney Morning Herald” describes it as candid and valuable, and tempered with good humour. It adds that the reforms implied or suggested will be forced upon Australia from without If they are not cheerfully adopted from within. It must be assumed that the report will be accepted in London as one which accurately mirrors Australian conditions, and unless Australia evinces a readiness to heed its lessons, financial accommodation will become much less easy to obtain. The paper admits that Australia has not been as well financed as it should have been, but expresses the opinion that there is still time to repair past mistakes. The “Sydney Telegraph Pictorial,” in a leading article, says the report will do all the good in the world if it draws vigorous criticism. The fact that the report touches on protection and arbitration may seem to some people like a dentist’s boring instrument approaching a nervy corner of a venerable tooth. NO NEW CRITICISM The “Sydney Sun” comments that there is not one criticism in the report which thoughtful Australians in public life and in the Press have not uttered. The report, it says, speaks frankly of Australia’s mistakes and omissions, but by keeping in mind the political difficulties it should have told Australia how to remedy them. The paper says it considers that the Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, made a tactical mistake in inviting criticism which, from its official character and its free trade flavour, must do a certain amount of damage to Australia in the ranks of British investors.