DEBATE ON BUDGET.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16583, 16 November 1921, Page 10

DEBATE ON BUDGET.

MR W ILFORD’S AMENDMENT DEFEATED,

(Peb Press Association.) WELLINGTON, November !o. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr Forbes resumed the debate on the Budget, severely condemning the Motor Vehicles Bill and declaring that he would consider it his duty to prevent such a Bill massing until the whole of the Government’s proposals were before the House. They had heard of a Main Roads Bill, but that measure was being withheld from the House, and he considered that members were being most unfairly treated, because local bodies were anxious to know what waß going to happen in connection with roads over which they exercised jurisdiction. He condemned the so-called economy now t being carried out by the Government as being insufficient to make revenue and expenditure meet. In this respect the Government was not doing its duty to the country. He criticised the action of the Prime Minister in deprecating full discussion of the country’s position, and said that Mr Massey’s reply to the farmers’ deputation was the most harmful thing that had happened to the Dominion for a long time past. What was needed was more effective means of marketing our produce on the London market. The Government aat down and did nothing. There was not a single word in the Budget about marketing produce, yet the Government claimed to be a farmers’ narty. It was no wonder that farmers wanted a partv of their own to do things for themselves. The real trouble was that nothing coulH be done until the Prime Minister could give it his personal attention, because we ware sufferin'’'’ from one-man government. The Hon W. NoßWorthv said that if he was asked to characterise the speech of Mr Forbes he would say it reminded him of a tinkling cymbal and«sounding brass. The statement that there was nothing in the Budget about marketing produce was altogether misleading. He referred to page 11 of the Budget. It was, he aaid, a Budget to be remembered, because it contained the best tariff ever brought down. He denied that the Government was holding up the business of Parliament. The boot was altogether on the other foot, for what was the Leader of the Opposition's amendment doing but holding up the business of the House and preventing members debating the tariff proposals? It had been said that the Government was a minority Government. but sneaking with a full sense of resoon sibili tv he said that he for one would never consent to an electoral system that would be unfair to the people, and the more he saw of proportional representation the more he was convinced that it had qo merit. Mr Forbes complained that nothing could he done until the Prime Minister could pass his opinion .upon it, but who had a better right to pass an opinion on legislation be brought down? The Prime Minister was the bead of the Government and responsible for the work Parliament had to do. That was one of the first principles of constitutional government, ”nd it was not the Prime Minister’s kaulfc that he had been compelled to leave the Dominion to attend upon important Imperial business elsewhere. The speaker then passed on to refer to tlie administration of the Agricultural Department, contending that it could not be further pruned down and its efficiency maintained. Complaint had been made that the Tourist Department was not paving. The fact was that the tariff of tourist resorts had not been increased since 1903, in spite of the increased cost of living, but all this would be altered, and he could say that in future members would have no grounds for complaint on this score, for the pleasures and comforts ot tourist resorts would no longer ho given for nothing. The Government had found many of these abuses, and there were manv barnacles that had to bo knocked off the ship of State before she would float com- j fortably. Discussing taxation, he ! contended that it had been more difficult to get a Bill through the House to reduce taxatioij_than it was to i put taxes on. He denied that the re- j dnotion was in favour of the friends | of the Government. The farmers were ! all so hard hit by the depression, and i taxation in recent years had been so k< avily increased, that something had to he dene, .yet the Opposition fought the proposal during v a whole night sitting. The Budget had only promised readjustment of taxation, but they had in fact- got reduction of taxation, and that fact was appreciated by people all evei the Dominion. Mr Forbes said the Government had not done anything for the farmers. He doubted if ever a Government had done bo much for farmers. The slump which jpame was not the fault of the Government, and if our produce could not be marketed ai qiickly as we would like, the Gove*nmenf was not responsible for that. He was doing his best to get the Producers’ Committee to set up a board and appoint a representative to go to London to look after their interests there yet the member for Hurunui declared that the Government was doing nothing for the farmers. Ho recommended that member to take tho Budget home and make a careful study of it, and he then would find much in it that he evidently had not yet discovered, for it was a Budget that would be gratefully remembered by the people of the Dominion for the next fifty years. Mr Howard said he proposed to look at the Budget from the point of view of the bottom-dogger, the worker. It had been said that there was no policy in the Budget, but he saw in it a policy that would bring sorrow and suffering to thousands this Christmas, and in that sense it was truly a Budget that would be remembered by many people for the. next fifty years. On one hand there was drastic retrenchment, and on the other nano there was a war to see who wjiq. to pay fer the war. The workers, tradesmen and small farmers were to pay for it. In support of this statement he quoted figures to show that in some cases the recent remission of taxation meant a reduction of £465. That was what the Budget meant to the rich man, but to the poor man it was a Budget of hunger and sorrow. Tho workers’ weekly budget showed that many were living under the border line of what was considered a fair margin of comfort, but what had the Government done to meet this position? He challenged the Pip me Minister to mention any legislation which he had passed relating to tho workers which was not penal legislation. Mr Isitt defended the. Opposition against the charge of delaying the busij ness of the House, because criticism I 1 was the function of an Opposition. It might be that their numbers were not so great as some of them would like, but providential!v their work was not heavy, because there was not much in the Budget to criticise. Referring to Ithe tariff he confessed himself dmap pointed at some of the proposals. The taxes on tea and kerosene were taxes on necessaries. The tea tax was purely a war measure and should have been

