WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 55, 6 March 1934, Page 6

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On the assumption (hard to resist) that unemployment has passed out of the temporary stage and will be long with us, "Observer," who has been in personal contact with the problem for the past three years, writes in this issue proposing that a committee should investigate -with a view to finding permanent remedies in place of the emergency measures adopted in recent years. An emergency policy, he points out, will no longer suffice. It is being realised in many countries—even in the United States, where depression arrived late —that remedial measures must pass from a short-term to a long-term basis; and, so far as Parliamentary action is concerned, the long-term policy can be effected in only two ways—(l) on the individual responsibility of the governing party, which must pass laws so sound that they cannot be upset by another governing party in a future Parliament; or (2) by an all-parties effort to lay down and to implement an agreedon policy. Obviously, if you are going to build a long-term structure, you are in a better position to do so if the plans are first approved by all the parties, than if they are the outcome of merely unilateral action. Preliminary agreement would facilitate a Parliamentary enactment, and should prolong its life; hence 'Observer's" appeal for consultation of Government and Opposition and leading citizens. A political party, by itself, approaches a problem from the angle of its principles. But a conference of all parties could start with the problem itself, and ascertain what remedial action it requires, applying the test of party principle in the last place and not in the first place. With party prejudice laid aside, an allparties conference could appoint allparties committees to draft plans that might deserve (perhaps command) all-parties approval. At the highest estimate, a national policy would result; at the lowest, the electors at least should be educated. Dire necessity has caused Conservatives like Major Elliot to trample on individualism, and Freetraders like Mr. Runciman to make tariffs, so why should not politicians in New Zealand forget preconceived notions and meet in common to ascertain what action the bread-and-butter crisis demands? We do not know what would be the reply of the Government Party, or of the Labour Party, if a joint conference were proposed. But if the proposal had the backing of a considerable number of citizens, neither political party could undervalue it. Is there sufficient initiative among non-party citizens to give the matter thought, and also to give it a good initial impetus by bringing it unitedly before the political leaders.