THE FIRST SHOT

Thames Star, Volume LXII, Issue 17449, 11 October 1928, Page 5

THE FIRST SHOT

IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

FOR THAMES ELECTORATE. MR. McGREGOR AT MATATOKI. ATTACK ON THE GOVERNMENT, (Extended report by arrangement.) [The first shot in the political campaign, as far as Thames electorate is concerned, was fired by Mr E. McGregor, the United Party candidate, at Matatoki last evening, The inclement weather was no doubt to blame for the podr attendance, and the speech did not start till 8.30,* finishing at 10 p.m.. when Mr McGregor said he would touch on other matters at a subsequent meeting.)

Air Allan Maxwell was in the chair, and introduced Mr McGregor, whom he said he had known for the past nine years, and ,vho was an alert and keen business man. Mr McGregor had taken an active interest in opposing the Thames harbour scheme, and in preventing the country from being rated for it. ,

Mr McGregor said he realised it was a great honour to contest the election —but it was a tremendous responsibility to ask for support in a campaign. Probably never in New Zealand’s history harl there been issues so momentous as had to be decided now. Never had there been a party in power with so big a majority and which had left so many of the country’s problems unsolved. On the question of industrial and conciliation legislation, the Government, by introducing the new Conciliation and Arbitration Act, had admitted the first, Act was obsolete and had unsettled the minds of both employers and employees by not going on with it and leaving the matter in suspense. For three years Mr Coates had brought down a Licensing Bill which had been defeated, thus showing his inability to cope . with, the question. » On land matters, the Government had done nothing for three years and they had to admit their failure, ,to frame a proper land policy and keep the people on the land. Educaticfn had been left in its original state.

Principles—Not Men

It was for.' the electors to decide what should be done. Mr McGregor suggested the election should he fought on principles, and not men — not parties, • He would stress that point and lie would harp on it all through his campaign. Regarding his attitude to the Labour Party, the candidate said he had the greatest respect for the individual members, but he would not say so much for their ideals or aims. He had come closely into contact with both parties in the House, and he had opportunities to see how they attended to their duties. In his opinion. Labour gave more attention to their work than the Reformers.

Labour’s Dangerous Ideals.

But Labour’s ideals were not in the best interests of New Zealand at present. One l'eason why Labour should not assume control for the next three years was that there would be strong conflict of interest between Capital and Labour, and the serious aspect of this would reflect at Home. In the next three years the Dominion had £79,000,000 in loans falling, due, which must be paid off or renewed. This was the largest amount we had ever had to face and would not occur again for 25 years. It would be the silliest thing to fall out with our mortgagee when a'mortgage was falling due. If Labour was put into control at this time it was certain they -would be asked to pay off the loans, or, at any rate, pay increased interest. An extra half per cent, would be £400,000 yearly in interest. The country was taking a risk if it put Labour in power. Even friends of the Labour Party should vote against Labour at this juncture. , Coates’ Administration.

Regarding the Coates’ administration, Mr McGregor said he would show that their principles were not in the best interests of the Dominion, and he would show how the defects could be remedied. The Reform Party ceased to exist when Mr Massey died, and it was now purely a Coates administration. At the last election people were asked to vote for Coates and not for the Party. No one would deny this. Mr Coates threw out a challenge to his supporters in the House when the the Licensing Bill was debated. He said they had been elected to support him. and they should stick to their pledge. No member was able to say he was elected to support Reform. He submitted that the policy of Mr Coates was not the policy of Reform under Mr Massey.

Had Been a Reformer. Personally, he had always been a supporter of Reform until this year, and he maintained he was still true to the spirit of Reform. The policy enumerated by Mr Coates was certainly the policy of the Reform Party, but the way it was carried out was not in the spirit of Reform. As time went on the administration became different to that enunciated. Mr Coates had said he was opposed to Socialism in all its forms, but he had introduced a Socialism that was worse in its effects thanrthat of Holland and Co. Mr Coates had said it would be unwise to interfere in business, but we find him stopping the farmer selling his produce’ except through a Board arid on terms dictated by that Board. Producers had no say in the sale of their produce. The same thing happened with fruit, sheep and bee farmers. The miller could not buy his wheat where he liked, so that there could be cheap bread. The motor-bus proprietor must not carry the working man to his toil for 4d., hut had to charge 6d. ■ The land agent must get his receipt hooks from the ' Government printeir instead of helping the local jobber. There was unnecessary Government interference everywhere. Telephones had to be paid for in advance, and if they were used while a gramophone was running the lessor was liable for a penalty of £2O. If the baby tears the telephone book

<>r a cover is placed over it there is a chance of a penalty of £SO. There was too much pin-pricking and interference. No Free Breakfast Table.

