LABOUR’S GUARANTEES

Grey River Argus, 26 November 1946, Page 5

LABOUR’S GUARANTEES

ALWAYS MADE GOOD

Mr O’Brien at Hokitika

[Our Own Correspondent],

HOKITIKA, Nov. 25.

Hon. J. O’Brien this evening addressed an enthusiastic and very well attended, meeting here at the Princess Theatre, the chair being taken by Mr A. R. Elcock, the Mayor. At the conclusion, a motion of thanks and of confidence in Mr O’Brien was carried unanimously by acclamation, on the motion of Messrs E. W. Heenan and Chris Briscoe. Mr O’Brien described the conditions of New Zealand when the Labour Government took charge. Although there had been a so-called farmers’ Government in existence for some twenty years, thousands of the fanners had gone insolvent, and of those remaining, fifty per cent, were considered to.be insolvent by the late Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. It was remarkably that farmers did, in ten years, more than double their production of butterfat; as a matter of fact, increased it by some 250 per cent.; and the more they had produced the poorer they became, until they were in a desperate state. They received no assistance whatever from the Tory Party, although seven of the ten Cabinet Ministers then were farmers. Most of the Tory members expressed sympathy with them. Labour had urged the wiping off of debt on the over-mortgaged properties, and advocated a guaranteed price. Both were put into effect in the first year Labour was in office, and the farming industry has never’ looked back since then, they having had their prices adjusted from year to year. At present they were receiving Is 9d and 2s a pound for their butterfat.

The Minister then traced the history of the marketing of the farmers’ butter, by the merchants, and recalled the fight which the Tory Party had to put up to get control of it, but the merchants won, the members of the Tory Party having been defeated because the merchants appealed to Mr Coates', who vetoed what the Board had done. He criticised the present agitation to give back to farmers their butter marketing. That agitation was coming from the New Zealand merchants, who formerly had made millions out of marketing the farmers’ butter.

Regarding the workers, he said they were in those times even in a very much worse state. There were 57,000 registered as unemployed, and probably another thirty to forty thousand who were unregistered. Poverty was abroad in the land. The money doled out to the unemployed was sometimes as low as 15s and 16s to a married couple, and 8s or 9s to single men. Unemployed men aged under twenty and girls out of work received no assistance, and were not even registered. The indentures of some 7000 apprentices were- broken, and those boys were sent to loaf at the street corner. Young men under twenty were outlawed. They had no l work, and no assistance from unemployment funds. Salaries and wages were cut and cut again. The protection of the Arbitration Court was taken away from the workers. Then the Tories extended the life of Parliament for a year, while they passed a law that allowed the civil servants to be discharged without an appeal if they dared to criticise the Government Labour had dealt with this, and with the unemployed, by giving them full time work, and dealt also with the farmers as previously stated. The candidate dealt with taxation as previously reported. Mi’ O’Brien accused the Opposition of not keeping to the agreement made by the representatives of all Parties to confine propaganda for the Forces in Japan to the pages of the “J Force Times”. He produced a letter sent bv Mr Chivers 1 , which, he said, was definitely propaganda, and which had been sent back from Japan, along with a number of others, which were being received in this district. He did not blame Mr Chivers, because Mr Chivers probably d : d not know the agreement had been made, but it was a breach bv the National Execu five of the Nationalist Party. He did not mind fair criticism or fighting policy against policy, but if one side depended on false statements and untruths' in order to try and make a case, it amply proved that they were bankrupt of policy, and he held that was the position of the Nationalist Party, He mentioned a statement made by Mr Holland re the burning of the soldiers’ votes. He pointed out that last election soldiers voted in six centres, and the votes were very similar, and in only one of these centres were votes' destroyed, although the Government had no hand in this. They were destroyed only after they had been counted by the Returning Officer, and been scrutin’sed by two scrutineers appointed by General Freyberg, our Governor-General But. even that did not prevent the Tories from stating that they had been burned by order of the Government, which statement was a somewhat contemptible one. Yet these statements were being still broadcast by several Nationalist speakers, including Mr Doidge and Mr Holyoake. Statements, he said, were also being made in an endeavour to discredit him personally. One story was circulated in Greymouth to the effect that he had read a Communist burial service over a Communist who had died in Nelson Creek. This was a stupid statement. No one in Grey would believe it, unless such a one wanted to do so.

The story was circulated the previous day in Kumara that he, personally, was eick, and had had a stroke! That story was afterwards changed to refex’ to Mrs O’Brien. Possibly the wish was father to the thought, but he was pleased to announce that both Mrs O’Brien and himself were in good health, and that he had no intention whatever of having a stroke — even to please the Opposition! Mr O’Brien, in putting forward his policy .for the ensuing term, stated he cojfld put it in fewer words possibly than any policy had ever been -stated, and say that the Labour Party intended to carry on as it had been doing for the last ten years, but with the handicap of the six years of war removed. “This will give us a great opportunity to consolidate all we have done up to date, and so to arrange the legislation that, even, if the Opposition ever did get in ’on a catch vote, it would be unable to undo what we have done”, lie said. ““Further, we

intend to develop our secondary industries' to a point where we shall be self-supporting, and intend scientifically to develop New Zealand with reads, railways, hydro-electricity-, harbours, forestry, etc.; so that we shall have plenty of room for popula/ tion in the future”.

