A VETO ON ARGUMENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23780, 7 October 1940, Page 6

A VETO ON ARGUMENT

The tone taken by the Minister of Finance in winding up the debate on war expenditure was harsh to the point of arrogance. Speaking of the conscription of wealth, Mr. Nash foreshadowed further measures, stating that the Government would not argue the matter but would take everything required. This dictatorial attitude was reaffirmed a little later when Mr. Nash asserted the Government would be fair with the people but it would not argue with them. The Minister surely cannot realise the unfortunate impression produced by such statements. In effect, he says the Government intends to dispense with the method of free discussion that should precede decision in a true democracy. It is to preserve this freedom that New Zealand is at war. But Mr. Nash speaks as if he meant to supersede it by Government dictates. It will be readily granted that the Executive should be granted wide powers to act in con-

ducting war, but these powers should not be erected into a system of government—a dictatorial system. Whenever it is possible, the representatives of the people in Parliament should be consulted and their assent obtained. In fact there should be scope for the argument that Mr. Nash so roundly denies. Very often the Administration would avoid mistakes by submitting its proposals to criticism and suggestions. The House of Commons has in this way been able to contribute much to the solution of current problems and to keeping the national front unbroken. In New Zealand, on the other hand, a good deal of important business has been withheld from Parliament, the Government preferring to issue regulations and so avoid any argument. The tendency is deplorable and Parliament as the direct representative of the people should make a stand for its own rights, for democratic procedure, and for freedom itself.