END OF BUDGET DEBATE SOON

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23985, 28 June 1943, Page 4

END OF BUDGET DEBATE SOON

FUTURE WORK OF SESSION From Our Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, June 26. The Budget debate in the House of Representatives is now drawing to a close after three weeks in which 58 of a possible 70 members have spoken (other seats being vacant or the members being absent). Not all the remain'ing 12 members will speak and the Opposition has only two more men to take the floor, Sir Apirana Ngata (Eastern Maori) and the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui). The stage is now set for what promises to be the most interesting part of the session—consideration of the estimates and discussion’ of the Government’s Land Values Bill, many references to which have been made by Government speakers. Although there had been a solid fortnight of speeches on the financial statement presented by the Hon. W. Nash, the debate became more animated this week. The main themes of Opposition criticism have become emphasised _as objection to the delay in introducing stabilisation, to the detriment of the, farmer and as objection to civil items being included in the War Expenses Account, which is not open to Parliamentary review. Opposition members have reiterated their belief that submission of the War Expenses Account to the Public Accounts Committee after expenditure has been incurred is not an acceptable substitute for continuing scrutiny by a special committee. War Expenses Account More will be heard on Jhese questions when Mr Nash replies, but in his reply to the Imprest Supply Bill debate yesterday he referred to the method of authorising payments from the War Expenses Account. The Minister of Defence has power to authorise amounts up to £SOO, but these are all scrutinised by the Minister in charge of War Expenditure (the Hon. A. Hamilton). Larger amounts have to be approved by the whole War Cabinet as well. Mr Nash did not think a change in this system would be any improvement. As for stabilisation, the trend of Government policy is suggested by the agreement to adjust dairy-farming costs to pre-war levels and the conversion of the “wool bonds" into negotiable securities. The question of wheat has not yet been given attention by Government speakers, and there is an impression in the lobbies that the present price is considered reasonable by the Government. But, in view of adjustments affecting other primary producers, it is possible that Mr Nash will have something to say about wheat in his reply.

After a week in which no Ministers spoke in the debate, five have taken part this week and this has been a factor in infusing fresh life into the discussion. On Tuesday the Hon. R. Semple and Mr W. A. Bodkin spoke in characteristically vigorous vein. On Wednesday, the Hon. P. C. Webb’s speech was interrupted by a series of interjections with several members talking at once, Mr Webb Interrupted The incident began when Mr Webb was referring to the possible help* the National Party might hope to gain from the activities of Mr J. A. Lee’s party. Mr Lee interjected about the appointment of the Hon. W. Perry to the War Cabinet and said Mr Perry favoured the disfranchising of conscientious objectors. Mr Webb accused Mr Lee, of “sneaking” a document from caucus and publishing it. In a chorus of interjections Mr Webb did not hear what word Mr Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard) had asked him to withdraw and denied using it. He said he had not used the word “stink.” The misunderstanding was cleared up and Mr Webb withdrew his remark about sneaking and expressed regret, though he said he had meant it when he said it. After a few more interjections Mr Speaker declared that there was too much noise, and Mr Webb was able to finish more or less without interruption. On Thursday night Mr W. A. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo) was, in the opinion of Government members, less provocative than usual, and there were practically no interjections. The Minister of Health (the Hon. A. H. Nordmeyer) had reached only halfway in his speech when the House adjourned, and, with yesterday devoted to the Imprest Supply Bill, the remainder has been deferred to next week. The highlight of the Imprest Supply Bill debate was the attack by Mr F. Langstone (Government, Waimarino) on the Government’s action in not appointing him as Minister at Washington).