PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 10, 6 October 1932, Page 10

PARLIAMENT

Breach of Privilege COMMISSION MEMBER Discussion of Report MAJOR QUESTIONS SKIRTED By Our Parliamentary Representative. Although the Prime Minister gave the House of Representatives a full day to discuss the report of the National Expenditure Commission, and vouchsafed an extension of speaking time from 15 minutes to half an hour, members made singularly little use of the privilege yesterday. Although there was no dearth of speakers, they seemed content to spend their time on more or less minor recommendations made by the Commission, and nearly every one skipped over the more important policy proposals contained in the report. The debate was initiated in unusual circumstances, for as soon as the discussion was reached tlie Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, drew attention to a certain section of Mr. A. Macintosh’s addendum to the report, and placed, a motion before the House to the effect that a breach of privilege had been committed through certain expressions of opinions concerning members of Parliament being made. Mr. Speaker held that there was a prima facie case to be answered, and the House agreed, in approving the motion, that a breach had been committed. The Prime Minister undertook to set up a committee of privilege, and it was suggested by Mr. Speaker that Mr. Macintosh might be called before this committee to substantiate the statements made by him. Thirteen speakers took part in the discussion, and nine of these were drawn from the Labour benches. No one had much good to say of the report, and some of the speakers condemned its proposals roundly, holding that they were ill-considered and impracticable. Small items were given much attention, and although there were passing references to major policy issues, they did not figure as might have been expected. One Labour member spent nearly half an hour in giving the life histories of the members of the Commission, and questioning their qualifications. The House rose at 11.30 p.m. until 2.30 this afternoon, when the discussion of the report will be continued. The Budget debate will probably open this evening. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE Member of Commission SELECT COMMITTEE’S INQUIRY. Certain opinions affecting the responsibility of members of Parliament for increases in State expenditure contained in Mr. A. Macintosh’s addendum to the National Expenditure Commission's report have been ruled by the House of Representatives to constitute a breach of privilege and he will be called before a Committee of Privilege of the House of Representatives to substantiate his statements. This decision was made by the House yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, moved that part of the addendum was a breach of privilege. Mr. Speaker held that there was a prima facie case to be answered, and the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, promised to set up a Select Committee. The part of the addendum to which exception was taken reads as follows: — “An individual expression of opinion in conjunction with a general concurrence in the views set out in the report may be of some service in respect to certain features that have come prominently under observation, and it may, therefore, not be out of place to state briefly that evidence adduced and information otherwise at the disposal of the commission indicate unmistakably that the financial difficulties under which the Dominion is at present labouring are, in large measure, attributable to the people themselves, through their representatives in Parliament, many of whom by way of placating constituencies, and, possibly, securing continuity of membership, have, year after year, made inroads on the Treasury for various objects, in numerous instances with no prospect of an adequate, or any, return on the expenditure involved. “Unpalatable though it be to thus apportion blame, affording, as it may, scope for attack under cover of privilege when outspoken adverse comment is sometimes unfortunately not appreciated, it is, nevertheless, a fact that research and evidence prove incontestably the accuracy of this statement.” Immediately the House proceeded to the discussion of the report, Mr. Holland rose to a point of order. At his request the clerk read the passage. "I think it will be agreed that there is a distinct breach of privilege in these words and I think it will be a bad day for Parliament and the country when anybody is allowed to make statements of this kind without being required to furnish the evidence on which the statements are made,” he said.

“If charges are to be made against me, I want them to be stated in specific terms so I can give an answer to them. But in this case the charge applies to every member of this House. I urge that a committee be set up to deal with the whole matter and report back to the House, and I move that these words constitute a breach of privilege.” “All the Speaker has to do is to decide whether there is a prima facie case,” Mr. Speaker said. “The House must decide itself whether or not a breach of privilege has been committed. The question does arise whether a report containing a statement of this kind should be allowed to remain on the table at all.” The Prime Minister said he had not noticed that any breach of privilege had been committed, as one became so used to criticism from the newspapers and individuals that one would not take very much notice of such words. (Laughter.) He said he could claim a wide experience as far as criticism was concerned, and he was probably not as

sensitive as the Leader of the Opposition.

However, Mr. Forbes added, the addendum was like the fifth wheel of the coach. It was not really necessary to the report.

Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) : It does show the mind the report was based on.

