URGENCY FOR BUDGET DEBATE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20017, 16 August 1939, Page 12

URGENCY FOR BUDGET DEBATE

HOUSE CONSENTS

FINANCE SYSTEM

LABOUR TALK OF FIGHT

OPPOSITION CRITICISM RISING COSTS AND TAXES PROMISE'S NOT REDEEMED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The? debate on the Budget was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon by Dr. D. G. McMillan (Lab.. Dunedin West). He said tile Budget had not aroused ■any serious opposition throughout the country, despite its somewhat provo-

-*t’ve tiro* fo>- increased taxation. This indicated, he said, that the people as a whole supported the Government's present policy.

He advocated a change in tiie bookkeeping system which had been adopted bv the pas 1 Tory Governments. This system had, as its objective, the balancing of Budgets despite whether the expenditure and income balanced or not. Past Governments had balanced their Budgets with borrowed money and called it income, and he hoped this system would be amended in 'the near future.

The present Government, he continued. was determined to live within its income and not to place an additional burden on the shoulders of future general ions by borrowing. He also expressed the opinion that all defence expenditure should be me*, oul of current income, and not left as an additional burden for posterity. At this stage the deputy-Leader of ‘he Home, the Hon. P. Fraser, moved that urgency be taken for the Budge 4 debate and, with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. A. Hamilton, this was agreed to.

Wish to Expedite Debate

Mr. Fraser explained that the objective was nc.t to curtail but rather to expedite the debate and to avoid the carry-over of speeches from one day to the next.

Continuing the debate, Mr. C. W. Boswell (Lab., Bay of Islands) said the Opposition had urged that the Government should follow sound finance. The Government would agree, but was the Opposition’s idea ;f sound finance that system which would keep the country under debt in verpetuity? The Government believed ts system of finance would retain for (ho people the power handed over by past Governments to private enterprise. New Zealand would live and

expand on the goods and services it produced. Only then could it be free. It would be a fight, and therr would be wounds. The people of New Zealand must realise that they could not come through without being hurt, but if they stuck strongly behind the Government they would come out on the right side. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga), in criticising the Government’s taxation proposals, said that in 1935 the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage, had given the country a pledge that there would be no increases m taxation. That pledge had never been kept, and to-day taxation had increased by 60 per cent. Indirect taxation had also increased year by year and almost day by day. It was the small man who paid. The working man in New Zealand was

gradually awakening to the hard lot he was having to face, and was becoming aware that no Government hitherto had been responsible for wage cuts on such a scale as those for which the present Government was responsible. There were no crueller or more insidious wage cuts than those created by rising costs on persons with fixed incomes. Socialisation Scheme The Government, he said, had caught the New Zealand manufacturer firmly in its socialisation scheme, and the manufacturer had not seen it. In fact, the manufacturer during the past few months had been quietly digging his own grave and was preparing to •pay his own funeral expenses. Continuing his speech in the evening, Mr. Doidge asked the Government to outline its land policy. The Government, lie said, contended that the farmers favoured the guaranteed price, but it was not the agreed price between the farmers and the Administration, as the Government members had alleged.

He urged the Government to fulfil 'he pledge given by the Minister of Marketing, the Hon. W. Nash, that the dairy farmers should receive a return for their produce which would give an income commensurate with others who gave equal service to the country.

Mr. R. McKeen (Lab.. Wellington South) complimented the Government on its defence policy and outlined the

necessity for the present large expenditure on the three defence services. Foreign Policy of Britain

Mr. McKeen asserted that the reason why we were spending so much on defence to-day was because of the foreign policy of Britain in relation to the Far East. He wondered what

would be the result of the present negotiations between Britain and Japan over the Chinese question. Both Germany and Italy contended that the result of the recent negotiations had been a victory for Japan, and the United States was looking on the British Far Eastern policy with suspicion. While Britain had been attempting to succour China she had been also supplying munitions and finance to Japan. How far could democracy last while policies like that were carried on?

It wad well known, he said, that a great many of the people guiding British foreign policy were themselves Fascists and sympathised with Germany, where they had interests. We should see, said Mr. McKeen, that British foreign policy was directed in such a way that it would not make our position more serious. Mr. A. G. Hultquist (Lab., Bay of Plenty) stressed the benefits which had occurred to farmers as a result of the Mortgagors’ Rehabilitation Act. The Government had been responsible for the writing off of millions

of pounds in mortgages to relieve the farmers of their financial burdens. Everything that had been done, he said, was fully in line with Labour’s plan prior to the 1935 election. Review of Overseas Debt The time was long overdue for a review and a scaling down of our oversea debt, said Mr. Hultquist, so that we could pay it. To-day we were paying off Budget deficits of 1887 and huge loans borrowed by past Governments. He advocated a universal price for petrol, stating that if the price were increased Id. a gallon in.the cities it would enable the price to be reduced 4d. a gallon in the back-country districts. Mr. W: S. Goosman (Nat., Waikato) said that the Budget was bringing the country nearer the Socialists’ goal. He had heard one member of the Government say that it was using taxation to secure a more equitable distribution of the country’s income. He considered that taxation was being imposed to such an extent that it would dry up taxation’s source. , He wen:lcred if the Government would welcome an emergency such as would arise from a drying up of the source of taxation, because it would provide an excuse for the imposition of all classes of control. Totalitarian State To-day, he said, we were developin'along the lines cf a totalitarian Stide. which we were calling democracy What was wanted was a’Government which would create confidence, so that people who had money here would want to keep it in the Dominion. He went on to draw attention to the increase in costs which were being faced, by dairy farmers and decreases in butter and cheese production. Up to the present, he said, dairy farmers had received nothing as a result of the guaranteed price, and he proceeded to compare the wages paid to industrial workers with the incomes of farmers. Seasonal workers, for instance those working in freezing works, often earned very high wages, and he objected to their being granted relief work in the off season when thenwages in the working, season were so high as to average out over £5 a week for the year.

The Government, he said, should not perpetuate a system which encouraged laziness and lack of thrift. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. C. F. Skinner (Lab., Motueka), and the House rose at 10.35 p.m.