“AT THE CROSS-ROADS”

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 73, Issue 6306, 18 November 1946, Page 4

“AT THE CROSS-ROADS”

FREEDOM VERSUS SOCIALISM ADDRESS IN TE AWAMUTU BY MRS H. ROSS, M.P. A most cordial and attentive hearing was accorded Mrs Hilda Ross, National M.P. for Hamilton, by an audience of some 120 persons n the Empire Theatre on Friday afternoon. Mrs Ross, as she entered the theatre. was greeted with a hearty round of applause. Mrs C. G. Downes, presided, and In introducing Mrs Ross to those who did not know her, referred to her proud record of service. Mrs Ross had been a power for good over the years and since her election to Parliament, had rendered even greater service. Mrs Ross said it gave her great pleasure to come to Te Awamutu, which was a nice place, but because she also had a great regard for Mr Sim, for whose absence she apologised due to the fact that he was addressing meetings over in the Cambridge part of the electorate. They felt that in Mr Sim the Opposition had a splendid member. His record in war and peace were both outstanding and he was valuable as a member of the Opposition. Her mission was to try and convince her hearers that Jie policy of. her party was a better one than that of the Labour Party. New Zealand was standing at the crossroads to-day, and they were well defined crossroads. The National Party stood for freedom of choice and for private enterprise as against the Socialistic policy of the Government, but some of the latter did not appear so keen on Socialism. One prominent member of the Government said he had never heard of ultimate Socialism until the National Party had spoken of it, but Mrs Ross said that durjng her time in Parliament she had heard of it. They saw different men in the Labour Party giving different versions as to the Socialistic policy of the Government, who claimed that while they were doing a useful job of work they should not be interfered with, but who were they to say that they were doing a good job. After quoting Mr Langstone, who had been in Parliament for 21 years on the Socialistic policy of the Government, Mrs Ross said they heard Mr John Thompson, the New Zealand workers’ representative at the International Workers’ Conference in Ottawa, say that the Government intended to assume all control of enterprise. The speaker said that she took it that the Government would see to it that a man of ability was sent to far afield to represent them at such an important conference.

The present Government was dominated by the Federation of Labour, and when that party said it intended to nationalise all banks and the means of transport, production and currency, including the banks, it was obvious to all that that was coming, even thcugh the Parliamentary candidates try to spft-pedal on the subject. They would put those ideas aside until the election was over. If they had a worthwhile policy they should be proud of it, and not seek to put it aside. Referring to the greater freedom the National Party members in Parliament had in regard voting, Mrs Ross said she had voted with the Government and had found Mr Holland and the members of the Opposition in the same lobby as herself. The speaker went on to define that greater freedom, saying that apart from no confidence motions and policy matters, the members were free to vote as they pleased. The policy of the National Party had not been put together in a week or even a month but it was the result of over a year’s work by various committees who were set up to deal with the different points contained therein. The Labour Government were dominated by the Federation of Labour. Mr Nash was against the taking over of the Bank of New Zealand but he eventually had to agree to that course being taken because of outside domination. The elected lepresentatives in Parliament should govern and not those who governed them. That was not Democratic Government, said Mrs Ross, amidst applause. Continuing, Mrs Ross said there were far too many controls, far too much regimentation, and far too much asking for permission to be allowed to do this or that. Mrs Ross enumerated many illustrations of the above, all of which are well known generally, and she went on to say that those restrictions were getting irksome and she felt that the wiar-time regulations should be lifted. Labour liked to be judged on their past, and there were plenty of promises made in the past that had not been honoured, such as the complete abolition of the sales tax. Instead of doing so they had increased it and it took 11 years to abolish some of the tax. There was also the promised abolition of the Legislative Council, but they still had that august body with them after 11 years of the Labour Government. Mrs Ross then dealt with the slump, which was not caused by any one Government. It had hit both New Zealand and Australia; the latter having a Labour Government in power, and there pensions had been cut more drastically and quickly than they had in New Zealand. Mrs Ross said it was admitted that the depression could- have been handled better, but it was easy to* be wise after an event. In 1935 prosperity was returning and the country, because it was sick of the then Government, threw them out, and in 1946 history might repeat itself. Labour had done some good things in helping the people to get on their feet. In 1938 the Government were getting into difficulties so they instituted import control and when the war came they blamed that f and Mrs Ross said no fair minded person could blame the Government for difficulties created by the war, but there were many things that the Government could be blamed for. The Government had said that they w’ould not introduce conscription, but in 1939 the man who had the most to say against conscription drew the first ballot marble. That conscription legislation was introduced by Order in Council. The Opposition would have introduced conscription, but if they had opposed it so vigorously and had suffered so much because of their strong convictions, they would have gone to the country. Dealing with another unhonoured promise, was the one made to reduce radio license fees and thus put radios within the reach of all the people. In 1943 the people were no so happy about the Govem-

