ULTIMATE SOCIALISM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 2, 22 July 1946, Page 6

ULTIMATE SOCIALISM

MR W. SULLIVAN’S QUERY GOVERNMENT POLICY ATTACKED The Government’s economic policy was attacked by Mr W. Sullivan (National, Bay of Plenty) speaking in the House of Representatives in the Address-in-Reply debate. ‘What concerns us is to see that production is maintained, to see that work is done so that we can maintain benefits for our people who already have them,” he said- He declared that the whole doctrine and the whole attitude of Government speakers in the debate had been an attempt to establish fear in the minds of the electors so that they would not vote for National Party members at the coming election. The National Party would not cut salaries and wages, and would not abolish social security. What of the Future ‘What we are concerned about is the future and what it holds for us,” he said. “What is the Labour Party’s policy for the future? Government members’ attack in this debate has been on the National Party, coupled with the depression period, to which the present members of the Opposition were not by any means related. But what does concern the electors is what the Socialist party means by the term ‘ultimate Socialism.’ Just what does it mean. Will any Government member say what ultimate Socialism means? It is only a few weSks ago that we heard a discussion on the proposed disinheritance Bill. It was denied from one end of the country to the other that such a Bill was proposed. The Prime Minister himself said that it was propaganda initiated by the National Party and that it was a lie. The Minister of Finance said he had never heard of it, and the Minister of Rehabilitation, also, had never heard of it. Yet those gentlemen were present when that proposal was discussed. Prospect of Disinheritance

We have heard the Minister of Finance say that the Government was not going to interfere with the country quota, that it had no intention of acquiring the privately-held shares in the Bank of New Zealand; but if we are to have ultimate Socialism and complete State ownership, then we must somehow, sometime, under some heading, have disinheritance, There is no other way outof it. If the Government is not out to disinherit people, if it is not out to deprive them of the title of things, then it must disavow its policy of ultimate Sqcialism. Not so long ago we heard something of a capital levy. A remit on this subject was discussed at the Labour Party conference. The Minister of Finance said that there were insuperable difficulties in the way of bringing down legislation under that heading. The Prime Minister said that he would take his cue from the Minister of Finance. We have a capital levy on one hand and a disheritance Bill on the other, and if they are not half-brothers, I should like someone to tell me what they are. Ultimate Socialism must mean the complete cancellation of private assets, and we are told by the Labour Party supporters that some time in New Zealand we will have ultimate Socialism.”

Farmers Not Better Off Mr Sullivan disputed the statement from the Government benches, that the farmers weer better off now than ever before, and drew attention to the figures quoted by the member for Waikato (Mr Goosman) showing that the average payout for butterfat between 1923-30 was 1/5 a lb., and that for the period 1936-43 was 1/3 a lb. During the last few years ther had been a war crisis, yet there had been a better return for the seven-year period, 1923-30 than for the period, 1936-43. What would money buy today against what'it would buy for the farmers’ requirements during 1923-30. Galvanised piping was 147 per cent, higher than in 1938; pig-wire fencing in rolls, about 74 per cent.; cheese bandages, 112 per cent, greater; and crate wire 235 per cent greater. The farmer was far better off under the old system with the so-called Rafferty rule than under the so-called scientific marketing system that the Sociaist Government had put. across the farmer under the guise of a guaranteed price structure. Those who knew anything regarding the guaranteed price knew that the payout for primary produce was definitely related to the price received overseas. In 1930, fencing posts cost about £lO a 100. Fencing wire in 1938 was roughly £25 a ton and today it was £SO to £56 a ton. Building costs had increased 100 per cent, and every piece of machinery required for a farm had inci'eased at least, 50 per cent.

Money Appropriated

The Government had about £35,000,000 of the farmers’ money,, and it had fixed the local market price for primary produce—butter and cheese—and it had debited the farmer for practically £500,000 a year for a consumer subsidy. The farmerproducer had to subsidise the whole of the butter and cheese subsidy racket that was going on, and in addition had to meet another £400,000 a year which the meat producers had to pay by way of consumer subsidy. In the case of every other industry receiving a subsidy, the subsidy was paid out of the War Expenses Account. Every subsidy paid to the primary producer, however, including that on fertiliser, was paid out of the producers’ own stabilisation account. “It is justice that all of us should contribute to a pool in order to keep down costs in the manufacturing industry while the primary producer is left to make the whole sacrifice for all the consumers of the country?” asked Mr Sullivan. “If the Government is as sympathetic as it says it is, let it have a look at that position and adjust the anomaly which exists by ensuring that all the people contribute to the subsidy on the commodities in which they all participate.” Import Licensing

Mr Sullivan criticised the Government’s import licensing policy and said that the delay in issuing licenses applied for by importers was responsible for the country losing vacuum cleaners. The same dillydallying had deprived the country of a great quantity of goods that were badly needed and could have been obtained if the Government had operated its licensing system properly. The whole system of import licensing should be reviewed. The National Party’s policy was to set up a board of trade to deal with the subject, and there wpuld be no necessity for the importer to come to Wellington and cross the carpet of the Minister to obtain a license.