Cautious Canterbury Budget reaction

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33252, 15 June 1973, Page 10

Cautious Canterbury Budget reaction

Reaction in Canterbury to the Budget last evening was mixed; most people who commented were cautious about its likely effects; and there was fear of inflation.

Mr W. R. Cameron, pre- [ sident of the Canterbury j Trades Council: This goes- > some way at least towards; " assisting those on lower in- ’ comes such as pensioners,! ; and the lower bracket of! : wage-earners,' but it could> have gone further. It is pleas-[ . ing that some notice has been[ . taken at last of the effects j of land speculating, also of . the encouragement to com-; , panies to give employees al stake in their industry, though; • these, too, could have gone; . a lot further. We are still I ; rather dubious about taxation; i concessions for shift work — t!these might lead to more' i! overtime being worked — [ Hand th:re are other things. ;I more important than tax con-. > I cessions, such as earlier re-1 itirement and more holidays t.for shift workers. Mr F. S. Blogg, land developer and builder: I can !see the Budget proposals on’ Hand speculation forcing the land developer to curb his high-capital-cost development. I 1 cannot imagine the specu-- ‘ lator selling before the two; years are up, and this will! cause a greater shortage of! , land and consequently higher prices. The real way to have , hit the problem would have! \ been to provide more land. [ > Mr M. H. McCrostie, im- > mediate past president, Can- > terbury-Westland branch, (Real Estate Institute: I don’t II think the proposals to at-1 » tempt to contain property I [speculation, while good ini ! I themselves, will get to the grass roots of stopping the > high prices of land; I doubt j '|that they will have much, ’[effect. The other provisions, on housing finance will help. 1 Things have just been getting ■ harder and harder for house ’ buyers and there should be some relief for them in these j ■ new provisions. Mr J. D. Bull, president of the Canterbun/ Manufacturers’ Association: The Budget certainly will encourage. I growth and development, but ■ I am concerned whether what . has been done about inflation i will be effective. Capital--1 intensive industries will still II have a big advantage over' .-labour-intensive industries at a time when labour is be-.

■ coming increasingly scarce.. • The placing of industrial I agreements on a 12-month 'iterm is window-dressing, be!cause the whole basis will still depend on the good will of the two parties involved. ■The Government recognises! that freight subsidies are the' i hard core of regional developrnent, but the three-year I limit, while encouraging industries to stay where they are, will not necessarily eni courage an industry to shift i-to another area when a . freight subsidy might disappear. We will have to rely Jon the goodwill of the Gov- ! eminent on that one, but it . does seem to be its declared .policy. Mr A. F. Wright, president North Canterbury Federated (Farmers: The economics of farming have improved dramatically, particularly for meat and wool, and farmers acknowledge the right of the Government to reduce subsi- . dies. If farming economics ; deteriorate, the Government’s moves tonight leave room for J the reintroduction of this! , | type of support, so essential! in the last three years. Farm-! ers will be pleased that the Government has left the first 30 tons of fertiliser available under present conditions. I Weedspray subsidies play an ! important part and I hope that their removal does not reduce the farmer’s determination to continue this vital i eradication work. Mr J. B. Brazier, managing director of Airwork (N.Z.), Ltd: The removal of the sub- : sidy on aerial topdressing and | application of weedicides was ! expected. I don’t thing it will make much difference on I superphosphate, but it could J mean less chemical spraying , ; from the air. because sprays ! ■ for gorse and broom and such ( like are quite expensive. i

Mr. K. A. Gough, president of the Canterbury Law Employers’ Union: The Labour Government in its pre-elec-tion manifesto promised to reduce taxation on overtime earnings because, it said, “human labour is the main source of wealth” and “tax policy will be designed to reduce disincentives for all who work.” But the Minister’s announcement tonight excluded the self-employed-shopkeepers, building contractors, farmers, transport operators, also professional people such as engineers, architects, surveyors, valuers, doctors, authors, scientists, accountants dentists, and lawyers. They work considerably longer than the accepted 40-hour week, but because they are not employees their earnings from personal exertions are to be taxed disproportionately. The self-em-ployed often have undergone long training or apprenticeship during which their earnings were extremely small. The Government risks accusations of sectional favouritism. Also, any production increases can in the end be attained only by the co-opera-tion of the self-employed. Mr J. C. Grigor, president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce: The Government has made full use of the buoyant economic conditions to implement its social policies but its monetary benefits must add to inflation. The small imports increase is insufficient to offset this. The business community will find relief in the abolition of the payroll tax but for companies this is offset by the changed basis of payment of company tax. We applaud the aim of the Budget to contain inflation and increase productivity, but the proof of the cake is in the eating.