Through a Woman’s Eyes

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 160, 9 July 1938, Page 6

Through a Woman’s Eyes

THE PRESENT POLITICAL SITUATION The Empire Hall was well filled yesterday afternoon on the occasion of an address by Mrs. W. A. Bodkin under the auspices of the women’s section of the National Party in Palmerston North. Mrs. Bodkin spoke for nearly two hours and she dealt with the present political situation, with particular reference to the part that women could play. At the conclusion she was accorded a vote of thanks by acclamation, on the motion of Mrs. W. F. Field, who was in the chair. Afternoon tea was later served j by the ladies. | Before tho country to-day, stated : Mrs. Bodkin, lay tho choice of two ; totally different parties. One stood for ! democracy and tho other for socialism. , Under the present Government, the influences of socialism were invading tho | home and every activity of life, and as a result women were taking a very active interest in politics. The great majority of women were not hampered by any political past, and it was for that reason that the contrbution they could make to the political questions of to-day was very valuable. They were concerned with the present and how to face the future. Women, she thought, were the great realists in life, and if they were to make any intelligent contribution to the general welfare and development of New Zealand as a whole, they would have to study the problem. The principles of democracy wero based on Christian ethics, the speaker proceeded, and recognised that every individual was a separate entity and had certain rights. Good government, according to democracy, was that which made the best opportunities for tho individual to develop his own talents and make the best contribution to the welfare of the family, the community and the State. The background of the*socialist philosophy was first enunciated by Karl Marx, who had claimed that all maladjustments of the modern State and individuals were economic in origin, and if the economic security of man could bo solved, there would, result the happy man and the happy State. He had divided the modern State into two classes—the workers and the capitalists • —and had said that these two classes were enemies, and that the only way the former could achieve economic security was to combine and overthrow the capitalist system. It was the desire of all good government to achieve economic security for everyone in the country, but her party said that economic security was not everything, and that there were other parts of man which had to be considered if we were to have a happy individual and a happy State. Unless every individual recognised the duties devolving on Mm and carried them out, no democracy could function 100 per cent. The responsibilities of the individual in a democratic State were greater than in a socialist State.

The best example of a democracy was the British nation, where every person had a right to his own thoughts and had a right to express his own individuality. In the democratic State minority opinion had the same right to raise its voice as majority opinion, and eventually it could become majority opinion. Without freedom of speech—the right to free criticism—no democracy was possible. Look at the socialist State, three examples of which were Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The whole success of government in these three totalitarian States depended on suppression of minority opinion, and a very efficient machine was obtained, at the expense of freedom of speech. The three avenues through which free speech was obtained—the Press, the radio and public assembly—were the means by which different opinions were circulated among the people. In a totalitarian State the three avenues had to be controlled by the Government, and this tendency was becoming evident in New Zealand to-day. Were wo losing our freedom and being regimented towards a socialist State? The Nationalist Party said we were. Every action of the Government had been n step away from democracy and nearer socialism. The Government’s aim was the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. This was election year, and we found a strange sensitiveness among Labour supporters about the word “socialism.” They were trying to assume the mantle of the old Liberal Party. It was admitted that democracy had never functioned 100 per cent., but under socialism the loss of benefits would be greater than tho advantages accruing. The Labour Party's “window-dres-sing7’ for the last election had consisted of reduced taxation, removal of the sales tax, lowering of the exchange, a reduction of unemployment, an increase in -wages and a reduction of hours without raising the cost of living, and universal superannuation. It was obvious that Labour could not use the same “window-dressing” this time. The cost of living had risen. A voice: And so have wages.

The speaker: The promise was that wages would be risen and hours would be decreased without the cost of living being increased. For this election, the speaker continued, there was a perfectly new windowdressing, and it was social security.

At this stage there was a series of interruptions from a number of ladies at the back.

The recovery that had come about in New Zealand, Mrs. Bodkin proceeded, was not peculiar to New Zealand. Every part of the British Empire could show similar figures. Neither had the depression been peculiar to • New Zealand. Queensland had had a Labour Government at that tme, and they had a depression, during which the relief payments were not as high as in New Zealand under a non-Labour Government. In 1928, the last best year under the previous Government, did we have an unemployment tax of 8d in the £, did we have aTt unions for the purpose of relieving distress, did we have large subsidised works for the purpose of creating employment, did we have a sales tax? Several voices: Who put it on? Mrs. Bodkin said that in 1928 there was far less poverty in New Zealand, and we had been better off than to-day. She appealed to the women to think for themselves and not to be swayed by catch-cries. The help they could give,

whatever political party was in power, was enormous. Women could make a big contribution to the assuring of a proper economic security. Nothing could be gained by bitterness. The move towards bureaucratic government had to be guarded against. Freedom of speech and the right to criticise were the greatest safeguards we had against tyranny and corruption. For that reason she thought the women of New Zealand should rally round an organisation that was 100 per cent, democratic.