GOVERNMENT POLICY

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 December 1940, Page 5

GOVERNMENT POLICY

MR. BODKIN’S CRITICISM. Strong counter attractions, and the comparative “absence of' interest ;n politics at the present time, ed for only a moderate attendance at the Town Hall,"Greyinputh; -bii: Saturday evening, when Mr. .W. A. Jtod" kin, National Member for Otago Cem tral, delivered an address on‘the occasion of his first visit .to Westland. He made passing reference to the war effort, but centred his remarks upon the domestic policy of. the Labour * Government, which he roundly criticised as being of- a Socialistic nature, calculated ’.to the liberty of the individual. Mr. Bodkin received an attentive hearing, with practically no interjections, and at the conclusion of his address, he. replied to a number of questions. The chair was occupied .by "IVI-r. E. B. E. Taylor, National candidate for Westland at the 1938 election. In extending a welcome to Mr. Bodkin, the chairman said that he had been a Member of Parliament for 12 years, and was well known as ope of the ablest and keenest debaters in the House of Representatives. Mr. Taylor expressed regret that the audience was not larger, when a man of Mr. Bodkin’s calibre was the speaker. & Mr. Bodkin said that he was pleased to accept the invitation of the National Party, to deliver an address at Greymouth. He proposed to concentrate upon the domestic policy of the' Government, and it was not his intention to make more than passing reference to the war, not that the position was not serious, but because the National Party were associated with the Government in the war effort. So far as that effort was con-, cerned, it was every person’s job to get behind the Government, and make the effort worthy of New Zealand and the Empire. In spite of the Government’s refusal to postpone its domestic policy, the National Party did not hesitate to join the War Council, and the Party had been 100 per cent, behind the war effort. He thought that it could be frankly admitted that New Zealand's war effort was worthy of the Dominion and the Empire.

The question had often been asked, “Where is New Zealand heading for?” He did not think it was a secret to anyone, that the Government was definitely out to Socialise the country. The fact that Mr. Lee had broken away from the Labour Party should not be allowed to lead people to believe that the Government was any less Socialistic. It could be said for Mr. Lee that he had been a little more honest and sincere in his beliefs. The Labour Party had promised that they would not increase taxation, or borrow money. They promised to reduce taxation, abolish the sales tax, and bring down the rate of exchange. Mr. Lee honestly believed that those things could be done, but Mr. Nash never had believed it. The Government had never attempted to follow the policy which Labour outlined before securing office. Mr. Nash had this claim to fame: He was the gieatest tax-gatherer in the history of New Zealand, and he had put his hand deeper into the pockets of the poor than any other man. The policy of the Government was the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. There were two distinct kinds of Socialism —the Russian plan of experiment, and the German plan of National Socialism. To which Labour Government belong? The Russian plan was primarily based on the teachings of Marx and Engel, that all capital was to be owned by the State, and everyone was to be employed by the State. The German plan permitted the employment of private capital in industry, for profit. Profits were permitted, but they were regimented, there being price fixation and complete control by the State. The State was described as the managing-director of every company, and the shareholders as sleeping partners. Mr. Bodkin said he did not suggest that the New Zealand Government had actually created a Marxist State yet, but they were definitely travelling in that direction. A good deal of what had been attempted in New Zealand might have been taken from National Socialism as it was practised in Germany, points of similarity being the licensing of industry, licensing of imports, fixation of prices, and the control of radio.

DEMOCRACY REPLACED. Government by Order-in-Council was strongly criticised by Mr. Bodkin, as having replaced the Principles of democracy and the rights and liberties of the individual, which New Zealand had stood for in the past. The people had to decide whether they were going to be governed by their representatives in Parliament assembled, or whether they were going to be governed from the Cabinet room, at the will of a comparatively small group of men. In the final analysis, complete power in a Socialistic State must be in the hands of a small group. Referring to the control of overseas exchange, Mr. Bodkin pointed out that it was brought in long before the war, because the Government had exhausted its overseas funds, and had frightened capital out of New Zealand. Millions of pounds of overseas capital had been withdrawn from New Zealand, because the investors were afraid of what'the Government was going to do. No right was more treasured by Britons than the right of appeal to the Courts, but that right had been taken away from New Zealanders by the Government, an instance being the case of the farmers in connection with the Small Farms Bill. The Government knew that, if the case went to the Courts, justice would be done. They wanted the. land ; at .a

confiscatory price. Another instance was seen in connection with the transport industry. Men with transport businesses throughout New Zealand had been wiped out, without right of appeal to the Courts. The right of appeal was taken away simply to make the Government’s position unassailable. Socialism could not be built up, unless the people’s rights were violated. If the Government were out to see the fair and square thing done,, they had nothing to fear from the judgment pf any British Cotirt. The dictatorial powers of Ministers of the Crown in New Zealand could not be found anywhere else outside .the. States ■ It was absolutely untrue, declared Mr. Bodkin, that the National Party did not stand for the conscription of wealth as well as of men. The only reservation was that the conscription of wealth should be enforced as intelligently as the v conscription of meh. 'All the men were not taken from the coal mines, and married men were not conscripted at the same time as single men. Why not exercise the sarpe judgment and discretion in the conscription of wealth? Wealth engaged in industry was the working'capital of the country, and if that wealth were conscripted by means of compulsory loans, industry could not function. There should be a distinction drawn between capital actually being used in industry, and providing work and wages for the people, and money lying idle in the banks. There were millions of pounds in the banks to-day, awaiting investment, and the National Party said that that was the money which should be taken. Mr. Bodkin voiced the conviction that the war was going to be won by the British Empire through the work of its free men and women, as opposed to the slaves of the Totalitarian and Socialistic States. Only under the capitalist system, in spite of its faults, could there be found any regard for the principles of democracy. In conclusion, Mr. Bodkin urged people to rally round the National Party’s flag, and, at the election next year, put into office a National Government, whose policy would be truly representative of the best traditions of New Zealand. . A vote of thanks to Mr. Bodkm, and confidence in the National Party, was moved by Mr. A. V. Oliver, seconded by Mr. W. Vallance, and carried.