THE NATIONALIST LEADER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3862, 20 March 1928, Page 14

THE NATIONALIST LEADER.

ADDRESS BY MR G. W. FORBES

CRITJCISFfI OF THE GOVERNMENT

Mr G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Nationalist Party, delivered a political address in the Early Settlers’ Hall on Wednesday evening. The Mayor (Mr W. 15. Taverner) occupied the chair, and there was an attendance of about 400.

The Mayor, in introducing Mr Forbes, said that the Leader of the Nationalist Party probably required some introduction to a Dunedin audience, as an individual, because it was his first address to a. public meeting in Dunedin, but politically he required no introduction at all. Mr Forbes was now touring tin- Dominion in an endeavour to weld together those political forces which w.ere at one time such a dominant feature in their political life.

Mr Forbes, who was received with applause, said that this was not his first speech in Dunedin, becaues many years ago he had to respond to the Toast of the Canterbury iootball team, of which he was captain. The experience on the football field no doubt was of use to a man on the political field, because he learnt to give and take hard knocks. He was always willing to hit out and willing to take what knocks came in reply.— (Applause.) DISSATISFACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT. The party of which he was leader was one of the opposing parties in the House. The Government had been returned with a huge majority, but after it had carried on for certain time a'great deal of dissatisfaction had been felt at the way it was carrying out its promises and its administration. He held that the Government as at present constituted was not administering the country’s affairs to the country’s advantage.— (Applause.) The speaker said that a number of prominent citizens had got together in Auckland, and had come to the conclusion that the administration did not possess the confidence of the people. They had for their object the building up of a strong opposition. A strong opposition was in the interests of a country because the people had this opposition to turn to in the event of the Government being defeated. Th j "osition was that they had an exceedingly weak opposition, with a very strong Government in numbers,but be did not say it was strong in any other way. It was felt in Auckland that they should try to get together and build up a rtrong opposition. It was considered that the Labour Party did not enter in any way into the field, because this party had a. policy of Socialism, and he did not think such a policy coulj] be applied to their country with advantage. There was the common feeling th .. what had been done by private enterprise in the Dominion redounded greatly to its credit. The party he had referred to had been formed, and the Nationalist Party had been evolved. The name had been changed from the Liberal Party to the Nationalist Party. They had gone to the country with the name of Nationalito but there had been a tremendous sweep in favour of the Government. This result had been brought about bv a tremendous campaign of advertising, and also by a sort of human psychology. That was the effect in the way that itwas considered that a super man’had been discovered, and he was looked on as going to do something for the country. So far as the Government was concerned the speaker claimed that its popularity at the last election, had almost entirely disappeared.— (Applause.)

POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT. He believed that if the Government went to another election it would be defeated.—(Applause.) . It was his (Mr Forbes’s) duty, therefore, to see that there was a strong alternative party in existence, and to that end it was necessary to secure good candidates. The character of a Parliament depended on the men returned by the people. If the

people seut men to Parliament who were bound by party pledges—men who were not free to exercise their best judgment—they could not look for good results. The electors, he hoped, would return t’ e best men, who would do their utmost to improve the standing of Parliament, in order that when the problems that had to be solved by Parliament came up for consideration they would be taken in band by men who were capable of dealing with them.— (Applause.) What was the result of the last election? The appeal of some candidates at that time was “a vote for me is a vote for Coates.” In other words, the candidate was nothing and the leader was everything. A strong Parliament could not be built up if men. were sent to Parliament on the reputation of another man. — (A Voice: No.) Many men had been sent to Parliament as echoes of one great man. Candidates had never before shown such effacement. The present Parliament could be improved upon considerably, and it was the duty of the people to look closely at the calibre of Candidates and see that men were returned who had a desire to forward the public interests, — (Applause.) At the last election the Prime Minister was given a. free hand. He had 56 supporters, and if a leader ever had an opportunity to carry out his programme the Prime Minister had it on that occasion. But instead of putting forward a bold, forward, policy, as the people of the country expected when they voted for “ the man who gets things done,” there had never been such vaseillation' and fumbling and side-tracking as had been shown in the present Parliament. Last session was the most unsatisfactory session he had ever witnessed in Parliament. Instead of steps being taken for the uplift and benefit of the country there had never been such confusion.— (Applause.) CRITICISM OF MR W. DOWNIE STEWART.

