In-Reply-To: <20060309154618.76584.qmail@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Thank you very much whoever posted this. Very useful.
Where was it taken from please ?
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-3587-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q23.elistas.net (q23.elistas.net [216.66.20.147]) by
mta05.mx.cix.co.uk (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id k29GCBJV000384
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:12:11 GMTReceived: (qmail
19296 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2006 17:48:49 +0100Received: from
mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206) by q2.elistas.net with EMQP; 9 Mar 2006
17:48:49 +0100Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 21941 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2006 16:40:18 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.85.80)
by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 2006 16:40:18 +0100
Received: (qmail 76587 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Mar 2006 15:46:18 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Conten
t-Transfer-Encoding;
b=5yxkm9apwwU38p+xlbb5IUCBqBEihuNpEQrumysRiHr67zfVi9jNPo5EH8VCRW10Z5SutknIi
cqDYADG8FDS6fpkMGLIs0aTb2kvq0R7Qt3cnIZh4pfkqI6cwhYLnzSp5CZ6LxxyVnBDvY+3Mn9I
AiwIj4VkrUJig14HMdC3xzk= ;
Message-ID: <20060309154618.76584.qmail@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [64.219.197.238] by web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:46:18 PSTDate: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 07:46:18 -0800 (PST)
From: MODERATOR <socredus@yahoo.com>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [socialcredit] The Red Dawn
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _bH.iPFEEB.mta05.mx
F_A_I_R U_S_E C_L_A_I_M_E_D
CHAPTER FOUR - THE "RED DAWN", 1934 - 38.
>From February to July 1934 Parliament's Monetary
Committee held an enquiry into the New Zealand
financial system. This was in large part to answer
attacks upon the system as a major, or for some the
only, cause of the economic depression. The Reserve
Bank Act of 1933 had moved the New Zealand Pound off
the gold standard, and parity with the British Pound,
to a 125 to 100 ratio to the British Pound, ie a
devaluation. Until 1933 New Zealand had even used
British currency. The Labour representatives on the
Committee were Bill Schramm, M.P. for Auckland East
from 1931, James Munro, first elected M.P. for Dunedin
North in 1922, and Frank. They were joined by Captain
Harold Rushworth, Country Party M.P. for Bay of
Islands from 1928, who was a supporter of credit
reform.
The Committee received ninety eight proposals or
statements, many of which supported some variety of
monetary reform. C.H. Douglas, the guru of reformers,
proposed a certificate of wealth for everyone, with
national dividends paid out equally on a regular
basis. The Douglas Credit Movement of New Zealand on
the other hand proposed a National Credit Authority to
determine what it regarded as just prices, and ignored
Douglas' national dividends. Discrepancies between
Douglas and the New Zealand Movement that bore his
name were noted by the Committee. On behalf of the
Labour Party Walter Nash supported a central credit
authority, a National Investment Board and
nationalisation of the banking system. His Labour
colleague, Rex Mason, persisted in detailing the
monetary reform legislation he regularly presented to
Parliament.
The government appointees to the Committee delivered a
report calling on the Bank of New Zealand to follow
what it termed the national interest and not the
profits of its private shareholders, recommended a
unified Government Mortgage Board and supported a
variable ratio of 120 to 130 New Zealand Pounds to the
British Pound. The Majority report also condemned the
notion of stabilising prices, claiming it would
require total government control of purchasing,
production, pricing and sale to achieve, and issued a
damning indictment of both the Douglas and Douglas
Credit Movement submissions. Downie Stewart, who had
resigned from the Coalition government over its
decision to devalue the New Zealand Pound, issued his
own minority report contending that New Zealand's
economic problems were simply due to a lack of markets
for goods, and that economic changes arising from
having the new Reserve Bank needed to be worked
through before there were any further changes.
The other minority report was signed by the three
Labour representatives and Rushworth. They concluded
that there was a gap or defect in the money supply,
rejected linkage to the British Pound, called for a
price level index, regarded the State as the sole
creator of currency and credit, sought to close the
purchasing power gap for both pensioners and
producers, and believed New Zealand could maintain a
stable internal price level, while retaining exchange
parity with other countries with fluctuating price
levels by rationing foreign exchange. Others within
the Labour Party, especially Walter Nash, disagreed
with the minority report conclusions, particularly
over money supply.
