THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, 14th AUGUST, 1934. POLITICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Waipa Post, Volume 49, Issue 3505, 14 August 1934, Page 4

THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. TUESDAY, 14th AUGUST, 1934. POLITICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THOSE who have followed the course of events in Parliament this year have noticed the singular disparity between the name of the Labour Opposition and the purpose of its. pleadings. From the very first day of the session there has come from the Labour advocates in the House a persistent demand for greater sustenance and more liberal pensions. The question arises whether there should be a change of name, and that instead of a Labour Party the country should realise the existence of a Sustenance Party in politics. Hardly a day passes without some new demand being voiced in Parliament for a more generous spread of pensions or a more liberal allotment of sustenance payments. It conveys the impression that in place of work and effort a premium should be placed upcin idleness; instead of providence and thrift the citizen should be encouraged to care for the improvident in his old age or advei'sity. In political nomenclature “ Labour ” seems to have become an entirely improper designation of our official Oppos tion. It would seem that the time has arrived when Sustenance Party would be the much more fitting name. Just how all these gallery-display schemes for pay without work are to be carried into effect is not explained by those who sponsor them. The country is induced to believe that it can be munificent without any need to count the cost. In the House last Friday, however, the Minister of Employment had something to say on the subject when a private member’s Bill of “ Labour ” origin urged a sustenance payment equal to the relief rates of pay.

In explanation of this proposal the Minister of Employment told the House that last year’s cost to the country of 68,000 unemployed amounted to £4,130,000 —an average of £1 3s 3d per week. He then proceeded to reduce theoretical munificence to figures and to show that if the average payments were raised the cost would be: Average Total Cost Rate of to State. £2 per week £7,106,000 £2 5s per week 8,000.000 £2 15s per week ... 9,771,000 £3 per week 10,659,000 This latter figure, said the Minister, would require an unemployment levy of 2s 7d in the £ of taxable incomes. In any case, he explained that the proposals before the House would, if adopted, more than double the present basis of levy and tax. Jn that, however, he assumed the mlm!ber of eligible unemployed would not increase, though it is no idle surmise to suggest that two factors would combine to increase the claims upon a sustenance fund. In the first place a levy of 2s 7d in the £ on earned incomes would force a still greater spread of unemployment, and in the second place there would be no inducement for the - acceptance of Work. The psychological effect would be that individual responsibility would give place to a greater reliance upon the State. The ultimate result would surely be to swell the number of unemployed and to create two vicious circles which, narrowing the sources from which taxation could be drawn, would widen the demands upon the funds. |lt imay be, of course, that the pleadings in Parliament are merely political camouflage. Not rarely has the elector been wooed by spectacular political promises. It is clear, surely, if sustenance without work is to be paid—if it is to suffice all human

needs tuen suim-uuuy somewne. e vvui nave to pay. mat is an iiicac~xjauie rule. Already we nave witnesses a shortage of workers wi.en worn offered, m tnis locality last narvest season there was an acute snortage of available labour, and even to-uay tbere is an unsatisfied demand ior workers on farms. How, then, can an under-staffed enterprise pay sustenance rates ? On our streets eveiy Saturday evening can be seen tne anomaly of people who work, whose earnings are taxed, having to walk guardedly to avoid men from the relief camps who have squandered money recklessly. Can it be suggested that greater consideration is necessary ? Can it be even desirable that greater munificence should be shown ? Is society the better if it enqqurages the overthrow of initiative and responsibility ? These questions cannot be avoided. In such an emergency as this there is an undeniable citizen-obligation to care for those who suffer the full brunt of adversity, but withal there is some limit which can be defined by reason. The taxpayer has as much place in the scheme of things as has the unemployed. After all, it is so easy indeed for a political group not bound by responsibility to make pleasant-sound-ing proposals. It bids for popularity. But can the country afford all this political pandering? Parliament is expected to seriously devote itself to the practical consideration of the national policies and to strive for the proper and balanced utilisation of the country’s resources in the solution of juist such a difficulty as unemployment presents. This pandering for popularity is meant only to embarrass the Government and encoui age people who would not count the cost into a false belief. iSooner or later the cost would have to be considered. Apart from the cost m money is the still greater burden that would arise out of the human defects of a system which placed initiative at a 1 discount and made effort of no real worth. Is it not more fitting that those who guide our destinies in Parliament should urge the virtue of work and thrift, of effort and initiative, and of individual responsibility instead of dependence upon the State ? It may be remarked that the country has suffered already through the activities of the very group that now upholds sustenance. On more than one occasion this gi'oup has led the workers into ill-advised forms of direct action. True it may be that our society is not perfect, and that many grave inequalities in the social and industrial Systems inspire men to class conflicts, but the principle of work and self-dependence are still surely the foundation on which any future condition can be established. State sustenance and pensions are capable of so many abuses and contain so many inherent defects that they should be avoided. In the final analysis there remains the contradictory spectacle of a> political organisation which, under the name of Labour, would place a premium on idleness. The time arrives, surely, for the country to regard it that instead of a Labour Party there is, in reality, a Sustenance Party.