The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1929 IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORSE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 701, 28 June 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1929 IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORSE

THERE were at least six good points in the Speech from the Throne yesterday at the opening of New Zealand’s twentythird Parliament. The rest of it was the usual admixture of political rigmarole and a Government lullaby. So it may be said at once that, if the Address could have been better, it might also have been worse. For those who come of age every year and begin to take an interest in polities, it should he explained that the GovernorGeneral, at the formal opening of Parliament, is not responsible for the administrative policy contained in or left out of his Speech. He merely voices the wisdom of the King’s Ministerial advisers. If such wisdom be meagre or of a mediocre quality, the Government alone must be blamed. In view of a fine record of Vice-Regal service marked all the time with firm sagacity, one might say fairly that, if the Speech yesterday had been of his Excellency’s own making, it would have demonstrated appreciably that Ayrshire still is the home of honest men. From a national viewpoint those who take only a superficial interest in politics and believe with a simple instinctive accuracy that no Government nowadays is exceptionally competent or rich in statesmanship, the Speech will he accepted as something good, as was to he expected. But to those who take politics seriously, because of deeper belief that good or bad statesmanship may make or mar a country’s progress, the stuff in the harangue will be another disappointment. After it has been noticed with amusement that the Speech gravely announced that Mr. Michael Myers, K.C., had been appointed Chief Justice—a fine political example of being right up to the minute with information!—attention may he given to the six outstanding points of Government policy. First and most important is the assurance that generous practical assistance will he given earthquake sufferers. This also is much belated. No details of what the Government means to do have been given, hut everybody except slow-moving politicans could outline an essential policy without an hour’s delay. Such a policy should have been announced and put in hand within twenty-four hours after the earthquake. Out of the large company of Cabinet Ministers one ought to he set free from petty administrative work, which really is performed by departmental officers, and sent to the earthquake area with power to supervise relief. Each of the three parties should appoint a Parliamentary representative for similar service. Then a special committee of local administrators in the stricken territory should be set up forthwith and fortified by advice from similar civic committees in the main centres which have expressed sympathy in a substantial form. And the Government long ago should have provided a national fund of, say, £50,000 for the purpose of affording immediate relief in the most necessitous areas of affliction and destruction. Another policy point of interest deals with land settlement. Legislation is to he enacted in the direction of enabling the Government compulsorily to acquire farm land on less exacting terms for closer settlement. And there is a hint at experimenting with and on neglected virgin land. Again, there are no details, hut obviously the Administration means to go on with its expensive policy of buying dear land for small farmers. In addition to these intentions the Government’s legislative policy will deal with an adjustment of taxation, the establishment of another highways hoard, thus providing one for each Island, the appointment of a trade representative in Canada, and the setting up of a Select Committee on Education so that a new hatch of politicians may tinker further With a clumsily-tinkered system. Of course, it has to he recognised that the Speech did not cover all the ground of Government policy. The programme of prospective legislation undoubtedly will go much further, but, until the various Bills have been introduced, no one outside the Ministry and probably several members in it knows the full scope and direction of promised legislative measures. The country may only hope that “the best is yet to be” and that enactments will he far ahead of the Government’s poor record of service and that performance will be as tall as pre-election promises, but not as hollow.

A NATION IN MOURNING

AS an outlet to the suppressed feelings of the German people, the day of mourning being observed today, on the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, may be admirable in purpose, and may draw attention to one or two obvious injustices that should not be permitted to continue. Beyond that, it will hardly impress the nations that were opposed to Germany in the war. The truth is that none of these nations has relatively any more occasion for rejoicing than Germany has for sorrow. The aftermath of war lias proved how little there is to gain by it. The afflictions of Germany are little greater than those of Britain. Germany lias recovered her industrial position with a comparative ease that appears quite incongruous to those who, ten years ago, regarded her as a defeated nation reaping the harvest of aggressive nationalism. One of the grievances under which Germany feels she is labouring is the restriction in trade. Such restriction as there is appears to be economic and unavoidable, rather than the calculated result of any definite political or diplomatic purpose. German commodities are sold freely on the Auckland markets today. In the wider sphere of international commerce, the tremendous operations of the colossal German dye trust, which has recently made powerful American interests its subsidiaries, reveal a convincing aspect of Germany’s trade recovery. Germany .has an immense obligation to meet in the way of war debt reparations, but, to British sentiment, that seems only bare justice. The question of war guilt is viewed more broadly now than it was ten years ago, and some may credit German statesmen with sincerity when they emphatically disavow it. There is a gentleman at Doom, however, who is perhaps more competent to discuss it and, in any case, even though we may iiffect to believe that some mysterious group of international financiers arranged the war for their own benefit, or that it was the inevitable expression of a periodical exuberance on the part of the peoples concerned, it is still difficult to separate German aspirations from the underlying causes. Of the injustices left by the Treaty of Versailles, the continued occupation of the Rhineland is conspicuous. Yet, how much worse it might have been, when Foch fought vigorously to have the sphere of occupation advanced beyond the Rhine, so that huge forts might be built at the bridge-heads! Germany was at least a nation intact, untouched by the ravages of war. The sufferings of France in 1870, when Paris starved, and again from 1914 to 1918, when one of her key industrial areas was reduced to wreckage, give a basis of comparison. Germany may mourn, hut Britain still staggers along with her million or so unemployed and bears the brunt of the war debts of the world. War is a'sad business, and the grief is not all on Germany’s side.