The Budget Debate

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 11, 6 October 1937, Page 5

The Budget Debate

I'tea? AssociatiQD,)

LABOUR IN N.Z. Country May Have to Eat "Husks of Adversity"

CRITICAL NATIONALIST

(By Telesraph—

WELLINGTON, This Day. The linancial debate was continued in tbe House of RepreBentatj ves yesterday. Discussion was restricted to the afternoon sitting, other business being taken in the evening. Threo mombers contributed to tho debate. The first speaker was Mr K, J. HoTyoake (Opposition, Motueka). "With prodigals in cbarge of cxpenditure we find that, instead of an 'eat, drink and be merry Budget,' we have an 'eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow we die' Budget," said Mr Holyoake. "The Prime Miuister has said that he would be glad to have this 1937 Budget* known as the 'eat, drink and be merry' Budget. But he has to rcmember that there is anotker line to the quotation— ' eat drink nnd be merry, for to-morrow we die.' " The Minister of Education, Hon. P. Fraser: You died yesterday, ' ' I can at least assure the' Minister of Education that I will not die Red," said Mr Holyoake. "In any caso, 1 expected a cheap retort from the Mininter of Education." Mr Holyoake claimed that with tne national revenue as buoyant as it was to-day, the people bad had every justification for expecting relief from a heavy burden of taxation. Eeverting to a Biblical allusion, Mr Holyoake suggested that the Government might find, like the prodigal son, that the country would have to eat tho husks of adversity. Mr A. G. Osborne (Government* Manukau): But they ate all the huska three years ago. "But what is the fatted calf that the Government will have to kill on the return of the prodigal son?" Mr Holyoake asked. "Will it he our great dairying industry, or some of our leading secondary industries? I think that one could be pardoned for . suggesting that in the existing cfrcumstances a disaster similar to the depression of 1930-1934 might arise, as the result of the Government's policy." Past Performances Traversing budgetary history since 1929 and the effects of economic depression on the policy of the previous Government, Mr Holyoake said that the national incoine of the Dominion had fallen from £150,000,000 in 1929 to £98,000,000 in 1931. He defended the economy measures taken by the previous Government. lnside a balanced Budget, the previous Government hnd been able to institute a war'veterans' aliowance, whieh had amounted to another pension, had been able to Teduce the employnient taxation and had also been able to make certain additions to the list of exeinptions from the saies fax. . Mr. Holyoake said that, instead of increasing taxation, the Government should be lightening the load to enable industry and private individuals to create reservOs. Mr. H. M. Christie (Government, Waipawa): What did your Government do? Mr. Holyoake: I have never had a Government. In days to come, when the hon. gentleman is sitting in liis batbehair he will fead about the doings of the Holyoake Government, (Lnugh ter.) A Labour member, continued Mr. Holyoake, had asserted that the only basis of purcbasing power was production. That was true, but purchasing power ip. New Zealand must still be influenced by the exchango value of our goods on the overseas markets. The Government was setting aside £17,000,000 for public works, piacticnlly all of which were desirable and must be carried out gt some time or other. Many of the proposed works, however, could be dei'erred for a few years. It was a wise policy in boom times to taper off public works and build up researves for the iuevitablo rainy day, but appareufcly the Government had not learned that lesson. "There are a lob of things in tho taxation system that the Prime Marua-' ter and members on these benches do not like, but we will deal with tljem in due course,'' said Mr. J. F. C. Cot« terill (Government, Wanganui). "Brag, Boom and Bust." The member for Stratford, Mr. W. J, Polson, had described the Budget as » "brag, boom, and bust" Budget, Mr. Cotterill said, but when the Opposition was challenged to say what expenditure it would cut down it was silent. The member for Motueka, Mr. K. J. Holyoake, had mentioned that the cuts in wages and pensions could have been lighter, in the light of experience. So it appeared that when the past Government made partial restorations it was making a death-bed repentance. Mr. Cotterill defended the control of tlie railways by tho Minister, which, he said, compared more than favourably with the control by the Railways Board. The previous Government had been bereft of a railways policy and that wa» why it had appointed a Railways Board to do the job for it "Here we have a Labour and radical Government, and it& policy is borrow and tax. In Great Britain we find a Conservative Government in power and there we find the same policy-,-borrow and tax again," said Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Independent, Franldin). Tw> of the most objectionable taxes were the saies tax and the unemploymeni. tax. He suggested the Government might do away with the saies tax and draw upon the Reserve Bank for the equivalent of the amount that would be lost. There had been a considerable increase in the amount of credit that had been created by the Reserve Bank for the Dairy Industry Account. "Family Man Hit." Oue ieature of the Budget many people would be sorr.y to see was that there was ..no further provisitm for children's allowapces. Thj f'jrjJl

man was hit at overy turn, and he had had his difficulties further increased by the rise in the cost of living. The view that the Government's guaranteed price scheme had failed to solvo the problems whici) confronted dairy-farmers in New Zealand was expressed by Mr. Sexton, He said that thd manner in which labour requireinefits had been overlooked provided one outstanding instance of the failure of the new system to ttieet existing requirements. The return from the guaranteed price was not sufficient to place the farmer and his men on a footing of equality with men employed in other industries. An employee in the freczing works. handling the farmers' produce was paid £8 1/11 for a week of 58 hours. There was not a dairy-farmer in tho country who did not work more than 58 hours a week, but there were not many of them receiving a return of more than £8 for their week's labours. Men engaged in the killing of pigs earned up to £15 a week, but the farmer who was engaged in rearing tliese pigs received nothing like that sum. The debate was adjourned at the conclusion of Mr. Sexton's speecrh at 5.15 p.m.