(Longford): Before business was suspended I was about to refer to another matter in our attitudes that we should think hard about. That is our attitude to taxation. I know that it has been raised by many Members of this House, and my comment would be that it is my experience that people who clamour and press for services from the State which cost money are very often the people who, when it comes to paying for those services, object to the particular item of taxation calculated to pay for them. If we are adult in these matters we have to think about them and behave in a rational and sane manner. Another matter that has been raised in this debate on the Finance Bills—and I am inclined to couple both of them—is the incidence of taxation direct or indirect. We must be adult enough to realise that taxation in any form, no matter how sugar-coated it may be, is not a very palatable thing to any of us, but it is necessary to maintain services if we want services and if we want the growth of services that our people press for or we regard as desirable. We must be prepared for them unless we want governments to run into the sorry mess of unbalanced budgets.
No matter what our views may be on political questions none of us with any sense of responsibility, I feel certain, would like to see the position where you would have a financial mess in the country as a result of improper budgeting or imbalance in budgeting on current accounts. It may be permissible to borrow for capital investment, but a Government that would be forced into the position, by pressure of people who do not like taxation, whereby they would borrow money for day-to-day running on current account I would regard as a very poor form of government.
In this question of attitude to taxation it is easy enough to argue that direct taxation, though it may not be as sugar-coated, is undesirable by contrast to indirect taxation. It is easy enough to argue in favour of higher levels of direct taxation if you had a large very wealthy class who could afford to stand a higher level of direct taxation. We have not in our society a large group of very well off people who could stand a higher level of direct taxation. It is the people who work whether in the factory, on the farm, in the workshop, or in business, who create wealth. It is the people of modest means who create wealth and pay taxes. There is not in our community a large group of well off people to whom we could turn to increase the level of direct taxation. The Minister and his Department have a number of experts to guide them in deciding the levels and trends of direct taxation in relation to indirect taxation. I do not think it can be seriously argued that we can do away with indirect taxation if we want to maintain our services and improve them. We must pay direct and indirect taxation.
I want to refer now to our attitude to work, and to the growth of professional associations, trade associations, farmers' associations, veterinary surgeons' associations, dentists' associations and workers' associations. It seems to me that the only real interest they have is to foster the interests of their own section. That was made clear to me yesterday evening when a Member of this House said he was not speaking objectively but from a particular point of view which he represented. I know other groups do the same thing and I suppose it is forgivable. Despite the fact that the Senator said he was not objective I think he was objective in many ways.
I remember reading a lecture by a person I regard as a fairly good social thinker. One of the gems of that lecture was the suggestion that if work was not a necessity it would have to be invented. The implication is that work is necessary to keep people out of trouble and that if they were not working they would dissipate their time. Work is good for people. It disciplines them, keeps their minds employed, and keeps them out of villainy. I do not see any virtue in the growing desire for shorter working hours and more and more money for less and less work. I do not see any virtue in a 40-hour week. I know people who are self-employed and who cannot work a 40-hour week. They are frustrated by the idea that other sections get a better standard of living while working shorter hours. This ultimately leads to the financial difficulties which seemed to recur.
I am not against workers whether organised or unorganised trying to get, or succeeding in getting, more remuneration and a higher standard of living. That is something we should all like to see, and it is necessary for the growth of our national income which I hope will continue to develop. That can only be achieved by the work of our people. I can see a danger to that growth and improvement in the standard of living of our people, and particularly those who are not well off, in shorter working hours.
I should like to see people working more efficiently and, within reasonable limits, working longer hours, getting a higher output and enjoying a higher standard of living. I see this from a rural point of view and I fully realise that it has become very annoying to young people in the rural areas that they cannot get a similar standard of living to that of the people in trade union employment, people in professional employment, or civil servants. The people on the land have to work much longer than a 40-hour week. If we want to have a higher standard of living for ourselves, or even for our grandchildren, we must work for it. There is no easy way and no easy solution.
People who are in a position to influence the thinking of other people should do a serious bit of thinking themselves in the hope that there will be more sanity in our relations with one another. The new Ministry is only another tool. A tool is as good as the person who uses it. If the new Ministry is not used skilfully it will not achieve what many of us hope it will achieve. Because I believe that if work were not necessary it would have to be invented, I think we should review our attitude to work. If we do that, many of our difficulties, financial and otherwise, will disappear.