POLITICAL POINTS

Evening Star, Issue 23335, 3 August 1939, Page 8

POLITICAL POINTS

CONTROL OF OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS PREMIER AGAINST DR M’MILLAN'S SUGGESTION (From Oust Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, August 2. Official control of New Zealanders’ overseas investments as one means of assisting to meet the loan falling due in January does not appeal to the Prime Minister as a promising expedient. His attention was called by Dr M’MiWan to the British Government’s action, which enabled it to purchase £622 millions of overseas securities by the payment of English sterling. Mr Savage replied that he had seen the details of this operation. “The Government,” he added, 44 does not consider it advisable to take action as suggested. While the statistics are not available at the moment, it is reason- ; ably certain that the amount of sterling investments held by persons ordinarily domiciled in New Zealand is relatively small. There is a much greater volume of New Zealand investments held by British investors.” * * * • CATCHING THE SMALL FRY. Having gobbled up the big- savings, the Government was now after the small fry, suggested the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hamilton, when he made reference to the Budget announcement regarding the encouragement of small investments in State securities. A loan of 4] millions had already been raised locally. He would like the Government to say how it was over-subscribed—whe-ther this was done voluntarily or under pressure. Did the little chaps or the big institutions come to the rescue? 44 1 think,” he added, 44 they wore tickled up to put some money in to save the Government’s face. .Now they are trying to encourage the wageearner to save, though a few years ago the philosophy was to spend our way to prosperity. The small man is being asked to put a little bit by, with which I quite agree; but the Government has been a'long time coming to the same conclusion.” Mr Carr (Labour. Timaru) : We have given them something to save. Speaking later, Mr Sullivan remarked that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what pressure was brought to bear on various institutions and concerns to contribute to the loan: 44 Ho does not seem to think the people of this country have sufficient faith and confidence in the Government and the country to subscribe to a loan without pressure being exercised by the Government. From the inquiries I have made since, I can say that the £4,.300,000 was subscribed without pressure of any kind. That should bring a glow of satisfaction to the hon. gentleman as a citizen, even if it is nof pleasant news to him as the Leader of the Opposition.” Mr Bodkin (National, Central Otago) : How much did the State departments take? The Minister: I have not got the figures with me, but the Leader of the House told me there was little subscribed by the State departments. Opposition chorus: They had none to spare. t t * « DIFFERENT STORY NOW. The Government was very eulogistic of the guaranteed price scheme while it was showing a profit to the State, declared the Leader of the Opposition in the House, but as soon as it was showing a profit to the farmers it was a different story. It was time the Government realised that the basis of New Zealand’s economy was linked up with the prices of its export products. It promised the dairy fanners a standard of living comparable with other sections and the dairy farmers emphatically would insist on this promise being fulfilled.

The reply from Mr Sullivan was that the Leader of the Opposition was exceedingly hard to please. If there was a deficit in the dairy industry account he was upset and wanted to know who was going to pay. If there was a profit he was equally upset. Mr Hamilton: Not a bit.

The Minister: He complains whichever way it goes. Ho is playing with a double-headed penny. Mr Sullivan wanted to know what had become of the compensated price and how the Opposition would bring down costs to the farmer. Everyone knew that the only way they would set about it was to repeat the wage smashing of 1931-35. Would Mr Hamilton deny that he would reduce wages? Mr Hamilton: We said so at election time. • • * • SCANT CONSIDERATION. “ Land settlement receives scant consideration in the Budget,” declared the Leader of the Opposition in his criticism of that document in the House. The Minister of Lands, he continued, did not receive much space for it—nothing like the amount devoted to social security. Why did the Minister not state what was done last year in the way of land settlement? If he had good news to give it would have been there, but the story was black. Mr Lee Martin (Acting Minister of Lands): I gave it on the Address-in-Reply. Mr Hamilton declared that if the farmers’ income was protected against rising costs and made comparable with other incomes he predicted that land settlement would go ahead on its own account, hut while men earned relief pay on much easier terms it would be hard to bring marginal lands into production.