FINANCIAL DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 4, 4 July 1940, Page 6

FINANCIAL DEBATE

(Continued From Page 5.)

peated in prosperous years or in war time. He would ask Mr. Hamilton to go the whole distance and say how he would help to make the war effort more efficient. Would the Opposition help towards unity. If he would say what would. be done he would establish his case beyond doubt. "Neither] our war. effort nor our prosperity can be built on the sufferings of the poor," he added. Mr. Hamilton had not said that he wanted to cut social security benefits. A Government voice: He meant it though. . Mr. Fraser mentioned" hospital benefits and aid to the orphans, the widows, and the blind. "The Leader of the Opposition did. not say: 'I want them cut'; he did not put his finger on any. one of them." He should have told the Government, what services it should cut. He had postponed the details until the estimates were under consideration and no doubt when that time came he would point out what' "cuts" he would make: That would be helpful even if the suggestions were not accepted. To give details would show that the members opposite had the| courage of their convictions. j NOT USELESS. It was a fallacy to say that taxation j was a useless burden and wasted, Mr. Fraser went on. Mr. Hamilton: I did not say that. Mr* Fraser said that about 54 per cent, of the country's taxation was re-j turned to the people in the form of social services, including education, mental hospitals, social security. Did anybody say that that expenditure was wasted? It was wise taxation and wise redistribution of the country's income. There could be no denial of that .even during war, time. Mr. Fraser said that the reception of the Budget by the opponents of the Government throughout the country had been on similar lines to the criticism offered by Mr. Hamilton. "I cannot speak for all the people of the country/but I feel I can speak for a majority of; them," hie continued. "Neither' "the Press, nor the country, nor the' Opposition can speak for the country1 as a whole. They can speak for a large and important section that is entitled to have its opinions carefully considered and the Government will do that and give attention to all j practical suggestions, theories, and ideas made from the Opposition j benches." Though Mr. Hamilton had deplored the sum for civil expenditure, said Mr. Fraser, he did not say where it should be cut. The increase was to a great extent associated with the social security benefits, among which the maternity and hospital benefits were instituted during the last year. Would , Mr. Hamilton say that these benefits, which had been a blessing to thousands, should not operate? "Would the* Opposition object to the £650,000 subsidy required for fertilisers in order that production shall be increased?" asked Mr. Fraser. Mr. Hamilton: A subsidy is an indication that something is wrong. Mr. Fraser: I take it that if you had the power you would take it off. INCREASING PRODUCTION. He went on to say that a scheme would be instituted shortly whereby money would be loaned to farmers for fertilisers.. There were many farmers who were ready* to help in increasing production if they had some help. Mr. F. W. Doidge (National, Tauranga): The faimers do not want a subsidy; the^ want' costs reduced. Mr... Fraser: Are you in favour of abolishing the subsidy? Mr. Doidge: I am';in favour of reducing costs. ■•>:, The' PfinTe~-Mkdsier, pointed to the £224,000 earmarked for the wheat subsidy. Would the member for Hurunui and the member for Riccarton want that abolished? Mr. S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North): You sell wheat for less . than it costs you. Mr. Fraser: Do you suppose the farmer is getting too much for his wheat? . " .. Mr. Holland: The consumer should Mr. Fraser: And put the cost-of, living, which the Opposition criticises, up further? The Prime Minister mentioned an .additional sum of £24,000, of which £17,000 was to meet the extra load placed on the Police Force because of the war and the responsibility of guarding wharves and so on. •. Mr Fraser proceeded to answer the criticism regarding public works. He auoted the latest figures to show that in June, 1939, all the men employed on public works totalled 21,653, while in June, 1940, the number was 17,089, a drop of 4564. Mr Hamilton: The figures' for June are not in the latest Abstract of StatisMr. Fraser: These figures only came out yesterday. When it came to the number of men actually on the public works payroll, the number was much less, continued the Prime Minister. The number on the payroll in June, 1939, was 16,414 and in June this year it had dropped to 12 711 a reduction of 3703. mat was the smallest number that had been on the public works payroll for very many years. . , Mr. Coates: How do you arrive at those' figures? . Mr. Fraser explained that in addition to them there were men employed on contracts let before war broke out, and the Public Works Department could not throw men off those con"tl*3.ctS ' The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple): The men are paid by the contractors. MEN ON ROAD WORK. Mr. Fraser said there were also men employed by local bodies with a sub' sidy granted by the Public Works De-partment—-men employed on county roads. "Are we going to cut them out?" he asked. Mr. Coates: If war work is more essential—certainly. Mr. Fraser: I agree, but members, some' of them on the Opposition side, have asked for more men for this work. ' , - ■'- J

The policy of the Government was to transfer men to essential work as quickly as possible, Mr. Fraser con* turned. Over 3000 experienced farm workers were anxious to transfer from public works to farms but the problem was to get them transferred.

Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford): Bit early yet. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara): It's not too early. The men are needed today. Mr. Fraser said that if Mr. Coates knew of any secret method of getting the men transferred the Government would like to have it. Mr. Coates: That is no answer. It. is the Government's responsibility. There were 3966 persons- receiving social .security benefits,- Mr. t Fraser said, but the majority of those were unfit for work. There were 8500 on Scheme 13 and 3936 on Scheme 4b. In addition there were 450 on other works, making a total of 16,752. Nearly 13,000 of those men were doing useful work and nothing could be worse than to stop men from doing useful work to put them into the ranks of the unemployed. There was road work that would be of inestimable value if the country were attacked because the roads ■ vwould make" ''the-: defending

forces mobile. Under existing circumstances it would be folly to stop building houses because more houses were urgently required, and even if that were not the case houses would be needed for the men when they returned from the war. The same applied to land development. Both were important in any rehabilitation scheme. Hydro-electric development must also, be carried on because power would be needed for the industries that would be needed in the future economy of the country. Work on railways wag also needed because the railways would have to take over more and more traffic from the roads so that petrol could be saved. All money spent on these works was not wasteful expenditure but capital invested from which the country would ultimately benefit.

Many of the public buildings in question were contracted for before war broke out, Mr. Fraser said. It was satisfactory that whatever criticism might be levelled against the civil side of the Budget there was no criticism against the war expenditure. As far as he was concerned, and he thought he spoke for the Government, there was nothing they could do, there was no length they would go, and there was no obstacle financially whether it was orthodox or unorthodox that would stop them, and, he believed, the House and the country, from doing everything possible to achieve victory alongside their fellowBritish nations, and to defeat the threat of Hitlerism, Nazism, and tyranny for over.