The Grey River Argus "WEDNESDAY, August 24, 1949. BUDGET DEBATE

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1949, Page 4

The Grey River Argus "WEDNESDAY, August 24, 1949. BUDGET DEBATE

TF the bus has been missed it has not been by the budget, but by the Opposition. Mr Holland’s version of the budget last night was illogical. He talked of financial trouble, but of a bigger surplus than that disclosed; of inflation when prices are passing the peak; upheld high prices, yet big cuts in costs, by which .is meant wages; of continued social security, yet big reductions in the revenue from which social sedulity is derived. Mere prophecy, and most indefinite prophecy at that, was advanced as argument, whereas the actual state of national prosperity ivas simply ignored. The trouble with the Opposition is that their whole outlook is so incurably capitalistic and sectional that they are at a loss to illustrate from existing conditions any one of the dire predictions which constitute their political stock in trade. They say in effect that the demand for labour is too great, which surely spells prosperity, klr Holland laments that for some industries there is not enough of what he calls a labour “force”, just as if the workers were mere instruments of production, and not human beings. He would, it seems, "wring' the necks of such other industries as competed with the ones for which he desiderates a larger labour “force”. Pro-; duction is, all round, higher than ever before, but the Opposition is obliged to deny only that it is as high as it might be, or, rather, as high in certain directions as they wish to make it at the expense of other industries, other employees and other workers. In this, they are inconsistent even as capitalists, whose dogma is that enterprise is right in any direction, and should not be restricted. The most important point in the debate so far is the indication by Hon. A. H- Nordmcyer that primary producers may count upon means further to hoist their already large and profitable production. Those means chiefly are machinery obtainable only from the dollar area. Mr Holland says he is dubious about obtaining it on credit, or, rather, by means of a loan, doubting how the credit could bo repaid. At the same time lie questions our repayment of debl in Britain, whereas it stands to reason that the Americans would never stand in the way of being repaid by New Zealand for any accommodation given at this time when they are looking for markets far and wide, and without even counting the cost are offering their goods to' a host of countries.- If we could not repay, it would be due to exclusion of our goods, but Mr Holland does not really anticipate this, since he reckons that if more rugs were now made in New Zealand they could be sold in the United States. The second point emerging early from the debate is that the finances of the State are very strong indeed. The third point, the Opposition’s main grievance is that private finance capitalists no longer have the monopoly of issuing money, and that credit control by the State is at last a working reality.