GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 49, 26 August 1920, Page 8

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES

AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION.

m Representatives of the Wellington and Christchurch. Accountant Students Societies ,were engaged last night in thai; annual debate. There was a. numerou attendance, presided over by Mr. E."\y. Hunt, preßidjent of the local society.; Mr' C. A. fL. ; Treadwell acted as judge. The subject of the debate was: "Thai the system of Government subsidies io; reducing .the cost of living to the con> sumer is economically unsound." Wei lington representatives took the affirma tive'side, and'the Christchurch repris eentativea the negative-. Mr. P. L. Porter, who opened the d* bate for Wellington; said the policy ol Government subsidies was unsound foi. three reasons:—Firstly, that it did n«y actually reduce the cost of living; secondly;'that it hindered industry ant production by interfering with the law of supply and demand; and thirdly, tha* it militated against the general welfan of the community. In supporting thr first contention,.Mr. Porter declared thai the effect of'the subsidy was that the community was really out of pqcket bi the cost of administration, since, the sub' sidies were paid out of taxation.. Th( burden of the subsidy really fell back npon the shoulders of the consumer. It addition to being economically unsound, the subsidy policy was dangerously un sound. The solution of the cost of livinc problem lay in getting down to harfl facts —hard , working, hard thinking and hard living. . In the course of his remarks, Mr. S. J. Hearn, leader of the negative side, sa.id that the term "economically unsound" as applied to Government eubsi<Jies meant *3iat the management of public affairs did not result fn a saving to the commnnity, and particularly that,the '^policy -oras Dot*in accordance "with recognised political, doctrines. Subsidies increased production, and therefore were economically sound. By maintaining th< worker by means of a, subsidy We effi. ciency was also maintained. The policy of subsidies ensured a food supply to the peopk. It increased production, and therebyjeduced the high cost of living; it prevented profiteering in those industries subsidised; maintained the nation's efficiency, because it maintained the necessities of'life within the means of the worker; and the rich man paid'a proportion of the Ipoor man's burden, which was quite a fair and equitable proposition. - ■-; - : , , . ,' ' ' '

At the close of a lengthy debate, the judge announced the "..result as follows : —ChristchurcK team, '314 points; Wellington team, 306 points' The possible was 425. Mr." Treachyell said that he thought it could be safely stated that the Christchurch team had succeeded in making it impossible for the other side to establish their proposition to the satisfaction of. the audience. ■'.