R. Hill, in "The quest for control, the New Zealand
dairy industry and the guaranteed price 1921 - 1936
(Auckland University, 1974), claims Labour only turned
to cheaper loans, rather than land nationalisation, to
win the rural vote after 1925, and that Frank
supported the creation of internal credits from 1932.
However, from the beginning of his Parliamentary
career Frank supported bank nationalisation as a means
of achieving cheaper credit for farmers and by 1932
had "placed his views on currency reform and kindred
subjects before the house on many occasions" (P.D.
1932, v234, p826). Some Government M.P.s feared his
credible delivery gave weight to his unorthodox views
and support for monetary reform.
Frank's status within the Party increased. He had
assisted during the Hutt by-election in 1930, which
was won by Walter Nash, and in 1931 along with
addressing meetings at Public Works camps within
Waimarino he also spoke in Marsden, Wanganui,
Rangitikei and Waitomo (MS 270, folders 352 and 353).
He believed that Labour would win Rangitikei in the
next election (WTU MS 1501, folder 3, L to Nash
4/4/1931). In the event it took two elections to win
Rangitikei.
In 1933 he was successfully nominated for Party
President for a year. Backed by the Waimarino L.R.C.
and the Ohakune Branch, he was also supported by the
Wellington builders and general labourers' union. He
had not previously served on the National Executive.
At the 1933 Conference he also reported speaking to
meetings in Auckland, Taranaki, South Canterbury, the
Waikato and at the Motueka by-election (WTU MS 270,
folder 355). He was joined at the 1933 Conference by
his son Jack.
Frank sat on the second bench in Labour's
Parliamentary line-up, was campaign manager for
Elizabeth McCombs at the Lyttelton by-election in
September 1933 and had even been approached, amongst
others, to contest the leadership on Holland's death
later in 1933. He refused, but would have at that time
backed John A. Lee if he had stood.
R. Clifton in "Douglas Credit and the Labour Party
1930 - 1935" (Victoria University, 1961) claims Labour
adopted cheap loans after 1928 and that Frank adopted
Douglas Credit ideas in 1932. The Douglas Credit
Movement of New Zealand was actually formed in January
1933, but few adherents had penetrated the King
Country as only Te Kuiti was represented at the
inaugural conference. By 1935 there were branches
within the Waimarino electorate at Taumarunui, Ohakune
and Raetihi. The Movement was in fact one amongst many
supporting monetary reform of some description, but
had the backing of the Auckland Farmers' Union for its
particular brand of financial reform. Clifton talked
to Frank when he was a Social Credit member in the
late 1950's, when Frank claimed to have been the
political link with Douglas Credit adherents prior to
the 1935 General Election. However, Rex Mason was
ideologically closer to them. Clifton also contends
that Frank wanted to use the Unemployment Fund as
security for credits. In fact in Parliament at the
time Frank actually sought to abolish the Unemployment
Board in favour of Public Works Department schemes.
Clifton also contends that Labour's former
anti-capitalist fervour became a mere anti-bank
crusade by the time of the 1935 Election, with Labour
intent on merely solving a money deficiency gap.
However, in 1935 John A. Lee claimed "all socialists
are monetary reformers" (P.D. 1935, v241, p693), with
Frank seeking "socialized money, money for use and not
as a dominating controlling factor" (P.D. 1935, v242,
p477). The socialist economist John Strachey in his
"Social Credit; an economic analysis" (London,
Gollancz, 1936), criticised Douglas for failing to
distinguish between the costs of raw materials for
producers and the costs of final consumer goods when
claiming his money gap. He also believed fixing prices
by law would not stop inflation, as it was contrary to
the laws of supply and demand. Strachey instead
believed there was already enough purchasing power in
the community to buy all the consumer goods available,
and that the real issue was the need to distribute
purchasing power wider in the community. Socialists
Hugh Gaitskell and G.D.H. Cole in "What everybody
needs to know about money" (London, Gollancz, 1936)
supported nationalising deposit banking in order to
better control the supply of credit to finance a
national industrial development plan. They contended
one couldn't socialise everything at once and banking
was the prerequisite. While disagreeing with Strachey
over the amount of purchasing power available, Frank
would have agreed with Gaitskell and Cole that the
banking system was the key.
