The Press Friday, April 1, 1932. Labour's Declaration of War.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20510, 1 April 1932, Page 10

The Press Friday, April 1, 1932. Labour's Declaration of War.

The first thing to be said about the Labour Party's "declaration of war" is that it is a refreshing change to have things called by their proper names. The Party is making war, not only against the Government but against the community at large. It does not want peace, and it is trying hard to prevent the Coalition from doing the work the public authorised it to do at the General Election. It has not once since Parliament was called together given any kind of assistance to the Government in balancing the Budget- and maintaining the Dominion's credit, but has deliberately, and callously, because it has no alternative proposals and knows that in the end the unemployed pay, obstructed in the House and encouraged discontent outside. As it is still obstructing, and still angling for the support, of discontents, it is something that it at last has the decency to say so and to drop its sickening pretence to moral righteousness. But it must be noted in the second place that what the Party is now aiming at is obstruction's reward without its responsibility. The meeting held on Wednesday night in the "Wellington Town Hall was merely a demonstration in force to impress.. the weak and 'the simple. The real campaign is waged behind closed doors, where the "last ditch" makes no appeal. Nor is the prime consideration there getting rid of '" the triumphant "beast called the Government." Even if it could do that, Labour knows that another Government would take its place and carry on the essentials of its policy. What has to be done, if the Party is to anything and its followers to be kept following, is somehow to get it into the heads of all distressed people that their troubles have been deliberately created. The man who has lost his position has been thrown as a sop to some horrible Cerberus overseas. If his earnings have merely fallen, and not vanished altogether, he is still the victim, if he only knew, of a London or New York conspiracy; and the Labour Party's task is to let him know. But there are some facts so patent that even the blindest' cannot fail to see them, and one is' the political use Labour is making of the country's distress. It is perhaps entitled to make all the capital it can out of the Government's fumbling method of carrying 'through its programme. It is disgraceful, and something that the country can never forget, that it should be using unemployment politically, and wage reductions, and the enforced drop in everybody's standard of living. But if the Labour Party is behaving as opportunist Parties usually behave in a national crisis, 'the behaviour of the Public Service is a little, more dif-, flcult to explain. Members of the Service, are entitled to their own'political opinions and to their own political affiliations. They are entitled to vote Labour if they approve of Labour, and within the limits set by their employment as State servants, to participate in Labour activities. But it is. one thing to support a policy and another thing altogether to participate in conferences held to consider whether the Government's) decisions will or will not be obeyed. The Labour Party is naturally making as much as it can of this participation; but if it is making more of it than the facts justify, the blame rests with the Public Service itself. Whatever grievances it may have, Jhere is a better and safer way of obtaining redress than by participating in strike negotiations. The Cost of Unemployment. It was announced in yesterday's Press that the revenue of the Unemployment Board in the coming financial year is .expected to reach the staggering figure of £4,500,000, to which, apparently, must be added another £500,000 which the Government proposes to take from the Public Account for the rural allotments scheme.. This means that, for the relief of unemployment, the Government is appropriating, at a conservative estimate, £500,000 more than it spent on education last year, and four and a half times as much as it is going to spend on public works in the coming year. And if such reflections are disturbing enough in themselves, they are far more disturbing when it is remembered that the public have only* a vague idea of what is to be done with all this money. So far the Government has not even announced what system of relief will be adopted after the Hospital Boards have been freed from their responsibility in this matter. Nor does it help much when Mr Coates "refuses to see " anyone starve," and a insists on "getting authority from Parliament ''for Is in the £ wages tax." It-will not take £4,600,000, or even half that sum, to prevent starvation. Last year the State of Victoria had 60,000 unemployed and, with a centrally administered system of issuing rations, spent on them less than £1,500,000. It has been the policy of New Zealand that, within reasonable limits, relief work should be given instead of the "dole," but if this policy is going to cost more than £3 a head of population, it is necessary to pause and ask where we are drifting. The Government is able to contemplate raising such a huge sum only because of drastic cuts in expenditure under other heads, but no one gains anything if unemployment is created with one hand and relieved with the other. At the beginning of March, for instance, Mr Coates announced that .the capital expenditure on public works was to be reduced from £5,542,000 to £1,234,000 and that all public works were to be put on a relief basis. It is now announced that more than the amount saved on public works is to be made available for the provision of, other relief works, and if this really happens it means either tha£ the public works

cut has been too deep or that many of these works should never have been begun and should now never be finished. The public are entitled to know why it is less profitable and useful to spend a million pounds on public works which are on a relief basis than on special relief works of doubtful value to the community. The Local Government Commission. The reasons given by the Prime Minister for the Government's decision, announced this morning, to postpone indefinitely the appointment of a Local .Government Commission are muddled and unconvincing. Mr Forbes admits that " there is a widespread belief that '•'the time is overdue for a complete " enquiry into local body finances," but he refuses to institute such an enquiry because "the appointment of Commis"sions is out of favour with the " country." Even if his last statement is correct —and if it is the Prime Minister has been a long time in discovering it—it does not absolve the Government from the duty of instituting an enquiry that is clearly necessary. The Coalition fought the election on a promise of economy, and until it has done something to reduce the excessive cost of local body administration it will not have fulfilled that promise. The proposal to relieve the burden of rates by empowering local bodies to remit the ten per cent, penalty is, mere trifling, because the chief effect of such' a measure would be to increase the confusion of local body finance, which is already bad enough. The only sure way of easing the burden is to reduce the number of local bodies by concentrating functions and enlarging areas, and that, as all sensible people realise, can be done only after a thorough investigation. If Mr Forbes does not like the idea of another Commission, there is no reason why the work should not be done, in part at least, by a Parliamentary or a Departmental Committee. What is necessary is that the enquiry should begin ns soon as possible, since many of the Government's economies are throwing an extra burden on the least efficient part of the country's administrative machinery.