Unemployment Report

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 908, 27 February 1930, Page 12

Unemployment Report

MR. G. FINN DISAPPOINTED

Special to THE SUFT CHRISTCHURCH. Today. THE Unemployment Committee's recommendations to the Government are disappointing. After 12 months' waiting something much better might have been expected. This is the opinion of Mr. George Finn, president of the Auckland Manufacturers’ Association, who is at present visiting Christchurch.

Wliat was wanted, said Mr. Finn, was a scheme to lessen unemployment, instead of which the committee had merely done what any man in the street could do—suggested relief work and relief pay. Some means had to be found of dealing with the unemployment caused by the continual introduction of new machinery, but to suggest relief work schemes was simply to follow the line of least resistance. The committee’s proposal to remove the duty on livestock foods was ludicrous. New Zealand’s supplies were ample to meet all demands, and serious results would follow if, through the removal of the duty, the country became dependent on overseas supplies. For example, a drought in Australia would cut off all supplies from that source. New Zealand was one of the few countries in the world that was entirely self-supporting in stock foods, and at present there were more protein foods available than could be absorbed. The country carried more livestock per head of population than any other country in the world, there being almost as many dairy cows as people, and about 20 times as many sheep. No risk of decreasing the internal production of stock foods should be taken. Moreover, if importation were undertaken, there would be serious direct consequences. It would check the development of the Dominion’s own resources and decrease instead of increasing employment. Thanks to the absence of disease among New Zealand stock, the country was rapidly becoming one of the stud farms of the world. 'With foodstuffs diseases and weeds would be imported, and the efficient progress of the country would be checked. Mr. Finn referred to the recent removal of the bran and pollard duties as an example of the weakness of the proposal. What had happened there, he said, had shown that- the community, instead of getting any relief, had actually been penalised by the removal of the duty. Exactly the same thing had happened in 1919 when, owing to a shortage of hams and bacon, the Government had removed the ~ 2d a pound duty on Australian hams and bacon. Next day the cables had announced that the price in Sydney had been increased by 2d a pound,

so that the consumer had received no benefit. Undoubtedly the same thing would happen if the stock food duties were removed. MORE TAXATION PROPOSAL CRITICISED IN WELLINGTON L'ress Association WELLINGTON, Today. While accepting the view that the committee was to be congratulated on a heroic effort to deal with a problem of world-wide magnitude and that the public would accept the scheme as a basis, Mr. H. D. Bennett criticises the Unemployment Report from the point of view of finance. The committee asked for £1,000,000 a year, of which three-quarters was to come from new taxation.

“The imposition of further taxation cannot be lightly accepted in this country and the question must be considered as to the possibilities of the board being provided with funds from existing sources,” he said. After speaking of unempioj’ment as at. present financed he says: “The hulk of the money comes from legitimate Government sources, such as the Consolidated Fund, and that is where it should come from now.” He characterises the proposal to tax an 18-year-old boy and girl as ridiculous in the extreme. Moreover, there was a proposal to dabble further with the unimproved value of farmers’ lands. Was it not generally conceded that the system of paying taxes on farming land in good year or bad year was calling loudly for redress? Once on, taxation usually stayed on. Mr. Bennett also asks why the borough or city ratepayer is called upon to accept a portion of this national obligation as peculiariy his own. Lastly, the report is silent upon what is intended to be done with the £1,000,000 a year expenditure. Surely there was someone who would benefit from the works, either the public, the borough or other authorities. Apparently no provision had been made for this source of revenue. Boroughs would gladly pay 6s 8d in the £ for work done for them.