Frank directly criticised Douglas' ideas in a letter
to a monetary reformer B. Beckerleg on 22 March 1934.
Frank argued that a stabilised guaranteed internal
price level was "superior and more practicable than
the Douglas just price factor". He continued "if we
stand for a money economy as the best distribution
medium for goods and services then ... sufficient
money should be put in the ordinary flow of
circulation to completely do the job... it would not
be difficult to fix an internal price level ...the
infusing of money into circulation would not interfere
with prices, but would result in a wider distribution
of available goods and prices ... the value of trade
would increase correspondingly." The state would tax
the increased profits from increased turnover and use
the money for health, education, superannuation and
economic development. The amount of money could be
increased or decreased as necessary.
In the same letter Frank also took issue with Douglas'
just price discount formula, calling it "defective"
and leading to Communism, "not that I am opposed to
Communism, but I don't think it good philosophy to mix
drinks". The "National Dividend the people will secure
in the Social Services and National Superannuation ...
superior to the Douglas proposals" and "the Labour
Party's programme is more practical that that of Major
Douglas. In fact if there had been no slump, there
would have been no Douglasism in New Zealand. The
Labour Party in season and out of season have been
calling attention to the fraudulent capitalistic
system manifested in our financial machine".
Once in office Frank publicly confirmed "the Labour
Party does not go to the Douglas Social Credit
authorities, nor to any other political party for
advice" (P.D. 1936, v244, p631). Rather, he believed
"the socialization of a thing means the using of it in
the interests of the whole of the community" (P.D.
1938, v250, p84), through the elected government. "The
people, instinctively, always have turned, and always
will turn, to the Government to find a solution of
their problems" (P.D. 1938, v251, p428). In essence
socialism equated to human justice.
In Australia the Labor Party was also dealing with the
appeal of Douglas Credit. Baiba Berzins ("Labour
History", No. 17, June 1970, p148 -160) describes how
Australian Douglas Credit supporters in the early
1930's criticised the banks in pamphlets and lectures,
and were thus intellectual allies for monetary
reformers within Labor. However, their incompatible
long term objectives, and potential electoral threat,
led the New South Wales Labor Party to ban dual
membership in 1933. Queensland followed in 1934 and
soon after Douglas Credit supporters broke into
factions.
Towards the end of 1935 Frank believed "one can hear
the death rattle in the throat of the government"
(P.D., 1935, v243, p207). Having only won around 34.9%
of the vote in 1931, when voters opted to give the new
United Reform coalition a chance, Labour still had a
lot of ground to make up. Nevertheless in early
November 1935 Frank was confident of a Labour victory
when speaking to a group of supporters at a bush
sawmill (Ted Thompson, 29/9/1997). Frank had in the
previous year spoken in South Canterbury, the
Wairarapa, North Auckland and on the West Coast.
Frank may have regretted the storm created by his
second political pamphlet. There were in fact two
versions printed by the Ohakune Times. The first was
"Labour's plan, by Frank Langstone, M.P., National
President, N.Z. Labour Party. The first step in the
march from bankruptcy to prosperity". This was headed
as a householder containing advertisements for twenty
four Taumarunui and three Raetihi and Ohakune
businesses, and appealed for donations to the
secretary of the Waimarino Labour Representation
Committee, William Seator who worked as a labourer.
Obviously this was just for distribution within
Waimarino. The other was also published in Ohakune in
1934, but was for national distribution as "The first
step in the march from bankruptcy to prosperity,
Labour's plan, by Frank Langstone, M.P. National
President N.Z. Labour Party". This instead had
advertisements for donations to the Labour Party
nationally and for copies of the Party newspaper "The
New Zealand Worker".
The pamphlet included an example that a farmer who
sold butter for sixpence would be reimbursed one
shilling and three pence, but if they wanted to buy an
import then they would have to pay the full one
shilling and three pence. Opponents seized upon this
as claiming that in reality this meant an exchange
rate of 250%. The Labour Party National Executive had
previously rejected the pamphlet for publication.
