USTRALIA is an important factor in human progress, for it is doing something new. It is helped in doing this by its attractiveness as a land of great possibilities, by its remoteness, and by the sparsity of its population. The attractiveness of the continent has drawn people thither from Europe, but the remoteness has generally tended to keep at home the timid, weak, and conservative, whereas it acts as an incentive to persons with strong physiques and with a bold, adventurous, progressive, and optimistic temperament. Hence Australia is occupied by a highly selected and competent population. The fact that this population is still relatively sparse permits practically every one to get a comfortable living. Such sparsity is a great boon, which the Australians will sadly miss when they get the denser and poorer population for which there is such a hue and cry.

During a journey to Australia in 1923, as a delegate to the Third Pan-Pacific Science Congress, I was greatly impressed by the high character of the Australians as a whole, and also by the contrast between the frontiersmen and the city people. The matter is admirably set forth by Doctor C. H. Northcott in a lucid and impartial study of "Australian Social Development" which hides its light under the paper covers of a "Columbia University Study." He makes it clear that the great bulk of the Australian population has come from two main groups, "alike in race, speech, and political tradition, differing merely in economic circumstances and in their manner of entrance into Australia. One was possessed of at least sufficient capital to pay the cost of the lengthy voyage to Australia, the other

had every qualification for worthy citizenship in a new and unexplored land except sufficient passage-money. In the latter fact there is no suggestion of pauperism. Never, except by a philanthropic blunder which aroused so much indignation that its repetition was impossible, were English paupers shipped to Australia. The assisted emigrants were as free from pauperism as the average English labourer of the years following the reform of the Poor Laws."

The other group consisted of unassisted immigrants, among whom the golddiggers hold a pre-eminent position by reason of their numbers. The golddiggers," so Northcott says, "were certainly above the average of their class." A study of signatures and marks affixed to marriage registers seems to indicate that the early settlers in Victoria from the United Kingdom, even though both assisted and unassisted immigrants are included, were better educated on an average than were their compatriots who remained at home. Northcott also quotes an interesting estimate of the Victorians in general, made in 1868 by an Englishman apparently well acquainted with the social and political conditions of Australia: "The mass of the people are certainly more intellectual, more ardent, better educated, and more independent, than the parallel classes of any European population. . . . The very fact of a large portion of them having voluntarily emigrated from the old country and accepted all the hazards of a new career in an unknown land, argues in them a certain moral and intellectual superiority."

Despite their general likeness, "the free settler and the assisted immigrant have contributed two distinct strains to the Australian population." The free settlers took advantage of the opportunities for settlement on the land. The as

sisted immigrants found employment in the cities. In each case the type of occupation depended to a considerable degree on the temperament of the immigrant. The free settlers penetrated the dense forests of the coastal rivers and planted their farms. They opened up mountain pastures, followed the explorer out into the interior along the banks of the inland rivers. "Theirs was, in every case, a life of adventure and daring. For if Nature deprived the early Australian settler of the American colonists' struggle with a savage foe and equally savage wild beasts, she faced him with a hostile environment more forbidding than any other country presents. The fight with the naked elements was the pioneers' battle. Only men of inherent courage and initiative, men in strength and breadth of outlook above the average, would have faced the long voyage and the uncertainty of life in a new land. Nature was fickle in this new country. Flood and fire and drought might come to rob the settlers of the rewards of their efforts. Hence they tended not only to become individualists, fighting each his own battle, but to assume some of the gambler's optimism, some of the hopefulness and confidence of those who take great risks, who are often thrown down, but arise again with smiling faces.

"In this psychological reaction the large number of assisted immigrants who did not become tillers of the soil were not sharers. Their position and outlook were different. Their entry into the country was facilitated by the use of government funds. They came to accept employment, though some of the farm labourers thus brought in were able to get selections [homesteads] of their own after 1861. But the majority were unfortunate in the moment of their entry and in the inadequacy of the opportunities for settlement on the land. Until 1861 men and women, introduced in this way and under such circumstances, were likely to rely upon state aid. Cheap lodgings had to be found for them on arrival, they had to be assisted with work and with transportation facilities to that part of the country where work was to be found. Further, the aggregation into cities became fixed in the social process of Australian life by the ar

rival of the nominated [assisted] immigrant."

One result of this division into two types of settlers is the sharp distinction between city and country and the excessive growth of the cities. Because the rural parts of Australia contain so much undeveloped wealth and because that wealth is being developed by people of such high types, Australia is able to support cities of excessive size. Moreover, as Northcott well says, "city and country are not only distinct in Australia, as in other lands, but there is less interchange between them than elsewhere. The city is not recruited mainly from an overflowing countryside. [Its industries] . . . are carried on by people who have never been stimulated by the hardship, the restricted opportunities, the individualism of country life and work. Historically the city has been built up, and many of its industries are still carried on, by the immigration of the town dwellers of the United Kingdom."

