The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1929 THE STRONG HELPS THE WEAK

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 707, 5 July 1929, Page 9

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JULY 5, 1929 THE STRONG HELPS THE WEAK

NOTHING could, be nicer in polities than the chivalry that is being exercised theSfe days in different Parliaments by Opposition parties. They are obeying the old command that the strong shall help the weak, and are glowing with the satisfaction of generous obedience. But praise of this pretty sentiment should not be set too high; it should be realised by the simplest onlookers that the chivalrous parties, in practising a fine virtue, incidentally are also helping themselves to remain in an interesting and not too ill-paid occupation. It is not cynicism to say that, if they thought the people would change their party preferences at a snap election, minority governments would not rule very long. Still, whatever credit is due to every strong Opposition for the practice of a kindly tolerance should be given readily and with goodwill. So let the Leader of the Opposition in our House of Representatives be commended cordially for declining to stage a political farce in the form of a no-confidence amendment to the formal Address-in-Reply motion. The Reform Party intends to help the weak minority Administration in its arduous tasks. In explaining this reasonable policy Mr. Coates was fair and even generous without being mawkish in political sentiment. He and his party will avoid petty and harassing tactics, will assist in promoting good government of the country, but naturally will not surrender their right nor shirk their duty to criticise the Government’s legislative and administrative proposals. Nothing better than that could be expected from the formidable Opposition, and it is to be hoped that the Labour Party will follow its rival’s good example and also help an immature Ministry to render useful service in difficult circumstances. All three parties should agree at once to make a quick end to an extravagant debate, and earn their honoraria by real work. Almost a precisely similar spirit of party tolerance animates the House of Commons, where, so far, the Opposition which also, as in New Zealand, easily could dismiss the minority Government, has been surprised at the Labour Administration’s moderation. Its initial programme is so close to those of the other parties that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have much scope for hostile criticism. In listening to the elaboration of Labour’s policy they hear, as it were, the echoes of their own voices from the pre-election platform. And no politician cares to condemn his own ideas and promises. But there is an iron hand in the kid glove of the Opposition. As Mr. Churchill phrased it in a plain warning, “the moment the Government attempted to put into practice the fundamental vices and fallacies on which the Labour Party was built up it would be swept from office.” Moreover, there is a fairly general belief in the House of Commons that, in six months’ time, the Opposition will put the Government’s policy to a crucial test. Meanwhile, each party is on guard. The result must be left to time. Party conditions are not quite the same in the New Zealand Parliament, though, in many features and problems, there is much similarity. It would be wrong, for example, to speak of the Government as having fundamental vices on which its party was built up like a mushroom in a warm night. But it would be fairly right to refer to the party’s fallacies. It may be noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has submitted a plea to the Government to be brave enough to admit where its pre-election planks were wrong, even at the risk of having to go back on some of those planks. Surely, Mr. Coates does not really expect the Government to admit its fallacies. Pew politicians ever do, and the Reform Leader can be included among them. Before an election all party politicians promise more than they even hope to accomplish, and the caprices of democracy have encouraged the promise-makers to shout loud and scream in order to catch men’s ears. And it usually is as easy for a shrewd politician to pull the ear of the public as it is to pull its leg. But why pretend about it, or ask an embarrassed Administration to modify its promises and admit its fallacies? Proof of wrong ideas and fallacious policy will come soon enough; indeed, the country has had sufficient evidence already in the past six months. The present situation merely emphasises the weakness of the manysided party system. Instead of being able to command legislative progress the minority Government will have to be content with such ability as it possesses to persuade the strong Opposition to help weak administrators. In the meantime the politicians are sure of keeping their billets for a full Parliamentary term.

THOSE RAILWAYS

MISGIVINGS about the United Government’s railway policy will be intensified by the penetrating criticism delivered by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates in his contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate. Thus early in the session, it is evident that railway management and railway construction schemes will form a fruitful subject for argument. In such discussions Mr. Coates is favoured. His grasp of these problems is masterly, and his years in office have given him an inside knowledge compared with which the knowledge of the new Ministers must inevitably be a mere veneer.

The forecast that the Morningside deviation project is to be shelved is a deep disappointment, and the promised announcement by the Minister of Railways, whose judgment Mr. Coates has anticipated with an unwelcome air of confidence, will now be awaited more eagerly than before. The attitude of the new Government to such works as the Palmerston North deviation and the Rotoma-Taupo railway, on which a large sum had been spent before work was abruptly halted, does not inspire the hope that Mr. Coates may have guessed wrongly. Yet, if his forecast is true, it is apparent that the Government has once again defied expert counsels, whose judgment over a long period has favoured the belief that the Morningside deviation is an absolute necessity before the traffic from Auckland to the North can be handled with ease and efficiency. The rattling of the buried bones of the Taupo and Palmerston North projects will continue for a long time. Palmerston North is left with an unsightly hotch-potch of uncompleted excavations, and 14 of the country’s most dangerous level crossings, at which peril awaits the motorist, while delays at the crossings and in the crowded marshalling yards account for much of the late running that has lately been so irksome. Even a Canterbury member, Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Riecarton) has joined in denouncing the South Island Main Trunk project. His thrust at the Minister of Railways, who is claimed to have travelled over the route in a closed car on a wet day, and then to have lauded its scenic attractions, is both amusing and effective. There are unquestionably many arguments in favour of the proposed line, but the Government still hesitates to answer the many challenges that have been flung at it, and consequently gives the impression that it has a weak ease.