BUDGET DEBATE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 November 1921, Page 5

BUDGET DEBATE.

AMENDMENT DEFEATED. MARGIN OF SIXTEEN VOTES. THE DIVISION LIST. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last NightThe debate pn the Budget was continued in the House to-day. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) severely condemned the Motor Vehicles Bill, declaring he would consider it his duty to prevent such a Bill passing until the whole of the Government’s proposal was before the House. They had heard of the Main Roads Bill, but that measure was being withheld from the House, and he considered members were being most unfairly treated, because local bodies were anxious to know what was going to happen in connection with roads over which they exercised jurisdiction. He condemned f the so-called economy now being carried out by the Government as being insufficient to make revenue and expenditure meet. In this respect the Government was not doing its duty to the country. He criticised the action of the Premier in deprecating a full discussion of the country’s position, and said the Premier’s reply to the farmers’ deputation was the most harmful thing that had happened to the Dominion for a long time. What was needed was more effective means of marketing our produce, but the Government sat down and did nothing. There was not a single word in the Budget about the marketing of produce, yet the Government claimed to be the farmers’ party. It was no wonder the farmers wanted a party of their own to do things for themselves. The real trouble was that nothing could be done until the Premier could give his personal attention, because we were suffering from a one-man Government. A MINISTER IN REPLYThe Hon. W. Nosworthy said the statement that there was nothing in the Budget about the marketing of produce was altogether misleading, and he referred to page eleven of the Budget. It was, he said, a Budget to be remembered, because it contained the best tariff ever brought down. He denied that the Government was holding up the business of Parliament; the boot was altogether on the other foot, for what was the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment doing but holding up the business of the; House and preventing members debating the tariff proposals? It had been said the Government was a minority Government, but speaking with a full sense of responsibility, he said he for one would never consent to an electoral system that would be unfair to the people, and the more he saw of proportional representation the more he was convinced it had not merit. Mr. Forbes complained that nothing could be done until the Premier could pass his opinion upon it, but who had a better right to pass an opinion on legislation to be brought down, because he was head of the Government and responsible for the work Parliament had to do. That was one of the first principles of constitutional government, and it was not the Premier’s fault that he had been compelled to leave the Dominion to attend upon important Imperial business elsewhere. The speaker then passed on to defend the administration of the Agricultural Department, contending it could not be further primed down and its efficiency maintained. Complaint had been made that the Tourist Department was not paying. The fact was that the tariff of tourist resorts had not been increased since 1903, in spite of the increased cost of living, but all this would be altered, and he could say that in future members would have no grounds for complaint on this score, for the pleasures and comforts of tourist resorts would no longer be given for nothing. The Government had found many of these abuses, and there were many barnacles which had to be knocked off the ship of State before she would float comfortably. Discussing taxation, he contended it had been more difficult to get a Bill through the House to reduce taxation than it was to put taxes on. He denied the reduction was in favor of the friends of the Government. Farmers were all so hard hit by the depression, and taxation in recent years had been so heavily increased, that something had to be done, yet the opposition fought the proposal during a whole night sitting. The Budget had only promised a readjustment of taxation, but they had, in fact, got a reduction in taxation, and that fact was appreciated by the people all over the Dominion.

