MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIONS CORRECTED

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 22, 19 October 1937, Page 4

MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATIONS CORRECTED

Two or three statements have been issued during the last few days that merit some little special attention. The first that may be noted is the answer given by the Associated Chamber of Commerce to the Fiftance Minister s attempt to show that per-capita taxation in New Zealand is not the highest in the British Empire. Mr Nash had adduced figures which he claimed to afford proof that such taxation was higher both in the Old Country and in South Australia. The Chambers of Commerce, going very much more. thoroughly into the data available, show quite conclusively that, for the financial year now current, in neither instance was the Minister correct. Jt is defmitely proved that, even leaving out of the count unemployment taxes which would make the difference substantially bigger, the taxation per head in New Zealand is considerably greater than in the United Kingdom, and this in a year when spedial taxation has been imposed to help meet Britain's rearmament outgoings.' Similarly with respect to South Australia; taking all in, State, Federal and unemployment taxation— the average amount per head is there something like ^4 10s less than in New Zealand. As was said here when .discussmg the Minister s statement in the House, these comparisons are after all not matter of great moment. But it is a matter of considerable concern to note in this, as in so many other cases, the Minister' s complete lack of frankness when dealing with questions of finance of vital interest to the community. Mr Nash had no doubt at his command all the data available to the Chambers of Commerce and had also the advantage of being in London when the British Budget for the current year was under discussion. Yet seemingly he chose to cite only such figures as suited his contention, ignoring the others. The main point is that under a Government whose leaders at election time promised to keep taxation down it has in two years increased by some ^10,-million a year. Then we have the Minister of Labour endeavouring to show that the unemployment position is really not so bad as the published records indicate. For this purpose he goes back to census returns of unemployment of 41, 21 and 11 years ago, taking them in the gross without any allowance for unemployables. Then he compares them with present figures, but after very carefully deducting some 8,500 as unfit. Then he also discards all those, some 12,000, receiving full-time employment "wholly or partly paid from the Employment Promotion Fund (Unemployment Txation). This is all very cleverly done and reflects great credit on the ingenuity of whoever prepared the Minister* s statement for him— an ingenuity quite worthy of the most astute special pleader. The miserable fact still stands, however, that the unemployment taxation for the current financial year runs up to nearly /i5i-million, or /iij-mil-lion more than when the present Government took office two years ago, while 300 more hands are engaged in fts a'dministration at an extra cost to the Fund of ^128,000, or an average over £400 each. These,are the little facts which touch the pocket of every taxpayer, big or little, but for which Mr Armstrong offers 110 explanation or apology. Then some weels or more ago, when some of our secondary industries — footwear manufacture in particular were represented by those engaged in them as being in a languishing condition necessitating reduction of hands or adoption of part-time employment, the Minister of Labour would hear none of it. In justification he cited ofhcial statistician's figures to show that the shoe-making industry at any rate was enjoying a really prosperous time. He failed, however, to give any prominence to the fact that these figures, produced as convincing proof, were more than six months old, while the complaints that were lodged had reference to current conditions. The fact is, of course, that the stimulus at first given by the Government's extravagant expenditure has run itself out and that many of our manufacturers find that, under present- industrial conditions in this country, they cannot compete with overseas |ivals not similarly hampered and discouraged. However, confronted by the Manufacturers' Feder#ation with facts that cannot be gainsaid, the Minister has somewhat shamefacedly to confess that his representations were all wrong and that something — as yet very much in the air will have to be done to provide relief. What the people have to mark is that, if it had not been for watchful and wellmformed bodies such as the Chambers of Commerce and the Manufacturers' Federation, the Ministers concerned would have "got away with" their statements and the community would have been lu'lled into an altogether false conception as to how matters really stood.