The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1911. "A PARTING OF THE WAYS."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1101, 13 April 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1911. " A PARTING OF THE WAYS."

Several of the topics touched on by the President of the Chamber of Commerce in his annual address yesterday are of particular interest just now, and none more so than his references to the restrictive legislation which is hampering industrial development and his views regarding the trend of party politics. Very few people who have given any serious thought to ths subject will be inclined to question the opinion voiced by Mk. Tewsley as to the necessity for calling a halt in the matter of legislation interfering with the industries of the country. From all directions the complaint has gone up from those who are engaged in carrying on our that they arc being crippled in their efforts by the ever-increasing mass of restrictive legislation. As Mr. Herdman pointed out a few evenings ago, our manufacturing industries, instead of developing and expanding, are cither standing still or falling away. Me. Tewsley went to Australia for an illustration of the effect of State interference, but he would have had no difficulty in finding evidence in New Zealand with which to support his contention. The position is bad enough to-day, but the worst feature of the situation is not the direct effect of the legislation already passed, bad as that in some instances has been. Even greater harm is done by tho impression which the Government has created in the public mind, and especially in the minds of those who have money to invest, that there i 3 Co ,be no end to this sort of interference. Those who would be prepared to risk the present are desperately afraid of the future. They arc in a state of uncertainty all. the time as to what the next step will bo—who the next turn of the screw will pinch. Year after year they have seen some fresh legislative enactment passed in spite of the protests of those, who are striving to build up industries; they hear on all sides the complaints of those who find it more and more difficult to carry on their industrial undertakings- with profit; and it_-is small wonder if, as careful business men having some regard for the future of their investments, they hesitate to placo their capital into industrial enterprises necessitating the employment of any large body of labour. The money is diverted into other channels, oftentimes it goes out of the country altogether, and the whole community is so much the worse off for , its loss. The protest of tho President of the Chamber of Commerce, therefore, is made none ■too soon.

Mr.. Tewsley's reference to the state of parties in cur politics voiced th 6 opinion of a good many people and very forcibly illustrates the growing recognition of the ills that inevitably develop under a Government guided in all its actions by nothing more worthy than the desire to cling to office. It is a, very common thing to hear people remark that there is very little difference between Che policy of the Government and the policy of the Opposition. Those who hold this Opinion are either hopelessly biased or are profoundly ignorant o? political affairs. It is not necessary to compare the policies of the two parties in detail to prove this. No one, we think, would accuse the lleform party of Socialistic tendencies—everyone knows the Socialistic tendencies of the Government. The. first principle of the Government's policy is the retention of the power of. political patronage (1) by keeping tho Public Service under political control; (2) by retaining the power to bribe the electorates by apportioning the Public Works Fund to,suit ths political needs of the party in power rather than to serve the interests of the country. The Opposition, on the other hand, desires to remove the Public Service from political control ancl to place the administration of the Public Works Fund in the-hands of a competent non-political board so as to ensure that the money will be spent wisely and only as the needs of the country demand. It is doubtful if the public properly realise the vast importance of the issues involved in these differences in the policies of the two parties. One of the greatest scandals in the administration of the affairs of this country is the enormous burden imposed on Hie people by the use made b,y the Government of its power to utilise the Public Service as a political rlarty machine. The cost of government is entirely out of proportion to the size and needs of the country governed—the increase in cost in recent years, as we have frequently shown, has hern enormous. There is waste and extravagance in all directions because the Government uses the Public Service as a means of patronage. If merit alone were to count, tho work of the Service would be revolutionised. ' The members of it would then act on their own judgment, subject to the rules of the Service, ancl with the one view only—that of the country's best interests. They would know that their advancement depended on the services they renck.Tcd, and not on pleasing a Minister or pandering to his political needs or the needs of his friends and supporters. This question is indeed n vital one affecting everyone, for in one way or another all contribute their share towards the cost of government. So also with the Public Works Fund. The benefit to the country that would be derived from the proper administration of the huge sums borrowed is really incalculable. On that plank of their policy, alone it would pay. the coun- i

try to replace the present. Administiation with a party pledged to bring about this reform. And yet there are people who profess to see very Httic dilfereiico in the policies of the two parties. We might enumerate many other equally antagonistic planks, but for the moment, those we have given are sufficient to prove our point. Having shown I hit this difference exists it may be thought that wo arc entirely out of sympathy with Mn. Tewsley's idea that

' U)o nkl linos of demarcation between the. parties are disappearing." This is not. so. We quite recognise with Mi;. Tewslev that, there are a good many men on opposite sides in Parliament between whom {here is a vory narrow dividing line. This line, we believe, has grown narrower of late and under some form of extreme pressure—such as a strong Socialist movement—may disappear altogether. But it must be borne in mind that this drift has been from the Government side of the House towards the Reform party's programme. The moderate men on the Government side o;f the House are finding themselves draggcd_ at the heels of faddists.arid extremists, and they arc not comfortable. Mr. Tewsley, commenting on what he describes as a parting of the ways in our politics, says: The gradual altered condition of things leads one to think that the time has come for the moderate men in Parliament to join together and form a solid party, which would command a large majority, and would make for stable government and give a greater sense of security, thus inducing the investment of capital, and bring about a period of prosperity unheard of previously in New Zealand. This is very sound advice. It admits the instability which is the product of existing conditions and indicates a rallying point for those who see tho .necessity for reform. That rallying point cannot possibly be the Ministry which has brought about the conditions complained of; but the moderates in Parliament can find common ground under the banner of tin Reform party.