The Prime Minister said it only showed the mind of one member of the Commission. He alone had not produced the report. Mr. Speaker: I think there is a prima facie case to answer, and"probably if a committee were set up, the gentleman who made the ’ statements might be called -before it to substantiate the statements made. Mr. Holland’s motion was carried without further comment, and the Prime Minister said he would have the Committee of Privilege set up. COST OF COMMISSION More Than £l5OO Involved The cost of the National Expenditure Commission is estimated to be £l5Ol, according to a statement made by the Prime Minister, Kt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, in the House yesterday. Curiosity regarding the cost and the fees paid to the individual members was shown by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. 11. E. Holland, who asked whether the information could be provided before the debate on the Commission’s report began. Mr. Forbes said he was not in a position at that moment to say what the cost was. However, it had been a very economical commission, so that would be a point to assist members in their criticism of the report. Mr. Holland: Thanks for that much, but we would like to have all the details. Later Mr. Forbes said the cost of the Commission was £l3Ol, and the cost of printing was £230, making a total of £1591. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) : That is better than relief work. ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL Bill Read First Time Ratification of enactments issued by Order-in-Council is provided for in the Orders-in-Council, Confirmation Bill, which was read a first time in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. The Bill was sponsored by Mr. C. L. Carr (Lab., Timaru). Mr. Carr said he admitted that it was necessary to • bring certain laws into force by means of Orders-in-Coun-cil. The object of the Bill was to provide for the confirmation by both House of Parliament of provisions or alterations made by Order-in-Council. That was democratic. Opposition to legislation' by Order-in-Council had beep one of the main planks in the United Party’s platform. The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes: That is so.

The proposal in the Bill was supported by Mr. H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson). The Bill was a step in the right direction, he said, and .whether adopted by the Government or not, he was certain it would meet with the approval of the people of New Zealand he said. The Bill was read a first time. “A POLITICAL JOB” Arapuni Hydro-electric Works The calamity that awaited the town of Hamilton and other” settlements along the valley of the Waikato River in the event of a serious earthquake at Arapuni was referred to by Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) when discussing the report of the National Expenditure Commission in the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. Semple said he refused to believe that any engineer or engineers had recommended the construction of a hydro-electric scheme at Arapuni. He had too much respect for the engineering profession. \ : He believed that Arapuni was a “political job.” When Arapuni was patched up this time it would go again. Between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 of public money had been wasted at Arapuni. It was nothing more than a sieve. It was simply a volcanic rubbish heap, and some day a calamity would take place there that would overshadow any previous calamity in this country. If an earthquake occurred there anything like that at Gisborne or Wairoa recently he did not know what would happen .to Hamilton and the other Waikato settlements. He shuddered to think of their fate. DEFENCE DEMANDED Ministers & Commission’s Report The opinion that the report of the National Expenditure Commission demanded that Ministers should stand up and say something in defence of their own political integrity was expressed by Mr, R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East), during discussion on the report in the House of Representatives last evening. In the interests of good government, he said, they should endeavour to discredit the indictment contained in that document. If they did not do so the electors would take it as an admission of guilt. The Commission, Mr. Semple continued, had had no authority to recommend that New Zealand was not contributing sufficient to the land forces of the Empire. It had made suggestions that more should be spent on militarism, but when it came to the social services it recommended that they should be cut down to the lowest possible minimum. He wondered what the Native Minister was going to say in answer to the uncompromising, and, he believed, just indictment against his department. Social services were more necessary to-day than ever before. UNFINISHED WORKS Necessity for Completion Criticising the National Expenditure Commission’s views concerning the cessation of expenditure on public works, the opinion was expressed by the exMinister of Railways, Mr. W. A. Veitch (Govt., Wanganui), in the House last evening, that steps should be taken to investigate the possibility of resuming various works which he considered were showing a greater loss while, remaining idle than they would if completed. Mr. Veitch said there were many differences between commercial and public finance. One was led to believe that the modern businessman, and he alone, was capable of managing the affairs of the country. Everyone was prone to underestimate the value of Parliamentary and public experience. The outlook

of the commission, of Parliament, and the people generally was far too pessimistic as far as the future was concerned; Reference had been made to expenditure on what were termed “dud” railways. In his opinion some of the expenditure on railways was hard to justify, but they should try to avoid errors in the future rather than concentrate on the mistakes of the past. Both the National Expenditure Commission and the Government Railways Commission had overlooked an important fact in their investigations. The country was losing more by leaving certain railway works unfinished than it would if they were completed. It seemed the question of completing certain public works should be reopened at once. He was still convinced that the East Coast line should be completed, and that after its completion it would show a lower annual loss than was being incurred during the stoppage of work.

