FUNDS PILED UP WHILE PEOPLE STARVE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 30 June 1939, Page 8

FUNDS PILED UP WHILE PEOPLE STARVE

SAYS THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRIES | Part of the London sterling funds had been absorbed by hearvv importation caused by the poliev of the previous Government, the Minister of Industries and Commerce (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) declared when taking part j in the Imprest Supply debate in the j House of Representatives yesterday, i The last Government had left women ! and children to starve while funds were 1 oiled up in London and when the j Labour Government restored a decent ! standard of living to those people they j had bought heavily to restore their j homes. The member for Central Otago had comolained that there were officers of the Post and Telegraph Department on low wages, but that member had voted to cut the wages of those officers and to take away their political liberties. The Labour Government had restoreo wages and the officers did not forget what had been done. The hon. gentleman was playing a political game when he pretended to be concerned about those officers. Mr W J. Poison (National. Stratford) : Have you forgotten about the four colonels? The member for Central Otago had made a feature of the £47.000.000 nest egg in London when the Labour Government came into office. Mr Sullivan said. While nearly 100.000 people were in a state of semi-starvation in New Zealand, and children had to go to school without boots, the Government of the day had stacked up £47.000.000 in London instead of making it available to the people of New Zealand so that starvation and unhappiness would have been unnecessary. While that money was lying in London lie. as Mayor of Christchurch, had had to

raise funds to alleviate distress in that city. Mr .T. Hargest (National, Awarua) : You had uo monopoly of that. Unfortunately the member for Awarua was right. Mr Sullivan said. The starvation and misery brought about by the policy of the Government Mr Hargest had supported had been general. SHATTERED HOMES RESTORED The Leader of the Opposition had suggested that the Government should be ashamed, but he would say tliat the Opposition— the successors of the Coalition Government —had reason to be thoroughly and completely ashamed of the fact that it had been responsible for the misery and suffering that had occurred when it was in office. However, the Opposition was so shameless that, instead of hanging its head in regret and remorse, it was throwing out its chest and saying. "What did you do with that £47,000.000 we had in London?" Mr S. G. Holland (National. Christ* church North): What did you do with it? Mr Sullivan said the Labour Government had restored food, clothing and wages that the previous Government had taken away from the people, and had given work lo the workers the last Government had sacked. The result of that had resulted in a reduction of the London funds because shattered homes had been restored. The Opposition talked a great deal about national finances, but they had shown an utter disregard for family finances. The member for Central Otago talked about secondary industries, but only last session he had described his idea of the economy of New Zealand and had envisaged the Dominion as a rural county of England The manufacturers of New Zealand were not concerned about their future. They were happier to-day than ever before in the history of the country. The president of their association, Mr Duckworth, had said they were 100 per cent, behind the Government in its policy regarding manufacturing. Mr Hargest: He spoke without the authority of the manufacturers? Mr Sullivan; How does the member for Awarua know? Mr Holland: I know he had no authority. Mr Sullivan said Mr Duckworth had been supported in his statement by other manufacturers. There was greater prosperity in manufacturing than ever before. Mr f-lolland : It takes you weeks to get a permit to import materials. CAUSE OF PRESENT BUOYANCY OF BUSINESS When the present Government was in Opposition the late leader of the party had always instructed members when a Minister was carrying through negotiations abroad that criticism of the mission was to be left in abeyance until the negotiations were completed, said the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon W E. Parry). Opposition members had spoken of the humiliating position in which Mr Nash was placed at present in England and their comments had not been' helpful, to say the least. The Government .was not squirming under criticism, but it did feel that the proper time for that criticism was not now when the negotiations were being carried on The Leader of the Opposition had suggested that the position of New Zealand at the present time was as bad as it was in 1935. but that could be left to the people of the country to decia* said Mr Pari*v So far as pensions were concerned, the increase in payment? since 1935 and up to the end of 1939-41 would total £8 370.000. as against £450.000 during the last ten years before Labour took office. Mr J. O'Brien (Government. Westland) : That is the crime we are committing in the eyes of the Opposition, j Mr Parry declared that there woulc be no interference with the improvec position of the mass of the people, whe * had been the first to suffer under the

