Suggests P.M.s' Talks On Aid For Britain

Northern Advocate, 28 August 1947, Page 5

Suggests P.M.s' Talks On Aid For Britain

PARLIAMENT

( p A _) WELLINGTON, This Day. THE Speaker (Mr McKeen) had to intervene several times in a rather noisy session in the House ot Represntatives last night when the Budget debate was resumed. Mr W. Sullivan (O— Bay of Plenty) appealed to the Government and Labour movement to show what they were prepared to do to aid Britain in her crisis. _ Mr Sullivan also suggested that a Prime Ministers conference at which the Opposition should be represented should be called to decide what should be done within the Empire in the present crisis.

A good deal of Government propaganda had been introduced into previous Budgets, and this last one was no exception, said Mr C. M. Bowden (O — Karori).

The Budget, he said, fell far short of giving a clear picture of the state of the country’s finances, and the form in which it was presented was most confusingHo the public. Mr Bowden suggested that more was paid than a subsidy of 25 per cent on shipping freights, and he asked if the Government had guaranteed the shipping companies against losses. Mr G. 11. Mackley (O—VVairarapai: I think that's right.

Mr Bowden referred to the tow of five trawlers across the Tasman, which ultimately cost £20,000, or about 25 per cent of the price realised for the vessels, and the losses made on the voyages of the barque Pamir which had to be paid for by the Government. He said the Pamir had been lying idle at Wellington for the last four months with a full crew. Mr H. E. Combs (G—Onslow): Wasn’t she managed by the Union Company? Mr Bowden: She was mismanaged by the Government.

He said the men on the ship were badly required elsewhere, and the ship was at present costing the Government £IO.OOO a month.

ONE CONCESSION Mr Bowden said he welcomed the cnc concession in taxation made by the Minister of Finance because it was a vindication of a principle for which the Opposition .had fought for years.

Prices could have been lowered by removing duties and sales tax and by tackling the pioblem of inflation, but no attempt to do so had been made because only by continued inflation could the Government carry out its expansionist programme at the expense of investors, making people increasingly dependent on the slate. The value of life insurance, national savings and other forms of thrift was being whittled away. Mr Bowden asked for a clear pronouncement as to whether New Zealand's sterling balances in London had been frozen in any way or to any degree, because if any understanding to that effect had been reached with the British Government the effect on New Zealand’s economy would be farreaching through decreased taxation yields and in other ways.

It was possible there might be a lowering of the prices Britain could pay, or would bo asked to pay, for New Zealand's primary produce, and if so there would be less buoyancy in New Zealand.

Under those conditions lowered costs would be of inestimable value. Mr Bowden said the Minister of Supply (Mr Nordmeyer) had possibly done a great disservice to production by his references the previous evening to profit-sharing—his suggestion had bpen in effect that after a reasonable return to capital all the remaining should go to the workers. That was not profit-sharing—that was confiscation.

Mr Parry, Minister of Internal Afairs: Have you i'oigotten your plat-

form? Mr Bowden replied that the Minister ot Internal Affairs had interested himself in this topic, but had failed to realise that the application of such theories would eliminate one of the main sources of taxation. Unless the inflationary trends of recent years were reversed, the whole edifice of Now Zealand’s standard of

iving and social services would be hreatened.

Mr Bowden said there was precedent in the House for the alteration of the Budget under changed circumstances, and the present situation seemed to cal! for such a course being followed. Mr T. If. McCombs <G—Lyttelton) said the presentation of the accounts of which Mr Bowden had complained had been greatly simplified in the last year or two, and Mr Bowden had merely sought to add to the confusion which he alleged existed. No mention was made of the previous profitable voyages of the Pamir. The whole nine voyages, which were under the control of the Union Company, had yielded a profit of £44.000. Mr K. J. Holyoake (O—Pahiatun): j Any subsidy? Mr McCombs said it had been a profitable institution and not the liability which Mr Bowden had suggested. Mr J. T. Watts (O—St Albans): Is it costing £IO,OOO a month? AIDING BRITAIN Mr McCombs said that it was a fair assumption that the National Parly did not stand for a reduction in rents, interest rates or reduction of profits. That left only one thing more—salaries and wages. Let them come into the open and state whether they would reduce those.

Mr Holyoake: Reduce taxation arid increase efficiency. Mr McCombs said the Leader of the Opposition had twitted the Minister of Finance with little mention of aid to Britain in the Budget. There were several references in the Budget to New Zealand's aid to Britain, and no one was more anxious to help Britain than the Government. Opposition voice: Step on it, then.

Mr McCombs said he wished those people who thought it smart to obtain cream would realise that their action was costing Britain dollars. A total of 21,623 people had been taken from the productive force because of the war "and even if the present birth-rate- of 50,000 a year was continued it would be. about 16 years before that number would be of full benefit to the labour force.

That was one reason why the Government was bringing labour into the country. NO TAX CUTS Mr W. Sullivan (O—Bay of Plenty) said there was general disappointment that the Budget had offered no taxation concessions. Taxation per head today was £63, compared with £37/19/- in 1941. The pound today would buy only half ol what it did in 1939 and onethird of what it did in 1936, and the Budget offered nothing to stop the rot.

The Government had “socked the rich” until it could do so no more, and today it was socking the working man.

Mr Sullivan asked why the Government had not implemented the Walsh Report. The recommendations it contained would be of great assistance in helping Britain, but the Government's policy in this direction had not yet been announced.

So far only lip-service had been paid. What was the policy of the Minister of Agriculture in the production drive to help Britain ? What was the Minister of Labour doing to ensure the quicker turn-round of ships? Trade unionists in Britain were now prepared to work longer hours, but what were the Minister of Labour and trade unionists doing in New Zealand? Was the Government prepared to extend the hours of work in this country ?

LEAD WANTED "The average worker in New Zealand is a loyal citizen," said Mr Sullivan, “and all he wants is a lead from the Government.” Britain had asked New Zealand to reduce the consumption of petrol, but how could production be increased if that were done, particularly in view of the fact that the transport system was in a mess and road transport had to do what the railways had failed to do? It the Government was sincere in its desire to help Britain it would have begun action two years ago. The production of butterfat could not be stepped up 10.000 tons overnight. It took two to three years to build up a herd, and some 40.000 cows would be required to produce an extra 10,000 tons of butterfat. Mr Sullivan appealed to the Minister of Agriculture to give the producers all the material they required, which was essential for increased production. Government departments could not carry out the drive to the full extent, dnd he would like to see primary production councils revived. HIGH BUILDING COSTS Discussing housing, Mr Sullivan said it was time the list of applicants for state houses was purged. He knew of people with applications for houses in two or three different towns.

The upward trend of building costs prohibited the average person from building his own home, and Mr Sullivan estimated that the recent Arbitration Court pronouncement would add 2/- a foot on to the present building costs, or £IOO on to the cost of a house. The licensing system had been responsible for the shortage of building materials.

There was need in New Zealand for a more permanent type of home than the average wooden structure, which could not last more than CO or 70 years.