Frank's later pamphlet "The case for the guaranteed
price by Frank Langstone M.P." (Ohakune, 1935) also
featured state control of banking, credit and
currency, foreign exchange parity and an internal
stabilised guaranteed price level, but excluded any
mention of a 250% exchange rate.
In fact while attracting some monetary reformers to
Labour, Frank may well have deterred other possible
voters wary of such changes. Certainly the government
made great play with his pamphlet into 1935. Frank
served on the Labour Party policy committee for the
1935 election manifesto, was an ardent campaigner in
marginal seats and promoted the candidacy of those who
supported monetary reform, including Charles Barrell
in Hamilton. At one stage Fred Young from the
hotelworkers' union had contemplated standing in
Hamilton.
At the 1935 General Election Frank faced two
opponents. Cecil August Boles, a grocer and Mayor of
Taumarunui since 1929, represented the Coalition
government, and Henry William Buckrall Littlewood, a
farmer and a former Mayor of Raetihi who had
previously stood in 1922, stood as a National United
candidate. The "N.Z. Herald" of 18/11/1935 (page 14)
even believed "there is a chance that Mr C.A. Boles
... will beat Mr F. Langstone ... who has become
somewhat discredited within his own party because of
his varying and illogical expositions of Labour's
guaranteed prices policy". In the election campaign
Boles also criticised Frank's absence from the
electorate while campaigning in Lyttelton and said he
should be seeing to projects such as the Tokaanu
roadworks. Littlewood refused to support any
Labour-moved no confidence motion in the Coalition
government and opposed Labour's defence and state bank
proposals.
At the election Frank won 60% of the vote cast with
Boles receiving only 37.43% and Littlewood 206 votes.
With a majority of 1863 Frank carried every polling
booth with over a hundred voters, including for the
first time Raetihi, with 56.48% of the vote. He even
won 10 votes against 11 at the Chateau polling booth.
Frank won Boles' home base of Taumarunui with 55% of
the vote and won the absent vote by 68.5%. The
turn-out was 92.8% and informal votes were 53.
Nationally Labour increased its vote to 46.1%, but
with a dramatic increase to 53 seats. In the central
North Island Labour also picked up the neighbouring
Rotorua, Rangitikei, Hawkes Bay and Waipawa
electorates, but on minority votes as only Rotorua and
Hawkes Bay remained Labour in 1938.
With a majority of seats Labour sought to form a
government. The initial press speculation was that
Bill Lee Martin was the unofficial choice for both the
Lands and Agriculture portfolios, but it was noted
that "on length of service alone ... R. McKeen, ...
W.J. Jordan and Mr F. Langstone must be considered as
candidates for Ministerial office" ("N.Z. Herald"
3/12/1935 p13). Lee Martin became Minister of
Agriculture at number eleven in Cabinet ranking,
McKeen became Chief Whip and Jordan High Commissioner
in London. It was then speculated that Frank might
become Minister of Marine and Pensions ("N.Z. Herald"
5/12/1935 p15). However, Frank was one of Savage's
immediate choices and entered Cabinet at number twelve
as Minister of Lands and Commissioner of State
Forests, along with Minister in charge of Lands for
Settlements, Scenery Preservation, Discharged
Soldiers' Settlement and the Valuation and Tourist and
Publicity Departments. An astute choice as all these
portfolios were relevant to his local concerns in
Waimarino over a number of years.
When allocated his Cabinet portfolios it was said of
Frank that "latterly he has devoted much attention to
economic questions and is a leading exponent of the
Labour Party's policy in this regard" ("N.Z. Herald"
6/12/1935 p15). Frank formally became a Cabinet
Minister from 6 December 1935 and was allocated as
Minister to Parliament's Lands committee. Lee Martin
became Minister of Agriculture and was allocated to
the Agricultural and Pastoral committee. Frank took
over Gordon Coates' Ministerial home at 123A Tinakori
Road, and then had a home built for him on the grounds
of what had been Ariki Toa. He also retained his
Ohakune house until the late 1930's.
