BID FOR VICTORY..

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXXII, Issue 2806, 27 November 1931, Page 5

BID FOR VICTORY..

THAMES LABOUR CANDIDATE. ATTENTIVE HEARING AT KEREPEEHI. “THE PROGRESSIVE ELEMENT.’’ The battle for the Labour cause in the Thames electorate was vigorously continued on Tuesday evening last, when the official Labour candidate, Mr J. S. Montgomerie, addressed an attentive, orderly and well attended meeting in the Kerepeehi Hall. Mr C. A. Loving occupied the chair and introduced the speaker, who was already very well known in that portion of the electorate.

Opening his address. Mr Montgomerie expressed the feeling that the approaching election would be recorded as the most important one in New Zealand’s political history. In many respects the circumstances surrounding the election resembled those that existed in 1890, when a return was made to the two-party system. Today, as in 1890, there was a definite element of progress present, represented by the Labour Party — the party which maintained that an attack on the standard of living should be a last resort, not a first, as the present Government and late Government had made it.

Balancing the Budget should be a means to an end, that end being the welfare of the people; the present Government, however, had interfered with the wealth and welfare of the people simply to balance the Budget an entirely opposite operation with an entirely opposite and drastic eflect. The injustice of this procedure, moreover, was confined to the section of the public least suited to bear an increased burden. Assessable incomes in New Zealand represented half the total wealth of this country. Yet this proportion of the country’s wealth was shared by only a quarter of the population, leaving the small wage earner, and the small farmer, who represented the other threequarters to share between them the remaining half of the country’s wealth.

When a move was made to balance the Budget by the imposition of a cut in wages, the burden fell directly on the small wage earner. There was no equality of sacrifice here. Labour contended that the burden should be distributed proportionately upon the shoulders best fitted to bear the weight. An even more shameful act, n his opinion, was the abolition of the graduated land tax. He doubted if there was one man on the Hauraki Plains who received any benefit by this remission. It was only adding increased wealth to the stores of the large and wealthy land owner. Mr Montgomerie continued to quote concessions made to the Waihi Gold Mining Company, which was one of the wealthiest mining concerns in New Zealand. In 1920 the company paid over £99,000 in dividends and £52,000 in taxation. In 1929 the dividends again amounted to £99,000, but the tax had been reduced to £28,000. This year came the climax, when further concessions, amounting to exemption from taxation, on half the total dividends paid were made, while farmers continued to suffer as they Juul never suffered before, and a large proportion of city dwellers were reduced to a state of semi-starvaticn.

It was said the Labour Party was not prepared to face facts. He wondered if the late Government had .been facing facts? Would Coalition be prepared to face them? He was doubtful. He quoted the recent reduction in hospital expenditure as an example of retrenchment. Now, as never before, he contended, when hardship and suffering were daily increasing, was the very time when the public hospitals should be maintained at a maximum of efficiency. The Unemployed.

Mr Montgomerie then passed on to a criticism of the administration of the Unemployment Board, of the expenditure of public money and of the uneconomic methods employed in relieving distress. In the cities men “scratched about” on the side walks, raked up dead leaves in parks, all for which they were paid public money, taken from the struggling wage earner.

The single men’s camps at present established in various parts of the country were constructed on th a “out of sight, out of mind,” principle, and the men employed there were practically wasting time and money. The works they were doing were most uneconomic, while throughout this electorate there were miles of clay roads which required urgent metalling. Why not attend to these roads when there were 50,000 unemployed waiting to be placed on productive and useful work? Labour had a policy whereby all main roads could be laid permanently in concrete at a price equal with the laying of bitumen; and concrete required no maintenance. This was no

