Socialistic Legislation

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 159, 2 April 1937, Page 13

Socialistic Legislation

Sir, —Mr. W. 11. Lewis condemns the Hon. Mr. Hamilton because he was a member of the former Cabinet, and denies that Mr. Hamilton has the qualities of leadership. But Mr. Lewis should remember that it is possible for a man of character to go to a circus without becoming a clown just as Mr. Hamilton associated with the Forbes-Coates Government without damaging his judgment or good sense. But this I will say to Mr. Lewis, and to young men in general, that few men can lie down with the Labour Party without getting up covered with socialistic ideas.

If Mr. Lewis claims that one section of the community was thriving at the expense of another —and still is—then why doesn’t his Labour Party pull down the high exchange? Simply because its policy of inflation makes it impossible and because the internal rising costs will compel the Labour Government to still further depreciate the exchange rate. The Labour Government, which went into power promising to lower the exchange, has proved by not doing so that it was either too ignorant of such complicated politico-econ-omic problems, or else to get in power was deliberately misleading. Actually, Mr. Lewis, under the. ForbesCoates Government, the one section that was thriving at the expense of the others was the trade union group in employment who would not permit costs to fall so that fellow men could be given employment. It was to overcome this danger.of “sticky costs,” which refused to fall with world prices, that the Coates Government took the easy way out and depreciated the exchange rate. Within the next twelve months your Labour Government will do the same. Until the depression came the freedom possessed by the workers was greater than that possessed by the other sections. If they didn’t like their conditions they went on strike. If they didn’t like their boss they walked out and left him in a hole. If they didn’t like their job they got another. If they didn’t like their Government they stood up on soap-boxes all over the country and screamed for another one. If this isn’t freedom—or at least freedom without responsibility, in other words licence—l’ll join the Labour Party myself.

Surely, Mr. Lewis, you don’t mean, that because your trade unions are going on strike all over the country that they are enjoying freedom? That is only evidence that your Labour Government is unsatisfactory in relation to its promises and weak in personnel. By “politics of the future being national,” I stated clearly that this was in relation to policies. The Government should endeavour to legislate in such a way that the farmer, the business man, and the worker receive justice, and in such a way that the resources of the country are not overtaxed. This is distinct from your “nationalisation,” which I notice, you were shrewd enough not to connect in any way with that with which it should be connected —Russian Marxism. We are not afraid of the Labour Party overthrowing the capitalist system because we know that the Labour Party has nothing to put in its place which will suit people accustomed to economic, political, and personal freedom. But what we are afraid of is that it will so mismanage affairs that the reconstruction by the next Government will be unnecessarily complicated and difficult. "When Mr. Lewis talks about democracy, Labour Party, and nationalisation (socialism), I wonder how he can reconcile them all in the one breath. Russia boasts of being the most democratic country in the world, and yet the people are only allowed to vote for one party.—l am, etc., JUDGMENT. Wellington, March 29.