POLITICAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 152, 3 December 1914, Page 3

POLITICAL.

Mil ASTBURY . SLTHAM. VIGOROUS CRITICISM. Mr D. L. L\. Astbury, the Opposition candidate fdr the Egmont electorate, spoke at Eltliam for the second time on Tuesday night, and was. accorded a splendid hearing by an audience of about six or seven hundred people. llr Astbury was in fine form, and was applauded throughout the meeting. 'Mr T. IS. Crump presided. Mr Astbury prefaced his remarks by reading a congratulatory telegram which lie had received from Sir Joseph Ward, leader of the Opposition. Ho referred to the political conditions in New Zealand ! in the days of Toryism prior to IS9I, when indifference to the care, health tint} political welfare of the people reigned supreme, comparing them with those of twenty-one years' administration of the .Liberal Government under Ballajice, Seddon and Ward. He enumerated the progressive legislation they had introduced, legislation which had been the base of the prosperity which New Zealand to-day enjoyed. 'During the past three years these laws had been administered by men who had opposed the majority of them and had bitterly, in season and out of season, prophesied the ruin of New Zealand because of their 'establishment. The present Government, he affirmed, did not have the majority oi the people's vote behind it, but had got into power because of the traitorous action of four of five men pledged to | support the Liberal Party. THE REFORM PARTY'S PLEDGES. He recapitulated the Reform Party's pledges. Mr Massey had stated that only one or two of these remained unfulfilled, but Mr Astbury contended that they had failed to carry out the important pledges in their platform, and so were not worthy of the trust and confidence of the electors. (Applause.) They had not reduced borrowing. On the contrary, they had increased the public indebtedness by £5,199,957 annually during the two years they had been in office, and had authority to borrow £10,425,000 exclusive of .12,000,000 for war purposes. They had not provided legislation to effectually prevent aggregation of lands. They had not given natives the same privileges and responsibilities as Europeans. They may have attempted to give them the responsibilities, but certainly not the same privileges. The speaker ridiculed the socalled elective Upper Chamber, and de ; nied that political patronage had been < abolished. They had not granted the right of appeal to Civil servants, as the 'rcouost made to candidates by the Civil Service Association proved. They had' done nothing in the way of Iodu" bodies reform or of a Town Planning Bill. Waihi, Huntlv and the great industrial strike of 1913 showed how they had promoted - industrial peace. They had not had time to reduce the Customs, to the people because of smallpox, the strike, and the war, but they had time to reduce taxation on the Governor's stuff and on income tax payers for £3OO upwards. They had also failed to pro- ! vide a substitute for the second ballot. • MR WILKINSON CRITICISED. He then criticised the actions of Mr Wilkinson, who, he alleged, had failed to keep his pledges and should explain the why And the wherefore. In 1908,. Mr Wilkinson had declared himself against an extravagant borrowing policy, and had stated that he would not for one moment support any Government that would not reduce borrowing. Mr Wilkinson was then very emphatic in his addresses "on the gravity of the financial position," stating that tiie net debt per head was in New Zealand £7l, Australia .100, United States £2, Britain £l7. Now their indebtedness had increased to approximately £BS per head. The member for Egmont had stated that the Massey Government intended to purchase land through which railways were to run, and so save to the State the added value created by the railway. The Liberals had, it was alleged, lost thousands of pounds to the State by not doing so. This promise, like others, had been broken, 'Mr Wilkinson had undoubtedly led many electors to believe that his advocacy of the bare majority on the No-License issues was on account of his sympathy witli the Prohibition movement, and they must have received a shock when they read his speech stating "I am not a Prohibitionist." When in the House he voted 55 pel' cent, on the Licensing Amendment Bill of 1914, and not on the. bare majority, though Mr Payne's amendment in that direction gave him the opportunity of fulfilling his pledge to the electors, but he failed to do so. .i, i. •- .1 *>3 NAVAL POLICY. Mr Wilkinson, while deprecating this being made a party issue, in his opening remarks immediately proceeded with strong condemnation of the Ward policy of a direct subsidy to the Imperial Government for direct protection of our i shipping in these waters, and apparently emphasising the difference of policy as between the dominant political parties in New Zealand. Mr Astbury joined issue with him on this important question for the following reasons. —First, the enormous cost; second, in the face of British ! il disaster the utter impotence of | (leet; third, in the face of Britj ' triumph the certain fact of \ cruisers or battleships, etc., : C free to patrol our trade routes. tial cost of the Australian fleet i • lie £-23,-290,000. The depreciation i would be '£1,240,00 ft annually. ! of docks, etc., would be another

