The Walsh Report

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24902, 15 June 1946, Page 6

The Walsh Report

The one-way view of the Labour leader was curiously • exhibited at the annual conference of the Federation of Labour in references by the Hon. A. McLagan, its president, to the report by Mr F. P. Walsh last March to the National Council of the Federation on the economic situation in New Zealand The national executive, said Mr McLagan, regretted the circumstances surrounding the publication of the Walsh report and felt that the good which could have resulted from it had been defeated by the opponents ol Labour. In view of that statement the circumstances in which the report was published and a general outline of its recommendations are worth recalling. The facts in brief are that the report was made to the National Council and was later printed in many New Zealand newspapers. Its general content was a review of the economic stabilisation control in New Zealand during the war, a warning that there were dangerous elements in the present situation of New Zealand’s economy, and a dictum that the only way in which the real standard of living could be raised was by increased production of essential goods and services. "No- " thing”, said Mr Walsh, “should “ be allowed to interrupt the pro■‘duotive system. It was Labour’s ” responsibility to work for the “ maximum production of goods "and services, and anything which

‘ stood in the way of that goal was “contrary to the best interests of “ the movement ". That these very

sensible suggestions, which it is fair to say were intended for internal consumption within the federation only, were in general approved by persons and organisations on the other side of the political fence obviously placed the federation in an embarrassing predicament; and presumably these are the “circum- “ stances ” to whieh Mr McLagan refers. Quite possibly his statement to the federation’s conference amplified his explanation of the circumstances in a way that a summarised press report could not cover; but it is difficult to see why publication of the report in any circumstances should have been in any way destructive of its good intentions, especially since it won the approval of those who might have been expected to be suspicious or critical of it. In the result, however, the very fact that it had been approved by political opponents aroused the unjustified suspicion* of Mr Walsh’s qwn supporters; and it is that unfortunate consequence on which, no doubt, Mr McLagan now sadly comments. If there is a moral to be drawn from this quaint political tangle it may be that the good of the whole community is best observed when both eyes are used.