SOCIALIST RULE AND INDIVIDUAL EFFORT CONTRASTED IN MAIDEN ADDRESS TO NEW PARLIAMENT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23297, 5 July 1950, Page 9

SOCIALIST RULE AND INDIVIDUAL EFFORT CONTRASTED IN MAIDEN ADDRESS TO NEW PARLIAMENT

(Special) • WELLINGTON, July 5. Though not descending to the general level of party politics, in moving the Address-in-Reply motion in the House of Representatives last, night, Air. W. Blair Tennent (Govt., Palmerston .North) made a forceful speech illustrating,differences between the ideals of the new Government and the Socialist Ministry it had displaced.

He predicted increased opportunity for individual effort and a revival of the system of free enterprise, on which New Zealand s prosperity had been built up.

“This will be an interesting session,” predicted Mr. Tennent. The people, he said, had elected a new Government and were anxious to see how it would acquit itself and how the Opposition, which had been the Government for so long, would fare in its new role of critic. .

Personally, he welcomed, the opportunity of playing his part in the most honourable role a man could fill—-that of being directly concerned in the Government of his country.

On many issues the Government and Opposition would be sharply divided, particularly regarding the relative merits of State control and monoply as against the belief of himself and his party in the benefits of private ownership continued Mr. Tennent.

The people had given their verdict against socialism and, in accordance with the principles of democracy, that verdict must be respected.

The speaker credited the Opposition with the highest motives, but declared that their methods had been faulty. Everyone Mn Parliament subscribed to ideals for the welfare of the people, but the methods of- the former Govern, ment in carrying out. its ob.iective had been responsible for its defeat. There had been a similar public reaction against socialism in Australia and a swing against it had become evident in Britain. Attitude to Individual The National Party recognised the importance of the individual, but socialism regarded him as a unit of the State to carry out the State’s directions —to look whollv to the State to pro vide for his material welfare. On the other hand Mr.' Tennent contended that the individual should be given the opportunity of developing his talents to the full. The national nrosperifv of' New Zealand had been built un on the countless efforts of in dividuals under a system of free en l°rnrise It was the new Government's task to restore that system and. if possible, reverse the threat of nationalisation. It was also necessary to reduce taxation, which was a handicap to industry and our national life. There was a need to continually amend and improve our social and economic structure, which must be based on a firm foundation. Taking into account our national character, effort and ouality must be accorded their due reward.

The amenities of iife must be availab’e to all. but our full qualities would not be developed unless we recognised ’hat varying qualities involved varying rewards. ‘‘Saved From Collapse”

The Labour Government, said Mr. Tennent. was saved from financial collapse by the Second World War. That was followed by a period of high prices for primary produce hitherto undreamed of.

The Labour Government had not only dissipated the country’s financies. but had pumped a steady stream of paper money into consumption to keep pace with its expenditure, thereby depriving the wage-earner of a proportion of the fruits of his own labour. That was the legacy which the present Government had inherited. New Zealand could hold and increase its social benefits only by providing the wherewithal to nay for them. What had been won would be held and maintained, said Mr Tennent. but that could be done onlv by a two-point noliey of obtaining more, revenue from production and of initiating more efficiency and a businesslike system of administration —more business in government and less government in business.

After discussing the place of the State in modern society, Mr. Tennent said that excessive ordering and control of a man’s material being might in the end destroy his moral and intellectual freedom. "We must find not a compromise, but a just balance between material and spiritual requirements,” he said.