CHANGES IN POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 143, 19 June 1931, Page 6

CHANGES IN POLITICS

(To tho Editor.)

Sir,—ln thanking you for the space afforded my earlier communication, also let me express appreciation o£ tho nature o£ your editorial comment thereon. IE it bo a correct chargo against Reform that it failed in early life of its latest administration to visualise the gathering storm of depression, what must: be said of Uniteds, when in 1028 the storm was plainly visible? In calling a National Industrial Conference, appointing an Unemployment Commission, endeavouring to legislate that conciliation bo compulsory and arbitration optional,- together with widely warning electors as to the necessity for reduced borrowings and national economy, Reform did all possible to fit the ship o£ State against a storm burst. Parliamentary history over that period proves how much (or little) Mr. Forbes, as leader of a party, did to help, and 1028 election platform and speeches yield proofs that as second-iu-comniand he fully concurred in the course set by United's leader, only dropping sails a very few months back, when the ship was actually on the rocks, and no other expedient open.

Granted that crying over spilt milk is a foolish occupation, but if history teaches anything it is what should in future be avoided. Among other points o£ extravagrauce which you charge against lteform, you mention soldier, settlement and highways. The cleaning up of one, and setting going o£ the other, I confess to being more closely associated with and other matters. A more intimate knowledge of soldier settlement would show that the whole o£ the legislation which made expenditure on land for soldiers possible, was passed by the National Government, and a large proportion o£ expenditure or unavoidable commitments were made prior to the National Government ceasing to exist. Again a more intimate knowledge or! highways inception would show. that no legislation was possible of being passed which did not include arterial roads, whether alongside railways or not; and Keforra at least threw aa far as possible the construction and upkeep of such highways upon the shoulders of users. Were it suggested that the highways you refer to be allowed to drift back into the deplorable conditions which highways legislation first found them, I feel that you, Mr. Editor, would be the last in concurring with such policy, if at all possible of avoidance. You hint that United's laud policy is a set-oft against at least some of its other iniquities. Far be it from me to attempt an unfair criticism of any Government efforts in land settlement, as I well know the tremendous difficulties associated with successful settlement in times of violent fluctuations in produce values.

I feel, however, that over much is being made of United's supposed wonderful success in land settlement; and because I personally as Minister refused to mislead the public, I rightly or wrongly earned the title of pessimist. The latest official figures available arc those in the lands report of the year ending 31st March, 1930. In actual new settlement of rural lands it appears, for United's first fifteen months | of office, a total of 220 settlers were placed upon Crown and Education lands, and under 50 uppn settlement lands. I have not the reports of earlier years at hand, but feel safe in saying that the 220 on Crown and Education lands compare on the average no more favourably than with earlier years. In these times of unavoidable waste in relief, I agree that land development gives best chances of some percentage being an asset.1 What I always objected to was the expending of borrowed moneys by the State in land development ventures having no chance of returning interest, without taxpayers ■; first; being made aware of the probable proportion they would have to carry, or first asking them to provide, in taxation, the estimated loss. I am certain that no attempt is being made to-day, to follow such policy. Li conclusion, for over two years I have taken no part im Reform's, party,' discussions, and therefore have*no inside information as to what- prompted; action regarding fusion. SYoni its leader downwards, I feel certain that Keform members, perhaps above any other members, realise New Zealand's serious economic position, and more readily would perhaps make political sacrifices if believing the sacrifices demanded would be of anjr real benefit to. the people as a whole. From a purely party point of view, Reform already has made sacrifices for which, no credit is being given, while Uniteds have made no sacrifices which one can learn of. Personal sacrifice, particularly in politics, is a small and fleeting matter under any circumstances. Sacrifice of a name which one has earned and has every reason to be proud of is not the easy matter many think. In name, Uniteds have only a year or two to sacrifice, and those years I can hardly understand anyone being anxious to preserve. Had they hung until counted out to the name Liberal, they at least would have earned respect.—l am, etc., A. D. M'LEOD. Wairarapa, 17th June. [We readily give space to this further letter by Mr. MTJeod, though it does not answer the points which we raised, namely, that Reform's 1028 election policy, though it showed more caution than the United policy, did not provide_ for those measures which Reform ■ has since advocated and which the Government, partly with Reform assistance, has brought, into operation. Mr. M'Leod, however, does not now insist upon the parallel between Mr. Lang and Mr.. Forbes, against the inaccuracy •of which we protested. We have no desire to pursue further his examination' of Reform policy in past years, since his defence p_roves our contcution that, if inquests on past policies arc to be opened, no party can deem itself free from fault. Our whole argument is that this is not the time to waste energy in recrimination, or to revive old differences. Attention should rather be' concentrated on the present agreement of the parlies upon a. sound enonomy and reconstruction policy. Unwillingness to sacrifice a party name is not a sufficient reason for continued separation when the good name of New Zealand, which is greater than the name of Reform or United, is at stake.—Ed.]