THE BUDGET

Southland Times, Issue 21831, 7 October 1932, Page 7

THE BUDGET

DEBATE OPENS LITTLE INTEREST SHOWN WAGES AND CURRENCY (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 6. The Budget debate was opened in the House of Representatives this evening by Mr M. J. Savage (L., Auckland West), who reviewed the position of the country and the Empire and advocated increased wages and currency reform. Interest in the debate locally was apparently not great, the galleries round the chamber not being filled. In his opening remarks, Mr Savage deprecated the attacks that had been made on Parliament by the Press, Chambers of Commerce and others. All members were being blamed of incompetence, neglect and other things, and he did not think that was fair. He did not claim that past Governments had not made mistakes, but where were the present critics then? They had been supporting the Government and criticizing the Opposition. Fair criticism could be appreciated at all times, but one-sided criticisms were not fair. What was going on certainly did not tend to elevate the Parliamentary institution. Members did not ask to be immune from criticism, but the fair thing was to treat all classes alike. If the critics had their way, the country would soon have no Parliament at all. The responsibilities of Parliament were fast being shifted to the shoulders of irresponsible boards. Continuing, Mr Savage said that no Government had ever avoided criticisms, but it was well to remember that when alleged sins were being committed, the newspapers were backing the sinners. After quoting from speeches he had made in the past, Mr Savage referred to the way taxation had been reduced in 1929 and said the State had lost £11,006,000 through those reductions. The Prime Minister had referred to reduced prices in the Budget, but what else could he expect when the purchasing power of the people was being reduced all over the world. Employers were reducing wages as much as possible, and by doing so were reducing their own business scope. Referring to currency, Mr Savage said that it would be remarkable if the economists were agreed upon the question of currency» or any other subject, but the Government seemed to think their disagreement was a strong argument against currency reform. The only way to restore the prosperity of the Dominion was to give value for work done and thus put more currency into circulation. Manipulation of currency would not do away with taxation, because the people of the country would always have to pay for services received, but there was no reason why enough money should not be used to set the wheels of industry working. New Zealand had not gone to Britain for advice when the war broke out in 1914, but the Government of the day suspended or altered the laws of the country to secure the money required and laid the basis for an unlimited supply of currency and there was no reason why it should not be done again, There were well meaning people who thought that all that was required was a supply of bank notes, but bank notes were useless unless there was credit behind them. One of the mistakes of war years was the fact that the National Government printed currency instead of relying on taxation. They had raised more money in New Zealand than the country ever possessed. All sorts of powers had been taken to raise more. All that had been done because the nation was in danger, but the nation was in greater danger now. “What we can do for war purposes we can do for industry,” he declared, “but instead of doing it we are leaving thousands of our best citizens on the verge of starvation.” Banking System. The banking system did not fit into war conditions, Mr Savage continued, and it was altered. It did not fit Jnto present conditions so why couldn t it be altered now? The newspapers had written about the gracious way the bondholders had subscribed to the war loan conversion, but there was nothing gracious about it because Britain could not pay. Referring to Ottawa, Mr Savage said that every Government represented there was engaged iri a wage smashing campaign while they were talking about increasing trade, but it was impossible to increase trade without increasing the purchasing power. Britain could never be a good customer to the dominions unless the dominions were good customers to Britain and New Zealand could never be a good customer while men were asked to keep a wife and family on two pound The Minister of Health said that he agreed that members of Parliament should be very jealous of their reputations and stand together against unfair criticism, irrespective of what political views they might hold. He held the opinion that the standard of integrity of the New Zealand Parliament and of the men in public life generally was very high, and nobody could point the finger of scorn at it. The same applied to the Public Service although there were, of course, instances where men abused the trust placed in them. Mr Young referred to the increase in the National debt, and said that there was no party which had been clamouring for so much public money as the Labour Party and now they were blaming the Government for the big increase that had taken place in the debt. Anybody could be wise after the event. The Labour Party had also always advocated high income taxation and land taxation, but it had to be recognized now that taxation could be made so high that it would have the effect ultimately of stifling industry. Reduced taxation encouraged spending and the making of investment. The Minister went on to comment on the internal trade of the Dominion and dwelt on the necessity for opening up new avenues of trade. The primary industries of the Dominion had to be made productive and that could be done in two ways, by increasing prices or by making industry more profitable by reducing the cost of production. It was necessary to increase production, but at the same time they had to encourage producers by assisting them to find new markets. Immigration. Mr Young said that the amount placed on the Estimates for the Immigration Department this year was £14,435, but of that amount the State would recover £BOOO, leaving the cost to the Government at £6OOO. During the six months of the year already gone, the expense had worked out at about £l5OO. This meant that about 50 persons had been brought out. The cost for each person was about £3O. Mr W. Nash: Why bring them out at all? The Minister explained that only persons who were joining their families in New Zealand had been brought out this year. He did not think any objection could be raised to such course, or any obstacle could be placed in the way of the reunion of families. Criticism had been directed against the activities of the Government in the matter of infant welfare work, mueb of which had been done by the

Plunket Society. Although that society received assistance, it had to be remembered that two-thirds of the money that was expended was raised as the result of its own efforts. If the society did not carry out this welfare work, continued Mr Young, it would have to be done by the Government. Such was the character of the business men who comprised the commission that they apparently did not appreciate the work of the society and probably would not do so until trouble came into their own homes. The society’s work was required just as much in the homes of the rich as in the homes of the poor. Mr E. J. Howard (L., Christchurch South) said that there was a lot of talk about the failure of overseas markets, but he was of the opinion that New Zealand would be better off if it could live within itself. Altogether there were about 100,000 workers, the same number of clerical workers and the same number of farmers in New Zealand but only about half the farmers were exporters. That proved that New Zealand’s best market was in New Zealand if only the unemployed could be given work that would earn a The debate was adjourned at 11.25 until 10.30 to-morrow.