TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. FRIDAY, 8th DECEMBER, 1939. INDECISION MEANS INSECURITY.

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 59, Issue 4221, 8 December 1939, Page 4

TE AWAMUTU COURIER. Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. FRIDAY, 8th DECEMBER, 1939. INDECISION MEANS INSECURITY.

MUCH of the prevalent unrestAin New Zealand to-day traces directly to the Government’s own indecision and —so it is commonly supposed—its partiality. On some matters the political leaders are profuse with explanations and ever ready to offer veiled threat; but on others they are singularly silent or indefinite. The thought, therefore, prevails that too many class distinctions are drawn and that the forces which surround the Government are responsible for an undue influence over policy which, now of all times, should be made to encourage national unity. In bold relief there is the silence of the Government regarding the allegations that work at the Waiouru military camp was delayed by industrial unionists, compared with the hinted threat of a resort to other methods if the farmers failed to increase production. The Waiouru allegations were serious, and implied the most direful consequences of subversive actions on the part of a Union, hampering, as it was alleged, the course of military training our troops are required to undergo before they leave the Dominion’s shores. Yet, on it, the Government offers no explanation, and apparently takes no action. It is this indifference and silent complacence with a grave evil in the industrialist system that makes many of the hollow threats in other directions productive only of alarm and resentment. In fact, it can be said that the Government has almost deliberately stifled the primary producing industries by giving semblance of permanency to emergency measures which are cheerfully accepted as emergency, but which are just as bitterly resisted as a part of the recognised system. Even at the Dominion conference of the Dairy Board last week the Minister of Marketing was indefinite, and he failed to remove the misgiving which his earlier statements had aroused. All that he could be induced to tell the Board was that the Government would “ bring the war measures before Parliament ” after the war, and would do “ all it could to enable the industry to get back to a peace footing,” but he could not say “ what the circumstances would be when the. war was over.” These sentences merely illustrate again MrNash’s evasive habit of mind. It is, of course, conceivable that he cannot even estimate the state of the Dairy Industry Account and the position of the Guarantee Price procedure at any indefinite date such, obviously, is the insecurity of Government trading ventures—<but he surely should have been able to say whether the measure of control introduced by the Marketing. Act in its new form is intended to be permanent or not. if he really desires to answer plainly the question which is disturbing farmers, he can do so. That question is, of course, whether the measure, of control introduced by the Marketing Act in its new form is intended to be permanent or not. Speaking in the House, Mr Nash used the phrase “for all time,” and then ran away from it, taking refuge in statements to the effect that his own hopes and desires were not decisive and that Parliament, in the end, must have “ the final say.” He has returned to these doubtful assurances since; and the Prime Minister appears to have learned the lesson. “ It is impossible to give an undertaking that this or that piece of legislation will be repealed,” he said a few days ago. “ Legislation for the emergency will be repealed or modified when the emergency is past"— which leaves the question exactly where it was. Is the Marketing Act “ legislation for the emergency,” in the Government’s view, or is it legislation -in fulfilment of fixed policy ? This is what the industry wants to knoW, and Mr Nash’s promise that “ war measures ” will be brought before Parliament is not to the point. The Minister is well able to say whether the Marketing Act, in principle and in essential structure, is “ legislation for the emergency ” or fulfils

his Government’s fixed policy; whether the Government will ask Parliament to maintain it, modified as may be necessary, or to repeal it. But, while the farmer is so kept in insecurity and doubt concerning the present and the future, and is supposed to double his efforts for an increased volume of exportable produce, actions such as those which are alleged from .Waiouru go unnoticed; and so it happens that the ideals of unity and effort are destroyed. By its own indecision and partiality the Government creates insecurity for itself and everybody else.