A DISAPPOINTING SPEECH.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 28, 27 October 1937, Page 4

A DISAPPOINTING SPEECH.

The speeeh with which the Minister of Finance has wound t the debate on his Budget is to be commended in at least one respect, and that is the restrained tone in which it was delivered — certainly a very welcome change from the wild tirades in which so many of his colleagues, from the Prime Minister downwards, are wont to indulge themselves. But having said that, it has to be confessed that in the matter qf it there is very little to be found that affords enlightenment cfn the really big fmancial questions that are engaging the thoughts of those most competent to discuss them. The first impression to be gained from the report of the speech is very. much that of a "cra?y" quilt composed of odd remnants picked up at random and loosely stitched .together. There is absolutely nothing in it that can be said to deal in any statesmanhke broad or comprqhensive way with the fmancial jolicy of the present Governmeut, as to which the country is left just as much in the dark as ever. The only conclusion to be reached is either that the Government has no such settled policy — or that it is of such a character that Mr Nash is afraid to disclose it in case it might prejudice his party's chances at the next election. We have, for instance, positively nothing with regard to the handling, through the Reserve Bank, of the "national credit," of which so much was made at election time. All that we have been told on that point is that it has been used for financing the Government's speculation in export dairy products and is to be used, to the extent of ^5-miUion at any rate, in carrying through the State housing scheme — but no single word as to the terms upon which these advances have been or are to be made, or as to whether there is to be any limit to this recourse other than the sky of which the Prime Minister is so fond of speaking. When in Canada Mr Nash, ip a broadcast, spoke of a "controlled' * issue of ^5-million of "new money" for homebuilding purposes, but among his own people he has not gone even so far as that, while Mr Savage has said that "nothing is going to suffer for lack of money, which is there to be had fpr the asking." Whatever may be Mr Nash's own ideas on the subject, it looks very. much as if he would have some difficulty in "controlling" the Prime Minister and doubtless also some of his other spending colleagues. Perhaps this to some extent acocunts for him sitting mum on the subject of national credit, being painfully conscious that under pressure he may at any time be called upon to turn on the watering tap and run a few more mjilions into the milk-pail, That, at any rate, would seem to be what Mr Savage means, and what Mr Savage says has tp go. Then, who is going to invest good money to come into competition with an uncontrolled flood of what is -virtually just as much "paper" money as were the hundred-million-marks notes issued in Germany after the war. Then, on the vital subject of taxation, Mr Nash makes only a very shadowy attempt to square the extra ^"io-million he is collecting this year with his party's very defmite pre-elec-tion promise that taxation would be kept down. He certainly makes the rather lame excuse that the Government knows better how to use the money than do the people from whom it is taken — a contention that gains but little support from the squandering of millions on non-productive under takings that is going on in everybody's sight. Then, judging by what little the Minister has had to say on the subject, under a Labour Government taxation is always to be maintained at the level of the taxpayers' utmost capaeity to pay — not a very comfoyting outlook, Then, no more than does the Minister of Labour does Mr Nash make any attempt to reconcile the ciaim to have reduced unemployment to a minimum with his collection of an extra £li-million in unemployment taxation. This must stir at least some little gratitude on the taxpayers' part for the fact that the previous Government during its last year saw its way to reduce the rate of the unemployment charge by one-third, otherwjse no doubt we should still be paying out a shilling in the £ instead of only 8d. What Mr Nash would really seem to have done was to pick out a few of the items of criticism that seemed easiest to answer. Then in answering them he has' had recourse to little more than a mere reiteration of previous assertions, not a few of which have been convincingly shown to be baseless. We were surely entitled to expect something more statesmanl like than this from a Finance Minister whom his chief proclaims to be the "finest in the world.'1