"TIME FOE CHANGE"

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 119, 22 May 1930, Page 15

"TIME FOE CHANGE"

(To tho Editor.)

Sir, —I have read carefully Professor Hunter's speech on "Time for Change," as you presented it, and also your leading article on the, subject.

Your conclusion that if the mountain cannot go to Mahomet, Mahomet can go to the mountain, and that the exercise of a very little courage, self-denial, and public spirit by the leaders of the Reform and United Parties would remove a verjr grave danger to the good government of the country, which they ought to put before party, shows_ either that you do not agree with Professor Hunter or do not realise the conditions which he is opposing. One cannot get away from the statement, that under the present system the, mass of the v peopje can play no part in the vital things of government,1 which are in the hands' of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the House, and in those of the party managers in the electorate. This is true. It is not a question of the number of parties, they are all solely the result of the party system of government, which, the best students of that system are decided, is far "from the best system 'of government. The people as a whole have no voice in the choice of candidates. This is done for them by political coteries financed and controlled by the party machine. Then when the people have chosen the members they think best from the often poor material put before them by the different parties, they find that their chosen members have no say in the, appointment of a Government. That is done by one man, a man oftcu representing through, his party a minority o£ the electors. After the Government is appointed from the top instead of being built up firmly from the bottom, it has to contend in fill its work, ostensibly for the country's welfare, with the opposition of a considerable proportion of members of Parliament, so that its matured and considered plans have often to be so modified as to make them loss useful. Again, under the party system, .an enormous amount of time is wasted in useless discusion, and expression of political animosity. Lawyers and Judges know, and politicians know, and Professor Hunter knows that the truth does not always emerge in the conflict of parties. The truth is far more likely to emergo from the deliberation of a committee of the best people,- cliosen by the people by a series of gradations from the whole of the people upwards—a committee which is directly responsible to the whole of the people. ' You say nothing about the tendency for men, under the present political system, to give up seeking for the true solution of social problems and becoming selfish. I agree entirely with Professor Hunter. The man who accused him of political petulance is either very ignorant or is dis-

honest (probably without knowing H). New Zealand has enough land, enough labour, and enough material to provide everything that everybody requires 101 food, comfort, and happiness. Why Has not the Government discovered why these benefits are not utilised to the full? JJ ult there is any unemployment at all, in Aew Zealand, of people willing to work is a damning indictment against any Government in power, a decided reason lor tnc demand that such a pernicious system ot government should be ended; _ Ihere are a dozen capable business men in v\ elnngton who coidd run this little country as a business concern, make it pay well, instead of going back millions every year, and make all the people happy •<-ad, con" tented. AVhy arc such people not in charge of the Government instead of tho trapeziug, loquacious popularity-hunting crowd we generally have? That is what we, the people who think, and who don't believe in selfish, party politics want to know.—l am, etc.,

If. W. MACKENZIE.