"PERSONAL ABUSE"

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 127, 25 November 1935, Page 18

"PERSONAL ABUSE"

NO REAL ARGUMENT

MR. HISLOP'S STATEMENT

The criticism of the Democrat policy and Budget proposals made by Mr. Coates in Auckland was replied to by Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, Leader of the Democrat Party, in a statement today. "Mr. Coates's figures and statements are so inaccurate and irrelevent, and in fact, show such a gross ignorance of the principles of finance, that I am confirmed in my belief that Mr. Forbes should have been allowed to retain the portfolio of Finance Minister; instead of this 20,000 per cent, wrong financier," said Mr. Hislop. Mr. Coates states that 'either Mr. Hislop is a complete novice in public finance or he was completely irresponsible.' Unfortunately for Mr. Coates, my record of public service shows either of his alternatives to be completely untrue. No doubt he is under the impression that such statements will disprove my Budget estimates. But, let us see who this Mr. Coates is. He has only been tested on one Budget as a financier, and his estimate of the surplus was a mere 20,000 per cent, wrong. Then, he and his Government were responsible for this little item in the Report of the National Expenditure Commission, 'The annual estimates of expenditure out of the Public Works Fund and other accounts should "be subject to more rigid scrutiny and control.' TEN EXAMPLES. "The Commission gives ten examples where works which together were estimated to cost £2,951,000 actually cost £6,940,000. Mr. Coates's ideas of accuracy and mine do not coincide. I mention this so that the people may realise from whom the criticism of my Budget ,is coming. | "His criticism of my Budget pro-j po*.als is ludicrous. First he jeers at what he terms a 'mock1 Budget, and then he proceeds to prove that the whole thing can be done. Here is the basis of his argument. £ Revenue estimate Mr. Coates's Budget 25,742,000 Revenue estimate Democrat Budget 24,055,000 Difference £ 1,687,000 "Mr. Coates then states that our tax reductions will cost £5,040,000, so that there would be a gap of £3,353,000. The vital mistake made by Mr. Coates is that the tax reductions, excluding the present employment tax, which

Mr. Coates himself admits is outside of the Budget, being applied to our health insurance and pensions scheme, is, on > Mr. Coates's. own Budget figures' £2,680,000. This immediately reduces the gap between Mr. Coates's Budget estimates and mine to £993,000, which is adequately covered by the savings and the revenue increases to which I have referred. "In other words, Mr. Coates having overstated the. Budget tax reductions by no less than £2,360,000 on his own Budget figures has proved that my Budget is correct. . AMORTISATION FUI^D. ' "With regard to the individual items to which Mr. Coates refers, I propose to deal first with the amortisation fund commitments. There was an increase of £186,000 under the heading 'Repayment of Public Debt Act, 1925,' during the last financial year, and no less than I £56.688 under the head 'Administration on Management'—an increase in the latter item of over 90 per cent. These items all come under the head 'Amortisation of Debt." This item has grown considerably over the last few years, and if what Mr. Coates claims is true, that there has been very little increase in the .Public Debt, then it is hard to see the reason for the increase. Possibly Mr. Coates is making some provision for the additional £40.000,000 of Public Debt which must be taken into account, if exchange is to remain permanently at its present figure. "I do not propose to discontinue the 'Amortisation of Debt' payments, but I certainly intend to review the costs of administration, and the general incidence of the payments, and it will be my endeavour to stabilise this item as far as possible at an adequate but not an excessive level. 'To accuse me of a 'flagrant breach of trust,' is deliberately misrepresenting my statements, and has not the faintest foundation in fact. "With regard to annual appropriations. Mr. Coates states that this item in his Budget totals £6,715,000 after deducting pensions. My estimate is £6.840.000, excluding pensions. Mr Coates therefore says that I shall have only £125,000 for other. items. He goes on to say that 'the expenses of the revenue departments alone amount to three times that sum. to say nothing of the costs of administration.' Mr Coates should know that these items are included in the appropriations, and are not separate items by themselves. I HEALTH INSURANCE. "With regard to health Insurance and pensions, Mr. Coates says that the cost of a universal scheme would be £12,050,000. The cost of our scheme, which is more limited in its nature is £5,650,000. If the cost of a universal scheme is so enormous, equal to the total revenue from Customs duties, gold export duty, land tax and income tax, and film hire'tax; why has Mr. Coates included this scheme in his last-minute promises? Obviously a universal scheme is absolutely impossible, and Mr. Coates is simply telling fairy- tales when he says that the Government intends to introduce such a scheme.

"The cost of salary restorations and the superannuation subsidy will not amount to more than £850,000. Mi\ Coates says that salary restorations alone would cost £800,000, but he knows as well as I do that portion of this cost is borne by trading Departments. The system of economies that I propose to introduce, following the recommendations of the National Expenditure Committee, will allow of . departmental savings, apart from other savings, which will more than cover the required sum. The actuarial liability on the superannuation funds, according to Mr. Coates, is £22,000 000 May I ask who* is responsible for this disgraceful condition of the fund? In actual fact, the sum of £300,000 per I annum will be adequate to put the fund in a secure position, as Mr. Coates knows full well. He is actually providing £200,000 per annum at the present time, and I have budgeted for an additional £100,000. SUBSIDIES TO FARMERS. "With regard to the subsidies to farmers, the sum of £3,750,000 on todays prices will .be more than adequate to pay the necessary subsidies to the farmers, in need. Mr. Coates says that the farmers get £14.000.000 from exchange. Sir Alfred Ransom said recently that they get -£9,000.000 from exchange. The actual net benefit to farmers, after deducting all additional costs, is less than half this amount The interesting point is that Mr. Coates says that ray. proposals would give one-third of the exchange benefit at double the cost to the Budget. Mr. Coates is very concerned with the costs to the Budget I am more concerned with the cost to the community. Mr. Coates's exchange plan (on his figures) costs the people £14.000,000 per annum to give a benefit which is largely illusory, and which chiefly goes to the very big fanners who are in no real need. My proposal will cost the community one-quarter of Mr. Coates's exchange subsidy, and will give the fullest measure of assistance to those in need. "MERELY SILLY." "The final remark made by Mr Coates is. merely silly. Some time ago ne said that our policy would cost £22.000.000 in addition to exisUng charges, and he has been vainly endeavouring to substantiate this ever since. Not one word of real proof has he offered. The fact is that he made a rash statement, and now finds himself m the very awkward predicament of being unable to prove it in any way "Summing up Mr. Coates's criticism, it is clear that he can find no real argument against my Budget, and has had to descend to misrepresentation and mere personal abuse. The facts speak for themselves. I- have proved the practicability of our policy to the last letter If the people of New Zealand want to tread the path back to happithTp ao nifcy £"°UritytheymUSt£U^OTt