LABOUR POLICY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 21, 6 November 1935, Page 3

LABOUR POLICY

OUTLINED BY MR SAVAGE.

THE GOVERNMENT CRITICISED.

POSITION OF THE DEMOCRATS. (Abridged from Press Association). WELLINGTON, November 5. The Labour Party’s proposals for administering the affairs of the country, if the party is returned to power, were explained by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage), when he delivered a policy speech in the YV ellington Town Hall to-night. The hall was full, and Mr Savage received an enthusiastic reception, and at the conclusion of his address a resolution was carried expressing confidence in the Labour Party, Mr P. Fraser. M.P., presided. , Mr Savage said that the leaner or the Democrats had definitely stated that he would not record a vote whicn might have the effect of putting Labour into power. "Unfortunately tor Mr Hislop, there were only two lobbies in Parliament and unless he had a clear majority of his own (which was very unlikely) he must vote either to put the Government into power, or to put Labour into power. There was no middle course. It was quite clear from' Mr Hislop's own statement that any Democrat candidates that might be elected would form part of an auxiliaiy force to keep the present Government in power. , „ . , The real issue was: Shall private banking corporations continue in control of currency and credit, or shall the State assume control? Unless the money problem was solved there was little hope of a permanent solution of the other problems facing the country. The recent Canadian elections had resulted in a sweeping majority for Mr Mackenzie King, who was pledged to the principle of State control of currency and credit, which was-, the cardinal feature - of the New Zealand Labour Party’s policy. Labour’s policy was State control of currency and credit. Under Labour the money system would operate me same as it was operated now: by people who knew something of the business of banking. 'lt was cleai mat the goods and services which were to be exchanged, and the medium or exchange (purchasing power), must, be brought into more direct and sympathetic relationship toeach other. Mr Savage cited the following as “What the Coalition Government had done”: (1) It had destroyed the foundation of trade and industry in New Zealand by reducing wages, salaries, and pensions—wage reductions commencing with the charwoman who cleaned out public buildings, and extending to all workers in and out of the public service. (2) It had destroyed the usefulness of the Conciliation and Arbitration system as a means of settling industrial "disputes, and safeguarding wages and conditions in industry. (3) It had created an army of unemployed ranging in number fr om 51,000, immediately after the formation of the Coalition Government, to over 79,000 in 1933—the present number being over 58,000. (4) It had destroyed the public works policy of the Dominion and discharged thousands of standard-rate workeis • re-employing them on relief rates of P£l (s) It had destroyed apprenticeship contracts and turned thousands of partly-trained apprentices into the street. (6) It had weakened the education system of the Dominion and excluded ftv e ..year-old children from the schools. (7) It had destroyed the State Ad-, vances Department and substituted a semi-privately controlled Mortgage Corporation, which was to be presided over iby the managing director of a competitive private lending company.(8) It had introduced a virtual dictatorship in the primary industries by the passing of the Agricultural (Emergency Powers) Act, an*l the appointment of the Executive Commission of Agriculture. (9) It had instituted the equivalent of a receivership in the cases of farmers who were in financial difficulties by the passing of the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act, which provided for enforced budgetary conditions in the homes of producers concerned. (10) It had discharged hundreds of men from public services and, by legislation, had interfered with the superannuation rights of a large number of those who were dismissed. (11) It had failed to honour its obligations under the Superannuation Act and had postponed consideration of the difficulties arising therefrom until after the general elections. (12) It had extended the life of Parliament from three to four years without consulting the people—thus striking a' blow at the foundation of constitutional government. (13) It took power under Section 59 of the Fifiance Act, 1932, to dismiss public servants for making statements calculated to bring the Government into disrepute. (14) It passed the Motor Spirits (Regulation of Prices) Act, 1933, with * the pretence of regulating petrol prices for the -benefit of the users and resellers of petrol. It failed to use the law, with the result that resellers are not- 1 getting a fair return; the users are being exploited; and the wholesale interests are still making exorbitant profits, (15) It passed the Broadcasting Amendment Act, 1934-35, which prevented B stations from earning their own revenue for purposes of upkeep, and which would ultimately starve the B stations out of existence if the present Government were returned. Ministers said that the Dominion’s trade depended upon external buying power, but thinking people knew that unless the peqple of the Dominion were able to pay economic prices* for all goods and services—including imports —sold in New Zealand trade could not be expanded and bankruptcy would be inevitable. It was no exaggeration to say that from January, 1930, to the end of 1934 the aggregate amount of wage reductions * was not less than £100,000,000; while the aggregate sum due to the reductions made under the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act in 1932 could not possibly have been less than another £100,000,000. _ Labour said that by conscious and intelligent

action more settled economic conditions could be made to return. Labour said that definite action for shorter hours should be taken immediately. The machine was taking the place of human labour and unless the benefit was passed on to the people in the form of shorter hours of labour and increased pay, the results of science and invention would be lost. Re-adjustment of taxation was long overdue. For many years the tendency had been to shift taxation from incomes to indirect forms of taxation, which always involved the poorer section of the people in the payment of taxes out of all proportion to their ability to pay. Readjustment of taxation must not be understood to mean increased taxation which has already been overdone. During 1933 and 1934 over £50,000,000 was collected irom the people by means of sales, Customs and unemployment taxes, and the high rate of exchange. The Mortgage Corporation of New Zealand had been sunstituted for the State lending departments and to the extent that it had co-ordinated those departments it was justihed. But the introduction of private capital (£500,000), which was a mere bagatelle and only an excuse for drawing dividends, together with semi-private control, meant the end of State lending institutions so long as the present Government existed.

The policy of Labour was to place the Mortgage Corporation on a basis similar to the State Advances Department. The Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act provided no immediate relief for farmers in difficulties. It completed the dictatorship provided for in the Agriculture (Emergencies Powers) Act by placing all those seeking relief under direct supervision for a period of five years in order to provide a basis for valuation for the purpose of readjustment of equities in the securities involved. During this period the farmer will be subjected to budgetary control of a type apparently similar to the inquisitorial methods of the Unemployment Board in dealing with relief* workers. If a farmer happened to have a.wireless set, decent furniture, or anything also that might make life worth living, he would be treated, as the relief worker was to-day. The raising of the rate of exchange was the equivalent of an indirect tax on the whole of the people of New Zealand—rich and poor—the burden being greatest on large families. It was raised for the purpose of assisting exporters, and, it helped the exporter most wh’en he needed it least, when prices were comparatively high. When butter was at 127 s a cwt., the farmer got more assistance than when "butter was selling at 70s a cwt. A guaranteed price, on the other hand, would help the farmer when he needed it most and would not necessarily cost the whole people any more than a high rate of exchange. A high rate of exchange acted as a brake on Britain’s sales to New Zealand, which in turn must curtail New. Zealand’s sales to Britain, one-way trade being impossible. A guaranteed price would have no such effect. A guaranteed price would begin with an average of prices ruling during the last eight or ten years. Labour stood for guaranteed prices. Land settlement must be an integral part of their national policy, but it was useless to talk of such a policy without first laying a financial foundation which would allow the farmer to make a living.