PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 30, 29 October 1932, Page 12

PARLIAMENT

Budget Debate Unended ANOTHER DAY’S TALK Native Minister’s Defence EXTRAVAGANCE DENIED (By Our Parliamentary Representative) Seven more speakers, of whom only one was from the Labour benches, took part in the Budget debate in the House of Representatives yesterday, but the week-end adjournment was taken without the debate being concluded. ■With the exception of the Minister of Native Affairs. Sir Apirana Ngata, who certainly devoted most of his time to policy questions, there was little that had not been said before, yet the Prime Minister was prevented from replying because several members from the Government side spent their full hour on all manner of topics. It was hoped the previous evening to clear the way yesterday for more effective business. But at the last minute there were several members who demanded a hearing although interest in the debate which had developed into a discussion of no particular importance interspersed with by-play In which members joined issue over various questions. Personalities were not absent from the proceedings. After the House rose at 5.30 p.m. the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the Budget debate would definitely end on Tuesday, after which an immediate start would be made with the Estimates, whose passing is likely to be an arduous job. The Customs Bill to give statutory authority to the Ottawa resolutions, passed on October 13, will be brought down on Wednesday, and the Bill extending the life of Parliament permanently from three to four years will also appear next week. This measure also contains a clause to postpone the. licensing poll. Everyone is waiting anxiously for the Bill to establish a central reserve bank in New Zealand and, although this will be ready shortly, it is unlikely that it will be gone on with seriously until after the return from England on November 23 of the Minister of Finance, Hon. W- Downle Stewart. The House will meet again at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, and after one or two more have spoken on the Budget, the Prime Minister will wind up the debate. ANOMALY IN THE LAW Conversion of Motor-cars The attention of the Minister of Justice, Hon. J. G. Cobbe, was drawn by Mr. R. A. Wright (Govt, Wellington Suburbs), in the House yesterday to a report in yesterday’s “Dominion.” Mr. Wright asked if the Minister intended to take any action concerning statements made by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Auckland Supreme Court critcising the law concerning the conversion of motor-cars. Mr. Wright said the judge had pointed to an apparent anomaly In the law, which.said that if a person took a car from a garage and drove round in it, intending to return it, he was apparently not guilty of theft in the strict sense. The Minister said his attention had been drawn to the report, and he thought the question should 'be investigated. He would make inquiries and give his decision later. STABILITY OF STERLING State and Central Bank . PRIVATE CONTROL OPPOSED. Opposition to any move to establish a central bank in New Zealand which would be beyond the control of Parliament, was expressed by Mr. R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South), during the Budget Debate in the House. He quoted statements by economists who were opposed to the control of currency by private institutions, and he declared that by adopting Sir Otto Niemeyer's proposals, the Government would make the present monetary position worse than ever. “The old system of banking controlled by private shareholders was not suitable to meet the modern economic needs of the world, Mr. McKeen said. The only way to govern finance was to centralise control through a chain of reserve banks, but if these institutions were to be controlled by private capital, the position would notbe improved. As'a fact, it would be made even worse than it was. Professor H. Belshaw, of Auckland, feared that a central bank, as was proposed for New Zealand, would have its policy dictated by the Bank of England. Mr. McKeen said his own opinion was that banking policy should be controlled by Parliament. Professor J. M. Keynes was of opinion that a central bank should be a State bank, and he considered the Bank of England itself should be converted into a national institution. Professor Belshaw thought New Zealand would be wise to secure an opinion from Professor Keynes before any move was made to amend the banking law, and it was essential that no hasty action should be taken. A sterling currency could be placed on a sound basis for Empire purposes, and for world purposes as well, continued Mr. McKeen, who quoted Keynes’s opinion that sterling not gold was the question of real importance. Sir Otto Niemeyer had not come to New Zealand for this country’s good, but as the representative of private money interests. A cable message in that day’s "Dominion” reported Mr. J. H. Thomas as saying that something would be done to mitigate the unemployment problem if the Dominions were placed in a position to welcome hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, continued Mr. McKeen. There appeared to be no doubt that tlie question of Empire migration was discussed at Ottawa. Yet nothing had been said publicly on the point. In addition one had to ask what conversations Mr. Stewart had had with

British Ministers in London on the question of migration. There was apparently more behind the Ottawa Conference than appeared on the surface. He had no objection to migration provided settlers could be absorbed, but with 70,000 at present out of permanent work, no such policy could be countenanced. Referring to criticisms of Parliament, Mr. McKeen said members sometimes commented upon the public concern at the utterances in the House. However, one could not be surprised at the criticisms of Parliament as an institution when one listened to such speeches as had been made recently by Messrs. Endean, Lye, Stallworthy, and Hargest. Members were sent to the House to deal with problems confronting the country, and they should do their best and leave the public to judge. He thought members generally did try to do their best. MR. LYE’S RETORT Reply to Mr. Stallworthy Remarks made by Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Govt., Eden) by way of criticism of Mr. F. Lye (Govt., Waikato) and the Minister of Education, Hon. R. Masters, were replied to by Mr. Lye, when speaking during the Budget debate in the House. Mr. Lye said he would have ignored the criticism of Mr. Stallworth}’ were it not for the fact that his statement that he, Mr. Lye, had nearly wrecked the United Government for the sake of some “miserable bookie” had been blazoned throughout his electorate. Mr. Lye said he referred more in sorrow than in anger to the extraordinary speech of the member for Eden. All the previous day and evening Mr. Lye had sat in his seat, after having notified Mr. Stallworthy that he intended to refer to the statements he had made, but the member for Eden had not been in his place in the Chamber. “I feel sorry for the hysterical outburst of the member for Eden,” said Mr. Lye, “for we have been led to expect a different standard from a member who came to this House with a Divine call.” Reference was made by Mr. Lye to the statement of Mr. Stallworthy that for the sake of some miserable “bookie” Mr. Lye had attacked the former’s colleague, the Postmaster-General, Mr. J. B. Donald, and nearly defeated the United Government. The position was that he was chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, which had been tearing petitions in connection with the dismissal of three men from the Auckland Post Office for having discussed matters in connection with betOnly the committee heard all the evidence, and it was unanimous in its finding that the punishments were unduly severe. The committee had recommended to the Government that the men be reinstated in the Public Service. He made no apology for the course he had taken in standing foursquare for the unanimous finding of the committee. To suggest that he had sought to protect some "miserable bookie” was misleading. "The member for Eden also charges the Minister of Education with having made a verbal assault upon him,” continued Mr. Lye. “I have sat in the Opposition and seen many heated arguments, but I have never previously known a member to come into this House and complain about the conduct of an outsider in the way that the member for Eden did. There is an unwritten law in this House, at least among honourable members—” Mr. Speaker: Do you suggest that some members are dishonourable? Mr. Lye said there was an unwritten law among members not to disclose confidential conversations or run into the House with them as Mr. Stallworthy had. It was wrong for the member for Eden to abuse the confidence of the Minister of Education in the way he had. To him it seemed like the be? haviour of a petulant child. There was in politics a code that taught self-restraint, loyalty, and playing the game. One could not hope to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Mr. Speaker: What do you mean by that quotation? Mr. Lye: I mean I am disappointed in the member for Eden. Mr. Speaker: It is rather an extraordinary translation. “Much more could be said about the extraordinary attitude of the misguided member for Eden,” concluded Mr. Lye, “but seeing he is not in his seat I will leave it at that.”

NATIVE ADMINISTRATION y “No Extravagance Shown” SIR APIRANA NGATA’S DEFENCE A denial that there had teen extravagance in the administration of the Native Affairs Department, and especially in expenditure on native, land development, was made by the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata,. He replied to various critics who had spoken about his administration, stating that he took full responsibility for everything he had done during his term of office, and stating he hoped to present a complete statement to Parliament concerning native development before the end of the session. The Minister opened by referring to statements made the previous night byMr. W. P. Endean (Govt., Parnell), to the effect that he was not “a fit person to hold the job of Attorney-General.” “If my friend meant I was incompetent. I agree with him entirely,” Sir Apirana said- “I do not think honourable members understand the position. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Downie Stewart, the Prime Minister required some other Minister to act in his place. Bo one will be better pleased than myself to see the well-known chair wheeled into the chamber and the member for Dunedin West resume his job.” Sir Apirana said criticisms had been levelled at him as the administrator of the Native Department. In the first place charges of victimising Maori electors had been made by Mr. W. Nash, and these charges had emanated from the Wairoa district. He would like Mr. Nash to supply him with particulars of the charges so that he could investigate them. “I can assure him of one thing,” the Minister said, “and that is that during the whole of my political career I have dealt with the Maori people as Maori people irrespective of their politics.” Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) ; Oh. No Complaints Made. The Minister said that. only that morning tlie chairman of the relief committee in the Wairoa district had called on him and stated that in his capacity as chairman he could state that no complaint of the kind alleged had been made to him. The member who made the allegations should supply further information so that that whole question could be gone into. Mention had been made by the new