>From 14 October 1936 Frank was also allocated to the
Native Affairs committee, and worked closely with
Savage who held the Native Affairs portfolio. James
(Jim) O'Brien, Labour M.P. for Westland, chaired the
Native Affairs committee from 1936 to 1942. Frank had
good relations with local Maori in the King Country,
six years experience on the Native Affairs Committee
and could speak Maori to a degree.
Fellow Labour M.P. Clyde Carr wrote about his
Parliamentary colleagues in his "Politicalities"
(Wellington, "National Magazine", 1936) and referred
to Frank (pages 32 to 34) as combining an ability with
numbers and words, as well as a selflessness.
Political issues were always more important to Frank
than the compromises needed for a top leadership
position. John A. Lee on the other hand barely
concealed his personal ambitions, and Frank tried to
console him when he lost out on a position in Cabinet.
According to Lee, Peter Fraser claimed to Lee that he
could convince Savage to include him in Cabinet at a
later date, but Frank told Lee that Fraser was playing
a double game trying to ensure that Lee was kept out
of Cabinet. Lee was given the role of Under-secretary
for Housing, outside of Cabinet.
In 1936 Frank was responsible for three pieces of
legislation. The first was the Reserves and other
Lands Disposal Bill. This was an annual legislative
validation of the sale, reservation or disposal of
reserves, Crown lands and endowments. As an example,
one of the provisions of the 1937 Bill was to
authorise the Taumarunui Borough Council to grant a
lease to the Taumarunui Fire Board. Frank had
responsibility for these Bills to 1940.
The 1936 Native Land Amendment Bill empowered the
Board of Native Affairs to develop Maori land and
better co-ordinate with the Lands Department, the aim
being to "make of the Natives a productive class of
people and a free and independent people" (P.D. 1936,
v247, p1079). The Act provided for security of tenure
for Maori occupiers of developed lands, and protection
for Maori owners of lands in cases where the occupiers
were not sole owners through rental leases. By the end
of 1936 there were 1,388 Maori (6,635 including
family) on 49 settlement schemes, with 161,941 out of
a total of 668,885 acres under development. At the
time Maori owned around 4.5 million acres in total. At
the end of 1937 there were around 5,000 directly
working on development schemes. Such schemes were not
new as Ngata had fostered them while he was Minister.
The third was the Native Purposes Bill. This was an
annual legislative adjustment of claims and disputes
relating to Maori land. For example the 1936 Bill set
aside land at Wairoa for a memorial to the late Sir
James Carroll, which was to include a carved meeting
house, and gave a tribal committee authority over the
Raukawa Marae at Otaki. Frank believed that previous
policies individualising Maori land titles created
administrative problems, and believed that it would
have been better if tribes controlled whole blocks and
leased them for the benefit of the whole tribe. Frank
also supported the secret ballot for Maori, equal
pensions for both Maori and Pakeha and regarded the
Treaty of Waitangi as a "sacred agreement entered into
indicating that New Zealand was not a conquered
country" (P.D. 1938, v250, p86).
Frank also provided the operative regulations and
funding to enact the 1935 Native Housing Act,
previously passed by the Coalition. However, in 1937
Frank caused trouble with Orakei Maori. From Pakeha
settlement of Auckland in the nineteenth century,
Maori lived in Mangere, Awataha in Northcote until a
1926 eviction or around the Orakei basin. In mid 1937
a committee of Government and Auckland City Council
representatives, including John A. Lee who intended to
develop pakeha state housing in the area, decided that
the 73 adults and 48 children remaining in the small
Maori village at Orakei should be removed (WAI 9,
p80). Maori on the site had suffered high rates of
tuberculosis, dysentery and enteric fever and some
were living in tents and shacks. They still owned at
least two and a half acres, along with a quarter acre
church and cemetery site. Their title to other land
had been under dispute for years.
The government had claimed it had purchased another 40
acres from them, but in the meantime had let them
continue to live there as there was no immediate use
for the land. As acting Native Affairs Minister, Frank
proceeded to carry out the Committee's decision, but
on his return from overseas Savage reversed Frank's
removal order as he had promised the area to local
Maori.\par \tab At the end of 1937 almost 200 houses
had either been built or repaired specifically for
Maori. Other considerations were also important, for
example Frank opposed building a Maori village near
the Pukekohe market gardens as the area didn't offer
Maori a firm economic base. In 1938 Frank amended the
Native Housing Act to assist setting aside Crown and
other lands for Maori housing, disposing of dwellings
and to include those with less than half Maori blood
in the definition of Maori.
