The Waikato Times TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1938 FROM THE OTHER SIDE

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20494, 10 May 1938, Page 6

The Waikato Times TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1938 FROM THE OTHER SIDE

The leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Hamilton, last mg t broadcast his reply to the speech recently delivered by the nme Minister. The speaker limited himself, perhaps too strictly, to matters mentioned by Mr Savage, and threw additional light o*n most of them, such as the unemployment figures, and the Post Office Savings Bank accounts and balances. It is a pity that there is no definite standard in these matters. Every speaker is at liberty to interpret the figures as he desires, and by placing stress on certain items a wholly erroneous impression may be given. In the matter of the Savings Bank, for instance, Labour claims that the deposits have shown a great increase. The official figures for 1936-37 state that this total moved up by £5,150,000, but the actual excess of deposits over withdrawals was only £3,634,000. The balance was made up of accumulated interest. The figures for the last two years are said to disclose an increase of £10,000,000 and probably most people conclude that this sum, over all withdrawals, was deposited in the bank. The actual excess of deposits would probably be about £7,000,000 in the two years, but the Government takes credit for the larger sum, and represents it as increased savings. The same position obtains when figures relating to unemployment are compared. The basis for a complete comparison is not available. The regular returns are of little value because they give no indication of those dependent on the funds for their income. Two years ago the Min is - ter of Finance said that the number of unemployed at that time was about 32,000, but the number of people who were a charge on the funds was 52,000. Any comparison depends upon the basis adopted, and to include those dependent in one aggregate, and exclude them from the other, as the Prime Minister seems to have done, is to mislead the people.

Mr Hamilton was very outspoken in his condemnation of the guaranteed price system, and expressed his opinion that the producers had no claim, under the law as it stands, to any surplus that might be found in the Dairy Industry Account at the end of the year. If that is the position, and it is a matter that should be investigated ■without delay, then it can be stated confidently that the law has not given effect to the expressed intentions of the Government. In 1936 Mr Hamilton, in the course of a debate, said: “I think the Prime Minister ought to say that if there is a surplus in the fund at the end of the year the dairy-farmer who supplied the milk or cream would get it.” Mr Savage at once replied: “How many times does the honourable gentleman wish me to say it? It has been stated half a dozen times.” If that should not be considered sufficiently definite then there is the repeated statement of the Minister of Marketing: “He (the dairy farmer) will get every fraction of a penny that is realised from the sale of his produce overseas.” The two statements, if they do nothing else, clearly establish the fact that in the opinion of the Prime Minister, and of his colleague, the producer would get every penny obtained from the sale of the produce. The fact that there was a small debit balance last year does not affect the position. It cannot be paid off out of credits this year, if the promises made by the Ministers are going to be kept. If that course should be taken then the scheme would be purely a stabilisation plan, and nothing more, whereas its advocates have contended that it is a great deal more. The producer is losing, of course, because local prices are below London parity, but overseas markets have been satisfactory and there should be a substantial credit balance. To that the producers will have the strongest moral claim —whatever the legal position may be —and any distribution will not be a matter of generosity on the part of the Government, although that probably will be claimed. It will simply mean the distribution among the producers of the money obtained from the sale of the produce, and they will have an indisputable right to it. Perhaps it was a recollection of the prolonged demonstration at the meeting addressed by the Prime Minister that caused Mr Hamilton to mention the matter of mass psychology. Many able men have drawn attention to the danger. Not long ago General Smuts said that the supplanting of the sturdy, independent outlook of the pioneers by mass psychology was a real threat to national development. Mass movements prevent clear thinking. The large crowd that listened to the Prime Minister in Wellington recently applauded vigorously, even when he announced that the Government would not think of socialising the land, quite forgetting the fact that only twenty-four hours previously the Labour conference had solemnly endorsed, as its objective, the socialisation of the means of production. And in this country surely that must include the land? The best counter to the mass movement, which depends upon iteration and reiteration, by speech, radio and in all possible ways, is for the citizen to realise the danger. He can then determine not to sink his individuality, but to think things out for himself. Mr Hamilton did the country a service in drawing attention to this attack in mass formation. It means an appeal to feelings and instincts rather than to reason, and is, therefore, dangerous. There can be no doubt that the widespread interest that is being displayed in things political denotes a very hardfought campaign ahead. These speeches by the party leaders are just the gathering cries sounding up the political glens.