Farming Leader Attacks Level Of State Spending

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27408, 22 July 1954, Page 9

Farming Leader Attacks Level Of State Spending

“The' Press” Special Service

WELLINGTON, July 21. • e worst feature of our economy is that the Government continues to spend money at all-time peak levels,” said the Dominion president of Federated Farmers (Mr John Andrew) in his presidential address at the annual conference today. “A good deal of the spending is in the directions where we could make do for the time being in order to’devote all our available resources to productive uses,” he said. “Again, some money, including valuable overseas funds, is being applied in directions which constitute nothing more nor less than a plain waste of money. ‘For example, do we need three overseas aerodromes in New Zealand? Do we need to spend money on new ports? If we had an employment problem for capital or for labour, I would say go ahead, but while taxation is at high levels, and while capital and labour for many essential jobs are lacking, I cannot see any sense in providing amenities often for a handful of our citizens to enjoy. “A recent announcement in the newspapers should give cause for concern to thinking people,” said Mr Andrew. “An Auckland businessman announced that six looms had been installed in a factory there for the purpose of weaving nylon, and that there was a place- for nylon weaving in New Zealand, provided there was reasonable protection for the makers.

“The general secretary of Federated Farmers took this matter up with the Government, asking if protection was going to be given, but up to date we have had no satisfaction. This matter raises a number of questions. In the first place, there must be a weakness in oui* ‘planning’ system when persons can be allowed to obtain scarce overseas funds for the purpose of bringing in machinery to found an industry which needs bolstering up. What is it going to cost the people of New Zealand to give protected employment to this handful of people? “Can anyone bring in machinery to found a new industry and then ask for protection and put up costs in New Zealand? When we have over-full employment, is such action at all necessary? The people responsible

brought in the machinery, knowing that there was no protection. Should they not be told to ship the machinery out of the country again? “Actually, our so-called ‘planning’ has been a miserable failure,” said Mr Andrew., “By it, directly or indirectly, we have put half a dqjen hotels in Wellington out of existence, while Government controls still demand personal attendances in Wellington. . . . Livestock Taxation “Sooner or later, we shall have to tackle our financial and economic problems,” Mr Andrew' said. “To find all the money we need, we are resorting to many unfair national practices, not least of which is our present system of livestock taxation. But so long as we have economic or financial extravagance, so long shall we be in difficulty. So v long as we have import control, so long shall we fail to get to the root of our problems, particularly our financial one. So long as we have import control, so long will the favoured (and inefficient) industries continue to draw labour from the old-established and efficient ones.

“It is clear to me that we should be revising our policies,” he said. “Some narrowing of the national field of endeavour might well be found to be profitable. Under' our policy of full employment, it is the great mass of the workers who lose. It is a most expensive way of achieving an object which could be attained by other means. The idea of raising the cost of all nylon fabric by 20 per cent, or more in order to keep seven or eight persons employed demonstrates what I mean, particularly when we have really efficient manufacturing industry crying out for labour. “The recent attempt to make farmers buy less efficient and dearer implements is another instance,” said Mr Andrew. “Over all, of course, we have restricted our aggregate national effort. In addition, we have adopted policies which have unnecessarily increased the cost of living. That has been done by majority decision. I think it is time that all of us—the workers particularly—reviewed these policies to see whether they are giving us what we really want, which is a higher standard of living for all.”