The Southland Times MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1942. The No-Confidence Debate

Southland Times, Issue 24878, 19 October 1942, Page 4

The Southland Times MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1942. The No-Confidence Debate

IS WAS expected, the noA confidence debate in the House of Representatives brought no major change to the political situation. The only speeches worth serious attention were those of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. Mr Holland, explaining why he and his colleagues had resigned from the War Administration, made the issue a question of principle. “The Government,” he said, “was elected by the people to make laws and see them administered. If the Government failed to observe impartiality in administration and failed to administer justice fairly and impartially, then it deserved to lose the confidence of the House and the country.” There can be no doubt that if the debate is judged solely from a moral viewpoint the Opposition had the better of the argument. A' closer adherence to principle is one of the clamant needs in New Zealand politics. And the Government’s handling of the Waikato strikes is one more instance (a glaring one) of the hold which expediency has obtained on the direction of national policy. The law is, or should be, absolute. Its validity depends, in the long run, on the obedience of the people—on the respect they feel for a system which they have been taught to regard as the very foundation of the State. If they come to believe that laws can be circumvented by organized minorities the social fabric must inevitably be weakened. Unfortunately, however, the issue was raised in exceptional circumstances. It must .be admitted that if the miners had been imprisoned the industrial, and to a certain extent the military, side of the war effort would have suffered in a critical period. The plain man, studying these facts, will probably reach the conclusion that the Government’s weakness has its source in the political past of its members. It is something to be remembered when the time comes for a postwar review of the political situation. In the meantime the conduct of the war is the major interest of the Government and the people. A general election might clear the air; but it could bring no real and lasting improvement in the standards of government. That can come only with the appearance of men far bigger in calibre than those at present in Parliament; and these men are now in the armed forces, or in key positions from which they cannot be spared. A Parliamentary reshuffle would lead nowhere. It is better to press forward, to leave party politics in the background, and to keep the national energies concentrated upon the winning of the war. The no-confidence debate, and the events leading up to it, have restored to Parliament an Opposition which now has a chance to function more effectively than seemed possible while the search for unity was leading towards an unsatisfactory compromise. But many persons have been left with an impression that the impartial observance of the law was not the only issue troubling the mind of the National Party. The position of Mr Coates and Mr Hamilton would be more interesting in other circumstances than it can be today. Their political future cannot seem important while so much else is at stake; it is clear from their actions and. statements that this is their own opinion. But there may be further developments when the country has passed beyond the crisis of the war.