END OF BUDGET DEBATE

Taranaki Daily News, 9 August 1930, Page 11

END OF BUDGET DEBATE

PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY PETROL TAXATION DEFENDED. j RELIEF OF GENERAL TAXPAYER. HOUSE DISCUSSES ESTIMATES. i By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Aug. 8. The Budget debate was resumed in the louse of Representatives this mornning by Mr. H. G. R. Mason, who supported the objection that had been raised by Mr. F. Langstone to the action of the Bank of New Zealand in lending £200,000 for the erection of a new theatre in Auckland. He claimed that this amount had been advanced purely on a guarantee basis, while farmershad great difficulty in obtaining loans on the same or even a more business-like basis. He asked the Minister to enquire whether the Government’s representatives on the board of the bank had given due regard to the necessity for transactions being: in the best interest of the country Mr. ,T. D. Burnett said : he thought the Minister of Education had lost a great opportunity in not adopting the suggestion to consider the suitability of the present education system for girls. He did not consider it met modern requirements. Girls were entering unsuitable occupations and were forcing young men; out of work. He thought land settleiilent could be improved by embodying a greater degree of co-operation. Mr. W. L. Martin said, there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to rentier valuable service-to the producers of Uie Dominion if when, attending the Imperial Conference he would endeavour to 'arrange for the more; satisfactory marketing of New Zealand butter* 1 .Experts had agreed there' was no reason why the . price of butter should have fallen-so far. '■■■' .?

Mr. Martin urged that'' the problem of the derating of farm lands .should be .undertaken without delay. It would be necessary to afford soin? relief, if the stability of the man on the land was to ; be. ensured. Mr. Martin attacked the work of the Department of Agriculture. He said he was not blaming the;Minister, but he believed the present d : reetor had outgrown his usefulness. There was need for new life in the department. / . At 12,50 p.m. the debate reached the stage at which the Prime Minister was called on to reply. On his suggestion the' i House adjourned. ■J ' ■ ' ; < ’MR. FORBES IN REPLY. ’ When the House resumed at 2.30 Mr. Forbes. replied to the debate.’ He said he considered the criticism oh the whole had been very 'fair. He realised that it would have been, too unuch to have expected the somewhat drastic proposals in the Bi:dget to have -been received without opposition While he hinlself had known, that the proposals weffe wise and were the result of very careful investigation it was not to be expected that all members of the House would agree to them without a certain amount of explanation. Mr. Forbes thought the country had now accepted the position. It had been regarded as too serious a matter to hold hack the prospects of a fall in the revenue and he was very pleased ■with the response of the country to his .action in taking the people into his confidence before the session began. It was only the proper thing to do to prepare the country for the position that would have io bo faced. Referring to-Mr. W. D. Stewart’s suggestion ■ that the Government shou'd have concentrated on two or three sources of revenue instead of indulging in a large number of irritating methods Mr. Forbes said it was the endeavour of the Government to make the burden as widespread as possible. It would bring everybody to a sense of realisation that he was doing his share tc ;help the country in a time-of financial depression. The Prime Minister added tlia* he could not see any special reason why people and firms who wrote a largo number of letters should be singled out to contribute to .the extent suggested by Mr. Stewart in the form of an increased rate of postage. PETROL TAX CRITICISM. Replying to the criticism of the petrol tax Mr. Forbes said that as it was being brought home to the people that there was need for all to pull together and help to meet the requirements of the financial position meetings of protest were becoming fewer and fewer. At a time such as the present as much of the burden of taxation for special purposes as possible should be shifted from the shoulders’ of the general taxpayer. It had at first been necessary to supplement the highways revenue by contributions from the Consolidated Fund, but when the first petrol tax was imposed moro money had been placed at the disposal of the board. It had been able to carry forward large surpluses, but he believed that had there been financial stringency at the time the Reform Party was in office it, too, would have taken the course that the present Government had now adopted. If the House was not prepared to agree to the petrol tax it would mean that there would bo no money for spending on backblcck roads. It was a fair and just proposal to ask road users to pay for this Work. The highways fund ha,d not assisted men who were trying to "make the best of the position in the backblocks and it was time money was set aside io provide them with good roads. Mr. Forbes said he realised that in the next two weeks there should be no waste of time and he did not want to be ono of the offenders. Under the circumstances ho would not delay the House any longer. There were sume arguments to which he would like to reply but it had to be recognised that the Budget was the speech of the Minister of Finance dealing not only with the Government’s proposals but also with the reasons for them. Tho House then went into committee to deal with the Estimates. Tho vote of £90,000 for tho Legislative Department was taken first.

Mr. 11. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, moved a reduction of the vote by H as a protest against the Government’s failure to give effect to the favourable recommendations of the petitions committee in regard to miners’ phthisis pensions. Mr. A.. M. Samuel; endorsed iho proV,/, ‘ ■ i ■ ”• ' ' ?, : ■ - ‘ u-v-

test and asked the Government to give an assurance that the position would be rcviev.ed.

The Hon. W. A. Veitch said the practice had been to decide cases on radiography examination. If the Government stepped outside the law it would create a precedent which would lead to unlimited d ; fficulties. The only alternative would be to amend the law. Mr. Forbes said that at a fairly low estimate it would cost £2,850.0'0'0 to give effect to all the favourable recommendations of the committees last session. However, he asked that cases in which it was felt the decision was unsatisfactory should bo referred to the committee again. It would then be possible to review them and if necessary to recommend amendments to the. legislation. Mr. H. E. Hollandl said the Prime Minister’s suggestion hold out none hope. He asked, however, that if the Government was going to oppose the cases it should do so before the committee. If tho Prime Minister would give an assurance that in tho event of petitions again being successful the Government would give them favourable consideration Mr. Holland said he felt sure his colleagues would let the amendment go on she voices. Mr. Forbes said the Government would bo prepared to give the recommendations as favourable consideration as possible.

Tho amendment was defeated on the voices.

Messrs. Sullivan, Field, Carr, Harris, McCombs and MeKecn appealed for the renewal of grants to the Royal Life Saving Society and tho swimming associations.

Mr. C. A. Wilkinson asked the Government to reconsider the payment of £60,000 annually as subsidy for the San Francisco and Vancouver mail services and the carriage of mails across the United States and Canada. He pointed out that the direct steamer routes to Britain could bo utilised for the carriage of mails. The vote was still under consideration when the House rose at 5.30 p.m. till 2.30 pm. on Monday. ■ ■no i <>.