BUDGET DEBATE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 246, 16 October 1937, Page 10

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. CHAPMAN’S SUGGESTION LOCAL BODY DEBTS SPEECH BY MR. DICKIE. [ Per Press Association. J WELLINGTON, Oct. 15. The Budget debate was continued this morning by Mr. C. H. Chapman (Wellington North) who suggested to the Minister of Finance, non. W. Nash, that arrangements should be made through the Reserve Bank to liquidate the whole of the overseas indebtedness of local bodies in New Zealand. The result would be a saving oi £I,OOO,OUU, and that would enable local bodies to reduce the rate burden .vhich was bearing so heavily on citizens. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Patea) said that Mr. Chapmans suggestion, if carried out, would mean an overdraft at the Reserve Bank of £68,000,000, and that was fantastic. He agreed that the 40hour week should be adopted where possible, but if it was going to force costs up it should not be undertaken. The Government was rushing its .ences too hastily. He urged the Minister of Lands to start a land settlement scheme to relieve unemployment. Even if it cost some millions in doing it, it would be better than wasting the money on sustenance payments, because some of the men at least would make good settlers. He was confident that in times like this we should budget for a greaer surplus, because a slump was sure to come and we should have adequate reserves to meet it.

Mr. D. W. Coleman (Gisborne), said that he wanted to place on record his wholehearted support of the Budget, which was a humanitarian one, despite the fact that the Opposition could see no good in it. The Government, he said, admitted an increase in the cost of living, but wages and salaries had also increased and the people had more spending power to-day than ij? the past. Speaking of broken promises, the Opposition should be the first to reduce wages and pensions, and they had pegged the exchange rate 20 days after they had promised not to do so.

Labour denied, said Mr. Coleman, that it had broken its promises, and the fact that it had no done so was amply demonstrated by the prosperous condition of the country to-day. The Government had not increased taxation. The increased Government revenue was due to the general prosperity. The debate was adjourned at 1 p.m. The debate on the Financial Statement was continued when the House resumed at 2.30 p.m. Single Ownership of Transport One matter which was causing grave concern, said Mr S. G. Smith (Opp., New Plymouth) was the Government’s apparent intention with regard to single ownership of the transport system. There was not one mention of the subject in the Budget and the Minister of Transport, Hon. R. Semple, should make it clear during the debate what the Government intended to do. There was a feeling of insecurity in the transport service and he contended that if the Government was determined to have only one owner in this service it should have courage enough to say so. It should not use all the power of the Railways Department to lower freight charges and crush competitors out of business. That was confiscation.

Mr Smith also criticised the Government for its failure to indicate clearly its land settlement policy, its attitude towards defence and the returned soldier. It needed to watch the Internal Marketing Department very closely. He had not known of one successful case in which the State had entered private enterprise. If the Labour Government remained long enough in office the small trader would be put out of business and the larger businesses would go later. Then would come complete socialisation of industry.

Mr B. Roberts (Govt., Wairarapa) congratulated Mr Nash on the trade agreements for which he had been responsible and said that nothing was to be gained by international strife. Mr George Lans bury had said it wa> not a question of one nation going down, but the destruction of civilisation itself. He defended the guaranleed price scheme, stating that it was a step towards orderly marketing and said that the Government had a genuine desire to keep costs down for the. dairy farmer. He instanced the fact that under past Governments when butterfat production had increased the farmers had not received commensurately increased returns but under the Labour Government, if the butterfat production in New Zealand were doubled, there would be double the income for th© dairy farmers. The country had reached the stage, he said, when it must concentrate on the development of the dairy and other primary industries. He drew attention to the fact, however, that our quota for pig flesh on the British market was not nearly filled. It would be a foolish policy on •ur part to largely increase the quantities of dairy produce on the British market, depressing prices there and causing embarrassment to the British farmer, but we should concentrate on expanding the pig industry and filling the quota which the British Government had invited us to

supply. Money which was being allocated for public works would bring benefit to both town and country alike and the working farmer would have cause to feel- gratified at the promise which the guaranteed price offered him. There had never been so much promise as was offering at . the present time for a man to go on the land.

Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Opp., Riccarton) drew attention to the fact that agriculture was not mentioned in the Budget. Here we were with £64,000,000 worth of - primary produce going out of the country and not a word about agriculture was in the index of the Budget. Nor was it in the Budget last year. We could not carry on our social services unless there was production to pay for them. Australia was developing her primary industries far faster than we were and in time would be our most serious competitor. They had a land development policy in the Commonwealth but we had none here. It would be far better to place people on the

land to develop it than to throw money away paying sustenance. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.