ELECTION CAMPAIGN

Southland Times, Issue 23634, 8 October 1938, Page 8

ELECTION CAMPAIGN

NATIONAL PARTY CRITICIZED Defence Of Social Security Act

MR FRASER SPEAKS IN INVERCARGILL

LABOUR’S RECORD IN LAST THREE YEARS

The attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) and other members of the National Party to the Social Security Act was criticized by the Minister of Education (the Hon. P. Fraser) in an address in Smith’s Hall last evening. Except for a row of seats in the front the hall was filled and the Minister was given an enthusiastic reception.

The Deputy-Mayor (Mr J. R. Hanan) presided, and with him on the platform were Mr W.'M. C. Denham, M.P., Mr R. T. Parsons, chairman of the Labour Representation Committee, and other members of the Labour movement in Invercargill. Mr Hanan said that on three occasions he had been asked as DeputyMayor to preside at meetings addressed by Cabinet Ministers of New Zealand’s first Labour Government. This time it was the Minister of Education. During a political campaign the supporters of the parties often failed to appreciate the difference between political principles and the man, but people in Invercargill had made that distinction and many ardent Nationalists were willing to pay tribute, to the capacity of the man who had been Minister of Education for the last three years. Mr Fraser was a logical thinker and an able and effective public speaker. He extended to him a hearty Welcome to the city and expressed the hope that his stay in Invercargill would be a pleasant one. 1 The Minister was given an ovation, followed by the singing of “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.” “Once more,” said Mr Fraser/“I must repudiate the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition at Otautau and Nightcaps about the social security scheme. The Government which framed the Social Security Bill and passed it into law ought at least to know what its provisions • and intentions' are. One would think that in common decency the Leader of the Opposition would accept Mr Savage’s and Mr Nash’s statements. They made it plain, yet their opponents insisted that they knew better than the Government in saying that the 30/- would be 28/6. because 1/6 would be deducted for taxation. That is not true and the Government has no intention of doing that. -That declaration was made in Parliament, but apparently the Opposition did not understand it, or did not’ want to understand it.”

Mr Fraser said that the Government had been criticized for issuing the pamphlet, but it was a very sober pamphlet issued solely so that people would understand the benefits of the Act. The Government considered it its duty to take the people who elected it to power as completely into its confidence as it could. The Labour Government was not the only Government that had issued pamphlets. The Reform Government was one that had done so—the word “Reform” would spring to his lips as often as the word “Nationalist,” for the terms were interchangeable. They were the same old party with a new suit of clothes, arid a pretty shoddy suit at that. In issuing its pamphlet the Government had merely followed the excellent example of the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates when he published similar pamphlets on the Mortgage Corporation Act and the Reserve Bank Bill.

With one pamphlet Mr Coates had his photograph published, and it did improve the • pamphlet. Indeed the contents of such a pamphlet would need a good photograph to improve it. The Wellington Chamber of Commerce had asked who ordered the publication of the pamphlet, who printed it and distributed it, and the reply to all these questions was the Government, and that it was done out of public funds It had been done merely to let people know full details of the unprecedented scheme of social . services which the Government had devised. It was right that the people should know what the Government had done and what Parliament had approved, and what the Nation Party, if returned, Would tear up. The Minister made reference to what