HELPING THE FARMERS. He said Mr. Forbes had said the Government had not done anything for farmers, but the Minister doubted if ever a Government had done so much for farmers. The slump which came was not the fault of the Government, and if our produce could not be marketed as quickly as we would like, the Government was not responsible fox that. He was doing his best to get the producers’ committee to set up a board and appoint a representative to go to London to look after their interests there, yet the member for Hurunui declared the Government was doing nothing for farmers. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said he proposed to look at the Budget from the point of view of “the bottom dog”—the worker. It had been said there was no policy in the Budget, but he saw in it a policy that would bring sorrow and suffering to thousands this Christmas, and in that sense it was truly a Budget that would be remembered by many people in the next fifty years. On the one hand there was drastic retrenchment, and on the other hand there was a war to see who was to pay for the war. The workers, the tradesmen, and the small farmers were to pay for it. In support of this statement he quoted figures to show that in some cases the recent remission of taxation meant a reduction of £460. That was what the Budget meant to the rich man, but to the poor man it was a Budget of hunger and sorrow. The workers’ weekly budget showed many were living under the border line of what was considered the lair margin of comfort, but what had the Government clone to meet this position? He challenged the Premier to mention any legislation which he had passed relating to workers which was not penal legislation. , , xr , Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) defended the opposition against the charge of delaying the business of trie House, because criticism was tie function of the opposition. Criticising the tariff he confessed himself as disappointed at some of the proposals. Taxes on tea and kerosene were taxes on neTh* US WM »

war measure and should, have been oure of the first to go. Moreover, it Wft tax per pound and not per value, aa&l so the poor man’s 2s tea was taxfidg as highly as the rich man’s 5s tea. Hag hoped, that before the tariff propGSflftK passed the House this tea tax? wotokH disappear. On the other hand revenue should be strengthened by# some taxation not mentioned in theji Budget, a bachelor tax being a case in» point. Incidentally, he strongly advo--•cated the growing of beet sugar as being the one industry witb most promr ise of success and the fewest possibili-\ ties of failure. Coming back to the tariff, he found fault with it because was a tariff for the country and not for. the towns. It gave no protection to industry, and therefore he agreed with and would support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The speaker was proceeding to denounce the tariff because it did not tax Australian goods to the same extent as Australia taxed u£, when the Premier intervened and said the Government , was taking power to negotiate, and Australia would have to meet us or sit up. Mr. D. Jones (Kaiapoi), in reply to the objection that the Government was a minority Government, said the only safe course was for. the strongest party in the country to rule, and the only reason Mr. Wilford moved his amendment was to prevent the Leader of the Labor Party getting in first. He preferred that the Jjeader of the Labor Party should go into the lobby with' him, than that he should go into the lobby with the Leader of the Labor Party. Ho twitted Mr. Forbes with last year wanting to double taxation, and, yet this year declaring that the Government had betrayed the farmer. He (the speaker) was in a better position than most men to know just what the Government had done for farmers, but he was prepared to leave judgment in the hands of farmers. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West)' was opposed to the ten per cent, rebate 1 in land tax. The Premier stated the land tax had risen from £700.000 in. i 1914 to £1,600,000 in 1920, but he had not given the House a statement of the percentage of land tax to the total tax-* ation. Relatively to other taxes the land tax had fallen, not increased. Criticising the retrenchment policy of the Government he said the only idea the Ministry seemed to have was to reduce the number of public servants and cut down the salaries of those left in employment, and the Government called that economy. He called it insanity. -No salary under £3OO should be touched. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Centra])' said the Budget seemed to imply Uiat we should lean upon Britain for our markets, but this lie deprecated. Our beat market was our own internal market, and money spent upon seeking markets in Britain would be “better spent, in developing markets within our own borders. At the conclusion of Mr. Parry’s speech a division •on Mr. ‘Wilford’samendment was called for, with the result that it was defeated by 37 1 votes to 21. Following is the division list: —. For the amendment (21) —AtmonJ Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Holland, Hora, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, Kellett, Mas- , tere, Parry, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, S. G. Smith, Statham, Sullivan, Thacker, Wilford, Witty. Against the amendment (37) —Bit, chener, Bollard, Burnett, Campbell, Coates, J. C. Dickson, T. McDickson, J. S. Dickson, G. Dixon, Field, Guthrie, J. R. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken, Herries, Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Jones, Lee, Luke, McLeod, McNicol, MacKenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Sykes, Williams, Wright. Pairs —McCallum, Anderson, McCombs, A. Hamilton, Bartram, Glenn, Ngata, Henare, Mitchell, Dr. Newman, Hanan, Young, R. W. Smith, E. Newman.