THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1937 LABOUR'S ELOQUENT SILENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22859, 14 October 1937, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1937 LABOUR'S ELOQUENT SILENCE

Ministers and Labour members lapsed into a silence more eloquent than words when the Government's Annual Taxing Bilb came before the House of Representatives on Tuesday. For once they were at a loss for words. The fact is that, despite Mr. Nash's valiant effort last night, it is impossible to justify the present penal scale of taxation. It touches everyone, digs deep into every pocket, in order to fill the Treasury coffers in Wellington. The Opposition members earned the people's gratitude by their vigorous attack on the Government's tax-and-spend policy. Against this attack Labour members confessed by their silence that there was no real defence. From their point of view, the less heard about taxes the better. They do not wish the people to realise that the State's riches are amassed by subtracting from wages and adding to prices, that public spending power is rising by reducing private purchasing power. But now that taxes amount to £22 7s 6d per head, or to a weekly rent of 34s 4d for a family of four, the facts are coming home to the people. They are inclined to ask questions as, indeed, they have every right to do. It is their money that is at stake. Sensing this inquiring mood, the Prime Minister took urgency in order to rush the Taxing Bill through the House. Actually there was no reason for hurry, the Legislative Council having adjourned until next week, but perhaps Mr.

Savage thought "least said, soonest mended." Discussion on the subject of taxation was no doubt highly inconvenient, if not damaging, to the Government. Fortunately, although Labour members expressed no care for the people's pockets, Opposition members did. Refusing to be hurried, they entered a timely protest so effectively that the Prime Minister* was constrained to prolong a debate that previously he had been anxious to dispose of speedily and, abov* all, silently. Trying to stem the rising tide of criticism early in the debate, Mr. Fraser invited the Opposition to name votes that could be reduced. Mr. Hamilton promised to tell the Minister when the Estimates were reached. Indeed, if the Opposition continues its present business-like tactics, the people are going to hear a lot about ho\? their money goes when those same Estimates come up for consideration. It will be a refreshing reform if Parliament does show signs of resuming its old role of holding the purse-strings, and holding them tight. Close and detailed examination of departmental items would make a good beginning, as it is evident that Ministers are not exercising the requisite control .over spending. Take the Broadcasting Account, for instance, of which the Prime Minister is in charge. Expenditure last year was £144,054 and this year is estimated to amount to £354,416. For every £1 spent last year, £2 9s 2d is to be spent this year. So Mr. Savage makes the listeners' money fly—puts it on the air. They would be pleased to know what extra service they are receiving for more than double the cost. It is true that capital works account for much more this year. In spite of all that has been and is being spent, however, listeners can detect no improvement in programmes, unless the Parliamentary broadcasts be so considered. The general opinion is that licence fees, the highest in the world, are going in waste and extravagance. It is for Mr. Savage to prove public opinion wrong and to justify this year's bill for £354,416. At the same time he could explain the jump in the vote for External Affairs from £158,255 to £246,321, an increase of 56 per cent. The rise seems to be largely due to the cost of controlling and rationalising Samoan bananas and Cook Islands oranges and, to judge by experience, will be reflected in prices. Another and entirely new vote is one •of £24,450 for Mr. Nash's Internal Marketing Department. The sum includes £16,530 for the salaries of 59 new officials, one being paid £2OOO and three others £750 each, apart from £2OOO for motor expenses and £1650 for travelling expenses. How is Mr. Nash going to return value to the people for all this money ?

Mr. Sullivan's three departments, railways, research, and industries and commerce, all show very large increases. The vote for industries and commerce, including tourists and publicity, has expanded from £176,808 to £355,500 or by over 100 per cent. The- increase includes a grant of £150,000 for "the development of the wheat industry." Here are exhibited the barren fruits of State aid. No industry has been more pampered, petted and protected than wheat. The consumers of flour and bread and the pig and poultry industries have been exploited on its behalf. The. price of wheat is guaranteed by Mr. Sullivan a year .ahead, but all to no avail. Now he has to ask Parliament for £150,000 to develop this most favoured industry. Members would be justified in refusing to throw good money after bad. These are but a few instances of how the money goes. Almost every item is up. One notable exception is the cutting of the vote for discharged soldiers' settlement to one-third, from £"3,008 to £25,000. Part of the reduction is due to accounting changes, but another large part to a smaller vote for assistance to the returned soldiers. A Government tllat can economise so readily in this direction should be strictly called to account in the many others where expenditure is rapidly rising. Therein lies the cause of the tax burden weighing down the people and curtailing their purchasing power. Hence the Government's natural if frustrated desire to say as little aB possible on a touchy subject*