REFORM MANIFESTO

Evening Star, Issue 20721, 18 February 1931, Page 3

REFORM MANIFESTO

GOVERNMENT EXTRAVAGANCE SUPPORTED BY LABOUR [Per Uni’ted Press Association - .] WELLINGTON, February 17. The following statement has been handed to the Press by Mr A. E. Mandcr, dominion general secretary of tho Reform Party, in reply to tho recent pronouncement by the Leader of the Labour Partv (Mr H, E. Holland, M.P.):— “A statement has been made bv Mr H. E. Holland, M.P., on behalf of the Labour Party which calls for outspoken comment. Referring to the Prime Minister’s recent declaration of his Government’s change of policy, Mr Holland says that ‘ there lias never been in the history of any country such wholesale ■ dishonouring of election pledges,’ but surely Mr Holland should be the last man in New Zealand to reproach the Government on that account in view of what has occurred iu the political life of New Zealand during the past two years. Wo may recall the actual pledges made by the United Party. In its election manifesto of 1928 there was a pledge to borrow £70,000,000 at 4.V per cent, and to reload £00,000,000 in the form of advances to workers and settlers at 43 per cent. Did Mr Holland and the Labour Party say anything about a ‘ wholesale dishonouring of election pledges ’ when that pledge was broken ? No. Mr Holland and the Labour Party continued to applaud and to support the United Government. Then we remember that tho United Party pledged itself to a ‘ revision of the income tax scale, reducing the maximum amount,' and again the Labour Party made no protest. On the contrary, there was another election pledge by the United Party to ‘ foster secondary industries by subsidy rather than by a protective tariff,’ and once again Mr Holland and his friends supported the United Government in raising the tariff and thus increasing the cost of living, with never a hint that they disapproved of the Government’s breaking its election pledges. Finally, although the United Party’s official election manifesto declared specifieially that ‘the Territorial system will be maintained ’ it was Mr Holland himself who actually boasted of having forced the Government ‘ under pressure from the Labour Party ’ to act in a manner exactly contrary to the manner in which it was pledged to act.

“In face of these and many similar facts, Mr Holland is very unwise now to begin censuring the Government so late in the day for breaking its election pledges. The plain truth is that in 1928 the Reform Party, foreseeing our present difficulties (which were bound to follow Britain’s adoption of a policy of deflation), went to the country with a policy of making preparation in advance to meet the bad weather which was coming. Mr Cootes and his colleagues believed that a serious crisis could bo averted and that readjustments could be made without undue stress or hardship, but only provided that the Government acted prudently in taking all possible precautions before the storm arrived, and then in dealing with the situation as it developed. But the General Election of 1928 resulted in tho defeat of this policy of shortening sail and preparing for bad weather A new United Government was elected on a programme of heavy borrowing and extravagant expenditure, and, with the support of Mr Holland’s Labour Party for two years, this policy of reckless extravagance h-as been pursued. For two years tho situation has been growing rapidly worse, and both the United Government and the Labour Party have refused to recognise the fact, hut have instead done everything possible to aggravate and intensify the difficulties or the situation. As late as May, 1930, at tho Parnell by-election, Mr Forbes himself declared that the finances of the dominion were in a thoroughly satisfactory stale, although even at that time lie had already seen a Treasury report, which he subsequently issued, and which allowed that a shortage of £3,000,000 was to be anticipated. For tho remainder of that year the Government continued spending money lavishly in the construction of new railways and in relief works (at 14s a day). As late as-July last it seemed impossible to make either tho Government or the Labour Party realise that the dominion was on tho verge of a serious economic crisis. Even on Julv 17, 1930, Mr 11. IS. Holland was scoffing and encouraging the Government to scoff at the idea that there was any considerable fall in export values, and saying: ‘ I do not believe Mr D. Jones was right iu stressing the serious financial position of the country. Both gentlemen declared that the country's exports had fallen considerably. Well, have they? ’ After this exhibition of in's lack ol acquaintance with actual conditions in the country Sir H. E. Holland should he silent for a very long while. “ On October 10, 1930, just before Parliament closed, Mr Coates again emphatically drew attention to the cleg ■velopment of a .serious crisis. ‘I do not wish to appear as an alarmist,’ he declared, ‘ but I do think it is the duty of every right-thinking person to face hard facts. 1 am afraid the people generally do not oven yet realise the gravity of tho situation.’ But even then,. in October last, it was impossible to check tho Government in its career of extravagance or to make it face tho serious situation which was rapidly developing. It was not until tho last day of tho last session of Parliament that the Labour Party turned round on tho Government, refusing to support it further. Then, abandoned by tlie Labour Party, tho Government was free at last to listen to reason, though many more months elapsed before any action was taken to cope ,with tho situation which every week was becoming more difficult. On January 21, following a conference of the Reform Party, Mi - Coates made an explicit public statement of measures which, in the judgment of the Reform Party, were urgently necessary. This statement was issued the day after Mr Forbes returned to New Zealand, and it cannot he otherwise than satisfactory to the Reform Party to note that, although there are some divergences and Some important omissions, yet many of the suggestions proffered by Mr Coates have now been adopted by tho Government. If Mr Holland cares to describe this as ‘an unconditional surrender to Mr Coates and the Reform Party.’ that is a matter upon which ho, to whom the Government surrendered for the two previous years, may he left to judge. So far as the Reform Party is concerned, there never has been aiiy possibility of doubt as to the line it would take. Mr Coates lias stated again and again that if and whenever the Government might he persuaded to do tho right thing it could roly upon the assistance of the Reform Party in passing all measures which were in the real interests of tho people as a whole, and calculated to help the dominion to emerge from the present crisis.”-