ment. After characterising the soldiers’ vote that year as a burning one, Mrs Ross referred to the four byelections with their resultant swing away from the Government, and the latter then changed the Electoral Act. The Government won in 1935, 1938 and 1943, so that it was not sporting to change the rules, but the proposal should have been first put to the referendum of the people. Despite the vigorous protests of the Opposition, the Government abolished the Country Quota, with the result that many rural seats had been lost. The Opposition had lost more than the Government, though the commission set up ' had done a good honest job. There was such a thing as a boomerang floating around, and some of the city seats will belong to the National Party. After explaining the Country Quota principle, Mrs Ross said its abolition had the effect of making some of the electorates far too unwieldy. Even Mr Langstone said he had to give up Waimarino for chat reason. The National Party, if returned to power, would look into the question of the representation of families, for all children over the age of 16 who were working were taxed. Mrs Ross dealt with the position that applied to the acquisition of businesses, stating that peoole who desired to buy a business should not have to go cap in hand to anyone. People desiring to start in business, mostly useful businesses, were confronted with the need of licenses for this and that, and restriction was placed on enterprise in many avenues. Applications had to be forwarded to some bureaucrat in Wellington, someone net versed in the needs of a particular locality. Reports had to be obtained and delays occurred, and often when the necessary permission was granted the opportunity had passed. Mrs Ross instanced a case of a man who eventually got started in business in Hamilton, and on taking £250 with him to Auckland to buy stock, had only been allowed to purchase £2 worth. It was just about time that people woke up to the fact that they were still being told what they could and could not do. The National Party believed that the people had some right to free enterprise and, further, they should not be spoon-fed. The speaker asked if they should not leave to their children and grandchildren freedom to do as they pleased in a legitimate manner, and it was up to those present to join in seeing that that freedom was safeguarded. The speaker went on to traverse and explain the points of the National Party’s policy respecting the housing shortage, and said the scheme for State housing was good, up to a point, but better still was the National Party’s plan for enabling people in occupation to purchase those houses for their own. That was economically and actuarily sound. It was inherent in people to want to own their own homes. People now tenants would not be dispossessed. If they elected to continue paying rent that was alright; they could continue; but those who desired to own the home could elect accordingly, and the way would be made easy for them. The candidate produced a table to show that a State house costing £lOll on a section £l4O would pay a weekly rent of 31s, which capitalised at low interest would still cost less than most houses cost. A cross-section of State houses had an average price of £1296, for which rent would be 31s 9d weekly. Rent for 30 years would be £2280 and the occupier would not own a penny-worth of it at the end of the three decades.

To buy a home would be akin to compulsory saving. Her contention was that it was better for people to own houses than to pay rent for ever. It was an illustration of the old-time pride of possession. The speaker commended the plan for joint ownership of homes, and declared herself a keen supporter of the scheme; it encouraged thrift, promoted the best ideals of family life, and made for more unity in the home. It had been said that the State could not built enough homes, and that private enterprise could do no better; that it was idle to advocate more private buildings, but it had to be remembered that for years the State had had priority of supplies of building material and labour; it had money resources from the controlled banks to use cheaper money. In war-time thousands of buildings could be erected for war purposes, and if that amount of building could be done in the war period, surely it could again be done in peace-time. Ex-ser-vicemen should have a home to go into on their return, but at the present rate of progress it would be years before all the ex-servicemen, for whom 'nothing was to be too good, were settled in homes. As a contrast, it was an open secret that military defaulters could get homes, because they had had earlier applications lodged—while the best men were fighting for the world’s freedom, or serving in some useful capacity in the Dominion for the war effort.

To-day there were shortages of timber, coal, cement, bricks, and many of the necessities for home building; equipment for the houses could not be manufactured in the Dominion or imported because of irksome controls. After dealing with the Government’s ten-year plan, Mrs Ross paid a high tribute to Mr Churchill, saying that all, irrespective of political leanings, owed a tremendous debt of gratitude to that gentleman. (Loud and prolonged applause endorsed Mrs Ross’ tribute.) Mrs Ross severely condemned the activities of the Internal Marketing Division, and referred to the scarcity of lemons, oranges, pineapples and bananas, saying that to speak of some of those of those was akin to talking of departed friends. Mothers had to go out and gather rose hips, despite the fact that oranges still grew. Eggs were as scarce as oranges though the hens of tMday were no different to the hens of other years. The eggs Were scarce because of lack of hen food due to the workings of the Internal Marketing Division. The speaker referred to the thousands of pounds lost through the alleged mishandling of potatoes, eggs and paper bags by that Department. ft was time that the producer and consumer got together. Mrs Ross said they did not complain of the rationing of goods that Britain needed, but why the need for coupons for other goods. The women who had dore such a magnificent job in every sphere of life were having a bad time. While the Saturday closing was not a bad thing if production was maintained, yet it threw added burdens on the women who had to carry home the families’ week-end necessities on a Friday. When certain organisations had protested against that state of affairs some time ago one Labour

