Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GTSBORNE, SATURDAY, MAR, 18, 1939. QUEST FOR PROSPERITY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19890, 18 March 1939, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GTSBORNE, SATURDAY, MAR, 18, 1939. QUEST FOR PROSPERITY

The annual meeting of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce earlier in the week provided an opportunity for the Minister of Industries and Commerce to reply to some of the criticism that had been levelled at the policy of the Government. Both the criticism and the reply were characterised by a tone of moderation that is as commendable as it has become unusual. Mr. Sullivan expressed the correct spirit, and what is nothing more than the truth, when he said: “Underneath the differences of opinion is a fundamental love of our land and a confidence that it will win through to play a greater part in the future.” This frank recognition of the fact that high ideals are not by any means the monopoly of one faction or one party, that the differences are not in objective but only as to the best means of attaining it, is something that has been too much lacking in the past. Once this view is generally accepted, criticism can be made and accepted without giving offence. That there is room for differences, and for criticism, was made clear on the same occasion, and some of the statements made by Mr. Sullivan, in particular, are deserving of study, not merely for the purpose of being critical, but also to show how conflicting conclusions can be drawn from the same set of facts.

Mr. Sullivan was entitled to comment that, the views of his critic were at variance with those of the overwhelming majority of the people as expressed last October. The criticism, however, was largely based on the policy of exchange control, and it would be an effective retort to the Minister to point out that the Government's policy in this respect was adopted less than two months after the elections and without the people having an opportunity to express an opinion upon it. Mr. Sullivan was able to twit his opponent on being one of “a brave small minority,” but again there is the ready response that for many years the Minister himself occupied a similar position and that changes are just as likely in the future as in the past. These exchanges, however, are mere pleasantries, but they do serve the purpose of putting politics in their right perspective and

preventing people from taking them too seriously. Far more important are the economic issues which transcend politics, although they may be interwoven with, and influenced by them. Here the controversy was concerned mainly with the question of production, the Minister quoting figures purporting to show a steady expansion and his critic being concerned at what he considered to be evidence of a steady decline. Production is the key to everything else. Both the Minister and those who are opposed to him are desirous that the standard of living in the Dominion should be raised to the highest possible level and this can only be achieved by the expansion of production, which means making more goods and services available to the people. To this point there is common ground, but the critics argue that because production is declining, either because of the Government’s policy or in spite of it, living standards must tend to decline also. Mr. Sullivap’s reply is not convincing. He attributes the failure of his efforts to make New Zealand independent of imported wheat to weather conditions. The fact is that from the year Mr. Sullivan took office the acreage sown has steadily declined until last year it was the lowest i since 1925-20 and 20 per cent lower than in 1935-36. Similar factors, lie said, were responsible for the drop in dairy production. It is true that seasonal conditions this year have been unfavourable, but this could not have been the main cause for a decline last year of 60,000 in the number of cows and of more than 50,000 In the number of pigs. The inference from this evidence is that some factor is militating against the expansion of these branches of primary industry. The Minister’s figures in regard to manufacturing industries are also open to question. In the first place, he states that 100,000 persons were engaged last year in manufacturing industries, but his figure includes groups which are not strictly manufacturing at all, and the correct figure should have been 71,485. He is much further astray, however, when he attempts to prove increased production by showing that more persons are employed and that the wages paid and the value of production have increased. Here, as in many other cases, too much stress is laid on the money factor; the vital thing is the output of goods. Two instances for which detailed figures are available may be quoted. The woollen milling industry, in the period referred to by Mr. Sullivan, paid 4.1 per cent more in wages, but the volume of production declined by 8 per cent. In the boot and shoe industry, wages rose by 3 per cent but the production was down by 5 per cent. How far these experiences were general it is impossibl to say, but if, it is the case that despite more employment and the payment of higher wages there are fewer goods to be distributed then the people definitely are not better off. If they have to go without goods or, alternatively, have to pay higher prices for imported things, then the benefit of higher wages is cancelled out. There are, it is true, always two sides to every question and it is only by a calm study of both sides that it is possible to devise the best policy.