The Daily News SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1931. FUTILE CRITICISM.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1931, Page 6

The Daily News SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1931. FUTILE CRITICISM.

It would be natural to suppose that in moving a no-confidence motion against the Government the Leader of the Opposition, would try to convince his audience that the Government’s policy was not in the best interests of New Zealand. Mr. H. E. Holland made the attempt in the House of Representatives on Thursday night, and seems to have been anything but successful, though he made a very long speech and, as the Prime Minister observed, “about talked the House to death.” The cause of his failure is not far to seek. "While it is necessary for the mover of a noconfidence motion to be a vigorous critic and it is fitting that he should set out to destroy the policy fabric built up by the Government, it is certainly not less necessary that he should demonstrate his ability to erect a new structure in place of that which he pulls down. If he and his party can petsuade a majority in the House to vote for the Government’s dismissal they must be ready themselves to undertake the very serious responsibilities of office; unless they can submit a policy which promises better results than the platform they oppose they cannot expect themselves to gain the confidence of the House. It is, however, utterly impossible to find in the report of Mr. Holland’s speech, though it occupies nearly a column and a half of newspaper space, anything that by the greatest stretch of the imagination could be visualised as a policy. There is, plenty of criticism, much of it querulous, but one looks in vain for constructive ideas which might be helpful to the country in the time of emergency. At the outset Mr. Holland professed to base his opposition on two points—the Government’s unemployment 'policy and its failure to declare whether or not it would “face the electors at the usual time.” Well, what had he to say about unemployment? He asserted that Mr. Coates’ recent statement on the subject gave no promise of better provision for the unemployed than at present, and that he could not find any portion that held out a glimmer of hope for the unemployed. Did he offer another or a better policy? No. Mr. Holland made not the slightest attempt to suggest a means by which the outlook for the unemployed could be improved, and all that can be said of him in that respect is that he has been consistent/ Everyone knows that while citizens throughout the Dominion professing every other political creed or none have been straining every effort to solve the problem of unemployment and to relieve the "needs of those who are in difficulty organised Labour has stood coldly aloof. Its representatives in deputations to Ministers and by the use of other means have criticised and complained; and in some cases have done their best to prevent the functioning of relief schemes, but they have not done a hand’s turn to help. And now with brazen effrontery Mr. Holland stands up in the House and merely throws mud at those who have done their best. His attitude to unemployment is symbolical of his whole outlook as revealed in his discursive diatribeagainst the Government. Even the extension of the Mortgagors Relief Act does not satisfy him. The Government he holds should arbitrarily beat down the rate of interest, and thus precipitate the trouble which Mr. Stewart so clearly foresaw and so lucidly revealed in the Supplementary Budget. The setting aside of a quarter of a million of surplus highways funds for the relief of ratepayers might surely have appealed to Mr. Holland, yet he can only offer weak criticism, which is proved by tlie Prime Minister’s reply to be based on a quite incorrect assumption. Surelw the neo-

pie are entitled, to expect from their representatives in Parliament far better service than the members of the Labour Party are offering at the present time. The country has very serious difficulties to overcome, but a stranger finding his way into Parliament Buildings on Thursday night would never have imagined it. He could only have come to the conclusion that Mr. Holland and his supporters had no interest at all in the country’s needs, but were entirely intent on mere skirmishing for party purposes. Obviously sincerity was lacking in the no-confidence motion; it was launched, not for the purpose of testing the feeling of Parliament on questions of national policy, but in the hope that the ears of the electors might be tickled with mere vote-winning phrases. While Parliament is talking nothings the real work of the country is being delayed, though it must be plain to everyone who thinks seriously that hesitation in grappling with the troubles of the times is potentially most dangerous. Unfortunately such considerations do not weigh with Labour. Its aims are political; its concern is one class; it has no vision of the country as a whole and no wish to co-operate with those who have other ideals in work for the good of all.