GETTING IN EARLY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26289, 22 October 1946, Page 6

GETTING IN EARLY

PRIME MINISTER’S ATTACK CRITICISM OF NATIONAL POLICY Making use of a press forecast of Mr Holland’s broadcast policy speech, the Prime Minister criticised the policy of the National Party and its attitude to Labour’s legislation. He referred to the proposals advanced by a committee of Conservatives and Liberals in 1919 and compared it with the policy of the National Party to-day. “To-night Mr Holland is speaking over the air and is giving the policy of his party,” Mr Fraser stated. “It will be a good speech and it will be well practised for it is all ancient. I am sure Mr Holland’s policy will not be as advanced as proposals put forward by a special committee of Reform and Liberal members in 1919. That committee recommended the nationalisation of. the coal mines—just as Labour is doing to-day. We have already nationalised some of the mines; some are not worth nationalising; others we shall take over in the future. The National Party to-day opposes what its oredecessors recommended 27 years ago. That committee, incidentally, also recommended the taking over by the State of the shipping carrying coal from those mines.” State Housing Policy . Mr Fraser drew attention to the fact that a housing shortage existed in 1919 that was more acute than that which existed to-day. There,was a shortage of 30,000 houses then and the committee recommended that the State should build houses for renting and at the same time should encourage the people to build houses for themselves. The committee even recommended that a national housing department should be set up, but it was not until Labour came into power that its recommendation was implemented. And yet, Mr Fraser said, the National Party criticised Labour’s housing policy. “The National Party"is still nibbling at the idea of selling State houses, Mr Fraser said. “If people wish to build their own houses, they can do so to-day. They can get a loan from the State Advances Corporation with which to do it. Under Mr Hollands scheme, by the time principal, interest, rates, repairs, and maintenance are met it will take the tenant of a State house 100 years to pay for it unless the weekly payments are increased. The Prime Minister also referred to the Opposition’s objection to the State interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Yet in 1919, he said, the special committee had recommended that the Government should acquire a halishare in an Anglo-Persian oil company. It urged the Government of the day seriously to consider what Labour was now doing and what the National Party was opposing. The National Party, Mr Fraser contended, was going backward rather than forward in its policy. Value of Guaranteed Prices Mr Fraser went on to speak of Labour’s past policy and to criticise the National Party’s manifesto as he understood Mr Holland would be propounding it. He spoke of stabilisation and what it had done for New Zealand. In the United States, President Truman had tried to do away with controls, and prices had soared beyond reason. If that had been allowed in New Zealand all that Labour had done—its social security, the higher standard of living—would have been nullified. Stabilisation was essential in maintaining New Zealand’s present happy position. “Mr Holland and his followers are great advocates of profit-shar-ing,” Mr Fraser said. “We have no objection to profit-sharing. If employers and employees like to get together in a profit-sfiiaring scheme we wish them well.”

The National Party had strongly criticised guaranteed prices, the Prime Minister added, and yet not a farmer in the country wished to get rid of guaranteed prices, for they had stabilised their incomes. Before Labour went into office an annual average of 161 farmer bankrupts was recorded, whereas at present the figure was from six to nine. The guaranteed price and the Soldiers’ Settlement Act prevented _ land gambling, which had proved so disastrous to the country. And yet, Mr Fraser added, after all its opposition, the National Party now said it would not abolish guaranteed prices. It would merely fix a maximum and a minimum price, and, he contended, gambling would take place in between the two prices. Agricultural production had attained greater , heights under Labour than at any other time. Import Control Defended “Dunedin is a great manufacturing centre,” Mr Fraser said, in prefacing a justification for import control. _ “Mr Holland and his party attack import control and yet we say it is fundamental in providing social justice. We shall say that at forthcoming international conferences, too. We can’t possibly maintain full employment for our people if we let goods made by cheap labour flood our markets. We require any amount of goods and raw materials from overseas, especially from Britain, but we can’t £ave goods that can be made here coming into New Zealand and preventing us from maintaining full employment fbr our people.—(Applause.) “ Mr Holland, who condemns import control, is not going to abolish it,” the Prime Minister continued. “He is going to shuffle it on to a board to muddle it and is not going to take the responsibility for It as the Minister of Finance or the Customs Department do to-day.” Mr Fraser referred to Mr Holland’s endeavours “to catch the ear of the workers with promises of reduced taxation.” Labour had already reduced taxation by £21.200,000, he said, and there would be a further reduction of £8,000,000 next May. Labour had improved wages, increased expenditure on education, and increased social security benefits. All this could not be done on nothing. It had to be paid for. “It is the policy of the Opposition to fight everything Labour brings forward ” Mr Fraser added, “ and then when it goes through to say it is not so bad. Do not be misguided by empty promises,” he said. “Mr Holland promises not to abolish what we have done. But remember that Labour comes forward with performances whereas the National Party comes forword with promises and promises only.”