THE UNITED CANDIDATE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5345, 31 October 1928, Page 2

THE UNITED CANDIDATE.

MR B. WtßfttOß’S ADDRESS; ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT. Mr E. Mc.Grcgpr, official candidate for the Thames electypate in the United Party’s interest, sP°ke; at Paeroa last evening tq a large number of electors. In opening, Mr McGregor expressed the hope that the calibre of the United Party would not be judged b.v tlie candidate for Thames. In the Party were men of outstanding ability, outstanding character, and keen business men and deep thinkers, and many had given up good) positions and bright prospects to offer their services to .their c.ouptry. There was never a time in the history of New Zealand when the moral, social, and economic welfare of the country was so dependent on the result of a p'O.ll- - before had there; been a party in pO;wer. with so big a majority which had left so . many of. the country’s problems unsolved, andl'sci much important, legislation, undone. In approaching the preset election it was necessary to; remember , the peculiar position of the lust election. It had been, won by efficient advertising, and ,ne.wspaper, screen, and poster had served to induce a wave of enthusiasm for J. G. Coates, “the man who. gets things dqhe/’ Electors had been told that a vote for any of the Reform candidates was a Vote for Coates. Noiw all this has changed, and no Refqrm candidate was so foolish as to use the same line of argument. Instead, they claimed thAt they were not strong party men, but would vote as they .tlrought best. Reform supporters had been politically betrayed 1 in 1925, fqr the Coates administration was not the Reform Party, and' electors would not be bluffed again.

within 12 months of be,ing returned, .continued the speaker. Mr Coates had attended an Imperial Conference in London an(d had made the statement that the prosperity of New Zealand was due to the characteristic attitude of always avoiding making a decision. This was the attitude which had characterised the whole of the Coates administration. The candidate quoted at length Mr Coates’ actions in connection with the Dairy Control Board, the Arbitration Bill, and'-the Licensing Bill to show that the Prime Minister would not make a decision “The man who gets things dene” had left these and other important things undtone. Thus the present election Would net be like the last one, an election op personalities. He would lilce to see it waged on the high plane of principles, and not as a contest of individuals or parties. He would serve the interests of the people’of the electorate in particular and the people of New Zealand in general.

Mr McGiregCjr stated that in his manifesto three years ago Mr Coates had said “less gpvernment in business and more; business in government,” but it was found that' in the last three years the Coates administration had introduced a socialism that was worse in its effects than that of Holland and Co. There 'had been more government in businfess and more; muddling than ever before. The Cc ; ates_ administration had stopped the farmers from sejlinjg their produce except .through the Control Board ; it had said that wheat must riot be purchased in the cheapest markets. but from Canterbury growers ; that motor-drivers must charge 6d fares a,nd not 4d ones, arid that land agents must purchase their receipt books from the, Government, and so. 'forth. ■ THE WHEAT DUTY. One of the greatest needs of the country was to reduce; the cost Cjf living, said Mr McGregor. Mr Coates, in his 1925 manifesto, had said that the tariff was designed to provide a free breakfast table;; that Was, no duty op oats for porridge, wheat for toast, bran for bacon, and fowl wheat for eggs. Yet almost immediately legislation was passed which in iniquity rivalled the Corn Laws of England. The duty on wheat increased the cost of bread by iHd a loaf and discouraged the Canterbury farmers fromj growing wheat. Even the N.Z. Herald, a staunch friend of Reform, had shown in a leading ;a.rticjt» that the Government had made a serious departure from a sounl principle and had clearly pointed out the mistake of this legislation. The duty on wheat was designed to assist the; Canterbury growers to pay the interest on the inflated prices of their land by guaranteeing them a price of 6s 9d a bushel. However, if New Zealand grew more wheat than was required.: fcir consumption in -,the Dominion the surplus would have to be exported at wqrld parity and local pric.es would fall in sympathy. The effect was, therefore, that the Canterbury grower could only get the big price by going slow and not producing more than was required fc : r home consumption, sc. that wheat would always have, to be imported!. That this go-slow policy l was endorsed by the Cc-ates Government was slioXvn by a statement made by the Hon. W. Nosworthy when, at the opening of the; Amuiri A. and PShow, he had sympathised with the growers because their production of wheat had exceeded their estimate and world parity prices had to be accepted, and had encouraged them to go slow to bring the millers tc, toe the line. CUSTOMS DUTIES. In addition to the; (free breakfast table, said the speaker, Mr Coates. in his manifesto had pledged himself to exempt from taxation the necessities of life. The, duty on clothing and boots was 25 per cent. if from Britain and 45 per cent, if of foreign manufacture, and he submitted that the raising of revenue by the Customs tax was raising the cost of living £o the very people—the workers and men with large families —who should! be given exemption. Indirect taxation such as the Customs tax was wrong, inequitable, and uneconomical. Direct taxation such as the; Income tax went straight to the Treasury, but in addition to paying the Customs tax purchasers of dutiable goods had to

pay the middleman’s percentage of profit on tlie amount of the tax. The abolition of the Customs tax on the necessities of life would mean a reduction in, the c,ost of living by onethird. Mr Coates had recognised, this tax as unjust, and three years ago had promised to remedy the. matter, but nothing had been done. Customs duties ,were almost twice as great as Land tax and Income t;Ax, and were steadily increasing. SECONDARY INDUSTRIES. -