speaker characterised them as nitwits, while Mr Fraser said they were half-Tories. Now he said the Government’s heart bled for <hem, but they did not restore the deliveries. The Government blamed the tradesmen, but where wiere the latter able to get delivery vans and tyres? The solution to the problem was to enable tradesmen to get vans and then abolish the zoning system. The women were sick of the position and surely the day had arrived when they could say where they purchased the* goods that at present were zonad. Once vans were obtained they should abolish the zones* and restore the days of free competition and give back to the people the service they were given years ago.

Everyone not in favour of Socialism had a job to do, and everyone should exercise their vote as it was a bounded duty to do so. The domestic question 'was one of difficulty due to the. lack of domestics, but they could help women by lifting controls and taxes on household goods. The National Party would act along those lines. They would not lift all controls. The National Party members were men who had made a success of their lives and they would not wreck all che things done. They would not cut pensions or reduce wages, for apart from other considerations, to do so would be to ’commit political suicide. The Social Security benefits were good, said Mrs Ross, which were first introduced in Atkinson’s time, and from Seddon’s time onward each succeeding Government had increased them. In 1935 all those things were cut and the Government had increased them. Mrs Ross said she gave credit to the Government for what they had done in regards Social Security, but it was nonsense to say that if they went out those benefits would go out too. The National Party would increase by 2s 6d a week the age benefits to those who remained in their employment after 60 years of age, so that until at 65 years the man and his wife would get £2 12s 6d each. Manpower was needed to-day and there were many men at 60 years doing a good job of work, and in addition, the country would get the added benefit of those men’s experience. Mrs Ross went on to express herself as being very much concerned about the spinsters who were over 50 years of age. Many employers did not like keeping them on after that age and they had a very scratching time. She hoped that when the National Party went into power they would do something for them. In dealing with prices, the speaker said that while they had a lot of money to spend, there were not the goods to purchase. Mrs Ross went on to quote the prices of various articles of food and household goods delivered prior to Labour’s advent to office, prices that made her hearers gasp with surprise. They were at present going through a period of inflation in that there was not an equation of goods and money. They must trade with Britain for she was our best customer, and more than that, she had, by winning the Battle of Britain, saved New Zealand,” said the speaker to loud applause. Britain took all our produce while we fiddled with what we got from Britain. The speaker said that Britain could have supplied us with herrings, but we were not allowed to import them. “There is too much officialdom and restriction. I do not believe the people want Socialism or Communism. Labour says it does not want anything to do with Communism, but it contributes to that party’s funds, and some men actually hold office in both parties. If you electors want that sort of thing/ well, I am surprised; but if you do not want it, this election will be the last chance you will have for years to reject it firmly and for keeps.” Mrs Ross went on to say, “God help this country if Communism got a hold of it.” If the electors did not do the right thing on the 27th then they deserve what they get, concluded Mrs Ross, who resumed her seat to loud applause. ■ Mrs Ross spoke for well over an hour and there was not one interjection, only applause punctuating the address.

Only three questions were asked. Mrs Pattison proposed a hearty vote of thanks to Mrs Ross, coupled with one of confidence in the National Party. While hearty applause greeted the motion, it lacked a seconder until Mrs Henderson, president of the Te Awamutu branch of the Labour Party, rose and sportingly did so. In doing so, Mrs Henderson made it clear that she could not associate herself with the confidence part of the motion, but she joined in the thanks. The Waikato, especially the women and children, owed much to Mrs Ross, as did the civic sphere of that district. Whether Mrs Ross was returned for Hamilton or not, Mrs Hcnederson said one felt sure' that Mrs Ross would continue to do good work along the lines indicated. Further applause greeted Mrs Henderson’s remarks.

Mrs Ross, in returning thanks for the vote, especially thanked Mrs Henderson for her remarks. Mrs Ross went on to say that she had many friends in the Labour Party even though they differed on political matters, and the speaker stated that she had always done her best in and out of Parliament for every one irrespective of political or party bias. A hearty vote of thanks to Mrs Downes was proposed by Mrs Ross and carried with acclamation.