COST OF THE DEMOCRAT PROGRAMME.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LV, Issue 4569, 7 November 1935, Page 1

COST OF THE DEMOCRAT PROGRAMME.

£22,000,000 A YEAR. _ Wellsford, November 5. Statements .made by Mr T. ‘C. A. Hislop, the leader of the Democrat' Party, regarding estimates .of the cost of sthe Democrats’ programme were the' subject of some, comment by the Minister of Finance, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, in the course .of speeches in the Kaipara electorate to-day. Mr. Coates reiterated the statement that the Democrat programme; would involve the country in an .additional . expenditure of at least £22,000,000 annually. Dealing: with the full. restoration of ..civil: servants’; nuts, Mr .-Coates'; said rthe Democrat .estimate of £500,000 for full restoration was mere guesswork.; His .own estimate was £BOO,OOO over and .above the recent 7i per eent. increase, based ; on an official calculation. Mr His--; lop also stated-that £IOO,OOO annually was more than sufficient. to build up the superannuation- funds. His .:(Mr -Coates’s)!-Own estimate of • £soo,ooo'.was -obtained from the Government actuary and had themerit of being correct. Actually it was quite unnecessary to build up the fund as the Government was well able to meet the annual requirements from year to year. . ’ Mr. Hislop .disputed the estimate ■ of the cost of the health insurance > dnd pension schemes. The cost obviously depended on the benefits to he given, but the best guide was the ' liecently-published report of an of- ; ficial committee on which the- fig- : ures were based.

The Democrats’ proposed unemployment loan of £8,000,000 annually, presumably additional to the present programme, would mean loan charges of about £400,000 a year for the*next 50 to 60 years. If the .policy continued beyond the first year the loan charges would soon, reach £1,500,000 a year for a similar period. The exchange premium under the Dqpiocrat plan, would be replaced by an export subsidy of £3,000,000. Last season the exchange benefit to farmers. totalled approximately £14,000,000. .; The improvement in general economic conditions showed clearly that the res;t of the community had benefited as well as the farmer; The direct charge on the Budget as the result of exchange Was £1,600,000, and increased taxable capacity resulting from the improved conditions more than covered this,

| Since the season the value of production had increased' from £83,600,000 to £98,800,000; since 1933-wages and salaries bad increased ■ from ■ £58,900,000 to £G5;000,000. ; Business profits and other , incomes had also increased : alnd as a result the Budget had benefited by at least £2,OOO,;QQQ ajbove the-cost -of change. A subsidy tp. thq farmer equalling the total exchange benefit would involve ai direct Budget charge of at least ! £13,500,000 instead • of £1,Q00,« ‘ 000,000. ■ H pply £3,500,000 were prqyfilefl the farmers would be over’ £TOjOOO,6oo worse off and the direct cost-to the Budget doubled. The 1 proposal .also would involve dis- 1 criminations between farmers. Administrative difficulties and resentment against individual discrimination would cause the scheme to col- ; lapse quickly. “The statement that the Democrat programme will leave a gftp of £22,000,000 still stands,” safd, Mi- Coates, “and is based on official -estimates. ■ The electors must not be beguiled by impossible promises of .political novices.”