LABOUR’S REPLY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 211, 6 August 1937, Page 9

LABOUR’S REPLY

TO NATIONALIST LEADER. LACK OP' POLICY ALLEGED. “The efforts of the Nationalists appear to bo simply to bring discredit upon the Labour Government, in the elfort to win back power for themselves,” declared Mr Ormond Wilson, M.P. for Rangitikei, in the course of a reply in an address at the Opera House, last evening, to the recent address in Palmerston North of lion. Adam Hamilton, Leader of the Opposition. “It would be more i it, line with Mr Hamilton’s lip service to democracy,” added the speaker, “if he would tell the people of New Zealand what he would do now, if he were Prime Minister, and what ho proposed to do in 1939, if he should become Prime Minister then; otherwise, he must be regarded as an irresponsible place-seeker.” Mr P. T. Robinson presided over an attendance of close on 300 and briefly introduced the speaker, who had associated with him on the platform Mr J. Hodgens, M.P. It was explained by the chairman that the reason why Mr Wilson was replying to Mr Hamilton’s speech, and not Mr Hodgens, was that Mr "Wilson had been scheduled to speak in Palmerston North. “I am honoured to have been invited to reply, to Mr Hamilton,” said Mr "Wilson in opening liis address, “for though I do not consider the task a difficult one. Mr Hamilton is an experienced politician and a would-be Prime Minister, while I am only a back-bench member.” There were two points in the speech which rather amused him, he added. The Leader of the Opposition had begun by saying that his main business was to talk on the business of politics and not so much to criticise the present Government; after that the rest of his address was almost entirely devoted to criticism. However, a member of the audience had asked what the Nationalist policy was —a very reasonable question-—and Mr Hamilton’s reply was worth quoting: “You would like to know? We stand for New Zealanders taking a lively interest in the proper government of the country. The National Party is true to name and doesn’t belong to any one section of the community. "We stand even for the working people.” That “even” was first-class, said Mr Wilson. The working people comprised roughly three-quarters of the population of New Zealand ; the National Party remembered even them.

Mr Hamilton had gone on to say that he believed in the best wages that industry could afford ; but as his supporters had been all declaring that the present wages were ruining industry and as the basic wage on Public Works under Mr Hamilton’s Government had been 10s a week, the speaker thought it was up to the Opposition to give some idea of what sort of figure they had in mind. LIVING COSTS.

Mr Wilson went on to deal with Mr Hamilton’s references to the cost of living. “Even without reading the report of his speech I could have told you he would trot out the cost of living and the ‘burden of taxation ’ ” he declared. “Colonel Hargest shed tears over the hard plight of the unfortunate worker who was so much worse off under the Labour than under the Tory Government, due to this cost of living, when he was here about a year ago. And though we have been hearing of it ever since, we have had no constructive suggestion from the National Party of what might be done about it.

“Admittedly, quite a number of things have gone up in price. We farmers have been getting more for our meat and wool and butter, and that moans that you city people have to pay us more. But I am sure you don’t grudge the poor cow farmer getting a decent return for liis 80-hour week, and so far we haven’t heard the Nationalists calling on the Government to reduce the price of wool. Perhaps they will he doing so later. “Then, of course, we know,” he continued, “that many imports have risen —some very considerably. Sugar, for example, and tea, and almost all metals, particularly steel. These are very important items in our expenditure. I should feel very sorry for the unemployed, fftr the pensioners, for the public works employees, for the civil servants, and for all the workers if they had had to pay these increased prices lor meat and butter and wool and imports on the rates of wages that Mr Hamilton allowed them. But as it is, incomes have gone up more than prices ; and so wo are importing twice as much

as we were during the slump, our factories are working harder (in spite of what they told us last week), and people still have enough over to put by more than they have ever done before in insurances and the saving banks. We arc both spending and saving.”

Of course there was still the matter of the increased prices which were said to be due to high wages in New Zealand, the speaker added. It was significant, however, that one of the largest increases in the cost of living, apart from imports and primary products, was in rent. Rents had not been put up because the landlords were paying higher wages, but simply because there was a shortage of houses. “You can see here in l’ulmerston North how wo are meeting this shortage if you care to go and look at the fine new houses that the Government are building,” he added.