Closely allied to the question of customs was the matter qf the development of secondary industries, said Mr McGregor. No other Government had given so little assistance to secondary industries as. the Coates administration. It was : not the fault of Mr Samuel that so litQe had been dqne, for he; would labour, in vain so long as the Coates administration. was in power. Quoting, the amount qf assistance given to mining, Mr McGregor said that in the last four yea,is of the, Ward Government £83,543 was expended, buti in the last four years of Refqrm nothing had been spent. Just lately a sum had been placed on the Supplementary Estimates for the provision qf crushing facilities at the Rising Sun battery at W’ajkino, but this was not to be, made available until after Parliament had met, and was obviously pure bluff for electioneering purposes. It was a plank of the United Party’s pla.tfcrm that New Zealand industries were fo.be supported. The candidate considered that assistance to secondary industries shcjuld be; by way of a quantity bonus and not by a protective tariff. It must be realised that any assistance given was at the expense of the primary producer, whose goods had tq be sold at world parity. Aid should be given t;q those industries which were natural to the country and! which were 1 ikely to be permanent; but the system adopted would have tq be suofi that as little burden as possible would fall on! the primary producers. He was not suggesting that protection should not be give;n, but was advocating, that it should be by a quantity producriqn bonus. Ite advantages were that it was easy to ascertain just how much the assistance to any particular industry was costing the country, that the manufaturer was subject to the laws of competition and so kept dqwii; the capital c,osts, and the taxpayer < was able to buy goods in the; open market at world parity prices without an artificial increase. IMMIGRATION. . in his manifesto tnree years ago Mr Coates ha,d said that tjhe immigration system, was working smoothly, and that 10,000 immigrants would be brought out yearly and absorbed without creating unemployment, said Mr McQregor. Three months ago the Hori. A. D. McLeod had! said in the Hquse that as far back ’as 1924-25 it was recognised that there was going to be difficulty, and, the number would be .tapered off. These two statement contradicted each other. The Prime Minister must have known before last election that the position was dangerous, for Mr- McLeod’s statement had been borne out. Not only were we in New Zealand misled, but the immigrants in Engjan'd were also misled, said Mr. McGregOr, who preceded to. read extracts from the Government publication, “Ne.w Zealand, the Brighter Britain of the South.” which had been circulated'.free Among the workers of the United- Kingdom tqlnduee them tq come to NOW Zealand. The United Party, he said, stood! for a restricted immigration, policy. / LAND SETTLEMENT. Referring tq the. Government’s land settlement policy, Mr McGregor quoted Mr Qoates’ manifesto, and claimed that his absolute failure to carry out his defined pojicy carried its own condemnation. There - were 10,900 less workers on the land in the years-1925-26, despite; the arrival off 5000 farmworker immigrants. Only two blocks of land had been; pur,chased for closer settlement, and- the effect so far had. merely been twq less settlers. The Mataikoua Block of 12,951 acres had" cost £80,947, and the Te Wera Block of 9992 acres £64,500, so the annual, interest bill was £7272, and no offers had been received for, any qf the sec,-, tions. The Te Wera block was Itow offered in eleven sections, but. as it would cqst an intending settler about £Boo’o to acquire and l stock a section he had no hesitation in saying that such a land 1 settlement policy was no goCjd. The Government now pi’Or posed to use tlie land for affcinestation purposes. The speaker quoted from Hansard iii regard to the argument between him and Mr Samuel encerning .this purchase,- and: said’ fie, wcjuld like Mr Samuel ;to say what was a bad deal if he c.dnsiderfed the Te Wera purchase a good one.

QUESTIONS. To Mr E. Edwards the candidate s r aid that his information to the effect that no assistance was given by the Reform Government to mining in recent yeanshad been taken frcjn the Official Year Book apd from the last Public Works Statement presented to Parliament. I,t . appeared that \ t|h.e Government was deliberately faking its official reports to Parliament. He intended to deal with this matter at his later meeting. To Mr W. J. Towers Mr McGregor said that he had always been; a Reformer, but the policy now being carried out by Mr Coates was not Re-> form, but a spurious sort of Socialism.

To Mr J. W. Silcock .Mr McGregor said that he was not ,a frele tradter, but advocated assisting secondary industries on a production; basis. He, proposed to deal at length with the incidence of land andi income taxation at his latep meeting. Mr Edwards asked whether the candidate gave the Coates Government credit for the Highways Act, and wa.s answered in the affirmative, ft was one of tlhe good Acts, which did not counteract the numerous bad Ac.ts. To another questioner he said that when he accepted nomination 1 he agreed to support the United party on a no-confidtence motion;, but would' vote as he: thought fit on all other motions. He: would vote 'with the Labour, Party op, a question of rio-

confidence in the Reform Government. : To, a further question the candidate said he did npt know at present just what was the accumulated surplus of the Highways Fund. His opinion was tha,t this money should be spent as quickly as possible.

To Mr D. G. McMillan Mr McGregor said that .the question Off dairy control was a matter for the farmers, and he had taken no active part in the question. Hed. he been a farmer he would' have; been against control. To Mr W. Taylor, the candidate said that the Paeroa-Pokeno' railway question was bound up in: the question of transport as a whole. A commission qf the House should be set up to inquire into the question of transport, and until such consideration had been given no more railways should be gone qn with. The PaerbaPckeno line was an important matter, but it was questionable whether a two-way concrete rqad would not be preferable. Such a road! would cost less than half as much as a railway. However, it was a very complicated matter, and should be thoroughly investigated. The concrete road would > eventually be and it was a question whether it would nqt be advisable to make the road before the railway. /■.<- ,

Mr W. J. Towers moved! that as an act of courtesy a vote of thanks ue accorded the candidate for his address. ,

Mr W. Forrest secqnded.

The Rev. J. Lowden moved as an amendment that a vote of thanks and confidence be accorded Mr McGregor for his clear and able .addregs; and that the meeting, considered hlm a fit candidate for the Thames Electorate.

The amendment was seconded in several places, and was carried without dissent amid prolonged applause.