DIFFERENCES IN POLICY

Southland Times, Issue 25504, 26 October 1944, Page 3

DIFFERENCES IN POLICY

National And Labour Parties

“When you vote on Saturday vote for the kind of New Zealand that you want for yourself and for your children in the future,” said" Mr R. M. Algie, M.P. for Remucra, in an address nt Bluff last evening. Mr Algie, with Mr W. Sullivan, M.P. for Bay of Plenty, was speaking in support of the National Party candidate in the Awarua by-election, Mr G. R. Herron. There was a good attendance in the Bluff Town Hall and the Mayor, Mr N. W. McGorlick, was chairman. The speakers were given an attentive hearing and there were very few interjections. “An election means much more than the mere choice of a candidate,” said Mr Algie. “In reality, it is a test of the character and good judgment of the electors.” Some of us treated an election as being like a sale by auction and we were sometimes ready to hand the seat over to the highest bidder, he said. We overlooked or ignored the fact that governments had no money of their own with which to pay for the lavish promises their speakers made to catch votes: every promise must ultimately be paid for out of money that was obtained from the people by taxation. The bill for the promises of today came in with the taxation demands of tomorrow. The burdens which our children would have to carry in the future were those created by the decisions- which we, their parents, made in the present. COUNTRY BEFORE SELF “Fortunately for our democracy, there are many who take a serious view of their responsibilities,” continued Mr Algie. “They place the country’s welfare in front of the claims of selfinterest; they look for the fundamental differences between the parties and their respective candidates, and they ask the simple question—‘Which of these rival groups am I prepared to appoint as the trustees of my own and of my children’s welfare?’ “The National Party, as I see it,” continued Mr Algie, “will not attempt to outbid the Labour Party in such a contest for votes. Its members have, I know, too high a sense of their responsibility and they see clearly that if this process is carried too far, our democracy will bury itself under a mountain of debt from which there would be no escape through a ballot box.” Mr Algie said that there were a number of vital differences between his party and the Labour Party. “We believe,” he said, “in true Parliamentary Government: we want the policy of our country to be discussed and formulated by all of the elected representatives of the people. They cling to Cabinet and executive government and they fell the House little or nothing of the many international deals they load upon us until the deeds have been signed, sealed and delivered. In the second place, we consider that the laws which bind us should be made openly, and after full and free discussion in Parliament. They have an irresistible preference for the secret method of the Order-in-Council made without public notice or discussion and behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room. RIGHT OF APPEAL

“Our party clings tenaciously to the British idea that a citizen should always have a right of appeal to the courts of justice if and when he wants it,” said Mr Algie. “The Labour view is that disputes between a citizen and his Government should be kept out of the courts and settled by an application to a Minister. Labour leaders tell the people that they stand for State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, but they seem to be afraid to put that policy into practice. We believe that there is room for State control and for free enterprise, and we want to see the field of free enterprise as large as possible.” Speaking of control, Mr Algie said that the Labour Party seemed to like control; they appeared to know its value as a means of securing political power. The National Party regarded control as being merely a means to an end: it was justified only so long as it served the welfare of the community, and the real objective should be to try to get along, with as little State control as possible. INDEPENDENT OUTLOOK

“We in the National Party have an outlook and independence of our own,” said Mr Sullivan. “Our opponents say that we are still the same old crowd, but that is not so. I claim to belong to the younger of New Zealanders and we have confidence that we shall lead the people of New Zealand into prosperity and happiness. I have every confidence in the leader of the party, Mr Holland.” The party leader was becoming a bigger and bigger man with each session, and Mr Sullivan said he was confident that Mr Holland would become the Prime Minister of the Dominion after the next election.

“The present Government is pledged to a policy of State control,” said Mr Sullivan, “and under that policy there is no opportunity for the advancement of young people. For that reason I felt that by joining politics and the National Pafty I could do something towards the realization of that ideal.”

Some people said that the National Party was the capitalist party and stood in the interests of the wealth of the country, but this was not so, he said. Mr Sullivan described his own early life farming under great difficulty in the Dominion, and he stated that he wanted every young person in the country to have the same opportunity that he had. PROGRESSIVE IDEAS

The National Party had many progressive ideas for the advancement of the country and among them was the determination to reduce taxation wherever possible. “We do not believe in taking money from the people of the country only to waste it,” he said. He spoke of the various amendments and improvements that the Opposition had forced on the Government by constant and determined fighting. The National Party when it became the Government intended to do a great deal to assist the people in the less settled areas by improvements in electric power, schools and roads and in other ways, he said. “Our opponents say that we will destroy social security, but I hardly think that they are sincere when they make these accusations,” said Mr Sullivan. “The National Party accepts the social security scheme as it stands, but in that scheme there are abuses and anomalies. When we become the Government we shall iron out the anomalies and stop the abuses. Thus the scheme will not be destroyed, but improved. An impetus must be given to agriculture through an increased land settlement policy, said Mr Sullivan. “This is the answer to New Zealand’s population problem,” he said. “We must have more population and we have plenty of wide, open spaces to settle them on. The agreements with overseas countries to buy our primary production solve all problems of marketing any increased production, and it would be far better to settle new citizens on the land, rather than pack them into the few large towns.” A vote of thanks to the speakers and of confidence in the candidate, Mr Herron, was carried on the voices.

MR HERRON’S CAMPAIGN

Mr G. R. Herron, National Party candidate, addressed a well-attended meeting at Wallacetown last night, the chairman being Mr J. H. Townshend. At the conclusion of his address, a motion of confidence in the speaker was moved by Mr B. Paddon, seconded by Mr A. C. Gray, and carried with acclamation. _ . Mr Herron later appeared at Kyal Bush, where Mr-Holland, Leader of the Opposition, was addressing a packed hall. The meeting, presided over by Mr A. V. Hartley, passed a resolution of complete confidence in Mr Holland and his party, the movers and seconders of the motion being Mr C. Buxton and Mr W. Webb.