PERSONAL TRIUMPH

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1935, Page 7

PERSONAL TRIUMPH

ADDRESS BY MR. COATES INTEREST AT AUCKLAND DEMOCRAT PARTY BUDGET CRITICISM OF PROPOSALS By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. Addressing a crowded audience of 3000 at the town hall on Saturday, night and an equally large gathering outside by means of amplifiers, the Minister of Finance, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, scored an undoubted personal triumph. Although admission to the hall was by ticket, the audience included a fairly large number of political opponents who indulged in a certain amount of heckling. Mr. Coates met their remarks with the greatest good humour and gave the whole gathering the happiest atmosphere that has been found at an Auckland political meeting for a very long' time. The Minister was greeted with rousing cheers when he entered, and his justification of the National - Government’s policy and the record of the past four years was frequently loudly -applauded. At the close a motion of thanks and confidence in the Government’s programme was carried by a large majority. The Mayor, Mr. Ernest Davis, presided.

Criticism of what ha termed the “mock budget” put forward by the leader of the Democrat Party, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, was made by Mr. Coates. He said Mr. Hislop had indulged in wild guesses. Either he was a complete novice in public finance or he was completely irresponsible. Mr. Coates also condemned Mr. Hislop’s use of the report by the Auditor-General on the public accounts as a basis for charges of mismanagement and deception on the part of the Government. “I regret to say that I have no choice but to believe that Mr. Hislop’s misrepresentation is calculated and deliberate,” he declared. As had already been stated, Mr. Hislop proposed to reduce taxation by a total of £5,040,000. The estimated revenue in the Government’s Budget was £25,742,000, but Mr. Hislop budgeted for £24,055,000, in addition to the cost of the insurance scheme. On his own showing, therefore, he would have co find £3,353,000. This on the present trade figures he could not possibly get from Customs duties, especially as the proposal to reduce exchange gradually would reduce imports and retard business generally until parity was' reached. Mr. Hislop proposed “a review of the amortisation fund commitments on the public debt” as an economy measure. Every New Zealand prospectus for loans in the United Kingdom promised to maintain sinking funds, but Mr. Hislop proposed in effect to raid sinking funds, a flagrant breach of trust which if attempted would do tremendous injury to the country’s credit. Provision of £8,740,000 for annual appropriations apparently included only £51,900,000 for pensions, the balance to be found by special taxation. Deducting the amount for; pensions, this left only £6,840,000 for all other purposes, whereas the current estimates, including social services (apart from pensions), defence, law and order, agriculture and other departments, amounted to £61715,000. Thus there remained only £125,000 for all other services. The expenses of the revenue departments alone amounted to three times that sum, to say nothing of the costs of the departments concerned with general administration. This completely revealed Mr. Hislop’s lack of capacity to handle public finance. The Democrat “budget” provided only £4,000,000 for all pensions, including a national scheme. The present pensions cost £3,375,000, and the cost of a complete national scheme had been estimated by an inter-departmental committee at £8,300,000 a yean For health insurance £1,650,000 was provided, but the estimated cost was £3,750,000 for the national scheme. Mr. Hislop’s estimates were merely guesses, and he and his associates could have made no close calculation of the cost of the benefits they promised to the public. The cost of a subsidy to farmers was given at £3,750,000. The present benefit to farmers from exchange was nearly £14,000,000, and the direct cost to the Budget was £1,600,000. Mr. Hislop would therefore give one-third of the exchange benefit at double the cost. For salary restoration and superannuation subsidies Mr. Hislop allowed £850,000, whereas the former item would cost £BOO,OOO and the actuarial cost of a full subsidy to the superannuation funds was £500,000. In fact there was no need to provide such a subsidy. To bring the funds up to their full amount would require £22,000,000. The proper course was to let the liability fall upon the State. The Government had given an assurance that superannuation payments would be made from the Consolidated Fund as required, and this promise would be honoured. “Mr. Hislop’s budget only confirms my previous estimate that the programme of the Democrats means a gap of £22,000,000, apart from the cost of additional borrowing,” concluded Mr. Coates.