LIBERAL REVIVAL

Southland Times, Issue 20146, 5 April 1927, Page 8

LIBERAL REVIVAL

GOVERNMENT’S POLICY. The re-establishment of the Liberal Party at a time when “the Government is pursuing Socialistic will o’ the wisps” is referred to by Mr H. Atmore, M.P. for Nelson, in an interview with an Evening Post representative, in which he quotes speeches made last session by Reform members criticising what, he regards as the present Government’s socialistic legislation. Mr Atmore said he was not surprised to

find that the growing discontent with some of the recent legislation of the present Government was finding expression through an organised body. He referred to the fact that the present Prime Minister and his party were returned by a very large majority, after a great advertising campaign, during which it was asserted strongly that the Reform Party stood against Socialistic and Communistic measures. One of the advertisements declared that the Labour Socialistic Party sought to introduce in New Zealand a class of tyranny “that would kill individual enterprise, paralyse productive effort, and plunge the Dominion into a state of chaotic turmoil.” Mr Atmore recalled that at the time of the last General Election there were shipping strikes in Australia and a similar hold-up in New Zealand of ocean-going boats. Every newspaper in New Zealand was full of strike news.

“Recognising what a disaster a complete hold-up of ocean-going trade would be to the farmer, the business man, and worker of New Zealand,” said Mr Atmore, "it is not surprising l that an anti-strike atmosphere was created which, coupled with the Government’s advertisement against Socialism, en-

abled the Reform Party to secure their over whelming majority. It must have come as a surprise to many of their supporters in and out of Parliament, to find that in the first session (1926) the Government introduced measures of decidedly socialistic tendencies.” ON DAIRY CONTROL. Mr Atmore went on to quote from Hansard lhe expression of some of the Reform members on certain measures before the House of Representatives last session. Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay), speaking on the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill, had declared that it. was only by competition that, we should continue to progress, and had strongly objected to control and State interference. Referring to the Bill as “a Socialistic or Communistic measure,” he had appealed to the other members of his party to remember their election pledges and oppose dairy control. “Nothing will be more disastrous to the country,” Mr Campbell had concluded, “than to continue along the lines we are adopting in this Bill.”

Discussing the same measure, Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) had described the compulsory clause of the Bill as iniquitous —“the nearest, approach to Bolshevism we have had in this country.” Mr Nash had said he felt it his duty to take up the fight on behalf of those who were opposed to the proposals of the Dairy Produce Board. “They are having their rights taken away from them,” Mr Nash said, alluding to the board’s opponents, “and there has been no justification for an action.” MOTOR OMNIBUS LEGISLATION. Mr Atmore’s next reference was to a speech by Mr A. Harris (Waitemata), when opposing the motor omnibus regulations. “I do not know what the Government stands for,” said Mr Harris. “Does it stand for the elimination of all private enter-

prise? ... I do not know what, the Government is coming to with its Socialistic control of practically everything; and now, added to that, we have what is undoubtedly a legalised confiscation of private capital. If that is more business in government and less government in business, then save me from business tactics of that kind.” Mr Harris described himself as “a candid critic trying to keep the Government, straight.”

Mr Atmore quoted from a speech he had made on the Motor Omnibus Bill in which he had congratulated the members of the Socialist Labour Party on capturing the Government. The real support for the Bill had come from the Socialist Labour Party, which believed in, ami had always advocated, community ownership in preference to private ownership. “In my opinion,” the speaker said, “we should be very careful in extending State enterprise in any direction lest it stifle private initiative. I am quite sure that the Government’s action will create dismay amongst supporters of the party outside when it is found that Socialistic legislation has been forced through during the present session with the help, active co-operation, and, in many cases, the lead of the Labour Party.”

Finally, Mr Atmore referred to the speech of Mr T. Forsyth (Wellington East) in speaking against the Motor Omnibus Bill. Mr Forsyth had declared that the Bill contained the principle of taking something for nothing and asking Parliament to legalise the matter, and he was not going to be a party to supporting anything of that kind in the House.

“The extracts which I have given,” said Mr Atmore, “are sufficient to show dissatisfaction amongst Reform Parliamentarians, and it is not difficult to find a similar state of feeling right through the Dominion. The times are admittedly difficult, but these afford no excuse or reason for a Government to depart from the principles of sound statesmanship. It has been said that progress is more than mere movement; it is movement in 4he right direction and towards an ideal end. It is more than mere change; it is evolutionary change—such change, that is to say, and only such, as is required to adapt a Jong-lived organism to a slowly-altering environment. Progress does not mean the forsaking of sound principles, nor the adoption of revolutionary principles which form main planks in the Labour Socialist Party’s platform, and to oppose which the Reform Party was returned in the 1925 election. The dominant party received such an overwhelming majority that at first sight it would appear that, they had unlimited power; but it would not be the first case in political history when a Ministry, failing to interpret the wishes of the people, and departing from sound principles of economics and government, had lost its following and suffered’ defeat. We cannot control the London market for our produce, whether it be meat, butter, cheese, or any other commodity; and the recent experiment is likely to be an expensive one for the farmers of New Zealand. It is not sufficient to say that a Minister ‘get things done,’ for it is essential that right things are done in the right way. Public opinion must express itself per medium of Parliament and the Press, and a new party, or an old party resurrected, must make progress if it runs on sound economic lines while a Government pursues Socialistic will-o’-the-wisps which can result in nothing but confusion and loss. The Dominion and the Empire were built up by private initiative and private enterprise, and we must continue on those lines if we wish to advance to a higher standard of social and economic betterment.”