ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 285, 14 September 1935, Page 3

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

GUARANTEE PRICE SCHEME. (Abridged from Press Association). WELLINGTON, September* 13. In the House of Representatives today the Hon. J. G. Oobbe continued the debate on the Addres s-in-Reply• Mr Cobbe dealt largely with the guarantee price scheme. He said it was quite evident that members of the Labour Party were at sixes and sevens as to how the scheme was to be financed and carried out. No member on the Government side of the House wished to see the farmer getting an unpayable price, but they did not wish to see him being bamboozled by promises with no security behind them. Criticising Labour’s financial proposals, lie said they would make unpleasant reading for those with money in the Savin o-s Bank or in banking institutions. If banking were to be nationalised it would become a plank in the platform of every political party, amt would become merely a. plaything ol politics, and an instrument of bribery. The present, he said, was not a time to try. experiments with the currency, and so hinder New Zealand’s return to P'aifF.tyjones (Lab., Dunedin South) said 1 the Government during the debate had not put forward one part ol their policy- Members of the Opposition believed that tire policy of the Labour Party would bring prosperity, not only to the farmer, but to every other member of the community. Mr Jones said the people were fan > well protected against being sold shoddy^ footwear or injurious food and drugsf but the people were not protected auainst shoddy clothing. He referred especially to imported sucks a pair of which he produced and which were branded “all wool, but o P cent-, of it was cotton, and they came from Great Britain. People weie being exploited by certain manufacturers. The Government knew of the position, and he wanted to know what they were doing about it- He believed the socks were made of old clothes, iecarded in Britain. Fraud ivas being perpetrated on the people of Nev Zea land Mr Jones added that an examination of New Zealand-made socks showed that New Zealand niamdacturers had not adopted the practices adopted by some British manutac-. turers. , /T , The Rev. Clyde Carr (Lab., Timaru): Were they really made m Britain ? . . , , Mr Jones said he did not know, hut they were so branded. Mr Jones went on to refer to the practical abolition of the Arbitration Court, and asked why the Government did not do the same for the worker as it did for the farmer. He said the Court of Review had the same relation to The farmer that the Arbitration Court had to the ' worker, yet the worker was denied access to the Arbitration Court. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) contended that Mr Macmillan was wrong in stating that all production went into consumption. He quoted the quantities of foodstuffs and animals that had- been destroyed, such as pigs, cows, flour, cotton, coffee and fish. He thought it was a mistaken policy to raise the exchange. He had prophesied that it would cause ill-feeling toward New Zealand in Britain, and that had come true. The debate was continued by Messrs D. W. Coleman (Lab., Gisborne), E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South), and C. H. Chapman (Lab., Wellington North). The debate is expected to conclude on Tuesday afternoon, and the Budget is expected to lie introduced on Tuesday evening.