THE LABOUR VIEW

Evening Star, Issue 21319, 25 January 1933, Page 2

THE LABOUR VIEW

COALITIDH MEASURES REACTION" ARY AND UNSUCCESSFUL HR JBHES ATTACKS EXCHANGE DECREE The policies of the Coalition Government were subjected to a searching criticism by Mr F. Jones, M.P., in an address given in the South Dunedin Town Hall last evening. Mr Jones censured the Government severely for the manner'in which it had dealt with the unemployment problem, expressed the opinion that the delegates to the Ottawa Conference had failed in their mission, and attacked the establishment of the increased exchange rate. The hall was packed to overflowing, and his speech was heard with much interest, his remarks being punctuated with frequent rounds of applause. Mr W. Hudson, chairman of the South Dunedin Labour Party, occupied the chair. Mr Jones first spoke of the manifestoes issued by the Coalition Party in connection with the (‘lections of over twelve months ago. The Government promised, if returned, that none should lack the necessities of life, that thrift should not bo penalised, that relief work should be productive, and that the Government’s objective was not merely to provide relief, but to provide a remedy. Where was that ‘ bold constructive policy ” that was promised by the Government and which would bring prosperity to this country? Could anyone show in what way the conditions of the people had improved ? REACTIONARY LEGISLATION, The legislation that had been brought forward and placed on the Statute Book during the past twelve months had been the most reactionary that any Government could bring forward. It had reduced the wages of the Government servants, reduced the pensions, restricted social services, practically abolished the Arbitration Court, and as a result the wages and conditions of these workers had been lowered. The result of this legislation had been to penalise, not only the workers, but also the business men, farmers, and manufacturers. Could anyone say that this legislation meant prosperity to the people? Yet the Government said that prosperity followed a sane Government. The Government promised to find a romedv for unemployment. Well, this “ bold" ” Government a year ago had 50 000 out of work, and to-day that number had reached tho 70,000 mark, and in all probability would be increased during the winter. NATIONAL EXPENDITURE, COMMISSION. ••.The great bulk of the legislation that has ocen passed is the result of the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission,” said Mr Jones. ‘‘ This commission was appointed bv the Government as a result of a campaign instituted by the Chambers of Commerce for the appointment of such a commission. I do not know whether they had a say in tho appointment of the gentlemen appointed. but the report of the conference of the Chambers of Commerce goes on to state that two comprehensive statements were put forward as evidence. and that the report is inline with the views of the association. Well, it seems that the ‘ bold policy ’ that would bring prosperity and the commission’s report is the work of the Chambers of Commerce, and the position wo are in to-day is due to the weak-kneed Government allowing itself to be dictated to by organisations such as these. The Farmers’ Union is another organisation that has stampeded tho Government in a certain direction, and here we can see how tho Government is first pulled one way and then another. This is tho Government which, with its ‘bold policy,’ would lead this country to safety and security I ” UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY A FAILURE. Mr Jones declared that the Government policy in respect to -unemployment had boon a failure. It promised to see that none would lack the necessities of life, that relief work should be productive, that those workers who had been thrifty should not be penalised, and that it would endeavour to provide a remedy. It still penalised tho man who had been thrifty, and, as far as the works being productive, they were no more productive than they were twelve months ago. It bad introduced differential treatment, and to-day the workers in tho suburbs and the country did not receive relief comparable with those in the cities. It did not treat all districts alike. Whereas Pctone, Lower Hutt received the same rates as Wellington, yet hero in Dunedin they had two boroughs which were oontigious which wore treated the same as country workers. Could anyone say why the workers in Otago should be treated differently from those of other districts? With his colleague, Mr Munro, Mr Jones had repeatedly placed this matter before the Minister and the board, and they have no answer, except they bad no money. Quito recently the board reduced the allocation, with the result that tho local committee had to reduce the amount. Mr Jones knew that tho committee protested strongly against tho reduction, but the Government said it had not sufficient money, and it looked ns if this reduction would continue to operate. “ Take the treatment of our young men,” continued the speaker. “ Are they getting a fair deal? What hope have they for the future? To be placed in camp'witli insufficient wages to enable them to live decently, witli no prospects for the future? If they want to avoid camp their only hope is to get married and endeavour to live on a relief wage of 22s (3d per week. Can anyone say that, in respect to providing relief for unemployed women, the Coalition Government lias been a success? In Dunedin to-day, not counting the girls who have just left school, there are at least 400 unemployed women, and tho grant that is made here is £SO a week. 1 believe that out of that sum £lB goes in wages, the rest in upkeep of room, food, and subsidies on wages paid by a certain number of employers. Even if all the amount wore paid out to these women, it would mean about 2s 6d a week.

