FINANCE BILL DEBATE

Southland Times, Issue 24878, 19 October 1942, Page 4

FINANCE BILL DEBATE

EXTRA WOOL PRICE DISCUSSED (P.A.) WELLINGTON. October 17. In the House of Represcntatives the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. r. Fraser, moved the second reading or the Finance Bill (No. 2) and said that he would answer any questions raised when the clauses were being conSl< The d Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, said the Bill gave the House an opportunity to discuss the grave injustice being done to woolgrowers by withholding 10 per cent, of the increase in the price of wool granted by the United Kingdom Government. This increase was to compensate growers tor the increased costs of production. Inese costs had increased and workers wages had gone up, but there was no suggestion that a portion of those wages should be held back like a portion of the price of wool. . , , , ~ Mr Holland pointed out that the Government had subsidized sugar and other commodities to stabilize the price in New Zealand, and said that as internal wool prices were stabilized woolgrowers should be protected with a subsidy. , , In reply to a Government member, who asked if farmers would go on strike if they did not get an increase, Mr Holland said they would not. They were loyal men, but they would deal with the Government at the first opportunity. The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. J. G. Barclay, said the matter was still subject to negotiations between the Government and the stabilization committee. REASON FOR INCREASE In response to an interjection he revealed that he had received confidential information in Australia that one of the reasons for the wool price increase in Australia was , ; to safeguard Australia’s sterling balance during the war period. To enable New Zealand wool-growers to get an extra 15 per cent, either the taxpayer or the consumer in New Zealand would have to pay about £200,000. which would have to be found out of the Consolidated Fund. That would cause inflation because it would be impossible to get an extra volume of goods to offset that SU Mr W. J. Polson (Nat.. Stratford) said that the 15 per cent, was not the Government’s. If the grower was not to get it, it should be paid back to Britain. Why should the wool-growers be selected for victimization while extra was paid to the dairy farmers. The woolgrower was marked out because he had no friends on the Government side of the House. , _ The Minister of Supply, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, said that unless a ceiling could be put on the lid would be taken off completely and the Arbitration Court would have to function fourfold in dealing with applications for increased wages and the dangerous economic situation now facing the country would be intensified. A policy of stabilization had been accepted by all parties in the country and the Sheep Owners’ Federation had not asked for any increase up to the time the British Government had made the increase. The extra payment was being held to prevent the inflation problems being intensified. The aggregate private income of the country had increased from £186,000,000 in 1939 to £230,000,000 in 1942 and the value of consumable goods available had decreased in that time from £135,000,000 to £85,000,000. DRAIN ON MAN-POWER

Mr J. A. Lee (Dem. Lab., Grey Lynn) said the complaint from the Opposition was a desperate attempt to get support from the people with substantial electoral war chests. He was appalled at this exhibition of sheer greediness. He would support 100 per cent, increase to the small farmer with a limited income, but he would not agree to subsidizing those who had incomes running into thousands at a time when the nation was bleeding to death. Mr Lee said he believed the manpower could not stand the present drain. They had been told how many men were in the various forces, but they had not been told what they had to meet in the future. They should also be told what New Zealand would look like when the men being called up were in the field, what industries were to be maintained and how they were going to be maintained. Mr Sullivan pointed out that surveys had been in progress for some and had been considered bv the War Cabinet. Mr W. Sullivan (Nat., Hauraki) raised the question of the cost of defence construction under the schedule system. He contended that considerable savings could be effected by using competitive tenders. The debate was interrupted and the House rose at 1.5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Monday.