POLITICAL ADDRESS

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 February 1938, Page 9

POLITICAL ADDRESS

BY MR. K. J. HOLYOAKE, M.P. NOISY MEETING AT GREYMOUTH Indicating early interest in the forthcoming General Election, there was an attendance of between 300 and 400 people at the Greymouth Town Hall last evening, when Mr. K. ,1. Holyoake, M.P. for Motueka, gave an address in the interests of the National Party. The meeting was the noisiest and most unruly political gathering held in Greymouth for many years, the speaker being constantly heckled and interrupted by a section of the crowd, some of whom were obviously present with the idea of preventing a cogent address from being delivered. Questions, relevant and irrelevant, were tired at the speaker right from the start of the meeting, and he was not allowed to develop a train of thought without being required to appeal to the sportsmanship of a small section, or else to raise his voice to such a pitch as to drown out ihe voices of individuals who practically refused to keep quiet, for any length of time. However, it was obvious that Mr. Holyoake spoke the truth when he stated that he had thoroughly enjoyed the meeting, as he proved quite able to keep pace with the interjectors, gaining many laughs at their expense.

- The Mayor (Mr. W. Meldrum) presided. and introduced the speaker, slating that he had assured him that he would receive a patient and attentive hearing in Greymouth. When his introductory remarks met with interjections, Mr. Holyoake assured his listeners that he would welcome questions and would thrive on interjections. He began with a survey of general politics, stating that today it was essential for the public to get down to basic facts, as they were 'now faced with political changes that they had never been faced with before. not only in New Zealand, but throughout the world. Prior and up

to tile Great War the economic and social system was more or less static. in that one could plan ahead for at least a generation with more or less certainty. The war upset that, more especially through the dislocation of international economics, and when the living standards of the people were lowered, one at once began to wonder what was wrong. Since that time they had listened to all sorts of supposed cures, and out of the welter jf opinions expressed there naturally arose two schools of thought. The first believed that the economic system known as capitalism was fundamentally sound, but temporarily out of repair, and that it could be modified. The second was of the opinion that the old system was fundamentally wrong and must be overthrown if they were to achieve what, after all, was the object of all governments, the greatest good for the greatest number. Throughout the world to-day, one could see various systems and experiments and he thought that it was high time that the public of New Zealand got down to fundamentals — they had to decide which road they were going to travel, and how fast. In the past they had not had to examine fundamentals so closely as they would have to in the future. Up to the last election, there had been two main parties, Reform and Liberal, both based on capitalism, with not much difference between them. Today, there was a different theory, that of the Labour Party telling them that capitalism had failed, and that was not peculiar to New Zealand, but had it failed? There was to-day a i eally basic difference between the two parties. The National Party stood for the so-called Capitalism system and the Labour Party for Socialism. What was the difference? Capitalism was based on the private ownership and control of industries; and the reward? —as equal opportunity as possible, but according to initiative and energy. Socialism, on the other hand, was based on the State control of industry and equal incomes for all. These were the two divisions and for the purpose of illustration, he would call them Conservatives and Radicals. The Conservatives believed that tradition played a big part in our lives. They, would move forward, but cautiously—that was the Conservative mind. Some people said that the present Government was responsible for the existing prosperity, but was it the New Zealand Labour Parly that was responsible for the prosperity in the Old Country? He said that the prosperity in New Zealand was in inverse ratio to the policy of the Conservative Government of Great Britain. He believed that the supporters of the Conservatives were inspired by high ideals, perhaps higher than the supporters of the Radicals.

A voice: What about the 7/6 slave camps? “A cheap gibe at a slump Government, and unworthy cf a decent citizen,” was how the speaker described the interjection, which frequently cams forward. “Do you mean to say that Labour-.would not have given the same if they had to?’’ he continued. This brought forth a disturbance among a section, one man being particularly persistent, and causing the speaker to assure the audience that even if there was one man who was determined tliat lie would not get a hearing, he had just as loud a voice as anyone.

