THE BUDGET

Southland Times, Issue 19311, 1 August 1924, Page 6

THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE CRITICISM AND REPLY MANY SUBJECTS COVERED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 31. In the House of Representatives to-day, the debate on the Budget was continued by Mr J. R. Corrigan (Patea), who declared that financial trusts were operating in the Dominion to the detriment of the farmers. New Zealand had never produced more than at present, but the producers were never so short of money. The Premier came to Taranaki and on his return to Wellington published a statement that everything was prosperous there. Taranaki was one of the richest spots in the Dominion, but it was not prosperous. The only prosperity the Premier saw in Hawera Was two bank buildings in the course of erection. That proved that it was the trusts that were prosperous, but not the country. This was what the Government had driven the country to. They wished about like the worn out axle of a motor car and yet they had the audacity to claim that they were running the country in a satisfactory manner.

POSITION OF SMALL FARMERS. Mr C. E. 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 at a result of the operations of the Government. A decrease in the values of the country’s products would create serious trouble. That trouble was practically certain to eventuate, and the Government had to determine who was to suffer the loss. To-day, owing to the boom and not to the slump, many working farmers were on such high-priced lands that they could scarcely make a living. A drop in the prices of commodities meant that the small man must go out altogether, and would become one of the great army of unemployed, which, however, did not exist in New Zealand. Under the bankruptcy law. a bankrupt was entitled to retain £25 worth of furniture. That was not sufficient and he thought that farmers who through misfortune became bankrupt should be allowed to retain £2OO worth of stock. He did not think that was excessive, considering what it cost to stock a farm.

TAXATION AND THE WORKER. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said that 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 the unequal d’stribtuion of wealth to the operation of financial interests and to the stranglehold of mortgagees. In 1904 the exports were valued at £14.748,000, with a purchasing power of £13,826,000. In 1914 the exports were valued at £26,000,000, with a purchasing power of £24.000,000, while in 1924 the exports were £52.000.000, with a purchasing power of £35,000.000. That showed an increase in purchasing power of £10,000.000 in the first ten-year period and of £11,000,000 in the second ten-year period. These figures demonstrated the increase in exports as measured by the purchasing power was not so very large after all, and he concluded that the people who were producing the wealth were not receiving it. When there was a question of reducing taxation to the Government’s wealthy friends, then they said the country was prosperous and could afford it, but when the wage earners wanted fair play in the shape of increased wages, they were told there wa« no to do it with. He contended the workers were unfairly taxed. T inz the average wage at about £209, he claimed that for a family of two, the Customs tax would average about £24, which was 12 per cent, of the wage, but the Customs tax on a man with £lOOO per year was only 21 per cent. He condemned the action of the Government in reverting to the contract system in connection with puhl'c works.

There was something “stodgey’ m connection with the Arapuni hydro-electric contract, and he wondered whether the raising of the recent loan in England had-any-thing to do with it. ECONOMY URGED. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said that the Government should exercise the greatest economy in connection with public works, unless the works were of the strictest urgency. There were several big duplicating schemes in the air. w-hich should not be commenced until the people who had no lines at all were supplied with railway conveniences. They ought to have storage battery cars on the railways. The only reason they were not running was because of the prejudice of the engineers, but when Edison, the greatest electrical expert in the world, was prepared to give his guarantee as to their efficiency it was time the Minister took some steps to test them. Mr Lysnar dealt at length with the purchase of the Poverty Bay Sheepfarmers’ Freezing Works by Vesty’s, the speaker censuring the Minister of Agriculture for permitting the purchase.

