Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1938. TO~MODIFY, NOT REPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 20, 25 January 1938, Page 8

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1938. TO~MODIFY, NOT REPEAL

A question that is being asked and must be answered before the (General Election is: What will the Opposition do with the Labour Government's legislation if the Labour Party is defeated? The answer given by Mr. S. G. Holland in an address at St., Heliers is one to which, we believe, the common sense of the country will respond. The National Party, Mr. Holland said in effect, would modify the legislation to restore the rights of private enterprise, to retain benefits which could be continued, and to make the; law reasonable and workable. It was neither possible nor desirable, he declared, to have a wholesale wiping out of the Labour Party administration. The reasonableness of this , must be admitted, and the admission does not stultify the attitude of those who opposed the Labour legislation upon its introduction. There are some things which would have been better not done, -but when they have been done it is not feasible to undo them completely. Other changes have been made prematurely. It was not wise to make them at the time, but progress may enable the country to retain them. With both a policy of. modification, rather than repeal, is desirable; in fact, modification may be essential in order to retain the benefits. Without modification there may be such unbearable weight upon our economic system as to cause partial collapse, involving a greater loss of benefits.

The more moderate leaders of the Labour Party, by ; their own practice, have admitted the soundness of this principle. They have put upon the Statute Book legislation of a sweeping Socialistic character; but they have not attempted to put it all into practice. As an illustration, the powers taken under the Reserve Bank Amendment Act have been (from the left wing viewpoint) sparingly used. Similarly, the Primary Products Marketing Act has been applied hitherto only to dairy produce, and the Government, we believe, will not hastily extend it to give guaranteed prices to meat, wool, and all other j export commodities, though its original promise covered the whole range. In several other respects Labour in office has recognised that it would be unwise, and even disastrous, to attempt all that Labour in Opposition so glibly promised. It has had to modify its programme. The National Party will be free to carry through such modification so as to retain for the whole of the people, and for all sections equally, the benefits that can be given and to remove the provisions which now threaten to impair the stability of the whole structure.

In his address, Mr. Holland could not, of course, deal with every item in the Labour Government's legislation and administration. Indeed, it would not be wise for the National Party to commit itself at once to a course of action in detail. There are many parts of the Labour programme on which more information is needed before a sound judgment can be given. For example, in public works, the use of credit, and the Employment Promotion Fund, financial facts have not been clearly set out; and these facts must be ascertained before it can be said how. far modification is called for. The parts of the National Party programme to which Mr. Holland referred, however, gave a clear impression of the underlying principle to be followed. "We stand for private enterprise and private ownership," he said, "and we stand by the thrifty man to see that his property and savings are preserved." In following this principle, the right of access to their own property will be restored to property owners. This is not only adherence to a principle, but is clearly in the public interest, for it is plain to everyone that excessive interference, though undertaken in the supposed interest of tenants, has made conditions worse for the people,who need homes. It has helped to drive private enterprise out of the housing business agd to place upon the State a housing burden which it cannot possibly bear. .

In dealing with industrial legislation also, the National Party will have regard for the wider interests of industry. At bedrock^ the most important thing to the worker is a job. If pay is so high and conditions are so onerous that industry is checked, there are fewer jobs, and the workers, in spite of the so-called improvement of their conditions; are worse off than before. In attempting to make industry carry too heavy a load, the Government is threatening the future welfare of the workers. There must be a means of introducing modifications where and when they arc seen lo b<i necessary. This means can lie provided by leaving rales of wages and hours of work, as the National Parly proposes, to the decision of a "free, unfettered, and uninstrucled Arbitration Court." When the Government introduced Ihe forty-hour week

by statute, we urged that the decision should have been left wholly to the Court. It was not, for the Court was required to grant it except where it would have been impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently with limited hours. But the Court was not allowed to decide whether the limitation would be desirable for a particular industry. The consequence is that many industries have been compelled to accept the shorter week which, while not killing them, has lessened their competitive power by increasing costs and lias definitely restricted their capacity to employ more labour and pay better wages. The short week, where it can be given without loss, is undoubtedly desirable, but it has been thrust upon industry when there are other things more desirable —the expansion of industry, more employment, and greater prosperity making better pay possible. In this and other changes the wide view of the general welfare of industry must be taken. Mr. Holland's outline of the National Party's attitude shows that it will be taken, that there will be no narrow sectional reversion of legislation, but a timely and careful overhaul guided by sound principles and based on results.