he described, as “an extraordinary statement made by the Leader of the National Party.” There had been some extraordinary statements made in this campaign, but this was something he did not expect from Mr Hamilton, he said. In fact, it was one of the most remarkable statements he could remember in his political experience. Mr Hamilton had said at a National Party meeting that the Social Security Act was a most awkward one to handle from an opposition point of view. “Why should this Act be awkward?” Mr Fraser asked. “Why should the raising of pensions and the reduction of the pension age be awkward for the Opposition? I can’t understand why, provisions such as those should be a wk~ ward.’ Mr Hamilton explained: We thought we should steer our course m a manner that would prevent the Government from getting us offside. The speaker added that apparently Mr Hamilton was more concerned about working political points than he was about the old and sick people of the Dominion. . „ , „ . In 1911 and in 1914 the Reform Party had said it would pass into law a national health insurance scheme and a national superannuation scheme, but there had never been an attempt to put them into operation until Labour occupied the Treasury Benches. The scheme had, moreover, been put into operation in a wider and more beneficial manner than many people thought possible. The Minister described the exchange rate as the most striking instance of the confiscation of the people’s savings that was ever experienced in this country. In one night the £l-note became worth 16/-, he said. It had caused a lot of embarrassment to the country, and if it was restored in the present state of world affairs those who had suffered from its imposition in the first instance would suffer again. The Prime Minister knew that to do anything of that kind at present would be disastrous, and the Government was not going to do it.

The Minister said that the sales tax was not a good tax and indeed it violated every principle of taxation. At the same time the people did not feel it so much and the Government wanted full revenue to bring to completion the social security scheme. To benefit the mass of the people he would say keep the tax. Every item in the platform of the Labour Party at the last' General Election had been implemented and passed into law. Mr Fraser commented on the printed instructions issued to National candidates and said it was impossible for a document like that to be issued from the headquarters of the Labour Party. He would be profoundly ashamed if that were possible. No matter how widely he was opposed to the outlook of Mr Hamilton, Mr Forbes or Mr Coates he could not call them individually fools, hypocrites, opportunists, seekers of power, despots and traitors. He regretted that Mr Hamilton or any other leader among the piarty had not repudiated that document. If they had done so probably a good deal of the propaganda against Labour would not have been issued. The fight would have been a cleaner one on the part of the Nationalists. ATTACK ON MR NASH The speaker referred to documents circulated in the Hutt which were, he said, an attempt at the assassination of the character of Mr Nash. They would, he thought, end in disaster, because Mr Nash was the ablest Minister of Finance the Dominion had ever had. An attempt had been made to make it appear that the Labour Government favoured one particular religious denomination more than another. He did not know what mischief makers were at work, but whoever they were they were out to harm the Labour Government. He was not interested in what the private or religious beliefs of a civil servant were. The only way public life could be kept sweet and some was to allow freedom of thought. He was not accusing the Opposition of making such charges, as Mr Hamilton had repudiated responsibility. Mr Hamilton said the Labour Party was out to destroy private property, but he would say that if the Government’s policy did not result in people having more private individual property it would have failed in its purpose. When the Labour Government came into office 50,000 dairy farmers had been deprived by the last Government of their private property. That had been restored to them by the Labour Government with its guaranteed price and mortgage adjustment. The guaranteed price meant a guaranteed and sure income in spite of the variation and vicissitudes of the world’s markets. Nothing could be more absurd than to accuse the Government of disregarding the interests of the small business people. The average small shopkeeper was performing a useful and essential service, and under the Labour Government he had been more prosperous than ever before. The average business men had been more prosperous than ever before. There had been more private property created and more people had been assured of their private property under Labour than under the National Government. Under the Government’s external marketing policy it was true that cargoes were more distributed among British ports and that the middle-man had to a certain extent been cut out, but the Government did not claim that it could control overseas markets. CONFISCATION DENIED Mr Fraser denied that there had been a confiscation of private property when the Reserve Bank was taken over. The shares were paid for, he said, not at their face value, but at the current market value, which was far in excess of their face value. There had been a great outcry about the right of inheritance, and he had been told in Central Otago that Labour wanted to do away with inheritance. He had, however, never heard such a-thing suggested at

