LABOUR FINANCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19701, 5 August 1938, Page 12

LABOUR FINANCE

"UNORTHODOX SYSTEM" FUTURE OF BANKING TAXATION CRITICISED .MORE MEN THAN JOBS (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The ddb.Ue on the Financial statement was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr. J. G. Barclay (Lab., Marsden). who said that all the leaders of the dairy industry had endorsed the Government's dairy marketing policy. The compensated price scheme, he said, seemed to be dying because there were two clear definitions as to what it was. One was that the payment for it should be found out of the revenue of the country and the other was that it should be financed through decreased costs. There had been a great deal of talk regarding the effects of the falling of

oversea prices on New Zealand's internal economy. Many people, he added, thought that our money came from overseas, but such was not the ease. It never had and never would. Every country with a monetary system had to arrange its internal finance within its own borders. The Government was working on a somewhat unorthodox system. It was a truism to-day that countries that had confined themselves to the Gold Standard had stood still, while those that had departed from the orthodoxy had progressed. The Reserve Bank in New Zealand, he said, had been a wonderful success. LUst year the net profit of the bank was over £125,000, all of which had been paid into the Consolidated Fund owned by the people. This year the net profit was over £195,000. He believed that at some future time the Government would have to take over the control of the banking system in its entirety, but that would not be done without the consent of the people. No Economic Fault Mr. W. T. Anderton (Lab., Eden) said the Opposition stood for capitalism which represented rent, interest and profit as against the Government's object of human life and happiness. The present Government, lie added, had provided for the maintenance and establishment of industries and a reduction of unemployment. Throughout the Budget debate, he said, the Opposition had failed to show any economic fault in the Budget and an Opposition which could I offer no alternative to the measure which it opposed was unworthy of ihe name. Mr. 11. G. Dickie (Nat., Patea) criticised tiie high company taxation and stated that it was a. barrier which was preventing overseas firms from

starting subsidiary companies in j New Zealand. He thought the Minister of Finance would agree with i him when he said that we must keep up production if we were to prosper, but he also contended that New Zealand could not possibly hope to control oversea prices for our produce. Employment Frauds Mr. Dickie said the frauds on the employment funds this year numbered 3257,• compared with 19G1 last year. That position, he said, was far .from healthy. The debate was interrupted by the tea adjournment. At the evening session Mr. Dickie stated that no blame was attached to the Minister Cor the increasing number of frauds, and all agreed that the Minister was doing his best to bring the offenders to book. When the employment tax had first been levied by the previous Government, said Mr. Dickie, the Minister of Justice had suggested it should be graduated, and Mi'. Dickie had agreed because he believed it to be fairer to (ax a man on his actual resources. Speaking on the question of the removal of the sales tax and exchange. Mr. Dickie said it would be interesting if the Minister of Finance would 'ell the House just what the exchange rate should be in view of the present adverse trade balance and the diminution in London funds. If the exchange rate were allowed to find its own level, he would not be surprised if it were placed at 25 per cent. Farmers Not Complaining: The Minister of Labour, the lion. 11. T. Armstrong, said that the bulk of the fanners were not complaining if increased cosh-. It was the brand >!' politician, who claimed to represent the farmers, who were doing so. lie had nlways found the farmers to 1)0 vt-vy reasonable employers. The agreements which had been reached with tin- farmers relating to wages had always been strictly kept, lie claimed that it was the substan'ial increase in the price being paid fin' farm produce that necessitated an increase in the purchasing power of the bulk of the people to enable them to buy that farm produce. When it ; came to the increased price of com-