WORK OF PARLIAMENT,

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3324, 16 September 1911, Page 7

WORK OF PARLIAMENT,

DEBATE ON BUDGET CONTINUED. MEMBERS ON' THE ELECTION PROSPECTS. CFER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Sept. 15. When the House met at 2.30 the debate on the Budget was resumed by Mr Arnold (Dunedin C.) who. pointed out that the main question had not been touched on except by the first two speakers. He looked upon the Opposition as dead as Julius Caesar, and thought the Government would do better to. watch Hie under currents running through the Dominion than pay so much attention to the Opposition. Personally he would always be found with the progressive party in the House irrespective of its title. He considered the Budget the most progressive for .many years past, and would heartily support it. Referring to the labor problem, he held that what the workers required was the right to work, not charity, and an unemployment insurance scheme did not fully cover this matter.

Mr Allen (Bruce) argued that the Opposition so far from being dead would come back from the country strengthened. In reference to insurance against unemployment, his party would make an honest endeavor to do something tangible in the matter. He pointed to the necessity for something being done for Central Otago. Appropriations made had never been expended,. and now on the eve of an election the Government proposed to do something. He expressed regret at the waste of money in railway construction all over the Dominion maintaining that lighter lines should be built in new country. The extraordinary haste with which the Budget was framed had resulted in inaccuracies and mis-state-ments, and the Premier had misrepresented 1 to the the amount of the national debt. The Premier had put the debt higher than it actually was, stating it to be eighty-one millions, instead of seventy-seven millions. These •figures served to show the inaccuracies in the Budget. He took exception to the statement that the Treasury bills had been paid off, inasmuch as they had been renewed a few weeks after being cleared. Errors usually occurred to make the figures appear in favor of the treasurer, and such tilings did not tend to give confidence in the compiler of the figures. Mr Russell, replying to Mr Allen, said his speech might be characterised as fault-finding and nagging on minpr details. He was convinced the country was sound and prosperous, which would not be the case with' a change of Government. The Budget generally was optimistic, with supreme confidence in the people and a- broad humanitarian view of all matters. The Opposition members were calling out “What is the land policy?” “Why,” said Mr Russell, “it is all in present law. That is the policy.” To point his remark he mentioned that for the year ending March, 1911, 1,412,742 acres had been taken up by 2267 selectors. Mr. Herdman Hits Out. On the House resuming in the evening, Mr Herdman (Wellington N.), traversed the previous speaker’s statement regarding the land settled, pointing out that 644,000 acres of the amount stated were pastoral runs which had been renewed. He declared the whole statement regarding Treasury Bills was slippery. . Ruling on a point of order raised by Sir- Jos. Ward, the Speaker said the word “slippery” was only used in a political sense. Mr Herdman (continuing) declared that the cost of railway construction had materially increased between 1906 and 1911, the difference being £4BOO per mile. The Budget he described as a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to rehab date themselves. It showed nothing as to how Native lands were to be settled, nor wa6 there any reference made to that “expensive superfluity” the Legislative Council. He contended that the general trend of legislation and the manner of taxation was having a disastrous effect on the working man. He would, lie said in reply to an interjection, repeal the Arbitration Act to-morrow. Mr Laurensen (Lyttelton) maintained that the Budget contained more farreaching and humanitarian proposals than were ever put before the country in any previous Budget. He controverted Mr Massey’s contention that the Government was to blame for the increased cost of living, saying that the Government had taken the duty off practically the main imported' foods. As to Mr Okey’s contention that the leasehold should be the stepping stone to the freehold, lie reminded him that the Government had legislated for prosperity not for this decade. In regard to increased cost of railway _ construction, it had to be borne in inind that more precipitous country had to be opened now than formerly. lie urged the Premier to concentrate his attention on the proper education of the young, to fit them for world usefulness and self-reliance, and also upon a sound kind policy with an increased graduated tax. Mr Fisher (Wellington Central), characterised the Budget as an electioneering one pure and simple, and said it provided for everything except lunatics and collectors of moa bones. Dealing with taxation he asked if high rents were. due to enormously inflated land values and were they not taxation also on the under-paid laborers (those least .able to bear it), and were monopolies not a form of taxation. It had been suggested' that the oil and iron industries should be nationalised to prevent them getting into the hands of monopolists. Why, he asked, was not the Union S.S. Company nationalised? The Budget was full of inaccuracies, and was rubbish. The Government would find when matters were straightened out that the profits from the State industries would not pay even the defence bill for the year. The House rose at 11.30 p.m.