Parliament at Work

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 179, 30 August 1929, Page 6

Parliament at Work

Per Press Association.

BUDGET DEBATE AGAIN Education Minister Oii Reform ROAB5 AND RAILWAYS

(Abridged Report). WELLINGTON, Last niglit. The finaneial debate was continued in tbe House of Represeiitatives tlns afternoon by Alr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont), who expressed the opinion that Afr Coates had committed an error of judgment in connection with liis want . of confidenee motion. Had it not eontained so many a&pects it miglit liave been possible for 6ome members outside the TJnited Party to have supported the Reform amendment. He considered it would have been preferable to have selected speeific cases for objection, instead of including them all in oue amendment. As it was it had been indieated to the public that the Reform Party stood isolated fronx all other members of the House. Tlie increase in the primage duty wos critieised by Mr "Wilkinson, who said it did not seem to him to he Bound business to rely on customs taxation for ndditionai revenue. as m times of stress there was a tendeney for customs returns to shrink. Eurther, he helieved it would nnpose an unfair hurden on workers and farmers. HEAVIER LICENSE FEES. Mr Wilkinson also expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal to reduce the amount of the mortgage exemption, whicli he considered could result In nothing but harm. He urgently requested the Prime Minister to reconsider t-his proposal. It would not be fair to tax a man who was heavily in debt. He suggested that the taxation of farmers should be baced on their incomes, and not regardless of whether they were making a profit or not. Too mueh of the country's revenue wa? raised by customs taxation. More should be derived from wealthy people, especially wealtliy land owners. Mr Wilkinson urged that the hotel license fee should be increased. It stood at the same figure to-day — liamely, £40 per vear, as had been fixed fifty years ago, and the revenue from t-his source amounted to only £41,000 per year. Tliere was no reason why it should not be £400,000. The gross value of hotel property in the Dominion was over £6,000,000 and there was an enormous profit in the trade. An increase would not harm anybody. Perhaps one reason why this fee had never been increased was that it was cnllected by local bodies. He suggested that the Government should pay local bodies flie amount they now reoeived and keen the balance derived from increased fees. Mr Wilkinson expressed donbt as to the advisability of the completion of the South Island main trunk railway, and advocated a careful mvesfigation into all extensive expenditure on railwavs.

LUXURIES AND TAXES. Mr J. N. Massey (Franklin) referred to the methods that had been adopted in the G'omiiionwealtii to meet the position created by the deficit, and he believed similar proposals in New Zealand would have been more acceptable to the country generally than those put forward in the Budget. An increased tax on luxuries without raising the cost of Iiving should have been ihe objeetive of the Government. Mr Massey, eontinumg, advocated the establishment of camps on undeveloped areas, where boys could be taught farming. Alr A. J. Murdoch (Marsden) reeomiriended the construction of concrete roads in preference to bitumen roads. He stated that whereas bitumen was largely imported, the use of concrete would bring mto employment more of our own labour and more of our own material. We had our own cement works and one company had recently made a reasonable offer to the Higliways Board, which had been requested to put down a trial concrete road. Afr Afurdoch expressed the view that expense could be saved if one board were to nndertake the work of tlie Afeat Board and the Bulter Board. MR H, M. CAMPBELL. ATr H. M. Campbell (Hawke's Bay) expressed his support of tbe views outlined by Mr Murdoch in referenee to concrete roads. He voiced his opposition to the completion of the South Island main trunk railway, stating that the expenditure that this project would entail was unwarranted in the present time of stress. He described the withholding of the grant to the Higliways Board as a distinct breach of faitli. The Hon II. Atmore replied to Alr Dickie's statement that the Lnited Government would have been less able to eope with tlie returned soldiers settlement scheme than the Reform adminstration had. He referred to the predictions of Sir Jaseph Ward at the time the lleform Party's scheme had been outlined and stated that tlio.se views clearly showed that the present Prime Minister had foreseen the costliness and failures of settlcrs that had characterised the scheme. Tlie Reform Party, in the face of warnings from Sir josepli Ward, had continued the policy of large purcliases at rising prices, and then the fall in prices had ccme. Alr Atmore repeatcd his criticism of the Kirikopuni railway, stating that a retnrn that had been supplied to Mr Barnard recently had indieated that £40,000 bad been lost on this line in ten months. He claimed that during the election Mr Coates had stated in other places that the completion of the South Island main trunk railway would cost £2,600,000, while he liad informed the late member for Wairau that the work would he undertaken He was thereby faced with his position. Either he had intended to mislead tlie people of Marlborough or he had been prepared to spend £2,600,000 on the work. Mr Atmore stated that the policy of completing main trunk lines had been one of the most important planks of the United Party's platforrn, and it had been announced as such tfchroughout the country. A SHAM FIGHT. At the conclusion of Mr Atmore's fepeech Mr Coates claimed to have been misrepresented. and proceeded to refer to several matters mentioned by Mr Atmore. The Speaker ruled him out of order in some respects and Mr Coates Etated that he would defer his remarks till he was speaking on a subsequent occasion. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) stated that he had heen surprised that no Teferenco to the education policy had [been contained in Mr Atmore's speechj Srhiohi- had, .developed -almost entirely

to criticism of tlie Reform administration. It had rcsembled an Opposition attnck on a Government more than a Ministerial reply to tlie Opposition. He could only conclude that the Minister had no policy. Mr Samuel referred to what he lermed "an amusiiig sidelight on politics." He stated that Mr Howard had described the present debate as a sham fight between the Reform and United Parties, and that in the past the members of tliese two pai'ties Jiad always gond into the same lobhv on fundamental issues, and then had come the bomhshell. A no-confidence ainemlment was moved and what was the outeome ? The Reform members were in oue lobby and Labour and the TJnited members went togetlier to the other. (Laugliter). Alr Howard had also stated that the Labour members would support the Government on proposals for progressive legislation. How would they classify the increase in ihe primage duty? Wonld they support the Government on that issue ? The House rose at 10.30 p.m. till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.