Mr. Coates' Amendment Defeated

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 8, 1 August 1930, Page 2

Mr. Coates' Amendment Defeated

WELLINGTON, Night. , Standing Ortler# wer e suspended in the House of Representatives today to enable Jit© financial debate to be continued xinlli'midnight— on the amendment -fc) the Budget motion moved by the Rt. Honj. J. G. Coates: Mr Coates ashed whether it was intended the debate should be of a full-dress nature. Was the Government going to take part in the speeches. . * ‘' * STANDING ORDERS SUSPENDED. Mr H. E, Holland said that while he had no objection to the suspension of the Standing Orders on the present occasion, when circumstances were unusual, he thought the House should try to observe the fixed hours as far as possible, even if it meant summoning Parliament earlier and Continuing until all the business had been completed. It would be preferable to have a longer session rather than continue debates into the early morning hours. The Hon. G. W. Forbes said the Government did not propose to take further part in the debate until the no-confidence motion had been disposed of. Members of his party would then speak in the ordinary financial debate. Mr A. B. Ansell continued his attack on the increased petrol tax, Which, he asserted, would add to the burden, instead of relieving, the farmers. Mr H. S, S. Kyle said he had heard the Minister of Lands call the Budget a budget of justice, but it was a “big tree budget,” and it. had grown to such an extent that pruning would not suffice. The Minister like George Washington, would have to use his father’s axe t 0 cut the tree down. The Government had increasd taxation by about £3,600 000. It was going to hit the motorists, irrespective of whether they wer e feeding the railways or running in opposition to them. The railways were almost out of fashion, and the Government had set up a commission that was nothing but a political commission. He did not want to see money thrown away on th 0 construction of the South Island main trunk line, which would never pay interest. It would be better to keep the money in profit-making institutions. MR WILKINSON’S TIEW. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) complained of the part played by departmental officials in the preparation of the Budget, and expressed the opinion that Ministers should not too readily attach their signatures to documents of the type on which the Budget had been based. He did not favour the, substitution of the surtax for primage duty, as he believed it would impose a greater burden on the community. The petrol tax increase was ■ too heavy ami . .would detrimentally owners of motor transport services, which had done much to adsist in developing the country. . ||| ii ijT vj ,

Budget Debate Continued 0 Standing Orders Suspended .‘u'.rr- a v;tn ' •

COST OF NEW RAILWAYS. Referring to the railways, Mr Wilkinson said he was satisfied with the personnel of the Royal Commission, and he thought it would do good work. He regretted, however, that it was not going to investigate the construction of new lines. Also, he believed the Government was rash in spending so much money on railway construction, and he stated that no adequate justification, had yet been put forward for the completion of the South Island main trunk line. NO GOOD PURPOSE. Mr W. D. Lysnar said he would vote against the amendment because he did not consider it could serve any good purpose at the present tim.e He was in favour of the Budget, with some exceptions, because it was an effort to spread the burden of increased taxation in a fairl> equitable manner. He supported the increased petrol tax because it wouid serve to adjust the position that had arisen through the comnetiticto of motor transport with the railways. Ther e was a huge lass to be met annua 11 ./ in the operation of railways, and if. the additional petrol tax served u : terminate this state of affairs it would take a large burden off the shoulders of I he, taxpayers. Mr Lysnar expressed regret that there had been curtailments in the defence force. The New Zealand system bad been modelled on the recommendations of the late Lord Lord Kitchener but had since been modified. The expenditure had been reduced from time to time, and he thought that some other channel should hav e been found for savr-ag. BALANCING THE BUDGET. Mr W. Downie Stewart said he en- « . , tirely concurred with the Prime Mmister in his effort to balance the Budget. While the deficit immediately following the limited Rally's attaining ofiic e had been a small one, amd had been due to accidental causes, the present position was not of the same nature, and for that reason it was important that there should not be a deficit at the end of this year. Th e crux of th e position was the railway losses, and if that problem were laid aside the other considerations were mot permanent and serious ones. However, taken in conjunction wtih the railway losses, they threatened to create a shortage of £3,000,000, and for that reason the Prime Minister had decided on a programme of taxation. So far as the Customs duties were concerned, Mr Stewart said that if the increases were designed purely for revenue purposes it was unwise to have associated them with other purposes, such as protecting industries, because when the need for increased revenue had passed those industries would oppose the i eduction of the duty. So far as the taxation proposals were concerned, such as the amusement tax and similar items which were causing

