PARTY OR COUNTRY?

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 131, 1 December 1930, Page 8

PARTY OR COUNTRY?

(To,the Editor.) Sir, —As a New Zealander bodn and bred, and as a business man with some stake in the community, and a lively interest in the welfare of the Dominion, I have been particularly interested in the letters and editorials appearing in the columns of 3^our paper regarding the possibility and advisability o£ fusion between the United and Reform parties. I was at a gathering of commercial and professional men lately held for the purposes of inviting a very prominent citizen to stand for a city electorate. Thoughtful and weighty arguments were put forward to the cud that fusion of the two antiSocialistic parties was desirable and necessary; so necessary that the gentleman selected as a candidate and to whom very generous support was offered, was not even asked to state which particular one of the two parties he would support, as long as he agreed to support fusion of the parties.' > When a gathering of prominent men, voluntarily sinking their party interests, exert their combined influence in an endeavour to secure the election of a selected man regardless of his political opinions, it seems that the time has arrived when the Reform leader should be asked if he and he only has a mandate from the people of this Dominion. It is equally consistent to ask this of either\ of the. other party leaders. One can almost be excused for suggesting that after all, party politics are only a means whereby- one party may for its own personal interests occupy the principal Parliamentary seats, with all their advantages, social and financial. It is rather a good thing for New Zealand that boards of directors are not elected in parties. One can easily imagine the chaos at a directors' meeting, with the directors grouped into two or three parties, with a man voting, not as he thinks, but as his party leader directs him. The people o£ this Dominion might well be advised to very pointedly inform the various party leaders that they are, after all, public servants, and not as at present propounders of their own particular faith. One would imagine that eighty j odd gentlemen of such exceptional ability could, without overstrain, put their heads j together and devolve from their non-party-minds schemes, acts, and laws that would make this land a better place for people to live in. One is tempted to ask why have party politics at all? Isn't it a fact that when this Dominion saw the necessity o£ taking its part in the late war, it was also found necessary to sink party politics altogether and elect a Cabinet from the most able men in Parliament, regardless of their political faith, and so secure the fullest efficiency. Is it not reasonable to suppose that had party politics proved by practice to be the ideal method of Government, this method would have been retained during that time of stress? The fact of the matter was that our leaders of thought became for the time broadminded men with the interests of the country at heart. They sunk all political differences, and were an efficient body. They acted and voted as their minds dictated, criticised when it was necessary, and did not spinelessly follow- their leader as he dictated, regardless of their own opinions. I have sufficient faith in human 'nature to assert that either of the three parties in Parliament to-day contain able and honourable men, given ' the opportunity, willing and anxious to work in the interests of the Dominion as a whole, and not necessarily one section of it. It is economically unsound that this Dominion should have to bear the huge expense entailed in keeping eighty odd men lin Parliament, under a systtfm that allows i only a third of them or less to have any practical say in its Government. _ _' For years the continuous advertising by i each party of a policy that is'never by any chance carried out is nothiug but a snare \ and a delusion. For instance, the leader who has just now advertised his "seven points of policy" had previously the greatest opportunity ever given to one man or party to carry them out, as there is nothing new in them; but did he do so? Not that one would notice it. We have all heard of the "reduction1 of production costs," the tapering off of borrowing, the removing of political control from the Railways, and so on; but have we ever experienced them? Item No. 5 is rather interesting- when one remembers at least one railway construction decided on, during the regime of the leader in question, that would have resulted in a railway route through a section of the country, that, in the opinion of many who | know, would not feed the proverbial goat. I firmly believe that if the people of the Dominion were asked to express their opinion on the subject, a huge majority would vote for either doing away with political parties altogether, or for fusion between what are now styled Reform and United. This should be impressed on the minds of our political aspirants with no ■uncertain voice. If they do not choose to fall into line the remedy is to elect men who will. An election in this Dominion under a three-party system is ponderous, confusing, and altogether unnecessary. It reduces itself to the election of men on a personal vote, as the differences in the politics of each party are, after all, so difficult to discern. The result, is chaos. A minority Government is elected, representing possibly a third of the people, and with no "power, to govern" to speak of. Each party fights the other on party and not on statesmanship ideals. The country continues to. suffer as a consequence. The first three or four months of Parliament are wasted by lengthy party speeches which cut no ice at all, and it is only during the closing hours that any really effective work is done, if at all. I have spent many hours in the gallery of the House, and have in most cases loft with a feeling that the whole thing is futile, and nothing but a talking shop. We certainly do need more "business in Parliament" and less "Parliament in business"; also it would be distinctly refreshing to hear considerably loss of party politics, and differences that a few good sound business men would settle in a few minutes serious consultation. The professional politician abounds in this Dominion. Statesmanship is remarkable for its absence.—l am, etc, -, JJEINJ& -