“Imports, rent, meat, butter, and wool represent about 75 per cent, of the working man’s expenditure, and if prices of some of the remaining 25 per cent, of liis purchases have gone up to allow his fellow worker a decent standard of life, I am sure lie will not grudge it, even if Mr Hamilton and Colonel Hargest and their friends do.” The speaker drew attention to some figures on the subject. “Every three months,” lie said, “the Government Statistician compiles the figures of the cost of living for the ordinary worker, including his rent, food, clothes, heating and lighting. From 1926 to 1930 the cost of living averaged 60 per cent, above that of 1014; during the slump it fell rapidly (though this was little consolation to the unemployed) to 26 per cent, above 1914 in 1933. From 1933 on it rose again. The latest figures are for May, 1937, which show the cost of living as 46 per cent, above 1914 —over 8 per cent, less than 192630. Wages to-day are higher than they have ever been before, and the cost of living lower than at any period between 1920 and 1930; perhaps Mr Hamilton will reply to the Government Statistician. TAXATION BURDEN.

“I do not think it necessary to devote much time to the taxation bogey,” Mr Wilson proceeded. “Remember that the only taxation Mr Nash increased was the land and income taxes. No owner of land worth less than £SOOO unimproved value pays the graduated land tax; and if lie has more than that he can afford to. As for the income tax, I have yet to find anyone who will openly say that the income tax is not a fnir and just and proper tax. Remember, also, that the reason for the increase in the land and income taxes was to provide for additional pensions for the aged, tlio widows, and the invalided. If Mr Hamilton’s party propose to reduce taxation, do they intend to reduce pensions? And if not pensions, then what? I think the public are entitled to know.

“Mr Hamilton insinuated here, as ho has elsewhere, that the Labour Party desired to set up a dictatorship, while lie stood for democracy. 1 would therefore like to remind you that the policy which the Labour Party put before the electors of Now Zealand in 1935, and which we have been putting into operation over since then, was finally drawn up at the Easter conference of the party in 1933, two and a-half years before the elections. During those 1 two and a-half years Labour Party speakers took every opportunity, in season and out, in the House of Representatives and on the hustings throughout the country, of expounding this policy. It was no fault of ours if the voters did not know that the Labour Government would introduce guaranteed prices for primary products, would raise wages and pensions, and would adopt an active and progressive policy towards secondary industries,” said Mr AVilson. “TRUE DEMOCRACY.”

“1 am glad that Mr Hamilton raised the fundamental issues of democracy and Socialism. I think we sometimes devote too much time to the things that aro affecting us at the moment, and not enough to the deeper changes taking place in society. We know that large-scale industry is putting an end to competition in one field of business after another; that where monopolies are not actually established, then the few large enterprises left agree among themselves regarding output and prices, and so effectively end all free competition. This is the real dictatorship in modern society, and it is all the more dangerous in that it is secret and unnoticed. When Mr Hamilton demands freedom of enterprise lie is asking that the cement companies be allowed to charge monopoly prices, that the oil trusts be left uncontrolled, that profiteering go unchecked, that Tooley Street be allowed to speculate in New Zealand butter, and that the ‘Kelly gang’ go unhindered.” He was well aware, the speaker added, that State ownership such as they had known it in the past had not been without its faults. On the other hand, Mr Hamilton himself recognised the value and the necessity of State ownership of public utilities such as the Post Office and the railways. But were not housing and the supply of essential foods just ns much public utilities as the Post Office P Could they any more leave them open to exploitation and profiteering? And was not road transport ns essential as rail? And was it not equally important that it should he run, not for private profit, but in tlio public interest? The Government did not itself own a single industry in New Zealand. It was simply, as Mr Hamilton had said, the directorate or the trustees for tlio people. Every citizen had a right to criticiso the running of the business ho owned, and a Government was unwise if it failed to listen to genuine criticisms; for the citizens could always change tlio directors. But of what avail was it for the ordinary citizen to criticise the running of the banks? And yet by the policy of the banks the prosperity or otherwise of tho people was largely determined. “I believe, and the Labour Party believes,” lie declared, “that banking is too important a function to be left in private irresponsible control; but if tho Government takes over the banks, then the shareholders will lose their opportunity for handsome dividends, in good years and bad. There's the rub 1” “Tho issue is, as Mr Hamilton said, between dictatorship and democracy. But we must see clearly what dictatorship means, and what democracy means. So next time Mr Hamilton comes to Palmerston North I hope he will lay nil his cards oil the table and tell us just what ho would do in our place. If lie genuinely believes in democratic Government he will surely do this,” concluded Mr Wilson. On the motion of Mr V. Christensen the speaker was accorded a vote of thanks and renewed confidence in the Labour Party was expressed.