BUDGET DEBATE ENDED

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 August 1930, Page 7

BUDGET DEBATE ENDED

MR. FORBES’ REPLY

GOOD WORK BY GOVT.

[SPECIAL -TO “STAR.”]

WELLINGTON, August 8

After almost a fortnight of discussion, the Financial debate came to a close this afternoon and the _ House proceeded to discuss the first item on the Estimates, which was not passed however. Mr Mason urged that the scope ofthe old age pensions be widened, and considered that the Government should take a* more merciful view in respect to those who had been in prison. The people of New Zealand were generally given to understand that the Bank of New Zealand was almost a State bank, and had the interests of the people at heart, but this was not so, and he instanced the financing of the building of a large theatre in Auckland. Auckland had a better position for theatres than any other town in New Zealand or Australia, and yet with a flourish of trumpets, the Bank lent them money at a low rate of interest and hadf given a special rebate of income tax to do it. It was unfortunate that the Government . representatives on the Board, of Directors of the Bank should aid 'in diverting money into unbusinesslike and uneconomic ventures. Mr Burnett said that in times such as the present, it seemed doubtful whether it was wise to retain the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. .On the whole the Court was sheltering cer tain industries and leaving others out in the economic storm. The Minister of Education had missed a wonderful opportunity when he failed to set up a Committee of Principals of the Girls’ Schools to inquire whether the education of iirls was proceeding on sound lines, and in keeping with mod ern requirements. There was a strong feeling that the education of girls was not on the right lines, and many girls were being forced into occupations to which they were not suited. Discussing land settlement, Mr Burnett said the chief cause of the failure was the tremendous overhead cost of starting operations. Mr Martin said the proposals of the Budget were absolutely staggering and it was surprising more Ministers had not defended them. Mr Donald claimed to bo a business man, but he had failed to give the benefit of his experience to the House, at what were •admittedly difficult times. The land development policy of the present Government had been very backward, and he was looking forward to an improvement under the present Minister. More life should be infused into the Department of Agriculture. Until this was done, there would be little progress in primary industries. Mr Martin went on to' condemn

CERTAIN LAND PURCHASES made recently and said that if they were not careful they would have a repetition of the soldier settlement disaster. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to render valuable ser vice to producers by endeavouring when he went to England to arrive at some agreement under which the marketing of our produce would not bo left in the hands of men who manipulated the produce for their own benefit. He stressed the need for a system of rural rating being evolved, which would give relief to the man on the land.

Replying, Mr Forbes said he thought the criticism had been very fair as a whole. He did not expect the proposals would be accepted without comment. While they had been founded on sound lines, it was reasonable to expect that the members would not at first sight see their wisdom, and th© foresight that had been used in their preparation. His idea had been to ensure that the burden was spread as evenly as possible over the whole community. His policy had been shown in a- pre-sessional statement, anticipating a £3,000,000 deficit, unless proper measures were taken to counter-act it. The principles governing the Budget were thosetof economy and sound finance, • and that would be the policy of the Government for this year at any rate. He knew the policy was bound to give rise to protests, but he thought the country had now accepted it. The drop in the value of primary produce was bound to have effect on the finances of the country. In view of that fact, he asked the officers of the Treasury what would bo the falling off of revenue for the year. This was his reply to those who said that the Estimates were not properly prepared. He was quite prepared to accept the' word of experienced officers. He felt he had been justified in disclosing the position of the national finances to tho country, and he had been pleased with .the reception that disclosure bad been accorded. He felt, it was the proper thing to do, to prepare the country for the financial position he saw ahead. The fact that Mr Coates moved a nd-confidence motion rather discounted his criticism, as it made it "ppear that whatever proposals the Government had brought down, he would have opposed them. Mr Forbes said lie thought it was desirable that, taxation should ho spread as widely as possible, as it gave rise to the feeling that everyone was playing his part in meeting what was undoubtedly a national crisis. A suggestion had been made that they should tax the Postal Department, but ho did not. know why the people who wrote letters should bo singled out. It had been done in Australia, but he did not think they-should follow the Commonwealth’s lead. They had

NOT RECEIVED ANY CREDIT for the taking off of (he super-tax, but (he fact that, (hey had set up a Commission last year and had reduced Hie amount by £120,000 should be to the credit of the Government. Landowners had accepted the tribunal as very fair. There had been no desire on the part of the Government to harrass the farming community, and the supertax had been removed, yet it was not Io bo expected that any credit, would be given the Government for that act ion.

Referring to the shortage that had to bo met, Mr Forbes said it had been decided to reduce the payments out of the Consolidated Fund as much as possible, and in order to avoid

placing too great a burden on the taxpayer, many very desirable payments had had to he cancelled, for this year at least.

i There had been complaints about the petrol tax at the start, but now the public realised that it was necessary for all to pull together in the common interest. Ho was confident that he had done the right, thing in placing the burden more on to the shoulders of road users. A good deal had been said about the transferring of £200,000 from the Public Works Fund, and it had been alleged that the Government had broken its pledges. The original grant to the Highways Fund was the proceeds from the highways tax, and it was found that this sum was too small. It was then decided to increase the amount, but tho payments were only carried on while the Government had the money to spend. Assistance would be given to backblock roads. Actually, the petrol tax did not affect the Consolidated Fund at all. The Government had decided that the road users should pay, and if the House decided against that policy that would be the end of it. There would be no money available for roads. It was entirely a matter for the House to decide, and if they voted against the petrol tax they could make their peace with the local bodies.

BACKBLOCKS SETTLERS were entitled to a measure of relief, and it was all nonsense to say the Government had no sympathy for the farmers. He was a. farmer himself, and so far as he was concerned, the man on the land would always get a fair deal. It was a proposal that, out of the additional amount of petrol tax they would have about £120,000 for backblocks roads. Those who were raising the hue and cry against the tax were forgetting the back country settler. The protesting motorist did not. have to put up with clay roads.

The Prime Minister gave examples of districts which would receive consideration for backblock roads, and pointed out that there had been instances of members representing constituencies containing back country, going into the lobby against the Government. The member for the Bay’ of Islands had been sent to the House to vote against the Coates Government, . and although that member’s district would obtain a large share of the petrol tax allocations for expendi ture on backblock roads —he received 17 per cent of outlying districts votes last year—he had voted against the Government. The member for the Bay of Islands had not been sent to Parliament for that purpose. When the House went into com mittee of supply on the first item of tho Estimates, the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr Holland) moved to reduce the vote as a protest against the action of the Government in refusing to give effect to the recommendations of the Mines Committee in regard to miners’ phthisis cases, but on Mr For.bes giving a proihise that the matter would be considered again, the amendment was, withdrawn.

Protests were also raised against the action of the Government in withdrawing grants to Swimming and LifeSaving Associations. Mr Wilkinson raised the question of the withdrawal of subsidies to the Pacific mail steamers.

The House adjourned at 5.30, until 2.30 p.m. on Monday.