It is usual for us at this stage simply to comment in a formal way on the Budget statement made by the Minister for Finance. Every Deputy probably came into the House as I did, expecting one principal item, namely, the item which would indicate the extent of the immediate relief which the Minister proposed for the farmers. I am sure that most of us, whether we express it by our votes or not, are genuinely disappointed—disappointed that after all the promises that have been made by the Government of relief for the farming community, the £1,000,000 which was specifically mentioned on previous occasions should now be cut down by one quarter.
When certain elections were on and the Executive Council wanted the support of the farming community they told the electors that they realised the depressed condition of agriculture and that it was their intention in this Budget to come to the relief of the farmers. It was admitted by members of the Executive Council that our farmers were severely handicapped in competition with the farmers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the fact that de-rating operated in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while our farmers had to pay to the full all the local rates. A million pounds was promised, and now they propose to give £750,000. We have had the De-rating Commission Report before us, and some of us, at any rate, expected that the one important suggestion in that report might have been adopted, and that in so far as relief was being given by way of de-rating a system of distribution would have been chosen by which there would have been relief given, in particular, to the smaller farmers. We had hoped if the Government proposed to give indirect relief to the farming community by way of relief of rates that they would have adopted that system by which those under £15 or £20 valuation would have been relieved of their rates on agricultural land, and that a similar relief up to the £15 or £20 would have been afforded to those of higher valuation. The sum of money required to do that would have been just about £750,000, and there would have been available, if the full relief of one million pounds were to be given, a still further sum of £250,000 to be distributed in some such equitable way. Notwithstanding all the fault that the Minister found with the existing system, at least fifty per cent of the £750,000 is to be distributed in the same manner as before. We have not had an opportunity of examining how this distribution partly on the basis of population will work out, but it seems to me, at any rate, that when the Minister was giving relief it was a pity he did not adopt that other suggestion.
As to the manner in which he proposes to raise the money, with the petrol tax as a whole we have not much fault to find—at least I have not. But when it comes to the tax on sugar the position is quite different. Already the percentage of indirect taxation, as compared with direct taxation, is very high here, much higher, I think, than in most other countries. Yet, just as when he wants economy he thinks of the old age pensions and cuts them down, so too when he wants to get £300,000 he proceeds to filch it out of the pockets of the poorer section of the community, including, of course, the farmers, particularly the small farmers. The suggestion, with which we agreed, which came from the Labour Benches when my motion was put forward in the House, that in whatever manner the money for the relief of agriculture was to be found it should not be found in a manner which would impose a burden upon the small farmer, whom it was ostensibly intended to relieve has not been adopted. The Minister makes no discrimination between the large holder and the small holder of land as far as relief is concerned, and, in fact, the relief is bound to work out for the benefit of the larger land holders only. As far as the benefit is concerned, no discrimination is made in favour of the small holders, and when it comes to raising the taxation discrimination is made as against the small holders, because, proportionately, the small holder is going to bear the burden of this taxation very much more than the large holder. I think that the feelings which I have expressed are likely to be echoed not merely here on the Opposition Benches, but, I am sure, in the hearts of many Deputies who are supporting the Government at present, and that they will be re-echoed throughout the country. It is a disappointing Budget, disappointing as regards the relief proposed to be given to the farming community, and as regards the manner in which the money is to be raised.
A great deal can be said for and against income tax, but, as far as I am concerned at any rate, and as far as any studies I have made in the matter would guide me. I see no reason at the present time why, if an extra burden is to be imposed it should be imposed by way of indirect taxation and imposed on a necessary of life. The Minister's own argument from his own point of view would have indicated that portion of it could be borne—at least half of it—by direct taxation. With an increase of 6d. in the £ in income tax the Minister could have got half the total balance required and that should have been raised in that particular manner instead of putting the whole burden upon a necessary of life.
With regard to the balancing of the Budget, we had to complain in the past about the manner in which the Minister segregated the normal and abnormal items, and we found it very difficult to find exactly the basis on which he made the segregation. There is one item this year—it has appeared, of course, in the past also—which it seems to me is unjustifiably put down as abnormal or capital expenditure, that is the sum of about £190,000 for public buildings. There is no indication that depreciation in buildings is allowed for. If depreciation, as I think, is not allowed for, then obviously this sum, or a great portion of it, ought to be regarded from year to year as normal and not abnormal expenditure. I feel that that item is not properly classed, and that to balance the Budget that sum will have to be met out of taxation. With regard to the other changes, as I have said, the principal item was that of the relief of agriculture or failure to give relief, and the manner in which the money was proposed to be raised. The other items, such as the betting tax and so on, are comparatively small items, and we shall have an opportunity of examining them in detail when we come to discuss the main resolution.
