The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1938 LABOUR CANDIDATES AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21155, 30 September 1938, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1938 LABOUR CANDIDATES AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Until the Labour candidate for Timaru makes a plainer explanation of the relationships between the Government and the Friendly Societies of New Zealand, discerning electors who are not carried away by electioneering sophistry, will prefer to accept as authoritative the considered pronouncements of the Friendly Societies themselves. At his Waimataitai meeting, Mr Carr said “the Friendly Societies were represented by delegates in conference with the Government on the scheme and they approved the scheme, and pledged co operation.” Such a statement can best be described as extraordinary in face of the protests that are being made by the Friendly Societies themselves. Did Mr Carr notice that one of the most influential groups of Friendly Societies —the Otago district of the M.U.1.0.0.F. —as recently as last Saturday evening passed this resolution: “That this meeting records its firm conviction that the Social Security Act in its present form will have the effect of so seriously impeding the work of Friendly Societies as to threaten their extinction. Believing that the interests of our Dominion will be best served by fostering the Friendly Society movement, the meeting deplores the absence of any provision in the Act for the encouragement of the Societies and the use of them in the servicing of th scheme." It is moreover significant that at the very moment Mr Carr was telling his Waimataitai meeting that the Friendly Societies approved the Government’s Social Security Scheme, the annual meeting of the United Otago District of the Ancient Order of Foresters (a district which includes the provinces of Otago and Southland) was carrying the following resolution: “That this meeting of delegates representing 5621 members of the United Otago District of the Ancient Order of Foresters views with considerable alarm some of the proposals of the Government in reference to Its national health scheme, as we consider that there is grave danger of the stability and usefulness of Friendly Societies being Jeopardised if the interests of Friendly Societies are not safeguarded, and we desire to remind the Government of the promise made by the Hon. P. Fraser and the Hon. W. Lee Martin to representatives of the Friendly Societies and ask that they be honoured.” It would be interesting to know, in face of these resolutions which completely shatter Mr Carr’s absurd claim that the friendly societies approve of the Government’s scheme, just what the Labour candidate means by co-operation. It may be well to remind electors generally and friendly society members in particular, that Mr Carr was given an opportunity when the Social Security Bill was before the House of Representatives a week or two ago to “co operate” with the members of friendly societies. Does Mr Carr remember how he voted on the amendment to exempt members of friendly societies from paying contributions under the Social Security Scheme for medical and hospital benefits as they already pay through their lodges for health purposes ? The “co-operation” Mr Carr showed was to vote against the amendment, and thus lend his aid in imposing upon every member of a friendly society, an additional burden of taxation. It is interesting to note, too, that included in the division is the name of Mr D. Barnes, Labour candidate for Waitaki, and every other Labour Member in the House of Representatives. Mr Carr now has the effrontery to suggest that the friendly societies approved the Government’s Social Security Scheme and co-operated with the Government, whereas the official spokesmen of the organised friendly societies are publicly declaring in considered statements that the Government’s scheme •‘threatens the societies with extinction,” and that the “failure of the Government to safeguard the interests of friendly societies constitutes a grave danger to their stability and usefulness.” That is the criticism Mr Carr and the Labour Party have to answer, before the electors will be persuaded to believe that the Government has not rushed into the Social Security Scheme as an electioneering stunt without taking into account all the factors and interests that ought to be considered. UNFAIR BROADCASTING ALLOCATIONS. So long as the Prime Minister permits himself to be carried away with the obsession that all New Zealand is literally hanging on the words of members of the Labour Cabinet,'the political opponents of the Government can expect a harsh deal in the use of the national broadcasting service. Manifestly Mr Savage has overlooked the fact that the Labour Party does not own the broadcasting service. It is the property of the people, the majority of whom are in political camps outside the Labour Party. But Mr Savage thinks otherwise. He claims the right to use the national broadcasting service whenever he feels that way. Nevertheless it will be seen that all the talk of fair play goes by the board in the use of the broadcasting service. Take the broadcasting allocations for this week: Monday: Mr Semple (Labour) at Christchurch. Tuesday: Mr Langstone (Labour) at Te Awamutu. Wednesday: Mr Bodkin (National) at Dunedin. Thursday: The Prime Minister (Labour), at Dunedin. Friday: Mr McDougall (Independent) at Gore. Saturday: Mr Christie (Labour) at Auckland. By no stretch of imagination could this be described as a fair or reasonable allocation. It is important that the electors of New Zealand should reflect seriously on the motives that prompt the Government to retain a firm grip on the national broadcasting service. Not only have the political supporters of the Prime Minister been given preferential and unusually favourable treatment, but the commercial stations are encouraged to embark upon barefaced political propaganda. For a whole week, save on a single night the political spokesmen of the National Party are denied the right to speak over the air. ( Mr Savage and his colleagues and one of his patheticallydocile followers, the so-called Independent Member for Mataura, are taking five of the six evenings to themselves. It is not difficult, therefore, for the wide-awake elector to visualise the drastic restrictions on free speech and free discussion, that are likely to be imposed if the Labour Government is permitted to retain the Treasury benches and exercise their baneful influence on the freedom of the people. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the critics of the Labour Government’s handling of the broadcasting service, New Zealand is the only country in the British Empire where a Government has seized control of broadcasting to serve political party ends. If this is not a. form of dictatorship we should like to know what it is, because the policy and planning of the New Zealand Government in the policy it is pursuing over the air, savour very much of the tactics followed in intensely dictator countries, where the State controls broadcasting which it blatantly monopolises for propaganda purposes.