Charges, Counter-Charges In Imprest Supply Debate

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29264, 23 July 1960, Page 14

Charges, Counter-Charges In Imprest Supply Debate

(New Zealana Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 22. Today’s imprest supply debate in the House of Representatives was described by Mr E. J. Keating (Government, Hastings) as one of the most feeble he had ever heard. “The plain fact is the Opposition have not much to Jalk about. They have just talked vague, airy, generalities.” he said. Mr Keating said they seemed strangely opposed tp the development of the South Island. It had been'the Government members of the House who had pushed the pulp and paper mill project, which he ’hoped would come in due course to Nelson and Canterbury. Mr Keating was replying to Opposition members who had charged the Government with falling down on promises. Mr W. B. Tennant (Opposition. Manawatu) denied Mr Keating’s suggestion that it had been the Labour Party which had been responsible for Irrigation work in Central Otago. “There is not an acre of land in Central Otago brought in by irrigation during the last three years which was not begun by the National Party. And I challenge any member of Government or Cabinet that this is not true." he said. The Prime Minister (Mr Nash): It is not correct. Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition. Piako) quoted figures from the June Abstract of Statistics that showed that the highest that the ratio of loans to deposits in trading banks had been was 67 14 per cent. “The Minister has been busy grinding down the trading banks,” said Mr Goosman The trading banks were controlled by the Reserve Bank and were told whet they could do. Even the Auditor-General in his report had pointed to the difficulty of there being insufficient money available. There was only one conclusion, said Mr Goosman. The Government was incompetent and unreliable and not to be trusted with the responsibility of the management of the affairs of the country. The Prime 'Minister (Mr Nash) said the banks were not lending their deposits, and it did not make sense to say that within the present system of lending the banks were lending their deposits only. Discussing industrial development, Mr D. C. Seath (Opposition. Waitomo) said that though they earnestly hoped that oil would be found, it was foolish of Ministers to raise the hopes of the people by injudicious remarks.

He said he understood there were vast quantities of natural gas—enough to keep the country going for hundreds of years—and if that were so the gas might prove a better basis for an iron and steel industry than coal or electricity. Mr M. A. Connolly (Government, Riccarton), discussing the oil refinery project, said: “I understand they might go to the Thames area, but they are also interested in Blenheim and they would be welcomed by the people of Marlborough. These are decisions for the private investor. This Government is not going to make the decision for them.” Mr L. R. Adams-Schneider (Opposition. Hamilton) said the National Party had announced much of its policy early, but the Labour Party had used some of it. To loud Government laughter, he added: “We don’t mind that if it’s for the good of the country" Replying to the debate, the Minister of Finance (Mr Nordmeyer) said he could not recollect any Government that had implemented more of its promises than the present Government. He said the institution of 3 per cent, loans had—had a marked effect. in holding down interest rates.

The House passed the Imprest Supply Bill No. 2 for current expenditure totalling £ 40,352.000.