BUDGET DEBATE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 20, 16 October 1937, Page 7

BUDGET DEBATE

-Presa Association.)

Government's Intentions on Transport SINGLE OWNERSHIP

(B 3 Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Last Night. The debate on the Financial Statement was continucd when the House resumed at 2.30. One matter which was causing grave concern, said Mr S. G. Smith, was the Government's apparent intention with regard to single ownership of the transport system. There was not one mention of the subject in the Budget, and the Minister of Transport (Hon. R. Semple) should make it clear during the debate what the Government intended to do. _ There was a feeling of insecurity in the transport service, and he contfended that if the Government was determiiied to have only one owner in this service, it should have courage enough to say so. It should not use all tho power of the Railway Department to (lower freight chargns and crush eompetitors out of business. That was confiscation. Mr Smith also criticised the Government for its failure to indicate clearly its land settlement policy and its attitude t?owards defence and the returned soldier. It needed to watch the Internal Marketing Department very closely. He had not known of one successful cage in which the State had entered private enterprise. If the Labour Government remained long enough in office the small trader would be put out of business -and larger businesses would go later. Then would pome complete socialisation of industry. Mr B. Roberts congratulated Hon. W. Nash on the trade agreements for which he had been responsible and said nothing was to he gained by international Strife. Mr George Lansbury had said Lt was not & question of one nation going down, but of the destruetion of civilisation itself. He defended the guaranteed price scheme, stating it was a step towards orderly marketing, and said the Government had a genuine desire to keep costs down for the dairy farmer. He instanced the fact that, under past governments, when Jmtterfat production had increased, the farmers had not reeeived commensurately increased xeturns, but under the Labour Government, if the butterfat production iu New Zealand were doubled thoro would be double the income for tho dairy farmers. The country had reached the stago, he said, when it must concentrate on the development of the dairy and other primary industries. He drew attontion to the fact, however, that our quota 1 for pig flesh on the British market was , uot nearly filled. It would be a foolish policy on our part largely to increase the quautities of dairy produce on the British market, depressing the prices there and causing embarrassment to the British farmer, but we should concentrate on expanding the pig industry and filling the quota which the British Government invited us to supply. Tho money which waa being allocated for public works would bring beneflt to both town and country alike, and the ivorking farmer would have cause to ileel gratified at the proniise Which the guaranteed price offercd him. There had never been so much prpmifle as was offering at the present time for a man to go on the land. Mr H. S. S. Kyle drew attqntion to the fact that agriculture was not mentiorned in the Budget, Here we were with £64,000,000 worth of primary produce, gbing out of the country and not a wOfd about agriculture was in tho index of the Budget, nor was it in the Budget last year. We could not carry on pur social services unless there was production to pay for them. Australia was developing her primary industries far faster than we were and in timo would be our most serious competitor. They had a land dovelopment policy iu the Commonwealth, but we had none here. It would bo far better to place people on the land to develop it than to throw money away paying sustenance. The House adjourned at 5.30 until 2.30 on Tuesday-