SOCIALISM OR FREEDOM?

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20780, 15 July 1937, Page 14

SOCIALISM OR FREEDOM?

ISSUE BEFORE DOMINION LABOUR PARTY UNDER FIRE COLONEL HARGEST SPEAKS Socialism on one side and freedom on the other. That was the issue before the people of New Zealand today, according to Colonel J. Hargest, M.P. for Awarua, who has been delivering addresses in South Canterbury on behalf of the National Party. The newly-formed party, he said, would restore freedom of enterprise to the people; it would not slash wages or cut down pensions. Surely there was nothing wrong with the system on which the country had been built! There was, however, something wrong with the present Socialistic policy, as a result of winch the Ministers of Transport, Finance and Industries and Commerce were dictators.

Colonel Hargest spoke at Geraldine on Tuesday night, when the DeputyMayor, Mr J. R. Lack, occupied the chair. Yesterday afternoon he addressed a large gathering of women in Timaru, and at night he spoke at Pleasant Point, where the chair was taken by Mr M. Maze, chairman of the Town Board. Mr T. D. Burnett, M.P., was associated with the visiting member.

After welcoming Colonel Hargest, Mr Burnett said that never before in the history of New Zealand or in the history of the politics of the Dominion had there been such a critical time. The present Government aimed at Socialism, and their objective was to nationalise everything in the country. They aimed to put the people of New Zealand in a strait-jacket to be regimented as the State said they should be. Such a system was altogether foreign to the British outlook on national life and conduct. The National Party aimed to make democracy safer in regard to the freedom of the individual and private enterprise. Serious Time In Dominion In paying a tribute to Mr Burnett, I Colonel Hargest said that there was no man in the House more respected on all sides than Mr Burnett. As a young man he gladly went to Mr Burnett for advice, and he had never come away unsatisfied. He agreed with Mr Burnett that there had never been a time as serious as the present. They could either go for straight-out revolutionary Socialism, or, on the other hand, they had the power to go for what they chose to make it. They could not afford to play with politics; it would be a most serious issue when they faced the next election. The National Party, he continued, i was a new party, and was not, as had I so often been said, the "old gang re- | hashed.” At the last election they had suffered a most crushing defeat, and they had realised that the old line parties had not served; and that they needed more of the party spirit. Hence the new position. The idea was to divorce complete control from the hands of the politicians, and the Party had honoured its promise to give its members that control. Control brought responsibility, so at the next election they must welcome everyone to their cause who was opposed to Socialism—commercial interests, the farmers, public servants, and the great body of the working men, thousands of whom were opposed to Socialism He was certain that the Party could, and would, produce a policy which would satisfy the needs of everyone. The situation was too serious to permit of any hair-splitting on party definitions. They had every hope and right to expect victory at the next elections. He had travelled all over New Zealand, and he had found that where they had lost seatif there was keen interest and a great determination to regain them, and that there had been a great revulsion of feeling even among those who had helped to defeat the Government by electing Labour candidates. The Hon. P. Fraser had said that the speaker had a strongly inventive mind, but, after visiting Auckland and Taranaki electorates, Mr Fraser had become convinced that If Labour were to hold their seats they would have to be very busy. Tribute to Leader Colonel Hargest said the Leader of the National Party, Mr Adam Hamilton, was one of the most admirable characters the country could produce (Hear, hear.) There had been some criticism of him in the Auckland province on the ground that he was not known but, after addressing a meeting of 80 members of the National Party for four hours, they hacPsaid that they had every confidence In him as the Leader of the Party, because of his absolute sincerity. From hostile critics they had become Mr Hamilton’s firm and fast friends, which was a striking tribute to his personality. No man was more fitted to lead.

Economics Unpopular Mr Hargest continued that Labour’s victory had been due to the close co-operation of their supporters, and the principal reason had been that the other candidates of various Parties had been a disorganised mass. The defeated Government had made itself unpopular by economy measures. The Governments of other countries had been overthrown for the same reason, and, In fact, the New Zealand Government had been the last to go. If they had realised in 1935 that the slump conditions were ending there would not have been the need to introduce such drastic economies. The then Government had reduced the bank rate from 7 per cent to 41 per cent, and had reduced the rate of Interest the farmer had to pay for his farm. They had faced 75,000 unemployed, due to the fact that the people’s income had declined, and it could not be said that the Labour Party had the monopoly of sympathy for the unemployed. When the Labour Party took over every Government Department possessed a credit

balance and there was a balanced Budget. Mr Semple had said that the country was bankrupt and that the Labour Party had had to pick up the threads and begin all over again. Such a statement was a downright falsehood and would be unjustifiable for anyone in the world to say. Mr Hargest remarked that in his experience of the House he could not remember any occasion when the Labour Party had come forward to help in any measure. They had been hostile. There was no Labour Government or no Socialist Party which would ever economise. If prices of produce dropped wht would be the fate of the Dominion? They could either go out for bankruptcy, or admit that th re was such a thing as economy. The idea of all Socialist Governments was that they should squander their way into prosperity. Promises Not Fulfilled In 1935 the Labour Platform under Mr Savage had given a sop to every section of the community. The former Government had never been opposed to higher wages, and they could search

