"A SQUARE DEAL TO ALL"

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 90, 13 October 1934, Page 10

"A SQUARE DEAL TO ALL"

REFORM AND DEMOCRATS

MR. DAVY'S REPLY TO ' MR! COATES

POLITICAL PRINCIPLES

Mr. A. Davy, organiser of the Democrat Party, in a statement sent to "Tho Post," makes the following reply to the speech delivered by the Rt. Hon. J G. Coates at the Reform Club:—

Tho address delivered by tho Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates before tho Reform Club in Wellington 'this week contains an admission, Which few people in this country could ever have expected a leader of the Reform Party to have made. It is a clear declaration that Mr. Coates has deserted Reform, and has thrown aside the principles of that historic party like an old glove, to embark further on a path of Socialistic, or near-Socialistic legislation. That is the fundamental fact which emerges from the welter of confused ideas and erroneous deduction, which are contained in Mr. Coates's speech. From this day the Reform Party, for all its services in the past, for all its claims to gratitude, is dead and buried. What we are to have in the future, is some sort of fusionist hotch-potch, with some sort of Socialistic background, representing Mr. Coates's new political and economic ideas.

It need hardly bo emphasised, that this speech was purely a defence against the claims of the Democrat Party, and an attempt at discrediting its policy of non-interference with private enterprise. Mr. Coates has been talking of "long-range planning" for a considerable period, and has on every available occasion sought to justify his Socialistic attitude, by remarking that "the day of laissez-faire is done," and that "this is the age of control." Mr. Coates now makes it clear, that this policy means further interference with industry, agriculture, and finance. This can only result in further uncertainty, as to just what body blow the Government will next deliver to confidence, or to what further meddlesome muddlement it will subject a country that is doing its best to escape from the slough of depression. Mr. Coates admits it. "It has been said," he declared, "that you cannot tell what the Government is going to do "next." That, if Mr. Coates would only realise it, is the principal reason for the slump in importations and trade generally, which took place after the exchange rate was raised. People "did not know what the Government was going to do next." They did know, however, that they could place no faith in the statements of leaders of the Government, who declared often enough, that the rate must be left to the governance of the banks; that political meddling would be fatal, and who then changed their minds overnight, compelled the reluctant , banks to raise tho rate, forced their one abl> financier out of Cabinet, and then embarked on a'campaign, as a result of which, trade generally stood shivering, « wondering where next the blow would fall. PRINCIPLES ABANDONED. By this administration, all canons of the old Reform Party, and for that matter tho old Liberal Party, have been repudiated. The sanctity of contracts fell before the plea of necessity; whoesale and unwarranted interference with the rights of the private individual, stifled industry and enterprise; our economic structure was virtually torn down; tho weapon of compulsion was used against Government bondholders to ensure a conversion that Mr. Coates in his self-eulogy describes as "highly successful." How else could it be?

These actions, in keeping with the general Government policy, were a tacit abandonment of the principles of the old Reform Party. And now we have tho statement that these principles are no longer of any use. They are, if we take Mr. Coates's valuation of them, mere "catch-cries of he past." He "has found it necessary to formulate new policies which break entirely new ground," and he makes it clear that the "principles and traditions of the party must bo applied to conditions as they were a generation ago." It is a dangerous doctrine, which holds that ■principles wither with age. The greatest body of principles ever given to the world were the Ten Commandments. Would' Mr. Coates suggest that they are out-of-date today?

A leading ex-Eeform journal, now pro-Coates, editorially commenting on Mr. Coates's speech, states: " 'The Reform Party, as conceived by Mr. Massey,' we'were told last week, in excuse for launching a new party, 'no longer exists.' That is just too badl" This.sneering allusion to Mr. Massey's conception is extraordinary, and, I believe, will hardly meet with the approval of the people of this country, who universally revere the memory of that great leader. Of course this is one more proof that the Reform Party as it was, is now cheerfully considered dead, by Mr. Coates and his little coterie of destructionists. "USELESS ENCUMBRANCES." Tho principles of tho Eeform Party are clear cut. "To give equal opportunity to all" is surely not obsolete. Yet what of the camps for men and boys, and the present administration of unemployed generally? What hope does Mr. Coates hold out for them? Has Sir. Coates sought "to ensure that both Capital and Labour are suitably and equitably rewarded?" Instead, he has imposed a code of artificial measures, restrictions, and regulations, under the plea of "Control." Has the Reform leader striven "to lighten the burden upon the mothers of the wage-earning and salaried classes, so that their children may be reared under tho most favourable home conditions?" Then what of the refusal of unemployment aid to women, despito the fact that they are taxed to provide it? What of the curtailing of the work of the Plunket Society and the Free Kindergartens? Has Mr. Coates "striven to assist and encourage tho candidaturo for Parliament of able and honourable supporters of the Reform League?" Then what of the dragooning of the Houae of Representatives, the complaint of members at the fact that few caucuses are held, and that information is not given them 7 This airy dismissal of tho party's highest principles and traditions will not go down in this country. Mr. Coates's attitude is reminiscent of that of loaders of the Soviet Union. He says "Mr. Forbes, myself, and the Government (note the order), will not hesitate to promote, and to pass legislation, which may be considered reactionary. .. ." Why bother about Mr. Forbes, the Government, or even Parliament? If ho is so strongly determined to enforce his reactionary and Socialistic ideas upon the country, he might at least save us tho expense of what he evidently considers useless encumbrances.

It should bo clear that Mr. Coates has thrown overboard those standards, which were set up for tho guidance of his party. That he has done this from some lhuddled notion of "facing the facts," is also clear. As usual, ho invokes the example of Britain and the Minister of Agriculture in Britain, Mr; Elliot. There is absolutely no parallel. Britain has

ventured a few inches as an experiment, where Mr. Coates has gone yards as a policy. And even today the signs are not wanting that Britain will shortly withdraw even those few inches. I.would suggest that at least some of Britain 'a actions in this direction, are due solely to reaction from Mr. Coates's drastic experiments. POLITICS AND ECONOMICS. Mr. Coates states that "politics : have come to be synonymous with 'economics," .Whilst this is somewhat incongruous from the lips of a politician, at least in Mr. Coates's case there is a substratum of truth. It is a well-known fact that two of Mr. Coatos's private secretaries are economists, and in this capacity, act as a sort of advisory council. .

I feel that I must refer to Mr. Coates's claims on behalf of the Government. Would Mr. Coates still say that "deficits have been turned into surpluses," if he eliminated the sums "borrowed" from reserves and from petrol taxation? Were not some of the cut restorations in salarie.' and pensions given only under the most extreme pressure of public and editorial opinion1? And all this talk of planning isn't it mostly instigated by confused economics and muddled politics, prepared by theorists, dished up in a great hurry, nicely garnished with the usual Socialistic platitudes? This great planning policy has not- only upset production, trade, and finance in this country, but it appears to have prejudiced our overseas markets. We have the goods and can't sell them, and have the means to purchase, but have our buying restricted to a very low margin. We want development, but enterprise is stifled. We want to build back to prosperity, but have our confidence shaken at every turn. And this is called planning! And, mark you, with the threat of far more to come!

Since Mr. Coates has turned his back on the great broad principles of Massey, even of Seddon, he has floundered deeply into the slough of Socialism. But I want to make it quite clear to Mr. Coates that today these principles are as alive and as forceful as they ever were. The Democrat Party has taken the responsibility, since Mr. Coates has deserted it. And its broad guiding principle will be that- r" proudly held by the late Mr. Massey, a principle that is ageless and unchanging, "A square deal to all."