BOOM AND SLUMP

Taranaki Daily News, 27 October 1932, Page 5

BOOM AND SLUMP

THE LOST OPPORTUNITY CHANCE TO LEVY TAXATION HOUSE DEBATES FINANCE DISCUSSION OF REMEDIES BURDEN UPON POSTERITY By Telegraph.—Press Association. ■Wellington, Last Night. Resuming the Budget debate in the House of Representatives to-day Mr. J. Hargest ('Coalition, Invercargill) said New Zealand had had an opportunity to set its house in order during the war and post-war years when the producers were making enormous profits, but nothing had been done. During the war the compelling force of patriotism would have led the people to submit to heavy taxation, and if taxation had been imposed then there would never have been a “boom,” and if there had never been a boom there would never have been a slump.

The legislators had unfortunately followed the line of least resistance, said Mr. Hargest, with the result that the men who came back from the war and young people who had grown up in post-war years were being asked to shoulder a burden that they could not bear.. The legislators of the past had bequeathed nothing but debts to the children of the future. It was now a question as to which should suffer — the bondholders overseas or the child yet to be born. He did not hesitate to say he stood on the side of the Child. Interest payments overseas should bear some relationship to the price of primary products.

Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) said the report of the National Expenditure Commission was valuable in the Dominion it had disclosed failures in administration. It should be read by every citizen. The commission had indicated where certain savings could be made, but he desired to remind the house of a step which could be taken by which the country could benefit to the extent of £1,000,■OOO. He referred to the question of coinage and declared that sooner or later the Dominion would have to consider the advisability of minting its own coins.

PROTECTION.”

> Mr. Wilkinson urged the Government to reconsider the position to the wheat duties. He contended that the people were paying too much for their bread because a small section of the community was being protected to an unreasonable degree.

Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Roskill) criticised the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission with respect to the setting up of a board of hospitals. He said somewhat, similar recommendations had originated from the New Zealand. branch of the British Medical Association in 1026. Mention had been made in the report Of the New South Wales system of control, and it had been suggested this should be adopted by New Zealand. He pointed out that the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales was a non-political body with power to close hspitals, but it had closed none. The commission had recommended the closing of some of the New Zealand hospitals. Power to, close hospitals had never been exercised by the Australian States because Australia, like New Zealand, had found there was a, neverending demand for • more accommodation. Mr. Richards said the commission recommended reliance upon voluntary finance for hospitals and more stringent control of the collection of fees, but such methods in New South Wales and Victoria had been disastrous. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Coalition, Riccarton) replied to Mr. Wilkinson’s refereqccs to Wheat duties. He said there was very little differenOe in New Zealand and Australian bread prices over the counter if the comparison was based on the prices at the centres at which the wheat was grown. He considered that if an investigation of any kind was to be made it should be into the cost of distribution of wheat to other centres and into the cost from the time the wheat left the farmer until it became bread.

SCHOOL BOOK'S CONTRACT. ■ Mr. Kyle renewed his criticism of the extension of the school books contract and asked the Prime Minister to set up a tribunal before which all the cards could be placed on the table. He believed that was the only fair way to meet the complaints made on the subject from school committee associations and other persons outside the House. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, M'anukau) criticised the Government's unemployment policy and quoted from the report of the Expenditure Commission to support the contention that the Government was being advised to make conditions even worse 'by withdrawing established social services. He said the whole of the country’s troubles revolved round the payment of debts. The Prime Minister had announced in the‘Budget that he could not reduce interest charges to any extent, but a 1 per cent, reduction on the national debt would mean a saving of over £2,000,000 a year. (Mr. Jordan expressed the opinion that the Government should declare a state of emergency to enable it to deal adequately with the unemployment problem. He asserted that there were numbers of men, women and children who were not even able to obtain the bare ■necessities of life.

Mr. McDougall (Co., Mataura), dealing with unemployment, said that while he° agreed that many men were doing useful work he considered others were doing useless work. He asked whether it was fair to ask a boy from a shop to go out in the winter and clear flooded drains. He suggested the Government should subsidise business concerns to enable the boy behind the counter to stay where he was. Mr. F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) ur rr cd the Government to take steps to control the importation and distribution of petrol supplies in New Zealand and take action to ensure that British shipping would not be ousted by unfair competition. _ The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.10 p.m.