THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1938 MR. HAMILTON IN REPLY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, 10 May 1938, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1938 MR. HAMILTON IN REPLY

Addressing the people of New Zealand in reply to the Prime Minister's recent broadcast speech, the Leader of the Opposition had no reason to complain that material was lacking. Mr. Savage had provided plenty. To tako as the first example the Prime Minister's claim, both direct and implied, that New Zealand was enjoying abundant prosperity, wholly as the result*of his Government's accession to power; Mr. Hamilton naturally seized upon this. It is by such extravagances of expression that the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues leave themselves most open to retort. What Mr. Hamilton said on the subject was well founded. Entering office, the present Government was fortunate to succeed to a balanced Budget, to accounts strictly in order, to an economy which had been adapted, so far as was possible, to the adverse economic winds blowing from overseas. The procedux-e and policies followed were not 100 per cent perfect, but they did represent an honest attempt to grapple with an exceedingly difficult position. The present Government was very fortunate to have fallen heir to such a kingdom just as the upward turn in world economy was developing to make the way easier. Mr. Hamilton was fully justified in emphasising those factors which combined to make possible the policy of unshackled expansionism since pursued. He was equally justified in showing how the Government, in following its avowed creed of onward and upward with the brakes off, has taken no thought for the morrow, or the possibility that it might be different from yesterday and' to-day. The retort on both counts was one which the Prime Minister had clearly invited. Again, there was no want of clearness in the way the Leader of the Opposition drew the distinction between the two parties. He showed what is fundamental in the political life of the day, the vast difference between the philosophy and the outlook on life of Government and J Opposition. It can be no misrepresentation of the present Government to say that its objective is the complete socialisation of life in this country. It said so in the policy it offered at the last election, and has not since recanted. Socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange with this achieved there could not remain much of the New Zealand that has been built up during the past hundred years. Those who laid the foundations had a vision of a community in which life would be freer, individuality would be given more chance of expression than in the lands they had left. It would be a sorry end to their labours if their descendants became helots under the control of a vast State machine. Yet there is no other destiny with complete socialisation "established. Mr. Hamilton' was justified, therefore, in drawing the contrast that he did. The steady encroachment of the State into new fields—housing, marketing, sawmilling, transport, and the iron industry are ready instances—must be regarded, not as a set of disconnected movements, but as elements of a cumulative movement with an inevitable end. They are part of the socialisation process which, by its very nature, must gather momentum as it 1 proceeds. In exchange for this, Mr. Hamilton offers a return to the principles which ruled in New Zealand for nearly 100 years; in which the value of the individual was recognised, his rewards were reasonably proportioned to his industry, his initiative and his thrift, and the State intruded in his affairs only when it was believed the intervention was specifically needed. The choice is one the citizen should ponder. Naturally giving much of his time to discussing what the Prime Minister had said, Mr. Hamilton nevertheless added policy points as the constructive part of his address. His most important undertaking was, if given the opportunity, to reduce, so far as possible, the monstrously swollen volume of public expenditure. Coupled with that was a promise to extract the lowest possible amount of. taxation necessary to carry out the functions of government efficiently and economically. It is well that he has pledged himself thus, early and clearly. Nobody with any real appreciation of the issues involved can help feeling uneasy about the financial rake's progress to which the country has been committed. The lauding of extravagance, the promotion of thriftlcssness into a virtue are two of the most dangerous doctrines given currency in the past two or three years. Mr. Hamilton was bound to repudiate them even if he had risked losing support by doing so. Instead of this, he suyely commended his cause to those sober-minded people who cannot believe that wisdom and financial knowledge were first born into the world in New Zealand in December 1935. In promising to give better access to the land, to safeguard the interests of the small tradesman, the small shopkeeper, and the small farmer, Mr. Hamilton very properly mentioned the forgotten men of the present regime. In undertaking to abolish compulsory unionism while retaining compulsory arbitration he flung a challenge at the chief of the new-born tyrannies New Zealand now harbours. He gave the elector food for thought, and thought is very necessary before the momentous vote is cast at the end of this year,.