THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 16, 31 October 1935, Page 9

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

POLICY OUTLINED MR HISLOP AT ASHBURTON.

CRITICISM OF THE! GOVERNMENT.

FINANCE AND LEGISLATION.

ASSISTING NATIONAL RECOVERY

There was a large, enthusiastic and attentive audience at the Majestic Theatre last evening, when the leader of the Democrat Party (Mr T. C. A. Hislop, C.M.G., Mayor of Wellington), spoke on the policy of his party. This was the first political address in Ashburton in connection with the general election.

The Deputy-Mayor (Mr K. H. Orr) presided, and on the platform with him, besides Mr Hislop, were Mr W. H. Woods (the Democrat candidate for the Mid-Canterbury seat) and! Mr Davey (Mr Hislop’s secretary). Mr Orr said that tlie entrance of the Democrat Party was going to add much greater interest to the elections than for some years past. Mr Hislop had taken a lively interest in politics and was serving his third term at Mayor of Wellington. His work in that capacity alone stamped him as a man of considerable ability. Mr Hislop was* warmry received when he stood up to speak and 1 he thanked the audience for its friendly welcome. He took great encouragement from the fact that there bad been such large numbers at the many meetings he had addressed. The large attendances seemed to him to indicate that ie political consciences of the people had been awakened.

Pr*i]nciples Betrayed. “In the past two dominant parties have shaped the'destinies of tins land —Liberalism under such men as .Balance and Seddon, and Reform under such men as Massey. They had many differences, but one principle m com moil—that government should be based on the wishes of the people through a democratic system. To-day, we n that the parties have fused and the light, the principles of both, has gone. This present Government lias betrayed, utterly and completely, the principles of democracy. ' “What has this Government doner' What has it accomplished of its own initiative, this Coalition now called Nationalist? What they 11 call it tomorrow I don’t know, for they love changes—of names,” said Mi His op. “In every major question of policy that this Government has had to decide upon, have we had their views; No. We have had the views of a small group of people, unelected, unsought as leaders by the voters of this country, comparatively young men, academicians. There are three of them—Dr. Campbell, Dr. Sutch and Professor Belsliaw. They have been called in bv Mr Coates, who, as you know, is the real leader of the Government and it is these men, unpractised in actual affairs, well known, convinced and admitted Socialists, who have advised the Government in every major matter of policy in recent years. They know their hooks well and they study them,

but you can’t solve the problems, many of them urgent problems, of an ordinary workday world from books. Yet that is what these men seek to do and, in so doing, they would lead this young country of ours directly into Socialism. It is that policy I am criticising tonight and it is that policy that I would oppose with all the strength, at my command. Happily I can still do so, for this is yet a free country although every day it is becoming less free. These men are convinced Socialists and they believe in running us by boards. We’ve one hundred and forty-three boards now. They believe that we should be completely run by bureaucrats. They have stated their opinions publicly and in print. Let us give you an extract from a pamphlet written by Dr. Campbell and published with the approval of Mr Coates. He says in one place: ‘The onus is on us to show that the Communists in Russia are not wrong.’ And, later: ‘The prospects sketched in these pages point to the need, to a degree that is ot defined, for the socialisation of agriculture.’ Loss of Liberty. “Those are the words of this very academically minded and learned gentlemen and he and his two confreres are the power behind the Government to-day. They've been brought in by Mr Coates from their universities, and are on the Government pay roll, to advise a government that hasn’t the ability to <lo its work itself. Those are their words. Let us consider their actions. The Government, under the Emergency Bill, set up the Supremo Council of Agriculture later they changed the name, 'it was a bit too true, to the Executive Commission of Agriculture. The DeputyChairman of that Commission is Sir Francis Frazer, formerly judge of the Arbitration Court, where no doubt he obtained a splendid knowledge of farming (laughter), who stepped up to that post, which carries a salary equal to that of the Chief Justice of New Zealand, through a Commission or two.

The power of . that Executive Commission is supreme; it has the power, under the Act, to dictate to every farmer in this country how he shall run his property, to control his activities completely, absolutely, and in detail. What stock he’ll carry, how he’ll carry it, and so on, power to do everything except interfere with the courses of nature. That power is there—and they’ll use it. They’ve begun to plan already. They’ve pretty good at planning, you know (laughter). This is an instance of the socialistic activity in this country and we’re here to fight it because we do not believe that the people of this country desire control of their every activity by bureaucratic officials. I say now

that, with this Government in power, the Liberal principles upon which this country was governed have gone under and we have instead a government ineffective and effete and dictated to by l these theorists behind tlie scenes.