Mr Donnie Stewart was a lawyer, and when he took up a matter he made out a good ease for his client. That, of course, was the function of a lawyer, and Mr Stewart was well able to place the best aspects of his case before the people. But there was another side to the case. At his recent meeting three questions were asked by Mr Stewart—namely, (1) Are we borrowing too much? (2) Is taxation unduly burdensome? and (3) Is there extravagance in Government administration? In regard to the first question, the Government, in 1925-26, borrowed £11,009,000, in .1926-27 £7,000,000, and in the current year the Minister hoped to keep the borrowing down to £6,000,009, though he made no mention of money that would be required for Rural Credits and Intermediate Credits. Was it possible to go on borrowing at this rate? There ought to be a limit to the amount the Dominion was borrowing. If the country borrowed £11,000,000 one year and £7,000,000 in the next year, the interest of the public debt would become a very heavy burden on the people. He (Mr Forbes) woilhTbe pleased to see borrowing for the purposes of the country kept down to, say, £5,000,000 a year. In all the figures Mr Downie Stewart gave he reduced them to the level of 13s 6d in 1914, because the £ to-day was worth no more than 13s 6d that year. L.-.t why put the matter in such a way? Mr Stewart knew as well as anyone else that every pound borrowed to-day would have to be paid back in full. The fact re>namecl that during the last seven years Dominion had borrowed just on £37,000,000. He considered that this was a very large amount for the country to borrowing. Borrowed money caused inflation, and they could not go on borrowing all . the time. They had got to make provision for repayment and for interest, and the more they had to pay in the way of interest a greater burden was placed on the industries of the country. He did not think their borrowing was being kept „ within reasonable bounds.—(Applause.) Mr Stewart had asked during his recent address in Dunedin, Is taxation unduly burdensome? and he had started out to prove that the - taxation was not burdensome. The speaker maintained that taxation was generally found to be burdensome, whether it was heavy or light With regard to the Customs taxation, Mr

Stewart had said that there had been so increase, but that there had been an actual reduction in the ratio. Ten years ago the amount collected through Customs taxation was £3,500,000, and last year it was £9,000,000. The imports 10 years ago had been £25,000,000, and last year they totalled £49,000,000. The Minister should explain how, if £25,000,000 paid £3,500,000 in Customs taxation,'- £49,000,000 paid £9,000,00. If they took the same rate of taxation the Customs duty should be about £7,000,000 instead of the £9,000.000 There was no doubt that the Customs taxation had been increased, despite the statement of the Minister that the actual rates, had been reduced.

If they took the Year Book of 1921 and referred to the revision of the tariff they would see that, briefly, the main object was to secure a larger revenue for the Dominion and in a measure the protection of local industries, and yet the Minister said that the rate of the Customs duties had not been increased. . Then, again, let them take the question of the increase of the income tax that took place last year. The Minister said that it only amounted to a "small sum, yet it was something ilke £200,000, The Minister had also said that it was impossible to have the alteration in the scale without having the increase. If the Minister had wished to carry out the promise made by the Government he would not have increased the rates to bring in an increase of £200,000. The Prime Minister at the last election had stated that the Government proposed to h*ve- a thorough investigation of the incidence of taxation, and that heavy taxation would not assist the people of the country. Instead.of making any reduction, there had been an increase. The premise of the Prime Minister had been contained in one of the planks of his party, but if seemed that the Government instead of doing everything possible in the matter of taxation, had set out to do everybody it possibly could.

AN EXTRAVAGANT GOVERNMENT. Tae speaker said that from the way Gov ernnient departments had been increases! and also the expenses of the Government tuere must be extravagances. He noticed what Mr Stewart had said in reply to Sir Robert, Stout- s criticism of the expenses ol the High Commisisoner’s office. In 1914 the cost of the office was £6269, and ln 1927 «. 1: “d risen to £25,287. The Minister, in his reply, had quoted hisusual argument about the 13s 6d to the £ in 1914, and had said the actual cost m 1927 was only £16,800. He thought it was about time the Minister dropped that kind of argument because a pound was a pound, and the people had to pay tt.-r- -(“ Hear, hear.”) With regard to the Treasury Department, in 1914 the cost of its management was £12,574, and in 1927 it had risen to £26,789, more than double. The Minister explained that tile latter amount should be reduced to £17,860, because that was the amount it would have been in 1914.— (Laughter.) If the Government was going to meet any criticism in regard to expenses, it was going to knock off 33 T-3 per cent., and claim that there was no increase at all. He thought the Minister should have faced the facts. . The people would then know exactly.- were they were. —(Applause.) • ' .. The speaker went on to quote as further example of extravagance by the Government, the establishment of another agricultural college at Palmerston North when Lincoln College was quite capable of turning out diploma students—in fact, far more than could find employment. When the Palmerston North .College was established it would cost something like £2OO,COO— that was for the purposes of higher education in agriculture. Ho was satisfied that what had been done, could have been done at a lower figure, and as a result of a vigorous protet the original climate had been reduced.

