£98,500,000.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 157, 4 July 1940, Page 9

£98,500,000.

"FAIRLY HUGE SUM."

ECONOMY DEMANDED.

MR. HAMILTON HITS OUT. CUT DOWN PUBLIC WORKS. (By Telegraph—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. "I am not sure whet'se-r I am opening this Budget debate or whether I am replying to statements in the Press and broadcast messages that have been delivered since the Budget made its appearance in the House," eaid the Leader of tlie Opposition, Mr. Hamilton, to the accompaniment of Opposition "hear, hears," when opening the Budget debate in the House yf Representatives last night. Although it was his duty to be critical, one had to remember that it was wartime.

."We have to consider here then," he added, "the methods of finding and expending the largest amount of money ever asked for by any Government in this country, £98,500,000, a fairly huge sum."

These were a-bnormal days and called for abnormal action, he went on to eay. No one could shirk equitable sacrifice. The war itself would produce far harder cases than the system of financing it. Anyone who thought that some proposal made his contribution excessive should also remember the incomes lost 'by those who were really hard hit by the war—tradesmen, importers,

garage proprietors and employers generally, not to mention men who had volunteered to date from well-paid jobs to serve in the Army, Navy or Air Force. However, taking all this into account, it remained clear to him at least that the Budget had not completely captured the proper approach. In much it did not approach the maximum effort possible, and in other ways it struck inequitably. Above all, it lacked the example of sacrifice which it demanded in every line, and while lacking this example it proceeded to distribute its demands in such a way that it could be said to be weighted against the family man on the lower income scales.

"Both Confused and Confusing." A Budget that hit the cradle at this time missed its greatest opportunity to protect the basis of national life and provide for the future, eaid Mr. Hamilton. The Budget was both confused and confusing. It professed to recognise the need for economies and did not practice them. The country was paying dearly for the extravagant spending of the past five, years, and the worst feature was the seeming inability of the Government to realise it. The overdraft at the Reserve Bank was at the limit. Sterling funds were depleted and rationed. There were huge domestic commitments, and public works and sustenance were at the peak. These were some of the main problems for consideration, he proceeded. The Government had failed to keep the cost of living down and had failed effectively to organise man-power and purchasing power. Wages or income was as important as the amount of wages or income people received. It was strange that some would sooner have £5 than £4 even though £4 might purchase more.

High Wages to Meet High Prices. Since 1935 the cost of living had increased by fully 20 per cent, Mr. Hamilton continued. High wages were paid to meet high prices. This favoured the single man and hilt the family man. The plight of a married man with a family, in receipt of low wages, was grave indeed. "No one would say that we are working at our maximum effort, yet," he went on. "We retain our 40-hour week, awards and conditions are still on a peace-time basis, while Britain works the clock round full out."

Mr. Hamilton said the Budget figures were staggering. The total borrowing was £38,:$80.000, and the total taxation £60,120,000. "It is absolute rot to say it cannot be cult down." he said. Less than 40 per cent was for war purposes. He understood that Britain's war cost was about 75 per cent of the total. The Government should provide a lead in what could l)e accomplished in respect to economies to bring about rapid diversion into more productive work. The Government was demanding that families and individuals should make sacrifices and cut out sections of their expenditure. Surely it was idle and irresponsible to suggest that the Government should not set an example and prune to the bone.

Dealing with Public Works expenditure, Mr. Hamilton pointed out that the £20,589,000 proposed in the Budget was twice the amount voted four years ago and suggested thalfc the Minister of Public Works should do as the Hon. William Fraser had done during the last war and make the vote do for two years. With over 20,000 men in military service some adjustment was needed In the country's expenditure.

Mr. Hamilton said the amount sett aside for railways was far too high and £4,000,000 for housing could not be justified under wartime conditions. The vote for roads and highways was too much for the desperate conditions existing and expenditure on public buildings capped the lot. The Government should make some sacrifices and sett an example for the taxj«ayens.