OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 August 1916, Page 6

OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

To the Editor. Sir,—Wo are now said to have a National Government. It sounds very well, but it is a National Government that pays scant regard to the nation, if liy l!io nation we mean the people. It is a line idea for those who want no change or progress in government to have such a government as we now have. In theory it is for the protection and benefit of the nation, as above defined; in practice it is a do-nothing government; that is, if anything proposed to be done is at all likelv to put. in any way, the interests of the people before the interests of land or liquor. When this Government was first formed it was to be like "the brave days of old"; none for a party but all for the State. Alas, how they have fallen, and into a mere land and liquor party! They wanted in the first place to provide for National Defence, and so they put taxes on all and sundry, irrespective of how the taxpayers will be able to meet the additional impost. Of course, the money is needed, but why should a National Government tax post office and railways and let off the unimproved value of land so lightly? It is just a repetition of the old party system, only with this disadvantage, that if the "ins" would not do what the people plainly demanded the ••outs" • would take up the people's case and thrash the office-holder? out of office. It does not matter which party is the "ins" or which the "outs." It works the same way. Now it is a National Government that is afraid to trust the nation to decide the very important question of liquor trade regulation; and yet they call it National! Before that we had a Reform Government that would not reform in any way that was it all displeasing to either land) or liquor. Before ihafc again we had what was called a Liberal Government, who were not liberal enough to trust the people to settle the liquor question at one foil swoop. They let the liquor minority rule from 1902 onwards. The present Government put up what may be considered their greatest logician, in JMr. Herdman, to defend or explain their reasons for not putting anything into their War Regulation Bill to restrict the hours in which strong liquors may be retailed, and it seems to reasonable people very poor logic. He stresses with all a lawyer's logic the fact that in 1914 there was not a majority for total prohibition, and from that he argues that there is not now a majority for early closing of hotel bars. That is a queer argument. On our side we might, quite as reasonably, argv.e that in 1914 the electors did not want prohibition, as they anticipated a less drastic way of dealing with the liquor question, and that is by fi o'clock closing. But then when Mr. Herdman falls back on 1014 and the vote then given qii prohibition, why does he not »o back to the several polls before that —1902 to 1011, in each of which the liquor party, was in ft minority? If they did not want it in 1914, they evidently did want it in those previous years, and so we might infer that they do want it in 1010 ("it" means some measure o; liquor reform). In opening this letter reference was made to the various parlies in politics—National, Reform, libera!—but one party was omitted, the Labor Party. This party is not included in the National Government, as it ought to be if (he new party is to be truly national, and is not as well represented in Parliament as it ought to be; and further, how it can be a National Government when labor—the foundation of all our prosperity and wealth—is left out of the count is a puzzle to many people. Perhaps, under the circumstances, and looking at what the Labor Government has done in Australia, it would be wise when the next election conies along to put the Labor Party at the head of the poll. They would certainly make some changes; and 1. for one, can scarcely think they would do worse than the present pro-liquor party.—l am. etc., GEO. H. MAUNDER. 31/7/10. '