any Labour conference or meeting. The only person who had ever wanted tne Labour Party to accept such a P rm “^ e was Mr A. E. Mander, who had alterwards gone over to the National Partj as its general secretary. Mr Mande was the secretary of Mr Hamiltons party and was the only man he had ever known to advocate the abolition of the right of inheritance. ... The Minister commented on tne attitude of the National Party to the public works policy of the Government and said that the Nationalists obiected to public works in other constituencies, but never in their own. On the contrary they always wanted more public works in their own constituencies. None of the Nationalists had been able to point out an item that he considered should be stopped, although Mr J. Hargest had objected to the number ot ramps. Why, he did not know, because whenever he saw a ramp he ielt grateful for a policy that had meant the saving of many lives in these days when there had been so many collisions between trains and motor-cars. The improvement in the standard ot living since Labour took office was in itself more effective evidence than any statistics that the charges that the Labour Government had ruined private enterprise . were unfounded. He had investigated the charges fully, he said, and the only man he could find whose business had been ruined had been a second-hand clothes dealer in Wellington. He had prospered exceedingly during the depression, but now he had had to close all his three shops. He harboured a burning resentment against the Labour Government and he was going to vote for the National Party in the hope that he would prosper again.

LEVEL OF WAGES

Mr Forbes had said if the same circumstances arose again and there was another depression they would again reduce wages and social services. Now Mr Coates was admitting the pohcy was wrong and the National Party had come out with a policy something like Labour’s policy. Mr Hamilton had been asked whether wages wouldl be reduced and had said then that they would not be attacked, but he had receded from that attitude at Nightcaps. There he had stated that when he said that he meant normal times al ?d_ not. depression times. The National Party had said that it would bring down costs but it could only do that by. cutting wages and salaries and lowering the standard of living. When they heard such statements as that could they trust the National Party on the Treasury Benches? . , » Mr Hamilton and his party opposed the national health scheme, proposing to give the service only to those who could not pay for it. They were, however, offering what existed already. Anybody who required medical, hospital and nursing attention who could not pay for it was getting that service from the hospital boards. Mr Hamiiton wanted to retain that with its tinge of charity and pauperism, instead of the scheme that Labour offered. , ■, The Government’s housing scheme was the best scheme in the world and he spoke with a. passing knowledge of some of Great - Britain s . .biggest schemes. The best in Britain. YC ere nothing compared with those.of New. Zealand. The Government had aimed at 5000 houses and it knew that 'wpiild not be enough. Houses. were being delivered ,at the rate of one every 40 minutes of the. working day and even that war not enough. The Minister described as. silly the National Party’s proposal to advance £lOO to young couples-to enable them to buy furniture with the provision for sections of the loan to be written off with the birth of children. “Certainly let us build up the homes of New Zealand,” he said. “The marriage and birth rates have gone up markedly in the last three years. Young people have confidence to marry and bring up families.” . , For example, he said, the number of young women teachers married in the last six months of this year was double that of the corresponding period last year. Mr Fraser concluded his reference to the proposal by telling the story of. the young mother who had paid her maternity expenses by instalments, telling her husband: “One more payment and the baby is ours.’’ He then pictured a young mother with two children telling her husband: ‘ One more baby and the furniture is ours. “We ask you to choose whether you will go back to the old methods of economic and financial disaster or whether you will advance under the banner of democracy and Labour, and march to a brighter future than this Dominion has yet known,” Mr Fraser concluded amid loud applause. On the motion of Mr A. Edwards, seconded by Mr S. Anderson, the Minister was accorded a hearty vote of thanks and confidence in himself and the Labour Government.. MR FRASER SPEAKS AT OTAUTAU POLICY OF LABOUR PARTY DISCUSSED The Minister of Education (the Hon. P Fraser) gave an address to electors of Wallace in the Otautau Town Hall, when from 150 to 160 were present. Mr A. A. Liddell was chairman and introduced the speaker. Mr Alan Maxwell piped the Minister on to.the stage. Mr Fraser dealt with the policy of the Labour Government, and received a very attentive hearing. At the conclusion of his address he answered several questions. Mr Gordon Sinclair moved a vote of thanks to Mr Fraser and confidence m the Labour Government. This was seconded by Mr R. Broomfield and carried unanimously. “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow’ was sung by the audience. (More election news is printed on Pages 12 and 15)