NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 157, 31 March 1937, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

Again in his written message to the Labour Party s Eastei (.(inference, the Prime Minister dwelt upon the need for industrial peace, urging that it is necessary to the success of Labour s programme. More is at stake than a party programme —the prestige-of government, and the continued strength of the democratic system. Mr. Savage appears to realise this rather more clearly than some members of his party: rather more clearly, indeed, than his colleague the Minister of Labour, whose methods of intervention in recent disputes have been far from asserting the rule of aw in industry. While it is helpful that the Prime Minister should make general appeals to his followers to respect the authoiity of the Government and of its industrial legislation, something more is neeoeG. General appeals ought to be backed up by personal demonstration on the part of Ministers concerned that they will not tolerate defiance of the law, and —which is even more important —that they will not ally themselves, officially or unofficially, with persons who are defying the law. There is a distinct lack of harmony between Mr. Savage’s exhortations to ; the party and Mr. Armstrongs administrative methods; and possibly the leaders insistent requests to keep the machinery of production running” may fairly be read as a veiled rebuke to those in his immediate company who have publicly identified themselves with attempts to interrupt and injure production.

Mr. Semple's gift of picturesque expression keeps him in the public eye. "I am aiming to make it impossible,” lie said at Christchurch, ‘‘for drunken drivers to stain the highways and the byways of the Dominion with the blood of innocent people.” The aim is a most commendable one, and everybody admires the energy and enthusiasm of the Minister in his campaign for its achievement 1 here can be no question that his vigorous leadership has contributed substantially to the improved safety of our roads over the last twelve months —an improvement, incidentally, against which the Easter fatalities show as a very black mark. But Mr. Semple is not satisfied with the progress he has made in dealing with drunken drivers. In deference, mav it be suggested that he is not going the best way about dealing with them? “We want,” he says, “an army of competent inspectors, so that it will be made impossible for drunken drivers etc. We certainly do not want an army of inspectors, competent or otherwise. It may be doubted whether we need them. W e seem to have inspectors enough now on the roads, and far too many in other walks of life. Would not a rigid enforcement of the licensing laws be more fruitful of results? Mr. Semple has declared himself in favour of a policy of erecting fences at the tops of precipices, rather than of maintaining ambulances at the bottoms. An “army of inspectors” savours somewhat of erecting protective works half-way down. The Minister’s purpose would be better served if he could prevent drivers becoming drunken.

One gathers from the address of the retiring president at the Labour Party Conference that the much-trumpeted plan to co-opt in government the services of private members of Parliament has not worked as well as had been hoped. ‘'Our only regret, ’ said Mr. Carr, after reviewing the Government’s legislative record, “is that some of us have been unable to participate in the efforts and contribute to the results to the extent desired. Our Ministers have, perhaps more or less inevitably, taken too much on themselves. . . This may be no more than an expression of personal opinion--Mr. Carr, who is not a Minister, may think he ought to be one—but its inclusion in the presidential statement at the opening of a party conference gives it official flavour. Can it be, then, that the party itself finds some of its Ministers setting themselves up as dictators? Mr. Carr has a down on people whom he imagines to be dictators, and another part of his address suggested that the qualification for classification as a dictator is disagreement with the member for Timaru! The Government could pass a much more stringent _ test than that. It dictates what the farmer shall receive for his butter and cheese, and what the housewife shall pay for her oranges and onions—with eggs and bacon soon to follow. It dictates who shall make this and who shall sell that; to which factory a farmer may send his cream; by what route and on what fares a transport service may run. It compels people to join unions and pay dues which may be used for the support of political policies to which the contributors are opposed; it commands employers to pay wages for the support of non-existent wives and children; it “directs” other employers to submit to breaches of Arbitration Court awards and infringement of their rights under the common law. No wonder Mr. Cai ris restive; but why has he been an accessory before the fact to all this dictation, by supporting it in