IN DEFENCE OF BUDGET

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1046, 9 August 1930, Page 1

IN DEFENCE OF BUDGET

Prime Minister Explains

REASONS FOR PETROL-TAX

THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, Friday. IN a speech full of pugnacity, the Prime Minister, the Hon. G. W. Forbes was iu good form today in tlie House of Representatives, when he defended the Budget proposals generally and the petrol-tax in particular. He emphasised the fact that users of the roads must ->ay for them and said that more help would be given in the direction of developing backblocks roads than hitherto.

the Consolidated Fund to the Highways Account should be shifted from the general taxpayer to the users of the roads, and it was quite a fair thing to put the extra tax on tlie shoulders of the road-users. He did not know whether the member for Chalmers, Mr. A. E. Ansell. spoke for the motorists of New Zealand or not, but ho was certain that the general motorists did not take the same narrow view of things that Mr. Ansell bad revealed in his speech. A good deal had been said about the transfer of £200,000 from the Public Works Fund, and it had been alleged that the Government had dishonoured its promises. The grant, however, had been made originally when the funds of the Main Highways Board were very small indeed. It was recognised that some assistance should be given to the board, and the grant was made from the Public Works Fund. Then, four years later, the petrol-tax was introduced and this brought about a million to the funds. The grants still were made, and could be made, but only as long as there was plenty of money for the purpose. Now, however, with a serious shortage. the same thing could not be done, and the road-users were now being asked to pay their fair share of construction cost. They were not being denied the money, but the extra petroltax would provide for subsidies and payments made in tlie past from the Consolidated Fund. With the revenue from the tax special attention would be paid to the development of backblocks roads. The petrol-tax did not affect the Consolidated Fund at all, said Mr. Forbes, snapping his fingers, for the Government had decided that the road-users should pay. HIGHWAYS FUND MAY BE SHORT

If the House decided against that, the Main Highways Board funds would be short by the amount of the tax revenue, for the burden was to be taken from the shoulders of the general taxpayer. So far as the Government was concerned its portion was the control of the Consolidated Fund and seeing that taxation was levied fairly and justly. If that position were put before the taxpayer, he would agree that it was a fair thing for the users to pay for the oads. Roads were being opened up all over the country. For whom were they opened? Were they there for scenery? No, they were there for the motorist, who so far had not paid a shilling toward their construction. Nothing had been dt I e for the backblocks roads, the users of which bore their share of taxation, and were entitled to a measure of relief. After the highways grants had been made, the remainder of the money from the petroltax would be used for the development of backblocks roads. The Government had been accused of having no sympathy for the farmer. What utter rubbish that was! Mr. Forbes was a farmer himself and knew the difficulties the farmer had to face. Under tlie new taxation, up to £140,090 would be available for backblocks roads and members who joined the hue and cry after the Government over the petrol tax forgot the interests of those they represented if there were any backblocks roads in their constituencies.

The allocations of the grants for the development of roads in outlying districts would bo largely followed, he said, in «the division of the petrol tax revenue. For instance, the Bay of Islands last year had 17 per oent. of the outlying districts vote expended on it and yet tlie member for that district, Mr. H. M. Rush worth, went into the

Mr. Forbes said that payments from lobby voting against the, Government

Mr. Foi'bes knew that Mr. Rush worth's constituents had not sent him to too House to vote Reform into office i.gain. ELECTORATES BENEFITED The Prime Minister went on to read a list of electorates £o which votes hud been Riven last year, the grants totalling £ 54,083. He also gave particulars of the amounts expended on tbe districts as regards parties. On United districts £ 7,280 or 13.5 per cent, had been spent. On Reform areas the total was £15.118, or 38 per cent., sja on Labour districts £20,434. or 37-7 per cent. Reformers: Aha! Mr. Forbes continued that the total for the Independent and Country Party districts was £11.262. or 20.8 per cent. Discussing the allegations that tbo Government had not kept faith in its contribution toward the cost of repairing the damage done to roads by th« earthquake on the West Coast last year. Mr. Forbes said that those meetings of motorists and local bodies who passed resolutions against the Government showed a very narrow spirit and were out of step with the opinion generally in New Zealand. He gave details of Government expenditure in the ’quake area, saying that _out of the revenue account was £48.335: from the Public Works fund, £24,878: amounts authorised. £13,739, totalling £86.950: public subscriptions, about £150,000; and from the Main Highways Board. £106,000. MORE HELP STILL What more, he asked, could be done in a case of national disaster than that? The Government had not finished in that connection yet. and would be called upon to give mora assistance. Replying to Mr. Ansel I, who a«ked if the Prime Minister intended to keep his promise, Mr. Forbes denied having made a promise on the subject. When the Prime Minister had finished. Mr. Rushworth rose and said that Mr. Forbes had implied that he was pledged to support the Government right or wrong. That was not so. Pie was pledged to vote for the restoration of the economic balance, and also to vote for measures and not for party.