PARLIAMENT

Grey River Argus, 16 September 1937, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

PUBLIC CREDIT Use by Government [Per Press Association], WELLINGTON, September 15. In the House of Representatives, the Imprest Supply Bill was introduced by the Governor’s message, urgency being granted for the message. Mr. Hamilton asked the Prime Minister for a definition of the term he had used very frequently when speaking at various places throughout the Dominion, namely, the phrase “public credit.” Mr. Hamilton referred to a certain vagueness regarding the term of public credit. They did not want vagueness. They wanted plain English terms, so plain that an ordinary man in the street, a man like himself for instance, could understand it.

Mr. Carr: Impossible. (Laughter). Mr. Hamilton said they should avoid accusation or vagueness or indefiniteness. There seemed to be an idea among members of the Government that public credit was an inexhaustible reservoir, but he would remind them that the reservoir had been built up by the industry and economy of the pioneers, and the Labour Government should not dissipate resources that had been built up so carefully in the past. Reverting to the definition of the term public credit, he asked was it, in the Prime Minister’s view, just a book entry, which could be wiped out, or was it purely a loan from the Reserve Bank, with interest, and to be repaid? Mr. Hamilton then went on to draw attention to the surplus of £475,000 in public accounts and £650,000 deficit in the dairy account. In view of this deficit, he asked how could the Government claim there had been a surplus in the public accounts. In conclusion, Mr. Hamilton suggested two more definitions of public credit. Did it mean a gathering up of credits in all accounts in the public funds, or did it mean just plain borrowing? PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH. Mr. Savage, replying, said the Government would use the most direct manner of using public credit, to build up the resources of the conntry. Mr. Hamilton, he said, would distinguish between something issued from the national banking institution, and something taken from a private bank. With regard to the latter if we borrowed from private sources, we would go on paying for ever, whereas if we borrowed from our own institution, we were indebted only to ourselves. It was no use increasing national wealth in the shape of increased production unless the public was to have access to it. In 1933, dairy farmers had doubled production without getting a penny advantage.

The Prime Minister stated that the prosperity of the country had increased enormously recently. The income of the Dominion had increased by £20,000,000 at least’.' In fact, the increase, would be much greater than that, when the final figures were seen, and the people of New Zealand did not seem to be worrying overmuch about a slump in credit. The Government was going to use the people’s money and people’s credit for the development of national assets.

Referring to the question of lifting the sales tax, Mr. Savage said that Mr Hamilton knew this was much easier to impose than to take off, but he could asure them that as soon as the proper foundations were laid, the reactionary methods of the previous Governments would be done away with.

Replying to inquiries that had been made regarding the inference in his statement, in the House of Representatives, that the people’s savings were to be used to create public assets, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government intended to do only what previous governments had done, and to invest the savings in a more intelligent way. “When I was talking about using the people’s savings to create public assets, I was not introducing any new idea at all,” said the Prime Minister. “My object in life is to have sufficient money available to allow people to enjoy what they are capable of producing. I intend to bring a report down later, showing that in the matter of houses and public buildings, we are £16,000,000 behind. We are limited only by labour and material, and we cannot possibly afford to be limited by lack of money. As long as wealth is created by spending the money, we will be on perfectly safe ground. There will be no change at all, except perhaps in the direction of the more-intelligent use of savings. We will give greater consideration to the investment of the people’s savings in future than in the past. There is a lot of room for argument so far as some of the securities held by the Post Office Savings Bank are concerned, but they are always backed by the State, and that makes them sound. Labour and materials being available, we, are not going to stop providing our people with houses, and our children with schools in which to be educated, not forgetting proper school houses for our teachers. As I said before, there are two limits, labour and materials. So far as money is concerned, our job is to develop the money system in New Zealand, to enable us to develop New Zealand for the benefit of the people of New Zealand, and the limit begins only when we start to turn out money without creating wealth, that is, by turning the handle of the printing press. We do not belong to the printing press brigade."

