FINANCIAL DEBATE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 30 July 1924, Page 5

FINANCIAL DEBATE

LEADER OF OPPOSITION’S VIEWS

(From our Parliamentary Correspondent)

WELLINGTON, This Day. Ihe financial debate opened in the House last night. Mr Wilford said the Budget was one of inaccuracy and misrepresentation. In some instances statements made by the Finance Minister were contradicted by the Auditor-Gen-eral, in the public accounts, and also by references in the Budget itself. The Budget was colourless, due no doubt to the fact that the Government had no defined policy. The finance’s revealed a condition that would surprise the public when they realised the significance of things. The country was not being governed by the Reform Party, but by a commission set up recently which had been appointed to enable the Government to escape its responsibilities. Mr Massey had said the surplus amounted to £1,812,000, but he' had

neglected to say that the interest for last year on the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Account had not been paid*: £540,000 would have to be found this year to recoup this and the total account to be met in connection with finances of the discharged soldiers’ settlement this year would amount to £1,430,000. The Prime Minister said the public debt had been decreased by £101,061; but the Auditor-General showed it had increased during the year by £2,663,037. No reliance could be placed on the Budget figures. HON. O. J. PARR REPLIES Hon. C. J.. Parr replied to Mr Wilford and said if there was a difference between the figures of the Audit Department and the Treasury it was remarkable that the Auditor-General had not pointed it out. All Mr Wilford’s alleged discoveries of discrepancies wore illusory. The figures in the Budget regarding soldier settlement were absolutely correct. The capital values of soldier settlements by the Dominion Revaluation board totalled £541,064, an<T tho reduction of mortgages £289,263. The total reductions to date on half the eases which were subject to applications were £830,327. Liberal concessions had also been made in the way of postponement of rent, interest and instalments, and in certain cases rent or interest had been remitted. The Budget showed the credit, of the Dominion to bo sound and the Government could not. be criticised for having reduced expenditure bv over £1.530,000. Despite, what Mr Wilford had said, the national debt bad been considerably reduced and, relatively speaking, New Zealand was probably in Hie strongest financial position of any of the dominions. There was no need to disclose a policy in the Budget when that was already done in the Speech from the Throne. The Government was going to reduce taxation further, butit was clear that next year the income tax would not be much more than half of what it was three years ago. The Government had a record of economy and progress, and one would be staggered to think of what the "Wilford programme would cost the country. Hon. C, J. Parr defended what the, banks bad done during the slump, and said they were entitled to credit for saving the country from insolvency at that period.