REDUCE—BUT NOT THIS VOTE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 86, 8 October 1930, Page 10

REDUCE—BUT NOT THIS VOTE

In the particular circumstances of the time the defeat of the Government on the Agricultural Estimates can have no far-reaching consequences. But the vote is not without significance. It was intended as a gesture of sympathy for the farmer, but the policy underlying it cannot be helpful to the primary producer. The great need new is to reduce costs in all ways so that they may be accommodated to a lower level of prices. In such reduction the Government is in duty bound to give a lead. It must seek to reduce expenditure so that the tax burden on farmers and those who serve them may be lessened. There can be no reduction if this vote or that is not to be touched. If it were shown that any particular vote had been cut too severely it would be different. It was the abolition of military training (termed, suspension) against which we protested; not a reasonably proportionate measure of economy. The Agriculture Vote reduction does not come in this category. The greater part of it is accounted ior by the elimination of subsidies which were wrong in principle, and in any case were not intended to be permanent. The vote is still sufficient for the maintenance of efficient service. If, as the mover of the amendment maintained, some other votes had escaped the knife, he should have shown where a reduction could be made in these also. As it is the House has adopted the entirely wrong principle, in a time when economy is necessary, of labelling one section of public service as not to be touched.