THE BUDGET DEBATE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6627, 14 August 1931, Page 8

THE BUDGET DEBATE

Members in Attack and Defence

MR FLETCHER ON PETROL PRICES. 1 '

» Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last , Niglit. During the Budget debate. in . the House tu-day Mr. j. W. Munro criticised the handling of the unemployment problem and declared that .Labour's predictions at a time when the wage reduction legislation was before the House had unfortunately come true, bide by side with the wage cuts there had been increasing unemployment becauso the community's purchasing power had been reduced by £lo,Uoo,ouu to £12,000,000 annually. The market for,, secondary industries in New Zea- . laud had largely been lost. Contending that the capitalistic system had been a failure Mr. Munro submitted that bir Otto Niemeyer's recommendations regarding banking and currency amounted to a recognition that the capitalistic banking system had failed. The recommendations of Sir Otto Niemeyer were yery largely on the basis of the Labour party's ideas on the subject of banking. Mr: Munro said he regretted that New Zealand at the present time did not have statesmen similar to those in oifiee in the early 'nineties. It was a pity that instead of a “Budget of depression the House had not had placed before it a Budget embodying a bold policy indicating that the Government was at least going to make an experiment. The Prime Minister had stated that this was not a time for experiment, but Mr. Munro submitted that the body politic was similar to the human body. When there were no ailments of the human body there was no need to consult a specialist but it was when the human body was suffering great pain that it became necessary to experiment in the direction of finding a remedy. It was the same with the body politic and he emphatically declared that the present was just the day for experiment , I‘Needs Must” i Hon. A. J. Stallworthy said he did not like the Budget proposals and he considered the country was overtaxed already, but the country had got into a vicious circle and the position had to be met. One newspaper had called the Budget the “needs must Budget" pud that was what it was. Mr. Coates: “Needs must or needs Bust.” ) Mr, Stallworthy: “Needs must when the Devil drives." Mr. Jones: “Is that what you call the Prime Minister?" Continuing, Mr. Stallworthy said one thing in the Budget he did like was the decision to balance the country's accounts. He wished to express his appreciation of the way the Opposition had decided to assist the Government instead of attempting to make political capital out of the position. Eeferring to the lemarks of the member for .Chalmers (Mr. A. E. Ansell) he said ho agreed that tho Opposition did not like the Budget but neither did the Government. However, they would put country before party and carry the proposals through and he believed the member for Chalmers would do the same later. Mr. Stallworthy said ho beliove4 New Zealand would recover her prosperity much more quickly than cither Britain or Australia. All that was needed was to put their house in order. Eeverting to the question of balancing the Budget he said while Labour endorsed the principle Labour members kept insisting on measures that would make ft impossible to balance the Budget. Labour was following the foolish road and was pledging itself to a policy impossible of fulfilment. It was essential that the Government must meet its liabilities in an honest way and that could not be done if it pursued the policy of high wages that had heon tried, in America and had failed.

In reply to a question from Mr. Samuel, Mr. Stallworthy said lie was in favour of a National Government. (There were thousands of people in the i country in a bankrupt condition and it '.was the duty of members to work to- . gether fox the elimination of the present -prims* -Petrol Again. Ma. J, S. Fletcher declared there was opportunity for the Government to relieve farmers and workers and make derating possible if it would adopt two courses, namely minting New Zealand's own silver coin and taxing the American oil trusts. He said petrol was being sold in London at Is 2Jd per gallon and included in this price was a tax of 4d, while in New Zealand it was being sold at 2s including a tax of fid. The transportation and distribution costs in connection with the marketing pf petrol would not be any les3 than similar costs in New Zealand and as it could be assumed that it was not being sold without a profit in England it must follow that there was a heavy exploitation charge in New Zealand. Mr. Langstone: “They land it here for under fid a gollon.”

Mr. Elotcher submitted that there was Cver £2,000,000 annually going out of this country into the pockets of the American oil trusts. Petrol was being sold in California at seven cents a gallon and that included a three cents road tax. He admitted there was a petrol war in California but there was no excuse for the very high price in New Zealand. Continuing, Mr. Fletcher said he was in favour of a National Government. Mr. Langstone: “A rational government!” Mr. Fletcher: “A National Government and an elective executive should appeal to the member for Waimarino because he should have a wonderful chance of gaining office! ” Mr. Fletcher said he wished to make it plain he was referring to a National Government rather than to a National party and he also was in favour of an elective executive. He said he was confident that, the Government in addition to raising the money as he had indicated could also effect considerable economy in the Public Works Department, and for that Teason he intended to vote against all taxation proposals that would involve an increase in the cost of living. Land Development.

Mr. Lee Martin said 50,000 men were unemployed and as the average earnings of these men would be £3 a week the loss to the country was great because £50,000 a week was being spent to give them sustenance. They should be put into productive work and he advocated land development. Hon. S. G. Smith: “Land development does not absorb many men.” Mr. Martin: “I disagree with the Hon, Minister. Anyway the money is practically wasted at the present time.” Mr. Martin suggested that the coal in-.

dustry should bo given more sympathetic treatment.

The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. Jull and the House rose at 10.20 p.m.