WELLINGTON TOPICS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1921, Page 7

WELLINGTON TOPICS

, THE BUDGET DEBATE. MR. WILFORD’S AMENDMENT. (Special Correspondent.) Wellington, Nov. 16. As was generally anticipated, the division on Mr. Wilford’s amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion for going into Committee of Supply, was taken last night, and rejected by the substantial majority of 37 to 21. There was no particular significance about the debate or about the division, unless it was the appearance of improving relations between the Liberals and the Labontes. The lines that divide the two parties appeared less and less pronounced as the debate progressed, and last night there seemed from their speeches little difference on questions that mattered between the views of Mr. George Forbes, a typical farmers’ representative, and those of Mr. E. J. Howard, one of the most progressive, as well as one of the most capable, of the Labor members. Mr. Howard, by the way, strongly resents the general assumption that the Labor Party is hostile to the interests of the farmers. He claims that no other party recognises so fully as the Labor Party does that the prosperity of the whole country is wrapped up in the prosperity of the men on the land, and that no other party is so anxious to promote their welfare. THE FARMERS’ FRIENDS. The discussion of the sew Customs tariff already is presenting difficulties to members of the House who wish to help the Government through its troubles and at the same time to stand well with their constituents. -Sir John Luke, the member for Wellington North, is one of the faithful followers of Mr. Massey who are finding themselves sadly perplexed in this connection. Sir John wants protection for certain city industries through the tariff, and last week he turned angrily upon the country members who did not share his aspirations. The butter subsidy, he said, had been paid to help the farmers. It was mere camouflage to say that the subsidy had been intended to make things easier for the consumers. The subsidy was assistance for the farmer himself. Naturally this brought a storm of angry and derisive protest from the country members. The fact is. of course, that the subsidy was paid to the farmers to (Secure a supply of butter for local consumption at a lower price than the one the Imperial Government was paying for the Dominion’s exportable balance. The subsidy was not to help the farmers in any way, but to enable the consumers to obtain cheaper butter. A FAMILY QUARREL.

No doubt Sir John Luke has been taken to task by his party leader for his “astounding mis-statement of the facts,” as his attempt to score off the farmers for the benefit of his own constituents has been described by one of his critics. But this has not prevented the whole system of subsidies being brought under review by people who are anxious to make party capital out of their payment. The butter subsidy, according to the available figures, cost the country £•273.438 in 1919-20, £310,(503 in 192021. and is estimated to cost £512,397 in 1921-22. Here is a total of £1.096.436 for the three years, and a very large part of it remaining to be paid during the current financial year, when the Minister of Finance is finding the very greatest difficulty in laying his hand upon money to keep the machinery of State moving. By and by some' one will ask for a return showing exactly how the subsidy money was expended, but meanwhile there is no ground, for Sir John Luke’s assertion that it went into the pockets of the farmers as extra profits. KEROSENE. Very strong protests against the increase of the duty on kerosene and similar oil spirits are reaching th& Government from various quarters. It is being represented to Mr. Massey and his colleagues that the duty is a class tax which is not going to fall upon the wealthy, as the compilers of the tariff have supposed, but upon the poor and •pon the struggling back-blocks settler, there is a movement in the House to impress this view upon the Prime Minister, and. if necessary, to take a vote on the duty should it be retained in the schedule. It is expected by the promoters of the movement, however, that Mr. Massey will recognise the force of their objection and withdraw the proposal. They claim to have the weight of big battalions on their side, and t/his always is an eloquent argument in the determination of questions of the kind. But if the kerosene duty is abandoned probably some other charge will be added to the schedule. Mr. Massey has reiterated the necessity of obtaining the amount of money he is seeking, and he rarely goee back on his calculations in this respect.