Mr. Veitch said he would like to see a committee of the House set up to go into the whole question of unfinished public works. Up to the present £3,400,000 had been spent on the Gisborne line, which at 5 per cent, meant an annual interest bill of £170,000. Depreciation would also amount to about 5 per cent., and the taxpayers were finding in addition a sinking fund at the rate of one-half per cent. If the line were completed it would not show such a heavy loss as was being borne at present.

There had been a slowing down of work at the Waitaki hydro-electric station, and heavy charges were being piled up there. Money had become cheaper and more plentiful in England, and there was a more favourable exchange rate. Mr. Veitch said he believed it would be possible to induce English contractors to tender for the completion of various works and so complete them, one of the conditions of tender being that they accept Government bonds instead of cash. SECRETARIAL STAFF Commission’s Views Attacked Strong comment upon the suggestion in the report of the’National Expenditure Commission that no Minister should have more than one private secretary was made by the ex-Minister of Railways, Mr. W. A. Veitch (Govt., Wanganui), in the House last evening. ■ Mr. Veitch said it appeared a “dig” was being made at Mr. Coates, who was stated to have four secretaries. However, he believed the greatest possible danger to Parliamentary institutions would arise if Ministers were reduced to a state of inefficiency through having to attend to a host of minor details of administrative work. “My judgment as one who has a great respect for the efficiency of the Public Service is that there is no section of the service as efficient as the private secretaries attached to the Ministers,” said Mr. Veitch. “I would increase their standing and their salaries in face of any conditions that exist. They would have their responsibilities increased and put on a higher level than they stand to-day.” Mr. Veitch said he also considered that Ministers holding the major portfolios should have Parliamentary Un-der-Secretaries to assist them in their administration. This practice was adopted elsewhere, and he suggested there should be Under-Secretaries for Lands, Public Works, Finance, and Education.

HOUSE COMMITTEES Co-operation With Ministers PROPOSAL FOR ADMINISTRATION. The setting up of Parliamentary committees to work in co-operation with Ministers was advocated in the House last evening by Mr. A. E. Jull (Govt., Waipawa), as an alternative to the National Expenditure Commission’s proposals for the establishment of various boards to control State activities. He criticised the usefulness of many of the commission’s proposals, expressing the opinion that Parliament itself was the place where administrative reforms should be carried out. Following the commission's recommendations to a logical conclusion, said Mr. Jull, one would think it would favour Parliament, after an election, appointing. a “Cabinet board” to carry out the country’s business while members went home again. He considered a good deal of undeserved criticism had been levelled at Parliament, but at the same time there was plenty of room for improvement in the administration of the country. “But,” Mr. Jull added, amid a chorus of approval, “we can do it inside this House. I am satisfied that if the Government would take into consideration the formation of committees which would be attached to Ministers, and which would meet once a month to conduct administrative, affairs, we would get fewer calls for commissions of inquiry because we would have a body of well-informed opinion in the House to carry out the duties we were sent here to do.”

Mr. Jull said the report contained a number of proposals that were worthy of commendation. However, he was disappointed that the commission had not confined itself to broad principles and matters of importance. It had allowed itself to digress through 176 pages, touching on a number of small questions which had obviously been suggested by heads of departments themselves. Of the £845,000 which it was stated could be saved, £320,000 would not actually represent a saving but merely a transfer of liability from the Treasury to local bodies.

It was pointed out by the commission that whereas ' the Government telephone services were showing a profit, the telegraphic branch was making an annual loss. This was an indication that a better service was being given by the telephone branch. He considered the telegraphic branch should go after its business more assiduously. In the United States every effort was made to catch telegraph business, but in New Zealand one was not encouraged to use this service at all.

CHARGES FOR TELEPHONES Plea for a Reduction A reduction in the charges for telephones was advocated by Mr. R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South), when discussing the report of the National Expenditure Commission'in the House of Representatives last evening. The Commission, 'he said, bad recommended a reduction in the number of telephones in Government offices, but if they were all taken out to-morrow the Government would not be any better off. The cost of telephones was only a paper entry between departments and the post office. If telephone charges could not be reduced by half, they should be cut down by a third at least. He was

