PEOPLE’S RIGHTS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 204, 29 July 1939, Page 6

PEOPLE’S RIGHTS

DEFENCE OF FREEDOM. j IS CONSTITUTION CRUMBLING? , - —r i (Bv Telegraph—Special to “Standard.”) ; AUCKLAND, July 27. ( An arresting address upon the sub- 1 ject “Our Crumbling Constitution” 1 was given in the Town Hall last night 1 by Mr B. AI. Algie, director of the 1 New Zealand Freedom Association. ; “On the eve of our Centennial < year,” said Mr Algie, in opening his j address, “it is a curious fact that, in a i British country, an active campaign to secure the restoration of individual < liberty should be not only desirable < but urgently necessary. Yet such is un- 1 happily the case.” A century and a half ago, con- i tinned Mr Algie, a mighty battle was ' being waged by the House of Com- ■ mons against the Crown ; to-day there l was a struggle of equal intensity—and | of far deeper consequence—between the people on the one hand and-the executive and the Government departments on the other. The honours were falling rapidly into the la]) of the : bureaucracy simply and solely be- i cause the various sections of the people < were prepared to surrender one liberty after another in return lor a present and material advantage in such forms as fewer working hours, and' an increase in nominal wages. The 1 armors, i the manufacturers, the members of i the public service, the employees of the Public "Works Departments, ami so on—each and all had been given some immediate advantage in exchange for a sacrifice of liberty. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, profusion with subservience to Government departments had been offered to the people in exchange for a surrender of personal freedom of action. The dairy farmer must sell his products and accept whatever price the buying Government chose to give. The manufacturer lived behind a temporary wall which could be pulled away at the pleasure of the Government. The importer could not any longer say what he would import or from where he would try to obtain his requirements. The local prices of goods, the hours of work, the wages to be paid—all could lie fixed by statutes passed by a Parliamentary majority in furtherance of its own cherished policy. The Industrial Efficiency Act gave powers to socialise every kind ol occupation, and those powers were not exceeded in any British country outside New Zealand. No one could freely bring into New Zealand the things he required; exporters wore dominated by a bothersome system of licensing ; and no one might ieave the country unless he could obtain from the Government permission to make use of his own money. LIVING BEYOND INCOME. “The spenders,” said Mr Algie, “have been at the steering wheel. For three and a half years we have been living beyond our national income. Our reserves of capital have been drawn upon to the limit, and we are reduced, in spite of our previous boasting, to playing the role of the prodigal sou in the house of the Imperial. Government. We have thrown away our liberty in exchange for what has been described as a kind of economic cannibalism clumsily disguised as a noble experiment in social betterment? the guiding principle of this plan has assumed no higher level than that of merely taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not. But the ultimate solution is apparently no nearer.” The whole position could be sinned up in tlie words of an American writer who declared that the system of free play, and personal initiative hitherto prevalent in our relations of buying and selling had been replaced by a system operated by Government appointees with full power to compel obedience. THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION. If, said Mr Algie, there was to be a return to the oeiter principles of sound and orthodox government, it true and effective co-operation in industry was to take tlie place of the narrow doctrines of class-conscious warfare too often and too loudly preached in the past, the demand for these things must come, and come with determination, Horn the rank and file of the people themselves. There was ample evidence on all sides that an ever-growing number of people had become a little conscious of the fact that they had wandered 100 far along the shadowy paths of the economic planners; they were anxious to get back on to firmer ground and into a freer atmosphere. It was in such circumsta.nees that the Freedom Association could ho of material assistance. The association was not a political party, nor was it either directly or iiidirectlv allied with any political party. Its concern was with policies, not with - parties. In a.n effort to, appose the introduction of complete State Socialism it had, last year, supported the National Party. Its alliance with that party, however, as had always been intended, came to an end with the general election of 1938. The objects of the association had been fixed by its foundation deed for a period of at least ten years, and its services and activities could not be used by anyj individual or group for the furtherance of their own special interests. It was in cverv sense free and independent of all party ties and allegiances. Its object was essentially an educational one, and, by means of organisation, lectures, tutorial classes. . study groups, pamphlets and publications generally, it sought to aid in the development of sound, progressive and trillv democratic government in tins Dominion. Ft held steadfastly to the view that the proper function of government was. not to destroy libertv, but to protect the freedom and wellbeing of the people. “MIDDLE OF THE ROAD POLICY” The Freedom Association was not, as had been said already, a political party, and it held very firmly the view that, in existing circumstances, tlie emergence of a new or third political party in the field was both unnecessary and undesirable, said Mr Algie. The primary work of the association lay with that great middle group of the people whoso members did not belong either to the extreme Left or to the extreme Right. This group varied in numbers from time to to time; its members often took, a more or loss casual interest in politics and did not attach themselves permanently to either party. They were broad and liberal they sought progress as opposed to static conservatism; they were prepared to take a generous view of their responsibilities as citizens towards those not so happily placed as themselves. Nevertheless, they were definitely opposed to the cramping restrictions of bureaucratic State Socialism. They desired the fullest measure of freedom consistent with reasonable order and sound progress. They unfortunately lacked leadership, organisation and instruction in the- fundamental principles of government, and were often forced to choose between the two competing parties when they would gladly have had something quite different. If the numbers of this middle group could be increased by patient educative methods, and if the members of

