PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1922, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. BUDGET DEBATE CONTINUED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington,. Last Night. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Replying to Dr. H. T. Thacker (Christchurch East), Mr. Massey said remits from the municipal and counties’ confereiices "■ were always considered first by the Internal Affairs Department and then by the Government, and at the first opportunity amendments are embodied in the Acts. Replying to Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South), the Hon. W. Nosworthy said the c.i.f. price of £2 12s 3d per ton for Nauru phosphates covered all charges, both at this end and at Nauru. Replying to Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition), Mr. Nosworthy said it was possible for a representative of the Farmers’ Union to be placed on the Board of Agriculture, but he was not sure whether it could be done without an amendment of the Act.

The debate on the Financial Statement was resumed by Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South), who said it was not denied by the Opposition that some economies had been made, but many of those claimed by the Government were purely fanciful, and the Government was too late in facing the position. Features of the Budget were that it did not disclose the taxation proposals of the Government, and for the first time for thirty-three years it declared a deficit, and this in spite of the fact that taxation was at the highest limit, even above the war years. Most people would think it queer finance which gave away £470,000 in rebates and ended up with a deficit of £339,000. The latest figures showed that every year since 1912 our taxation was higher per head than in Australia. Last year the net national debt had been increased by nearly £11,000,000. an increase amounting to nearly £5 per head of the population. REVENUE FROM LIQUOR. Sir John Luke ■ (Wellington North) said the Government was justified in waiting in order to find out the ability of the community to meet the taxation that must be imposed, and decide in what direction taxation could be best reduced. The Government had done its duty, but he hoped there would be no need to make further inroads into public service salaries. The Government was bound to make provision for the unemployment problem. Dealing with hydro-electric schemes, he said many of these were initiated in times when prices were quite different to what they are to-day, and he was afraid this difference in cost might cause them to be less profitable than was at first supposed. The Government, however, was committed to the schemes, and it was their duty to do everything in their power to make them a success in the interests of the people. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) said features of the Budget were: (1) That for the first time in many years it showed a deficit; and (2) that it lacked courage, inasmuch as the Premier had not told the House what he proposed to do in the event of prohibition being carried at the next poll. Mr. Massey: Parliament will be called together. Mr. McCallum, continuing, said that might be one way of dealing with the question, but the policy of the Government should have been laid down in the Budget, and the Premier should, in the present financial stress, have boldly told the people that they should not carry prohibition. Mr. Massey: Should I tell the people how they should vote?

Mr. McCallum: That is what I am [saying. You have not the courage to do It, and that is my second fault with the Budget. Mr. McCallum maintained that the Valuation Department should be remodelled. and the Commissioner of Tax'es should be Valuer-General. At present the Commissioner of Taxes had no control over values, and the »result was that large land-owners were very tenderly treated, yet when properties were being bought these low assessments of the Valuation Department were disregarded, so that the position was not legical and amounted to a public scandal,. MINISTER DEFENDS BUDGET. The Hon. E. P. Lee said those who criticised the reduction in public service salaries were not candid enough to say that if they got into power they would refund the amount saved in this direction. They would not say that because they knew that they could not do it. Mr. Lee said the Opposition had complained of the Government's expenditure, but not one of them had suggested how it could be cut down. Cutting down expenditure was not a popular thing to do, especially in an election year, but the Government had not hesitated to do it, even though it was unpopular. The Labor Party had one way of cutting down expenditure, and that was by not paying interest on loans. Labor members: Where did you hear that? You are distorting the position. Continuing.. Mr. Lee said there was another method by which the Labor Party would meet the position. Tney would pay interest on loans, but immediately take it back by some means of taxation, which would amount to confiscation. If, however, the Labor Party would honor the present contracts then the House and the country had a right to know from what source they would get revenue to carry on and meet the present expenditure. They said they would give larger pensions and granz other concessions, but where would the money come from? No one would object to give old people larger pensions if it could be done, but there were limits, and he contended we had reached that limit. Critics of the Government clearly, were not prepared to say in what direction they would increase taxation to provide revenue to meet, the expenditure to carry on the affairs of the jountry. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) charged the Premier with dragging the Union Jack in the mud by practically charging the Opposition with disloyalty. This brought a heated denial -from the Premier. At this stage the debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 10.55 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow