THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1931. RECEPTION OF THE BUDGET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20947, 10 August 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1931. RECEPTION OF THE BUDGET.

The debate on the Budget is now fairly under way. Its course has been cleared by the fairly definite intimation that neither section of the Opposition will move no-con-fidence motions, but that in each instance any test wanted will be forced on the legislation necessary to give effect to the Budget proposals. This is tho reasonable and logical course. From both sides the desirability of balancing the Budget has been admitted. The Government has attempted to do it. An effort to defeat it at this stage would simply mean denying the principle of seeking a balance, already affirmed. Yet to accept the Budget and pass the estimates will not debar the Opposition from subjecting the taxation measures that will follow to critical examination, or from attempting to have them varied. But, by leaving the effort to the later stage, any Parliamentary group that demands amendment of the Government's scheme must produce counter-pro-posals. It will be no use merely requiring that the burden of taxation as designed be lightened for this section of tho people or that section—though there is need for substantial amendment to secure equity—without showing how provision can be made to cover tho loss of anticipated revenue. The result is that alternative taxation or further economy must be indicated by the critics. The criticism must be constructive. From this aspect it is a very good thing that the Government is not merely to be assailed in the Budget debate, and that its end is not to be the signal for all the proposals to go through without further challenge. Present proceedings are of value mainly as indicating what may be expected later, when Parliament comes to grips practically with the financial problem. Mr. Coates outlined tho views of his party in a speech that was described from the Ministerial side as fair in tone. His agreement that a balance must be found was only a, repetition of what the Reform Party has maintained consistently. That does not involve swallowing whole what the Government proposes. Neither does the offer of co-operation, made by Mr. Coates in May, when he declined the fusion proposal, and repeated in his speech last week. The exact words of the undertaking were:—"The Reform Party has made it clear in the session just closed that it will support such measures of economy and finance as tho present crisis demands. We recognise your responsibility to balance your Budget, and will offer no factious opposition to such measures as maybe necessary to attain that object." Neither the right to criticise nor the right to demand variation of the Government's plans is sacrificed by that undertaking. It simply crystallised the obligation to make the criticism constructive. Mr. Coates has already shown what his alternative to the exact scale of taxation outlined in the Budget will be. He believes there is still room for effective economy, and that avenues for it can be found before the taxing measures are passed by the House. The country will be in substantial agreement with that hypothesis. So many figures have been quoted on the subject that few more should be I necessary. The estimated expenditure for this year is £24,763,781. It includes £1,100,000 for unemployment ! relief subsidy, an item not heretofore charged against annual revenue. It is also relieved of £870,000 through the war debts moratorium. Adjusted for these two items it becomes £24,433,781. While smaller than the actual expenditure for the two preceding years, it is greater than that for 1928-29, the year in which the Reform Party relinquished office. The figure then was £24,176,928: in, both these years provision for a general election had to be made, so they are fairly comparable even up to that point. In 1927-28, the last complete year of Reform administration, the expenditure was £22,647,846, nearly £1,800,000 less than the estimate, for this year, even as adjusted to allow for the two items not affecting that Budget. On these figures there should, indeed, be room for further economy.

: In the circumstances the issue of economy in lieu of some measure, of the proposed taxation may well be raised. The question of fusion was introduced by interjections while Mr. Coates speaking. It may be dismissed for the time being with the certain conviction that the country would not welcome a fusion of parties to put. the present Budget proposals through unaltered. They have been too generally and severely criticised outside Parliament for a ready endorsement to be palatable. The indications from the other wing of the Opposition arc that in default of it from the Reform Party there would bo no constructive criticism offering. Mr. Holland denounced the taxation proposals in • unmeasured terms, and said the Labour Party would contest them all. He was especially severe on the new primage duty—though he could not deny having helped to impose one on an earlier, historic occasion. He even repeated the old, threadbare excuse for having clone so. But the | feature of- Mr. Holland's contribution to the Budget debate, as reported, was that he had not a single thing to offer in substitution for the taxation and the cuts he assailed so hotly. He is not alone in finding them distasteful, but he is virtually alone in offering nothing better to set against theia than the mere observation that "New Zealand's economic position was not nearly as bad as* it had been painted by the Prime Minister." Something more substantial than Mr. Holland seems likely to produce is needed when the difficult task of examining the Budget proposals in their legislative form is reached, after the present debate has been concluded..