The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1923. THE BUDGET DEBATE

Southland Times, Issue 18990, 11 July 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1923. THE BUDGET DEBATE

Unless the summary of his speech docs him serious injustice, Mr Wilford made a particularly weak opening in the Budget debate, and has already landed himself in a series of situations awkward enough to give his political opponents not a little joy. His experience last night must have recalled his delightful excursion in criticism of a little while ago w'hen, after condemning the Government for the multiplicity of royal commissions it had appointed, he urged the House to appoint yet another such investigatory body to look into some defect in the administration he was positive he had discovered. Last night Mr Wilford enjoyed himself immensely in making the hair of his fellow members rise while he spoke of the awful effects of the borrowing in which the Government had been indulging, forgetful, of the fact that a member of his own party had only a few hours before demanded a loan of £30,000,000 to deal with housing and advances, and that Hansard for this session contains advice along similar lines from Mr Wilford himself. Mr Downie Stewart, whose achievements in debate in the previous as well as the present Parliament suggest that he is destined to serve his country in a post more important than the one. he now occupies, seems to have wrecked Mr Wilford’s speech before crowded galleries in a manner that must have been galling to the Leader of the Opposition. So far the debates have shown that in comparison with Mr Holland, the leader of the Liberals is lacking in force and argument, and that he is of small anxiety to the members of the Government. Mr Downie Stewart’s reference to Mr Wilford’s return to the advocacy of a State Bank Was effective as a debating point, and while the Minister did not seriously expound any new ideas, it is pretty obvious that he was successful in the task of demolishing Mr Wilford’s prepared attack. The Budget has not been seriously assailed by the only member of the Opposition who has spoken, but we do not suggest, as Mr Downie Stewart does, that it is beyond the reach of effective criticism. Such a proposition canndt be accepted in view of the Government’s failure to dispose of or to meet the powerful case raised in the press by Mr W. D. Hunt and others against the present form of company taxation. Nor can it be said that the Government has yet answered satisfactorily the objections to the increased telephone charges made by the Canterbury Progress League. The League’s case may not be wholly convincing, but the Department must answer it effectually if it is going to justify the increases. We think that the telephone service must be made self-supporting, and that,' in' ’ comparison with < other countries, New Zealand has a reasonable tariff, even under the new scale, but the Department must justify the increase by its own bajancesheets, and not by the charges demanded from telephone-users elsewhere in the world. We would like to see a more generous effort to decrease the cost of the telephone in the rural areas, because the attempts in this direction, outlined in the Minister’s statement on this subject some time ago, do not appear adequate. To suggest that it is wrong to return to the penny postage while increasing telephone fees is to confuse two entirely distinct issues. Years ago it might have been argued as reasonably that the first penny postage introduced by Sir Joseph Ward should have been accompanied by reductions in telephone charges. Each of the two services is distinct, and each set of users should be prepared to pay the cost of the facility afforded him. It will be interesting to watch the progress of the debate so inauspiciously opened, in view of the estimate that the no-confidence discussion involved the use of about ten million words at a cost of about twopence a word. If we are going to have a succession of old speeches rehashed at that price, the country is going to find Hansard as costly as it is dull. The preachers of economy, and there seem to be about eighty of them in the House, v should bear that fact in mind.