TAX FOR DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 263, 4 August 1939, Page 10

TAX FOR DEFENCE

Opposition Said To Be Inconsistent MR. BARCLAY'S VIEW Members of the Opposition, chambers of commerce, the Farmers’ Union and other organizations had complained that not enough money was being spent on defence. Now that tiie Government had put on a petrol tax to secure revenue for defence purposes, there was an outcry that it was wrong. Was there any consistency in that atti tnde, asked Mr. Barclay (Government, Marsden), speaking in the Budget debate in tiie House of Representatives yesterday. Mr. Barclay contended that the petrol tax was the fairest means of securing the money required for defence, being spread over all the people. Opposition members claimed that it would result in hardship to the farmer. From evidence he had secured from a number of dairy factories, the increase in the price of petrol would work out at approximately 2/- a ton in a 2000ton factory. For factories in consolidated areas the cost would be less "We know taxes are not popular, and we would sooner not have imposed them, but every country in Lhe world has had to increase-taxation because of expenditure for war. We have had to follow suit, but we are also taxing for social services. The people are get ting something back,” said Mr. Bar . clay. It was clear, he added, that tiie people appreciated the services tha*' had been created for their benefit. Ample evidence of that had been indicated at the polls last October. Opposition criticism had been surprisingly contradictory, said Mr. Bar clay. The member for Awarua, Mr. Hargest, had held that imports would decrease as a result of the policy of the Government, and that the Government was out to injure the British manufacturer. "I would like to remind Mr. Hargest that it was his Government which first cut imports from Great Britain,” said Mr. Barclay. '"How else did we tic cumulate more than £40,000,000 in sterling funds during the term of .Mr. Hargest’s Government?” Mr. Barclay added that by taking imports iu return for exports the present Government had clearly shown that it was the friend of the British manufacturer. Social Security Cost. "We heard a great deal from Opposition members that the Social Security scheme would cost £26,000,000. The member for Christchurch North, Mr. Holland, said it would cost at least £18,000,000,” said Mr. Barclay. .Mr. Holland: That’s right. Mr. Barclay said it was now disclosed by the Budget that the cost would be £14,000,000 for the first year, yet Opposition members had contended that the cost would amount to some fabulous sum the country could nor pay. “Actually wo under-estimated the cost,” said Mr. Barclay. Mr. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) : The benefits have been reduced. Mr. Barclay replied that the medical benefits would be brought into operation as soon as possible. “We will not tolerate words being put into the mouth of the Prime Minister which he did not use,” said Mr. Barclay, iu referring to a statement by Mr. Hargest that the Prime Minister had discouraged savings. "The Prime Minister asked the people to save, and I agree with him, but what he did infer was that it should not be necessary to skimp and scratch to save. “Mr. Hargest had a lot to say about civil servants and how they had turned against the Government. I can assure him that the civil servants today value the political liberty and the 40-hour week privileges they did not enjoy under Mr. Hargest’s government.”

Mr. Roy (Opposition, Clutha): Would a civil servant’s job be safe today if he opposed the Government? Mr. Barclay: Certainly; in fact, if they have any grievances they come openly to the Government about them. Before Labour came into power they were frightened to do so. (Opposition laughter.) Opposition members contended that the jieople were no better off and that increased costs had overtaken the increases in wages, said Mr. Barclay. If that were so, he wanted to know where all the increased production was going. “If we are importing and manufacturing more goods, and they are going into consumption, then there must be more purchasing power.” LIVING COSTS AND WAGE RATES Statement By Minister Challenged PUBLIC SERVANTS AND GOVERNMENT A statement by the Minister of Industries and Commerce, Mr. Sullivan, when speaking in the Budget debate ou Wednesday night that wage rates had not been overtaken by living costs was challenged by Mr. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua) speaklug in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Minister’s statement was not correct. Mr. Hargest said. Wage rates had been overtaken iu nearly every industry. "More than half the people of this country do not work under awards or on wages, but on salaries and fixed incomes and everyone of those people today is fearing hardship.” -Mr Hargest said. Today their standard of living was going down. With the raising of the income tax and the petrol fax the position of a great number of these people was becoming hopeless. Another group of people affected were those living on superannuation. What hope bad they of ever raising their income. The only thing that was not fixed for them was the cost of living. Then there was the position of the public servants. They had supported the Government in the past, but he wondered whether they would support it today after the shocking treatment they had had at its hands. Their position was infinitely worse than that of any other class working under an award. On the Minister’s own shelving the cost of living was up 20 per cent., but Mr. Hargest considered that it was up 25 per cent, if it was up a forth lug. The public servants had had a 10 [X'r cent, increase in their wages and a 25 per cent, increase in the cost of living. The public service was seething with discontent today. Members were paid the ordinary hourly rate of their wages for overtime, something that would not be tolerated by the Government in private employment.