The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1938. The Prime Minister’s Policy Speech

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22515, 24 September 1938, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1938. The Prime Minister’s Policy Speech

The Prime Minister’s policy speech in Wellington makes it necessary to add very little to the comments in this column yesterday on the prepublished summary. It is a pity that, where some remark upon his speech is called for, it is in the main Mr Savage’s trick of missing or evading the point that provides the cause. This is illustrated conspicuously by his attempt to suggest to the electors that the National Party has involved itself in a contradiction over the social security legislation. “Why was it,” Mr Savage asked. “ that the National Party did not “oppose the Social Security Bill? They said “ there were things in it they wanted; but now “ they say they would not allow it to operate. “ They couldn’t have it both ways.” Mr Savage is an experienced Parliamentarian: he either heard, or was informed upon, the progress of the debate on this bill; he has no excuse for affecting ’not to understand the attitude and action of the National Party in the House, none for incompletely representing its election policy on the question, and none for pretending that the party is trying to “ have it both ways.” The National Party approved the, principle of universal superannuation: for that reason it refrained from voting against the bill—and deprived the Labour Party of a hoped-for electioneering advantage. But the National Party consistently and repeatedly attacked, for example, the sketchy financial basis of the bill and the badly constructed scheme of health services incorporated in the bill. With complete reason and consistency, the National Party has now announced that it “ will not operate ” the Social Security Act. With equal reason and consistency, it has announced the essentials of a measure which it will substitute. Of this Mr Savage said nothing at all; but he was aware of it, as he was aware of every fact set out above. Yet he chose to put before his audience a suggestion totally unwarranted by the facts known to him. Another illustration of the Prime Minister’s intellectual habits appeared in his references to currency and credit, when he spoke of the “ clear objective ” of Labour in making “money the servant instead of . . . “the master of mankind,” and of the necessity for “ the nation ” being “ the sole authority for “ the issue and control of money.” This is not the clear objective of Labour, and of Labour only; it may just as well be said to be the clear objective of every reasonable man, whatever his party. The real questions and differences are questions and differences of technique, and control, and responsibility. When Mr Savage says “ the nation,” he means, rather, a group of politicians who have views like his own.' But N “ the nation” may be much more truly represented, and much more efficiently served, by a body of politically independent experts, co-operating with the political administration. This, however, js less to the purpose, at-present, thap Mr Savage’s failure to see what it is that electors really want him to explain. He has spoken again and''again , upon this subject, and has again and again made such statements as that money can never be lacking for necessary objects. It is not his aim that has provoked doubt and question, but his procedure. The electors want to know what the Prime Minister means by “ kicking over the “ traces,” financially, what he means by “ in“sulation.” how he plans always to be able to finance every good and useful project. The Prime Minister’s answers remain what they have been: further assurances of the same general sort. “Don’t be worried by scare- “ mongers. I am.nqt going to pledge my- “ self to you without knowing what I am talk“ing about. I know the Government I am “ working with. I will be able to meet you “in the days to come, and look you square in “ the eye ”: speh words appear to be a major .part of the Prime Minister’s political stock-in-trade. It is a pity that they sound, with repetition, like the. patter of artists in another sphere, whose appeal is- ever to the confiding and for confidence.