MR. FIELD AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1744, 4 August 1917, Page 2

MR. FIELD AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

SPEAKING in the House'on Thursday night, during the second reading debate on the £24,0(H),000 loan Bill, Mr W. H. Field, M.P. for this constituency, said stricter supervision was necessary in regard to administration and to prevent extravagance. Mr Field complained that the supervision was practically in.the hands of a few military officers —that was what it practically amounted to. He now believed it had been (lie greatest-miifhike to set up a National Government, although lie was one of those who strongly advocated it. lie believed that what was wanted was a party in power with a strong Opposition to keep it in cheek. (Hear, hear). Continuing, Mr Field said he did not suggest that the National Government had not done good work, and he himself had been in favour of its formation. The next poiiff lie made was that there was a tremendous amount of waste going on m connection with some of the Government Departments. He expressed the linn belief that the principle'of the Bill was not satisfactory to the House, lie thought a belter plan would lie short-dated loans, or Unit an income tax allowance should he made to holders of war loan bonds. The effect of the present system would be to make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer, and as .time went on the rich man would he receiving (i, 7,8, or even 9 per cent. Ilis opinion was Unit the rich men of New Zealand would rush the war bonds as soon as tho load was opened, because (hey were regarded as a, guilt-edged investment. * » , -$ MR. FIELD may' have good and suflieient reasons for his outspoken criticism of the National Government, but we question whether Govermneht on parly linos would have accomplished anything better at this period. Mr FioSd is quite right in respect to wasteful extravagance in military mailers. The Minister for Defence has been led by (he nose by so-called military exports, a fair percentage of: whom are nothing more than chocolate soldiers and pooh-liahs. Air Field’s criticism of (he Avar loan is answered by the Finance Minis!or in his reply to the debate. Sir Joseph Ward said it was not the fact that the rich were favoured at the expense of the poor. If the Government proposed a loan at G per cent, with income tax, it would not raise the money required. Had the loan not: been placed on the market free of income tax it Avould not have been secured. In the last loan only 158 people had subscribed sums of £5. lie ridiculed the suggestionthal the big investor‘made £7 Gs Id per cent, out of the loan. If they went, on the market at 5 per cent., with income tax, the investor Avould obtain £3 2s Gd per cent. Was it likely that the Government would put a loan on the market at such a rale? In. the present crisis there avus only one country in which we should raise the money required, and. Unit avus New Zealand. To his mind it would be unjust: to attempt to press the British Government for any portion of the money at the present time. If any member thought the loan could be raised at 5, of or G per cent. Avilh income tax, he avus asking the Government to undertake a failure. If the necessity arose, lie did nov believe that many people would object to .give up everything (hey had. At this juncture (he duty of the Government and Parliament Avas to get the necessary money to carry the Avar through. He Avould have preferred that all these loans ■should have had taxation applied to them, and if this had been possible it Avould have been done Avithout question. The present method had been adopted out of necessity, and because the money could not be obtained outside of Ncav Zealand. Disaster to the loan would mean one of the most damaging things that could happen to the country.