Continuing with his explanation of tho difference between Conservatives and Radicals, the speaker said that as far as he knew, the Radical did not believe in tradition, but considered that it was clogging for the mind. He. saw* ntohing good in the existing system, which must be overthrown —he was a revolutionary. He (the speaker) believed that under the system of private ownership, tho man on the lowest living standard would have a better income, over the longest period, than under Socialism. No system could ever do away with poverty, because poverty was only comparative. Who would say that if they had had the socialistic system for 50 years, the average man in this country would be better off? Under the capitalistic system tremendous strides had been made in the past 50 years, and the lowest man had been lifted tremendously. One could look ;ound the world in vain, to see where a Labour Government had done better during the slump than a Conservative Government. No one had proved to him that a socialistic system would

! have given a better standard of living. ' This, remark caused a further up- | roar, and the chairman appealed for quiet. . CLASS LEGISLATION. cM > f In this country, continued the speaker, they had to evolve a policy which would unify the various sections of the community. With the Labour Government they hud already had a big dose of class legislation, and he did not, think any country could thrive on that. The policy evolved had to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number, and the traditional British liberty of the subject. The National Party had as democratic constitution as any party could have. A voice: But. have you got a policy? The speaker: 1 will give you our policy, but first, a question. Are we going to have complete Socialism in New Zealand? That is the fundamental issue before the next election. The Labour Party is trying to introduce Socialism as fast as possible. An interjector: Beautiful! Beautiful.' The speaker: As my friend agrees, they are driving to Socialism, and I see no difference between Socialism and Communism. Cries of No! No! The speaker: Then call it .Socialism, if you like. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Socialism is based on the State ownership of everything, so what is the difference? We can have as much, social legislation as you like, without Socialism. The two are totally different things. 1 believe we can have better social legislation, higher wages and better living conditions under Capitalism than under Socialism.

An interjector: Then why did you cut pensions? The speaker: Have you asked the Government what they would do if they hit a slump. What is their answer? After a lengthy interruption from the body of the Hall, Mr. Holyoake stated that he would proceed to deal with the specific politics of the day. He trenchantly criticised the Government for the breaking of promises, particularly in regard to the lightening of taxation. He said that he believed that if any political party went to the country with a manifesto, then it was a pledge. He was not excepting the past Government, through the slump, they made no promises, but asked for a blank cheque, as they did not know how far they would have to go. The Labour Government made definite promises, and one was to reduce taxation. Instead this year’s budget showed £10,000,000 more from taxation than in 1935. A voice: We have got £10,000,000 more to spend. The speaker: The Government is not giving it to you. It is higher prices lor primary products overseas. A voice: We were starving in 1935.

The speaker: Is there any person who believes that the Government then took a pleasure in cutting down wages and social services? Remember, it was a combination of the same Governments that gave New Zealand the highest standard of living in the world. TAXATION QUESTION. Returning to the question of taxation, Mr. Holyoako asked his listeners to recall that in 1931 the Government faced a budget deficit of £9,000,000 and the Labour Party claimed that there was no need for the emergency taxation. Why could not the Labour Party find the £10,000,000 to-day, without taxation? In two classes of taxation, customs and sales tax, they had increased £4.500,000 this year. He read a letter (address undisclosed) written by Mr. Savage in November, 1935, in which he stated that the sales tax was the most unjust tax of all, and lie could assure the person to which it was written that the Labour Party would lose no time in wiping it out. Had they done it? An abolition of the tales tax would mean an increase of 5 per cent, in the purchasing power, and secondly, it was not used for PubI : c Works, as had been suggested by eno iuterjector, but went into the general fund. The per capita tax in New Zealand, on this year’s budget, was approximately £22/10/- per head, for man, woman and child, whereas in 1934 it was something over £l4, and in 1935, £lB/15/10. What did it mean? It meant that every family man -would pay £9O. The National Party said that taxation should be as little as possible. Some people said that the State could use it best, but they said no. An interjector: Did you vote for a lower wage? The speaker: No. Produce one Hansard to say that 1 voted for a lower wage and I. will give £lOO to charity in this town.

