CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27500, 6 November 1954, Page 8

CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL

COMMUNIST PARTY

CANDIDATE

HIGHER TAXATION ON PROFITS URGED “Although there is a conspiracy betwen the National Party and the Labour Party to say that there are uo really controversial matters in 'this election, there are vital issues,” said Mr Alec Ostler, Communist Party candidate for Christcnurch Central, when he spoke at the corner of Manchester street and Bedford row last evening. Prices of foodstuffs had risen by 68 per cent., but wages by only 39 per cent “The question is not just ‘Why did not Mr Holland make the £ go further?” but ‘Why did it not go further?’ ” Mr Ostler said. “Why are so many people obliged io work up to 50 hours a week and women go out into employment just to make ends meet? “The reason is that since 1939 10 per cent, more of the annual income has shifted from the wage packets into the tremendously-swollen profits of the employers, and 8 per cent of that change has occurred during the five years of the Holland Government.” Mr Ostler continued.

In 1939 the worker worked 31 hours for himself and nine hours for the boss, in 1949 he worked 30 hours for himself and 10 for the boss, but in 1953 he worked only 26 for himself ana 14 for the boss. * ’Mr Holland has made his friends richer and richer at tne expense of the workers." Mr Ostler said. “He did not make a mess of his policy, as some say he carried out its deceits with great efficiency.” The candidate then listed the net profits of five companies in 1945, 1949. and 1953 one from £BOOO to £21,000 a nd £31,000 and another from £47,000, to £78,000. and £286,000. “If higher wages will make things' worse, why don’t the employers oeg that increases in profits should be arrested?” Mr Ostler asked. “Costa today do not require a wages increase of just 7s 2d, but' £3 10s to restore the 1939 level in relation to the production.” Price Control

The Communist Party’s policy included a strong price tribunal with representatives of the producers, workers, and the consumers (including housewives), restoration of subsidies, and an immediate increase of £1 in pensions' for the old people who were the nearest to poor in New Zealand and lacked adequate food, clothing, and fuel.

“The only way is to bring taxation back on to profits and not' on to wages,” Mr Ostler said. '"Thirty years ago working people in general did not pay income tax because the exemption was £3OO, and very few earned as much as that. Recent exemptions de not nearly restore that position. It is necessary again to put the burden where it can best be carried—on the profit holders. A disproportionate amount is now carried by the workers.” New Zealand could not even be called a welfare state when the workers contributed so heavily.

“Mr Holland says the country is prosperous. I don’t quarrel with that. But it is experienced by the workers only in full employment,” Mr Ostler continued. “We also say that it is the

war policy of the Government in suoservjence to America that has pushed prices up. The Communist Party is blamed for threats of war, but we ask you ‘Who makes the dough out of war?’ The Government’s policy is to follow America right or wrong. Why, even before America has asked for it, spokesmen have offered co-operation in preparing to set off the H-bomb near Little America, which is nearer to New Zealand than Bikini is to Japan. New Zealand is tied up in the recklessly dangerous Anzus Pact and also in the South-east Asian Treaty Organisation—both with America.”