The Grey River Argus MONDAY, September 13, 1937. NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Grey River Argus, 13 September 1937, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, September 13, 1937. NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Upon its terms will depend how much people will be interested in the “no-confidence” motion to be submitted in Parliament this l week by the Leader of the Opposition. It would be unprecedented if the country lacked opinion | adverse to the administration.. and Parliament is the place where such opinion ought, to- find expres-, sion. If it proves, however, that ! the motion questions the provi- ; sion made for the poor, the uneni- ; ployed, the exporter, and the i working class, in more or less general terms, it will hardly be of use except to allow of argument on the rival party principles. There may be a case for a policy other than that of Labour, but it is any odds no such alternative will even be outlined in the “no confidence” motion. It is abundantly clear that the National Party has yet learned nothing from the blunders which characterised its policy when in office. That policy had and still doubtless has, a logical basis, but

one which is demonstrably al i variance with the realities of New i Zealand’s position to-day. This ; basis is that property is the first ! national considerat ion, and that I public welfare depends upon the j prosperity chiefly of employers 1 of those who have io live by their ; labour. Were the great mass in i the community to be identified with property, there might be a stronger case for the Opposition. What explains the presence in office of a Labour Administration, however, is very largely the fact that the majority of the people are no longer the controllers or possessors of productive property, but are employees of those who arc possessors and controllers. Hence the necessity which had arisen for action by the State to relieve the wants of the majority where there was utterly inadequate relief forthcoming from those "whom the Opposition declared to be the true support of the whole community. Should there be -the mere germ of an idea in the “no-eonfidence” motion for restoring to the aforesaid majority a share in the means of acquiring economic security or of lessening present dependence either upon the State or upon those who do possess -the means of wealth production, it will be a milestone in the history of the political elements for whom the present Parliamentary opposition claim the right to speak. It cannot be denied that a very large proportion of wage-earners do depend for employment upon the private or collective owners of means of wealth production. That is due to the ivay in which industrial capitalism has developed, but in addition there are many tens of thousands, aged, invalid, unemployed, and immature who, if it left without any protection : or support on -the State’s part, would be faring as badly as the poor in older lands where pauperism has become, as it were, chronic or indigenous. A case may be made out against present taxation, but it will not hold water if its consequence is the growth of poverty and worse for an increasing section of the populace. There may be any number of ways whereby means of a decent existence might be kept more evenly distributed than they were before Labour came into power, but the National Party has not yet gone within “cooce” of indicating even one. The nearest they suggest is that the more the State may leave those with productive property in the way of wealth, the-more will there be for those people to distribute as wages—or charity. Incidentally, the Opposition has endorsed the movement for what are called “compensated” prices for exporters, who, admittedly, deserve at, least a decent living standard for their industry; but is it reasonable to demand this for only one section, and deny it- to another? If the Opposition is sincere in its stand that, the State should leave alone some public enterprises which Labour has extended, it will, at least, according to its own firsl principles, formulate a policy whereby the increasing majority shall have the opportunity to acquire the means of security, which are essentially to share in the possession of productive property. Hitherto the Opposition lias looked will) complacency or approval upon I he burgeoning of monopolies that constantly lessen the owning section of the community. It is simply nemesis when the dependent section en-

throne an administration which stands for a better wealth distribution. and takes the means nearest at- hand to effect such a. distribution, whether these be taxation or the transformation of private monopolies into public enterprises. This is the fundamental economiic issue, ami it will be interesting Io observe whether it is ignored in the non-eonfidenee motion.