The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1930. THE “‘SPREAD OVER ” PROPOSAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18630, 28 July 1930, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1930. THE “‘SPREAD OVER ” PROPOSAL.

Although Hr Ramsay Macdonald is continually talking of the beauty of co-operation and treat ing problems of national import ance in the truly national spirit, he does not display that amiable spirit of give and take which he insists should characterise inter national negotiations, where the industrial well-being of the country is so manifestly at stake. The action of the Labour Government and its well drilled following in the House of Commons, in relation to the Coal Mines Bill which is nearing the end of its troubled Parliamentary course, reveals Mr Macdonald and his Cabinet in a most uncompromising mood. On the one hand, there was the steadfastness of the House of Lords and what can be called the embittered obstinacy of.the Government on the other. To the credit of the Peers, it can be said that they gave the Bill a reasoned examination, during which they amended it in three crucial particulars. Without regard to the real significance of the amendments inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr Graham) burst into a frenzied outburst in which he promised that these amendments should “receive no quarter," and that the Government would “fight to the last ditch” if the House of Lords stood to their guns. What is the explanation? Tic Labour Cabinet would give the amendments no quarter, not because they “mutilated” a finely balanced measure, but because the Miners’ Federation and eighty mining M.P’s have repeatedly sworn that they will have the Bill and nothing but the Bill. The attitude of Mr Macdonald and his colleagues and the Labour bosses outside the 11 on sc of Commons, disclosed the mind of the Labour Far‘y. The beauty of co-o] ration and the value of treating problems of national importance in a truly national spirit, have no appeal when the extremists of the Labour Party call the tune. The attitude of Mr Macdonald and his colleagues has been one of sullen refusal to listen to reason, especially on the one proposal which offered a chance of avoiding a bitter dispute, on wages in the coalfields immediately the seven and a half hour day becomes law. That, of course, is the “spread-over” amendment substituting a ninety-hour fortnight for the rigid seven and a halt! hour day. The amendment proposed by the House of Lords permits this elasticity in working conditions in cases where mine owners and miners are agreed. All that was proposed was that local conditions should be taken iuto account when the hours of work are fixed, and it is obviously in the public interest that there should be power on the part of mine owners and miners to agree to the “spread-over.” But Mr Macdonald and his Cabinet did not favour such regard being paid to the peculiar needs of different districts. Yet, without the “spread-over” and the consequent reduction of working costs which it would facilitate, the financing of the lost half hour is bound to lead straight to a grave industrial crisis. The Government has been repeatedly warned that there is no hope that the coal mining industry generally will be able to finance the halfhour out of the marketing scheme and improved trade conditions. Since February last when the peak of improvement—not a high one—was reached, there has been a continual decline. The weekly production is less by 730,000 tons. The number of persons employed is less by 21,000, owing to general slackness of demand for coal in Britain and throughout Europe. The facts are known to everyone associated with the coal mining industry in Great Britain, and yet the Miners’ Federation shut its eyes to them and the demands that the Government shall proceed with its legislation—now known as the Dear Coal Bill—as if there had been no adverse movement in the return from the mines. To their utter discredit, the Government meekly obeyed and meekly vowed that they would obey the Miners’ Federation and fight the “spreadover” to the last ditch. The House of Lords, on its part, however, has shown its dignified reasonableness, and by conceding a small measure of compromise, without sacrifice of the principle involved, and with no display of mock heroics about co-operation and good will has done something to promote co-operation on the coalfields in the interests of industrial well-being.

RAIDING THE FARMER. Acknowledging the Dominion’s practically exclusive dependence on the created wealth coming from the farming industry, the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, declared that “the Government fully realises the importance of the primary industry and since taking office has left no stone unturned to assist in obtaining greater returns from the land.” The man on the land who has felt the sting of the ruthless tax-gathering activities of the present Government, will be excused for offering

the rejoinder that in “obtaining greater returns from the land,” the United Party has beaten all previous records. But Mr Forbes sought to soften the mailed fist >f heavier taxation on the primary industry by glibly suggesting in the most velvety way that increased production with deceased costs —that is undoubtedly the way out of the present ■conomic depression, and a condition precedent to the permanent solution of the unemployment problem.” Tf Mr Forbes and his i'abinet colleagues believe what they say, they are revealing an amazing inconsistency by making fresh raids on the proceeds from (he promary industry, which undoubtedly blocks the way to a condition precedent to a permanent solution of the unemployment problem, by forcing upon the country a financial policy that must inevitably increase the costs of production. Strangely enough, the Minister of Finance indulges in the most comforting references to tlie primary industry, but the man on the land will very soon discover that the tax-gatherer who will shortly go out to do the Government’s bidding will not use such soft phrases. Already it is claimed by well-informed economists that /‘there is no doubt that the increased tariff will raise the cost of living, and with this the cost of production which the primary producer can least afford.” Mr Forbes talks glibly of the “Government being fully seized with the necessity of obtaining increased results from the laud by improved farming combined with decreased costs. Especially,” he says, “is this necessary at the present time to compensate for the reduced national income consequent upon the lower prices obtained in the world's market for our primary produce.” Mr Forbes has stated the problem quite frankly, but unhappily he lias embarked on a tax-gathering excursion, the general effect of which, if economists can read the signs aright, will be “to prevent the | readjustment necessary to bring down the costs.” Obviously, Mr Forbes, as Minister of Finance, talks soothingly, bnt his acts are the most ruthless of any taxgatherer of recent years. Tacitly confessing that the land and income taxation imposed last session was fundamentally bad, the Government has abandoned that method of levying taxation, but the latest Budget proposals immensely aggravate the heavier taxation impost involved in the tariff changes, by affording the Government an opportunity to dip deeper into the pockets of the farming community. Mr Forbes may be ever so friendly in his speech-making, but the fact that the new land and income taxation is designed to yield threequarters of a million in excess of the amount drawn into the Treasury during the last year of the Reform Administration, shows Mr Forbes’s intentions. Moreover, the £14,000 exemption limit has been reduced to £7500. Not only so, but no deduction of land tax is permitted, and the man on the land shares a heavier burden with the income tax pay members of the community in the 10 per cent, increase in income tax. Professing to nurse a laudable regard for the fate of the man on the land, particularly at a time when “increased returns from the land,” are needed “to compensate for reduced national income,” the Minister of Finance has adjusted income tax levies to the disadvantage of the farmer and has actually withdrawn the 5 per cent, land tax deduction. And all this is proposed by a Government which pretends that it so fully recognises live country’s dependence on primary produce that it actually proposes to introduce an agricultural bias in the national system of education. Notwithstanding its pretence to help the farmer by abolishing the super-tax, the Government now imposes immeasurably heavier direct and indirect taxation on the primary industry, the dire effect of which is scarcely calculable until the wide sweep of the new measures have been more accurately measured.