one of tho first to go. Moreover, it was a tax per pound and not a, vcordmg to value, and so the poor Qian's 2s tea was taxed as highly as rich man’s 5s tea. He hoped tha& before the tariff proposals passed th* House this tea tax would disappear. On the other hand, our revenue should he strengthened by some taxation not mentioned in the Budget, g bachelor tax being a case in point. Incidentally he strongly advocated the growing of beet sugar as being the one industry with most promise of success and fewest possibilities of failure. Coming back to the tariff he found fault with it because it was a tariff for the country and not for the towns. It gave no protection to industry, and therefore he agreed with and would support the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. Dumping was going on all round, and our young industries were threatened* with destruction, and at least temnorarv protection should be given those deserving of it. The speaker was proceeding to denounce the tariff because it did nob tax Australian goods to the same extent as Australia taxed us, When tlie Premier intervened and said the Government was taking power to negotiate, and Australia would have to meet us or sit up. Continuing, Mr Isitt said he was glad to hear what the Premier had said. He did not want to see high protection. Some industries were not wottb saving, but he did want to see the Government pursue a policy which would make this country what it should be. Mr Jones, in reply to the objection tm iz the Government was a minority Government, said that the only safe course was m tho strongest party in the country to rule, and the only i reason Mr Wilfcrd moved his ainend- • ment was to prevent the leader of the i Labour Party getting in first. He preferred that the leader of the Labour party should go into the lobby with h:m than that he should go into tlie lobby with tho leader of the Labour party. He twitted Mr Forbes with last 1 year jvanting to double taxation, and ; yet this year declaring that tho Government had betrayed the fanner. He (the speaker) was in a better position j than most men to know just what the . Government had done for farmers, but j lie. was prepared to leave judgment in | the hand of the farmers. Mr Forbes’s speech was an example of how far men would misstate tho position in order that they might climb to the Government benches and remain, there them selves. Ho considered that the tariff was a. fair adjustment. It went as far ias it was safe to go at present. For the rest it was a question of evolution Discussing the meat trade, he express ed pleasure that it had been decided to send an expert to London to look after the producers’ interests there, but we wanted one selling organisation. This with Government grading, should give us pragiicallv all we required. This was the system followed in Denmark with the greatest advantage. In connection with tho proposals to establish rural bVnks in New Zealand he suggested that the Government should tabulate the result of their experience in connection with the Advances to Settlers’ Department and soldiers’ settlement scheme, so that mmht discover the best means of establishing institutions which would help the small man to go on tho land with the greatest of all advantages. cheap finance. TTe was thoroughly satisfied the Government was seized with the necessity of reducing expenditure to meet income. Perhaps the country did not think t x>. hut that was largefv due to misapprehension. Concluding, he predicted that a. good time was coming for the producers of tv'eat. when lamb a ""in would reach a shilling per pound. He advise 1 all producers to hold on to meat if rv>ssihlo until the present glut had r>o cc-od a wav. Air Savage was opposed to the ten ner cent rebate in land tax. The Premier stated that land tax had risen from £700.000 in 1914 to £1 600.000 in 1920. but he had not given the House a statement of the percentage of land tax to total taxation. Relatively to other taxes land tax had fallen, not increased. Criticising the retrenchment: policy of the Government, he said the only idea of the Ministry seemed to have was to reduce the number of public servants and cut down the salaries of those loft in employment, and the Government called that economy. TTe called it insanity that n salary under £3OO Fhcfttld be touched. The proper alternative was increase of income tax. He advocated a levy on wealth as a means of reducing the public indebtedness, and the establishment of a State bank and proportional representation os necessary financial and electoral reforms. An effective and generous supply of hydro-electric power was necessary to keep industries alive in the absence of anything like a protective tariff. Mr Parry said that from one end of the Dominion to the other the Budget had been cursed by bell, book and candle. The Budget seemed 1o imply that we should lean upon Britain for our markets, but this he deprecated. Our best market was our own internal market, and the money spent upon , seeking markets in Britain would be better jypent in developing markets within our own borders. A division on Mr Milford’s amendment was called for. with the result that it was defeated by 37 to 21, the division being on the usual party lines. The debate was adjourned oil the motion of Mr Witty and the House rose at 11.30 p.m. The following is the division list: — For the amendment (21) —Atmore Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, Kellett, Masters, Parry, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, S. G. Smith, Statham, Sullivan, Thacker, Wilford, Witty. Against the amendment (37) — Kitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Campbell, Coates. J. M. Dickson. J. S. Dickson, ! E. Dixon, Fieldj Guthrie. J. R. Hamil- ! tori Harris, Hawker, Herries, Hoekly, I Hudson, Hunter, Jones, Lee, Luke, ; M’Leod, M’Nicol, Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Reed, Tt. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Sykes, Williams j and Wright. Pairs :—For M’Callum, M’Combs. ! Bartram, Ngata, Mitchell, Hanan, R. W. Smith. Against Anderson, A. Hamilton, Glenn, ITenare, A. K. Newman, Young, E. Newman.