TESTING THE RED PARTY’S POSITION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 241, 25 September 1922, Page 2

TESTING THE RED PARTY’S POSITION.

PLAIN QUESTIONS THEY FEAR TO ANSWER. (Contributed by N.Z. Welfare League.) The Holland party candidates say that the critics do not deal with their platform and policy. That cannot be said of the Welfare League, because it is prepared to deal with such matter at any time. It here presents a series of definite questions, to the Red candidates and invites them to answer these as plain replies will show r just where the party stands with regard to vital matters of principle. QUESTION FOR CANDIDATES. (1) Is your party definitely Socialistic in character? (2) If so, why do you not name it the N.Z. Socialist Party? (3) Presuming it is socialistic will you state in what essential principles its socialism differs, if at all, with, that of the Russian Communist political party? (4) Does your party support the policy of nationalising the land and industries of the Dominion? (5) In changing the economic system from private to national ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange would your party dis-i posses the present owners. (a) By State purchase of existing private interests. (b) By confiscating methods of taxation, or—(c) By forcible ejectment of present holders. |6) Will you submit the plank in your party’s programme which makes provision for any naval or military defence of the Dominion? (7) If there is no such plank is it to inferred that your party does not uphold taking measures to defend the country by naval or military means? (8) How can you claim that your party is building on the foundations laid by Ballance and Seddon, seeing that these statesmen were Imperialists and upholders of private enterprise, whilst your party is opposed to Imperialism and against private ownership and control of industries? (9) In advocating, as your party docs, that a present valuation of all land shall bo taken and that land shall hereafter be sold only to the Government, are you not affirming the principle of State confiscation seeing that the purchaser would fix the price and the seller would be confined to one buyer? (10) Is it not a fact that Mr Holland in his published pamphlet on the coal question says on page 10, “In 1919 there was a go-slow strike in New Zealand. Nobody denies it. The miners had no option,’’ and does not that make labour at least responsible for the evil results from coal shortage which have ensued? (11) Does your party uphold the principle of “control of all indsutries by the workers who operate them,’’ or in other words management of the industries by the working operatives? (12) Docs your flarty endorse the policy adopted at the Australasian Labour Congress, where you represented your party, of the nationalising of banking and all the principal industries; and the placing of these industries under control of a {Supreme Economic Council? If this is so wherein does the policy differ from that of the Russian Bolshevist Government? (13) Does your party recognise that its land plan clause 3, sub-clause B—which heads:—“That privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State’’—is a definite affirmation of the policy of confiscation? (14) Is it not a fact that your party endorses: — (1) The establishment of Councils of action. (2) The replacement of Parliament as at present constituted with an Industrial Parliament. (3) The establishment of a Supreme Economic Council on a class basis ? (15) Are not the foregoing provissions the exact policy of the Russian Bolshevik party?