■:,oof>,<)o!,Thru every ten years or s, the battleships would become obsolete. If New Zealand only adopted lialf the proposal, the burden would be suicidal, more especially when money had yet to lie found for roads, bridges, railways, etc. In the, to us, unthinkable possibility of naval disaster to the British fleet, the combined New Zealand and Australian Xavv would be absolutely no protection. Tlte naval empire that would defeat Britain's first line of defence could ride triumphant over every am, down every foe, and gather under its eagle wings every brood—but jjevish the thought. When Germany's Hayal might was shattered and the Brit.hi I'ert v.ms free, was it not muQli better ,to bind ourselves closer to Britain by an annual subsidy and have these ships —second to none —patrolling our shores, and so save the expense of a local navy. (Applause.) Tie could not credit the statement made by Mr Allen that the British Government now spending millions of treasure and its best blood in upholding the sacred right of inte-na-tional agreements, had deliberately broken the agreement made in 1903 with > vr .I' Mph ard to station two cruisers, two submarines and three cruisers in these water.; on payment of a subsidy of £100,030 per annum. He consideted that Mr lAllen must, in some, as vet, unknown way, have influenced the action of the British Government when at Home. He added that he considered diitkßtlMlMriiifWMyii

suval question, were holding up the Australian navy too much to the' limelight. While acknowledging to the full the help given by our brother Australians, it must iiot be 'forgotten that they would have ( been impotent but- for the aid of the Japanese, French and British cruisers. THE LAND POLICY. The Massey Government, he said, had claimed to have revolutionised the land policy. Some of the Crown land settlers and holders of 999 years' leases had been given the freehold, by allowing the latter to purchase the freehold at an actuarial valuation of one per cent, compound interest from the date of taking up the lease to the time of purchase. These, however, now discovered that they were paying more in the shape of interest per annum and were also liable to the land tax, so lie had yet to learn that they were better off. This was called high finance. In his remarks, Mr Wilkinson had, ho said, again slurred the Civil 'Service with the attempt to leave the impression on his hearers that it was honeycombed with political appointees prior to Mr Massey's administration, but Mr Astbury quoted statements by Mr (Allen and Mr Massey to prove the fallacy of the statement. SECOND BALLOT. Mr Wilkinson's explanation In regard •to this important principle showed, he I considered, a lack of political stability that was deplorable in a public man. In an address in Eltliam six yc'ars ago Mr Wilkinson upheld the second ballot. The second ballot, continued Mr Astbury, cumbersome as it was, was an attempt to secure the principle of majority representation, and he believed that the people of New Zealand were in harmony with the'proposal to repeal it and adopt some other method embodying the same principle. The basis of our democratic form of Government is that the people should govern themselves, and our aim should be to have every phase of thought represented. The will of the 'majority of the people was represented by the majority, and that of the minority by a minority of representatives. The Massey Government was showing the true Tory spirit in harking back to the "first past the post" system. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. He strongliy criticised Mr Wilkinson's action in this connection. Mr Wilkinson condemned the nominated system and pledged himself for an elective Upper Chamber. Now, with the other Taranaki members, lie asked to be relieved of this pledge—after the mischief was done. Mr Massey, continued the speaker, had postponed the operation of tlie Bill for seven or ten years, and had meanwhile appointed men to the Council who would act as a block for that time to the progressive forces in New Zealand, STATE ADVANCES. During Mr Massey's two years of oflice the State Advances Department had advanced to .settlers, workers, and local authorities £2,000,000 less than had been the case in Sir Joseph Ward's last two years. This curtailment had probably forced settlers into the hands of iprirate money lenders. CUSTOMS DUTIES, Mr Astbury critisised Mr Wilkinson's action in this respect, and charged him with. changing his opinion. In 1908 Mr Wilkinson headed part of his address "A Plea for Protection," and to-day was steadily advocating a reduction of customs duties on linoleums, floorcloths, glassware, lamps, nails, corrupated iron, cups, plates, and shoes. If the principle held good in 1908 that we should pay heavy duties on these articles for the purpose of, to use Mr Wilkinson's own words, "to employ a number of hands who provided a good market for the farmer," then what has happened to change the principle? The farmer still required markets and customers for his produce, and a local market, if higher prices could be obtained*for the produce was better than' a market miles away. Mr Astbury said lie had consistently maintained that, as a primary ' produce, tibo New Zealand fanner, and all those workers engaged with liini in producing wool, meat, cheese, butter, timber, gold, hides, coal and all the primary products that undoubtedly pay our way (and failing which we would cease to exist), sell these products chiefly in the open markets of the world, and are compelled to pay heavy customs nuties for their home, farm, or business requirements; hence the productiveness of their labour is curtailed, and they are exploited by merchants and manufacturers who are gainers, in a measure, by these protected goods. There was no doubt tho New Zealand tariff required adjusting, and they could rest assured that, if he were returned to the House, he would support any adjustment, commensurate witli an assured finance, that went in the direction of reducing customs duties on many articles, and absolutely abolishing them on the necessaries of life. DISTRICT RAILWAYS. | Mr Astbury considered that dillicul- | ties, princpally in regard to rating areas, would make the recently passed District ties principally in regard to rating areas, Places already provided with railway communication would naturally object to being included in ureas to be rated for a new district line. Taking the Opunake-New Plymouth railway as an instance, he said that objection would be made by residents of both towns to being included in the area, so that such 'large numbers objecting to any rate would prove fatal to the scheme. He