In Mr Coates’ original manifesto in the “Newsletter.” it was stated that the tariff would provide a free breakfast table. As the result ,of a protective tariff on oats, wheat and bran, the working man was paying ljd. more for his loaf. This protective tariff was a. most peculiar one. It insured the Canterbury wheatgrower to pay all his charges on inflated land prices. He could not grow more wheat than was allowed. Even the “New Zealand Herald,” which was the Government’s best friend, complained of the Government’s serious mistake. Reasonable protection was necessary, but not artificial protection. The wheat farmer was guaranteed 6/'J a bushel in the Dominion, hut if he grew too much he had to sell at world’s jiarity. If they grew too much they destroyed their own price.

The Tariff,

Mr Coates had gone on to say there would be exemption of taxation as far as possible on all items of necessity. How had this plank in his policy been carried out? The main items of necessity were clothing, hats and boots, and the Customs tax on each was 25 per cent, if British-made and 45 per cent, if foreign. The collection of revenue by tax on the necessities of life was the most inequitable duty possible to imagine. ,• Who paid the greatest duty -on these goods? Why. the man with a family who was chiefly the working man —he was providing the bulk of the revenue for the Dominion. The tariff taxed those who should be exempt and not only that, it was the most expensive way to collect revenue. If th e Customs tax were reduced then the cost of living would be reduced by one-third. If the .revenue was collected by income tax then it would be a juster scheme—but it was,;very little use complaining of the cost of living when they allowed such a Government to remain in office. Customs duties were twice as large as all' the other revenue, and matters were getting worse. Income tax had dropped frqm 45 to 19 per cent, of the total, land tax from 11 to 7 per cent., but Customs duties had risen from 29 to 51 per cent., which was a hardship on the small man. Secondary Industries. Closely allied to this was the question of our secondary industries. It must be remembered that in developing our secondary industries where any aid is given it must be at the expense of the primary producer and this aid should be given to those-se-condary industries natural to New Zealand. There were numerous industries not touched at all—the byproducts of coal, for instance. It should be possible to develop these with State aid. Tariff protection was a dangerous form of aid, and must raise the cost of living. What would inevitably occur was higher overhead and capital costs. Every protected industry had elaborate structures which added to the cost. The Government saw that the interest on overdraft on such industries was paid sand, thus money was readily forthcoming. The employer did not pay such attention to overhead in these businesses. There was also an absence of specialisation. They assumed protection and they branched but into all sorts of side lines. As witness the boot industry, where all sorts of designs were made instead of specialising. The absence of this specialisation was caused by a protective tariff. The output was not scrutinised as closely as it should be. Mr McGregor said he was not suggesting protection should not be given. He was in favour of protection which made a large population to assist in industry, but it should not be given by way of a Customs tax. but by a quantity production bonus. The method carried out in the case of Onakaka iron was the right one. A subsidy was paid on ,output and last year Onakaka produced ore that could compare with the world in price. They certainly did not make a profit that year, but they were in a better position for the following year. If protection had been given the amount paid in duty would have been double the bonus paid by the Government. They must remember that in voting for Reform they were supporting an expensive system.

Immigration,

Mr Coates had said three years ago that the immigration policy was working smoothly. Some 10,000 would be brought out yearly and could be absorbed. The Labour and National Parties had been urging restriction as New' Zealand could not absorb them, and unemployment would result. Mr McLeod had said during the present session that it was recognised in 1924 and 1925 th#t there were going to be difficulties and the Government decided to stop the flow. If this were so, then the statement did .not coincide with Mr Coates’ manifesto, and which was correct. Mr McLeod’s statement insinuated that the position was being felt some months before Mr Coates’ manifesto. The Government had known before the last election that the position was bad, and Mr Coates must have misrepresented it. Not only were we misled in New Zealand, said Mr McGregor, but immigrants were also misled in an even, worse way in a booklet which contained untrue statements regarding land. It was known there were no large areas available, as alleged. The implied suggestion _ was that the immigrant could obtain money at a low rate of interest to work the land, but the Minister of Lands had said it was impossible to settle men on land without £6OO or £7OO of capital. In the last three years 27,000 immigrants had been brought out with no policy to settle them on the land and no attempt had been made to frame any policy to absorb them. No wonder there were unemployed.

