DOMINION'S NEED

Rotorua Morning Post, Issue 2, 25 August 1931, Page 2

DOMINION'S NEED

With dramatic suddenness Mr. Coates placed before the House of Representatives his alternatives to a National Government. There had been signs since the beginning of the financial debate that the Reform Party was looking for an opening for some strategic move. It was not prepared to sWallow the Governmejit's taxation proposals, it refused to countenance the offers to form a National Government, and its only alternatives were to persuade the Prime Minister to amend his Budget or vote him out. Any drastic amendments would have, of course, meant that the Budget could j not have been balanced under the Prime Mijiister's policy, and rather than j take the responsibility of f orcing an .election in an uncertain atmosphere j Mr. Coates recommended in the form of a motion, that "representatives j of the political parties should be called together in order to decide what remedial steps should be taken to adjust the national expenditure and to provide for equality of sacrifice and a proper distribution of the burden." One of course accepts the motion as the leaders of the other parties did, as a sincere gesture in the country's interests, but it must also" be recognised as a brilliant counter-move out of the rather awkward situation in which the Reform Party had been placed. From a tactical viewpoint it is now riding on the crest of the wave, but it will only remain there so long as the committee functions effectively. If the committee is to consist of representatives of the three parties only, then it is almost bound to fail to bring dpwn any recommendation which will be acceptable to the whole House, "and the wrangle will go on as in the past. Perhaps the most re-assuring paragraph in the motion is the suggestion that the committee, in arriving at its conclusions, should obtain the best expert advice and assistance from financiers and others. The long debate on the Address-in-Reply and the Budget have shown that the House has failed to formulate, and is not likely to formulate any definite policy to rneet the depression. The Prime Minister set out to balance the Budget and on paper he has done that, but serious, well-based doubts have been raised as to whether his taxation proposals would reach the estimate. Even if they -lo there is the further problem of next year when, unless the economic . ftuation improves, the task of making ends meet will be greater than ever. Tie reserves have gone and there will necessarily be a further shrinkage in' the avenues of taxation. Optimism will not solve the problem. It is i time for the New Zealand Parliament to call to its aid some of those mer. who, unfortunately for the Dominion, do not enter the Legislative Assembly. The Australian Parliament admitted defeat when it called in ProLssor Copland, the Melbourne economist, on a small committee of economic and financial experts to formulate a plan, and when that plan was drawn -up it gladly accepted it. For its action the Commonwealth Government was applauded throughout the world, and the time is coming when Ney Zealand will have to follow suit. In fact Mr. Coates' motion would ha\3 been much more beneficial to the country, although perhaps not so spe\tacular politically, if he had moved that an expert committee be set up Lstead of a Parliamen'tary committee, for there is certainly a wide gulf b tween the two. Of course one of the reasons which might have prevent?4 Mr. Coates from adopting the undoubtedly wiser course was the necessity, for political purposes, of offering an alternative to Mr. Forbes' seheme for a National Government. Certainly he suggests that the committee seek expert advice, but it would be infinitely better if the parliamentarians did not have anything to do with the deliberations. They have already hai their chance. We have had the spectacle of experts advising Governn.ents before and the advice has 'been like so much water on a duclc's back. Let the committee be set up from outside the House, let knowledge and not populafity be the guiding principle in its selection, let Parliament have tie responsibility of accepting or rejecting the committee's plan, and tlere is no doubt that greater things would be accomplished in a shorter fcpace of time than any Parliamentary machine could get under way. The nembers of the committee by reason of their systematic training in the irinciples of the subjects they would disauss would . have a decided advantige over even a select committee of the House. Professor Copland and \iis colleagues f ormulated their .plan in nine days and we have prof essors otTeconomics and financial experts, just as capable as they are. If . this i-„ doubted the services of Professor Copland himself might he obtaiVed. He- is a New Zealander and is at preSent visiting the Dominbn. It is a weakness of democracy to suppose that the politican who topx the polls is as competent to deal with the political problems in the intn-national world of the twentieth century as his forbears were competent to deal with the customs of their village in the Middle Ages. Those were oays when our ancestors regarded jleath, war, plague and famine as manifes\ations of the hand of God, whrm less was expected of legislation, and whm the simpler problems of a l£ss exacting age could be dealt with without disaster by a few gentlerfien at Westminster, The world of politics,' as the world of physics, is a world of natural fact, and its complicated processes are to be obseryed, understood '• and controlled only by patient st\dy and research. Control is nQt con- : sistent with what H. G. Wells calls the "immense inattentions of mankiildJ' For this reason one makes a plea for the expert. His voice must be heard. Our politicans must be taught what they do not lcnow in order that they j may learn intellectual humility. The hope for political competence lies in j Parliament accepting the highest qualified advice. * j t