These, then, are the conditions under which the social organization of Australia has grown up. Remember that although the assisted city immigrant may not equal the unassisted rural type, he nevertheless possesses more than the average ability of his class in Great Britain. In his case, as in that of the unassisted immigrant, there has been a selection on the basis of health, temperament, and, to some extent, thrift. Thus, in its relatively huge cities, Australia possesses a group of working people who, in comparison with those of almost any other country, are unusually competent, so competent that they have established a fundamentally new system and have maintained a labor government at some time in practically every state as well as the commonwealth.

The laboring people have not done all this alone. In spite of the Labor party's claim that it is the cause of the country's prosperity, much of the so-called progressive legislation was well under way long before the Laborites came into power. This is true of the state railways, telegraphs, and telephones; of minimum wages, and wage boards. It is likewise true of the regulation of the labor of women and children, the appointment and treatment of apprentices, and many

other things such as old-age pensions, maternity bonuses, assisted immigration, the closer settlement policy, loans to farmers, and the policy of alienating public lands on leases rather than as freehold. Although the so-called Liberal party is the conservative party of Australia, its name is not a misnomer. In comparison with the conservative party in other countries it is distinctly liberal, and it has had the wisdom to adopt many of the ideas of the Labor party, but at the same time to modify them in the interests of stability. To-day, when the Labor party happens to have been more or less in power for some years, the government is especially active in carrying forward the same general policies by means of price regulation, loans for working men's homes, public bakeries, state canning factories in irrigated fruit districts, and co-operative selling agencies for farm products.

The point of the whole thing is that, regardless of changes in parties, Australia has been constantly progressing toward a condition in which the state not only insists on, but almost guarantees, high standards of living for people of all classes. Thus Australia has evolved a social and economic system which stands out as one of the important recent contributions to human progress. The reasonableness, stability, and effectiveness of this system stand in marked contrast to the seeming unreasonableness, instability, and ineffectiveness of the system whereby the Bolsheviki have ostensibly sought the same results. In the one case we have an example of what happens when two divergent and somewhat opposed groups composed of persons of more than average ability join hands in an attempt to frame a system which shall inure to the ultimate advantage of all concerned. In the other we have a case where the most competent members of all classes, from peasant to royalty, are largely exterminated or driven away, while a small minority impose their will on a huge majority who represent the almost helpless residue after the most able leaders have been culled out.

Let us look more closely at what has happened in Australia when a laboring group of uncommon ability has made demands upon a capitalistic group of em

ployers, landowners, capitalists, and professional men possessed of similarly uncommon ability. The fundamental ideal which has thus become established in Australia is that wages should not be based upon the old ideas of competition and of supply and demand. They should be based primarily upon the standard of living. Only after a minimum wage has been assured to every one should any available surplus be used for higher pay for the more competent workers and for profits to owners of capital. The minimum wage, as now generally defined in Australia, must in the first place be large enough so that every worker will have enough to support himself in reasonable comfort. But marriage is the normal and desirable condition of all healthy adults, and married women cannot take proper care of their children if they spend their days at work away from home. Therefore the minimum wages of men must be such that every man can support a wife and three children in accordance with the prevailing standards of living. It is assumed that a woman's personal expenses are the same as those of a man, but that her responsibilities for dependents average only half as great as those of the men. Wages are fixed accordingly. Suppose a man's personal expenses are reckoned as thirty shillings a week. The additional cost of supporting a wife might be twenty shillings, and of each child ten shillings, making eighty shillings, or four pounds per week, as the minimum wage. A woman's personal expenses would be thirty shillings, like those of a man, but as she is supposed to have only half as many dependents, on an average, her additional wages would be only twenty-five shillings instead of fifty, making her minimum wages fiftyfive. It would seem only logical to pay unmarried men at the same rate as women, where equal work is done, but Australia has not yet reached that point. This does not end the matter. The Australian ideal does not assume that people need merely food, clothing, shelter, and the opportunities of family life. It also assumes that they need recreation and leisure, and that provision for these must be made in determining wages and hours. Furthermore, the ideal has now

reached the point where, as Northcott puts it, "it is a fundamental part of the national aspiration that Australians shall themselves be healthy citizens rearing healthy families. The building up of a nation with stamina and a reserve of physical strength adequate to the task of settling an almost unpeopled continent, with no mean supply of climatic difficulties, has been definitely accepted as a conscious ideal. On the basis of a healthy childhood in home and school, the Australian people desire to create a social order that will prevent disease from impairing their social efficiency and will give them power and strength to realize their destiny. 'All Australia in its waste places is waiting for live men, with the fire of life in them, and a power of hand and brain, to translate what is barren and unlovely into something that shall be of use to man and beautiful as his desire.'* To people the northern territory with white settlers, to wrest from the virgin fastnesses of tropical Australia its enormous wealth, to rule its heritage of tropical isles in the Pacific Ocean, to make the fertile but arid regions of Central Australia yield up their wealth, and in shop and factory to drive the humming wheels of industry, will require a strong and healthy people with no racial poisons in their blood. Such a people the Australians aspire to be."

This ideal of universal health causes motherhood to become a social function. Moreover, there is a growing conviction that "the baby is the best immigrant." For these reasons the commonwealth allows a maternity bonus to the mother of every living child, and 95 per cent of the mothers apply for the bonus.

