Comment From The capital

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28951, 20 July 1959, Page 12

Comment From The capital

(Tram Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, July 19. The first week of the Budget language, however, the recipient was not a member of the House, but the Budget itself. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holyoake) .opened the debate with a reference -to last year’s Budget as “an atomic tax bomb ” He dubbed this year’s document ■“a fizzer—-a stink-bomb.” Since then. Opposition speakers have vied with one another in describing the Budget as succinctly as possible. Some of the descriptions were: ’A knock-out. A killer of incentive and saving” (Mr B. E. Taiboys, Wallace); “A tight squeeze” <Mr T. P. Shand. Marlborough); “An out-of.-touch Budget” (Mr T. L. Hayman. Waitaki); “A pessimistic Budget” (Mr G. F. Sim, Waikato); “A taxing-out-of-existence policy Budget” (Mr N. L. Shelton, RangifikeD; “A class distinction Budget” (Mr G. A. Walsh, Tauranga). To this. Government members have contributed as follows: “A down-to-earth Budget” (the Minister of Customs, Mr R. Boord); '‘A firm foundation Budget” (the Minister of Education, Mr P. O. S. Skoglund); “An incentive Budget, in that the remissions are left in the taxpayers’ hands” (Mr N. G. Pickering, St. Albans). Mr Skoglund’s reference to a “firm foundation” touched off Mr Shand’s reference to “a tight squeeze,” and produced a further series from Mr Shelton: “A tightlaced Budget.” Opposition Attack Opposition members have been handicapped in their assault on the Budget by several factors. One is the reluctance to conform with expressed Government wishes and state what they would have done in the circumstances had they been on the Treasury benches. An Opposition "shadow Budget” has been suggested many times, as it was last year, but there is no likelihood of one being put forward. For one thing, the Opposition is now more than 18 months removed from the Treasury facts. A "shadow Budget” would give the Government the opportunity of going over to the attack—and certain members have indicated clearly enough that they would relish this. Second, there is the reflection that this Budget leaves a great deal to be said. The Prime Minister (Mr Nash) has admitted that the Minister of Finance (Mr Nordmeyer) made two interpolations during the reading of his printed speech. These are in Hansard, but will not be available for close perusal for 10 days or more. Mr Nash also said there would be “adjustments.” so that the Budget which is open to perusal is by no means a clear and final document. This has meant that the attack has been on very general terms, while the defence has concerned itself greatly with the events of the last two years. Printed Speech The question as to whether or not a Minister of Finance is justified in departing from his printed Budget speech will continue to be asked during the debate. . Speaking after Mr Holyoake last Tuesday night, Mr Nash said that proper safeguards would be introduced so that single men and married couples would not pay more than before under the Budget The remark plainly startled the Opposition. “Where does it say that in the Budget?” demanded Mr J. T. , Watts (Opposition, Fendalton). Mr Nash explained that on page 28 of the printed Budget Mr Nordmeyer had made a verbal interpolation to that effect. Two . pages later he had said that the measures would be subject to ]

t■ j ■ safeguards which he would introduce in coming legislation which would lay down that nobody would have -to pay more. Mr Watts:. That is not in the printed Budget either. Mr Nash: No. It was an interpolation. The -words are in Hansard. Mr Nash defended the making of interpolations by saying; -‘/The member for Fendalton has done this, and I have done # many times.” His allegation was hotly denied by Mr Watts. In several interjections, however, Mr Nash maintained that there were some things which could, not be but in the printed Speech. “An glteration in the exchange rate, tor example,” he said on one occasion. -i ■ Mr T-t P- Shand (Opposition, Marlborough) lost no time in giving formal notice of a question tto be answered next Wednesday afternoon) asking the Prime Minister what steps he proposed to take to ensure that Parliamentary papers laid on the table of the House “are a true and .correct copy of the document or statement they purport to represent, and what steps he proposes to take to have existing copies of Parliamentary paper B 6 (the Budget statement) corrected?” Youriger Speakers Of the younger speakers who gave their contributions to the Budget debate last week, none were more impressive than Messrs N. G. Pickering (Government, St., Albans) and B. E. Talboys (Opposition, Wallace) Mr Pickering devoted his whole permissible hour to a defence of Government policy. His speech was forceful and cogent, and could be regarded as second in value only to those of Mr Nordmeyer and Mr "Nash. He was not well served in respect of time, as the bulk of his speech was delivered in the late afternoon, but sufficient remained for the early evening to make an impression on the listening audience. Mr Taiboys had his chance at the end of what had proved to be a dull evening. From his position right at the back of the chamber he spoke well and forcefully. His speech was not without interruptions, mostly of the muttered and unintelligible kind. Mr Taiboys’ method of dealing with these proved most effective. He simply ignored them, refused to be ruffled, and continued with his speech. As the noise-level rose, he simply Raised his voice. The interjectors were soon discouraged. So far this session, the Government has made far more use of its younger men that has the Opposition Both sides have fairly young members who have proved that they can speak well, but the young Government members are being given a chance to display their wares before the electors. The suggestion is. that the Opposition will follow suit.