DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16497, 1 August 1924, Page 6

DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

CUITJCISM A .Vi) HM'I.Y

(Per Poess Association.)

WELLINGTON, last night

The debate on the Budget was continued by Mr. Corrigan, who declared that linancial trusts were operating in the Dominion to the detriment of afarmors. We had never produced more than we were doing sit. present, but t lie producers were never so short of money. The Premier came to Taranaki and said on liis return to Wellington, in a published statement, that everything was prosperous there. Taranaki was one of the richest spots in the Dominion, but it was not prosperous. I iie only prosperity the Premier s - uv in I law-era were two bank buildings m course of erection. That proved that the trusts were prosperous. but not the country. This was what the Government had driven the country to. They wobbled about like the worn-out axle of a motor-car, and' vet they bad the- audacity to claim they were running the country in a .satisfactory maimer.

Mr. MacMillan (Tauranga) congratulated the 'Government on the prosperity of the country.. He did not pretend that everybody participated in that prosperity, but those who suffered losses did not do so as the result of the operations of the Government. The decrease in the value of our products would create serious trouble. That trouble was practically certain to eventuate, and the Government had to determine who was to .suffer Ihp loss. To-day, owing to the boom, not to the slump, many working farmers were on such high-priced lands that they could scarcely make a living. Under our bankruptcy law, a bankrupt was entitled to retain £2s'/worth of furniture. That was not sufficient, and be thought farmers who, through misfortune, bad become bankrupt, should be allowed to retain £2OO worth of stock. He did not think that was excessive, considering what it cost to s,tock a farm. Mr. Parry said the Budget did not give sufficient information to enable members to trace the distribution of the country’s wealth. As a- balance-sheet the Budget fell very far short of what a private company would have supplied. He attributed • tile unequal distribution of wealth to the operation of financial interests, and to the stranglehold of mortgagees. In 1601 the exports were valued at £14,743.000, with a purchasing power of £13,826.000. In J. 914 the exports were valued at £26,000,000, with a purchasing power of £24,000,000. wli-ile in 1924 our exports were £52,000,000, with a purchasing power of £35,CC0'.000. That, showed an increase in the purchasing powqr of £10,000,000 in the first tenyear period, and of £11,000,000 in tl.e second ten-year period. These figures demonstrated' that, the increases in exports, as measured by the purchasing power, was not so very large after all. and lie concluded that the people who were producing the wealth were not receiving it. When there was question of reducing taxation to the Government’s wealthy friends, then they said the country was prosperous, and could afford it. When the wage-earner wanted fair play, in the shape of increased wages, we were told there was no money to do it with. The workers were unfairly taxed. Taking the average wage at about £2OO, he claimed tliat for a family of two, the Customs tax would average about £24, which was 12 per cent, of the wage, hut the Customs taxation on a. man with £IOOO per year was, onty per cent. lie condemned the action of the Government, in reverting to the contract system in connection with public works. There was something stodgy in connection with the Awapiini hydroelectric contract, and he wondered whether the raising of the recent loan in England had anything to do with ;t. Mr Lysnar said the Government should exercise the greatest economy hi connection with public works, unless the works were of the, strictest urgency. There were several big duplication schemes m th e air, which should not be commenced until the people who had no lines at all were supplied with railway conveniences. We ought to have storage battery cars on our railways. The only reason they were apt- running was because of the prejudice of the engineers, but when Mr. Edison, the greatest electrica'l expert in world, was prepared to give his guarantee. as to- their efficiency, it was time the Minister took some steps to test, them. Mr. Lysnar, continuing his speech, dealt, at length with the purchase of the Poverty Bay Sheepfarmers’ Freez ing Works by Y r esteys, the speaker censuring the Minister of Agriculture for permitting the purchase. Mr. Smith (Taranaki) said tliat. although the debate had been in progress two days, it was noteworthy no mejukcr of the Reform parly had endeavored to defend, excuse, or apologise for Hie absence of a policy in the Budget, 'i he leader of the Opposition had ruthlessly exposed the inaccuracies and the contradictions of the Budget, and there had been practically no reply to his dear line of argument, except from the Miuistei of Education, who had invited the Liberals to go over to Reform to “slop me tide of ’Socialism.” What sort of Socialism did lie wish to stop? Was it State railways. State telegraphs, or State insurance? If so. lie would receive a pretty warm reception from the people, lie condemned setting up the Meat Roayd ( as an expensive excrescence, because there was nothing which the Board had done that could not have been done by the Agricultural Department, assisted hv the Gouneil of■ Agrkuiillure. All that- the Board appeared to be doing was sending its members trips to the Old Country. Criticising the suggestion that third-class land should - be planted until trees, lie deprecated: .sending people away into high and slippery country when there was, between Wanganui arid Haweru. some of the finest agricultural country in tile world held in large blocks. That was where the people should be settled; hut there was no suggestion of that sort of thing in the Budget. Dealing in Mi the Budget, lie said its most stinking feature was that it concealed the actual financial position of the country. It was not true, as it alleged, tliat the .rood credit of New Zealand was due to the personal popularity of the Premier. '1 he. fact was that the financiers of the Did Country were more alive to what was gomg 011 hi H'Pi country than the average citizen was. They knew we lad: a fertile soil, a fine climate, and an industrious people, and it was because ol these- things our credit was high. R was an insult to, the producers ( i’ the Dominion to suggest that our excellent credit was due in any way to the Premier. The speaker condemned the ex-