it could be given a firm grasp of sound progressive principles and efficiently organised throughout New Zealand, their numbers and their voice would he a powerful factor in the democratic government of tins country. Such a “middle group,” with its well-informed demand tor the best in government for tlie country as a whole, would offer a splendid inducement to the Labour Government now in office to return to what could he called the “middle of; the road.” The present Ministry, as j tiic party in office, was fully entitled, to that opportunity, and if they availed themselves of it there was every certainty that this great middle group of moderate people would fall in behind the Government and help. If the Labour Party either could not or would not adopt and put into operation such a “middle way” policy, then obviously the call would go forth to the National Party and propound such a policy. If that party could and would produce a policy which fitted in with the desires ol this strong but wellbalanced and well-iniormed middle group, then solid support would be j forthcoming for that party from, the ■ members of that group. If the National Party also proved to be unable or unwilling to meet the wishes of that great middle group, then, and in that case only, there would be no alternative except the emergence of a new and third political party. There, ready to its hand, would, in that event, he that i large middle group of keen, well-in-1 formed people, enthusiastic for demo- j crac.v, bent on liberal progress with I due regard to social justice, but deter- j mined to preserve a condition of free personal initiative and reasonable opportunities for private enterprise. In the education and organisation of that group lay the real task of the Freedom Association. It had to play a part in drawing into the middle ol the road those generous, progressive and fair-minded people of the community, regardless of all questions of party; it had to seek to give them a goal towards which to strive; it had to help them in their march towards it, and, above all, it had to assist in keeping alive in them a lively regard for the importance of the individual and a burning faith in free democratic institutions. LACK OF RESPEC'T FOR LAW. In its attitude towards respect for law and lor the administration of justice generally, said Mr Algie, the record ui the present Government was an unattractive one. Tlie lessons taught by previous Governments in this respect bad been eagerly learned, and quickly assimilated by their successors in office. Step by step, added Mr Algie, Ministerial and departmental authority bad been cutting into tlie prerogatives ot the people. The steady pace required by the normal methods of ordinary constitutional government had apparently proved too slow ior Ministers and heads ol departments; and on every possible or impossible occasion they had sought to short-circuit the Parliamentary machine by resorting to tlie practice of issuing innumerable rules, regulations and Orders-in-Couti-cil. Parliament was being reduced to the level of a mere debating society and was becoming an institution simply for recording the decisions and for cheering the acts and speeches of Ministers and of other members. The two Houses of Parliament had, on too many occasions, surrendered to Cabinet ami to State departments the law-making power which should have remained with the representatives of (lie people, and the regulations made by Ministers in this manner were given the same force and effect as if they bad been openly enacted in Parliament itself. In other cases, authority had been given to Ministers to issue regulations which could not in any way be reviewed or questioned in any oi the Law Courts. There had also'been growing up a very mischievous practice whereby it had become common to set up Ministerial and departmental tribunals to hear disputes between the citizen and bis Government. This practice had lieen carried to a point at which the liberties and privileges of individuals were seriously threatened. Mr Algie supported bis contentions by reference to Statutes passed not only by the present Government, but also by previous Governments. Amongst the Acts dealt with were the Education Amendment Act. 1915; Primary Products Marketing Act. 1936; Transport Licensing Amendment Act, 1936; Industrial Efficiency Act. 1930; and the Social Security Act, 1938. Brief, but pointed, reference was also made to the action of tlie Government in appointing several persons to important and responsible positions in the entire absence of all statutory authority to make such appointments, or eyen in complete defiance of existing statutory provisions. Finally, Air Algie referred to the indefensible actions of the Government in continuing to act upon a policy which its own Law Courts bad held to be invalid or illegal. Respect for law was not likely to be very well founded amongst the people if the Government itself was prepared to violate its own Statutes and to ride roughshod over the decisions of its own Courts. At the conclusion of his address Mr Algie distributed to the members of the audience copies of a petition to Parliament complaining, firstly, of the dangers involved in the transfer of legislative power from Parliament to the Executive; secondly, of the exclusion of the Courts from power to decide upon tlie validity of Orders-in-Council; and. thirdly, of the practice of setting up Ministerial tribunals with powers even greater than those of the Courts of Law. The petition asks that a Royal Commission might be set up to inquire into these matters and to report to

the House upon the best means for avoiding or overcoming the dangers inherent in the foregoing practices.