Naturally the care for health includes not only crusades against disease, but care for children and women in industry, good provisions for housing, and the careful inspection of food. During the war this even led to the establishment of bakeries and other industries connected with the preparation of food. If the state is thus to take care of its citizens so fully, it cannot logically leave them to suffer, in old age. Hence old-age pensions are now paid on a considerable scale.

*Buley, E. C., "Australian Life in Town and Country," p. 67.

Farther than this we have not space to go in explaining the social system of Australia. But let us look for a moment at the device by which the Australian Labor party has safeguarded itself against unrestricted competition. In order to keep the standards of living high, the Australians have given the government the power to decide what is a fair minimum wage and to see that no one gets less. The ideal is that the wages remain constant in buying power, or else rise in conformity with improvements in the standard of living. Hence wages are not measured in terms of money, but of what they will buy; and the number of pounds, shillings, and pence in a week's pay must vary in response to changes in the cost of living.

In order to realize this ideal the regulation of wages has been placed in the hands of wage boards with large powers and with immediate authority to order changes. Either employers or employed can appeal directly to the boards, but note an interesting limitation. No individual can appeal to the boards in his private capacity. The boards recognize only responsible corporate groups in the form of associations of employers or unions of employees.

The normal composition of a wage board is one representative of labor, one of the employers, and one of the state or the public. Whenever any question, not only of wages, but of hours and conditions of work, is brought before the board it makes a ruling which stands until amended.

Such amendments are frequent, for the boards themselves have power to make them, or at least can suggest that matters needing amendment be brought to their attention. The awards are carefully adjusted not only to the general cost of living, but to the needs of special places and industries. They are higher in the city than in the country, higher in the inaccessible regions than in those easily accessible, and higher in the warm, sparsely populated north than in the cooler, pleasanter south. Moreover, they fluctuate from industry to industry, the wages being raised in industries that are unpopular and need workers, and lowered in the popular, easy industries to which the workers tend to flock.

Wage boards are now accepted as a matter of course in practically all occupations throughout Australia. Indeed, they are so well established that one hears relatively little criticism of the general principle, although there are many bitter criticisms of details, especially among the employers. The general tenor of the criticism is: "The wage awards are too high. The working people get everything they want. They know they'll get their wages whether they work or not, and they loaf as much as they like."

A real criticism is found in the fact that the members who represent the government often have no first-hand knowledge of the business which they are called upon to regulate. There is also doubtless some truth in the further accusation that being political appointees these members are in danger of basing their decisions on political expediency and on sympathy for the under-dog. Australia is rich, active, and prosperous, and has a high tariff, so runs the argument addressed to such men. Hence it not only can stand high wages, but must have them to maintain its universal high standard of living. The result of such arguments, according to the critics, is that the political members of the boards, in whom rests the final decision, put wages as high as the most prosperous employers can stand and too high for those who are less fortunate. It is only fair to add that on the whole the Australian officials are high-minded men who according to their light are really seeking the best course for all concerned. A more serious difficulty is that, so far as the law is concerned, the good man gets no more than the incompetent. The labor people maintain that the minimum wages are the lowest that can be paid without lowering the standard of living. Since the unions hold out for high wages for the common laborer, and since the employers maintain that higher wages will spell ruin, the skilled laborer suffers. In many trades the minimum wages of the unskilled are so nearly the same as those of the skilled that there is little incentive to acquire skill. The number of apprentices is likewise sharply limited in many trades, which again deters men from becoming skilled. Moreover, the law makes no provision whereby the industrious man

gets more than the man who merely does enough work to hold his job. Thus in a business which is having hard sledding the employer may pay his best men scarcely more than his worst, because he feels that what he pays to the poorest is enough for even the best.

Another real criticism of the labor situation arises out of the fact that the state regulation of wages is subject to revision by federal arbitration courts. The courts can be appealed to by either party, but in practice it is generally the unions and rarely the employers who resort to them. The federal authorities can either raise or lower wages, but they generally raise them, or at least that was the case from 1910 to 1923. The value of the federal courts and their exceptionally high character are usually admitted. The criticism of them lies in the fact that they introduce a dual control and create uncertainty. Also they may create unfair conditions because their awards apply only to those factories which have actually been cited by the unions. Thus two factories side by side may differ in wage scales, hours, and other conditions, one depending on state laws and the other on federal arbitration awards, perhaps more onerous. A factory which has no quarrel of any kind with its employees, so the critics say, may be haled into court, and compelled to make expensive changes in its rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions, even when both the management and the workers have no desire for a change. Again, the unions can prevent a factory from being represented by legal counsel, thus forcing the managers to appear in person. Many manufacturers complain that months of time, which ought to be given to running their factories, are taken up in appearing in court, even when they are not parties to any real dispute.

Among the working people there is little criticism of the wage boards. The general feeling seems to be: "The wages are all right. A man here does a good day's work and gets a good day's wages. He has time to enjoy life, and a little extra money to spend on his home or a good time. A workingman's a man out here in Australia, not a slave." A chauffeur said to me: "I like it out here. You get good wages. You don't have to work too hard.