SNEERS AT THE NATIONALIST PARTY.

The Minister of Finance when referring to the Nationalist Party had thought fit to sneer at them. He said that the Nationalist Party changed its leader, its name and its policy. He was sure these tactics would not appeal to the people. Their previous leader, Mr Wilford had broken down in health, and he had been appointed in his place. People who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. Mr

Forbes referred to other instances where Ministers of the present Government had. not been always loyal to their party, and said that Mr Stewart had not supported Mr Coates when he moved that progress be reported on the Licensing Bill. Thaj action was. tantamount to a voto of noconfidence in his own leader. A Voice; Well, he wasn’t in. Coates’s pocket that time any way. Mr Forbes said that he had never remembered a Prime Minister when he had asked leave to have a measure reported on. so that he could consider alterations being refused support and being voted against in these circumstances. Returning to the increase of expenditure Mr Forbes said that the gross debt of the Dominion was £245,850,000, and that he could remember when it was something like £80,000,000. The interest on the larger figure was something like £10,590,000. The taxation had also increased enormously from 1912 to 1927. ,The Prime Minister had added £44,000,000 to the public debt during the time he had held office. The growth of tho public services had also increased in an alarming manner'. In 1915 the permanent State employees were 33,301, with a wage list of £5,867,308. and in 1925 the totals were 40,160 and £10,259,566 respectively. _Mr Forbes went on to contend that it was the duty of public men to put the position fairly before the people—the people who were responsible for the country’s debts—so that men would be returned who were able to judge whether the Dominion had a right to go on borrowing at the present rate and whether it could stand the enormous expenditure now thrown upon it. '

Mr M’Leod, the “ loud speaker ” of the Reform Party, had been out to boost the Prime Minister. He recognised that Government stock was falling, and he was trying to. hold it up. In a tour in the north he said that when Mr Coates became Minister of Public Works it was the practice of representatives of public bodies to go cap in hand to the Government for money for public undertakings. Well, what had they been told in the newspapers only recently’ They had been told that Mr M’Leod had received 70 deputations in four days of his tour. What about the cap in hand?— (Applause.) Was that not an evidence of it? As a matter of fact, there were more deputations going to the House to-day than ever before. Deputations were still coming, and they all seemed to centre round the Prime Minister. THE HIGHWAYS FUND.

In the matter of the Highways fund, when the petrol tax was imposed Mr Sidey suggested that the revenue from that source should be allocated according to the number of vehicles in each island. The Prime Minister, however, would not agree, though he said the allocation would be made as fairly as if such a clause were in the Bill. Other members pressed for the clause, and still the Prime Minister refused, and with his strong party he settled the matter, and no provision was placed in the Bill requiring a fair allocation of the money. Surely it was not right that money raised from South Island motorsits should be expended on North Island roods. Some of the figures were interesting Take those in the construction fund from June 1924, to March, 1927. In the North Island the total sum spent was £997,024, and in the South Island £25j,634. In other words, about £1,000,000 was spent in the North Island, and £250,000 in the South Island. In the matter of maintenance, £546,247 was spent in the North Island and £295.117 i n tho South Island. The allocation of the fund last year was as follows:—Construction North Island, £449,187; South Island, £124,082. Maintenance: North Island, £284,587; South Island, £154,174. Formation and widening: North Island’ 142 miles; South Island, 31 miles. Gravelling and metalling: North Island, 125 miles; South Island, 27£ miles. Yet the Prime Minister had promised fairness and had refused to allow a clause to be placed m the Bill providing for a fair allocation a-s between the two islands. He was sure that no North Island resident would claim that the north should receive an advantage over the south Money raised in the south for the maintenance of the roads should be spent in the south.—(Applause) The motorists of New Zealand were pay m" no less than £2,259.000 annually, and it was right that that sum should be spent on the improvement of the roads.—(Applause.) THE RAILWAYS DEPARTMENT. The Prime Minister, as Minister of Railways, wa s responsible for the Railways Department He was sorry to see that the latest returns showed the revenue had gone back by £150,000, while the expenditure had increased by £90,000. No doubt, the Government had endeavoured by means of railways to open up the country, but it would be well for it to remember that the railways now had a formidable competitor in the form of road transport, and any extension pf the railway system should be closely scrutinised. At present, however, there was no such scrutiny by Parliament. It was left to the Minister to say whether lines of railway should go on or whether they should be stopped. He (Mr Forbes) was satisfied that a number of the lines now under construction would be a drag on the railway system. For-"that reason, he held the view that it was time the system was examined to see whether, with the possibilities of motor some of the lines should be proceeded with’ He believed that if a board 6 of experts looked into the position, it would recommend that a number of the lines should not be constructed. At present the Government was going ahead without a policy, voting money year by year, and doino- S u annually simply because it was following the aimless policy of past years.—(Applause.)

