MR. RICHARDS’ REPLY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 242, 13 October 1936, Page 8

MR. RICHARDS’ REPLY

LABOUR’S POLICY DEFENDED NEED FOR TOLERATION PROBLEM OF INTEREST In his reply Mr Richards said that there was not such a wide gulf between what Mr Tingey had expounded and what the Government was aiming at. The speaker was reminded of the advice of “The Friendly Road,” to be tolerant. Labour would go 95 per cent, on the way towards abolishing interest, but there was a fundamental difference between the theory expounded by Douglas and what Labour was doing. Unless the production of goods and services aboslutely equalised the amount of money issued as a national dividend, New Zealand would have troubles ten times worse than at present. He could assure Mr Tingey that just as the sun rose tomorrow, socialism would come in this country. The old capitalistic system had to be superseded by a new one because the old could not be patched up. The new would be based on socialistic principles. Mr Tingey was not quite correct when he said that Russia had ceased borrowing. In New Zealand people were apt to look across at Russia and wish that the fields ploughed here were as green as there. But Russia had had a terrible task owing to illiteracy. The basis of Mr Tingey's complaint was interest, and the speaker could sympathise with him. He need not be afraid, however, that the Government was not alii'e to the position. The five millions that the Government was raising for houses was being borrowed from its own bank—“borrowed from ourselves and we will owe it to ourselves.” Mr Tingey: You haven’t made that quite clear yet. A voice: Do you intend to charge interest for it? Mr Richards: The interest we will charge will be for administration costs only. For profit, no. Mr Hultquist: If there was a profit it would go to ourselves. Continuing, Mr Richards said that Mr Tingey had assessed Wanganui's share at £lOO,OOO. "You will get that, perhaps more,” the speaker stated. Mr Richards pointed out that this problem was one closely wrapped up with the question of international exchange of commodities. The Minister of Finance was going Home on as hard a mission as a Minister ever had, to complete a trade agreement with Great Britain, and maintain a market for New Zealand produce. Had the exponent of Douglas thought what would happen to 691 per cent, of New Zealand's exports if a policy of that sort was put into operation? New Zealand was a debtor nation, and, owing to past administration, had put all her eggs in the one basket. If she were a creditor nation it would be different and she could afford to take risks. Labour was out definitely for reduction and ultimate abolition of interest, but the only difference as the speaker saw it, between what the Government was doing and what the Douglas exponents wanted, was that Mr Tingey was in a V 8 car, in top gear, whereas the Government, knowing there was a precipice ahead, was in second gear and playing safe. (Applanse). Speaking on closer sc,moment, Mr Richards said that Wanganui’s fall in population was probably due to two causes: Dear money and speculation and gambling in land. Closer settie- j ment, however, was aimed, surely, at I increased production, and he doubted whether New Zealand wanted increas-1 ed production at present. What she ] needed was increased consumption. I When land settlement was under- > taken, and it was one of the Government’s planks, it would be fostered in such a way that the people would stay on the lond, and the land would be priced at its productive value. He advocated the building up of secondary industries, and when they had absorbed the unemployed then the door could be opened to immigration. Then would be time enough to talk of closer settlement. At the moment the Government's great problem was to deal with rural mortgage indebtedness, which, in New Zealand per capita, was as high as any in the world. The problem was to increase consumption and, as Mr Tingey knew, that was wrapped up in the wages, .salaries and incomes of the people. He could assure his hearers that Labour would not hesitate to use the credit of the people, and it would not follow the orthodox methods of the past.