WAR EXPENSES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 187, 9 August 1941, Page 8

WAR EXPENSES

DEFENCE ACCOUNTS j PROBLEM OF DISCUSSION (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this clay. When the Departmental Estimates were under discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, asked what opportunity members would have of discussing the war expenses account. The country was spending something like £70,000,000 in the prosecution of the war. He was not questioning the wisdom of the expenditure, but the procedure, and he desired to know if the House would have the opportunity of examining the Defence Department's account. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. McKeen): It is covered by Statute. Mr. Holland said that according to the report tabled in the House the Auditor-General had said he was not satisfied that all the goods supplied to the Defence Department had been used for military purposes. While he had the highest admiration for the Department, he thought the Minister of Defence should have the opportunity of clearing his Department from this charge. Of the £135,000,000 expenditure for the current year much, in addition to the £70,000,000 for defence, was covered by Statute, Mr. Holland said. Members did not have the opportunity of discussing and examining the accounts. If this could not be done what was the use of Parliament? The Minister that afternoon had told the House that there were to be regulations in respect to conscientious objectors. "Why not allow members to debate these things?" he added.

Mr. Barrell (Government, Hamilton): Why not get into the War Cabinet?

Mr. Holland: I think it would be a wise procedure if we had a little less regulation and a little more legislation. Mr. Meachen (Government, Wairau): You ran away from the Budget. Mr. Holland: I spoke for an hour and a half on the Budget. Continuing, Mr. Holland said that he hoped the Government would allow the people's representatives to discuss war expenditure. The reply of the Government would be that it was a matter for the War Cabinet. Mr. Nash Replies In reply, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, said he agreed that the House ought to have the maximum control over finance, but it had been agreed when the War Expenses Bill had been passed that in war time it was impossible safely to bring before the House expenditure in connection with the war. It was plainly impossible and inadvisable. He could not see how they could wisely talk about expenditure 011 guns, rifles, equipment in general and uniforms. It would be all wrong. If there was a way the War Expenses Account could, without danger to the country, be brought under the notice of the House, he would be glad to try and do it. For the moment he did not know of any way other than in the Budget, where there had been an opportunity to discuss the expenditure of the sum proposed. However, under the procedure agreed upon by the House it was impossible to bring the detailed expenditure of money in connection with the war before the House. Mr. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): What about the statement of the Minister of Defence? Demand for Information Mr. Nash: First of all we get from , the Opposition a demand for more information, and when we give it we are charged with giving it. There is an element of constructive criticism that is imperative if we are to have good government, but the Opposition is not concerned about the war effort but about following the old practice of finding out how they can undermine the Government. Regulations "It would be physically impossible j for this House, if it sat every day of the year, to go thoroughly into the implication of every regulation," replied Mr. Nash to Mr. Holland's I comment on regulations. "Because j it is impossible, and because of the fact that it is imperative that there . sHould be urgency in a tremendous {number of cases, this House gave power to the Government to make j regulations by Order-in-Council," he said. "However, there comes before the House a bill which validates all the regulations that have been passed. That bill comes down and every regulation i ~ that bill can be discussed."