The Daily News MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1935. LEADERS RETURN.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1935, Page 6

The Daily News

MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1935. LEADERS RETURN.

OFFICES : NEW PLYMOUTH, Currie Sir«j& STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA. Rich Street.

With the return of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the near approach of the last session of the present Parliament there should be a considerable awakening of interest in political affairs. Mr. Forbes and Mr. Coates are unlikely to have brought with them any startling additions to the programme for the coming session, and they will find the Dominion quite prepared for a respite from any further legislative experiments. The two Ministers will receive a warm welcome on their return, for politicians of all parties agree that they have been engaged in furthering the interests of New Zealand and the Empire in their recent visit to Great Britain. The tangible results of that visit are fairly well known. They leave the primary producers of the Dominion assured for the current season of a market in Britain at least as unrestricted as that of. last year, although permanent trading relations with the United Kingdom have still to be defined. The returning Ministers need anticipate little criticism of their share in negotiations that might easily have disturbed the goodwill felt in Great Britain towards the Dominion. On the contrary they are likely to receive some commendation on this point even from political opponents. It is in regard to the future rather than the past that the supporters of the Coalition Government are hoping for vigorous leadership. An ex-Minister, Mr. A. D. McLeod, in a farewell address to his constituents told them that if the Dominion “did not desire to be controlled by political Labour it must do some hard thinking during the next three months or so.” Mr. McLeod might have gone further in his exhortation. He could have added with truth that hard work as well as hard thinking is necessary if the supporters of the Coalition are determined upon victory.. It must have satisfactory to them to note that in the past few weeks Ministers have made definite efforts to expound the policy of the Government, and to emphasise the indefiniteness of the so-called Labour plan of recovery. But a good deal more than a few presessional addresses will be necessary if the electorate is to be brought face to face with the actual issues at stake, and what would be involved in the acceptance of a political control achieved by promises of which the authors themselves seem reluctant to give full details. The question the Dominion must answer shortly is not whether any particular individual shall be Prime Minister. The reply ought to be given on the merits of rival programmes of legislation and administration. It is not always easy to exercise sound judgment, particularly for electors who are hemmed in with economic difficulties beyond the control of the individual, or those who have spent their adolescent years in an atmosphere of depression. To such the attractiveness of spacious promises is bound to make appeal, and unless they are shown how uncertain is the foundation upon which those promises rest the spaciousness rather than the speciousness of indefinite promises- is likely to appeal. To correct all that is the privilege of those who must rest claims for support upon performances rather than upon promises. Theirs is a much soberer programme, one that will be judged in the cold light of results achieved or progressing,, and with its weaknesses or failures as clearly defined as success obtained or within sight. To exercise that privilege or duty needs the inspiration of leadership and continuous hard work among the rank and file of Coalition lf the leaders who have just returned apply themselves to this task of correction with courage and confidence they need have no fear of the loyalty of their supporters or that they will be neglectful of their share in combatting policies they and their leaders believe would prove disastrous to New Zealand. Nor, if the issues are plainly stated, and reiterated with the persistence of which the Labour Party has shown a wonderful example, is there any doubt about the electorate’s capability of judgment if it will take the trouble to do so. There is, speaking generally, no defensive action in political warfare so effective as an offensive against opponents. It is a maxim that should guide the Coalition leaders and supporters until election day is reached.

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING DISPUTE. The notice given by the Registrar of the Federal Arbitration Court of a compulsory conference between the shipowners and the seamen to be held on Wednesday should make both parties to the dispute realise that the community will not submit tamely to an indefinitely prolonged interference with public services. So far there has been no reply from the Seamen’s Union to the gravest charge made against its members. It is that they have deliberately flouted an agreement which provided that any dispute should be referred to arbitration without any hold-up of the shipping industry. Apparently the president and other members of the union’s executive have tried to obtain honourable observance of the agreement, but they have been outvoted by the extremists. Such action invariably leaves behind it mistrust of any future undertaking made to overcome an industrial trouble. If one party to an agreement can break it without any penalty, and the public must accept the consequences, the question arises whether an elaborate system of official arbitration or conciliation organisations are worth the cost of their maintenance. They were introduced for the specific purpose of substituting collective rather than individual consideration of disputes, and to give the weaker party a fair chance of an honourable settlement. If the collective principle is to be abandoned for the old-time class warfare between wage-earners and employers, progress towards better proportioned industrial life will have suffered a serious setback. Yet that appears to be the desire of the malcontents in the Australian Seamen’s Union, and unless they show reasons for their action which are not at present apparent they are unlikely to receive much sympathy from the public, and especially from the Other wage-earn-ers whose employment is threatened by the hold-up of shipping.