BUDGET DEBATE Opposition Claims ‘Squeeze’ Continues

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32031, 4 July 1969, Page 12

BUDGET DEBATE Opposition Claims ‘Squeeze’ Continues

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 3. There was nothing in the Budget for those farmers who “really have their backs to the wall,” said Mr W. E. Rowling (Lab., Buller) in the Budget debate tonight. “The squeeze is on as before.”

Mr Rowling, Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters, said 14,200 dairy fanners had disappeared from the industry over the last ten years.

“These are people, and we on bis side of the House are concerned for people.” Two questions the Budget did not answer were: where were the primary produce markets of the future to be found, and how could New Zealand meet the needs of those markets.

Mr Rowling said the Minister seemed to recognise the problems of marketing in his economic review. But the Budget failed to “follow through.”

“The exception was the dairy beef subsidy proposals but these proposals have met a mixed reception.” The Government’s catchcry was diversification, but no indication was given where the future markets for New Zealand's primary produce might be. “Complete Disregard”

The Government had a “complete disregard” for people on lower incomes, Mr H. L. May (Lab., Porirua), told Parliament

Attacking the comment on Wednesday night by Mr H. V. Donald (Nat., Wairarapa) that the wage and salary earners could look after themselves, Mr Hay said: “I don’t know of any statement made in this House which has been -more derogatory to these people.” Mr Hay criticised the Budget for ignoring the problems of local body administration and for not assisting people who had to pay rates which were “getting out of hand.” The most significant thing about the national debt was not how big it was but to whom it was owed, Mr V. S. Young (Nat, Egmont) said. “All but 20 per cent of 52700 m national debt we owe to New Zealanders," he said. It is not a debt but a national investment If we reduce the national debt we reduce national investment.

The dairy industry was going through a difficult period, he said, and the Government should be behind it. The Government had done this in the Budget. Mr Young said the Budget looked out for the family man, by providing family benefit capitalisation to buy existing houses and giving allowances for a housekeeper where the wife was working.

The Budget gave a guide to the direction in which the New Zealand economy should develop, said Mr Young. It gave opportunities for all New Zealanders.

Mr G. Christie (Lab., Napier) agreed with the call by Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat, Fendalton) on Wednesday night for the Leader of the Social Credit Political League (Mr V. F. Cracknell, Hobson) to explain his party's policies. “For far too long this House has seen the spectacle of the Social Credit leader failing to express his position. I’m quite sure many people in this country have no idea of what Social Credit stands for.”

“No Alternative”

Mr H. J. Walker (Nat., St Albans) said Labour Party speakers in the debate so far had failed to present an alternative policy to the very successful one now being operated by the National Government.

Commenting on savings incentives in the Budget, Mr G. A. Walsh (Nat., Tauranga) said New Zealanders had shown in recent years that they could step up savings. Between 1960 and 1969 total savings almost doubled and the number of accounts

was up two-thirds—“this does not indicate inability of the masses to have savings accounts. No-one can drag this sort of money out of the air.” Mr Walsh said savings meant work, investment, productivity and expansion. This would help in achieving National Development Conference targets. But there was a “man-sized” job for everyone. “I know of no eyent jn my time in the House so potent with benefit for our country as this conference,” Mr Walsh said. Excess Revenue Mr J. Mathison (Lab., Avon) referred to the excess revenue in the public accounts first pointed out in the debate on Wednesday night by Mr R. J. Tizard (Lab., Pakuranga). Criticising the insufficient support given to the dairy farmers in the Budget, Mr Mathison suggested that the Government would use this excess for a greater handout to the farmers as an election plank.

This, he said, would be used by the Government to counteract the effect of the newly formed Country Party and to win votes from the Social Credit Party. Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) claimed the Budget was, in farmers eyes, a “timid” Budget. There were only “peanuts” in it for the farmer.

The Government had obviously sensed it was losing the confidence of the farmers, and was trying to regain lost ground. But the provisions of the Budget were spread too thinly to be effective.