BUDGET DEBATE CONTINUES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 88, Issue 202, 24 August 1944, Page 3

BUDGET DEBATE CONTINUES

SOCIAL SECURITY AMONG THE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED

(P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., Aug. 23. The debate on the Financial Statement was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day, shortly after tlie House reassembled at 2.30 p.m. The debate was continued throughout the major portion of the afternoon sitting, and throughout the whole of the evening. Among the more important subjects discussed was the Social Security Fund.

DANGER OF INFLATION. Resuming the debate, Mr. H. J. D. Acland (Opp., Temuka) said there . was a risk of inflation to-day, butjt j could be prevented by wise admims- j tration, by taxation and savings. The Budget showed little understanding of the difficulties obtaining for many people to-day, such as pensioners and men with large families. There was a danger that men with large families now earning between £3OO to £SOO yearly might be tempted j to reduce their earnings to £5 10s weekly and make up the difference by collecting the family benefit, thus reducing their contribution to production. For instance, rabbiters, working extremely hard in the backblocks making £4OO to £SOO yearly, could stay in the town, earn less but be as well off financially by drawing the family benefit. The Minister should have introduced some safeguards to ensure that everybody made a reasonable contribution to the national good. Mr. Acland said Mr. Fraser had indicated that few immigrants would be available from Britain aftec the war. Consequently, the responsibility of increasing New Zealand’s population rested largely with our own people. Yet, the family man was carrying the greatest taxation burden to-day. Those on a small income were unable to save, or make ends meet, let alone have spare money for luxuries. The man really needing assistance to-day was the family man on an income between £350 and £6OO yearly, but he was receiving very little help from the Government. It should be remembered that not only was the man without dependents always better off, but of the married people in New Zealand 50 per cent, had no dependents, 34 per cent, had one or two, and only 16 per cent, had more than two dependents. It was these 16 per cent, who needed help. They were supporting more than half of the children in New Zealand. Mr. Acland quoted the example of a school teacher earning £434 yearly, who had four children, and who, under the Government’s new scheme of family allowances, would be 4d a week better off than if he had not qualified, earned only £5 10s weekly and drew a family benefit. Those with initiative were being penalised to-day by increased costs and taxation. The latter should be removed, or else a universal family allowance introduced. To those who said: “Can we afford it?” he would reply: “Can we not afford it?” For the sake of the country’s future we must remove the premium on infertility. Mr. C. R. Petrie (Govt., Otahuhu* stressed the need for continued effort until the war was won, and said that many difficult battles would probably have to be fought before *he Allies reached Berlin. It, therefore, behoved every United Nation, including New Zealand, to strain every sinew until victory was secured.

TAXATION CANNOT BE REDUCED. Consequently, the suggestion from the Opposition benches that taxation should have been reduced, could not be entertained.

Discussing the development of postwar industry, he said he was not in favour of loans to industry. If the State was to assist industry, then the State should have a share in the industry it financed. An Opposition Member-. That is what Labour wants to get, a share in industry. Mr. Petrie: That is what I hope we will get. Mr. Petrie suggested that rehabilitation should not be financed by borrowing. If rehabilitation were financed out of income, he said, there would be no interest to pay. Mr. A. S. Sutherland (Opp., Haum - ). You won’t rehabilitate many on that,

Petrie said social security was being financed out of income, and pointed out that £57,000,000 had been raised by way of taxation for war expenses. Half of that would provide lor a great deal of Rehabilitation, and it would not be too much for the taxpayer to pay for that purpose. Mr. M. H. Oram ‘Opp.. Manawatu) said that if Mr. Petrie’s suggestion that rehabilitation should be financed from taxation represented the Government’s view, the sooner it was announced as authoritative by o member of the Cabinet the better. It would mean that there was no hope of taxation relief, and would cause anxietv throughout the Dominion. A Government inter jector: Not among returned soldiers. Mr. Oram said the Budget had reminded him of a medical student watching, for the first time, the gradual decomposition and decay of a corpse—the corpse was the Labour Party. The Budget had given no indication of preparation for a change from warlime to peacetime economy, such as other countries were making. Again, in view of the start and progress of the United States in the field of aviation, one might have expected some attention in the Budget to preparations for the development of civil aviation in. and beyond, the Dominion, but there was no reference to this or to a practical lightening of taxation on the family man. The Budget, likewise, contained no intimation of Government preparedness for investigating new markets for our primary products; nor was there a prospect of taxation relief for secondary Industry, which, unless it. soon received help, would be unable . to effect the necessarv replacements, improvements and alterations after the war. SOCIAL SECURITY Examining the Social Security Fund, Mr. Oram said he favoured social security, including free hospital and medical benefits, but it was necessary to analyse the fund and see if it was solvent. Last year 4.4 millions of deficit in the Social Security Fund had been made up from the Consolidated Fund, and from the reserve. This meant that, even on last year’s record national income of £255,000,000 social security cost Is 8d in the £L —on our probable national income, but for the war, the cost of social security would by new have reached 2s 6d in the £1- Yet the expenditure from the fund was still rising, and to keep pace with it either a levy would have to be raised, or further demands would have to be made ort the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Oram was interrupted by the tea adjournment at 5.30 p.m. Replying to Mr. Oram’s criticism of aspects of Social Security, the Minister of Supply, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, speaking after the House resumed for the (*;ening sitting, said that the member should know that the cost of drugs had increased enormously and

