RELIEF WORK POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 59, 10 March 1932, Page 11

RELIEF WORK POLICY.

ADDED VALUE OF PROPERTY.

WHO SHOULD BENEFITj ? LABOUR MEMBER'S VIEWS. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The difference between the difficulties of the farmer and the unemployed city man were analysed by Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) during the Address-in-Reply debate last night. He admitted that present prices do not give the primary producers a margin of profit, but said that as between the farmer and the city worker it was not now a question of profits, but a question of food, shelter and clothing. On the one hand the farmer could secure for himself and his family food and shelter, although clothing might be difficult. Mortgagees would hesitate to push him off his holding and in that respect the farmer had another advantage over the city unemployed. On the other hand, said Mr. Parry, the mortgagee did not hesitate to evict an unemployed man from his home if he was unable to pay his interest, as a house security did not depreciate as a farm did.

Mr. Parry said the Economic Committee had suggested scaling down interest and wages in order to spread the national loss of income more equitably among the whole community, and it had proved to its own satisfaction that the farmer was paying the lion's share of the loss, which loss was entirely based upon the prices of farmers' exports. No consideration had been given to the amount consumed by the farmers themselves, which made up the major part of their living. Thus calculations based upon what the farmer had to sell, over and above his own requirements of food, did not become a problem with people dealing in or growing food. But the food question became a nightmare to the workers. The unemployed man was pushed from pillar to post. He and his family stood in the world shorn of the right to work for a wage, and denied ihe means to produce his own food. "Protection of Interests." The Government proposed to place the unemployed on relief rates of wages to construct roads and public works and to break in land, all of which would add considerable value to private properties and to the State when normal times returned. It was a policy entirely based upon the protection of land and property interests of the country, at the expense of the unemployed. When prosperity was restored those whose position had been stabilised could immediately resume their commercial and productive activities, with additional added values created by the unemployed on a starvation wage. "Take the case of an unemployed man compelled to break in land at 10/ per week," said Mr. Parry. Considerable value will be added to this land over and above the cost. Who will appropriate the additional values thus created? Either the Stale or the people whose securities are stabilised at the expense of those who broke in the land. Benefits will accrue to the farmers also in the way of rates, taxation, etc., and to tJ'.e big commercial and banking houses, indent agents and shipping companies in the way of profits. "Tako the construction of roads, railways, etc. Those engaged thereon are receiving relief rates of wages, and these roads and railways will give additional values to farmers when times are good. To whom should this added value rightly belong? Surely not to the section whose securities have been stabilised during the depression, but to the unemployed who made the sacrifice to create those values. Even if the Government, under its present nolicy, is unable to pay more wages for this work, provision ought to be made whereby these values be returned to those who created them."