The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1939. A TEST OF CONFIDENCE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19982, 6 July 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES." GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1939. A TEST OF CONFIDENCE

The no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply moved in the House of Representatives last evening by the Leader of the Opposition should have the effect of providing focal points for a debate which, in the normal course of events, will occupy Parliament for the next week or so. This, indeed, can be its only real object. It could be said with some justification that since the Government has an overwhelming majority a motion of no confidence is a waste of time, but, for that matter, the same thing coulcl be said of the Address-in-Reply itself. This time-honoured procedure provides a method whereby, at the outset of a Parliamentary session,

there is scope for a general review of both the Government’s policy and the grounds for opposition to it; in other words, it is the process of hearing both sides. Experience has shown that this debate has a tendency to wander ovi?r an almost limitless sphere and the real value of the Opposition amendment is that it may help to concentrate attention on certain questions which are exercising the minds of sections, at least, of the public. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that at the moment there is a certain amount of perturbation throughout the country and if the Government, by replying to the specific points that have been raised, can remove this it will serve its own

interests' as much as those of anyone else.

The amendment includes eight grounds on which it is claimed that the Government has lost the confidence of the people. The claim itself can be ignored, but some of the issues, at least, demand consideration. The Opposition has placed national defence at the head of the list. While admitting that there is little ground

lor criticism of the naval and air defences, it contends that, the requisite man-power for land defence should be secured by restoration of universal training. The Government prefers the voluntary system, and its task, in the course of the debate, is to show that its policy is justified. The subject cannot be dismissed by quoting figures to show that defence expenditure has been increased enormously compared with five or six years ago, because at that time there was no serious threat to the Empire and even Britain itself had not launched its re-

armament, programme. The only question is whether New Zealand’s present defence preparations are adequate in face of the disturbed international situation and commensurate with the steps being taken by other parts-of tiie Empire. The Opposition fulfils its correct function in raising the issue and pointing to what it considers to be a defect in the plans; it now remains for the Government to reply.

A similar approach should be made to the other issues of the amendment. The Opposition presents its case; it is Cor the Government to provide an answer. Finance, naturally, looms largely in the general picture. As Mr. Hamilton pointed out, there had been a record export income in the past three years, there has been a record expenditure of borrowed money, and record revenue from taxation. Despite these favourable conditions, New Zealand to-day is unable to meet all its commercial debts and the Minister of Finance, at variance with the policy announced by him in his last Budget, is endeavouring to raise a new overseas loan. The onus is on the Government to explain these seeming paradoxes and to give the public some concrete reassurance that the financial difficulties are not sc grave as they appear on the surface. Another point on which information is sought is unemployment. The latest returns show that there are only 72G unemployed, yet last year nearly £6,500,000 was spent on the relief of unemployment, or in employment promotion. It is for the Government to give particulars of the disbursement of this large sum under conditions of prosperity and to indicate, not merely to an Inquisitive Opposition, but to the public, how this subsidised work is to be continued now that the employment fund no longer exists. All these questions are reasonable and legitimate, and the Opposition would not be carrying out its responsibility if it did not raise them. The Government will not be doing its duty to the public if it leaves them unanswered. It could not have been expected that the Prime Minister should answer them categorically last evening, because he had had little opportunity of considering the points in detail, but it will be expected that other Ministerial speakers later in the debate should deal with each and all of the issues. Mr. Hamilton was right, at the outset of his speech, in insisting that the Government should deal, not with the past, but with 1939. It is as well, perhaps, that the public should at times be reminded of the past and profit from experience, but its chief concern to-day is not with what was done years ago but with what it is proposed to do to make provision for the present and the future. Nor can a great deal of importance be attached to the abundant evidence of the prosperity of the past three years—since export income constituted a record prosperity was inevitable —but what is vitally important is that it should be demonstrated that there is no danger of living standards being undermined through loss of confidence and depletion of credit. These issues can, and should, be debated in s calm atmosphere, and it will be for the public, after hearing both sides in the debate, to determine whether or not the Opposition charges are effectively answered or whether they are sustained.