“Hansard” for proof of his statement. Mr Savage had said that they had been viciously opposed to salary increases, and the speaker had asked him when that opposition had been expressed, and Mr Savage had remained silent on the matter. The Labour Party had pledged a reduction in taxation with a view to securing the taxpayers’ votes; they had promised a guaranteed price to the farmers, and had promised to reduce the cost of living; they had said that they would reduce the cost of living, and that they would cure unemployment within six months after taking office. After 18 months this was how they kept their promises? Instead of a reduction, taxation was now just on £2O a head in New Zealand: in the United Kingdom, where a defence programme was under way, the tax was £l6 12s 6d, and in Australia it was £l5 6s lid. In Australia taxation had been greatly reduced during the last two years and Australia was just as prosperous as New Zealand, which was the heaviest taxed country in the British Empire. Confiscatory Land Tax Colonel Hargest referred to the confiscatory nature of the tax on land, and quoted a case in which a Canterbury woman, who owned a 2000 acre property, had had her tax increased from £lBO in 1935 to £lO9O in 1936. In another case the total income had been £lOB6 and the tax had amounted to £1416. Contrasting the wages received by wharf labourers with the returns received by dairy farmers. Colonel Hargest said he had seen a bill of lading which showed that the wharf

labourers received from 2/4 to 6 8 an hour, with ah average of £2 10s 2d a day, for loading clean boxes of butter on the Rangitata, whereas the unfortunate dairy farmer’s labour was valued at between 7d and 8d an hour. The position was not fair or just. He had never heard the Labour Party say a word in defence of the farmer. The majority of the Labour Party had little knowledge of, and little sympathy with, the problems of the farmer. The dairy farmer had no knowledge that the Government would virtually commandeer the industry and take the selling of his produce completely out of his hands. Mr Nash had cleverly baited his hook, and at no time had it been suggested that the selling agencies, which had been in existence for years, would be kicked out. That action had been taken after they had got into power, and had got control of the whole of the produce. Committees of experts appointed by the Farmers’ Union and the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, Ltd., had proved that the cost of production had advanced 3.4108 pence per pound of butter-fat. If the farmer got the same price next year as this year, this amount of nearly 31 a pound would mean that £5,000,000 would have to be found to pay the farmer, and the people of New Zealand would have to find £750,000 more for their butter. That was what came of State control of an industry. Householders’ Budget Colonel Hargest went on to the Hon. D. G. Sullivan’s promise, as published in a paper before the election under his own name, that the Labour Party would save the Dominion's housewives 5/- a week in reduced prices of foodstuffs and household necessities, but the position to-day, as shown by

reliable statistics he had secured in Wellington recently, showed large increases in prices. There had been a 10 per cent increase in wages, and Mr Sullivan had claimed that goods had increased only by 3.3 per cent, but Mr Sullivan had known that that statement was not a fact, as he had quoted the November figures of the cost of living instead of those of three months later. In December the increase had been 4.7 per cent, in January over 5 per cent, and to-day the cost of living was up by nearly ten per cent.

Referring to the “dictators" in the Ministry Colonel Hargest spoke of the extraordinary powers which had been conferred on the Minister of Finance who was head of the Reserve Bank and head of the Treasury, powers which had been assumed without the consent of the people, and the Ministers of the Labour Government were really bureaucrats who posed as a democratic Government. In connection with transport, the Minister had the final say in any appeal against any decision by his licensing authorities, and according to the Act he could entirely disregard any oral or written evidence by any appealing licensee. Similarly under the provisions of the Industrial Efficiency Act the Hon. Mr Sullivan had the power of life and death over industry. There were now no trade secrets.

In conclusion Colonel Hargest said that the Labour Party was pledged to socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and they actually intended to challenge the rights of inheritance. The liberty of the individual would entirely disappear and the people of New Zealand would be regimented by the State. The National Party’s first aim was to restore to the people the right of looking after themselves. (Hear, hear.) Every man should be encouraged to succeed, provided that there was no exploitation of his fellow-man. The Party was pledged to assist in the retention of the liberty of the individual, and he urged them to find vital and vigorous candidates for the National Party which was on the march again. If the issue

were plainly put, the result would be beyond doubt. At Geraldine Colonel Hargest was accorded a vote of thanks on the motion of Mr K. Mackenzie, a similar compliment being paid him at Pleasant Point on the motion of Mr C. L. Orbell.