A SLOGAN OF THE GOVERNMENT. Mr Forbes said that the Prime Ministerhad laid down the dictum of more business in Government and less Government in business, and he went on to refer to the action of the Government in purchasing a fleet of buses to run on the Hutt road in competition with its own railway service. If the Government lost money in running its railways, it would lose more in running its buses. He was opposed to the Railways Department starting out to compete with private enterprise. LAND SETTLEMENT.

To his mind, said Mr Forbes, one of. the greatest lapses of the Government’ was in regard to its failure to carry on a land settlement policy. He was satisfied that . the salvation of the country depended on getting people on the land.— (Applause.) The Government had ceased to go in for a comprehensive system of

land settlement. _ The speaker referred to the losses sustained by the Government over its purchases of land for soldiers’ settlements, arid said he was quite satisfied they could have land settlement if they made a change in regard to the Minister of Lands.— (Applause.) The land purchased for settlement in 1923 was 60 acres, in 1924 126 acres, 1925 1719_ acres, 1926 2695 acres, and 192'7 13,152 acres. Yet at the last election the Prime Minister had promised a pronounced forward policy in land settlement. Where was that policy? He (Mr Forbes) was satisfied that if the country did not go ahead with land settlement it would continue to experience recurring periods of unemployment. In 1890 there was unemployment, and the Government set out to break up the land monopoly of that time. The Government succeeded in its object; it released the land, thousands of settlers took it up, and the country was prosperous for many years. At the present time land settlement was not keeping pace with the extension of the towns. In 1911, out of every 100 people, 43 went to the town and 57 to the country; in 1926, while 51 went to the town 49 went to the country. If this state of affairs continued times would be even worse in the future than they had been in the past, and it was the duty of the Government to bring back tho rural settlement that existed some years ago.—(Applause.) Therein lay one of the solutions of unemployment. More enthusiasm must be put into land settlement.

A Voice: What is the Nationalist plan for putting people on the land? Mr Forbes replied that the Minister had told the country there were 428 abandoned farms at present. That was not creditable to the Government. He (Mr Forbes) would put people on those farms on fair terms. Every inducement should be given to people to take up Crown lands. In Timaru the other day no fewer than 156 men came forward for ’and at a ballot. Land of good quality should be Secured for subdivision and settlement. No doubt it was a problem how to do this. Problems, however, must be faced and solved, and he was satisfied that with determination and enthusiasm the problem could be -solved. A V bice: We want another Sir John M'Kenzie. Mr Forbes: Yes, you are right. Proceeding, the speaker reierred to the way ip which the business of the House was conducted, contending that, by his attitude on the Arbitration Bill, for instance, the Prime Minister had wasted much valuable time in Parliament. The same thing resulted when the Licensing Bill came before the House. The management of this measure did not redound to the credit of the Prime Minister. BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. The Prime Minister was opposed, before the election, to the introduction of the Bible in Schools, but when the Bill came before the House he voted in favour of the Bill. Then when ar. amendment was put he was against the Bill.— (Laughter.) He had neven seen such a somersault. POLICY OF THE PARTY. A man iu the audience asked: “ What is your policy? ” Mr Forbes said that the policy of tha party was usually submitted at the time of an election. He was not asking tor their votes. No party was asked tor a policy before it went to an election. Still, he would give them some of the main planks. His party stood for a vigorous land policy, reduction of borrowing, reduction in the cost of Government, less interference with private enterprise, and a reduction in taxation if possible. He was quite sure that the present Government was doomed. Mr Massey had said that no Government should continue in office longer than 10 years, and ha believed that Mr Massey had stated the truth.— (Applause.) Thcj had a t'red and a weary Government to-day.— (Loud applause.) , Mr H. E. Moller moved a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Forbes. The motion was carried by acclamation. The speaker then answered a number of questions.