that the grant for hospital benefits had been increased by 50 per cent., and these had contributed largely to the increased cost of the scheme. Mr. Oram had done something very bad indeed in attempting to create lack or confidence in the stability of the Social Security scheme in regard to the possibility of the country continuing to sustain it. As far as the Government was concerned the Social Security scheme, its maintenance and provision for its various beneficiaries such as the aged, poor, sick and invalid, would always be regarded as the first priority on the productive capacity of the country. The Government would never depart from that or do anything to inspire in the people doubt about the capacity of the country to sustain the scheme. Mr. Sullivan said that in the eyes of the Opposition the Government was bad in every way. The Opposition could never find a single good thing about the Government. Mr. W. J. Polson: Cheer up! Cheer up! It is not quite as bad as that! Mr. Sullivan said that, despite the Opposition’s sweeping criticism, soldiers and sailors spoke well of the Government. They had voted for it. Mr. W. S. Goosman: Why did you burn the votes? Mr. Sullivan: The honourable gentleman knows that story. He was a member of the Select Committee which inquired into the question, and he knows the truth. ( It is a vile thing he has done. POINT OF ORDER With that interjection Mr. Polson rose to a point of order, objecting to the phrase “vile thing’’ as unparliamentary concerning another member. Mr. Fraser said Mr. Goosman’s interjection involved a reflection on the honour of members of the House and should be immediately investigated. It amounted, in his opinion, to a breach of privilege. Mr. S. G. Holland claimed that Mr. Fraser’s remarks were a red herring attempting to deflect the attention o*: the House from the point of order raised by Mr. Polson. The Hon. W. E. Parry said Mr. Poison’s point of order and a ruling thereon could not be dissociated from Mr. Goosman’s interjection and the charge involved in it. The matter was terminated when Mr. Goosman withdrew his remark.

*“I am quite sure, in the circumstances, that it would be the right thing for me to withdraw and express regret,” he stated. This was reciprocated by Mr. Sullivan, who also withdrew his remark, and the debate proceeded, Mr. Speaker commenting that the solution was a happy one. Mr. Sullivan said the Opposition appeared prepared to sit in judgment on anyone at all. Whether it was soldiers, sailors, airmen or experts who came to New Zealand from Britain of the United States, if these spoke in favour of the war eoffrt or the Government they were condemned and the question was asked—or rather its modern political equivalent—“ Can any good come out of Nazareth?” The Opposition spoke of the great fighting qualities of the men on service, and when they, spoke of the farmers they became almost hysterical. The farmers had done a good job, and so had the civil servants, who were also spoken of by the Opposition, but when it came to munition workers, who had also done a good job the Opposition were not so enthusiastic.

Mr. Goosman: They are paid overtime for it. COUNTRY’S WAR EFFORT. Mr. Sullivan asked if a bad tree could produce good fruit. Did a bad and uninspiring war effort produce good results'.' Visitors from overseas, including journalists of international reputation, had praised the country's war effort. Was it logical or reasonable to suppose that all good things had been cione in organisation of tne war effort on the one hand, while there had been bad government on the other?

Mr. Goosman: There is a wonderful lot of loyalty in the country. Mr. Sullivan said the Opposition had been very critical of controls, but had not said what controls they were opposed to, or what controls there were in New Zealand that did not exist in other Allied countries. Neither did they say what controls they wanted witndrawn, except for comments on the Press and the censorship. The Minister added that the British Government proposed to continue certain controls after the war so that the most urgent needs could be met first. He asked if the Opposition would' abolish import control? Mr. Holland: You bet we will.

Mr. Sullivan said the Opposition wanted to know what the Govern,ment was doing about reconstruction after the war, but also said they would remove import control, which would destroy the manufacturing industry in New Zealand. They would throw the manufacturers to th? wolves.

Mr. Doidge: What about you throwing the farmers to the wolves? Mr. Sullivan, in conclusion, said that the Opposition also criticised rehabilitation, hut never in the history of any country, whether past wars or this, had better rehabilitation provisions been made than those made by the Labour Government.

Mr. R. G. Gerard (Opp., MidCanterbury) said that post-war Reconstruction and Rehabilitation were inseparable. The Minister should have a full-time job in charge of these matters and should be freed of other portfolios, such as Lands. There was lack of sufficient publicity concerning rehailitation. The Government should give the people full knowledge of -its intentions and the full facts. The Church and the educational authorities had a great responsibility in rehabilitation. Above all, it was necessary that the Minister and the Government. should have full co-operation of local rehabilitation committees. They had recently lost interest to some extent, the reason being that they felt their responsibilities had been decreased and the powers taken from them, while the State Advance.? was getting a stranglehold over the rehabilitation of individual returned men. Committees’ recommendations too often did not receive sufficient consideration,

Mr. Gerard said he knew of instances where good land had ipme on Ihe market, but. rehabilitation committees had been powerless to biv it. and hold it for the returned mor unless a suitable applicant happened' to be waiting at the time. *1 want, to see land wailing for the returned mon. not returned men hav-' ing to wait for the land.” declared Mr.

Gerard. If necessany the Government should take some fflod land under the powers at its command. If the Opposition were in office <4nd it was necessary to take the land under legislative power for the settlement of returned men they would not hesitate to do so.

Mr. W. T. Anderton (East Eden) was speaking when the debate was interrupted by the adjournment al 10.30 p.m.