MONETARY REFORM PETITION.

Evening Star, Issue 22031, 17 May 1935, Page 6

MONETARY REFORM PETITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—! 1 Square Deal ” is opposed to a certain “Charter of Freedom,” although he has not been kind enough to tell us what these things are which we ought not to know, or demand, or insist upon. To my mind, his letter raises the interesting question whether members of Parliament are the servants of the people or their masters, and as a responsible voter and taxpayer 1 ask your leave to discuss the matter. Theoretically, I understand, this country is politically organised as a democracy, the essence of which is that government exists to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their parliamentary representatives. The state of affairs in this country and the condition of our people lead to the alternative conclusion cither that the will of the New Zealand people is for poverty and insecurity and increasing taxation, or that the will of the people has not been expressed. 11 Square Deal ” infers that the people have no right to express their will, as witness his contempt for the poor wretch who signed because 11 he did not believe in poverty.” Well, that is a point of view, and one that apparently does not lack supporters — hence the campaign to discredit democracy. A realistic examination of current political practice, however, supports the view that democracy, like Christianity, has not yet been tried, and the Charter of Freedom is to he welcomed if it will provide a means for expressing the will of the people. Hitherto, at stated intervals, we have been herded up like a lot of sheep to baa ” yes ”or no ”to a barren collection of conflicting schemes, and plans about which wc know little and care less. Plans and schemes and party planks are smokescreens to bluff democracy out of its right—the tight to express its will and demand the results it wants. If a plain question of results were put to us, such as, “ Do you want poverty and taxation and personal oppression,” or “ Do you want personal freedom and the power to buy what you need up to the ability of the country to supply,” democracy would be a reality instead of the cant phrase it is now. Bub the plain issue of results is not put to us, and it is long past the time when the duty of every taxpayer and voter is to insist upon Ills right to decide the issue on which he shall vote. “ Square Deal ” challenges that right. In effect, he says I may not know that this country can produce goods enough to supply every man, woman, and child with a decent standard of living. But I do know that. I also know that every individual in this country could be empowered to satisfy his_ need for food, clothing, and shelter without the necessity for taking anything from those who do already get plenty and without any interference with established social organisation. -If members of Parliament are the servants of the people, then, as a voter, am I not entitled to demand that my member take immediate steps to put us sir in’the position of economic independence which our industrial efforts have made physically possible? And in doing so, may I not also insist that taxation and debt be removed and class oppression of any sort cease? How are these things to be done? That is not my job. . I contribute taxes to the salary of, a man whose job it is to worry about the “how” of things. If ,by bath tap Teaks I employ a plumber and Heave the “ how ” to him —I want results and demand that he produce them. It is the job of our members of Parliament to instruct the plumber, and it is the job of the people to iilsist that the,leak in our dis-; tributive system be fixed to our satisfaction without delay. - If this “ Charter of Freedom ” runs along the lines I- have inferred 1 from your correspondent’s letter, then indeed may we look with hope to its speedy circulation gathering up the will power of this nation till wo have' acknowledged and established the inalienable right of every New ZeaTander to life, liberty, and economic independence.—l am, etc.. John Feknleaf. Mqy 16.