did not think it fair to ask any settlors to rate themselves for railways when £20,000,000 hail been spent 011 railway construction without any rate being struck. If returned, he would endeavour (o get railway connection between New Plymouth and Opunake. without recourse to the District Enihvays Act.

j j OPUNAKK-ELTHAM RAILWAY. Mr Astlmrv referred to the. contro- ' versy over the railway route. The member for Kgmont who had stated that liltham would be the terminus—the r 'junction on the main line being some 510 I odd chains north of To lioti —was now making definite statements on the plat- ' form that he did not know where the r junction was to be. Mr l'earce, mem- ' ber for Patea, distinctly slated that Mr s Hiley (General manager of railways) '' ' informed him that Te Rot', should he the ■ junction. Although the Public Works II Department controlled the construction of a railway line, it was the Railway " Traffic Department whieli had the decis--1 ion of that junction in their power, ■ and rightly so, for they were responsible for the economic working of railways. 3 The contract which had been let for a o little over £3OOO started about two o miles from the New Plymouth ma,in a line. It had been commenced to satisi- fy the electors, but the. decision of the ,3 junction was left in abeyance until after e the elections. They could draw their li own conclusions as to what the Traffic d Department will decide on. The whole r. flf thn dairy produce, abqut 3(X)0 jone,

coming from Opunake, Awatuna, Pillama, T. J.oll Co., Kaupokonui, and a portion of the Mangatoki Co-operative Dairy Co.'s produce v/ould travel upon that line, and bo railed to Patea to be handled by their own works, and shipped by their own boats to Wellington. The Railway Traffic Department knew these facts, and he asked them if they were going to rail these thousands of tons of produce to Eltliam, a distance from this junction of about three miles, and again rail it back these three miles to the point where it arrived once before; or would they, according to Mr Hiley's opinion, junction at Te Roti, and carry the produce right on to Pa'tea. In his opinion, the Massey administration, whom Mr Wilkinson supports, were deceiving the Jlltham people, or trying to do so, with the belief that Eltliam would be the terminus of that Opunake line, when they knew from a railway point of view, the evidence was against it; hence, they had held the matter of the junction up until after the elections. THE STRIKE. Mr Massey had taken credit for settling the strike. He was not wise enough to let the matter die, as suggested by the President of the Farmers' Union, but held it up as a means ■ of glorifying his party at the expense of the relationship which should exist between all classes of the community. Had the authorities made use of the police in the early stages to arrest the leaders, the disturbance would easily have been quelled. Mr Astbury claimed that it was the Farmers' Union who called for wharf hands and for special constables. The executive of the Union, he considered, were within their rights in calling for wharf hands to get their produce shipped, but it was outside their domain to call for special constables. Government lamentably failed in their duty. The police should have been called upon, and if they failed, then and not till then, should the Government, and Dot the Farmers' Union, have called out the specials. By bringing farmers to Wellington, behind the shelter of the Farmers' Union, the Government did more to create and embitter class feeling than could possibly be imagined. These men were as necessary a part of. the' industrial organisation as the shipping companies, and the aim should have been to secure their hearty co-operation, not to raise their hatred. LIBERAL POLICY. He outlined the Liberal policy, which he considered would be incomplete if it sid not take into consideration the advisability of strengthening local bod 1 ies finance to enable them to do away with toll gates, and to keep pace with the changes that are necessary by the enormous increase of motor traction. He also emphasised the necessity of an investigation into the sub-renting system of native lands that was undoubtedly pressing heavily on many farmers and their families within the Dominion. CONCLUSION. In concluding, Mr Astbury said that he had promised nothing that he would not perform, and with that end in view —"Progress, more progress, and still more progress," was the motto that he placed on the Liberal banner. Several questions were asked and answered satisfactorily. Oil the motion of Mr J. D. Gow, seconded by Mr J. Walsh, a resolution was unanimously carried, 'amidst prolonged applause, thanking Mr Astbury for his lucid explanation of the Liberal policy, and expressing confidence in him and the party he represented. ' Three cheers for Mr Astbury and Sir Joseph Ward ended the meeting.