Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1931. UNDER LABOUR RULE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 November 1931, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1931. UNDER LABOUR RULE.

QNE strange thing about Labour candidates, when appealing for the electors’ support, is that they never, or rarely, refer to a Labour stalwart as one whose guidance, or statements, should be followed. For instance, when Mr. IL E. Holland and his colleagues wish to impress upon the people the fitness of Labour to rule, they refer them to what Seddon, Ballance or some other Liberal said, or did. There have been many Labourites, here and abroad, since the days of the aforementioned statesmen; why do not present day‘Labour speakers recall their own comrades’ words and deeds to assist them ? Can it bo that Labour itself realises there is all the difference between platform promises and Labour administration ? . Labour has not yet been entrusted with office in New Zealand, and, thus, Mr. Holland and his Party may be lavish in promise, without fear of‘being asked why they have not done anything, so far. But neighbouring Australia, during the past 30 years, has ex-

perieneed several Labour Govern-1 ments. Why not refer more to Mr. Fisher and Mr. Watson, or, if these were too ‘‘moderate,” Mr. Seullin, Mr. Theodore, and last but not least, .Mr. Lang ? Is • Labour proud of the Party’s recent achievements in the Commonwealth, and, especially,... in New South Wales ? If so, do they propose to emulate these in New Zealand, if given office ?

Labour administration must not be blamed for all the financial troubles in Australia, but 'it can truthfully be said that Labour’s policy greatly added to the national loss and misery. Labour denounces ten per cent, cuts in N.Z. wages, but Labour policy in N.S. Wales, and elsewhere, made wage cuts imperative . of 25 to 50 per cent. Unemployment in Labour-governed States is much more severe than in New Zealand, and much misery has been thrust on the dupes of Mr. Lang and his Labour Government. Any recent improvement in the lot of Australians is partly because a halt was called to the Lang policy, and this has been re-shaped on non-Labour lines. In Britain, the Labour Government’s administration almost wrecked national prosperity, and last month’s election verdict gave clear proof of what the British people think of Labour rule.

•. What evidence, therefore, have New Zealand’s Labourites to offer to support their claims that they are qualified to be given Ministerial office ? Labour . has proved incompetent and extravagant elsewhere; why should N.Z. Labour be otherwise, seeing similar policies are favoured ? Moreover, does N.Z. Labour rule in minor matters suggest possession of a great stock of administrative ability ? Think of the Dominion trade unions that have little to show for years of heavy levies and subscriptions, the money having been mostly frittered away in administrative expenses. Is there any reason to, believe that similar waste would not be repeated, but on a much larger scale, if Labour controlled the national treasury ? Would t the average elector owning a business, be happy to entrust it to a good “comrade” to manage; on Labour principles ? Why then, think of entrusting the national business to those who have proved incapable of making a success of even small concerns ?