EMPLOYMENT. Mr. Holland said the time had come when something should be said about the question of unemployment. He contended that the Government s promises in this respect had not been fulfilled. He said that comparing the figures of the past with those of the present, the unemployment position had never been worse. There were more men employed by the Public Works Dpartment now than ever before, and this was done, and quite rightly so, to relieve the unemployment situation. • Mr. Webb said he believed it would soon be possible to find work for all the employable unemployed, and. to clear up the mess which the previous Government had left them. He appealed for co-operation in solving the problems regarding unemployment with which they were faced, and he was sure these problems would be solved. Mr. Hargest attacked the railways |

administration, and said that none had made such a failure of it as the present Minister of Railways, who had been entrusted with the control of the largest business undertaking in New Zealand. In 1935, the railways were in the best condition they had ever been so far as finances were concerned, but since then they had gone from bad to worse.

Mr. Sullivan said he was particularly disappointed at the attack on the railways administration, . and by the reflection by the previous speaker that the service of twenty thousand railwaymen to-day was not so good as when under the control of the Railways Board. The Minister pointed out that restoration of wages cuts and forty hour week had increased enormously the working costs of the service, and he was perfectly certain that if the railways had been under anything but Ministerial control, it would have made very substantial increases in fares and freights to recoup itself for the losses incurred by higher wages and the shorter working week. MR. NASH ATTACKED. Mr. Polson urged the Government to return to prudent methods of finance. He referred to the trips abroad by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Finance. With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip, Mr. Polson said Mr. Savage nad represented the country ably and well and he wished to congratulate him upon it. Even the Minister of Labour’s trip might possibly have been a good investment, but he did not think the Minister of Finance’s trip was worth the money. Mr. Nash had gone abroad with an offer he should spend in Great Britain the proceeds of the whole of New Zealand’s produce on the purchase of British goods. How far had he succeeded? With regard to the meat agreement, this could have been quite as satisfactorily concluded if Mr. Nash had remained in New Zealand. Mr. Lyon dealt with the unemployment position and quoted figures showing the unemployment decrease was forty per cent, since the Labour Government had taken office, two years ago.

' Mr. Bodkin contended that the Government’s legislation had been responsible for greatly increased costs to the producers, and had driven both men and capital out of industry. Mr. Hodgens said the Government was giving to those of from eighteen to twenty-five years, an opportunity of picking up a trade which had been denied them by the previous government.

Mr. Smith said all the Government had done towards abolishing unemployment was to abolish the Unemployment Board, change the name ol the Act, and put twenty-two thousand men on public works. That was not solving unemployment. Mr. Lee contrasted the policy of the Coalition Government, in regard Io housing, with that of the present administration, which he said had nothing <o be ashamed of in this respect, lie admitted there had been increased Government expenditure but he would remind them that eight thousand invalid pensioners were now receiving money from the Government who were not doing so from the previous Government. He contended that New Zealand’s present marketing policy had been a stupendous success and for the first time in years, New Zealand had been able to close the gap which separated the Danish product from that of New Zealand. The Government’s marketing policy had paid a hundred fold for the trip of the Minister of Finance.

The debate was continued by Mr Holyoake and Mr. Roberts. The House went into committee on the Bill, the second reading of which was passed.

Mr. Hamilton asked if the measure provided for more or less expenditure than usual. Mr. Nash assured him the Bill which provides for the expenditure of £8,781,000 was the usual machinerymeasure. It was passed through all stages without further discussion, the House rising at 12.20 until 7.30 p.m. tonight, when the Address-in-Reply debate will begin. MR. POLSON AND THE “STANDARD.” Mr. Polson asked the Minister of Justice whether he had seen the at tack on one of our Supreme Court Judges, in the official organ of the Labour Party, “The Standard,” on August 19, in connection with the Otago Clerical Workers’ dispute, in which it said: “The man cannot, even read law aright, to say' nothing of his understanding of contemporary industrial history. The man cannot even state the ordinary everyday facts correctly,” and goes on to charge the learned judge with political prejudice. Mr. Polson asked whether the Minister did not consider the article constituted gross contempt of Court, and what steps he had taken or intends to take to deal with it.