Continuing his remarks regarding taxation, the speaker said he believed that they got less value for their money through State spending, referring to the armies of inspectors appointed since the Labour Government was in power and to the fact that they had added 8000 public servants in two years, and they were not producing anything. Could anyone see where the Sltate had done better than private enterprise, remembering that in the past year we had got £30,000,000 more for primary produce than during the slump period? Referring to the salaries of £l5OO paid to the heads of the new departments set up by the Labour Tarty, the speaker said that he believed one had to pay the market value for men, but surely it was a volte face for the Labour Party, who had said that no man should have more than £5OO per year. He, Mr. Holyoake, had been interested to hear Mr. Moncur, a Labour, M.P., praising the Reserve Bank. It was the last Government which set up the Reserve Bank —this Government had socialised it. The Bank was not under State control now, it was under political control. State control means that the Government would appoint the directors, the best men available, who would retire by rotation. Political control, under this Government, meant that the directors were appointed by the Minister and would remain there at his pleasure. It meant that they had to do the Minister’s bidding, or out they would go. The danger of political control was that there could be inflation for a period, to carry the Government over a slump period at election time, irrespective of the effect to the country. HOUSING SCHEME.

Strong criticism of the Housing Scheme was voiced by the speaker, who said that before the last election Mr. Nash had said that they would build houses for £6OO. The scheme was launched with a blare of trumpets and the working men thought that they were to get houses. To-day, we found that it was costing £lOOO to £l3OO for a five or six-roomed house and the rents, instead of being 12/6 to 17/6, as stated,, were 22/6 to 35/-, and

the worker was further away from having a home of his own than ever. The Housing Department and Mr. Lee had done a good job, but the general policy of the Government was against them. To-day less houses were being built than there would be under private enterprise. Last year, for instance, there were only 1000 more houses built than in 1935, despite the fact that we were getting £30,000,000 more for our primary produce. A voice: But how many less are unemployed than in 1935? . In reply to the question, the speaker said that he believed they had not gone as far in solving the unemployment problems as they should have, in light of the increased income from primary produce. To-day there were 36,000 receiving relief, and that was wrong when there was such a wave of prosperity. The Minister of Labour said that he was breaking the back of the problem, but he was breaking the back of the taxpayer. He was collecting £5,180.000 this year, when the people were in a spending mood. If he left that money with them, they would spend it allright—-in legitimate industry. Stating that he wished to speak to the women of the audience for a time, the speaker produced a copy of an election pamphlet issued by Hon. D. G. Sullivan, entitled “Brighter Budget for Housewives,” in which it was stated that for the reason that it planned to reduce costs, the policy of the Labour Party would make a strong appeal to housewives. “It will mean a. saving of 5/- in the £1 for housewives,” stated the pamphlet. That, said the speaker, was a promise to reduce costs, and what happened? The audience knew as well as he did that it cost 25/- to-day to buy what one 'could with a pound two years ago, and that was one thing that Mr. Sullivan, as Minister of Marketing, could have fixed. A voice: Would you have done it.

