BUDGET DEBATE CONTINUES

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26205, 31 August 1950, Page 8

BUDGET DEBATE CONTINUES

PARLIAMENT

Three Members Take Part HOUSING POLICY DISCUSSED ' (New Zealand Press Association) * WELLINGTON, August 30. A prediction that the nu"iber of State houses built this year by the Government would fall far snort of the estimated 5260 which the Associate Minister of Finance (Mr C. M. Bowden) had announced las* night was made by Mr C. F. Skinner (Opposition, Buller), when the Budget debate was resumed in the House of Representa-

tives to-night. Mr Skinner said he knew of carpenters who were not building houses but were engaged on other work. They were not building houses because the Minister of Works (Mr W. S. Goosman) •would not tell them whether any more contracts were to be let “If 5000 odd houses are .o ouilt this year the Government will have to get a wriggle on, because work is well behind to date.” said Mr Skinner. The Budget, he said, was a 29-page “renunciation of all National Party election pledges.” There had been no reduction in taxation, and old-age beneficiaries were not getting what thev were promised. Mr Skinner asked whether the sale of the National Airways Corporation was promised and whether the National Partv had a mandate to remove subsidies. These matters demonstrated very clearly that the National Partv had run away from its election promises. Everything possible had oeen done to discredit the Labour Government “so as to shuffle out of those election promises.” • Was ever a faster one rut over the old people in New Zealand?’ asked Mr Skinner. Was that the National Party’s idea of political probity? How did the Government justify its decision to sell the airways in ‘he light of its pledges to the country? Mr Skinner asked whether other national assets were to be sold. Would New Zealand’s pulp supplies be sold to overseas interests for development not for the profit of New Zealand but for the profit of newspapers in other countries’ _ . Mr Skinner said that the Prime Minister <Mr Holland) and the president of Federated Farmers had done a grave disservice to farmers by their public statements at various times that the prices of dairy produce must fall. Those statements had not helped New Zealand’s representatives in the recent negotiations in London. “Trying to Frighten People”

The Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) said that Mr Skinner was trying to frighten people. He must know that there was more home-building in progress to-day than ever before. Much had been made of the removal of subsidies, but would Labour reinstate them?

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Fraser): If we came in to-morrow,

yes. Mr Sullivan said that the Prime Minister had presented the first Budget for years which offered stability and sound finance. The Budget was generally accepted throughout the country as a masterpiece. It would take time to cure the ills left by Labour and to restore to the people full economic freedom. Time would prove that the Government’s intentions, as stated in its first stability Budget, were right. The scare propaganda of Labour during the election campaign had not come to pass. Instead, the Government had increased the allowable income under social security, allowed banks to increase advances in certain circumstances, gave people with overseas sterling funds the right to spend them, removed land sales controls, which had been the finest thing for commercial morality in this country, had closed the Moscow Legation and saved the country many of pounds a year, and removed the barrier from workers’ awards limiting the amount they were to be paid. Mr Sullivan said there had been some “political leg-pulling and wirepulling” in import licences, “but today you don’t see those sleek gentlemen round the corridors of this House and in Bellamy’s seeking import licences for commodities they have no association with and then trading them in.” He added: “That sort of thing has stopoed. There were the favoured people who made fortunes, and that cannot be denied.” Mr T. H. McCombs (Opposition, Lyttelton): That is not correct. Point of Order Raised Mr F. Jones (Opposition, St. Kilda) and Mr W. E. Parry (Opposition, Arch Hill) rose to a point of order, and as the Leader of the Opposition, who was temporarily absent from the House returned he, too, added his protest. Mr Parry said that Mr Sullivan’s remarks were highly improper and were on the verge of suggesting corruption.

Mr Speaker said that corruption must not be implied against any Government or any member by innuendo or otherwise, but his interpretation of Mr Sullivan’s speech up to that point was that he was attacking a system, not any individual Minister. On resuming Mr Sullivan must be careful to avoid any suggestion of corruption on the part of any member of the previous Government.

Mr Sullivan said he had had no intention of suggesting malpractice on the part of any member of the previous Government. He had attacked the system, and it could not be denied that there had been trafficking in import licences.

Mr Sullivan, on a furtner request from Mr Speaker, then gave an assurance that he had not intended to imply corruption on the part of any member of the previous Government. Resuming his speech, Mr Sullivan said that the Government had restored many freedoms. There was new hope and incentive before the people to-day. The Government knew that some of its actions were unpopular, but it would sooner do the right thing and lose °® ce than do the wrong thing for the country to retain office. The Budget did give some tax relief and it was nonsense to say that the ibc ition of tne penal tax on unearned income helped only the wealthy.

Mr Osborne’s Criticism Mr A. G. Osborne (Opposition, Onehunga) said that Mr Sullivan had failed to reply to the charges of broken promises. There was a feeling of unrest and mistrust in the country today as a result of the brief period of the Government’s administration. Many Labour predictions had been fulfilled. Rent control had been removed from new tenancies, and social security beneficiaries with a mere 2s 6a a week to offset the steep rise in living costs had suffered ‘he worst cut in benefits ever made in this country—a cut imposed by a back-door metimd. Taxation relief had been given in the Budget to the wealthy, with nothing for workers. A man with an assessable income of £3300 would receive relief various ways of £4OO a year. Mr Osborne said that the proposal to sell the National Airways Corporation was most reprehensible. When the Labour Party was returned as the Government it would not take back State houses, but the position was entirely different with the National Airways Corporation.

® that the Budget was disillusionment for the working people. It was the rich man’s budget. It gave the rich substantial benefits, it gave small benefits to farmers; it gave minute sales tax relief to the housewife amounting to Id or 2d a family a week; it gave nothing to the working man to compensate for the sharp increase in the cost of living; and it double-crossed old age beneficiaries. '.■u considered that the Government, with all its knowledge of past events, was setting out on a policy which would inevitably as soon as there was a fall in prices put the country in the Position it was in before 1936. pie debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m.