• Land Settlement. Mr Coates had said a general survey of unoccupied land would be made but this had not been done In spite of his recognising the urgency of it three years ago. It could have been done, and the speaker suggested that the failure was a condemnation of the administration of affairs for the last

two years. During 1925 and 192(5 some 10,900 people left the land. A progressive system of land purchase had not been followed out. Only two estates had been purchased, the cost being £145.447, but some of the land was of. so poor a quality that no one would take it under any circumstances, and it was still in the Gov-, ernment’s hands, while over £7OOO was going out in interest. Regarding the Te Wera purchase, Mr Samuel'had stated in the House it was a good one. The block was of 9992 acres of rough land and the cost £64,500. It was divided into six sections. but there was such a howl that it was redivided into 11 sections. It would cost any intending settler i'GOOd or over to obtain a section. Everyone realised this was a bad purchase, even the Minister and Mr Samuel eventually, and finally ■ the unemployed were put on to road the property. This was unnecessary, and was unproductive and only done to give the men a job. Even assuming the 11 sections had been taken up-it would have been a scandal and a travesty or* a land settlement policy. The Government now proposed to use it for reafforestation purposes as it was not suitable for settlement. This was no good to the country. A policy was wanted where men could be put on good sections at a fair outlay. The Government had no land policy, or, if they had. they should not keep it up their sleeve.

Mr .McLeod had said in the House that the policy of the Government was to keep the man on the land who was there at the present time, but he must admit they had failed, as there were over 10,000 less than there were two years ago. A new Bill had been introduced in the last week of the session, which shows that it could not have been of vital importance to the country and was for political purposes only. There was nothing in it that could not have been done under the State Advances Act if the latter were properly administered. It was surprising how the approach of an election made the Government realise the difficulties under which the farmers were labouring. It was unsafe to have a Land Settlement Act that provided for 95 per cent, of the purchase money being advanced, It was productive of abuse. The speaker said he was against the principle ; of ' providing nearly all the cash for such- purchases. The vendor should, take certain proportion of his- equity in bonds payable In 15 or 20, years’ time, and which could be made negotiable.

Referring to the talcing of land for public purposes, Mr" McGregor contended that Mr Coates had said, that the Government would not fail , to enforce the compulsion clauses in the Act, but this had not been done. There was a clause in the 1925 Act that provided that when land was taken under compulsion the Government should pay an extra 10 per cent, over the value of the land. This was an unfair thing. The vendor could i'nsist 'on an increased value being placed on his property before he sold it, but he did not pay extra rates or tax on this amount.

In 1 concluding, Mr McGregor said he would leave other matters to a subsequent address. Questions.

Asked whether he would favour pushing on with the Paeroa-Pokeno railway, Mr McGregor said'the whole matter of transport must be gone into closely. He would rather find out if a two-day concrete road would be more suitable. It would he much cheaper.

Regarding Mr Sterling’s appointment, the candidate said he was a very able and keen man, and more capable than anyone in New Zealand, but why did not the Government retain his services in the first instance by recognising -his ability? They would have saved much money. Asked if he would support the throwing open of lands on the Coromandel Peninsula, instead of letting it lie waste, as at present. Mr McGregor said it looked as if the present Government did not want settlement. Men on the Plains wanted more winter grazing and could not get it. He was amazed to see so much idle land when the -improving of It would relieve unemployment. The land should be thrown open for grazing purposes. It was quite suitable for grazing and closer settlement. It was wrong to use it for reafforestation. Thanks and Confidence.

Mr A. K. Maxwell proposed a hearty vote of thanks and confidence in Mr McGregor. Mr T. McLoughlin seconded and the motion was carried unanimously. !