MR. DOIDGE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 53, 23 August 1939, Page 8

MR. DOIDGE

CRITICAL OF GOVERNMENT

SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT

Mr F. W. Doidge, Taiinmga, has forwarded to lis a copy oi bis speech delivered in Parliament on August 15. The first portion is as follows: I would recall to members that the Minister of Housing, in a speech made in this House a night or two ago, declared that it was untrue that he or iiis department was re. fusing State advances. Well, I have in my possession several letters signed by the Minister himself oil, this subject, and on -several occasions he has written to people in my constituency telling them flatly that the department could not give them State advances for the simple reason that all the money that was available was required for the erection of new dwellings in the citics. OMANAWA CITED. I have here two such letters signed by the Minister, and I can produce further letters if the Minister j wishes. This is a typical in respect of a fanner living at Oman, awa who had made application .Jor a loan from the Slate Advances Corporation. The answer to his application reads ar follows'.' ''Normally the corporation, would be prepared to consider such an application, but in view of the demands on the corporation s linanccs for the purpose of erecting new dwellings, and the serious housing shortage in many centres it is foi the time being giving priority to building loan application, and applications for advances for other purposes are being deferred."

That letter was signed by "11. T. Armstrong, Minister of State Advances ." I can produce more of those letters. 1 repeat that the houses are being built in the cities. Can the Government show me a -larm where the State is building a house? It is on the farms that the houses should be built. A MATAMATA CASE. The second letter is from a farmer at Ma'tamata who was proposing to cut up li:s farm, and who wanted facilities for the building of three homes on the larm so that his three sons could have their homes on the land. He got the same reply—that the money was required for the !)ig centres. Every farmer knows that is the position. Let us examine the Budget in its treatment of the farmer, for that surely is the most serious aspect of the Budget. What are the Budget

and the Government doing for the fanner? The Budget indicates m policy or thought for the farmer. H certainly says that the farmer should work harder and produce more. That is the lesson of the Budget l'or the farmer. When, we ask what is the Government's land policy, there is no answer. The Government is a trades union Governments and it ha*? no love for the farmer. SPOILS OF OFFICE. The Budget throughout strikes the one note—the imperative need for increased production. If it is true that there is imperative need for increased production, "why is the Min istei of Lands not here? Why is he not in his place to give the country a lead, We know where he is. He is junketing about Europe at the tax payers' expense. He is a member ol the Government enjoying the spoils of office. If any thinking man or woman can tell me of one item oi good that the Minister of Lands ].-> doing at Geneva I would like to hear p'bout it. If he were here vie could give him a lew days work. I could take him to Katika.tj and introduce him to Mr George Alley, who could show him thousands of acres that could be brought into productivity. 1 could take him to the Wailii swamp area and introduce him to Mr John Pattie who also could show him hundreds of acres which could be brought into productivity. Then I could take him to llangilaiki and throw him among the returned soldiers at Onepu who wanl to know not only what he intends to do about their titles—an issue long delayed in sl■tllement- but who could dsn indicate to him how hundreds of acres there coidd be developed and. ; brought into activity. H'.;t at tin's crit'cal period, wh n -he Prime Minister calls for greaUr HYnrl the Minister of L'fids is not here. lie i> joy.r'd'ng in Knr:r>e.

THE GOVERNMENT'S GAME.

What really is the Government's policy? 'What is the Government's game in regard to the guaranteed price? In 19,'55 the Government gave the farmers a" promise that has never been fulfilled —a promise that 'die guaranteed price would be an agreed upon price. We know that it has never been agreed upon. At the last Dairy Conference the Minister oi Finance went before the dairy farmers; and pleaded with them to withhold their hand and not demand an increase in the guaranteed price this year. He said that if they would agree to hold their hand lie would do his part —do his best—to sec costs pegged. Mr Agar rose and said ''suppose avc do what you suggest, and do not demand an increase in the guaranteed price what guarantee can, you give us that the trades unions will not, on their part demand increased costs and increased wages, and get them?'' The Minister could not give the conference an undertaking on that point.

THE PLEBISCITE BLU.FF.

Then we come to the next move in the game—the plebiscite bluff. The Government knew that the tim<> was fast approaching when the far., mers would be justified in asking art increase in the guaranteed price, and

in saying that the guaranteed price was due for reconsideration and renewal. The Government knew that the'farmers were almost certain to take up that attitude, and that thev would he justified in saying: ''We cannot carry on against mounting costs. You are to give us an agreed upon price as promised.'* So the Prime Minister bluffed the farmers with the suggestion of a plebiscite. To a large extent that .bluff succeeded, with the result that the farmer to.day has been bluffed into quietude.