“ During the past year the Government set up a commission to tour the country to obtain evidence in respect to unemployed boys and girls, and that report will bo dealt with by Parliament during the nest few weeks. Various committees have been established to deal with this question, but. while good work has been done, especially by your own_ local committee (and by Mr M'Conly in particular), yet the fact remains that, until such time ns there is a renewal of industry, then many of our boys and girls will he denied the right to work. I have time and time again spoken on this question, because I realise that the future of our young people is being -jeopardised through the failure of the Government to bring forward a policy that would help and train these young people through these difficult times.”

EVICTIONS FROM HOUSES. There was one other question affecting the unemployed in which the Government had failed to provide protection, and that is in respect to the thousands of evictions'that had taken place during its. term of office. Everybody recognised that it was impossible for tho great bulk of the relief workers to pay their rent in full, with the wages they received. Yet, landlords had the right to obtain an eviction order without any inquiry, and to push these poor people out in the streets. Cases were placed before the Government, and the business of the House was held up to discuss the position. But the Government failed to meet the position and these evictions still went on. “ Let mo say that many of the landlords have been more than generous to their unfortunate tenants, not only in reducing rents, but in wiping out arrears,” said Mr Jones, 11 but there arc some who have certainly shown no consideration to their tenants. During the last session 1 asked the Prime Minister whether he would introduce legislation to ensure (hat all rents should be reduced by 20 per cent. Everybody must recognise that at the present time that there is a demand for cheap rents, and the result has been that many people have not had their rents reduced. If they have demanded the redaction then they have been given a week’s notice, and have found difficulty in obtaining another house at a low rental. The Prime Minister did not answer, and the result is that once again the Government had failed to meet the needs of the people.” The Govenfinent had also failed to provide full pay for those who had met with an accident while engaged on relief works. Everybody recognised how inadequate the pay of a relief worker was. But what was the position of one who met with an accident and received two-thirds of his usual wage? If he was entitled to compensation it was based on his relief wages, but the result of the inquiry might mean that he would be prevented for all time from being re-employed in the industry in which ho formerly worked. This had been the case of a relief worker who partially lost the sight of one eye. His compensation was based on his relief wages. The judge hold that it would not affect his earnings as a relief worker. But that man was a shearer, and this loss must affect his earnings while engaged in that occupation. THE OTTAWA CONFERENCE. “We were promised by the Government that the Ottawa ■ Conference would do great things for this country,” said Mr Jones. “ This agreement would raise prices of our primary products, and all that we would give iii return was a reduction in tariff to enable the British manufacturer to market his goods more freely in New Zealand. We pointed out that the agreement arrived at between New Zealand and the Old Country was the worst of those effected, that it was doubtful whether prices would rise, and that, on the other hand, the lowering of the tariff on goods manufactured in New Zealand _ would mean more nnemployment without any corresponding advantage. Speaking at Pukekolie, Mr Coates told the fanners to wait nine months. Well, everyone knows that this season’s produce will be sold within that period, so that we cannot look for any advantage this year. The delegates failed at the conference, and the Government failed in allowing that agreement to bo ratified. It inflicted on the clothing, confectionery, and silk industries a hardship,' and ono which will increase unemployment in those trades.” THE EXCHANGE QUESTION. After all the lofty sentiments that had been expressed in connection with the unity of the Empire and the necessity of Empire trade tho Government had by pegging the exchange smashed tho Ottawa agreement. The ‘ Financial Times ’ stated on June 16, 1931: “ There is no reason for bringing about an artificial and unwarranted rise in New Zealand exchange rate, and added to it is essential that New Zealand should do nothing to offend her best customer,” Then on January 19, in a statement on the position, it concluded: “An increase will be a moral breach of the Ottawa agreement. ’’ That expressed the opinion of one of Britain’s leading journals.

