THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21087, 13 July 1938, Page 5

THE GOVERNMENT’S POLICY

Criticism and Defence

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

End Not Far Off By Telegraph Press Association WELLINGTON, July 12. The Address-In-Reply Debate was continued In the House of Representatives to-day by the Hon. F. Jones, who said he was pleased to see the interest which was being taken in politics to-day throughout the Dominion. It had been said that the Government had been unfair to the Opposition in reference to the facilities which had been offered it for broadcasting, but he quoted the following figures to support the contention that this was not correct—during 16 days at the end of last session 55 Government members had spoken on 94 occasions, 19 Opposition members had spoken on 83 occasions and six Independents had spoken on 16 occa-

sions. Mr Jones added that he considered it was to the Government’s advantage to give Opposition members opportunities to speak over the sir, for the more they spoke the more votes were gained for the Government.'The Minister proceeded to criticise the Opposition's election appeal to the youth of the country, and said that young people were not likely to forget the manner in which they were treated during the slump years.

Mr A. G. Osborne (Labour, Manukau), said he had been pleased to note that the leader of the Freedom League had at last come out into the open and made an effort to answe” the criticism recently directed at his organisation by Mr F. W. Schramm, Member for Auckland East. In his reply to "Ir Schramm, Professor Algie had not distinguished himself for he had made the lame excuse that his organisation was not in existence during the time when the events referred to by Mr Schramm had occurred. He went on to criticise the methods adopted by the National Party for the dissemination of propaganda, and said that much had been read in the papers about garden parties. The National Party, he considered, was running true to form, and while it conducted garden parties at the present time it would be safe to predict that if ever again it was in control in Neiv Zealand it would be organising soup kitchens and jumble sales which had been held throughout New Zealand in the slump years. He was satisfied that the Opposition members as a result of their speeches in the House were opp.jca to raising the living standard and would regard a fall In prices overseas l an argument in favour of a reduction in salaries and living conditions In New Zealand.

Social Security Mr R. Coulter (Labour, Waikato), speaking of the social security proposals, said one did expect that numbers of the Opposition would have given some measure of support t' the Government’s ideas as put forward by Dr McMillan. He contended that the Government was surely entitled to some support even from the Opposition in endeavouring to place on the Statute Book a measure calculated to pro 'e

social justice for everyo - '-' but instead of Labour getting that commendation from the Leader of the Opposition, members on the other side were more concerned as to what some of their wealthy friends might think. He added it was 'nonsensical to suggest that the Government was going to take r.way anybody’s rights and savings. Mr J. W. Munro (Labour, Dunedin North), asked whether the previous Government had realised that in pegging the exchange and its Reserve Bank legislation it was taking a :’.ep towards the socialisation of exchange, but whatever the previous Gov nment did was right and whatever the Labour Government did was all wrong. Where was the difference? The Labour Party stood for the mass oi the people and the Opposition when in office stood for a few people who owned money. Referring to the statement by the Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom regarding the taking of the oath by Labour members, Mr Munro said he hoped 'Tr Alfred would explain the matter. From newspaper reports it would appear as if it were the Hon. Member’s intention to brand Labour Members as irreligious.

Sir Alfred Ransom: No. It was the intention of my correspondent. Mr J. A. Lee: The Member for Motueka, Mr K. J. Holyoake, repeated the same story.

Mr Munro: I hope the Hon. Memler for Pahiatua will take s ne opportunity of letting the House know that he dll make a mistake.

Compcnsate< Price

The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Lee Martin, said he had an idea that the Leader of the Oppositkn had accepted the system of compensated prices against his better judgment. He had announced recently at Talhape that his party had adopted the principle of compensation and all the leading papers throughout New Zealand had questioned very seriously whether the compensated price scheme for dairy produce could be put into effect. There had been a lot of ’ ilk to the effect that Mr Hamilton’s address in which he announced the adoption of the compensated price propos. Is had created a great deal of unsatisfactory feeling amongst the farming community. In Mr Hamilton’s address at Hamilton he had advocated bringing farming costs down. How could this be done without a reduction of wages? There was no suggestion that the posl-

tion of farmers would be bettered t. ider the compensated price scheme. In fact, their whole position under the scheme would depend on oversea prices. He asked Mr Hamilton to state definitely if he adhered to the five points laid down by Colonel J. Closey in reference to the compensated price scheme. He thought it was evident that in spite of what members of the Opposition might say, if Mr Hamilton could be persuaded to give his own honest opinion he would admit that it would be impossible to bring tiie compensated price system into operation. The guaranteed price scheme had definitely assisted farmers and he did not think they desired to change it.

Mr Coates Speaks The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nationalist, Kaipara) said that Dr. McMillan, in moving the Address-in-Reply, had not indicated how the Government’s social security scheme was to be carried out. He thought it unfair that those who were already in superannuation schemes should be compelled to pay into the national scheme, and said the Government was having difficulty in having the National Security Bill drafted because Ministers themselves were doubtful how finance and security for that finance could be arranged for the scheme. He criticised Mr W. J. Jordan's attitude at Geneva and said most people' disagreed with Labour’s failure to support Great Britain’s attitude at the League of Nations. The present Government, he said, claimed tremendous credit and said nothing had been done since the time of Seddon, but that was not so, and he instanced various humanitarian measures introduced by various Conservative and Liberal Governments since Seddon’s Administration. None of these past benefits had come from Socialists. He asked why the present Government had not restored war pensions. It had restored all pensions but those to returned soldiers who, he said, had first claim for pension restoration.

