NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 149, 20 March 1931, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

Hospital and charitable aid levies on the rates in Wellington have been heavier ■ than in the other metropolitan centres in New Zealand, the respective rates per head being 6/8-J for Christchurch, 8/10| for Dunedin, 11/3 for Auckland, and 11/8 for Wellington, in 1930. This disproportion has been maintained for the last four years. The reason for it do&s not appear in the statement published yesterday, but some explanation ought to be forthcoming. In times like the present people are more inclined to turn a questioning eye upon the various items of their expenditure, and particularly upon those which are imposed upon them by local and general government. The rate burden is a very heavy one in Wellington, and there is good ground for a careful scrutiny of the position. * , * * *

Values of New Zealand imports have generally followed closely the trend of export values and that corrective process is at present in full operation, as is shown in the latest statistics. On this occasion, owing to the very sudden and drastic reduction in export values, it must have been particularly difficult to put the brake on imports soon enough and hard enough. That it is being accomplished is a tribute to the prudence and promptitude with which the financial and commercial interests must have acted. So it comes about that in the first seven months of the production year, although exports have fallen by f-7,600,000, imports are down by nearly £9,000,000, and on balance New Zealand is oyer a million to the good by comparison with the corresponding period in the previous season. It has, however, to be remembered in considering the exchange position that no overseas loan has been included in the figures for the latest period and that allowance must also be made for “invisible imports.” * * -k *

It is a good sign that the Public Service organisations have not confined themselves to condemning the wage-cut proposals out of hand but have produced alternative proposals. That shows that at least they realise the budgetary emergency and feel some sense of responsibility in the matter. Unfortunately their proposals amount to getting rid of most of the burden by placing it on the other fellow. Their brother-workers will not thank those who are in secure employment and provided against old age for the suggestion of a wage tax or a levy on small incomes. Even the proposed surtax on unearned incomes is bound to affect unsheltered workers by reducing employment. These workers are already faced with the prospect of reduced wages and greater uncertainty in retaining or obtaining jobs. Moreover, increased wages and income taxes are the most transparent disguise for wage reductions. Whether a tax on small incomes, owing to the cost of collection, is a practical revenue device is another question. Certainly there are, on the 1928 returns, some 245,000 persons with a collective income of 53| millions in the £ISO-f3OO class, but whether many persons representing an appreciable taxable sum would be left after making the proposed exemptions is doubtful * * * *

Into the atmosphere of Australian politics there has recently been introduced a belligerent note which, it is to be hoped, may be nothing more serious than “hot air.” A Labour member in the New South Wales Assembly has deflared that if the Opposition members try to meet the position with armed force “we will meet them with armed force and beat them.” The Metropolitan Conference of the Australian Labour Party has decided to form' an “Australian Labour Army,” to oppose the seditious forces that are being marshalled against constitutional government. While there is little to be said for the argument of force in the settlement of highly provocative questions in any British community, it is right that the plea of justification advanced by those opposed to Labour’s present policy should be examined. On the one side a large and responsible section of the Australian people is convinced that the public’s rights and the security of property, to say nothing of the country’s honour, are endangered by the attempts of political Labour to undermine the foundations of constitutional government, exploit the wealth of the community to suit its own ends, and quite conceivably establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. History testifies that tyranny of this kind engenders revolt against the tyrants. The situation is one for grave concern. It may be hoped that the future course of even's will open the way for a better feeling on both sides, and a clearer understanding by Labour of the constitutional rights of die neoole.