THE HUTT SEAT

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 77, 28 September 1938, Page 21

THE HUTT SEAT

MR. ANDREWS OPENS

SOCIALISM ATTACKED

Mr. 3. W. Andrews, Nationalist candidate for the Hutt seat, opened his campaign in the Horticultural Hall, Lower Hutt, last evening, when he addressed an overflow audience of 1000. The seating capacity of the haU was taxed a quarter of an hour before the meeting commenced, and the doorways were jammed. Mr. W. Tbomath'was in the chair.

Although there was a running fire of interjections, Mr. Andrews was given in the main an excellent reception.

Mr. Andrews said his charges against the Socialists were that they were heaping an intolerable burden of taxation on the people; that they were driving a wedge between employer and employee and fostering cjass prejudice; that they were usurping the inherent British traditional rights and liberties by commandeering produce and encroaching on private business; that they were endangering the pensions and superannuation schemes of which this country was proud; that they had bungled the housing scheme and destroyed confidence in the secondary industry of the country; and that they were threatening democracy with dictatorships.

Prior to the last election Mr. Savage stated that further taxation was out of the question, said the speaker. It was; a strange fact that the Socialists, in the increases of income tax in 1937, had hit hardest the men on th^ lower scale of taxable income. A man with a wife and two children had

the following increases:—£4so mark. £5 16s to £7 16s 9d (34 per cent.); £500 mark, £8 6s Id to £12 9s 8d (50 per cent.). The man on £750 actually had a slight reduction. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were ontinually saying that the rate of sales tax had not been altered, although the net imposition had risen from £2,463,000 in 1935 to £3,499,000 in 1938. RISE IN TAXATION. The taxation per head of New Zealaand had risen so steeply during the past'three years that in 1938 we occupied the unenviable position of being the heaviest taxed people in the British.? Empire and possibly in the whole world; while the additional tax required for alleged social security would probably be the straw that broke the back, said Mr. Andrews. The £1 (New Zealand) of 1935 was worth only 15s today, so that in effect a raid had been made on everyone's savings and all had suffered the equivalent of a 25 per cent. cut. Sterling funds in London had been reduced from £25,000,000 to £12,000,000. The speaker said he had frequently heard Mr. Savage ask how would we reduce the cost of services and thus the cost of living. Mr- Andrews said he believed that the abolition of compulsory unionism, the removal of the influence of the "union bosses/ and the restoration of good feeling would do more to reduce the cost of living than any other single act that was within the realm of practical politics. (Applause.) The actual wages cost on a house of 5 rooms and 1150 feet of floor space was £128 in 1928. with wages at 2s 9d to 3s an hour, and was £168 15s in 1938 for exactly the same job, with wages at 2s 9£d to 3s an hour. This was evidence of the effects of the legislation and the wastage that was going on. The carpenters, plumbers, plasterers, and painters, all skilled men, had no greater wages per hour today than in 1929. They had fewer working hours, and therefore less total pay, but the cost of their work had increased by nearly 32 per cent. COST OF SOCIAL SECUKIT*. The social security scheme was further evidence of the lack of a cooperative mind in the Government, said Mr, Andrews. The handling of the medical services side of the scheme had shown the Prime Minister in has worst form. He could not predict whether the scheme in its operation was going to drive away from our shores the best medical and- surgical skill we possessed and reduce the standard of service available, said Mr. Andrews. All we knew was that the profession generally felt that it was being regimented as Mr. Semple handled the subsidised workers in Motueka and other places. The refusal of the Prime Minister to permit the Treasury and the Labour Department to give evidence before the Select Committee had given cause for grave concern and the nation was thoroughly aroused to the grave danger of the cost of the superannuation and pensions being such that the country would not be able to maintain the benefits and that even the present benefits would be lost in the general crash. There was to be a tax of Is in the £ direct, and at least another shilling in indirect taxation, and it was estimated that the total cost would be 2s 6d in the £ on present-day incomes. If it was going to cost the average man up to 2s 6d in the £ in 1939, with 37 per 100 liable to draw pension, what was it likely to cost in ten years' time when 66 per 100 might qualify? asked Mr. Andrews. In the first year it would take exports totalling £22,000,000 to pay for the scheme. The average annual exports amounted to £50,000,000 (this being taken over five years), so that the tax for social security would equal 8s in the £ on exports in the first year, 9s 9d in the fifth year, and 10s 5d in the tenth year. If a slump came, as Mr. Nash believed and Mr. Savage did not, what Mr. Andrews condemned strongly the taxation of children over 16. who had to pay 5s poll tax, plus Is in the £ on any>wages. He said that Mr. Nash, dealing with the tax on children over 16 had said that the extra 4d entitled them to medical benefits. This was not an extra 4d, but a whole shilling that children had to pay, plus the 5s a year poll tax. The Coalition Government did not tax the children. (Applause and dissent.) "If you invested anything like the amount of your tax in life insurance and lodge dues, at ttoe end of thirty years you would be able to draw a better pension and all the time you would get full medical benefits, with other allowances not provided in the Socialist scheme," said Mr. Andrews. "But if your payments were made to an insurance company, and after paying in for, say, 20 years, you left the country, you could claim a substantial sum as surrender value of your policy. Mr. Nash has not provided for any surrender value in his scheme," and you would lose all you had paid in if you left New Zealand before reaching 60 years of age," said the speaker. The free ..hospital service was going to increase hospital losses, as the State's payment to the Hospital Board was based on 6s a day, which would not meet present-day costs, Mr. Andrews said. The deficiency would probably become a charge on the ratepayers. "The whole scheme is a revelation of muddlement from beginning to end, and the Minister's introduction of the companies' tax by way of later amendment would appear to show that a grievous error in estimating revenue and costs Had been made." said Mr. Andrews in conclusion. After outlining the National Party's policy, Mr. Andrews was loudly applauded. Mr. Andrews was accorded a vote of thanks and confidence, and was cheered, although there was a small counterdemonstration.