“That,” lie said, “is the basic reason why my party has come into the field. My party stands against the continued encroachment of the Government into every sphere of activity. We are not going to be frightened by the cry of tile Government: 'lf you don’t support us, Labour will get in.’ Labour is honest in its policy of State socialism. The Government is Socialist, but has not the honesty to call itself so. We stand for the old Liberal principles in which, I feel, most of you believe.” “It Can Be Done.” Mr Hislop said that there had been a variety of comment on the Democrat policy. The hostile criticism had come mainly, if not entirely, from the metropolitan Press. With some notable exceptions, they. bad. started out with the time-worn cry of “it can’t be done,” and then cried out that the Democrats were only trying to buy votes. “The cry of 'lt can’t he done,’ is always the cry of the defeated,” said Mr Hislop. “It can be done. Oiie southern paper said that our taxation reduction cost £5,000,000. This critic was evidently in a great hurry, because he was no less than 100 per cent, wrong. The total tax reductions • involved are approximately £2,600,000. The ‘New Zealand Herald’ stated that our policy was too good to be true. My reply is that not only is it true, but that the Government’s policy is too bad to be tolerated.” What Does Mr Coates Mean? Mr Coates bad said that the Government was already meeting the Democrats’ unemployment proposals. There was no evidence of that, except the talk that a committee of some sort was sitting. If it was sitting, it was evidence of a death-bed repentance. “So far we have had no suggestions of the Government’s proposals for work, and I say the works so far suggested are of very doubtful value,’’ he said. “Secondly Mr Coates said that our

proposals will cost £22,000,000 annually. mere he gets this figure from I do not know. Does he mean £22,000,000 altogether, or £22,000,000 in addition to the present cost, or what does he mean? To use his own words, namely, that our programme will cost £22,000,000 annually, then I reply to him that that is less than the cost oi the policy of the present Government, because in their 1935 Budget they budgeted for a taxation return of £25,000,000 from the community. “If Mr Coates means that the £22,000,000 is to be in addition to existing expenditure, then T do not know how he gets this ridiculous figure. Possibly he has made a mistake, and picked up the wrong notes, because a little time ago, in a public statement, he estimated the cost of the Laboui Party’s guaranteed price proposals at £22,000,000 per annum. The similarity of the figures that he applies to my proposals and to the Labour Party s proposals makes it appear tliat, like the Prime Minister on the occasion of the Duke of Gloucester’s visit to Wellington, he has picked up the Yvrong

speech.” The actual Co9ts to the Budget ot the Democrat proposals, excluding those dependent upon exchange, and which would be covered by exchange costs, was not one-fifth of the ridiculous estimate of Mr Coates. Further, the cost to the Budget of the ;pioposed abolition of sales tax and the gold export duty and the reduction or the income tax and the restoration of salaries would be more than covered by the readjustments made and the recovery which their proposals would bring about. Since 1932 the present Government had increased taxation by £8,000,000 per annum, or by nearly 50 per cent, in a period of three years. At the same time, they had set up innumerable expensive boards to try to control the business of tire country. No country of the size and population of New Zealand could hear such a crushing burden of taxation. “Our policy is to decrease this burden of taxation, and experience shows that if you remove the crushing burdens from industry, then you will j*et renewed activity in the community,” he said.

“The business of every person, be he farmer of townsman, will improve. Those of to-day who are being carried on Government taxation will he absorbed in the stimulated activity' of private enterprise. In this way industry once again stimulated and made active carries in ordinary employment those who are to-day a burden on the taxpayer. The reduction in taxation of £2,700,000 and other reliefs to which I have referred, and which are in our policy, are covered as to twothirds by readjustment in taxation, which we make under the health insurance and pensions scheme, and the balance is easily covered from other sources.”