member for Southern Maori, Mr. E. T. Tirlkatene, of the fact that he had come to Parliament to stand up for the rights and privileges of the Maori people. But he would find that, taking them by and large, the European members of Parliament have been sympathetic in their treatment of native problems, and he could say this with the authority of one who had been in the House for nearly 30 years. Mistakes had been made, but this was inevitable. The pakeha member always tried to be fair in his dealings with the Maori race, although there may have been shortcomings. Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) : What about the bungling of the Treaty? Sir Apirana said that quite apart from sentiment, and as a matter of cold historical fact, there had been nothing but fairness in the treatment of the Maoris by the pakehas. He had never hesitated in comparing the treat.ment accorded to other native races to say that the greatest blessing that had ever fallen upon the Maoris was the fact that they had come under tlie mana of the Crown of England. Turning to criticisms of the administration of native affairs, the Minister said that apparently he had to take the responsibility for activities even although they may have been carried out under his predecessors during the past 30 or 40 years. Members of Parliament were fair on the whole, and he thought they would be able to distinguish between acts committed by hum and those committed by those in charge of native affairs before he had come into office. However, he would take full responsibility for everything that had been done during his tenure of office. He could deny absolutely the charges of extravagance made against his department, especially in regard to native land development, and he hoped to be able to place a complete statement before the House before the end of the session setting out all the available facts concerning land development. The Minister dealt at length with the progress made by the Ngapuhi tribe in North Auckland in land settlement and development work. “The tribes of the north are the most outstanding exponents of self-reliance to be found anywhere in New Zealand, whether among Maoris or pakehas,” he said. In view of the criticism of the amount expended on the Native farm schemes, it might be as well to remember that the money so spent up to 1929 was Maori money. Legislation to assist the Natives from State funds was passed in that year, and the expenditure from State-funds to March, 1930, was £6500. “In other words, in 100 years the Maoris had £6500 from State funds,” said' the Minister, “and in that time, how much has the pakeha had? Consider what the pakeha lias had from the State Advances Department alone. “The work in North Auckland reads like a romance,” declared Sir Apirana. From June, 1930, to March, 1932, the Maoris had had spent on their land £48,000. Two hundred had been assisted in 1930, 456 in the year ended March last, and it was expected that about 600 would be assisted during the current year. "I deny absolutely the charge of extravagance as far as the Ngapuhis are concerned,” said the Minister. “They would not take any money for their labour until unemployment became acute. I have seen nikau cowsheds in the north, and just two sheets of iron over the separator with no concrete underneath. They are able to get along with such resources. Where else has anyone heard of bush being felled for 8/- and 10/- an acre?” ' Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) : You ought to be ashamed to admit it. The Minister: I am proud of it. They are reducing the charge on their land. The Maori may not he a flash farmer like the pakeha. He may not get so much out of his land or from his cows as the pakeha—or so we have been told. We will admit the pakeha is the better farmer. He has more resources. The Maori is the pakeha of yesterday, and he is taking advantage of his lower standards in these times. The load on his land is only £2 an acre. It is good grass country and is carrying 6000 head of cattle. As an East Coast Maori I take off my hat to the Ngapuhi tribe. Up to last March he had repaid £6373. That was in two years, and on the debt at that date what they have paid in represents 12J per cent. How many concerns are paying that on present conditions? I do not know anything in any part of the Empire—-apart, perhaps, from the tropics—that can equal the cheapness of the land development scheme in North Auckland.”

MORE ABOUT BANKING Mr. Atmore Fears Influence The statement that the establishment of a central reserve bank would mean that New Zealand would lose all financial autonomy was made by Mr. H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson). His speech was confined almost exclusively to a discussion of the question of currency. Mr. Atmore said there should be a clear understanding of the position in connection with a central reserve bank. The central reserve bank recommended by Sir Otto Niemeyer would tie New Zealand to tlie Bank of England, and according to one of its directors. Sir Josiah Stamp, that bank in turn took its orders from the Federal Reserve Bank of America. Reference was made by Mr. Atmore to the criticism Mr. F. Lye (Govt., Waikato) had levelled at Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Govt., Eden) earlier in the debate in connection' witii the stand the latter had taken over the school books contract. Mr. Atmore said that in attacking Mr. Stallworthy as he had, the member for Waikato had been badly briefed. Tlie member for Eden had performed a public service in drawing attention to tlie contract that had been entered into by tlie Minister of Education, Hon. R. Masters. There was no doubt, that the Minister had made a bad bargain. Ho fully recognised that Mr. Stallworthy was well able to defend himself against the member for Waikato. Although lie might not agree with him on many things, they all knew of his fine character, which stood out just as it had before the attack. MORTGAGORS’ PROBLEMS Ineffectiveness of Law Tlie ineffectiveness of the mortgagors’ relief legislation was commented upon by Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Govt.. Central Otago) during his speech in the Budget debate. Emphasising that the farming industry in New Zealand could never be placed on a healthy foundation until land values were substantially reduced, Mr. Bodkin declared that many farmers to-day were reaching a state of hopelessness and helplessness. “The Mortgagors Relief Act, which I admit I voted for, is getting us nowhere at all.” he said. “In fact, in many cases it is preventing a solution of the difficulty because first-class lands under mortgage could have been divid-

ed up had it not been for the operation of the Act. Undoubtedly many of the .mortgagees are prepared to subdivide the land and so enable us to make some little progress toward rehabilitation and general reconstruction. “All we have succeeded in doing has been to freeze the capital that is invested in farm lands without granting a great measure of relief.” Mr. Bodkin said he thought it would have been infinitely better if they had dealt with the farmer’s income. If they had made the farmer’s income available to pay working charges and had divided the surplus pro rata among the mortgagees, with a simple amendment to the Statute of Limitations that any principal invested on mortgage that did not within a period of six years earn 6 per cent, interest, would lie automatically barred, then at least they would have been working to a definite plan and would have made some progress in the general rehabilitation of the farming community. “I submit that all the Government can be expected to do is to enable the solvent man to protect his assets,” said Mr. Bodkin. “Any form of State interference that postpones the process of liquidation of an insolvent business is in the worst interests of this country, and will certainly teud to hold back the general policy of reconstruction.”