HAURAKI BY-ELECTION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 121, 25 May 1931, Page 8

HAURAKI BY-ELECTION

; REFORM FISCAL POLICY . AID GIVEN TO FARMERS , SPREADING BURDEN FAIRLY. i CHALLENGE TO COUNTRY PARTY*. The Country Party was invited by the Leader of the Opposition, rhe Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, to show exactly where its fiscal policy differed from that of the Reform Party, aijd to sub-

stantiato the claim of its candidate i the Hauraki by-election that it repr sented the interests of the farmir _ n community. Mr Coates, who deliver-: j a fighting speech to a large and keenl; , e interested audience at Marairfarua, di ’ g clareu that the Reform Party’s polic o of tariff adjustment, as practised in th 0 past, was wholly sound and wt , directed toward equitable distribute) of taxation. Mr 8. Symes presided. j “Just exactly where does the Cour . try Party stand?” asked M . Coates. “Where lies the dii s ference in their policy upo l tariffs? If there is any material an basic difference from that of the R< n form Party, I invite the K candidate t come out and say so.” I In the last revision of the custom schedule by the Reform Government v 1927, Mr Coates said, duties were v( e duced by £300,000 upon goods whicl with one or two exceptions, were all i II the interests of the farmers. Certain! customs taxation had been increased 1 but the increases had been directed t s luxury items which came from foreig: e countries. The people were prosperous e and were determined to have thes 0 luxuries, and thus the volume of cus toms revenue went up to £8,000,00( 1 But £5,000,000 of this had come fron luxuries. i Lifeblood of Dominion. Did the Country Party suggest tha taxation should be removed from Am - erican motor-cars? If Canada blocke< New Zealand butter, she could not ex e pect thig Dominion to allow her good r to be accepted here free of duty. / policy of opening up our markets to al - foreign countries of the world was un . sound, and even the most ardent free - trader would agree that it was to th< i detriment of this Dominion to allov 5 Russia to dump huge quantities of but ter into England ag it was doing at th< 1 present time, and to export goods t< t England for sale at from 25 per cent, tc 60 per cent, below the possible Britisl ' production cost. Ten thousand barrels j of Soviet butter had recently ar rivet ‘ on the London market and had the im * mediate effect of depressing the price ’ for New Zealand and Australian butter Tariffs were absolutely essential ti bargain with these countries, particu larly in cases where the key industries of countries such as New Zealand were vitally affected. So little of our produce was consumed locally that the state of the export market had to be carefully watched. The overseas market was the life blood of New Zealand, and when it was shown that 97 per cent, of our wool, 77 per cent, of our butter, 94 per cent, of ou r cheese and J 3 per cent, of our lamb were consumed overseas, it was readily realised that when the farming industries here languished the whole of the Dominion suffered. Helping the Producers. lhe Country Party complained chiefly that a duty of Is had been placed upon slashers, and one o r two

other instruments. It should be remembered that this was done by a vote of the House and that the Reform Party, with one exception voted against the increased duties. “Now wherein lies this difference in Mr Coates a gain. “In 1 , the Reform Party said it would work toward reducing the customs taxation upon all material that would help to increase production, such as tho tools ot production. Wo would have worked in this direction. Our attitude was recently shown to be consistent. 1 moved ! in the House to have animal foods ad- ' nutted free. Mr (J. A. Wilkinson, the 1 Independent, who has been coquetting ( with the Country Party, said there was ! a eateh in it. Mr W. J. Polson was ’ not keen and even Mr H. M. Rush- 1 worth, the Country Party member, .lid not want to vote for the motion. Mr 1 Rushworth and Mr Polson voted for it 1 and Mr Wilkinson against it. ' Policies Not Different. ‘lhe Country Party knows, as everyone else knows, that the farmers have I been faithfully and well served by the Reform Party. Draw whatever sideissue you like across the path,.and you , will not alter the position. “Let us get down to what they ' really moan in their attitude toward t tariffs. I drew it from a member of tho Country Party executive. He said r what they objected to was the customs duties, but he would not mind an excise duty of, say, 15 per cont. or 20 per cent., because it could easily be taken , oft. ' “ there is n 0 difference whatsoever. c J hey are both taxes. They both eon- s statute customs taxation and one is as a easy to take off as the other. It em s be done by a slight alteration in the c Act in either case. r As & r as we can see, there is little difference between tho two policies, t Certainly, different words are used, oat 1 every impartial man who tries to i’nter-

pret the difference will ask, ‘Why does the Country Party wish to see tho Reform a Party off the map?’ Vote-Splitting Danger. “The Country Party candidate in this contest must and will draw from the Reform candidate votes which should be cast in securing tho return of Mr W. W. Massey. I am informed tnat tho Country Party man has no chance at all of winning tho seat. But the effect of.him coining in may make it possible for the Labour man to become dangerous.' “All this talk about slashers will not get you anywhere. We have a bigger problem than that to face. But many of tho people who are taking a part in the administration of this country do not seem to realise that by taking the easy way out and making wild proraises which they cannot carry out, the ultimate result must be disaster. ’ ‘ ' We have a big job ahead of us and we have to face it. Tho result will depend upon the economic rehabilitation of the primary producer. Get him right and you will be on the high-road to prosperity in no time.”