The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1944.

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 134, 4 December 1944, Page 4

The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1944.

MORE GOODS OR LESS WORK?

After the war, said the Minister of National Service (Mr. McLag«n) last week, it would be necessary to resort to a deliberate plan for the reduction of hours, to enable all the people seeking productive employment to find that employment. A progressive reduction of hours of work for all workers, he declared, was the only sensible thing. It is necessary to examine this statement in the light of recent statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that if New Zealand is to surmount the difficulties of the post-war period, and if the present high living standards are to be maintained, the people must be prepared to work. This was the theme running through statements made by both Mr. Fraser and Mr. Nash to'recent Labour conferences, when they outlined plans which the Government had in mind for future development. It is also necessary to examine Mr. McLagan's statement in the light'of New Zealand's needs after the war. Like all other countries at war, New Zealand has had to reorganise her economy to meet the special needs of the situation, and the task that she will face is, to return as speedily as possible to a peacetime footing. In suggesting that this can best be accomplished by a substantial reduction in working hours so that everybody will have, an opportunity of engaging in productive employment, Mr. McLagan overlooks several important factors.' For in- \ stance, he overlooks the fact that war conditions Ijave resulted in» shortages of goods and services which in normal times are regarded' as essential, and before there can be any hope of. a return- to normal conditions these j shortages must be made good.

If the shortages are to be made up quickly it will be necessary to take a realistic view, and this is what Mr. McLagan has failed to do. It will be time enough to talk.of reducing hours of work when the people are once again able to obtain all the goods and services they require, and the extent of the leeway to be made up suggests that that may not be for a long time. The return to a peacetime economy will certainly be considerably delayed if Mr, McLagan's philosophy is accepted. Instead of working our way to prosperity, we are apparently to reach our goal by doing less. It would be. difficult to imagine a greater fallacy or a more dangerous one. It is another example of the loose thinking indulged in by theorists who, in an endeavour to gain popular support, show an entire disregard for the practical side of the problems that lie ahead. While Mr. McLagan was preaching the philosophy of less work, another member of the Labour Party, Mr. Richards', was declaring, not that we are in danger of producing too much, but that revolutionary changes were necessary to maintain standards. Mr. Richards sees no virtue in the present system. What he wants is^ an incursion of State planning with the co-operation of the best brains of the commercial world and a tightening-up to eliminate the "extravagance and waste" within the capitalistic system. What does he mean by "extravagance and Avaste"? Can he reconcile this claim for radical changes (presumably in order to produce more) with Mr. McLagan's declaration in favour of reduced hours in industry, which would mean producing less?

Mr. Richards also expresses the hope I that the Government will take its courage in. bothx hands and tackle the banking problem, reduce interest rates j and the ever-increasing burden on returned men and the whole population. Has Mr. Richards given any thought to what is involved in his advocacy of a reduction in interest rates? The Government has been- asking the people to invest their money in war loans and other forms of savings, and as an incentive has told them that not only will their capital be-secure but they will be assured of a full return of'interest on their capital. Does Mr. Richards now suggest that, in order to reduce "the ever-increasing burden on returned men and the whole population," the Government should repudiate its guarantee? As Mr. Churchill emphasised in his broadcast on British post-war policy in March of last year, Governments have a sacred duty to guard the interests of those people who have responded to the call to place their money at the disposal of the State. "These savings, of the nation, arising from the thrift; skill, and devotion i of individuals, are sacred," he declared. "The State is built around them, and it is the duty \)f the State to redeem its faith in an equal degree of value. I am not one of thpse who are wedded to undue rigidity in the management of the currency system, but this I say: That over a period of 10 or 15 years-there ought to be a fair, steady continuity of values if there is to be any faith between man and man or < between the individual and the State." - That is the answer to Mr. Richards ;and others who hold similar news.