The Daily News. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1922. THE MEMBER FOR TARANAKI.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 November 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1922. THE MEMBER FOR TARANAKI.

The member for Taranaki met with a cordial reception at New Plymouth on Wednesday evening. Probably the meeting was composed mostly of those of his own way of thinking politically, but that fact does not detract from it; success. His four years’ apprenticeship as a politician has considerably improved him as a public speaker, and he was abie to hold the interest of his audience for over two hours, which is no mean achievement. He is to be congratulated upon his success. The bulk of electors will readily admit that, however they may differ from him in politics, Mr. Smith has proved a very energetic, painstaking and, on the whole, a successful member. He has taken his duties seriously, and at all times endeavored to promote the interests of the district. In short, he has been a good local member, and served all equally impartially and faithfully. As for his general politics, there is naturally not likely to be the same unanimity. On Wednesday evening Mr. Smith spoke on many subjects, on the whole with moderation, if not always with conviction. He severely criticised the present Administration both in respect of its acts of commission and omission. That is the prerogative of a member of the Opposition, and his strictures must not on that account be taken at their face value. The’ elector who is not blinded by party affiliations and prejudice will, in listening to and reading the hostile criticism, bear in mind that the country has been passing through very difficult, indeed critical times, and that consequently due allowance must be made for any mistakes made. Private firms have had great difficulty in getting through, and some have failed and gone to the wall. As with private concerns so with a Government. Frankly we are surprised that the Government has not made more mistakes and incurred greater losses than can be laid at its door. Mr. Smith referred to the fail-

ure of the Government’s policy in respect of the settlement of ex-soldiers. He mentioned a coastal case which, we think, calls for an explanation on the part of the powers that be. The policy, however, must not be judged upon isolated instances, but upon the results as a whole. When this is done, the Governments record is not at all discreditable. Consider the magnitude and difficulty of the task. There was no precedent to follow, and machinery had to he hastily devised and set in operation. The public demanded that the men should have the best of the land and improved places, and the Government had to submit to the demand. We all know now what a mistake it was for the Government to enter into the land market, and the consequent boom that its participation brought about. But the point is: Would any other Government have acted differently or done better? It would, of course, have been subject to the same influences and no doubt would have displayed the same weaknesses, and very probably not the same results. Mr. Smith sought to show that the Government was exhibiting a partiality for financial ano vested interests, instancing reductions made in taxation, whilst “cut®” were made in the salaries and wages of the civil servants. It is an attitude which is quite popular with the crowd, particularly the unthinking section, but it does not display a comprehension, or, at least, an appreciation of the position con i fronting the country. Taxation simply

had to come down. It was killing industry and enterprise. It was drying up the sources of revenue; it was killing the “goose that laid the golden egg.” Taxation is still heavier than it is in any other British colony; and it must still further be reduced. Wages and salaries were increased to meet the rise in the cost of living; they have been decreased because of the decrease in he cost. The same sets of figures were used, and there was nothing whatever unfair about the action of the Government. Mr. Smith blamed the Government for the increase in the cost of administration. How does he think it would have been reduced without a decrease in wages and. salaries? Take the railways; the tremendous increase in the cost of working during the past two years can be attributed almost entirely to the increase in wages, limitation of hours of working, and the imposition of working restrictions. Yet we are told that costs should come down, but that the wages and salaries should not be interfered with! Also that the big concerns should not have their taxes reduced. The fact is clear to the impartial observer that the only way we can get ’back to normal and prosperity is to reduce taxation further, to cut away all the restrictions imposed on industry, and for all members of the community to eliminate waste and work harder. By these means the pound note will gradually rise in purchasing value, and the condition of all sections will be infinitely sounder and better than in the hectic days we have passed through. To resist the stabilisation process by demanding that wages and conditions should remain a? they were, and that taxation should be kept at the recent high level, is rerily to inflict harm upon the workers, who are bound to benefit most by the reduction in the cost of living, and Mr. Smith consequently is pursuing a course against the interests of the class he supports. There are other points in his address which are open to criticism, particularly 'his advocacy of proportional representation and alteration in the banking system, but these we must leave 1 for the present.