Support And Criticism For Mr Lake’s Budget

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30191, 24 July 1963, Page 16

Support And Criticism For Mr Lake’s Budget

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, July 23. Differing opinions about the Budget were expressed by speakers in the debate which continued in Parliament tonight. They ranged from “good” and “sound by Government members to “penny-pinching” and “niggardly” by members of the Opposition.

The Minister of Customs (Mr Shelton) accorded the prize for a one-sentence description to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer), who had said: “The Government is providing incentives in this budget to increase production.

Mr N. V. Douglas (Opposition, Auckland Central) described the 2s 6d increase in pensions announced in the budget as “a penny-pinching pension pittance.

Mr Shelton said that when the Labour Government started its term in 1957, it was under the handicap of having to provide finance for the payment of election promises, including the £lOO tax rebate. Thus the '‘unfortunate’’ Minister of Finance had to produce a Budget which had drawn unfavourable comment ever since.

“Representing the workers of my electorate, I resented that Budget, and I said so.” Mr Shelton continued. “I did not expect my words to have had so much impact, but they have been quoted by various members of the Opposition. I hope this will continue —for that Budget was worth remembering.” Tax Concessions

He said that the 1958 Budget had provided £64 million by extra taxation, so that small reductions could be made in the other two years. The difference between Labour and National was that the present Government had made concessions in all three of its Budgets, without a tremendous impost to start with.

“If we have not managed to reduce the taxation of the small wage-earner as much as we would have liked to. at least we have not added to it at any stage." Mr Shelton said. “I understand farmers, and I can see the great potential benefit to New Zealand in the Budget plans ” Mr Shelton added that the Government had no intention of opening the floodgates of importing as the Labour Government had done in election year. It was true that the Government had provided £4 75 million for motor-cars, but it must be remembered that

the 1953 Budget had increased the sales tax to 40 per cent, on cars. Sales tax would return £2.8 million on this item alone.

New Zealand’s own industries were also increasing their output, and would also contribute heavily to sales tax.

■’This is a good Budget,” Mr Shelton concluded. “And I still think that the best short description of it was given by Mr Nordmeyer. It does provide incentives to increase production.” “A niggardly half-crown has been palmed off to the pensioners," said Mr Douglas. Rents in Auckland Dealing with "rent racketeering,” Mr Douglas said he had learned of a house in Union street, Auckland, where 11 tenants paid a collective rent of £22 5s a week, and there was no hot water, one bath and one gas stove. Accepting the formula that debt charges would account for 3.5 per cent, of the total taxation receipts, £13.1 million of the total of £376 million of tax it was expected to be received this year would be used to service the debt. No Government member had criticised this, but when Mr Nordmeyer spoke of a free medical scheme the critics

tumbled over themselves, said Mr Douglas.

The return to the money lender was more important to them than the health and welfare of the people. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Sir Leon Gotz) described the Budget as: “An honest Budget, produced by an honest Minister of an honest Government.”

He asked if the Opposition remembered scathing criticism by the Auditor-General of the 1958 Budget. Sir Leon Gotz said that the payment of rates by the Crown was the only constructive suggestion made by Mr Nordmeyer in his Budget speech. In 1958 he had asked Mr Nordmeyer, then Minister of Finance, if he considered paying rates on Government properties. The reply had been that the matter would be given careful consideration when the report of the Royal Commission on Local Authority Finance, then sitting, was available. Nothing was done then, but now Mr Nordmeyer was calling for that very thing. He then announced the establishment of a committee to consider whether the Government should pay rates or grants on Crown properties.