THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929. ON THE DEFENSIVE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20341, 23 August 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929. ON THE DEFENSIVE.

The Budget amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition produced a brief but instructive debate on a no-conlidcncc motion. Its defeat was a foregone conclusion, and the way the vote went is not the least surprising. It was predestined from the beginning. Sir Joseph Ward made the result certain by his reception of his opponents' move. Ho confirmed it even more fully by a speech of more than two hours in defence of his declared financial policy. The Government is definitely on the defensive. Its members, especially some of those new to Parliamentary ways, have had a wonderful time since the session opened Hinging allegations at the other side, making accusations, acting as though there had been no change of Government, in the next breath saying what marvellous things were going to happen because there had been a change. Now they arc to discover that there is another side to being the party in olfice. Sir Joseph Ward set! the ball rolling with what was, in effect, another Budget speech, but was not, in any substantial degree, a reply to the challenge Mr. Coates had issued to him. The substance and effect of the amendment and its accompanying speech were that last year's deficit, by its size and adventitious nature, did not justify the increased taxation the Prime Minister proposes, that in addition, the actual form of the taxation was objectionable. To these points Sir Joseph Ward did not offer any really effective counter. He has certainly not made a case that will mollify the many thousands in the community who view the .prospect of higher taxation with alarm and dissatisfaction. He claims the Budget is in accordance with the policy his party expounded during the election campaign. It docs not appear so to those who remember the reiterated statement that the party's proposals "would not cost the taxpayer a penny." Nor docs it nicet in any degree the expectation kindled of a reduction of taxation.

In his survey of the position, Sir Joseph Ward has admitted that the nominal deficit of £577,000 includes an interest payment of £150,000 that will not occur again. He acknowledges and defends the omission to vote £35,000 from the Consolidated Fund to the revenue account-of the Main Highways Board. He admits and defends charging to the Post Office Account the whole of the mail subsidies, amounting to an additional £22,500. These items represent relief to the revenue which should help it to overtake expenditure. There are other items he docs not mention. The general election last year cost £BO,OOO, an amount he has not been called on to find this year. There is a saving of £27,000 voted last year for the Samoan police, another of £50,000 for the Soldiers' Depreciation Fund, and not now repeated. Major items alone aggregating £393,000, which were charged to last year's -Budget are not included in this year's. In face of this Sir Joseph Ward has never explained how his estimates of expenditure show an increase of £733,000. If this is the story regarding reduced items of expenditure, there are one or two new sources of income outside of general taxation. The State Fire insurance Department and the Public Trust Office are to be called on to pay land tax, the Post and Telegraph Department is to be charged customs duty on the material it imports. The Consolidated Fund is to receive interest payments from the main highways account, the accumulated interest on enemy property money, unclaimed amounts in the hands of the Public Trustee and one-half the profits of the PublicTrust Office—though whether the annual profit or the accumulated profits it is - not clear. The additions to revenue will be small in some instances, but added together they will certainly produce a comfortable sum. In face of the Budget relief detailed and the new sources of income seized upon, the Government still proposes to increase taxation. The whole financial policy has a decided appearance of preparation for extravagance rather than the effort to make up a deficit. The position being as stated, the Leader of the Opposition is on firm ground in forcing the Government to defend its taxation proposals in detail. He began with an amendment that has been interpreted as a motion of no-conlidcncc. For that reason he could not, and probably did not, expect to see it carried. He need not let that fact trouble him. It brings to an issue how far the Government will be able to go with its plans to draw more revenue from a community already paying dearly for the cost of government, and to whom lie must look for support. Mr. Holland wasted no time in indicating what the Labour Party would do. That it would vote against the Government nobody expected seriously. The only point of interest was what reasons Mr. Holland would give for doing otherwise. He began by impugning the motives of the Leader of the Opposition in attacking the primage duty. This is an old device, unconvincing in the extreme. What about Mr. Holland's motive for supporting it? He says I it is because the land tax proposals

are coupled with it. The only inference from that is that the Government can do what it likes in some things, provided it does what the Labour Party likes in others. In a sense the comprehensiveness of the amendment let Mr. Holland out easily. Supposing it had contained no more than a condemnation of the primage duty, supposing Sir Joseph Ward had accepted it as a no-confi-dcncc motion, what would Mr. Holland have done'J Said Mr. Coates was not sincere, and voted for the primage duty'! Quite probably he would have. On that strong assumption, it would bo desirable to hear less from the Labour benches about the sluim light going on between the other two parties. If it has done nothing else, the amendment to the Budget has punctured a good deal of the inflated assertion so freely produced in the House this session. It has not, therefore, been moved altogether in vain.