IF SUBSIDIES HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED. HOW WOULD THEY BE PAID?

Wanganui Chronicle, 19 July 1950, Page 5

IF SUBSIDIES HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED. HOW WOULD THEY BE PAID?

PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Last Night (PA). —Speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives tonight, the Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Holyoake) said Mr. Fraser’s speech during the debate was mournful, woeful and dirgelike, fulfilling Mi Holyoake’s own prediction during thu election campaign that Mr. Fraser was lending a "graveside chorus.’’ He had certainly dug a wide grave and the Labour Government had fallen into it. The speeches of Mr Fraser, and Mr. Nash since the session began had moved a tombstone over that grave, and the body within it had no hope of resurrection. Mr. Holyoake said the Labour Party must realise this was still a democracy, and they had been rejected by the free vote of the people at a time of record world prosperity. The people had been tired of Socialism, of unnecessary restrictions, and of being pushed about. Socialism was completely discredited today and Labour should put its own house in order instead of moaning about having been beaten by a slogan. “Take your beating like men,” Mr. Holyoake enjoined. He said the new Government found the country’s finances in a shocking state. Millions of pounds worth of new credits had been issued each year, and the national debt increased under Labour from £254,000,000 to £643,000,000. Admittedly there was a costly war in that time, but the Labour Government since the war had gone on piling up the national debt. Reserve Bank advances to the State rose from £1.7 millions in 1935 to £lO4 millions when the National Government took over. When Mr. Holyoake referred to repayment of overseas debt, Mr. W. E. Parry (Opp., Arch Hill) interjected: We were the only Government which ever paid off debts. Mr. Holyoake said he was against debt repayment, but too much of New Zealand’s overseas funds had been used for debt repayment when the country was crying out for tractors and other essential imports. In any case, Labour did not pay off the debt for every million repaid in London another million was borrowed locally. It might be better to have the debt domiciled locally, but not to the extent of starving industry of what it required for further expansion of our production and wealth. Instead of creating fresh money, the Labour Government should have borrowed from the existing money stream. Its inflationary acts had lessened the value of every £ held by the people. This contrasted with the successful loan recently raised by the new Government. Mr. Holyoake said • Labour’s tears over the subsidy removals were patently crocodile tears. Labour was completely responsible for the conditions which made the reduction of subsidies unavoidable in 1947 and 1’950. Labour originally opposed subsidies, then built them up to conceal the cost of living; then they called for reduction of expenditure on subsidies in 1947, and now in 1950 opposed reductions in subsidies. The people were asking throughout the country what Labour would have done had they been returned at the last election. Mr P. Kearins (Opp., Waimarino): We would not have removed subsidies. Mr. Holyoake said if that were so, it was Labour’s duty to explain how it would have financed the rising cost of subsidies. Unless that were done the whole of the Opposition’s criticism could be dismissed as pure political clap-trap. Labour’s inconsistency on subsidies was the most laughable thing the House had seen for years. Mr. C. F. Skinner (Opp., Buller), former Minister of Lands, said that the Oppositicn had been asked by Government members what it would have done in regard to subsidies. "We are not here at this stage tc tell the Government what Labour would have done, he said. The people wanted to know when the Government would implement its promises, when door-to-door deliveries would commence, when the £ would be made to go further. Discussing the legislative programme of the Government, Mr. Skinner asked what changes would be made to the Social Security legislation; whether amendments to the Tenancy Act would mean that tenants would be thrown out at will; whether the Internal Marketing Department would go. “And since capital punishment and flogging are to be introduced, that paints a gloomy picture,” he said. Who was going to benefit and who had benefited by what the Government had done so far? he asked. Land agents, with something to sell had, but had the consumer or the elector benefited? The freedom given so far had been to a very small section of the community. Mr. Skinner said that competition could only alter conditions by putting the small man out of business. In the long run chain stores and vested interests —the man with the biggest credit—would win out and the weakest would go to the wail. It was only big concerns which would benefit under a National Government's policy.