SINS OF GOVERNMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23299, 17 September 1937, Page 10

SINS OF GOVERNMENT

OMISSION AND COMMISSION MOTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE MR HAMILTON'S CRITICISM (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Sept. 16. "It has left undone those things which it has promised to do, and it has done many things which it ought not to have done." In these words, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr A. Hamilton) attacked the Government in moving his amendment of no-confidence during the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives tonight. Mr Hamilton formally congratulated the mover and the seconder of the Address-in-Reply motion, and stated that they had done their best in very difficult circumstances. The mover, Mr J. Thorn (Govt., Thames), had, however, hardly made a single mention of any point from the GovernorGeneral's Speech, which, after all, was the subject of . the debate. Something of the history of the Government's administration was in order, but the House was entitled to a forecast for the future and an outline of the programme ahead.

TIDE OF PROSPERITY "The mover was too busy defending the Government to give us any information as to its future proposals," Mr Hamilton continued. "He claimed that the Government has faced a problem of great magnitude, but I think I am' right in claiming that no Government ever took office in more fortunate circumstances. The slump and four years of world-wide depression had passed, the Budget was balanced, every department of State was in credit, and there has been no trouble with regard to money ever since. If the Government had had to tackle a period of depression, Mr Hamilton said, there would have been a different story. Other parts of the world had experienced the efforts of Labour Governments in attempting to handle depression conditions, and in Great Britain and Australia Labour Governments had been rejected. " The member for Thames talked about misery and chaos and made it appear that the country is on the verge of ruin," continued Mr Hamilton. "It is about time we got away from that croaking idea and gave at least some credit to the people who built up conditions in New Zealand to what they are today. Some Government members have been decrying the country—a country which has been mighty good to most of us and for 50 years has been one of the finest countries m the world. I see the Minister of Finance nods his head. He has been around'the world and he knows." BROKEN PROMISES Mr Hamilton complained that Mr Thorn, in giving comparative figures regarding the economic state of the country, had compared presentday conditions with those of the depression years. That was not a fair comparison. Mention had been made of the fact that the exports last year had reached the record figure of £64,000,000, but apparently the Government was claiming credit for that and giving none to the producer. In the depression years the value of the exports had averaged £37,000,000 and that gave the measure of the Government's good fortune. "That's where the money comes from in New Zealand," Mr Hamilton said. "It comes from our exports, and the member for Thames did not give the producers a word of credit for the state which the country is in to-day. The greatest achievement of the Government is its. broken promises. It certainly does not make the mistake of being modest. It is claiming credit for everything good that happens and is blaming the previous Government for everything that is wrong." Discussing the first point in his no-confidence amendment charging the Government with stifling private enterprise, Mr Hamilton said for the past 30 to 40 years no country in the world had had a higher standard of living than New Zealand. Those conditions had been built up under a system of private enterprise and endeavour. STATE INTERFERENCE There might be some evils in our society that needed curing, he continued, but that did not justify the Government overthrowing the present order. The Government was diving into businesses that it was not wise for it to enter. The Minister of Transport (Mr R. Semple) apparently wished to take over all the transport services, and it appeared as if there were to be single ownership of transport. It was desirable to get the best out of the modern science of transport for the benefit of the community, but the method the Minister was adopting was very debatable. Privately owned and properly regulated transport was better for the country than State ownership of all services.