DEBATE ON BUDGET

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 October 1937, Page 7

DEBATE ON BUDGET

MR. HAMILTON’S CRITICISM TAXATION INCREASE [PER PP.ESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, September 30. The House was well filled when the Budget debate was begun by the Lea - er of the Opposition (Mr. who said the Budget was of great im portance to the people realised when it was stated that to-day every family had to bear taxation to the extent of £B5/10/-. against taxation of £45/17/10 on the same family in 1932. The present Budget would be known as the “eat, drink and b , merry for to-morrow we die Budget. It was reckless in expenditure and irresponsible in its disregard for the future. There was a huge increase in taxation, the total altogether amounting to £4,491,000 on last year, while the Labour Government had also increased taxation by £5.589,000 the previous year. It was also a spendthrift Budget. It maintained public expenditure at an extravagant rate, and ignored the solemn promises of its sponsors that taxation would not be increased. It threatened to undermine the financial stability of the Dominion by spending the full revenue in a boom vear. It was unstatesmanlike, because in it the Minister had missed a wonderful opportunity of reducing taxatl<M*r Hamilton compared the taxation to-day with that of the previous Government’s, stating that the Planttaxation totalled close on £40,000,000, which was a huge amount, and an enormous increase for our little country. New Zealand was not a country which had high internal taxation capacity. The Government seemed bent on destroying our present financial system. He knew that membeis of the Government did not agree with the present economic system, and it appeared the-Government was out to destroy it by undermining it with taxation. Mr. Hamilton asked what would the Government do if export returns fell to £40,000,000. How would the Minister of Finance adjust things? The Government was unloading on the countrv a burden that would be verj onerous if prices fell. They would have perhaps to reduce taxation, but he doubted if they would adjust, it downwards, then perhaps they might impose heavier taxation, but taxpayers might be unable to find the money. The people, he contended, who would suffer in the event of the fall in export returns, were the people who had their assets in money. Was there any other way? He thought not for the present Government. He said it would depreciate the value of f currency. The Budget was very disturbing, in fact, it was almost staggering. It was true to the form of the Labour Government, but it would be viewed with apprehension and alarm by the people of the Dominion.

Mr. Savage asked was it a member of the previous Government which brought the value of our money down 25 per cent., who was stating that the present Government intended to deflate currency? Mr. Hamilton: We reduced the value j in gold, not in goods. MR. SAVAGE’S REPLY. Mr. Savage stated the Government was going to continue raising wealth . until the poor people were better off . than they had been in the past. “We . do not see,” said Mr. Savage, “why we , should apologise for helping the poor. I am not going to apologise, and there is no one on this side of the House who will apologise for it, either. We were not going to see the people starve in the midst of plenty, and we won't do it.” He had never felt more confident of the Government’s policy than he did to-day. The Leader of the Opposition had said the Budget was unstatesmanlike. Well, said Mr. Savage, he hoped he wasn’t a statesman. Then the Government had been criticised, because it had failed to remove the sales tax. If the Opposition had not imposed that tax, it would never have to be taken off. Mr. Coates: You promised before the election that you would take it off. Mr. Savage: And we will take it off in our own time, and we will put the weight on those who can best bear it. The people down below are the people who are suffering to-day, and those are the people we aim to help. When we are ready to do things as they ought to be done, the sales tax and exchange rate will disappear. Mr. Savage then referred to a recent remark by Mr. Endean at Masterton that he (Mr. Savage) had said in the House he intended to destroy the right of inheritance. The Prime Minister stated he had said no such thing, because he did not believe in it. “I don’t believe in the destruction of the right of inheritance,” he added. “Is that plain enough?” Referring to taxation, he said that the increase was not due to the increase in taxation itself, but to the increase in the aggregate income. Mr. Savage referred to the praise which British papers had given the New Zealand Government’s legislation, and , added that the promises Labour had , made to the producers would be kept. The House adjourned at 0.40 p.m., until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. LONDON PRESS ESTIMATE •I (Recd. October 1. 11.30 a.m.). LONDON, September 30. The “Financial News” says: Mr. 1 Nash’s budget has worked out well. 1 The Dominion is highly prosperous. The Government believes in social re- ' construction, but the budgetary policy 1 is most orthodox in results, and sets a proper, rather than a murky light. - on the attacks on New Zealand, made ‘ in certain quarters in London, earlier * in the year. While prosperity lasts. New Zealand’s credit will he as good 2 as any of the Dominions. If prices fall s Messrs. Nash and Savage will face de--2 pression with a balanced budget, which 2 is more than other countries in the ■ Empire are able to do.