REFORM ISSUES A REMINDER TO LABOUR LEADER

Horowhenua Chronicle, 18 February 1931, Page 3

REFORM ISSUES A REMINDER TO LABOUR LEADER

An Official Statement.

WELLINGTON, Last Night. The following statement has been handed to the press by Mr. A. E. Mandor, Dominion general secretary of the Reform Party, in reply to the recent pronouncement by the leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H, E. Holland). * ‘ A statement has been made by 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 has 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 in the political life of New Zealand during the past two years. We may recall the actual pledges made by the United Party in its election manifesto of 1928 the pledge to borrow £70,000,000 at 4P per cent, and to rc-lend £60,000,000 in the form of advances to workers and settlers at 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 the United Party pledged itself to a revision of the income tax scale, reducing the maximum amount, and again the Labour Party made no protest. There was another election pledge by the United Party, to foster secondary industries by subsidies 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 even a hint that they disapproved of the Government’s breaking its election pledge. “Finally, although the United Party’s official election manifesto declared specifically that the tcrritoiia. svstom would be maintained, it was Mr. Holland himself who actually boasted of having forced the Government, undci pressure from the Labour Party, to act in a manner exactly contrary to the manner in which it was pledged to act.

“In the face of these and many similar facts, Mr. Holland is very unwise now to begin censuring the Government so late in the clay for breaking its election pledges. The plain truth is that in 1928 the Reform Party, foreseeing the present difficulties, which Avere 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 bad weather which v;h.s coming. Mr. Coates and his colleagues believed that a serious crisis could be averted and that readjustments could bo made without undue stress or hardship, provided (but only provided) that the Government acted prudently in taking all possible precautions before the storm arrived, ant' then dealing Avith the situation as it developed. However, the general election of 192 S resulted in the defeat of this policy of shortening sail and preparing for bad Aveather. The new United Government was elected on a programme of heavy borrowing and extravagant expenditure, and Avith the support of Mr. Holland’s Labour Party for two years this policy of reckless extraA 7 aganco has been pursued. “For two years the situation has been groAving rapidly worse, and both the United Government and the Labour Party have refused to recognise the fact, but have instead done everything possible to aggravate and intensify the difficulties of the situation. As late as May, 1930, at the Parnell byelection, Mr. Forbes himself declared that the finances of the Dofninion were in a thoroughly satisfactory condition, although even at that time ho had already seen the Treasury report which he subsequently issued, and Avhich showed that a shortage of £3,000,000 was to be anticipated for the remainder of that year. The Government con-