REPUDIATION HINT ASSAILED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20013, 11 August 1939, Page 12

REPUDIATION HINT ASSAILED

DOMINION DEBTS VIEWS ON BUDGET GPPOSSTiOiM VOSGES LEFT WING OPINIONS CONTRADICTION URGED PULPITiLING OBLIGATIONS (l J ur I J russ Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The debate on the Budget was continued in the House of yesterday afternoon by Mr. J. M. Allen (Nat., Hauraki), who resumed liis speech which was interrupted ‘by the adjournment 'the previous evening. 'Mr. Allen said it looked as if inflation must come if tile Government continued its present policy. Inflation would bring its accompaniment ol misery and hardship, internal repudiation and default overseas. The Budget might as well be called the horseman's Budget, because of the petrol tax. The ultimate effect of this tax would be difficult to estimate, but it must mean an increase in costs, especially farming costs. Petrol was an essential requisite to allow the farmer to keep up his volume of production, and the increase in price would tend further to socialise transport.

Mr. P. Neilson (Lab., Dunedin Central), said the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Adam Hamilton, that there was no depression in 1935, was wide of tlie mark. Since Labour had taken office, old age and other pensions had been increased, unemployment had been reduced, and the unemployed were paid a decent wage. The Government had also reduced malnutrition in schools by the distribution of milk to children. An Opinion of Capitalists If the capitalists had to earn their own living, it would take them all their time to do it, said Mr. Neilson. Many of them knew nothing about

their business, and they employed to do the work men who got the smallest portion of the profits. Mr, E. L. Cullen (Lab., Hawke’s Bay) stated that the Opposition had advocated farmers owning their own titles to their properties, but there were not many farmers to-day who had any great hold over their titles. Some of the best farmers in New Zealand were farming leasehold land. Members of the Opposition had implied that the Government members who had dared to criticise Britain’s foreign policy were unpatriotic, but personally, ho said, he would yield to no one in his patriotism. He would remind the Opposition that they had criticised the Ramsay MacDonald and Scullin Labour Governments. Mobility of Defence With regard to defence, he said the principles of war were mobility of defence, concentration, and pursuit. As far as New Zealand was concerned, mobility was the most important factor. He thought the day was not far off when New Zealand would have to have a permanent army, which would cost probably three times the amount that was being expended to-day. That army would be required to look after the towns and defend many vulnerable points. It could he used to get people out of the towns if they were attacked. Mr. Cullen added that he was very pleased to see the Minister had secured the quota aimed at for the territorial army, but if world conditions went on as they were going, a great deal more would have to be spent on defending the shores of New Zealand. Query For Left Wing Mr. W. P. Endean (Nat., Parnell) asked if it were any wonder that the City of London hesitated to come to

New Zealand’s assistance when the renewal of loans was concerned, in view of the present Government’s policy. Both the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, and the dcpulyLeadcr of the House, the Hon. P Fraser, had said that, no matter what the London financial interests might think or do to us, we would not reduce our standard of living. On the previous evening they had heard a most remarkable speech from the member for Grey Lynn, Mr. J. A. Lee. In effect, he advocated repudiation. He had rebelled against the orthodox Budget of the Prime Minis-

;er and the orthodox methods of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Vv. Nash. Evidently the Left Wing, of which Mr. Lee was the reputed leader, believed in repudiation. Would Mr. Lee come into the open and state clearly and precisely that he believed in repudiation, or were iho Opposition only to infer that? lie asked what would lie do if the Federation of Labour supported the present Cabinet. Continuing his speech at the evening session, Mr. Endean asked how £22,000,000 in the public works estimates was to be expended. The Government had gone public works mad, he said, and lie wondered if it had an air bias, too. This year New Zealand was spending £3 7s. a head on defence, while Australia’s expenditure was £3 14s lOd. Australia was outstripping New Zealand in this respect. Surplus Gratifying ■Mr. W. M. C. Denham (Lab., Invercargill) said it was gratifying to know that New Zealand was commencing the financial year with a Budget surplus.

The Opposition, lie said, wanted to start a policy of deflation and a reduction in the standard of living at the dictation of overseas financial dictatorship, but New Zealand was fightin a heroic battle and if the Government had the goodwill of the people it would win out. There would then be no need to cut the standard of living.

The Government was certainly increasing taxation, he said, but in doing so it was using taxation for the redistribution of national income.

Mr. T. H. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) referred to the success which, he

said, was attending the Government’s policy of expansion of industries. He was confident that the goods which were produced in New Zealand could be sold here. While many wild statements, he said, had been made regarding the increase in the petrol tax, these did not prove anything. He thought that the tax was justly applied, and its effect on the farmers would be nothing like the exaggerated story told by the Opposition. Older Men in Industry Mr. McCombs .contended that the National Party was actually hindering production toy the continuation of its present, policy and 1 that, in representing that .the farmers did not want the guaranteed price, it was not truly indicating the real wishes of the farming community. I-Ie advocated the employment of older men in secondary industries and stated .that the Government might well .subsidise employers tor training such workmen. The Bit. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Nat., Hurunui) stated that in the Budget they were asked to congratulate the Minister of Finance on .the terms he had secured for the conversion of the recent loan in London, tout he contended 1 they could 1 hardly toe expected to congratulate him on the position in which he had 1 landed the country at the present time. He then referred to .the speech by the member for Grey Lynn, Mr. J. A. Lee, on the previous evening, stating that Mr. Lee had practically advocated repudiation of the policy of the Government in regard to loan repayments. Mr. Lee’s .statement, he continued, was entirely unwarranted and

was calculated to stir up feeling against people in the old land' who had. done a. great deal 1 to assist New Zealand’s -finances. It was a poor return indeed for the 'generosity of the British ibanks when such, speeches were made about the Montague Normans. Amendment Proposed Mr. Forbes said that Mr. Lee’s speech undoubtedly meant repudiation and there had not been a contradiction of it toy the Government. He was satisfied that Mr. Lee was .not voicing the opinion of the people of New Zealand in his speech. It made one hang one’s head in shame to think of the impression which such a speech would 1 create in England, said Mr. Forbes. He then moved an amendment to the formal motion, “that -the House go into committee,” as follows: “That this House urges the Government to consider whether the time has arrived for it to state that this House has no sympathy with any suggestion of repudiation of our debts, either overseas or in New Zealand and affirms that the Dominion is determined 1 to fulfil her obligations, tooth now and in the future: that the Government gives an emphatic contradiction lo any suggestions made in this House, implied or otherwise, to the contrary and that this House expresses 1 appreciation to the United Kingdom for the generous treatment accorded New Zealand in the recent financial negotiations in London."

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment of the House at 10.30 p.m.