Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1937. CONFLICTING PROMISES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 68, 17 September 1937, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1937. CONFLICTING PROMISES

Within the time allowed for an Address-in-Reply speech the Leader of the Opposition could not set out completely the failure of the Government to act up to its election promises. But his eight-point amendment and the facts with which he supported it placed before the House of Representatives the outstanding instances of failure. There was, indeed, little need for Mr! Hamilton to use facts or arguments. The facts are brought before the public from day to day "by the complaints and experiences of the people who are daily discovering new evidence of the many flaws in the perfect economic system that was promised. Can anyone claim, for example, that the Government has kept its promise that the cost of living would not be allowed to rise and cancel out wage increases? Only a week or two ago representatives of the workers were devoting much attention to proving that it had risen, and that the rise was justification for a new and higher wage standard. Yet the only reply of the Minister of Education to this point last night was to suggest that the increases were in primary products. There was no attempt to explain away or deny the higher prices which are in many instances directly due to the industrial legislation of the Government. Nor was there a convincing denial of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that 'there is a serious lack of confidence .in the development of New Zealand industrial enterprise. This is due in part to the rapidly rising tendency of costs and to the Government's "failure to produce a clearly denned policy for the encouragement of industries, Mr. Fraser claimed that industries had been encouraged. In a few instances this is probably so. But investors and manufacturers who might venture are hesitating to do so because they do not know what the Government may yet decide to do by licensing and internal control or by Customs protection. After two years of Labour Government we have yet no clear indication of what is the Government's policy in this important section of national industry. We know that the Government's legislation has caused costs to rise, and we can admit that higher wages and better produce prices have increased spending power, but we also know that domestic industries are meeting competition from imports and the Customs returns prove beyond doubt that a great part of the increasing purchasing power of the people" is being diverted to imports. All that the Government can offer in these circumstances are promises of protection —firm in tone, but indefinite as to method and time, and an experimental and dattgerous system of licensing. The questions submitted by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the Government's fulfilment of its promises to find employment for every able-bodied man and to reduce taxation were equally searching. To the former count in the indictment Mr. Fraser replied with statements of the progress made in absorbing the unemployed; but he did not explain that unemployment had been decreasing when the Government entered office, that a further decrease was to be anticipated as the result of the recovery in export prices, and that the Government's own contribution to the acceleration of this decrease had been made mainly through the expenditure of millions from taxation, loans, and credit issues. Only a comparatively small part of the decrease is due to the absorption of the workless in private industry. Further progress in this direction is hindered^ by the costs and . uncertainty which are checking private industrial expansion. And how long can the Government itself continue to keep thousands of men engaged in costly public works of questionable value or in highly subsidised local employment? So far as taxation was concerned Mr. Fraser's defence was extremely weak. He could not contradict the assertion that taxation had been raised; but he attempted to shift the ground of the attack by asking what measures for social amelioration the Opposition would repeal. This, however, is not the issue. The Government promised to reduce taxation and, as Mr. Hamilton pointed out, probably won many votes by such promises. If the promise were in conflict with other promises to raise wages and pensions, reduce hours, and give new social benefits it is the Government's obligation to reconcile the two sets of promises. The Government and not the Opposition must say which of the promises that it has made will be disregarded. If it has promised to reduce the exchange rate and now finds that exchange reduction is impossible while it is pursuing an internal policy of inflation it must admit that its promises were made extravagantly without regard for economic laws. If it said it would raise wages and reduce hours and prevent prices from rising it must acknowledge today either that it did not know what it was saying or took advantage of credulous sup-

porters. The Labour Party made the promises. It led the people to believe that it had discovered a miraculous method of distributing benefits without having to pay for them. Now there are widespread complaints of the inadequacy of the benefits and their high cost. The explanation must come from the Government. It is no answer at all to turn to the Opposition and ask: "What would you do about it?"