Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, JULY 11, 1938. THE ADDRESS IN REPLY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19679, 11 July 1938, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, JULY 11, 1938. THE ADDRESS IN REPLY

A week’s debate in Parliament on the Address-in-Rcply motion ancl the Opposition amendment to it can hardly be said to have produced a particularly high note of discussion on tiie major political issues of the day. Some of the speeches, it is true, have been vigorous, a few have been analytical and well reasoned, but the great majority have been dull and drab in the extreme and the debate as a whole cannot be said to have raised the prestige of Parliament or the public estimation of its representatives. For the duration of the debate so far there have been no fewer than 55 speakers, 38 from the Government benches, including several Ministers, M from the Opposition and three Independents. Those who may have listened to the debate, or any part of it. would do well to sit back and dispassionately recall the number of really inspiring or instructive contributions which they have heard. The effort would not require any great tax on the mental faculties. And yet this debate, in particular, ofi’ered exceptional scope to members, since there is no restriction on the subjects with which they are entitled to deal. Indeed, the field is so wide that it should not have been impossible for every speaker to provide something new, yet it. was not uncommon to find one after another ventilating the same trivial complaints and repeating platitudes

that have been heard year after year. The broadcasting of debates, if it has done nothing else, must have served to impress upon the public the low standard to which the Parliament of the country has declined; and if it has done this is will have served a useful, if unintended, purpose, for it must lead to a demand for an improvement. The debate was conspicuous more than anything else, for the abuse, trivialities, and inanities which found expression. The public is not vitally concerned with what one member thinks of another or with what one member said many years ago; an attack on a man's reputation is more likely to affect adversely the attacker and not the victim, and a charge of inconsistency, from which few are immune, is merely a reminder of the truth that consistency is the refuge of fools. In particular, far too much has been made of so-called whispering campaigns and scurrilous circulars, both of which, judging from the references that have been made, are too ridiculous to have any effect other than to increase the support for those against whom they are directed. To repeat rumours and extracts Bom circulars only serves to give them much wider publicity than they would otherwise receive and the fact that they are taken seriously gives to them a weight far greater than they deserve. Whatever goes on outside the House, this sort of thing should be definitely banned inside it. The public to-day, more perhaps than ever before, is intensely anxious to hear a reasoned exposition of tiie political issues. They realise that New Zealand is at the parting of the ways and that within the next few months they must decide whether the country is to continue to progress along the lines adopted in the past or whether it is to embark upon a system of socialism. The public is a little in the dark as to just what is implied in the first plank of the Labour Party’s platform—the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—and it is not unreasonable, since they are being asked to endorse it, that they should ask exactly what it means. Some supporters of the Government have described themselves as straight-out Socialists, others have qualified their admissions, but none so far has stated in unequivocal language just what the ultimate aim of the party is—and the people are entitled to kne w. The no-confidence amendment moved by the Leader ol the Opposition served to focus attention on this particular issue and, whether the amendment be approved or not, it is not to the credit of the Government that its supporters have done everything possible to avoid it. They have been charged that their policy is directed towards State domination and dictatorship, and the charge demands an answer. Nor is this by any means the only question that lias been directly raised. The mover of the Reply motion, in a particularly striking speech, made out a strong case for the national health scheme. No one has attacked the scheme but various speakers have asked what it will cost and can the country afford it. The questions are reasonable and the House and the public arc entitled to a reply. Attention has been directed, also, to the fact that the Government was clearly pledged not to increase taxation, to remove the sales tax entirely, and to reduce the rate of exchange to parity with sterling. Taxation has already reached unprecedented and alarming proportions, but this fact alone does not prove that it is unwarranted. The onus is on the Government, however, to explain and justify, if it can, this breach of its pre-election promise. The same remarks apply to the sales lax which was bitterly opposed by the Labour Party when in Opposition. If

it now believes that the lax is a legitimate one and should not be removed, it should not hesitate to say so, but it is not entitled to ignore the issue. So far as the exchange rate is concerned, the Government probably now realises that its reduction is impracticable, but if this is so it should not hesitate to take tlie people into its confidence. It would lose less by a frank admission of its error than by attempting to ignore it. For the remainder of the session it is to be hoped that there will be a higher standard of debate and that there will be a free and frank discussion of the real issues instead of laboured attempts to evade them.