I should like to ask the Minister if any consideration has been given by his Department to the question as to whether the basis of giving relief of rates could not be measured somehow in accordance with production. The main problem before us on the land in the future is to have greatly increased productivity. I can see the burden of rates increasing with no corresponding assistance from the Exchequer, and I do not know how the burden can be carried one year after another unless there is greatly increased production. I put it to the Minister yesterday that, in my judgment, the present scheme does not increase production. I may say that I have given a certain amount of consideration to this aspect of the problem, and while I have no very pronounced views, I think that what ought to be examined is this, whether the relief of rates now and in the future could not be distributed somehow on the basis of production. As I pointed out before, the present scheme makes provision for relief on the basis of the number of people employed. You could have a situation whereby a small farmer gets relief because he has sons. While he gets that relief because his sons, apparently, are with him, they are, probably, working here and there with neighbouring farmers, rather than on the particular farm for which relief was given, and if the productivity of that farm could be examined, the Minister would really discover that relief given in that way was not yielding anything at all like the return to the nation that should be expected from it.
Elsewhere we are going to be up against the whole question of derating, and a demand for greatly increased sums for the relief of rates. All sorts of arguments could be used as justification for an increased amount of relief for farmers. It seems to me that the aim ought to be to get increased production from the land. Whatever scheme of taxation is devised in relation to local authorities, as far as the Department of Local Government is concerned, the Minister ought to devise it in such a way as to ensure that there will be greatly increased production. Apparently, increased employment may not guarantee increased production, because what might appear to be employment might not in fact be employment at all. As I indicated yesterday, and as is known to Senators in every part of the House, many farmers employ a good deal of casual labour without getting any relief. If we could examine the possibility of relating relief to production, money would flow where it really ought to flow. Relief should be given to people who are worth relieving, and who work for it. It is true, of course, that if farmers have increased production they are better able to bear the burden, but to increase production it is necessary to stimulate productivity in various ways, psychologically as well as financially. There is no scientific basis about the present method, and I am not at all satisfied that it is bearing the fruits I should like to see coming from it. If the Minister went down the country and saw things as they appear to other people, he would realise that the present scheme is not a good one.
In the future we should endeavour to get the best value possible for this money. That is what we ought to get. I think even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance urged it as a slogan which ought to be shouted from the housetops by everybody, that what we want is to get better value for our money. If the Minister were in the position to judge this problem for himself, if he could judge the effects of this legislation, he would be satisfied that he is not at present getting the best possible value for the money. A county like mine might be benefiting, perhaps, to a greater extent than certain other counties. It is at the moment because of the figures of population and the position in regard to employment. I do not say that under my scheme of things it would not continue to benefit. The people who produce would benefit. These are the people we ought to encourage and stimulate. When we are giving relief, that ought to be the aim. I put it to the Minister that that is an aspect of this question which he ought to have examined. With a little more experience he would be quite convinced that this is not working out according to plan.
