WAR EXPENDITURE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 264, 5 October 1940, Page 8

WAR EXPENDITURE

GOVERNMENT POLICY. TOO MUCH ORDEILIN-COUNCIL. Per Press Association. I WELLINGTON,, Oct. 4. - Continuing the debate on the war expenditure when the House" of Representatives resumed at 2.30 p.m., the Loader of tho Opposition (Hon. A. Hamilton) said the Minister of Industries and Commerce had stated in the course of tho debate that the balance of the war loan over and above what was required for war expenditure would be used for local expenditure. He wondered if the Minister of Finance agreed with that statement. Mr Nash: Every bit of this money will be used for purchases in connection with the war.

Mr Hamilton said lie hoped the Minister of Finance would make it quite plain that this money would be used for nothing biit war expenditure. The War Cabinet had come in for some criticism in the course of the debate, he said, and some of it might have been justified. The War Cabinet, in his judgment, had justified its existence and the purpose for which it was set up. When it failed to justify that purpose it would cease to exist. To say that tho terms of the loan should have come before the IVar Cabinet was a criticism that could be levelled, but he doubted that it could bo sustained. The War Cabinet could not very well alter the Government’s declared policy. He criticised the Government for carrying out so much of its policy by means of Orders-in-Council instead of bringing these matters before the House in the shape of legislation.

Reverting to the work of the War Cabinet, he said that this Cabinet must not be expected to usurp the duties of Parliament. The proposals for the loan were the Government s proposals and he did not wish them to be thought to be tho War Cabinet ft proposals, or those of the Opposition. He contended that they were not-the conscription of wealth at all. They were unjust and unwise. They were unjust because they did not affect wealth and unwise because they attacked the economic lifeblood of industry, The Government was pretty hard on many who were thrifty and industrious.

DEFENCE OF LOAN. The Minister of Finance (Hon. W. Nash), replying to the debate, said the main criticisms of the loan were its compulsory nature, its terms, ana the contention that it was unnecessary. It had been argued during the debate that the stock when issued would be worth from £6O to £BO, but judging from present prices of 31 per cent Government stock the present issue would be worth at least £B2. Interest rates in New Zealand were lower than they had ever been before the Labour Government came into office and the Minister compared the prices of New Zealand stocks overseas with those in Australia. The Government would take steps to obtain all the money necessary for the defence of this country, he said. It would not argue with the people about it, would it would not be unfair to them. An Opposition member: There is no objection to the Government getting the money. Mr Nash: Then there is no objection to the loan. . , . It had been argued, he said, that the Government should havo conscription of goods. What was conscription of goods but conscription of wealth, he asked. The loan was all part ot the conscription of wealth and the Government would put everything it had into the present fight in which the Empire was engaged. Mr Nash said there would be little more than 18.000 people liable under the war loan. 15,000 of them individuals and 3000 companies. He quoted figures to show that a single man with an income of £6OO would bo liable for £lO and a man with £7OO for £2O. Oil the maximum of £2OOO the liability was £3lO. A single man with an unearned income of £2OOO would have to subscribe £430. There would be difficulties for those who were liable for the 10s to 15s in the £ income tax. There would be £BO out of the £IOO still there and that would 'become more as the years went by- There was no compulsion about tho proposal in the first sense, said tho Minister, but there would be some who would never subscribe voluntarily and the measure was for them. Dealing with the question of why no interest was to be paid during the war period, which had been estimated at three years, Mr Nash said that interest transferred the right to use certain goods without price. The Government said it had the right to use all the goods it required for the war for three, years without paying anything. After that the Government paid £2 10s every year for every £IOO worth of goods it used, but at the ond of the period the Government gave back the goods to the persons who had a title to them.

ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL. The second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill was moved by the Prime Minister, who stated that everyone would agree that the men who went overseas should have the right to vote, or bo nominated for Parliament and that the salaries of members of both Houses who were overseas should be safeguarded. Mr Hamilton said the Opposition would not offer any criticism of the Bill, which seemed largely designed to meet the legal requirements in connection with the voting of troops overseas. Mr Fraser said that the Government was particularly anxious that' the Bill should go through immediately so that the rights of every soldier for nomination in the Waipawa by-election should lie safeguarded. The Bill was put through its remaining stages without discussion and passed. The House then adjourned at 4..30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, when answers to questions will be discussed during tile' afternoon and the debate on the Excess Frofits Bill will begin in the evening.