The Exchange Blunder. “It is our definite view that the exchange policy was a wrong one. We are the only country in the Empire with an artificial exchange rate. Australia s is. its natural one,” said Mr Hislop. “There is no greater error than that underlying the talk of Sir Alfred Ransom and others, and they go prating round the country, saying that last year the farmers got a net £9,000,000 out of exchange. Speeches such as these are mere touting for votes, and touting for votes at the expense of truth. Nobody knows better than Sir Alfred Ransom himself—«and he is much interested in exchange—that the farmer does not get the full nek benefit of £9,000,000 or anything like it. “Now, I know that to bring exchange back to its true relationship with sterling is a technical and difficult operation, but it is the course which ultimately will have to be followed. It must be done very carefully. We propose that, having adopted the principle that exchange should be brought back to its true relationship with sterling, then the machinery as to the time, the method, and degrees o'f reduction will have to be worked out in consultation with the Reserve Bank and also the trading banks. “The trouble with Mr Coates and his ■Government is that, having initiated this policy against the advice of the banks and the prominent men of affairs, and against the advice of his own Minister of Finance and his own Secretary of the Treasury—having taken' this high-handed action with them, they dare not admit that they were wrong,

but must persist to the last in their error. Now, the farmer has admittedly had some benefit from exchange, though it is a decreasing benefit. I realise fully the difficulties that the farmer has had. As exchange comes down we will help the farmer to at least the same degree as exchange has done. We will help him by a bounty on his produce. “This is what we propose to do, and we will pay to the individual farmer, according to his reasonable requirements, a subsidy on his production at. least equal to the amount he to-day gets from exchange. To make this payment we will utilise the savings made in the Consolidated Fund from the fall of exchange.

The cost of this help to the individual farmer directly, to at least the Same extent as he to-day gets from exchange, will be less than one-third of the cost to tj?e country than the exchange is to-day. Do you know that a bounty of 2d per lb. on all the butter-fat produced in this country could be paid for £3,000,000? “Just Before the Election.”

“Mr Coates and Mr Forbes, and those talking about touting for votes, should pay attention to the following facts:—•

“They have restored a portion of the civil servants’ salary cuts—just before the elections. “They have restored a portion of the cuts in the pensions—just before the elections. “They have promised to employ 8000 men at full rate of pay for at least five months—just before the elections. “They have set up a committee to investigate unemployment problems just before the elections. “They have agreed to make better provision for the returned soldiers just before the elections. “They have reduced the unemployment tax —just before the elections. “They have allocated public works funds to be spent most pointedly in certain areas—just before the elections. “They have proposed a housing scheme, which, incidentally, will ruin the timber industry—just before the elections. “They have promised free milk for school children—just before the elections. “They announce a pensions scheme —just before the elections. “And now, Mr Forbes, we must not overlook him, has promised free libraries for all the people—just before the elections.

“These and‘many other things they have done only because they are frightened into activity by the fear of the verdict of the people.” Mr Coates’s Budget. Referring to the recently published Budget, Mr Hislop said that Mr Coates had included a sum of £200,000 for other supplementary estimates and it showed a small surplus of £13,500, but in the -dying hours of the session Mr Coates had brought down things that would cost him £648,487. His own estimates showed that there would be a balance of £400,000 on the wrong side of the ledger.

Speaking of the soldiers’ pension legislation, Mr Hislop said that instead of the relatives of a soldier having to prove that his death was due to war services, .the onus should be on the State to prove that his death'was not due to war services, Unemployment Muddle. Mr Hislop went on to speak of the Government’s unemployment policy, which he characterised as a muddle, and he outlined the history of the relief efforts made. If the Government had deliberately set out on a course of impoverishing the country and adding to the numbers of the unemployed, they could not have adopted a better policy than the one they did, lie said. The Democrat Party had approached the problem from a new angle. “What must be done, and what we .propose to do, is to ensure that wages and employment in this country reach a fair level,” lie continued. “If men are .engaged in their normal occupations at normal rates of pay, the majority of our present problems, including the housing problem, would quickly disappear. When it is realised that since 1932 taxation has been increased by 50 per cent.—taxation in 1932 was £17,000,000, and in 1935 it is £25,000,000 •Mr Coates’ own Budget figures—it may be seen that there is room for great reductions in taxation. Furthermore, removal of the Sales Tax will immediately reduce the cost of living, which is exactly equivalent to increasing the .purchasing power of the people.” Time For a Change. “The people of New Zealand,” he concluded, “have decided that the time has come for a change (applause). I have been from Auckland to Wellington and now I am working from Southland north and I can tell you a flame has been lighted that will he a. torch which will guide us out of the darkness of defeatism to a brighter day in which the country will regain its vigour under the beneficient influence of the old liberal principles,” said Mr Hislop. At the close of his address Mr Hislop introduced Mr Woods, who, he said, was a candidate he was proud to have fighting alongside him, and one of a team of men it was an honour to lead.

Dr. J. Russell Wells moved a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Hislop for his heartening, inspiring and instructive address.

Mr H. R. C. MeElrea paid a tribute to Mr Woods’ integrity and strength of purpose, and seconded the motion, which was carried with applause.