IRONIC COMMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 46, 4 December 1939, Page 8

IRONIC COMMENT

“NEW MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE.”

MR NASH AND CRITICS, (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, December 2, Ironic comment on the activities of a “new movement of the people,” now being organised 'in Wellington, is made in a statement issued by the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash). He particularly emphasised that, to tbe first meeting of the new movement, admission was by invitation only. Mr Nasli challenges the right of hidden groups to seek to embarrass the Government in its duty. “One cannot but admire the ambition of organisers whose organisation ‘aims at being the voice of the people?’,” said the Minister, referring to a published report of the meeting, “but the admiration is early tempered by doubt when one discovers that the ‘many hundreds present at their meeting were there by invitation. The voice of the people does not speak by invitation. Neither does it require the stimulation to make it speak. I am all for the ‘preservation of democracy’ and for holding fast to our ‘ heritage of freedom ’; for the ‘ sinking of sectional interests,’ and for ‘unanimity in working for the common good.’ I, too, am ‘pro-NewZealand.’ indeed, my objectives and the declared objectives of the Unseen organisers of; this mysteri--out movement have so much in common, that I begin to wonder why 1 did not receive one of their prized invitations. Since I did not, I am left to wonder more. I wonder if the trend of speeches was always proNew Zealand, and never anti-any-thing. I wonder if the speakers and the audience really ‘represented every class of the community.’ If so, why • the necessity for invitations? Surely an advertisement in the columns of a newspaper would have been more likely to reach ‘the people.’ I wonder about that ‘ very apposite quotation ’ from Macaulay, unless because it was anti-Southey. “Attack on Government.” “But why wonder? This is just another attack upon the Government and the Government’s policy; just another spanner thrown into the national machinery at a time when the needs of the Empire call for co-operation instead of obstruction. With what object? I cannot believe that any loyal body of men would purposely hinder the country and the Empire in their war effort. Yet that would be the result if Lord 'Macaulay’s laissez fairo programme w/re put into practice. Apart from the distance the world has come since Macaulay wrote, he presupposed a state of peace —one of the duties of governments which he set out was to keep the peace,” continued Mr Nash. “Through no fault of our own, we are at war; and even if it were sound policy in peace-time to allow ‘Rafferty rules’ in the economic ring—which it is not—there must be regulation and a measure of control: to ensure maximum war efficiency. Look at what a Conservative Government in Australia finds it necessary to do in the way of import restriction. “Macaulay would have found fault with every New Zealand Government in the last 60 years and every United Kingdom Government since 1906. Among the advances which are not only accepted, hut also now actively supported by all political parties in New Zealand, are many which Macaulay would have stigmatised as ‘intermeddling’ by the State—pensions, factory legislation, industrial conciliation and arbitration, public hospitals, State advances, free education, and equal opportunities in life. Does this new ‘voice of the people,’ when it becomes articulate, propose to scrap all these benefits ? Are we to abolish our schools and hospitals ? Shall we dam back the tide of settlement and homeowning by refusing to lend money to farmers and workers? Is it wrong to offer • protection and security to the aged, the sick and the very young?' “Usual Loose Talk.” “These may appear extravagant questions. Surely, it will be objected, no one would propose such follies? But what else is the new ‘movement’ proposing? True, we are told, in the report of the proceedings, that ‘nothing must be done, either bv the Government or by an section of the community, to nullify New Zealand’s support of Great Britain in the present war’ —'which is rather a negative way of offering help; but let that pass. There follows, however, as a contribution to nullification, all the usual loose talk against the Government. Talk directed apparently against some of the measures that are necessary for the successful prosecution of the war —held necessary 7, he it noted, not only in New Zealand, hut also in the other Dominions and in the Motherland herself. The attitude seems to be this. ‘We must not allow the. Government to impede New Zealand’s war effort ; so let, ns wreck the Government’s •policy,, and, if wo can, smash tho Government.’ “This at a time when the chief end of Government policy is the fighting and winning of the war; when the ■whole of the Government’s energies and resources have been placed at the disposal of the United Kingdom Government and of the King. This is a curious perverted form of co-operation, to say the least of it. No Objection to Criticism. “We do not object to criticism. Opposition, criticism, free debate —these are of the very stuff of democracy. But when we and our opponents aro in agreement on the dominant political issue of the day—tho conduct of the war —we do not expect to he hampered in our efforts to wage war successfully. Instead, we hope for cooperation and help. As the barest minimum, we are entitled to demand a cessation of the pin-pricking irritation tactics which, with some wouldbe politicians, passes muster fojr constructive statesmans!) ip. “Whbn the people speak, they do so without preliminary planning behind elosecT'doors.' They Tiave spoken, here in New -Zealand these last three months, in tones clear and resolute, and with rare unanimity'. The- 7 have

spoken for honour and justice; for tho maintenance of the rule of law in international dealings; for resistance to barbarian aggression from whichever ideological flank it may threaten. It becomes the duty of a Government to heed that voice, and to spend itself utterly in the cause to which to-day our Empire stands committed. By what authority, and in what right, do hidden groups seek to embarrass and to binder a. Government engaged upon its simple duty?”

THE CONVENER’S REPLY

REASON FOR ADMISSION TICKETS

WELLINGTON, This Day

Tho conveners of the meeting which was the subject of Mr Nash’s animadversions on Saturday, in a statement, said:

“Mr Nash is apparently concerned that anyone should have the temerity to call a meeting of people really concerned at the serious economic and political drift which is responsible for doubt, apprehension and fear abroad and in the community to-day. Surely this is a matter which concerns the people and one which they are free to consider in their own way, providing they strictly observe the laws of the country 7. The stupid heckling and rowdyism which have been so popular in recent years at public meetings was the reason for admission by 7 ticket. By 7 continuing the system, thousands of people will attend our future meetings, and while the committee appreciate the value of public meetings, the ticket system seems to bo the only one possible to secure to the speakers a reasonable hearing.

“Straight talking and not pin pricking was the order of the day for speakers at the meeting. A.n appeal from the chair for employers to retain their staffs, even at a sacrifice, received the endorsement of the meeting. This, surely, could not be considered an attempt to pour sand in the wheels and embarrass the Government.”