Mr Barclay’s Guarantee

Northern Advocate, 11 October 1938, Page 6

Mr Barclay’s Guarantee

MR. J. G. BARCLAY, at the last Easter Conference of the New Zealand Labour Party,, in Wellington, and Mr. J. G. Barclay, candidate for Marsden, do not appear to be one and the same person. Those present at the Easter Conference reaffirmed the objective of the party: “TheSocialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.” Is this objective a sham? Either the party’s objective, or Mr. Barclay’s statement, is false. Both cannot be right. The party’s objective, the Socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, means exactly what it says. If this objective is a sham, why have it at all? It is not a sham, however, because it was approved at the annual conference in Christchurch in 1934, and reaffirmed again this year after an attempt to amend it had been made. Mr. Barclay was a party to the reaffirmation, and is pledged to support the objectives of the party to which he belongs. That objective means complete ownership by the State of the land, the transport and the currency. If the Labour Party’s objective is not a sham, why did it pass the Industrial Efficiency Act, 1936, which covers every means of livelihood in New Zealand and empowers the Minister, of his own accord, without any further authority from Parliament, to bring any or all means of livelihood, whether it be farming or anything else, within the provisions of the Act? Upon that happening, anyone affected can only earn his livelihood under a license issued by the Minister upon such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. Why did the Government pass the various marketing Acts by which the Minister is given the power to confiscate all butter, honey, fruit, eggs, and such other foodstuffs as he may bring under the Act at bis own price? Why did the Government abolish the Transport Appeal Board, which used to be presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court, and substitute the Minister as the Court of Appeal, and then provide that in coming to his decision the Minister need not hear any witnesses or take any evidence or receive any representations of any kind whatever? Yesterday, a pamphlet espousing the cause of Mr. Barclay bears the following statement: “I will guarantee that the New Zealand Labour Party has no intention of taking away, in the near or distant future, your home, farm, or private property.” There is thus the extraordinary position of a man now entering into a guarantee not to carry out a guarantee he entered into previously, Has such a ludicrous proposition ever been heard?