PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 16 February 1931, Page 2

PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT

POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS. FROM A GOVERNMENT ORGAN. (Christchurch “Times”). Declaring that a balanced Budget is essential and announcing his intention’ to achieve a balance in twelve months, Mr Forbes outlines somewhat heroic proposals. He plans a general reduction of all public salaries by 10 per cent, commencing on April 1, thereby saving the country a million and a half annually; ho proposes to increase postal and telegraphic rates to produce another £900,000, to increase taxation, especially the income tax, to the extent of £*850,000; and be will make expenditure reductions and adjustments saving a million and a quarter. There is no beating about the bush. There was no prospect of avoiding a deficit for the current year, of course, and most people would have been prepared to find the adjustment spread over a period of two or three years, but Mr Forbes.was evidently in no mood for half-measures. There are other proposals to follow, one that- is hinted at being the appropriation of part of the Highways Fund for general purposes. The Government proposes to place the railways under an independent board of directors “for a year or two/’ and to appoint commissions to report on the possibility of reducing expenditure on education and of reducing local body expenditure. An appeal is Issued to the general public to reduce expenditure, . and legislation is promised empowering the Arbitration Court to revise awards. The public, who have looked to the Prime Minister for a strong lead, will agree that lie lias not failed them, FROM AN OPPOSITION CRITIC. (Christchurch “Press.”)

It is first of all proper to say tliai the Prime Minister is entitled to the thanks of the Dominion for the lonu statement printed to-day. It was necessary that the facts should be fully surveyed, the position at the end of the financial year be estimated, the prospects for next year be reviewed, and the Government’s intentions straightforwardly declared. In almost every respect Mr Forbes’s statement fulfils these requirements; and it is not less but more pleasant to say this because it was uncertain, ns late as yesterday, that lie was ready to be quite so frank and quite so definite. The proposals themselves of course cun. not be so readily and unreservedly accepted. Some of them will have to bo closely examined, some are certainly disputable, some must be explained in greater detail before they can be reasonably estimated; but in general their direction and their force must be approved. Approval is more complete or less, however, as the statement is viewed in relation to one of its purposes or the other. Tt is an anticipation ,of the Government’s budgetary proposals; nml it also shows how the Government plans to help industry on to its feet again. Obviously, though the two purposes are connected and though the Government cannot budeet, wisely unless It helps industry wisely, and vice versa, the difference is important. From this point of vjew it xnppenrs flint the Government’s attack on the- industrial problem is more determined and more successful than on the budgetary one. The proposals are severe, but no more severe than they had to be. Tf local bodies and other large employers follow the Government’s lead—it does not seem to occur to Mr Forbes that they have many of them given tTie Government a lead!—scaling down should soon become effective with a minimum of distress and loss to the individual. But whatever credit is due to tlie Government for acting decisively now, it is necessary to remember that it is acting much too late, that the position which Mr Forbes more than once describes as sudden and unprecedented was in fact foreseeable and foreseen and urged on the Government’s attention, that it called for precautionary action and then for remedial action, and that the Government has neglected its duty until now,

the LABOUR viewpoint. MR J. M’COMBS CRITICISES DECISIONS. “It looks like a ’triumph for Mr Coates, I hardly expected such a complete surrender by the Liberals,” said Mr J, M’Combs, member for Lyttelton 1 when the Prime Minister’s financial decisions were brought under his notice, Mr M’Combs declared that the only fair way to impose increases was to tax all in proportion to their ability to pay, and he deprecated further reductions in the purchasing power of the mass of the people. “ff Sir Joseph Ward could know he might well ask why the Liberals had taken such trouble before the election and after to shift Mr Contes and his party from the Treasury benches,” Mr M’Combs added. “It has been said that the fight between the Liberals and the Tories after Mr Seddon died was largely a mock fight. It now seems that these two other parties intend to give up all pretence of fighting each other. “When Sir Joseph Ward came into office this last time one of his first announcements was that the men on relief works would be paid a living wage. He said that a low wage was bad for business and bad f° r the country. “Now we have his successors announcing a wholesale reduction in wages. The Budget must be balanced and the Prime Minister proposes to find most of the taxation by taking it out of the pockets of the public servants. The public servants, representing less

than 5 per cent of the community, are to suffer deductions totalling £1,509,000, and then pay their share of the new taxes, totalling £850,000, which are to be levied on the whole community. The public servants will certainly contribute the lion’s share. “First it should be noted that in prosperous times public servants do not participate in the huge profits that ai'e made by those strategically placed on the land and in business. The public servants did not participate in the war profits and it would be fair surely, to say, that those who participate in the profits should stand the losses; but i* that philosophy seems too harshly just, one would expect, at least, that all should agree to bear the burden and accept equality of sacrifice. PRESS COMMENT ON FINANCIAL PROPOSALS. | United Press Association—By Electn Telegraph.—C pyright.J (Received thi - day at 8 a.m.) LONDON, February 15. The “Observer” after referring to New Zealand’s bold, brave attempt to face realities, says the adoption of Mr Lang’s scheme will destroy Australia’s credit abroad and impoverish thousands of citizens at Home. Mr Lang’s parallel of the American debt settlement is wholly fallacious but Mr Scull in's proposal to lengthen the war debt redemption period is quite another tiling. I.t declares Mr Theodroe’s limited inflation plan is specious. Australians are not yet out of the wood.”