Mr O’Brien wound up his speech by asking his audience if they believed, the promises of the Nationalists' when they said they would not reduce wages, nor interfere with the fortyhour week, nor the social security. He reminded them that it was a tradition of Tories and of many employers to fight wages to the utmost of their ability. They have in face fought bitterly every advance in wages that had been made. He asked them if they thought those people or the representatives of those people, did they win the Treasury Benches, 1 would keep wages at the -high level where they were at present. As for shorter hours, if anyone suggested shorter hours a few years ago, the employers and the Tories' would have had a fit. They still hated the idea. “Even the Tory members of Parliament are already suggesting that these hours should be lengthened’!-, he said. He would ask the audience if they thought for a moment that these people who hated shorter hours eo bitterly, if they gained the Treasury Benches, would continue the fortyhour week. The .same might be said as regards pensions. He reminded them how the Tory „ elements had fought the old age pension when it was brought in by the late Rt. Hon. Richard John Seddon, when it had been but 7s per week. Did they think those men who had fought higher pensions ever ' since Seddon’s time would be content now to let alone the present social security pensions, if they once obtained power? He would ! eave the answers to those questions to the electors to supply on polling day.

' Mr O’Brien stated he was there to give an account of his stewardship for the past three years, “and, incidentally, for the last ten years also,” he said, since so many charges have been made by the Nationalist Party that we have failed to carry out our promises to the electors. While doing this we may as well compare the fulfilment of our promises with the fulfilment of those that were made by Nationalist candidates, or Tories, or whatever name extreme capitalists like./ to shelter under. If we take them back to the days of W. F. Massey, who promised the worKr ers a “square deal,” iwe know that in less than two 1 years, they had smashed every trade union in New Zealand at the request of ship-owners, the mine owners, and the Employers’ Federations. And so it went on down through the years: Unemployment was rife from 1925 t0'1930, but no help was given by the Government. “Previous to the very last term that the Nationalists had on- the Treasury Be'nches, Messrs Forbes, Coates and Hamilton; their re-organ-ised leaders, again and again made statements to the effect that, if returned to power, they would not cut wages, nor pensions, nor take away the power of the Arbitration Court nor interfere with education. Yet in a few months, they had, cut salaries and wages, had slashed pensions, had made the Arbitration Court ineffective, and had shut the five-year-olds out of schools. In fact, the Tories never made a promise affecting; wages or conditions which they did not break if and when it suited them.” “The. Labour Government has been accused of breaking pledges made to the electors. I would defy the Nationalists to prove that we ever broke faith with the electors, either before or after becoming the Govt. At every election the Labour Party has gone before the people with an election policy, and before going before the electors again that policy has been implemented. * For instance, in 1935 we promised to restore all salary and wage cuts and raise wages, to restore all pensions cuts, to increase pensions, and to give employment to the working people, and a forty-hour week and State houses. We also promised the farmers that we would give them a guaranteed price for their butter-fat, and would write offtheir crushing mortgage burden. These things we did—in our very first year of office! To the workers and pensioners we fulfilled our 'promises. Not'o'nly did we restore wages and salaries, but we increased them. We also restored and increased pensions, found full-time work for the unemployed, opened the school to the five-year-olds, and started New Zealand on the high road to prosperity. In 1938 we promised • social security, with increass in all pensions. That promise was carried out. Between 1939 and 1943 we increased;’ the benefits under social security by • 2s 6d per week. In 1943 we promised, a minimum guaranteed weekly income and a minimum wage. Thesewere implemented last year.” He could go on, he said, but he considered he had given a fair i’ndi-’, cation of what Labour had done. Itwas only fair to remind his audience that iwhe’n he contested’ Westland, some 27 years ago, he had stated one • of his main objects was to abolish ', poverty and want from this fair land of curs. To-day he could come before them and say that was done. The aged, the sick and the invalid, the - widow and the orphan and the unemployed were placed beyond the fear of want. He had brought the . first Invalid Pensions Bill before the Parliament of New Zealand, and he ■ was a proud man when that measure was placed on the Statute Book. He was indeed proud to-day whe’n his . life’s ambition was realised. Several questions were answered satisfactorily. Replying to an inter- * jector, who said some money for - butterfat had not been paid out, Mr ; O’Brien said the allusion probably was to the £12,000,000 lump sum payment ■ by the British Government to New . Zealand, and the £4-,000,000 per annum being paid by the British Govern- • ment over a period of four years. Mr . O’Brien read a statement by the ' Chairman of the Dairy Board, Mr W. -> E. Hale, that a Qommittee from the Dairy and Meat Boards was set up to see whether these lump sums were paid for produce, or to whom they - belonged. Mr Hale stated the Committee came to the unanimous decision -. that the payments were not made for the produce, but were made partly towards meeting general stabilisation costs in New Zealand, and partly towards strengthening, the Dominion’s Sterling funds. The United Kingdom Government recognised that the New ; Zealand Government’s policy of stabil- ( isation, through the payment of sub- >’ sidies, had prevented produce costs ■ from rising. Actually the subsidies • here paid during the four years more than equalled the payments by Britain.