Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT. 13, 1938. “SANTA CLAUS”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19759, 13 October 1938, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT. 13, 1938. “SANTA CLAUS”

It is difficult to believe that a majority of the people will be misled by the Prime Minister's claims of what his Government has done for the com* munity. It is true that during Labour’s term of office the Dominion has experienced a period of prosperity, but that condition was not peculiar to the Labour administration; there had been prosperity before the advent of Mr. Savage and there will be more of it after he has gone. Throughout the world to-day there is prosperity without Labour Governments and a few years ago there was adversity wherever Labour ruled. In other words, no Government, whatever its colour, is responsible for economic conditions. Mr. Savage takes the credit for the improved conditions during the past two or three years. Does he really ask the people to believe that the Government was responsible for the value of exports showing an increase of £53,000,000 for two years? Was it any action of the Government that made this much extra available for the purchase of imports for distribution among the people? These were the factors which increased the amount of money in circulation and the consequent spending power of the community, and Mr. Savage and his Government had as much to do with it as the man in the moon. It is true that the Government, in some measure, redistributed the national income, but whether this was to the real advantage of the people is a matter of opinion. For instance, a few days before the last election Mr. Savage promised that the cost of government would not be increased if Labour were returned to office. In 1935, the total Budget expenditure was under £30,000,000; for the current year provision has been made for £50,000,000. This means that the overhead cost of running the Dominion lias been increased by more than £20,000,000, and this is the responsibility of the Labour Government —but the people have to pay for it. This is one direction in which income has been redistributed; it has been taken out of the pockets of the people to pay for the costly Labour administration. It is important to remember that anything that any Government does must be paid for by the people.

It was recently claimed by a Labour speaker that the Government would be returned because the electors would not "sack Santa Claus." The analogy is interesting, but it is reminiscent of the disillusionment of the little boy who discovered that "there ain't no sich thing an Santa Claus." The Government claims to have bought popularity by distributing gifts to the people. It may have done so in some directions, but where did it obtain the money to buy the gifts? When Santa Claus comes to any ordinary home, the people in that home have to foot the bill. In the same way, when the Government plays at Santa Claus the cost is charged up to the people. And when the people of this Dominion are finally called upon to pay for the Government's masquerade they, too, will be disillusioned and will sadly echo the remark that "there ain't no sich thing as Santa Claus."

The Social Security Act is a case in point. This is claimed to be one of the major elections issues, and the Government is making a bid for reelection on its promise to play Santa Claus and distribute all manner of gifts to all manner of people. Its supporters are proclaiming from the hustings all about the gifts, but not one word about how they are to be paid for. In the first year it will distribute presents valued at about £22,000,000. This means that, on an average, every man, woman and child in the community will receive gifts valued at £ls each. Truly, Santa Claus is being generous, and it seems hardly fair to ask where he is to receive the money. Will he, perhaps, follow Mr. Armstrong's method and borrow it from himself, or maybe he will adopt Mr. Hultquist's theory, run up an overdraft at the Reserve Bank and then, when the debt becomes too large for comfort, simply rub it out. Those who subscribe to these theories, might well try and apply it to their own circumstances. Let them play Santa Claus, let them borrow the money from themselves, or let them try the expedient of booking up the cost, and then let them try and rub out the bill. The principle is precisely the same with the Government as with the individual, and this being so (the electors would do well to look upon the social security scheme, not as a gift of £ls per head, but as a cost of £ls to every man, woman, and child in the country.

There are other aspects of this scheme that have not received the consideration they deserve. Most publicity has been given to the attitude of the doctors who are to be conscripted satellites of Santa Claus. The doctors refuse to play the part assigned to them. How, then, are the gifts to be distributed? Will the Government, as has been suggested in one

quarter at least, import foreign "strike-breakers" from overseas? Then there is the position of the friendly societies. They, like other sections of the community, were promised that they would not be hurt; yet it is now asserted by prominent officials that the scheme will mean their death-knell. Is this to be another contribution to the cost of Santa Claus' latest escapade? So it is that right through the piece the cost of this scheme, and the intricate details of it, have not been given the consideration they deserve. When the measure was before the House, the Government refused to accept certain amendments; yet, only a few weeks later, Ministers are promising amendments on exactly similar lines. The explanation is that they are realising that the people are not quite so gullible as had been believed. To-day, the electors know that Santa Claus is only a myth, and, instead of being fascinated by the gifts that are promised in his name, they are starting to count the cost of maintaining the illusion.