so much annoyance, lie doubted whether tbe revenue would justify the a'atagonisation that they caused. It would have been better to have adopted a less irritating course and to have sought one or two means of raising revenue that would have produced the whole amount. Mr Stewart suggested a temporary reversion to IJd postage would have been a more satisfactory method. This would have yielded a large amount of revenue and would really hav e been a graduated tax because while the working man wrote one or two letters a week, business men wrote a large number. Mr Stewart likened the Prim e Minister’s method to that of an offleal assignee looking round for what h e could realise upon in the interests of the creditors rather xh.iii that of a statesman marshalling the resources of a country reputed to be the wealthiest in the world. "While the Prime Minister was making the burden widespread, it was unnecessarily aggravating. Mr Stewart contended lha: the importance of curtailing expenditure of loan money was not properly realised in New Zealand. Its effect on the prosperity, of the country should not be overlooked. He deprecated the heavy cost of railway construction at a tim© when the question of providing new lines should be c*ne for very serious investigation in view of the heavy burden the railways were placing on the taxpayers. Furthermore, this was going on at a tim© when the population was not increasing Substantially as, for instance, in consequence of immigration, and there was not this opportunity of lightening the burden by spreading it over a large number of people. HEAVY EXPENDITURE NOT WISE. Mr Stewart mentioned while only £2,500,000 had been spent on railway construction in 1928 the expenditure last year had amounted to £3,315,612. Atcually, £3,825,000 had been voted last year hut the Government had succeeded i'n spending only £3,315 612. Heavy expenditure on railways, public works and other items at the present time was far from wise. Mr Stewart said Mr Ransom had declared it was not the intention of the Government to revert to a policy of drift in regard to the country’s finances. He trusted the Minister had not been referring to the the policy of the Reform administration, which had placed New Zealand credit on such a basis that it had been the envy of Australian financial critics.

Referring to th e bank note duty, Mr Stewart said the Leader of the Labour Party had welcomed the increase from 3 per cent, to per cent, and had said the Reform Party should have imposed it because the credit of the country was behind the bank notes. Mr Stewart stated he bad looked i'ato this question some years ago and had satisfied himself that the increase would not produce the results anticipated. Mr Holland had overlooked the fact that in addition to the note tax the bank was assessed lor income' tax on notes as part of its liabilities and on reserves held against notes as part of its asets. The present tax. he believed would increase the total charge to the banks to over t» per cent., and this would not encourage them to take up Government loans at P er cent finances still sound. Mr Stewart said bo believed the finance, of the country wer e still sound and were the envy of other countries, but be exerted the Government to curtail its borrowing polMr AV. J. Poison (Stratford) strongly 'opposed ‘the pioreaises in the Customs duties, declaring that the burden on the primary should not bo increased. If revenue had to bo raised some other source should be explored. He considered the petjol tax wa, a subject for very careful consideration!, and he suggested it would be wise to have a roundtable nonidrenee. of motorists and farmers’ representatives to console! all the aspects. Mr. Poison declared the time bad arrived for derating farm lands, and ho regretted that instead of lightening the load, the Government had, by its Customs resolutions and taxation proposals, increased the costs of 11 1 0 primary producer. It was time economics in. the Government departments were effected. For in- , stan.ee, the annual appropriations I for the Tourist .Department, Fducation Department and one or two others could ho reduced. In Victoria, where the education system was one of the best in the world, the cost was much lower than in New i Zealand, and a vast saving could he

effected in Ilio Dominion if the system were rcoi’guni*.; on a me'e sat. isffl.ctory basis. Mr. Poison said many people wore asking why the tax on beer was being increased only a. Id a, gallon, whilst that on petrol was going np ,‘hl. He considered there was a source of enormous additional revenue in an extra duty on beer. Mr. Poison said ho had wished the Government well, but die could not snipport it on the present occasion. A division! on the amendment moved by Mr. Coates nva.s then taken, and was defeated by 42 votes to 28. The division list is l : AYES (28). Anisell. Linklater Bitchener. Macl.li Han Campbell Massey Coates J. A. Nash Dickie Poison bln dean Bush worth Field Samuel Fletcher Stewart. Hall Sykes Harris. Waite Hen are Wilkinson H. Holland Willia.m s Jones Wright Kyle Young NOES (12). Arm strong Me Donga it Atmore McKeen Barn arc i| JI acPJier son Bodkin Makitanara Broadfoot Martin Carr Masog Chapman Munns Clinkard Munro Coh bo Murdoch Do La Perrello Ngata Forbes O’ Brien Fraser Parry Healy Ransom K. E. Holland Savage Howard Semple Jordan Smith Langstone Stallworthy 4 Lyo Sullivan. Lysnar Taverner McCombs Voitch McDonald Pairs for the amendment. —Hunter, Hamilton, Burnett. Against the amendment. —Black, Hawke, Donald. Mr. W. Nash, who was absent, owing to sickness, was unable to .secure a. pair.