The Press Tuesday, June 22, 1926. The National Party.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18724, 22 June 1926, Page 8

The Press Tuesday, June 22, 1926. The National Party.

Those who had hoped—and they include a great many supporters of the Government—that the National Party would endeavour to be of some practical use in Parliament will be rather disappointed with the statement made by Mr G. W. Forbes. It was encouraging to hear Mr Forbes saying that the I Government's huge majority made it more than ever necessary that the Opposition members should maintain " a vigilant scrutiny of the Govern- " ment's proposals, so that there should I " be no abuse of the autocratic power " placed in the hands of the Prime | " Minister." There is plenty of good work to be done by honest free-lances, | and many who read the words we have just quoted must have read on in the expectation of hearing Mr Forbes de- i velop a very promising theme. But he seems to have no real understanding I of the opportunities which are open to a handful of free-lance members, for he went on to outline what we suppose must be reckoned the policy of his " Party," and this policy, except in one particular, seems to mean nothing, and in the excepted particular is very surprising. When Mr Forbes names as the first plank of his polioy "strict economy in the country's " finances," he may be reminded that his Party has done nothing whatever, so far as the national finances are concerned, except clamour for increased expenditure. When he says that" land " settlement should be pushed on vigorously," he is saving only what everyone says except those who believe that it is far more important to turn our secondary industries into tariff-addicts. His third and last proposal is that "local industries should be stimulated "and encouraged in every way pos- " Bible." One " possible way "—and he favours every possible way—of stimulating and encouraging them is to impose a duty of 200 per cent, on all imported goods, -and Mr Forbes is apparently in favour of this. There are at least two reasons why one might be surprised to 'find Mr Forbes in this position. The -first is that Mr Forbes himself, and the bulk of his colleagues—if we may use the word bulk in connexion with a Party of fewer than a dozen altogether—are representatives of rural constituencies. The second is that Mr" Forbes is the accidental inheritor of the damaged relics of a Party which used to stand for the cheapening of the articles used by the people, and whose benighted newspaper supporters still remember to clamour for a reduction of the heavy Customs taxation in the intervals of demanding heavier Customs duties. It would Jbe uncandid to pretend that we do not incline to the general opinion that Mr Forbes and his colleagues are seriously wanting in political wit and capacity, but it is still, possible that they may do useful > work if they will regard themselves as free-lances, at ready to applaud as to attack. Criticism—*n* sometimes sharp crifo (rism—is certain to be needed; and if Mr Forbes can arrange for his Party to supply it, not as a Party maintaining some fictitious loyalty to some vanished Party flag, but as a Party of independent critics, be can still be of real service to Parliament . and the country.