PARLIAMENT Budget Said To Benefit Rich More Than Poor

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27736, 13 August 1955, Page 8

PARLIAMENT Budget Said To Benefit Rich More Than Poor

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

w&uuuvuxvn. August u. The well-to-do had done well, and the poor were worse-off as the result of the Budget, said Mr J. Mathison (Opposition, Avon) when he spoke to the Budget debate ia the House of Representatives today. As Junior Opposition Whip, Mr Mathison filled In the last half-hour of the day. He will conclude his speech on Tuesday. The view that farmers did not have tbe same incentive to produce as they did under tbe Labour Government was expressed by Mr Mathison. There was loud Government dissent. Mr Mathison said he was satisfied that the farmers would wake up to those who said they were working in the interests of the farmers. The Government represented those who had "farmed" the farmers for generations. The Budget, he claimed, contained a certain amount of deception. It was not deliberate. It was a rich man's budget—a typical Tory Budget. According to the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) the battle against inflation was supposed to have been won to 1950. The only bright spot to the Budget was the retention of subsidies on some essential commodities. How was the amount of subsidies to be £300,600 less this year? he asked. It meant that the people would not buy as much.

The Minister of Finance (Mr J. T. Watts): Lower cost of wheat from Aus-

tralia. Mr Mathison said that, for. the mothers, there was nothing -at all to the Budget The purchasing power of the original 10s a week family allowance waa now 6a, but the aflowapce remained unchanged. Not one penny had been granted feom the huge surplus of £28,000,000 to assist the mothers and those on small Incomes.

If Labour had been the Government —as it should have been, with a small majority—the family allowance would have been increased to 15s a week, said Mr Mathison. Social security beneficiaries required another 6 per cent, to bring them up to 1949 standards, said Mr Mathison. They must be most disappointed. “There has been a departure from the underlying principle of social security to the old-fashioned charitable aid,** said Mr Mathison. Some beneficiaries were now subjected to two means tests. After having passed the original means test, there were many who were independent and would refuse or refrain from claiming the 5s extra announced in the Budget for single persons. Mr Watts: They have to apply for the benrfit in the first place. "We had hoped that charity had disappeared from Chis country for all time" said Mr Mathison. “We abolished charitable aid boards, but now charity is complementary to social security-” ' . . Both the Consolidated and Social Security Funds had surpluses, and surely the Government could afford to be a little generous in this so-called period of record prosperity, said Mr Mathison. •

COAL SUPPLIES

MR KENT ATTACKS GOVERNMENT WELLINGTON SHORTAGE. ALLEGED (From Our twuamwuurv rtoporler) WELLINGTON, August U. K there had been more co-ordination in the Railways Department, the need to import coal would not have ariaen, said Mr J. B. Kent (Opposition, Westland) in his Budget debate speech today in the House ot Representatives. Coal could not be transported to Canterbury because of a shortage of waggons, whlth wertf being used td return to Otira stone which had been carried down the Teremakau rivw/tp Kutnara, 40 miles away, said Mr Kent. In the last five years of the Labour Government, coal mined was 13,968,332 tons; and for five years under the present Government, the total was tons, said Mr Kent. In the last five years, the average fail in production was 200,000 tons a year—another record tor the Government. Mr TL G. Gerard (Government, Ashburton): Conserving our coal reserves. The Minister of Mines (Mr W, Sullivan) had said there was plenty of coal, and there was no shortage, »aid Mr Kent. Mr Sullivan: Neither there is. Mr Kent: That is why we are importing coal. The Minister said the coal being imported was gas coal. Even if persons went to a coal depot in Wellington and had their own transport, they could not get coal, because it was not there, said Mr Kent. However, the Government was spending huge sums advertising that it was cold enough to have a fire, and how cheap coal was. The money could have been spent on reducing the price of coat It was Gilbertian that the people were urged to buy cohl when, there was none in the yards. To avoid congestion in the bins, the gas works and other yards should have been filled, but businessmen did not like seeing capital hung up in,the yards, said Mr Kent. Miners had to leave their own homes at Stockton, and were denied State houses elsewhere. If the Mines Department had shown any acumen, the men would have been kept at work at Stockton, and would have lived with their families. Mr Sullivan: The policy of the miners is last on. first off. Discussing the Budget, Mr Kent said it gave most to those who had plenty, and nothing to those most in need. Like all Tory Budgets, it was designed to paint a picture of present and future prosperity, and to confuse and confound the critics. In the last four years, the share of the national income lost by social security cash beneficiaries had been £26,000,000, said Mr Kent. That was how a Tory Government administered social security—like a harsh and niggardly political stepfather. The Government would like, but did not dare, to abolish social security. Mr Sullivan: Oh, no.