Following a special study into Maori unemployment,
Frank encouraged co-operation between the Native
Affairs Department and the Unemployment Branch of the
Labour Department to find employment for Maori,
including special funding for land development. In his
State Forest portfolio Frank supported afforestation
to avoid soil erosion. Generally the public servants
responsible to him were impressed with his
administrative abilities.\par \tab New Zealand took
military possession of Western Samoa from Germany in
August 1914, at the commencement of the First World
War, and from 1919 exercised a League of Nations
Mandate there. The administration of that mandate
provoked the development of a independence movement,
the Mau. Labour had long regarded New Zealand's record
in Western Samoa as far from satisfactory, but Frank
had not been at the forefront of public concern.
Nevertheless, in June 1936 Frank and Jim O'Brien,
Labour M.P. for Westland, were dispatched on a
goodwill mission to Western Samoa. They left for Apia
on 16 June 1936 on the "Maui Pomare". As well as
investigating local grievances and conditions in
Western Samoa, their mission was to also seek guidance
on the choice of a new administrator. Alfred C.
Turnbull had been appointed as acting Administrator,
and in the meantime had been able to unite the
different political factions.
While not directly negotiating with the Mau, the
mission spent a month meeting different sections of
the community. An Ordinance allowing for banishment
from a village, and the cancellation of Samoan titles,
was repealed, as were the Native Personal and Medical
Tax Ordinances, with any payment of arrears cancelled.
The proclaimation of the Mau as a seditious
organisation was revoked, restrictions on free
movement repealed and Olaf Frederick Nelson, a leader
of the Mau, able to return from exile. Further, the
export price of bananas was lifted, a boon to native
Samoans who made up 60% of exporters. There was also
an increase in the representation of native Samoans on
the advisory Legislative Council, and increased
funding for both health and education.
At the time the conservative "Pacific Islands
Monthly", while acknowledging previous blunders and
welcoming the end of trouble with the Mau, also voiced
the concerns of European planters (Pacific Islands
Monthly 17/6/1936 p5, 21/7/1936 p68, 19/8/1936 p3-4,
16/4/1940 p72 & 3/1943 p8). The population of Western
Samoa was around 45,000, with 2,500 being described as
European or half-caste. Planters preferred that
Western Samoa was developed along more commercial
lines, and were highly critical of Frank's intention
to repatriate Chinese plantation workers. In 1931
there were around 950 Chinese in Western Samoa, nearly
all indentured contract labour. Consequently some
planters supported direct Colonial Office control, and
later full independence, but with the planters still
in charge. Later R.W. Robson, a "Pacific Islands
Monthly" correspondent, claimed that Savage had been
so pleased with Frank's efforts that he had offerred
him the position of Administrator of Western Samoa.
Robson was personally highly critical of Frank
("Pacific Islands Monthly" 3/1943 p8).
Michael Field in "Mau, Samoa's struggle for freedom"
(Auckland, Polynesian Press, 1991) describes Frank's
anger with some Samoans who wanted full protectorate
rather than mandate status. Nevertheless, Frank
believed he had achieved reconciliation between the
Mau and the traditional leaders in the Fono a Faipule,
and returned with recommendations for government
action. In 1938 the Samoa Act was amended to, amongst
other provisions, allow Faipules to be chosen for the
Fono according to Samoan custom. He also repealed the
1927 amendment to the Act allowing deportation of
those deemed working against the local New Zealand
administration. Nelson, and two others, had been
deported under these provisions.
Angus Ross in his "New Zealand's record in the Pacific
Islands in the Twentieth Century (Auckland, Longman
Paul, 1969) claims Samoans were still dissatisfied. He
notes most of the Mau basic proposals were met, apart
from financial independence, but that there still was
not an appreciation of their desire for autonomy. He
also claims that Frank did not personally impress the
chiefly elite, and lectured them on financial matters.
