Comment From the Capital

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28987, 31 August 1959, Page 13

Comment From the Capital

(By Our Parliamentary Reporter]

WELLINGTON, August 30. If the Prime Minister, Mr Nash, intended to clear the air when he spoke briefly on pending legislation just before the House rose on Friday, he did not succeed. Opposition members were left bewildered as to how many bills are pending, how many of these will be controversial, and how long the House will sit. If. on the other hand, Mr Nash intended “keeping the Opposition guessing” his seeming frankness could not have been more effective. For some weeks Mr Nash has been pressed by members of the Opposition for information as to v*hen he hopes to finish the session, whether he intends to go to the United Nations conference, and on allied matters. He has given the Opposition no satisfaction.

On Friday afternoon, unsolicited, he gave three separate and conflicting sets of figures concerning measures still to come before the House. These seemed to add up to between 35 and 47 bills—but nobody could be sure. Mr Nash mentioned 15 “or possibly 20” of these as “washing-up bills” over which he expected little debate.

Then confusion crept in. Mr Nash mentioned a licensing amendment bill on his list, and added: “That might mean anything. ... It might be controversial. I do not know. All I know is that it is on my list.” Apart from the unlikely contingency that Mr Nash and the Attorney-General (Mr Mason) have fallen out, there is np reason why Mr Nash should not know the contents of this bill. Earlier. Mr Mason had said there was no possibility of legislation on the recommendations of the Licensing Control Commission being introduced this session.

This leaves only one possibility for a licensing amendment measure. Some time ago Mr Mason mentioned the desirability of changing the powers and method of appointment of licensing committees. Surely that must be the purpose of this bill. Or must it? ask Opposition members. Gin Industry Legislation amending the Distillation Act to allow the setting up of a gin and other spirits industry in New Zealand is likely to be introduced within a fortnight It is understood that substantial agreement has been reached between the Government and the private firms interested in setting up a distillery in the Auckland area.

Doubts by the companies that a profitable industry can be established if New Zealand-made gin is forced to carry the present impost of 15s excise apd 4s 6d sales tax a bottle are understood to have been relieved by negotiation. The duty on New Zealand gin will be reduced, but not as much as some of the distillers had hoped. A question put to the Minister of Customs (Mr Boord) on Friday asked whether the production of

gin would proceed as announced earlier, whether Mr Boord was satisfied there had not been anv unnecessary delay on the part of the English companies, and whether he could state when production was likely to start. These queries will be answered on Wednesday. The questioner was not, as might have been expected, a member of the Opposition, but Mr W. W. Freer (Government, Mount Albert). In his summing up of coming legislation just before the House rose on Friday, the Prime Minister, Mr Nash, mentioned a distillation bill without making any reference to what it would contain. Question Time

At the end of August, with 181 Ministerial questions asked and answered, Mr G. A. Walsh (Opposition, Tauranga) is strengthening his position as Parliamentary ’King of Quiz” for 1959. So far Mr Walsh has asked and received Ministerial answers to 18 questions. His closest rivals, fellow Opposition members. Messrs F. I. A. Gotz (Manukau) and D; C. Seath (Waitomo), have registered only 10 questions each. South Island members do not excel at asking questions. The leading Southern member in this field is Mr J. H. George (Opposi»r>n' Central Otago) with seven. Mr J. R. Hanan (Opposition, Invercargill) has six: so does the top Government scorer, Mr C. Carr (Timaru). “Most Favourable”

The distinction of having sponsored two petitions on behalf of Canterbury residents, and of haying the House Petitions Committee recommend each one for most favourable consideration by Parliament has been gained this session by Mr M. A. Connelly (Government, Riccarton). Mr Connelly’s petitions were the plea by an aircraftman, Mr S. L. Renton, for a grant towards the cost of his wife’s travel from the United Kingdom to New Zealand, and the request of Mr E. Fairbrother, of Oxford, for compensation on the sale of a property to the Crown. Neither of the decisions will cost the Government a great deal, of money, but, as Mr Connelly said in the Fairbrother case, “The question of value is always one on which there is room tot informed differences of opinion.” News of Mr Connelly’s success in another field was received by his colleagues last week, when it was learned that the Connelly household had again increased in numbers. « Matter Of Choice

There is no likelihood that fluoridatioh of water supplies will find its way into legislation this session. This is the reply made to questions which, during the last few weeks, have ranged from grants to local bodies deciding on fluoridation to referenda of all ratepayers before fluoridation may be undertaken.

This upsurge of interest seems to come mainly from the fact that Lower Hutt, New Zealand’s fifth city, has joined Hastings in possession of a fluoridated water supply. The next major centre to fluoridate will be Wellington, which, with Lower Hutt, has been looking for equipment since deciding on the move some two years ago. The Wellington decision has been a long time turning into fact, but now that fluoridated water is in all Hutt pipes, some citizens are as bitter about it as some of the Christchurch people who have been denied the right to purchase their milk unpasteurised. In the middle of the barrage, and apparently liking it, is Lower Hutt's Labour Mayor (Mi P. Dowse). He has explained that urgency * was accorded fluoridation because in Lowei Hutt the average five-year-old has seven teeth decayed, missing, or filled. This figure rises to 12 at the age of nine. Between the ages of 11 and 15, the average child requires annual dental treatment costing £5. Hutt did not leave the decision in the hands of its council. A panel of local experts (mainly doctors and dentists of some eminence) studied all available reports and then made its recommendation. As a result, 100,000 people are now drinking water fluoridated to the concentration of one part to. the million. The annual ’cost to Hutt, including the supply of chemical power, and labour, will be £loa( | for the first year, and less in future. This is equivalent to 6.5 a a head of population. If it follows the Hastings pattern, dental decay will be reduced by 60 per cent.