GOVERNMENT SEVERELY CRITICISED Mr G. Smith (Taranaki) said that although the debate had been in progress two days, it was noteworthy that no member of the Reform Party had endeavoured to defend, excuse or apologise for the absence of a policy in the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition had ruthlessly exposed the inaccuracies and contradictions of the Budget, and there had been practically no reply to his clear line of argument, except from the Minister of Education, who had invited the Liberals to go over to Reform, to “stop the tide of Socialism.” What sort of Socialism did he wish to stop? Was it State railways, State telegraphs, State insurance? For these were the forms of Socialism that he wished to stop. If so he would receive a pretty warm reception from the people of the country. He condemned the setting-up of the Meat Board as an expensive excrescence, because there was nothing which the Board had done that could not have been done by the Agricultural Department, assisted by the Council of Agriculture. All that the Board appeared to be doing was sending its members on trips to the Old Country. Criticising the suggestion of the member for Egrmnt that third-class land should be planted with trees, he deprecated sending people away into high and slipping country when there was, between Wanganui and Hawera, some of the finest agricultural country in the world held in large blocks. That was where people should be settled, but there was no suggestion of that sort of thing in the Budget. Dealing with the Budget itself, he said its most striking feature was that it concealed the actual financial position of the country. It was not true, as alleged, that the good credit of New Zealand was due to the personal popularity of the Premier. The feet was that the financiers of the Old Country were more alive to what was going on in this country than the average citizen was. They knew the country had fertile soil and a fine climate and an industrious people, and it was because of these things that the credit was high. It was an insult to the producers of the Dominion to suggest that its excellent credit was due in any way to the Premier. The speaker condemned the extravagant importation of motor-cars which was going on, and concluded with a criticism of the Minister of Agriculture’s handling of the wheat control, which, he contended, had re suited to the serious detriment of the poul-try-raisers.

PRAISE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Dunedin West) said that .although the last speaker did not appear to be greatly impressed by the Budget, it was nevertWess a good Budget. It was very clear in its statement of the financial position, and had been most

cordially received by the people of the Dominion. So far as Labour was concerned, he thought he noticed a change of thought coming over the members of the present House inasmuch as they did not now stress so much the existence of a class war.

Mr H. E. Holland: We recognise it as much as ever.

Mr Stewart admitted that might be so, but he hoped they would not exaggerate it. He thought it was better to minimise these social differences than to emphasise them.

Mr Holland: We can’t minimise the ruth.

Coming back to the Budget, Mr Stewart said that one of the best testimonials he had yet heard about the Budget was the opinion of a representative of one of the Australian States, who heard the Budget read, and to him the sound of the word

“surplus” came as a great surprise, as they so seldom heard of such a thing in the Commonwealth. He quoted figures to show the financial position of several Australian States which were not so favourable as New Zealand’s position, and claimed that when things went so well in this country, the Government which was responsible for that condition should be given credit for it. Mr Wilford in his speech had confined himself to a criticism of the more or less technical details of the Budget, during the course of which he charged the Prime Minister with faking returns and generally misrepresenting the position. This was simply absurd, and such language was not likely to be seriously accepted by the people. He had since been through the Budget, and he could find no misrepresentation. Mr Wilford had said that there was a los” of £6788 on the purchase of stock, but this was not so. As a matter of fact, there was a handsome profit on this transaction of £45,000, with the remainder of the stock still to be dealt with.

MR WILFORD’S ASSERTION REFUTED. If Mr Wilford was unable to connect up the necessary figures, he should have asked the Treasury for an explanatoin. However since he had made his explanation, he hoped the 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 the nonpayment of interest on the Discharged Soldiers’ Act until it appeared in the Budget. This was not so, because particulars of this transaction were published in the Press in November last, while he (Mr Stewart) was in charge. He denied that there were any propaganda figures in the Budget of 1923, and he warmly resented Mr Wilford’s allegation that the tables of the Budget were “faked,” which was a very ugly word to use. ThA Budget was perfectly consistent, its fig Wes were correct, and it put the true position before the country. The difference in the figures setting out the capital value of the railways quoted by Mr Wilford was explained by the fact that in one case only the money paid out of the Public Works Account was stated, while in the other case the figures set out the assets connected with the railways, including the Midland Railway, which was not paid out of Public Works funds at all. Discrepancies in the Public Accounts were often explained by the fact that the Treasury closed at a given date, while the monies in the hands of the Department which had not reached Wellington were subsequently shown in the Departmental accounts.

The Minister had not completed his speech when the time limit expired. MR WILFORD HAS LAST WORD. In the course of a personal explanation, Mr Wilford said that the Minister had replied to him but had not answered him, The debate then adjourned on the motion of Mr R. McKeen, and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.