Between 1935 and 1938 Frank strongly supported
Labour's income redistribution policies, noting they
also recognised the value of women and mothers in the
home. He further supported changes to health and
superannuation and the 1938 Social Security Bill as
"it has fallen to the lot of the Labour Party to
relieve that penury and want, and give to the widowed
mother and the motherless a feeling of security" (P.D.
1938, v252, p503). No doubt he recalled his own
circumstances on the death of his mother. He also
supported the more independent foreign policy stance
New Zealand was adopting, welcoming New Zealand's 1936
contribution to the League of Nations as being the
"first time New Zealand had exercised its right ... to
put forward its opinion at the conference" (P.D.,
1936, v 247, p880), but also stressed that New Zealand
was not acting in opposition to British thinking.
He also pointed to the fact that the Government had
"largely increased expenditure on internal and
overseas advertising, and in expanding the work of
"Filmcraft", its studio at Mirimar, Wellington"
(Flashlight, 1 January 1938, p5) and noted
"Government's legislation making for increased leisure
for the enjoyment of our workers generally".
He also supported amendments to the Reserve Bank Act,
making it a fully state institution, but privately
recognised that it didn't yet provide for full
government control of public credit. He also supported
those in Labour's caucus pressing for the
nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand. His
portfolios, however, restricted him to actions such as
his 1938 Surveyors Act which consolidated previous
legislation on surveying, expanded the powers of the
Surveyor General and gave statutory authority to the
New Zealand Institute of Surveyors.
In his egotistical "John A. Lee diaries 1936 - 1940"
(Christchurch, Whitcoulls, 1981), Lee puts forward his
own version of events in Labour's parliamentary
caucus. For the meeting of 25 August 1936 Lee
describes a caucus decision to overturn Walter Nash's
proposals on raising the level of the old age pension,
by increasing it by 25%, and on the following day
claims that Frank offered to resign from Cabinet
"saying he had nothing in common with Nash" (p10).
Nothing eventuated from this. In the official minutes
(University of Auckland Library, A 108) Frank appears
only three times in the period 1935 - 1938. Firstly
for his Bill on Surveyors, secondly for 12 August 1936
when "Mr Langstone objected to Mr Nash authoring a
scheme of marketing which he had not the chance of
giving his advice. Mr Nash explained that this was due
to Mr Langstone's absence in Samoa and that Mr
Langstone's advice would now be availed of". The third
occasion is for 10 December 1937 when he was appointed
to the policy committee for the 1938 election
campaign.
Lee claims that at the meeting of 10 October 1936
Frank voted with Caucus against Cabinet on the rate of
refund of an internal loan and on 23 March 1937 Frank
supported Rex Mason and Savage against Nash over 2%
rentals for state housing. In his diary entry for 24
March 1937 he claims that Frank, Mason and Teddy
Howard told him that Savage didn't realise the
magnitude of his decision In his entry for 21 August
1937 Lee claims that Langstone again threatened to
resign from Cabinet, unless it accepted a minority
report of the dairy committee. For 24 August 1937 he
says that Frank opted for the highest figure for the
guaranteed price for butter while Nash opted for the
lowest. For 28 August 1937 Lee reports that Frank
joined with Lee Martin, Mason and Dan Sullivan against
the majority in Cabinet who supported a lower price.
He then claims Frank tendered his resignation to Peter
Fraser, who was acting leader while Savage was away.
For 7 September 1937 Lee reports that Frank's
resignation was deferred, with Lee claiming to have
convinced Frank to stay in Cabinet and fight for
monetary reform. Frank was shown prior to publication,
and approved of, Lee's pamphlet "Money power for the
people, Labour's way out" (Wellington, Grey Lynn
Branch of the N.Z. Labour Party, 1937). For 11
September 1937 Lee refers to Frank serving with
Sullivan, Mason and Nash on a Cabinet committee to
consider secondary industry, which couldn't function
as Nash was unavailable.
For Labour's 1938 General Election policy Frank
preferred an emphasis on state control of credit at
low interest rates for farms, housing and secondary
industry. However, the Party decided to make this a
secondary consideration in favour of the social
security legislation. The 1938 Social Security Act had
been passed by Parliament, but was not to come into
effect until April 1939, creating an incentive for
those who would benefit to maintain Labour in
government.
Copyright, David Verran 2004
-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message