The Politics of Production

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22662, 17 March 1939, Page 10

The Politics of Production

Nothing has been more significant of secret anxieties among the leaders of the Government than their chorus of pleas for increased production. Towards the' end pf last year, before and through the election, there was no hint of the doubts and fears that make these pleas necessary. The Prime Minister’s confidence in the social security finances, for example, rested lightly upon the rule of three and the assent of the Minister for Finance. If production has risen in the last 40 years to a point at which it may stand taxation at the rate of £36,000,000 a year, then in the next 40 years, it will rise to a point at which the support of social security will be child’s play, and everybody will enjoy a good laugh at the expense of stupid actuaries like Mr G. H. Maddex. This

was the Government’s optimistic logic, the transformation of which, since the election, has been rapid and revolutionary. Minister after Minister has implored workers to put forth more vigorous . efforts, has told them blunt truths about the impossibility of drawing more from the common t>ool than is poured into it, and has called upon them to realise that the fate of the Government’s schemes is in their hands. The Minister for Industries and Commerce, whose address to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce was reported yesterday, gives the most recent expression to views like these. The Government was striving to increase production, he said, because, “ unless there was “such an increase,” the Government would be “ unable to achieve its ideal of greater health, “happiness, and prosperity for everyone”; but, unfortunately, production and export values had fallen away to an extent that caused “ some disquiet.” No critic of the Government and no friend, either, will regret the turn which its thought has taken. What is to be wished is that the new line should be followed to its necessary conclusion. So far, however, it is not clear that the Government is ready to do the thing it most urgently needs to do: re-examine its own policies thoroughly, and revise them. Hope is still the indulgent father of its wayward thoughts. Mr Sullivan, for instance, is “ confident that the ultimate outcome “ of the import licensing system will not be to “reduce the total volume of trade with the “ United Kingdom.” In the long run, “ the “ policy of building up local industries would “ probably mean even greater trade.” Mr Sullivan produces no evidence to found his confidence; and it is, in fact, the almost total want of any evidence to rationalise and explain the Government’s new departure in controlled trade that is thoroughly disturbing. Meanwhile, the evidence of tendencies and movements against higher production is strong and continues to mount. Obviously, under assurance that competitive imports will be excluded or reduced, New Zealand factories will seek to expand their productibn to supply the demand; but against that two considerations arise. One is that it remains to be seen on what basis of production cost the demand can be supplied. The other is that it is to be seen now, and with alarming distinctness, how primary production is being cramped and choked by encroaching costs, including the monstrous cost of government. Mr Sullivan’s pleas and warnings should be directed, not at his audiences of workers and employers, but over his shoulder, at his colleagues.