If I Were Prime Minister—

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 488, 18 October 1928, Page 8

If I Were Prime Minister —

TEB SUE is offering prise of £l9 for the best reply to the onesNon* *What Would J Do if I Were Pnn* Minister To-day t ce publish The 2lst of the entries. The competition is “open to ell comers end closes on October 29.

TRAVELLER

I? I had a strong enough majority to carry all needed reforms. I would divest myself of all minor responsibilities, and concentrate upon the larger problems upon which depend the peace and prosperity of this much-favoured country. Because transport is the easiest, and most in the public eye, I would take that first, and solve it in the old-fash-ioned and well-proven method, the survival of the fittest. This would at once put on my side the whole community, except the chairman of the Auckland Tramways, and the general manager of the Railways, but even the latter could not complain, having publicly stated that he cannot make them pay. The rest would hail me as a heavenborn statesman, and even those who

have forgotten their Shakespeare would quote: "A Daniel come to judgment. O wise and upright judge. How much more elder are thou than thy looks.”

When this had properly sunk into the mind of the community, I would show that under present conditions it is not the survival of the fittest, but rather the survival of ignorance and privilege, against order and sound finance. It is ignorance which makes the service car charge 10s for a trip costing nearer 30s. thereby taking the trade from the national railways, on which a charge of 20s leaves a profit. No platitudes about “unostentatiously passing through the development period" will prevent the public from seizing the cheaper rate, even with the assurance of the Minister of Public Works that motor transport really costs every man, woman and child in the Dominion £2O a year. As long as the ignorant carry passengers and goods at ruinous rates they will get the trade, and as fast as they throw their losses on their creditors another lot will come along to repeat the dose. I would therefore renew no transport licences unless the applicant could produce a certificate from a chartered accountant that he had been furnished with a balance-sheet for the previous period, and that a copy has been sent to the Government Statistician. If they are determined to carry on at a loss, they will then do it with their eyes open.

As for privilege, a most iniquitous system has crept in- By what equit> do buses and lorries compete with trams and railways, when the former Jo not have to construct and maintain the roads they use, whereas the latter do . Every shilling of railway and tram construction cost has to be mo t by fares and freights, but the Minister tells us that during the past eleven years there has been spent on the. roads £255 per motor vehicle, of which motors have paid only £24. It is certainly better now, with a petrol tax. but not until motors pay the equivalent of the remaining £231 can they be said to be competing fairly with trams and railways. In fact even then they still obtain an advantage, for they use and damage the 20ft. centres in the cities and suburbs, maintained by their competitors. The Automobile Association complains that motors pay 89 per cent, of a certain main highway. This is certainly unjust. They should pay 100 per cent-, not only of the main highway, but of all the roads they use, just as their competitors do. Then and not till then shall w© see the survival of the fittest. An adjusted petrol tax would make the position equitable, and show if it was necessary to sterilise £ 55.000,000 of national assets, simply to help unfair competitionHaving established my reputation as the man who gets things done, by equitably solving a problem of worldwide insolubility, I would concentrate upon the solution of the o*her problems of national importance, having meantime partly prepared public opinion to ciscuss their Urgency Tackling unemployment first, 1 would shatter the delusion that we have too many workers, when in tne next breath we declare that the country’s best asset is the man with a large family. If the first is true, a large family is a liability, not an asset at all. and the man who can carry out two jobs is taking the bread out of another man’s mouth, while the woman who works when her husband can “support” her is a criminal. The exact opposite is the case, for we want more workers, and the harder they work the better for everybody. The trouble is that their work is ill directed: they should be producers, not consumers. This opens up the land question, and also the need for more secondary industries. I wou%i discover apd expose the fact that man’s natural inclination to go on the land, and increase the country’s wealth, is hindered at every turn, whereas attractions drag people to the city. Xearly everything the farmer buys is at the retail price, raised by Customs duties and every device that commerce can suggest, including the prevention of direct importation by post, while everything he sells is at less than the wholesale price, cut down by world-wide competition, as well as collusion among the distributors. I would ascertain if it was economically sound to drive farmers hundreds of miles from the ports, when thousands of acres ar© untouched close to those ports, apparently held for speculation, or else through ignorance of how to work them. I would ascertain to what extent farms are held in areas far too great for the financial and mechanical capacity of their owners, thus also tending to drive other farmers to more distant and more expensively worked farms. I would see if prosperous seasons are of any use to the community, unless the price of land can be “anchored,” alternate land booms and slumps showing that when prosperity comes it invariably raises the prices of land, making it impossible for the next man, whereas booms and slumps are really within our own control, like most ills. By legislating on these and similar lines I would restore permanent pros-