THE WAR LOAN

Evening Star, Issue 23699, 5 October 1940, Page 20

THE WAR LOAN

MR HAMILTON CRITICAL NOT A TAX ON INDUSTRY DRAIN ON INDUSTRY'S LIFE-BLOOD [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 4. “The War Cabinet has justified its existence and the purpose for which it was set up,” stated Mr Hamilton, Leader of the Opposition, and a member of the War Cabinet, when he spoke during the final stage of the war finance debate in the House. When it ceased to justify the purpose for which it was set up, then the War Cabinet would cease to exist, continued Mr Hamilton; “but that has not happened,” he added. “It is working efficiently. There are points of difference that want clearing up, and these are receiving attention.” Answering suggestions wllich had come from his own side that the War Cabinet should have been consulted regarding the terms of the War loan, Mr Hamilton contended that such criticism could not be sustained, because if one went back to the origin of this loan it would be found fully explained in the Budget, where it was stated the loan would be interest free for three years, or until 12 months after the termination of the war.

“ I am not trying to defend the Government,” said Mr Hamilton, “ but that is where the war loan had its origin. That was before the War Cabinet was set up. If it had 'bone before that body, it could not have ’altered the Government’s declared policy.” Where the Leader of the Opposition found reason for criticism was in the fact that the war loan had not come before Parliament in the form of a Bill. Too much use should not be made of Orders’ in Council, he said, and if the Minister: of Finance had brought in a Bill to authorise a compulsory loan, instead of asking the House to discuss a regulation, he could have heard opinions on the terms of which he might have been inclined to take notice. The loan was mentioned in the Budget, but not the terms. The Minister of Finance: Tou had the opportunity of discussing it on the Budget. “People must not expect the War Cabinet to usurp the functions of Parliament,” continued Mr Hamilton. “ We must not take away the right of Parliament to discuss the terms of such a loan. They ,are the Government’s proposals, not the War Cabinet’s.” Mr Parry: I wonder what they would have been. .

Mr Hamilton replied that it was the Government’s responsibility, and Parliament should have had a prior opportunity of discussing the terms. He considered there was 'a, good deal of politics in the Prime Minister’s speech during the debate when he contended that the- Opposition - was protesting against the conscription of wealth. Nobody on the Opposition side complained of a compulsory loan, for it was nothing new in New Zealand. Wealth had to make its contribution like other interests. The Prime Minister, in becoming indignant over criticism, was, in his opinion, trying to get some interestfree money. , “ This is not conscription of wealth,” continued the Leader of the Opposition, ‘‘ and if the Government comes along with -a capital levy _we are prepared to discuss it. Our criticism is that this loan is unjust and unwise, but we are not opposing compulsion. It is unjust, because it does not catch wealth; it is unwise because it attacks the economic life blood of industry. It is a tax on effort, not on wealth. This is too common ;a custom with the Government, which is pretty hard on the man who is thrifty and industjious, but the spendthrift who spends on unnecessary items does not get the same penalty put upon him.” M r Hamilton stated that he estimated that companies would have to subscribe £ot million of the £8 million, and that individuals would subscribe £2i million. He condemned tlie_ regulations which required the Minister to be furnished with the names and particulars of those who did not subscribe to the extent expected.