THE LABOUR PARTY'S POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23224, 23 June 1937, Page 7

THE LABOUR PARTY'S POLICY

TO THE EDITOR

Sir —" Ex-Reformer" still does not comprehend the logical meaning to be taken from mv words " New Zealand should forfeit its status as a Dominion and revest to a Crown colony on similar lines to Newfoundland." He asks why T mentioned Spain when I was referring to Newfoundland I still say that there is a potential Spain in New Zealand and I still say that the Dominion could revert to a Crown colony on similar lines to Newfoundland but "Ex-Reformer" seems to be a trifle tangled, and his bias prevents him from seeing the meaning in the words quoted, for they can have only

I one meaning, and that is that the Dominion would have a Constitution similar to that which Newfoundland now has. It is beyond me to know how -Ex-Reformer" manages to mix the two expressions into one when eacn contains a separate thought I admitted in my last letter that a Government may of its own accord prevent an occasional speech from being broadcast, but it is necessary to distinguish between that and a censored broadcast carried on for three years. As I stated previously no Government is popular in the midst of a depression. "Ex-Reformer" has justified this statement in writing aboui chaos but is this not an expression of a biased mind? I have said that we have to be thankful that the Government pulled us through the slump as successfully as it did. and nlso that anyone with a knowledge of slump affairs will know that a country will gradually right itself if left alone. " Ex-Reformer " seems to think I was referring to the same Government in both statements, but as anyone can see, the first referred to the Coalition and the second to the present Labour Government. The party now in power is too fond of meddling with affairs that are best controlled by private enterprise, and in this respect we are likely to have a Government so overburdened with affairs that it cannot efficiently handle all or any of them. „ , , "Ex-Reformer" states that I am afraid of Socialism. I am not afraid for myself, but for the future of New Zealand. It seems that the Government is attempting to introduce State Socialism, but what is this State Socialism? We would be more correct if we called it State Capitalism, as Nationalism is not strictly a form ot Socialism. Socialism includes an analysis and criticism of capitalist society and a philosophy of social evolution together with the determination of a social ideal for future attainment, and the party in power in New Zealand is attempting to carry out a practical programme for the realisation of this ideal. But it is in advance of its time. The ideals it is submitting to the Dominion may be possible and practicable 100 years or so hence, but not at a time _ when the strain and burden of war is stm with us. This State Socialism has for its objects the transference to the State of the role of industrial entrepreneur. Thus we find the functions of the State increased to such a considerable extent that it gradually loses its power and efficiency. This form of government is Socialistic only in regard to production, and not to distribution, but in recent years in New Zealand there has been a trend towards interference with the distribution of wealth. In attempting to control the means of production the State tends to sap the initiative and self-reliance of the individual with results which are economically, socially, and politically undesirable. The present trend of affairs in New Zealand affords scope for serious reflection in this connection. It increases the prestige, power, and influence of the Government to an undesirable extent, and there is an overburdening of the work of the State Together with these objections to State intervention we have this point: The State organised as it is for politica and general social purposes, is not adapted in its structure or growth for the task of industrial entrepreneur, for which it possesses neither competency nor initiative. The leaders of the State obtain their positions because of their presumed possession of political qualifications rather than ol economic qualifications, and they are swayed by political rather than by economic considerations, while in democratic countries such as ours the continual change of personnel ana policy is fatal to continuity of operation. Business leaders cannot be selected on the lines of democratic politics, without the risk of serious dangers, and as industry becomes more specialised and complicated this fact will become of more importance. Again the State should not interfere in industries that are just beginning, such as transport by air in New Zealand. Until this mode of transport has reac l<£ maturity and become thoroughly organised it should be left to the domain of private enterprise—l am, etc.. Oamaru, June 21. Nationalist. [The above letter has been abridged. —Ed. O.D.T.]