Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1928 LABOUR POLICY

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 May 1928, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 1928 LABOUR POLICY

QI II?. morning contemporary is annoyed because we do not attach much “news” value, to Mr. If. E. Holland’s oft-repeated speeches, or to his claims what Labour would do if given power. Our journalistic standards, like our political opinions, are on a much higher basis than that of our contemporary, which we leave to publish political views that have long since lost their freshness. Let Mr. Holland, or any of his followers say something new, and we will be glad to give the announcement due publicity. We instance, again, the eagerness there is among Westland and Buller electors to know Mr. Holland’s opinion on Communists. Our enquiries on this subject are termed “a red herring,” but anything of a fishy nature regarding Coast Communists and Communism is not of our making. Our opinions about them are frank, and hostile. Our contemporary is very kind to them. Where does Mr. Holland stand on this question? If ever there was “a candidate whose policy so far is his own secret.” it seems to be the present Leader of the Opposition, where Communists are concerned. If he really aims at the Premiership, he will have to be more communicative, if Jess eloquent.

Regarding the recent “policy” speech by Mr. Holland, at Matainui, no one with any sense of humour could take that seriously. It was the customary collection of alluring promises of what labour will do, when 'in power. New Zealand need only look at neighbouring New South Wales to appreciate what that State’s Labour politicians have done. Power was too much for them, and costly to the country. The fact is that in Opposition, Labourites promise the moon, almost, and when asked to “produce the goods,” find it impossible, and if “hungry” supporters bring pressure, adopt a policy not in national interests. Labour in Opposition is in its right place. Higher responsibility causes it to crash.

One of the “constructive” thinks in Mr. Holland’s policy was poislation to make fire and acci-

(lent insurance a State monopoly. A whiff of Moscow ! Why are other forms of insurance not included? What are the peculiar features of fires and accidents that the State alone should be permitted to underwrite against these mishaps, and what special qualifications has the State for the task? Most people uphold the policy of the State en-

gaging in insurance risks—a Liberal venture, as everybody knows — bul to give the State a. monopoly would be fiercely opposed. Competition is good for all business, and especially for one like insurance. Think what would happen if the State had the proposed monopoly. Premium rates and loss assessments would be f.'olely for the State to decide, and it is very unlikely that under'such monopoly, the public would get better treatment than

under the present competitive system. Moreover, the desire for monopoly grows, and insurance would not be the only avenue for doubtful State enterprise. The insurance monopoly ‘plank’ is typical instance of what a Labour Government policy would be. In minor details, it is interesting to note that Labour is offering further sops to teachers, including 1 lie payment of their removal ex-

penses. These “transfer expenses” of public servants already form a source of great waste of public money, yet Labour is eager to add to it. Where is the money to come from to pay for these gifts to everybody? Taxing the rich has definite limits, and none realises that more than the Labour leaders. Somebody is being offered a “gold’brick.”