COMPARISON DRAWN

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1935, Page 6

COMPARISON DRAWN

GOVERNMENT AND LABOUR. MR. POLSON SPEAKS AT TOKO. Unfavourable comparisons between the policy of the National Government Party and that of the Labour Party, including reference to the statements of Mr. J. W. Munro nt Dunedin on Friday, were drawn by Mr. W. J. Polson at Toko on Saturday night. There was a large attendance and the speaker received st very appreciative hearing. There were only one or two interjections of a friendly nature, and only two questions. Mr. IL Anderson presided. In a farming district the policy or the Democrats could not possibly appeal, lie said. It was a policy devised by city people for city Interests and clcaily opposed to farming interests. It was the issue between Labour and National that was the great issue. "Prior to the formation of the National Party I was an Independent,” said Mr. Polson. “I am still an Independent. and as long as I am president of the Farmers’ Union I must continue to be Independent. I would be a poor leader if 1 had to vote at the bid of a party. I have been called inconsistent, but I can say this, that I have never been disloyal to my organisation. The farmers got behind the Coalition Government and so did I.

“We have put out of sight for many years the spectre of stagnation that has been before us in recent years,” said Mr. Polson. “Everything has been done to keep the farming community going. The effect of the Government’s policy, which is not spectacular and has often been unpopular, is now beginning to be felt. We now can say that we are on the up grade, and the figures available prove it clearly.”

I have prices which on a basis of 100 were down to 70 in 1932 were now up to 1021. He was not in entire sympathy with the plan prepared by the Government for the relief of unemployment, but the numbers on relief were decreasing daily and were now down by 50 per cent. The total wage bill in New Zealand last year exceeded that of the previous year by £3,600,000; incomes last year had increased by £6,388,000 in comparison with the previous year; trade had shown a 20 per cent, increase; bankruptcies in 1934 fell 50 per cent, compared with 1930. The country was not only round the corner, but half-way up the straight. There were three main principles that Labour stood for. First and foremost was the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Socialisation meant, of course, that everything belonged to the State, that all individuals worked for the State, that freehold would be abolished. Mr. Skoglund had said that he would not stand for that sort of thing. He was assuming a lily white, or rather a pale pink, attitude in the contest. Secondly, Labour stood for the abolition of the country quota, and thirdly—this was a matter he had never heard mentioned by Mr. Skoglund—it stood for the restoration Of the compulsory clauses in the Arbitration Act. Mr. Frost at New Plymouth had stated that definitely one of the things the party was out to do was to put those compulsory clauses over the farmer and to put the farm labourer under the Act.

“Mr. Skoglund says that the first two, at all events, will not be proceeded with just now,” said Mr. Polson. “But neither Mr. Skoglund nor any other member of the Labour Party* can pledge the Labour conference.”

Mr. Polson quoted speeches made by Mr. Thorne and Mr. Sullivan, M.P., Mayor of Christchurch, to illustrate his statement that the policy of the Labour Party was dictated by the annual conference. Mr. Savage and his party would have to carry out whatever they were told to carry out by the conference. Labour had endeavoured to prove the Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act, which he regarded as one of the most liberal measures ever put on the statute book of any country in the world’s history, useless. Yet while that legislation was before the House not one suggestion, not one idea, had come from a Labour member.

“Most of you will have read in the last 24 hours of the statement of Mr. Munro at Dunedin,” continued Mr. Polson. “Mr. Munro has always been regarded as one of the most moderate Labour members of Parliament. He has told us that Labour will brook no opposition whatever to its plans. ‘lf we can’t carry out our policy we will go to the electors and get a mandate to do it, and if we can’t do it then the only thing to do will be to go out and smash things,’ Mr. Munro has stated. I have heard of persecution and tyranny, but if this is a sample of what the Labour Party proposes we must watch it carefully to see that nothing is done to defile the fair name of this country.” Mr. Polson outlined the future policy of the National Government Party, referring to the national health insurance and national housing schemes and a planned Public Works policy—there had been too much hit and miss with public workr in past years, he said. The country was over its illness now; it was convalescent, said Mr. Polson. The doctor had done his job well, and it was not usual when one was recovering to “sack the doctor and call in a quack.” Labour’s policy was a policy devised by one section for one section only; there was no thought for the general good. If Labour got into power there would be a drop in shares and securities in New Zealand itself within a day. Industry would stagnate, costs would rise, and there would be a recrudescence of slump conditions immediately. The issue was clear cut between the forces < Socialism and those opposed to Socialism. Mr. G. Were moved a vote of thanks to and confidence in Mr. Polson, and it was carried by acclamation.