THE ELECTION STATE OIL VENTURE

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 October 1946, Page 2

THE ELECTION STATE OIL VENTURE

MINISTER’S STATEMENT ON DECISION LABOUR POLICY DEFENDED (FA.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 16. The Government had purchased shares in an oil company half-owned by the British Government so that it could have a certain supply of petrol in this country at decent prices, said the Minister of Finance (Mr* Nash), addressing a political meeting in Nelson to-night. He received a good reception from a large audience at a local theatre. Later, when referring to monopolies, he said that if there were to be monopolies they' should be owned by the people. . . The oil business in the Dominion should not be controlled by five oil companies. ~ There should be the right for the Government to step m on behalf of the people. The fundamental issue between the National and Labour Parties, he said, was what balance was to be struck between the responsibility of the individual to society on the one hand, and the responsibility of society to the individual on the other. The Labour Party wanted complete independence of the individual so long as it did'not interfere with the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Referring to the fact that the Dominion’s birth-rate had increased each year since the Labour Government took office, Mr Nash said that was one of the things for which the Opposition would not give the Government credit. He claimed that the Labour Government had relieved mothers of the fear that they would not be able to pay doctors’ bills or clothe the children. “This year, for social security alone, we shall pay out more than the total revenue received in 1935,” said Mr Nash. “In 1935 people would have said that it just could not be done, but it is being done, and to the advantage of the community.” Turning to the position of farmers, he said every farmer who had worked during the last six years was better off than in 1935. They had never been more certain of their returns than they were under the guaranteed price procedure. Anyone could get a licence to import essential goods, but the Government would not give licences to buy from elsewhere goods which later on would be available from the United Kingdom.

THE FINAL ELECTION BROADCAST WELLINGTON, October 17. “Broadcasting arrangements provide for equal use of the radio for each party, and facilities for supporters of the Opposition greater than on any previous occasion,” said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nash) to-day, when referring to the report that the Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) would have the last broadcast before the election. Mr. Nash said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. G. Holland) presumed that the arrangements would be the same as at the last election. Last election broadcasts were: The Government 11, the National Party eight; Democratic Labour one; the People’s Movement one, Independent (Mr. Atmore) one, plus the leaders’ final messages. After careful consideration the Government was of the opinion that electors and candidates would prefer to confine full meeting broadcasts to two in each week. There arrangements were not practicable for the early part of the campaign because the Prime Minister was due to open the Government’s campaign on October 15, and Mr. Holland had arranged to open the campaign for the Opposition in the following week on October 21. To meet this situation the Opposition was offered the opportunity of broadcasting a second full meeting in that week on October 24. In succeeding weeks, said Mr. Nash, the arrangement was that the Government and the Opposition would each broadcast one public meeting. The Government would thus broadcast seven public meetings and the Opposition would also have the opportunity of broadcasting seven public meetings. The Government broadcast would take place on Tuesday of each week, and the Opposition broadcast of public meetings would be on Thursday of each week, with the exception of the final broadcast by the Leader of the Opposition on the Monday before the election. Thursday was fixed as the day for Opposition broadcasts after Mr. Holland had expressed his disapproval of Monday as a regular night. The Government then offered any night of the week except Tuesday. “The proposals are in accord with the rules and standard practice of debates, both in and out of Parliament, and no fair-minded person will see any justification for the Opposition’s objection,” said Mr. Nash. “The Opposition have the opportuniy of replying to the opening speech of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will wind up the debate by replying to the Opposition.” Mr. Nash said that in addition to broadcasts of public meetings, provision was made for three 15-minute studio talks for both Government and Opposition members, and three halfhour studio talks for both the Government and the Opposition. Thus, in all, there would be 26 election broadcasts, 13 for the Opposition and 13 for the Government.

MR. SEMPLE AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 17. “I have said a thousand times, and I repeat emphatically, that while private enterprise does its job and serves the people the Government will help it to do so,” declared the Minister of Works (Mr. Semple), Labour candidate for Miramar, opening his-cam-paign last night. Mr. Semple said that certain services must nonetheless be nationally controlled. He was prepared to defend that policy to the last ditch, Mr. Semple reviewed Labour s works, housing, finance, and social security policies and was accorded a unanimous vote of thanks and confidence, together with congratulations to himself, on his achievements as Minister of Works. Enemies of the Labour movement) were claiming that if the Labour Go- , vernment were returned to power it would socialise everything, said Mr. Semple. They had hoisted a bogyman, “natidnalisation and State owner-

ship,” in an effort to turn the public against a progressive party. They branded the Labour Government as a voracious monster devouring large and small enterprises and recklessly destroying private initiative and enterprise. They would have the elector believe that Labour would involve the State in large and small industries, that it would tinker with shopkeeping, and, in fact, that there would be no room for exercise by the private individual of his initiative and ability. \ ' The whole theme of their claims was preposterous. That was not the policy of the Labour Government. The trend all over the world was that the undertakings and services which affected the lives of the whole people and the progress of a nation should be controlled by the people through their Government. In this respect New Zealand led the way. Private businesses of all descriptions had flourished under the Labour Government as never before, and they would continue to flourish under private ownership. The Government’s only duty to the. people was to ensure that the. people were not ruthlessly plundered and exploited. So long as private enterprise adequately served the needs of the people it must be encouraged, not destroyed,