PARLIAMENT Mr Holyoake Disputes Ruling By Mr Speaker

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29245, 1 July 1960, Page 12

PARLIAMENT Mr Holyoake Disputes Ruling By Mr Speaker

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 30. Mr Speaker today refused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holyoake) permission to move the adjournment of the House of Representatives to discuss the Auditor-General’s report. Mr Holyoake sought permission to move the adjournment to discuss urgent public business. But Mr Speaker ruled it was not urgent public business. He said there were plenty of opportunities for members to discuss the report during the present Address-in-Reply debate.

Mr Holyoake said he was “surprised, disappointed, and deeply concerned” at Mr Speaker’s decision. He would tomorrow give notice of a motion to disagree with Mr Speaker’s ruling.

Mr Holyoake’s request to move the adjournment led to a stormy debate. Several times Government and Opposition members shouted at eaeh other across the floor of the House. Mr Holyoake said that no more important and urgent question than matters in the Auditor-Gen-eral’s report had ever been before the House and country. “The Auditor-General pointed out that under the 1921 Customs Amendment Act the Government could increase or reduce taxation without the authority of this House,” he said "We seek an unequivocal assurance that the Government will amend or repeal the particular section of the 1921 act. It is the difference between democracy and dictatorship.” Mr Holyoake said the next National Government would make the matter one of prime urgency The Prime Minister (Mr Nash): The Leader of the Opposition has be°n nlaying with the House. Mr Holyoake: You’ve been playing with the country. Mr Nash: The question is not one of urgency. The act has been on the statute books for 39 years. The National Government did exactly the same thing in regard to duties. Mr Speaker's Ruling Mr Speaker said he was satisfied the matter was not of sufficient urgency to justify putting aside the present order of the House. "There will be an opportunity for all members to ventilate the matter during this Address-in-Renly debate,” he said. Mr Holyoake: Does your ruling mean that no member can move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public business during the Address-in-Reply debate or the Budget debate? That would be an impossible situation. Mr Speaker: The answer is that every matter of urgent public business will be dealt with on its merits. Mr Ho’voake: I’m surprised, disappointed. and deeply concerned at your decision. Mr Speaker: The right honourable gentleman can't say that It’s easting a reflection on the Speaker. He must accept the ■ Speaker’s ruling. Mr Holvnake said he would tomorrow give notice of a motion to disagree with Mr Speaker's ruling References In Debate References to the Auditor-Gen-eral’s report were made by several speakers in the ensuring debate. Mr M A Connelly (Government, Riccarton) said there had been some delay In the announcement of a substantial reduction in sales tax and customs duties, and he considered the reasons for the delay might have been added in the Auditqr-General’s report. The fact was, said Mr Connelly, that the information was not available until the Public Accounts were brought down, and it would have been reckless for the Minister of Finance to reduce tax without having the accounts available. ' Mr D. J. Carter (Opposttic Raglan) said he had also read the Auditor-General's report, and it had given him considerable disquiet. He received the impression that the Government was neglecting to look after trusts on behalf of tile people. “Are the people of New Zealand prepared for two years in succession to have progressively worse reports from the AuditorGeneral and let it go unheeded?” he asked. Mr F. J. Kitts (Govt, Wellington Central) said that the National Party had to accept the responsibility of its predecessors who passed the 1921 Customs Amendment Act referred to In the Auditor-General’s report The National Party was criticising the act, which, in fact, had been introduced by the Reform Party. The act gave authority to alter rates based on the economic position of the time, said Mr Kitts. The economic position of the country had been such as to allow the Labour Government to lower rates. All the aet did was to allow common-sense action to be taken. . Mr Boord’s View The Minister of Customs (Mr Boord), referring to the AuditorGeneral's comments on the reduction of sales tax and duty by the Government when Parliament was not sitting, said the Government’s action was legally in order. It was quite legal to reduce sales tax by Order-in-Council. Mr Boord said the National Government had seven times made tax exemptions while Parliament was not sitting. "If it was not wrong for that Government to do it. why was it wrong for us?” he asked. Mr Boord said he eould find no criticism by the Auditor-Gen-eral of those actions by the National Government The exemptions made by the Labour Government when it took sales tax off cigarettes, beer, and tobacco last year were made tn exactly the same way as the exemptions made by the National Government Mr Boord said the AuditorGeneral had made erroneous statements about customs duty Under the Customs Amendment Act, 1921 the Government had twice reduced the duty on petrol But the Auditor-General had said that as far as the Audit

Office was aware, this was the first time the 1921 Act had been used in this manner. "Drowsy Watch-dog” “I must say that the watch-dog of Parliament, the Auditor-Gen-eral. is very drowsy. It is completely incorrect to suggest that this power has never been used previously,” Mr Boord said. Mr Boord said the National Government made 55 Orders-in-Council under the same section of the Customs Amendment Act, 1921. These Orders-in-Council varied rates of duty on various goods to protect local industry. Mr Boord said that in the 1951 election campaign the then Prime Minister, Sir Sidney Holland, proposed taking duty off tea and reducing the price by 3d a pound and reducing the price of petrol by 2d a gallon. Sir Sidney Holland had said: “Someone is going to ask, ‘When will we do this?’ We, as a Government, can do it tomorrow by regulation, but we consider that would be an abuse of the power we enjoy to reduce taxation by regulation.” Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Opposition. Manukau): Hear, hear.

Mr Boord: And then the National Government did it. Mr Boord said it should be realised that all those responsible for varying customs tax or sales tax must report to Parliament. Parliament still retained control of taxation provisions. Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition. Remuera) said the Auditor-Gen-eral had pointed out that what was done last year in reducing sales tax was done outside the normal principles of the* law. “If the Auditor-General says something is wrong, it’s no excuse for the Minister of Customs to say someone else did it.” Mr Algie said. The then Auditor-General had approved what was done in 1951 on the Government’s assurance that validating legislation would be introduced.