hare-brained scheme. Details had been investigated, and it had been ascertained directly from cement companies that the required material' could be produced within the country at a sufficiently low figure. Labour’s Policy. Rehabilitation of industry,. land settlement, and assistance of primary production was the policy that Labour would pursue until prosperity was reached again. For the last four years of the Reform Government, the Premier had told the people that the country was just about to turn the corner to prosperity. And the corner was not turned yet. People were beginning to realise the truth underlying the Governor-Gen-eral’s statement that it was not overproduction, but under consumption, that was ruining the country. The direct cause of consumption falling to such a low ebb was the reduction of wages of the masses of the people. Reduced purchasing power was directly responsible for reduced consumption and the consequent decline in prosperity. True, New Zealand had no control of the prices and wages overseas, but world over economists realised that the only way to restore international prosperity was to increase purchasing power. The wage reduction had not given relief to fanners —it did not represent any appreciable proportion of farm costs. A general wage reduction fell directly and drastically upon the farmer. It was the purchasing power of the industrial worker that influenced the prosperity of the farmer. Price of Fertiliser. Dealing with the price of fertiliser, the speaker said ho was of the opinion that this fafm necessity could be produced and sold at a much reduced figure. The reason that difficulty was experienced in placing it on the market at less than £4 per ton was that three firms were operating instead of one. Competition and the fact that three plants with three times the overhead expense had to be maintained was a direct cause of the high price of superphosphate. Labour would take definite steps to rectify this obvious wrong. Mortgage Adjustment. The matter of mortgage adjustment had not yet been taken up in any satisfactory manner. Farmers were able to refer their cases to the Surname Court, it was true, but this was . a costly procedure beyond the financial scope of those requiring relief. It was Labour’s aim to. facilitate a meeting of the mortgagee, mortgagor, assessors and judge of the Supreme Court, with a view to giving some real and effective remedy to cases of hardship. He could quote instances where mortgagees had taken advantage of the depression to drive farmers off the land after they had paid a substantial amount in principle and interest. Quoting from a speech by Mr Holland, Mr Montgomerie stated that “prices have returned to pre-war level and as a result farmers are in danger of losing their equity in their properties.” It should be the Government’s aim, continued the speaker, to assist the farmer to remain on the land until prices were restored to a reasonable level. H was a shameful thing that num should be driven off the land after a life time of toil, just because prices had fluctuated to a temporary and abnormally low level The Marketing System. As a result of a faulty marketing system, said Mr Montgomerie, New Zealand was losing Id to 2d per lb on all dairy produce. New Zealand sold to 28 agencies, while Denmark sold to one. Our marketing should be controlled and may have even now been controlled if it had not been for Mr Coates’ activities. Mr Coates had broken dairy control with the assistance of Mr Forbes at every opportunity, so Mr Forbes had endeavoured to smash fruit control It was only the loyalty of the farmers that prevented his attaining his object. Labour intended to make marketing a party question, and would lend support to the farmer at every turn. Finance. The speaker then passed on to a review of the financial question. Something like fifty millions had been borrowed in a few short years, of which 2i million had been employed to make up deficiencies in revenue. The Government made references to the financial policy of the Australian Labour Party, but it should be remembered that the New Zealand national debt per head was £5 Os 8d greater than the Australian debt. New Zealand’s public debt stood at 267 million, which was swollen to a still greater figure by the inclusion of the local body debt. The total amount payable in interest was £31,000.000, or £25 per head of the population. Since 1921 the overseas debt had increased by over 50 per cent, while the internal debt, which after all was

of some benefit to the country, had increased very little. In 1923 incomes amounted to £40,000,000, yielding in taxation £6,000,000. In 1930, with £65,000,000 being received in incomes concessions had. reduced the revenue to 3 i millions. At the old rate of taxation, and with incomes increasing in total, the revenue of the country would have received the benefit of 4i million yearly. The Reform Party had been responsible for the loss, having, by increasing Customs taxes, shifted the burden one set of shoulders to another. Currency. It was said that a Labour Government would inflate the cuirency. This was entirely untrue, because inflation fell directly upon the wage earner. Labour aimed at the stabilisation of currency. The average man did not realise that New Zealand’s debts were contracted when the £1 was worth Ils 3d and had to be paid back with a pound worth £1 3s. The Labour Party had always stood f or a central bank, free from political control, and, as in other cases, the country was just beginning to agree. The prosperity of the people was too important to be controlled by a combination of trading banks. Mr Samuel Criticised. Mr Samuel had said during his campaigning that the “Labour Party was controlled by the Labour Representation Council, comprising the trade union bosses of the country.” Mr Montgomerie explained that the Labour Council was an organisation on similar lines to the Farmers’ Union. Each Labour Party branch sent a representative to a council, which selected candidates and made suggestions. Mr Samuel also stated that before n Labour candidate could stand fof Parliament he had to hand a written resignation to Mr Holland, so that it could be used any time the candidate failed to follow his leader’s directions. This was entirely false. He was as free as Mr Samuel himself, who did not have a policy, but existed by ,misrepresenting his opponents. Farming and Industry. Mr Montgomerie concluded his address by promising that should Labour be placed in power, industries that showed themselves worthy of assistance would lie placed on a firm footing and assisted in every way. New areas of land by modern methods would be brought into production, and would offer productive avenues for the absorption of unemployed. He felt that because he was a farmer he had been chosen for the Thames electorate, and he hoped that the farmers would co-operate with him and with the workers of New Zealand to return a sane Government, ns had been done in 1890. Confidence at Ballot Box. In proposing a hearty vote of thanks to the speaker, Mr W. Booth said he would not include “confidence.” That remained to be proved at the ballot box. In seconding the motion, Mr Hoff said that the fact that no questions .were asked was an indication that the meeting had confidence in the candidate. The vote of thanks was passed by acclamation, and the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chair.