BUDGET DEBATE

Evening Star, Issue 20556, 7 August 1930, Page 16

BUDGET DEBATE

NO SIGN OF END IFrojc Our Parliamentary Uecorter.] WELLINGTON, August 6. Tho Budget debate was resumed in tho House of Representatives by Mr E. F. Hoaly (Wairau.), who regretted that the flax-growing industry was waning, and _he trusted tho Department of Agriculture would see that this valuable industry was not lost to New Zealand. Mr Healy defended the completion of tho South Island Alain Trunk railway, stating that he was prepared to show critics over the country. They would, after six or seven days on horseback,' still bo passing through good land. ■ , Mr A. Harris (Waitemata) said it might be argued that the South Island Mam Trunk railway should have been built several years ago, but it could not bo claimed that it w’as desirable to-day when there was need for the curtailment of capital expenditure on railways. He declared that no thanks were due to the Government for the removal of the primage duty, as it bad substituted a surtax amounting to .treble the amount of primage on the average. He asked whether the surtax was to bo a permanent increase. Everyone knew the difficulty of removing taxation once it had been imposed. The Government’s proposals were aggravating to too many sections of the community, and would hit tho working man hardest of all. Ho advocated increasing, the duties on beer and wines and spirits, and supported tho suggestion of Mr W. D. Stewart that an increase of tho postage rate to lid would have been preferable to some of tho methods adopted by the Government. Ho also believed that the Government should take tho totalisator fractions, which he estimated would produce about £40,000 annually. The racing clubs could not complain against such a course. Air Harris said he favoured increased death duties, and he considered that by tho means he had mentioned the Government would have been able to obtain all the additional revenue it said it needed without harming anybody. It seemed that the only people who had escaped the Budget taxation were tho bookmakers and the publicans. Mr J. W. Alunro (Dunedin North) said ho had been impressed by the suggestion of Air Stewart that an increase in the postage rate should bo utilised to produce revenue. It had seemed a useful one. Ho was, however, more in favour of tho suggestion of Air Harris that tho duties should be increased on beer and spirits. Mr Alunro defended the action of the Labour Party in keeping the United Party in office, expressing the opinion that it was not the desire of the country as a whole to have a General Election at tho present time. There was little to be gained by it. It was his opinion that both the Reform and tho Labour Parties would suffer if they were to force such a position upon tho country, which as a whole was not as much interested in what party was in power as in restoring the economic situation. The people expected the best brains of all the parties to be applied to a solution of tho national difficulties. Dealing with tho railways, Mr Munro said that in his opinion there was no possibility of their paying unless a large amount of the capital cost were transferred to the Consolidated Fund. At tho present time the railways were over-capitalised to tho extent of £25,000,000, and were expected to earn interest on the whole amount. > Air 0. E. Macmillan (Tauranga), referring to the speech of Mr Ransom, said the Minister of Lands had stated that it was the policy of the Government to prevent “drift,” but he had not shown that there was anything in tho Budget to achieve such an aim. There was nothing that would assist primary production or that would tend to promote a return to prosperity. It gave no encouragement to the people to go on to the land, nor did it encourage those already on tho land to increase production. Tho House was told that the petrol tax was to assist •the back-blocks’ settlers by providing good roads, yet tho Government’s withdrawal of grants, subsidies, and other savings affecting these people amounted to £541,000. In return they were to get £450,000 from the petrol tax, leaving them £91,000 worse off. In addition, they would be paying a large share of tho petrol tax themselves.

Mr H. T; Armstrong (Christchurch East) said it would be quite easy for the Government to save something like half a million in defence expenditure. Instead of maintaining a comic opera system of boy conscription, it would be better to spend money on disabled re. turned soldiers and their dependents. Ho stated that the Budget did not offer any hope of a solution of the unemployment problem, while on the other hand it disclosed many ways in which, the burden on the working man would be increased. Ho believed that 11,000 men could be employed on the South Island main trunk railway work alone. Ho had heard strong opposition to the completion of this work, but ho pointed out that the same arguments had been raised against the construction .of the railway from Christchurch to the West Coast, which had fully justified itself. He submitted that if the general manager were instructed to make the New Zealand railways pay he could do so, but it would bo a bad business proposition for this country. It would drive primary producers off the land altogether. The railways policy should be to provide efficient services at a reasonable cost, and if there were any losses on the operations it should he paid from the Consolidated Fund. He did not believe the Railway Commission would be able to tell the general manager anything ho did not already know. The whole tiling was a waste of time. The Minister of Health (Mr Stallworthy) said it had been stated there was nothing in tho Budget to provide for unemployment. Members would remember that special levislation had been introduced to meet this position, and he hoped it would provide a sound remedy. The Minister said the Leader of the Opposition had referred to tho “ black ” Budget. Perhaps black was a fitting colour to assume after the sixteen years of Reform administration. Others had described tho Budget as “red.” “green,” “yellow,” and “ blue,” and-the only alternative to the theory that the critics were colourblind was that it was a rainbow Budget. Tho Minister added that_ in a Biblical sense a rainbow was a sign of promise, and he trusted that in a political sense the Budget was also a sign of promise, embracing a change from tho black times of tho past. Replying to tho suggestion by Mr 1). Jones (MidCanterbury) that the surplus of tho Post Office Account should be employed to meet losses in other departments, Mr Stallworthy said it had to be realised that the time might come when there would be full need for all the reserves that the Post Office could accumulate. Ho pointed out that tho suggestion that the railways would bo seriously challenged by other forms of transport would not have been entertained some years ago, but_ that was now the position. It was likely that there would also be developments challenging the status of the telegraph ays-

tem. The time might come when as a result of progress in radio invention everybody would carry both receiving and transmitting sets as commonly as watches were carried nowadays. Mr K. S. Williams (Bay or Plenty) said ho thought Mr Stallworthy had found the right name for the Budget. As he understood the meaning of “ rainbow,” it indicated that, although there was going to be a flood, not everybody would be washed away. It would l)e a relief for people to learn that, althugh there was to be a flood of taxation, some of them would survive. Dealing with the petrol tax, Mr Williams sqid that, while he realised that more money was required for roads, he did not think it was a sound policy to raise a large sum from one section of the community and then place it in the Consolidated Fund for the use of all and sundry. He did not think that motorists would object to the tax if it was clear that it was going to ho used for the roads.

The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr J. O’Briem (Westland), and the House rose at midnight.