What did it mean? For every £IOO of goods that the farmer exported he would receive £325, but against this the importer would have to pay for every £IOO worth of goods lie imported £125, so that it meant that one section of the people paid a bonus to another section. It meant, of course, that the farmer’s gross income would be increased, but ho would have to pay more for his freights and more for the goods he bought. The increase he would receive in his income would not give him solvency. If he was indebted to the stock and station agents they would take the increase in his income to liquidate his debts. It was they who would benefit by the raising of the exchange. Next to them the banks and mortgagees would benefit ; but if a farmer was in debt it was doubtful whether his standard of living would bo improved. The importer would pay. more for his goods and therefore would have to raise prices. If wages and incomes remained the same then there would be less demand for goods, and, ns a result, reduced staffs and an increase in unemployment. There wore a number of importers who had, sent thousands of pounds overseas last November, and also within the last few weeks who had had to pay only 10 per cent, exchange. These people would benefit to the extent of 15 per cent, and would he able to undersell those who failed or were unable to do this. Many speculators also anticipated the exchange being raised, and sent large sums of money overseas, and would reap a handsome profit by their gamble. To the worker the raising of the exchange meant an increase in the cost of living. Therefore it was a reduction in wages. Certain industries would suffer; especially those which relied on obtaining raw material from overseas, ff the cost of their goods was increased then, with the present wage level, unemployment would be caused by the reduced demand. Where the worker resided in a district where the local body bad to meet oversea payments then ho would have to meet increased rates. Mr Jones thought that the workers and pensioners’ wages and allowances should be increased to meet the increase in the cost of living. He had stated that local bodies which had oversea payments to make would have to increase their rates. Tlio only alternative was to reduce the number of their employees. To the Government it would mean an increased amount to be paid in c'onnection with interest overseas, that all material and goods bought by the Government would cost more, that the Government will have to pay the banks an indefinite amount for any loss incurred, less imports (therefore less Customs revenue), and reduced income tax revenue. “A DEPLORABLE POSITION.” Mr Jones said that his audience would remember the difficulty the Government was faced with last year in endeavouring to balance the budget. It raided fund it could lay its

hands on, reduced wages, pensions, and social services, used up reserves, borrowed £2,300,000, and after doing all that had a deficit of £1,000,000. One could only wait with interest to see what method the Government would adopt to balance its budget for the next twelve months. Tho position of New Zealand was deplorable, and was due to the policy of the Government in reducing the purchasing power of the people. The Labour Party recognised the serious position that the country has been allowed to drift into, and with the purpose of meeting the position the Leader of the Labour Party asked leave to move this motion: —“That a special committee bo set up to inquire into the most effective means of meeting the existing economic difficulties, and that such committee take into consideration the following:—(1) restoration and stabilisation of purchasing power; (2) _ guaranteed prices; (3) raising of incomes for farmers and wage-earners (employed and unemployed) ; (4) exchange rates; (5) effective utilisation of currency and credit; (6) bounty bonus or subsidy to primary producers; (7) establishment of moratorium.” The Government refused .to allow this question even to be discussed. Mr Jones believed that such a committee coiild have done good work. They believed that they would occupy the Treasury benches when the election took place, and they preferred to take over a solvent country, not one that had been allowed to go bankrupt. MR STEWART’S RESPONSIBILITIES. “I would like to say a word in respect to the ex-Minister of Finance, Mr Downio Stewart,” said Mr Jones. “He is being applauded for his action, but he cannot relieve himself from the responsibility of the position we are in to-day. He belonged to the Government which reduced wages and salaries, pensions, and social services, and practically smashed the Arbitration Court, and which, after all these economies, refused to increase the income tax. It was he who objected to the reduction of interest. What policy has lie got to put forward to meet the position he has helped to create ? We have a new Minister of Finance now. If an ability to spend is the essential qualification, we have the right man. Everywhere we see samples of it— Arapuni, the Auckland railway station, the balloon loop, the Workshops, the Middleton goods yards, the drainage schemes, and the huge retiring allowances.” INTERNAL CREDITS. ‘‘l believe that by the creation of internal credits we could meet the position that has arisen,” concluded Mr Jones. “ The dominion was never more wealthy, and we have all the necessaries of life. We can produce timber to build homes; we have all the materials to clothe our people; we have all the food to feed our people. All we need is money. If -we could provide tho necessary credits to carry on the war, surely we can provide them to meet this economic crisis. The farmer should receive a guaranteed price in terms of New Zealand currency. If he was receiving the 1928 price on what was consumed in New Zealand ho would bo receiving £4,000,000 a year more. There is only one way to meet the position, and that is to increase the purchasing power of the people; not by reducing wajges, pensions, and social services.

“ The Government has failed to carry out its promises. It has been dictated to first by the Chamber of Commerce and now by the stock and station agents. It has penalised those who could least afford it. Its only honourable course is to resign.” (Applause.) Mr Jones was given a hearty vote of thanks for his address.