former Government. He thought it was j fair to say that the present buoyancy j of business was largely due to the mil- I lions of pounds paid to those who had | never received any consideration be- ■ fore. FORTY-SEVEN MILLIONS j DISSIPATED The rather lugubrious prophecy that if farm costs continued to soar and prices continued to fall no one at all would want to farm and the Government could get its collective farms for nothing was made by Mr W. J. Poison (National. Stratford). "Perhaps that is what the Government is aiming at." he •

added as an afterthought. Mr Poison said that during the last three years there had been record taxation and £47.000.000 had been dissipated in London. In addition about £20.000.000 had been borrowed from the Reserve Bank and the note issue had increased from £6.600.000 to £15.500.000. What was the Government going to do about the difficulties that existed? asked Mr Poison. What was the policy ol the Government? There had not been the slightest hint in the speech of the Acting-Leader of the House. "This Government has raised every shilling it could raise." he said, and has scraped up £4.500.000 with the help of the banks and insurance companies, and now finds itself without a feather to fly with. It has to go to London. What an undignified position for the Prime Minister to occupy. There

I must be something pretty serious be- : hind a-11 this. Why was it necessary for | Air Nash to assure Great Britain that New Zealand would not default? Was ! there some thought in the minds of the Government tliat this might be necesTouching on the question of import

control. Mr Poison said that when the mass meeting of importers made objection to the proposal. Mr Nash first ! to, d them that he intended to ruin them and then proceeded to denounce them j for daring to protest. Yet Mr Savage ! that Britain must realise that she ! mus t invest in the British Dominions. NOT A BREACH OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT The claim that the action of the Gov- , ernment in imposing import selection • and exchange rationing was not a breach of the Ottawa Agreement but ,: was in the interests of the Dominion ! * n d Empire trade, was made by the I B cv - A. H. Nordmeyer (Government, j Oamaru). There was not one word in 1 j the Ottawa Agreement to prevent the i Government taking the action it did. I which, so far from constituting a j breach, kept not only the letter but the | spirit of the agreement, he said. The Leader of the Opposition had j said that New Zealand had no right to j sell all its produce on the British mar- , j kct and then turn around and tell Great

Britain what goods were to come into the Dominion, said Mr Nordmeyer. Mr Hamilton : I said we had no right to one-way trade. There had been a great deal of misi epi esentation to *»jve the impression that import control meant a drastic reduction in imports from Great Britain, said Mr'Nordmeyer. As a matter ol fact, he believed it would be shown when the figures for this year were available that, so far from there being a fall from the value recorded last .car. there was a general tendency for import control to place the British exporter in a belter position than previously. reducing costs by increasing OUTPUT

The Minister of Education had challenged any member of the Opposition to say how costs could be reduced with- i cut reducing wages. Mr S. G. Holland 1 (National, Christchurch North) said, i but it was not difficult to show that j costs could be reduced if the workers 1 would produce as much as they did in I 1935. Although the Labour Government i had come into office pledged to take the I women and children out of the cow- j sheds of the country, there were more women and children working on farms than ever before because public works had been made more attractive than productive industries. One good cow would produce about fifteen boxes of l utter per season, and if the shortage of farm labour had reduced herds by 100.900 cow's that meant a reduction of 1.500,000 boxes of butter. A cow was worth about £ls a season so a reduction of 100,000 meant a loss of £1.500.- 1 000. That reduction was not due to climatic conditions, but to the policy of the Government which 'made public works more attractive than farming. GREATER EFFICIENCY NEEDED In 1935 the men on the waterfront were not overworked, their capacity had fallen since then to such an extent that if they could be persuaded to return to the 1935 rale 1000 carcases ciuld be loaded per day for nothing, and during the export season 2.500.000 boxes of butter would be loaded for nothing. In Australia 23 tons of cargo were loaded per hour, but in New Zealand only 11 tons were unloaded. If the New Zealand workers w'ould work a- hard as the Australians over 1.000.000 tons W'ould be unloaded for nothing. In 1935. 4’5 dozen garments were made on one machine in an hour, but to-day the output had fallen to 30 dozen. If effi- | c:ency were increased a great saving would be made without any wages being reduced. The prosperity of the country depended on production, but productive employment had been made the least attractive of any. The country could never become prosperous w'hile idleness was made more attractive than j w'ork. and prosperity could not be found in the Reserve Bank. The LabI our Government claimed that they ct.uld spend their way to prosperity, but no one could spend before he had earned and continue to balance the , budget.