WHEN LABOUR RULES

POINTS FROM PROGRAMME,

MR H. T. ARMSTRONG'S

EXPLANATION

Speaking in support of the candidature of Mr H. E.^ Herring, who carries Labour's banner in the present electoral contest in Mid-Canter-bury, Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P. for Christchurch East, at the Leeston Town Hall on Friday evening dealt with some of the major points in Labour's programme should it gain the Treasury benches at the election. The present Government of this country had nothing to offer but hopelessness and despair, said Mr Armstrong. It said that there was no hope of recovery until the rest of the world had been put right, no matter how efficient our farmers and business men might be; no matter how many good things of life were produced here, the standard of living was regulated by the prices ruling for produce on the'other side of the world. The Labour Party said that real wealth was being produced in greater abundance than ever before, sufficient to give a better standard of living- to all the people if the resources of the country were used in the proper manner. There was now extreme wealth on the one hand and extreme poverty on the other. The best market, and one which could be controlled and developed, was the New Zealand market. Great Britain could not be expected to continually take the country's increasing production. Great Britain's exports were steadily decreasing as countries which once were her customers were becoming her competitors, and she was becoming more and more selfsupporting in farm produce; in fact, that was her objective. „ New Zealand, too, would have to turn her attention to economic nationalism, whether she liked it or not. New Zealand presented the best market for New Zealand products, and the first duty of any Government was to see that the needs of its own community were supplied. The Government was endeavouring to develop trade with Eastern countries, but to compete with such countries successfully the standard of living must come down equal to theirs, or theirs must be raised to the level here. Mr Armstrong quoted from the report of the Director-General of Health to show that at Auckland 50,000 school children were medically examined and 70 per cent, of them showed physical deficiencies due to undernourishment and insufficient supply of dairy products. This in a country which was the greatest producer of dairy products in the world. He went on to say that a pint of milk a day and a pound of butter per week per head of population was necessary to produce a healthy, virile nation, but the people were not getting it to-day. In thousands of homes a pint a day j had to suffice for the whole family and some could not afford to buy even that. If the people had their proper requirements, 100 million gallons of milk additional would be required; there would not be much left to export and there would be no need to worry about the quota either. It was the duty of the Government to see that its own people were well fed, well clothed and well housed; after that, if there were any surplus it could think of exporting. GUARANTEED PRICES. After advocating the taking over by the State of the control of banking and the issue of money, Mr Armstrong went on to discuss the matter of guaranteed prices, not only to farmers but to everyone else, and of wages and salaries. Opponents of the scheme said that it could not be done, for the monetary system of New Zealand was interwoven with those of other countries. The speaker said that the currency of one country did not circulate in another. In overseas trade goods exchanged for goods and the value of the exports were returned to the country ifi the form of imports, which were sold and purchased with New Zealand currency. The State could take control of banking and currency at any time without interfering in any way with the money system of any other country. If it did so, he was confident that it would be the end of poverty in this country and there would be no depressions in the future except those brought about by floods, droughts or other natural disasters. There had been depressions before caused through an insufficiency of goods to go round, but never before had there been one where people were hungry because there was too much to eat. The leaders of the Government had i come to the conclusion that over-