travagant importations of motor-cars which was going ori, and con-eluded with a criticism of the Minister of Agriculture’s handling oi' wheat control, which, he contended, had resulted to the serious detriment of poultry-raisers. The Hon. W. D. Stewart said that, although the last speaker did not appear to be greatly .impressed by the Budget, it was nevertheless a good Budget, \cry clear in its statement of the linancial position, and had been most cordially received .by the people. So far as HuLabor party were concerned, he thought Ire had I .noticed a change of thought oowing over Hie members of.the House, inasmuch as they did not now stress so nmeii the existence of class war. Mr. Holland: We recognise it us icrcb as ever.

Mr. Stewart : That might he so, hut lie hoped they would, not exaggerate. He thought it was better to minimise these social differences than to emphasise them.

Mr. Holland: We can’t minimise the truth. The Minister said one of the best testimonials lie had 1 yet heard' about Hie Budget was the opinion of Hie reiresentative of oneof tlie Australian States, who heard tire Budget read, ail'd -o him the sound' of the word ‘surplus’’ ermcas a great surprise, as they so seldom heard of such a. thing in the CommoiU wealth. He quoted figures to show the financial position of several Australian States, which were not so favorable as New Zealand’s position, and claimed that when things went so well in this country the Government which was responsible tor that condition should he given credit for it. Mi'- Willord had confined to criticism of mqre or less technical details of the Budget, during the course of which ho charged the Prime Minister with faking i etui ns and generally misrepres.enting the position. This was simply absurd, and such language was not likely to he seriously accepted by ifie people. lie had since been through the Budget, and could find no misrepresentation. ’ Mr. Wilioud had said there was a. loss of £6783 on the purchase of stork. But (his was not so. As ;i matter of fact, there was a-, handsome profit on this transaction of £4txp€G, with the remainder of the stock still to he degit with. ' If Mr. Wilford was un able to connect up the necessary figures, lie should have asked the Treasury for an explanation. However, since .he had made liis explanation, lie hoped Hie. leader of the Opposition would not continue to use his original figures throughout the country. Mr. Wilford had said that no notice had been given of nonpayment of interest cm discharged so',l- - account until it appeared in the Budget. That was not «o, because the particulars of this transaction were published in the press in November. last, while he (Mr. Stewart) was in charge. He denied that there was any propaganda. figures in the Budget of 1923, and iie wiirmlv resented Mr. Wilfords aile-o-aiion that the tables of the Budget were “faked,” wlueh was a very ugly word to use., The Budget- was perfectly consistent. The figures were correct, and put the true position before the country. The difference in the figures, speaking on the capital vq?u© of railways quoted by Mr. W.ilford, was explained by the fact that in one case only the. money paid out of the Public Works account was stated, while, m the other ease, the figures set oiit-the assets connected ‘with the railways, including the Midland railway, which was not paid out of the Public Works fund at all. Discrepancies in the publie accounts were often explained by the fact tliat the Treasury closed at- a given date, while moneys in the hands of the Department, which had not reached Wellington, were subsequently shown hi the Departmental accounts.. The Minister had not completed his speech when the time limit expired. Tn the course of an explanation, Mi;. Wilford said the Minister had replied to him, hill had not answered him. The debate was adjourned, on the motion of "ME Melyeen’, amf t,ie House rose at 10.30 p.m.