Algie Outlines Our Constitutional Remedies

Northern Advocate, 15 December 1939, Page 2

Algie Outlines Our Constitutional Remedies

[ Special to “Northern Advocate ”] AUCKLAND. This Day.

Spiritedly attacking the Labour Government for pursuance of its policy of socialisation in the present time of war, Mr. R. M. Algie explained in an address last evening the constitutional remedy of the people. “The Government is being forced to roi3“ upon a whole famil3 T of "'radio uncles” in its determined and continuous efforts to induce the people to believe that things are not as bad as they seem,” said Mr. Algie.

"Our ‘uncle of the Friendly KoaiT has now been partnered by r no less a protagonist than the Prime Minister himself and almost nightly throughout the week we flit from ‘uncle’ io ‘uncle,’ the tune changing according to the voice. but the purpose being always the same—propaganda and a Sways more propaganda.” No Fair Play. If the Government’s policy had been as successful as claimed, surely there was no need for all these broadcasts, he continued. Those sure of themselves arid satisfied all was well did not fear criticism nor did they resent it. They responded naturally to the finer principles of fair play and extended to their opponents a similar right to use the radio. This the Labour Government had never done. War Not Only Aim. With the outbreak of the war, the Government had had to decide whether it would carry on its attack on individual enterprise and free business or suspend those activities for a time and concentrate entirety upon winning the war. Mr. Savage had broadcast his opinion that the Government felt it would be untrue to party supporters it it slackened off its policy of socialisation

The Goyernmenrs »«c:«as hail ucnso-nstrateu that win* ctt'ort was net its only aim. Co-operation implied mutual concessions, but the Government expected co-operation without concessions on us part, and those willing' to co-operate found they were expected to assent passively to the terms persisted in by the Government.

it was a tragedy that at such a time, questions of internal politics should slid loom so largely in the forefront of public discussion, for patriotic tasks demanded wholehearted unity byjho people and forbearance by the Government 1 . Goveminent-Ma.de Dilemma. The Government had attempted to put the people in an awkward dilemma. Either the people had to submit to Socialisation, in order that a maximum war effort might he made, or they must defend their natural rights ana be branded as disloyal and seditious obstructionists. However, these wove false alternative.'; The peopte had a clear and constitutional right to present then views to the Government, and to ask it to remove as far as possible ail those party fetters and restrictions which were preventing: national service. Pertinent Questions. The political leaders were' talking loudly of their belief In democracy

while they were constantly practising dictatorship. It was idle to say the people were free.

Pertinent questions were being asked regarding the people’s legal and constitutional rights. Could the British Government help in a case of emergency? Had citizens the right to petition the King? Could the Governor-General dismiss his Ministers? Must he dissolve Parliament if lit were asked to do so? These and simitar questions showed clearly a growing uneasiness, a groping for a lead and a desire for a clear statement. In a democracy, legal power rested with Parliament, while political power remained with the electors, Mr. Algie explained. In practice, this meant that a Ministry backed by a majority in the House, could pass any laws it thought fit. The people could criticise and protest, but their only remedy -lay in the ballot-paper. Between elections they were practically impotent. Direct Action Untraditiona!. Any form of protest by direct or illegal action was fundamentally wrong in principle and bad in practice. These advocating such methods were disloyal to their British tradition, and would be undermining the very system that gave them security and protection. People could petition the King if they wished, but the petition would first have to go the Governor-General and when it reached the King he would be guided by the advice given him by his Ministers in New Zealand. If the petition was presented directly to the Governor-General the position would be the same, as he would have to follow the advice of his Ministers.

Ministry Resignation, While a Minstry could resign at any time, that did not mean an election would be held immediately. The House would continue as elected and the Governor-General would have to seek for other Minsters. The new Ministry would carry on, but if it celt doubtful, it could advise a dissolution and immediate election. However, a rigid rule could not be followed. A Ministry could also advise a dissolution instead of resigning, which was practically an admission of failure. Thai advice could be followed, which would lie likely, but it could be refused. A suggestion that the affairs of the Dominion should be put in the hands of a commission or receivership was unworthy ot the people. Such a plan would involve the compie le suspension of the Constitution and the necessary legislation would have lu he passed in the New Zealand am] Imperial Parliaments.

Act in?* by itself, Parliament could not pul itself entirely out of existence. Be What It Wished. Popular discussion also centred round the Statute of Westminster but changes marie by the statute were not part of the law of this country. A Governnr-General's appointment was made directly by Ihe King who could, however, be guided by die view.-: of Mew Zealand Ministers. For all practical purposes supreme power lay in Iho hands of the Ministry, which, as long as it could command a Parliamentary majority, could do much as it wished. The only effective control lay in the existence of a well-informed and determined public opinion. The fact that the only remedies available must be constitutional ones could not be too strongly emphasised.