The speaker: We would have maintained the purchasing power of money. x . , A voice: How does the National Party propose to increase wages and keep prices stable? The speaker said that he had already dealt with taxation and the increase in the number of public servants. Then the housing scheme was sheer economic waste, a useless duplication of private enterprise. The policy of the National Party as far as wages were concerned, was to leave it entirely to an unfettered Arbitration Court. (Laughter). The speaker said that he knew why some of the audience laughed, because compulsory arbitration had been taken out. But need he remind them that they had hit the worst slump in the history of the country? He would remind them that the same men who removed it had kept it there for years, and was it not reasonable to suppose that they would have liked to leave it there. The National Party stood for compulsory arbitration in normal times, but they believed that there] should be a penalty on both sides,] and on that ground only had they voted against the clause in the Arbi-, tration Amendment Act. A voice: Do you say that the 8000 additional public servants produce nothing? The speaker: A tremendous lot of expense and office forms! In reply to other interjections, which were numerous at this stage, the speaker said that the housing survey was the greatest inquisition in the history of the British Empire. On the question of trade agreements, he said that the trade agreements affected by the present Government bore no comparison with those made by the past Government. QUESTIONS. | In renly to a question by Mr. M. Gibbens’ as to his attitude regarding

whippet meetings, the speaker said he would prefer not to answer that without consultation with his colleagues. He was, however, in favour of national sweepstakes. He also declined to answer Mr. Gibbens’ question as to whether he was in favour of prohithc granting of a 5/- totalisator to biting the use of the telegraphs for bookmakers’ information.

In reply to another question by Mr. Gibbens, as to whether he believed in the abolition of the Upper House, the speaker said that he believed in an elective second chamber. The present chamber was too cumbersome, and be believed 20 would be ample. A voice: Would you be in favour of a 40-hour week?

The speaker said that he had never voted against the 40-hour week, and he reminded the audience that provision for a 40-hour week was contained in the original building scheme. He thought that it was wrong as it stood in the present legislation. It should be left to the Arbitration Court, without direction. It would then be for the workers to approach the Court. He thought that the Government had gone a bit far with it, as the standard of living must fall if the production was less.

In reply to several questions regarding the life of Parliament, the candidate said that he believed it should be a five-year term, because them, if a Government felt that it was out, if touch with public opinion, as in England, it would go to the country. If the candidates elected had pledged themselves to a longei* term, he believed that that was sufficient referendum. Answering several questions regarding trade agreements, the speaker said that there was no comparison with what the past Government achieved at Ottawa, and what Mr. Nash had done. The meat agreements were far more than the piffling agreements made by Mr. Nash. Mr. J. Scott: Your speech has been a criticism of the Government, what is the National Party’s policy? The speaker: 1 have told you every point but, broadly, private enterprise. The function of the Opposition is to criticise the Government, who are in the dock. In reply to a question by Mr. A. Fielding, concerning the guaranteed price, the speaker said that the National Party agreed with some parts of the scheme, but what they objected to was that the Government had taken the product right out of the hands of the producer. They said that was wrong in a democratic country. It was just the hand of Socialism again. A voice: Would you dismiss the 8000 public servants you referred to? The speaker said that he could not answer a question like that, just yes or no. He would, however, abolish the Housing and Marketing Departments, which were just ridiculous, expensive and too heavy duplication of private enterprise. Some of the publie, servants would have to be done away with, but some would be immediately absorbed in private enterprise taking the place of the Government departments. A voice: Arc you in favour of the Public Works? The speaker said that it was his opinion spending on Public Works should be tapered off in boom times. They said that in good times the money spend on public works | should be spent by private enterprise, in producing real wealth. I A voice: How are you going to de-! velop new industries if you don’t de-] velop the country? The speaker dealt at length with the matter, of Onakaka iron, in reply to this question, stating that the Government allowed two and a-half years to elapse when, he understood there was £3,000,000 capital waiting in England to develop them if the Government would give assurances that it would not interfere, and would pre-

vent dumping. This Government had put so many restrictions on industry, that, we were, not getting the new industries we should. Having difficulty in making himself heard amidst a general uproar, Mr. J. W. Greenslade said that he thought the speaker had shown great patience and endurance, and he thought the great proportion of the audience was proud of such a progressive young Parliamentarian. He moved that the speaker be accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his able and instructive address. The motion was carried by acclamation. In returning thanks, Mr. Holyoake said that he thought he had made a number of friends, if not political converts. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding, on the motion of the speaker.