satisfied that if such a reduction were made increased revenue would accrue to the Government, which would be well repaid. The authorities should recognise that to-day a telephone was essential in every home. The charges should be such that they could be installed by all. Referring to the question of superannuation, Mr. McKeen said the superannuation funds had been used for the purpose of staff retrenchments. Men in the Railway Department had been compulsorily retired after 30 years’ service and less. The Government had also brought down legislation providing for the payment of large allowances to men who had never paid any superannuation at all. MONEY FOR NATIVES Minister’s Powers Criticised Comments upon the administration of the Native Affairs Department, and the powers vested in the Minister, to which reference was made in the report of the National Expenditure Commission, were voiced in the House last evening by Mr. W. A. Veitch (Govt., Wanganui), and Mr. R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South). Mr. Veitch said the commission had expressed severe criticism of the administration ■of this department, and although he did not think it was altogether justified, he proposed to criticise certain aspects of the department’s work. He had found that there was a greater proportion of money available for native settlement purposes than there was for European settlement. In his own district two small areas near Wanganui had been forcibly taken for native land settlement, whereas it would have been possible to have kept both these sections in full development without any expenditure of public money on them at all. „

Mr. McKeen said he did not share the previous speaker’s respect for the Minister’s work# No one in the House bad criticised the Minister more than he had, and every word he had said about the administration of the Native Department had been borne out by the commission. He had said last session that the powers vested in the Minister were too great, and the commission had also expressed this opinion quite definitely. Not only did the Minister have the control of administration, but he was also vested with the power of handling hard cash. No Minister should have this unreserved power. A sum of £7OOO was handled by the Minister, his typist, and his secretary, being used for the unemployed Natives of the country. CONSTANT INTERJECTIONS Labour Member Rebuked Repeated interjections by Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) during speeches by Government members on the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission resulted in a rebuke from Mr. Speaker in the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. J. Hargest (Govt., Invercargill), was speaking at the time, and he and the previous speaker, Mr. C. H. Clinkard (Govt., Rotorua), had been subjected to considerable interruption by Mr. Semple, who had ignored Mr. Speaker's demand for “order.” “I have warned the member for Wellington East several times and I want to tell him I will not warn him again,” said Mr. Speaker. “He has made his speech and was v not interrupted. His conduct has been most disorderly.” ADVERSE OPINIONS Labour Members’ Views Adverse opinions upon the National Expenditure Commission’s report were expressed by Labour members in the House yesterday. . Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said the report was a condemnation of the extravagant methods which had been employed by former Governments. In the report there were serious charges for the Government to answer. The Commission had revealed its lack of knowledge of local body’ affairs. At present the local authorities collected the revenue from hotel licenses and auctioneers’ fees, and the Commission had recommended that this revenue should go to the Government. » Valuable service was rendered by the local bodies for which the Government paid nothing. Much had been said about the overcrowding of mental hospitals. Seeing that the Chateau Tongariro was making a loss of £BOOO a year it might be used as an asylum to relieve the pressure on mental hospitals. Tlie report was that of a petty bourgeoise mind.

“This report is a vote of no-confi-dence in the Government,” declared Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East). The saving of £300,000 recommended by the commission in hospital administration could not be made without a lowering of efficiency. Some of the recommendations were remarkable. Tlie commission proposed to abolish the Main Highways Fund and to pay tlie money into the Consolidated Fund. The revenue paid into the Highways Fund was obtained largely from the petrol tax, which had been imposed for a specific purpose, the construction and maintenance of main highways. The House rose at 11.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. to-day. “MISLED BY FADDISTS” Legislative Council Criticism Strong criticism of some of the 1 recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission was voiced by the Hon. W. H. Mclntyre when speaking on the Address-in-Reply motion in the Legislative Council yesterday. Criticising the recommendations as they affected hospital control, Mr. McIntyre said that the suggestions made were nothing more or less than a condensation of the views of Dr. Campbell Begg. “Dr. Begg put the whole of that stuff before the hospital conference, and it was blown out,” said Mr. Mclntyre. “The Health Department also turned it down. I notice that Dr. Begg’s brother was on the Commission, but that is.only a coincidence.” The Hon. Sir James Parr, Leader of the Council: Are you satisfied with the hospital administration? Mr. Mclntyre:’ I say our present system is the best in tlie world. I don’t say it is perfect. To adopt the Commission’s recommendations would be a retrograde step. It would mean going baek to 1895.

The Commission’s ideas on education were simply those of Mr. T. B. Strong; Director of Education, said Mr. McIntyre. If the rest of the Commission’s findings were as far out as he believed they were, then lie was pleased that the Government had given an indication that it did not intend to adopt the report. He gave tlie Commission credit for its courage, but said it had been misled by faddists.