FARMERS’ UNION

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 July 1940, Page 5

FARMERS’ UNION

PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

. —— ■ ffi &3i N.Z. CONDITIONS REVIEWED

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, July 16. The following are extracts from the presidential address’ by Mr. W. Mulholland, to-day, at the annual meeting of the Farmers’ 1 Union: I am proud of the response which the farmers of New Zealand have made to requests to do all that they possibly could to maintain, and, if possible, increase 'production. I was also- pleased to find that, when the War Council reviewed the work which had been done to organise

I New Zealand’s war effort, the primary industries made a showing that compared very favourably with that which any other section had, at that that achieved. I feel very definitely that that fact was in no small degree attributable to the effective work of the Farmers’ Union and its officers. It is of little use producing to the utmost, if, when ships arrive in our ports, they are going to be held up in their loading. It is not my intention to rail at the watersiders. 1 I noticed that considerable hostile comment was made because some water-

siders refused to go on after midnight to complete the loading of an overseas ship at Auckland. What did seem to me to be wrong was that men’ who had started work at 8- o’clock in the morning and had worked through till midnight, lie., 1G hours on the job, should be required to carry on to complete the loading. Under present conditions the loading of the ships should not stop from the moment they are available at the wharf until the last ton of cargo to be loaded at that port goes on board. The work should be done in shifts of reasonable length so that ordinarily men would not be asked to work more than eight hours in a day. One of the most pernicious things in the waterside system that we have in New Zealand is paying overtime rates according to the time of the day. The shift system should be introduced, and overtime should be paid only when a man on a shift has worked more than the" normal hours of working in his shift.

INFLATION DANGER The demands on the part of Trade Unions for increases in wages to compensate for the increased cost of living causes me considerable uneasiness. In defending increases granted recently by the Court, union secretaries have put up cases which are almost identical with those on which the dairy-farmer can support a request for an increased price. But with the dairy-farmer the case is much stronger in that, as well as the increase in the cost of living, and the increases in the cost of production, which he can also claim, he was not given the amount which his Arbitration Court adjudged that he was entitled to in 1938. But, if we follow this vicious practice of each one individually asking for more, the net result must be serious inflation, and inflation always hits hardest the man who has nothing but his labour to sell.

One obvious way by which real wages can be increased without throwing an additional burden on fellow citizens is by working longer hours and producing more goods and services. Labour leaders are inclined to look upon the 40-hour week as a great privilege which they have won. 1 doubt whether the ordinary worker values the 40-hour week nearly so greatly as the'Teaders imagine. Anyhow, a privilege which denies to those who need them, goods and services which they desire, is surely not rightly regarded as a valuable privilege at. all. ’ '

-EXTRAVAGANT BUDGET. The Wai- Budget, providing for the expenditure of some £9O millions, has been received with surprisingly little comment. The general attitude appears to be that whatever is necessary in a time of war should be provided without criticism. In-so-far-as this is a War Budget, one can largely agree with that attitude, but the truth is that, mainly, it is a peace budget with the war budget superimposed. The ordinary Consolidated Fund aspect of the Budget merits close examination. So far from there being any evidence of economy commensurate with the gravity of the situation we face, the expenditure for ordinary civil purposes is actually several millions higher than in the previous Budget. WORK—OR STARVE I agree with the principle of paying for the war as you go, but I insist -the economy in Government spending should be a major contribution towards that effort. Examination shows that much of the Budget expenditure and particularly the increase in social expenditure is for the purpose of relieving people of the necessity to produce, while still allowing them to obtain their full share of the production of those who do work. Is there any reason why a man of 60 in reasonable health should be relieved of the necessity of producing at least his own living? Why should the workers be compelled to keep, out of the results of their own toil, some thousands of men who never would work, and never will work, except under the compelling alternative—“work or starve”?

Particularly in time of war when taxation of necessity must be heavy, it is important that it be levied in such a way as to c.Suse the least possible upward movement in regard to costs. I am pleased to find that a large amount of the increased taxation is to be raised by a direct levy upon wages and income. I feel, however, that the income taxation proposed could well have been steepened considerably on incomes from £5OO to £2,000. The Excess Profits Tax, however, while appealing strongly from a sentimental point of view, and obviously designed to give effect to the universal desire that no one would profit from the war, in practice is likely to work out most unfairly.

’ SALES TAX But the worst feature of the revenue proposals of the Budget are the increases in the Sales Tax. The Sales Tax is really a disguised wages tax. aßut because such tax is collected in an indirect manner it will add enormously to the amount which it will cost the final payer—the consuming public, and the farmer. The £2m. intended to be collected in this way may well cost the actual payers £4m.

iAn - addition - of- 4d-in- the to the wages tax on the basis of the Budget estimates would have been sufficient to provide the £2m. which is to be provided by the increased sales tax, but the sales tax method will cost the payers at least .8d in the £. ‘ Again I would draw attention to the Public Works financial proposals. It is proposed to borrow £lsm, for Public Works. Apparently this sum is to be borrowed under the compulsory loan provision, free of interest for the duration of the war. The public has received without a murmur the proposal to -borrow compulsorily this interest-free money, but they have believed it was for war purposes. This utterly unjustifiable wasting of our resources in a critical time becomes trebly vicious when, under the cloak of our war necessity, it is proposed to finance it in such a manner. It becomes still more obnoxious when viewed in the light of the confession in the Budget admission that it is largely for the purpose of giving men employment.

UNSWERVING LOYALTY.

WELLINGTON, July 16.

The Farmers’ Union conference unanimously passed a resolution, assuring the King and his Ministers of the unswerving loyalty of the farmers of New Zealand to the Throne and Empire, and pledging itself to do all in its power to assist and accelerate the war effort of the Dominion.