The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1921. MR STATHAM’S SPEECH.

Southland Times, Issue 19330, 15 September 1921, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1921. MR STATHAM’S SPEECH.

If it can be argued that the way to rid the country of party politics is to establish another party Mr C. E. Statham is setting out on a mission that is deserving of encouragement, but it is not quite clear that the new National Progressive and Moderate Labour Party will achieve this very desirable end and most people will, therefore, prefer to have some further inform a tion about the new organisation before cofemitting themselves to ita support. So far the country has not been able to get much more than generalities of an interesting nature, but all politicians can string an imposing array of generalities together by making pleasing speeches with this material. It must be admitted that Mr Statham can approach the electors with the advantage of having stuck to his principles when others elected to go for political advancement, but before the country can accept the party it will w r ant to know more about the personnel and of the methods to be employed to “save the nation.” Much that Mr Statham was talking about in his speech last night has been advocated by the Southland Times for a considerable time. For instance, we most heartily endorse all that has been said in advocacy of the Elective Executive and of Proportional Represewration as stepping stones to the elimination of the evils arising from the party system, and we go so far as to say that a step in the direction of freeing members from the slavery of party would be effected if It were made impossible for any ministry to retire on an adverse vote on any question other than a straight out motion expressing the House’s lack of confidence in the government. It should not be possible for the government to make a clause in a bill the ground for determining the life or death of the ministry. What we have chiefly to complain about in Mr Statham’s speech last night, however, is its lack of particulars. We are told that the Upper House is to be reformed

and reduced to fifteen members so as to remove the chamber from the control of the Prime Minister. It is difficult to see how the mere reduction in the numerical strength of the Legislative Council is going to do away with the Prime Minister's power of nomination, just as it is difficult to see bow a purely revising chamber can be of much practical benefit unless it has some power to check hasty legislation by the Lower House. The mere authority to suggest certain amendments is not enough for effective work. Mr Statham went into the proposal for a State Bank, using the Australian experience as an argument, and he hit. on the most serious danger of the scheme when he mentioned that his party would not agree to anything suggestive of the indiscriminate issue of paper money. It is one thing to say that the party will not allow it, and quite another thing to prevent the enlargement of the amount of paper currency. Not only notes constitute paper currency when a government is at w’ork and this is one of the important things to be remembered. The new party evidently has pinned its faith on its general superannuation scheme which is to cost the country £8,000,000 per annum. Of course, the money is to be raised by contributions from emplayers, employees and from the Consolidated Fund but the result is the same, the country has to pay for it and at the present moment it is not easy to reconcile this statement with the argument that taxation must be reduced. The wages bill for the dominion, we are told, is £76,000,000 and of this sum the workers are to provide £1,800,000 directly and a share of a similar sum contributed through

the Consolidated Fund. The employers would also have to find £1,800,000 per annum for six years and this would go on to the wages bill meaning that the employer would have to find £77,800,000 for wages under the new scheme as well as his share of the government’s contribution. The idea of providing pensions for everybody sounds well and we have no doubt that Mr Massey would be quite in favour of a similar or even a more generous scheme if he was not faced with the difficult problem of finding the money. The new party is to make strikes and lock-outs illegal and arbitration in industrial disputes compul-

sory. This is really excellent, if it can be done and that is the point on which some doubts will be felt by those who have some knowledge of the course of industrial affairs in this and other countries of the world. We have no intention of going deeply into the new party’s platform at this stage, because at the present time there is not sufficient material information available to show us how Mr Statham and his friends intend to bring about the excellent changes they propose for us. Mr Statham has said that the party is “not necessarily out for office,” which is exceedingly refreshing even if a trifle vague, but if it intends to contest about sixty of the seats at the next election it may be possible, if the government continues to be as inept and naughty as Mr Statham suggests, that the elaborately named evangelists may find themselves compelled to take office, which, of course, is “not necessarily” what the leader wants. Doubtless there is some simple solution to this .Meeming paradox but in the meantime to non-political minds it sounds very much like a revival of old methods with some new’ trappings and Mr Statham would do well to discard it.