production was the cause; they did not seem to realise that the people could not afford to buy the goods produced. There was not sufficient money in circulation and that was the cause of unemployment. When the numbers reached 11,000 the Government decided to act and reduced wages 10 per cent. There was no greater economic absurdity, said the speaker, for the purchasing power of the community was reduced by 10 per cent., or nearly £20,000,000 a I year. It had a paralysing effect on business and the result that employment increased to 36,000. Then there was another cut in wages and the number went up to 79,000. The Government had no vision, no proposals to submit to the people. Now the Minister of Finance had come to light with his long-range plan to cost £3,500,000, to employ 9500 navvies. The only thing the Government seemed to think of was to make navvies. Mr Armstrong declared that if the Government controlled the banking system everything else would become easier in New Zealand and it would be able to guarantee prices not only to the farmer but to other producers and also to guarantee wages. What the Labour Party proposed to do was to fix a minimum price and if prices fell below this minimum the system of guarantees would operate. It would enable the farmer to pay his way and secure for himself and his family a decent standard of living. He pointed out that the system was already in operation in some farming industries. The wheatfarmers of Canterbury received the equivalent to a guarantee in the sliding scale of wheat duties, which secured for the farmer a reasonable price for his grain. The fruit exporters received a guarantee on the fruit exported and the average cost in any one year was not more than £5000. Tobacco-growers had a guarantee and knew what their crops would fetch even before they were sown. Denmark had been for some time guaranteeing a minimum price to its farmers, and so had Sweden, Argentina and Australia. Even Japan had spent over £50,000,000 in guaranteeing the price of rice. Irish Free State gave a guarantee to dairy farmers whether their produce was exported or not. In England the Government had spent £3,000,000 in a guarantee to producers of meat, had spent £45,-1 000,000 jn three years to assist agriculture, and had authority to spend £40,000,000 to put 2,000,000 people on the land. If it were a wrong thing to guarantee prices, what was the Government trying to do when it lifted the exchange rate to 25 per cent.? asked Mr Armstrong. The idea was to give the farmer 25 per cent, more for his produce, but it did not work out that way. The speaker pointed out that if the farmers received a guaranteed price their purchasing power would be increased, which in turn would benefit the retailers and business community generally. . Dealing with the rate of exchange, Mr Armstrong said that it did not bring one penny-piece into New Zealand. On the contrary, it increased the interest on the national debt, the costs of the banking service, and all goods and charges from overseas. The extra cost per year was estimated at £15,125,000. The Minister of Finance said that the farmers had gained £9,000,000 a year, but it cost the community £15,000,000 to give the farmer that sum. LABOUR AND SAVINGS. Mr Armstrong said that the opponents of Labour had expressed fears as to what would happen to the people's savings if Labour got into office. He ("Mr Armstrong) would like to know what had happened to them now. There were approximately 80,000 farmers in New Zealand. Mr Coates, in his report, stated that 41,000 had privately compounded and were hopelessly bankrupt and would have been off their farms but for the moratorium. The Labour Party was not in office, and what had happened to the savings of those men? There were 11,974 settlers under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, and 5906 were hopelessly in arrears with their interest. In the State Advances Department, now merged with the Mortgage Corporation, out of 10,222 advances, 5900 were hopelessly in arrears, and the office was re-letting 3700 houses, where four years ago it was not letting any. The speaker mentioned that the Government had balanced its budget and showed a surplus of £1,500,000, but he criticised the manner in which the Government's balance-sheet had been prepared and contended that if it had been drawn up in the proper way it would have shown a record deficit. No jnterest had been paid on thei war debt for the last three years, yet this was not shown as a liability —there was no mention of it. State Advances assets valued at £36,000,000 were taken over by the Mortgage

Corporation at £29,000,000, £7,000,000 being written off. It was shown as an asset instead of a liability, and the country was told that' it was not lost, merely suspended. The speaker quoted figures to show that more farmers on small holdings 10 acres and under had left their farms than had been put on by the Government under its unemployment relief scheme and that the increase in the population was not being.maintained," more people to the number of 7500 i having left. New Zealand than those who had come in. In the Post Office , Savings Bank there were 60,426 less • depositors than in 1931, while in inj surance, in one year, 1931-32, no fewer than 77,228 industrial policies were surrendered. What had happened to the savings of those people? asked Mr Armstrong. The speaker concluded by speaking confidently of Labour's success at the election, basing his opinion on the impressions gained in holding meet- ! ings in various parts of the country. I The real fight would come after the election. Labour had no desire to bring ruin to the country; they had no axe to grind and were out to bring more happiness and sunshine into the lives of the people of this country. The present Government had made a hopeless bungle of its work and New Zealand had already had an overdose of class government. Labour would legislate for all classes of people performing useful service to the community, and the only class which would be excluded was that which did not perform any useful service but had grown fat upon the lifeblood of the useful people of t'fcr'*' community.