The Hawera Star. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1931. MR HOLLAND CRITICISES BUDGET PROPOSALS.

Hawera Star, Volume L, 17 February 1931, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1931. MR HOLLAND CRITICISES BUDGET PROPOSALS.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’olook in Hawera, Manaia Kaupokonui, Otakeho, Oeo, Pihama, Opunake, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Ngaere, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Te Kiri, Mahoe, Lowgarth, Manutahi, Kakaramea, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Whenuakura, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere, Fraser Road, and Ararata.

Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, lias issued a statement criticising the Prime Minister’s Budget proposals'. The greatest fault Mr Holland has to find with Mr Forbes is that he has “capitulated to the Reform Party” and “has dishonoured his election pledges.”' Apparently Mr Holland would have been better pleased with Mr Forbes if the latter had attempted—by wliat means we know not —to .have carried out his ambitious election pledges. But no one outside the Labour Party will feel inclined to quarrel with Mr Forbes on that score. Indeed, in all responsible places there is a distinct feeling of relief that Mr Forbes has got over his enthusiasm for borrowing heavily and, has fallen into line with views put forward by Reform at iast election. Mr Holland becomes quite vehement in his endeavours to show that Mr Forbes has “played into the hands of the capitalists” inasmuch that he proposes to attack wages. The Leader of the Labour Party attempts to show how the position could be righted without anyone on wmges being a penny worse off. To accomplish this he would “fix” the rate of interest and impose a super-tax on incomes over £SOO. Just how any Government can dictate to the market how' much it will charge for loan money ■without turning over to wholesale Socialism is not quite clear. Mr Holland would probably reply that he would turn over to wholesale Socialism; that is his policy. But lie does not explain, and has never explained, what he would do after he had made local lenders lower their interest rates. If the State laid it down that .1 per cent, was the maximum interest rate allowed, the flow of money to this country would quickly dry up. What would Labour do then? There would be no liomegrown- capitalists to attack; the fault would have to be sheeted home to overseas financial interests —and the latter would not lose n great deal of sleep merely because Mr Holland was saving things about them. “The main effect of the wage reductions will be to deprive the local mar-j ket of some millions of pounds, destroy-1 the people’s ability to meet periodical) and national liabilities,” says Mr Hol-i land, and nowhere does he display the basic fallacy of the Socialist idea of money than in that statement. Tf Mr Holland rea.lly means what he says, lie believes that whim wages are I reduced, money goes off the market and is hoarded. He cannot, or will not, see that there will be no less money about than formerly and that there is a dis-£

tinct possibility of there being more. At present a certain standard of wage is maintained'—for those who are fortunate enough to have work. But what about the others? Are they benefiting by the "miHibus" which Mr Holland I believes to be going into useful circulation? Even those who are getting regular wages know full well that thebe money will not go so far as it would jin pre-war years, and that the "high wages" of to-day arc only high in figures, not in purchasing value. If the standard wage cannot be justified by the return obtainable from industry for everybody, the investor no less than the worker, then the standard is a false one. To-day there is not enough work to go round—at the price charged for labour. If wage reduction will make more work available and spread the same amount of money over a wider field, while the cost of living comes down accordingly, will not many people be better off immediately, and the whole country immediately? The man who has had only spasmodic employment over the last twelve months knows full well that he would have been better off with a lesser wage paid regularly; the employer who is only just keeping the wheels of industry going knows, too, that he would be better off if his wage costs came down — not better off in his pocket, but better off inasmuch as he would get more work, employ more men and start to get a decent living out of his labour and investment. It is strange that the Labour Party, which is always declaring that "all wealth comes from labour," cannot see that there are times when the worker’s labour returns no wealth at all, but becomes indeed a liability; such times occur when the market worth of an article drops below (lie wage-cost, of producing it.