Mr Coates attacked the guaranteed price for butterfat, which he termed was a commandeer, and contended that the payment of £BOO,OOO to farmers by way of a bonus had knocked the bottom out of the whole theory of the guaranteed price scheme. When Mr Coates was within five minutes of the time allowed for the conclusion of his speech, the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, moved that he be granted an extension of time, a proposal which was accepted by the House. It is the first extension of time asked for since the Leader of the Opposition was granted the privilege at the opening of the debate. Mr Coates, in thanking Mr Nash for his courtesy, said he could not be vigorous in his criticism of a Minister who had been responsible for moving the extension. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr Coates asked how far the Government proposed to go in the monopolisation of transport services, and said to-day there were Government cars all over the place which

were carrying out taxi work. The Government’s policy of compulsory unionism, he said, was placing the people of the country in a straitjacket. The Government, in his opinion, at the last election had received no mandate to put its doctrine of Socialism into effect, and the reaction must come.

Industrial Bureau Referring to the Industrial Efficiency Act and the Bureau of Industries, Mr Coates said it was illegal to-day for anyone to produce anything without a license.

The Minister of Industries and Commerce: Oh, nonsense. Mr Coates: "It is not nonsense. The Hon. Gentleman should read his own Act.” Monopolies by vested interests, he held, were being created under the Industrial Efficiency Act and, as a result of control by the Labour Administration, imported lines of goods were being given preference by buyers to locally manufactured products. He had heard the Prime Minister say time after time that he would not interfere with the private ownership of property, but by raising costs it was possible to do this. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, said the Forbes Government had supported peace and the League of Nations and the Opposition was criticising the present Government for adhering to the principles set up by that Government.

An Opposition member: Circumstances are somewhat different to-day. Mr Nash: Yes, of course. The Government of that day is the Opposition now. (Laughter.) Mr Coates had challenged the Government to mention a single measure brought down by the previous Government which interfered with the freedom of the individual. Had the last Government brought in a law barring the building of picture theatres? The Government had been chided for not restoring returned soldiers’ pensions. Who had cut returned soldiers’ pensions In the first place? he asked. When the question of restoring returned men’s pensions was considered the Government had told them that they had something which they considered more urgent at the time—that was giving pensions to soldiers’ widows who had not had pensions before. Soldiers* economic pensions would be restored, added Mr Nash.

The Minister defended Mr Jordan’s attitude at Geneva, and went on to defend the guaranteed price system for butterfat, stating there was no one connected with marketing, not even the Government's opponents, who did not admit that the Government’s policy of marketing in London had given stability in the butter market in the Old Country that had never been there before. As a result of the Government’s oversea marketing there had been a saving effected on butter

alone of £165.000. The figure in connection with cheese amounted, he thought, to somewhere in the vicinity of £85,000. He refuted Mr Coates’s suggestion that oversea goods were being purchased in preference to New Zealand manufactured products, stating that on March 31, 1937, 17,000

more people were engaged in factories in the Dominion than hitherto. The Minister of Labour: There are 35,000 more this year.

How Policy Is Framed In conclusion Mr Nash outlined the method which was observed in the formation of Labour's political policies. He stated that at the annual conference of the Labour Party every member had the right to write remits for the consideration of the conference. When these remits were passed they were written into the policy of the party by the Prime Minister and the president of the party. Then the electors at election time were asked to vote for Labour candidates who were pledged to support that policy. When Labour members were elected to Parliament they were expected to assist in writing that election policy into the laws of the land without outside interference of any kind. He stated that the Labour Government would go to the country on its record for its 24 years of office, and it asked the Opposition to go to the country on its record of office.

Issue At Election The Under-Secretary for Housing, Mr J. A. Lee, said the issue at the next election would be between Socialism and rugged individualism. The country had experienced “rugged individualism” during the depression years. New Zealand's whole political tradition was one of innovation and experiment, and it had resulted from the refusal of the mass of the people to allow the mass to suffer because some orthodox economist considered that they should. He went on to point out many measures Introduced by previous Governments which really amounted to Socialism. The Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (Nationalist, Pahiatua) asked what the Labour Government had ever done to establish the credit of the country which the Prime Minister said it was Intended to use. It had not contributed one farthing to the country's credit which had been built up by the wise administration of past Governments. Ministers, said the speaker, were continually stating that there had not been any Increases in any individual taxes, but the higher taxation received by the Government was due to the Increased prosperity of the people. This was not correct. Income taxation had been increased and the graduated land tax had been introduced. The wage-earner and the small business man paid the bulk of the country’s taxation under the present Government.

Referring to the recent statement in the House by the Member for Palmerston, Mr J. Hodgens, Sir Alfred said the latter had not read the letter which he (the speaker) had received about Labour members who had taken the oath by declaration in the House. The writer asked him to supply the names of members who did not believe

in the bible as Indicated by a clipping from a newspaper. The Hon. F. Langstone: What did the clipping refer to? Sir Alfred Ransom: To the report of a speech I made at Woodville the previous evening.

Suggestion Denied Mr Langstone refuted the suggestion that taxation was higher to-day than under the last Government. There was a whispering campaign going round the country that Labour was going to take away the freehold to the land, but there was not ,a single measure on the Statute Book which enabled any Government to take land without the payment of compensation for it. Since he had been Minister of Lands he had given 1724 titles. Did that seem as if the Government were going to take away land titles? he asked. He went on to criticise the land policies of past Governments and outlined the huge amounts which had to be written off properties which had been purchased at uneconomic prices. He instances the case of 304 estates which had been purchased for £5,700,000. Two millions of this had been written off years ago, and he was afraid to think how much

more would be written off when the Mortgage Adjustment Commissions had completed their work. The House adjourned at 10.25 p.m. on the motion of the Prime Minister, who stated that to-morrow afternoon would be devoted to the answering of questions during the session, and in the evening the Address-in-Reply debate would continue.