POLITICAL PARTIES.

Evening Star, Issue 25893, 10 September 1946, Page 9

POLITICAL PARTIES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Owing to conflicting views it is desirable to state with unmistakable clearness that the Opposition has no intention of repealing the social legislation of the present Government, and wishes to eradicate the numerous absurd anomalies at present current if it is returned in November. In many respects the present benefits are merely an extension of previous Liberal ideas, carried into practice financially with the aid of a great war-time boom. The pensions schemes comprehended under the new title of “ Social Seen-; rity ” and the high wages and salaries have now been made part of the New 1 Zealand economy, and the Opposition does not intend to destroy those benefits wholly or partially.. In this respect it will refrain from inflicting a blow on any section such as occurred in 1938, when the Socialist Government ruthlessly cut imports, and in a night almost destroyed the livelihood of many who had laboriously built businesses which were sustained by imports. In their place, with the assistance of the war boom, many uneconomic secondary industries were built up and subsidised by the present Government. Not only have these industries failed to produce, in many cases, good quality goods, but they are also a burden on the taxpayer, who has to support them. It does not augur well for the economy of this country if the State has to support industries which it was instrumental in setting up and pays, for it with the people’s money. It gives cause for the question to be asked: What will happen to this country’s secondary industries if ultimate Socialism comes to pass, taking into consideration the present and past failures of enterprises taken over by the Government? It does not give this country’s inflated economy much chance of survival unless there is an immediate change in economic policy and the control of imports. Socialism certainly is not the type of State control with which to avoid higher and higher burdens on both individual and nation alike.—l am, etc., September 9. Dija’s Son.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —One would, think that when a correspondent started an argument ho would stick to the points that he made, but Mr William Jacobsen, when bowled, out by statements made by his champion, Mr S. G. Holland, shifts his ground. Mr Holland, when attending the Labour Bills Committee, stated most emphatically that he would oppose every clause in the Bill, and one clause of the . Bill was the provision for a 40-hour week. Mr Jacobsen says that he will accept Mr Holland’s statement “in spite of ‘ Hansard ' or anything to the contrary,” Mr Jacobsen must be very young or very biased against the Labour Party. Further, Mr Holland stated in the Labour Bills Committee that all of the National Party would oppose the 40-hour week, so we can see what independence of voting is given to the National Party members. Mr Jacobson says that he dislikes newspaper correspondence; then he goes on to pen over half a column of matter that is practically a phone record of what the National Party is saying; making statements

that are half-truths, some of them with ho vestige of truth whatsoever. He says: “I am not narrow in any way, and wish’to give credit to the Labour Government for all social security benefits that it has put into operation; and there the matter rests as far as any good it has done.” This act of the Government is sufficient in itself tq keep the Government in power for many long years, but Mr Jacobsen will be receiving a rap from Mr Holland for agreeing that the Government has done this, for Mr Holland and the whole of the National Party opposed the Social Security Act, and when' asked if he would abolish the social security he stated that he would not allow it to be worked if his party' came, into power. ! One question that I would like to ask of Mr Jacobsen or any other member of the National Party is this: See-! ing that; Mr, Holland has stated that' he will not reduce wages, will not re- 1 duce the number of Civil servants, will make the social security higher, give better conditions to all and sundry, sell State houses for less than they cost to the present tenants, etc., etc., and that lie will reduce taxation by millionsi-of pounds, how can it bo; done? In reply I do not want any generalities, but plain, simple statements, setting forth the position in the same manner'as you and I would do if we decided to carry out nny work, knowing what, the finances would Tun to. This is surely known'to Mr Holland, and It should not take much persuasion to get this information from him, although it should be known by all who support Mr Holland’s policy, or else it proves that they would agree to anything that be likes to say. even if lie denies it' the next day.—l am, etc., W. W. Batchelor. September 10.