Parliament Bright Spots In Debate On The Budget

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 September 1947, Page 4

Parliament Bright Spots In Debate On The Budget

[SPECIAL TO STAR]

WELLINGTON, This Day. There were several touches of unconscious humour: in Parliament last week. For example, Mr W._ Sullivan, in the course of his vigorous Budget speech, referred to his colleague; Mr C. M. Bowden, as the “member for Kiore.” He was corrected by Mr Nash, who may or may rot have been aware that kiore is the Maori word for rat. Mr D. M. Rae delighted the House by inquiring if certain action was to be taken “this season” instead of this session and Mr Bowden, who does not often strive for rhetorical effect, coined a vivid phrase when he'said “the drums of jeopardy are beating.” ’ It was left to Mr T. P. Shand, youthful member for Marlborough, to provide one of the session’s brightest moments when he tore up his copy of the Budget during his speech on Friday morning. This cavalier treatment of the document was watched with undisguised amazement by Mr Na sig but most of the other members of both sides appeared to enjoy Mr Shand’s performance which ,at least, had the merit of originality. Mr A. M. Finlay, Labour member, North Shore, promptly sent a messenger over to him with another copy of the Budget, perhaps expecting him to tear that up, too. Opening of Debate ' The Budget debate was initiated by Mr Holland in a speech which lasted an hour and a-half, and bore ample evidence of thorough preparation. While his frequent declarations of affection and admiration for Britain are no longer new, they always possess a ring of sincerity. The figures quoted by Mr Holland to illustrate Britain’s dependence on overseas markets were arresting, but scarcely more so than his comprehensive statistical survey of New Zealand’s financial and economic position. Mr Nordmeyer, who followed, made little attempt to reply in detail, but gave his usual exhibition of polished debating. The debate did not really liven up until Mr Sullivan began his attack. He began by contradicting what he termed the “extraordinary statement” of Mr T. H. McCombs that nobody in New Zealand paid taxation until he made a profit. “He should know quite well,” Mr Sullivan said, “that everyone pays Customs duty, sales tax and other indirect charges prior to anything like a profit being heard of.” Socialism Blamed

A running fire of interjections developed into uproar when he charged that Socialism, in Britain was largely responsible for her present plight. Mr Nash vehemently denied this and eventually Mr Speaker intervened to quell the commotion. The Budget debate is likely to last for at least another fortnight, and already the main lines of argument are becoming clear. Opposition criticism is concentrated on taxation and living costs, while the Government speakers argue that if there is stiff taxation it falls principally on the higher income groups and the

lower paid workers get the benefit. When Mr W. H. Fortune asserted on Friday afternoon that taxation for the average family of four amounted to £5 a week there were cries of “don’t give us that” from the Government benches, and Mr R. M. Macfarlane, senior Government • whip, hurriedly conferred with Mr R. McDonald, the next Government speaker, presumably to remind him to deal with that point, which Mr MacDonald dutifully did. “The Class Struggle”

A marked tendency for Government speakers to disregard, the tedious details of the Budget in order to attack capitalism and the profit system is already apparent. Mr MacDonald, who was speaking when the House rose on Friday afternoon, acknowledged quite cheerfully that he was engaged in “the class struggle” to correct the evils of capitalism. This forthright declaration drew an approving cry of “sugar bags” from the Ministerial benches. Mr J. Mathison’s speech was condemned by Mr M. H. Oram, the next Opposition speaker, as “pernicious.” This drew from Mr Speaker,the observation that “pernicious” might be regarded as an unparliamentary expression, and Mr Oram insisted on having the point clarified. Finally Mr McKeen conceded that the expression was in order. Restive Spirit

Mr McKeen’s recent endeavours to curb interjections have created a somewhat restive spirit among members. On Thursday, Mr W. A. Sheat, who had entered the chamber about five minutes before, incurred his displeasure and later he censured Mr MacDonald and Mr A. C. Bax•ter. There are admittedly many pointless and sometimes offensive interjections, but the debates would be flat and lifeless without them, and some members are beginning to suspect that undue attention is _ being paid to the complaints of radio listeners against Parliamentary rowdiness. Their contention is that the Speaker’s task is to preserve order and decorum within the chamber, not to defer to misconceptions formed among listeners by the highly sensitive parliamentary microphones. While Mr Speaker is conscientiously endeavouring to maintain the hign traditions of his office, it is unfortunate that he lacks an air of authority which would secure unquestioned obedience for his rulings. A representative of the London Daily Mail, who is visiting New Zealand, was attentively following the Budget debate when he became so. absorbed that he leaned forward and placed his arms on the rail in. front of the gallery. He was sharply admonished by a messenger and, visibly shaken, retired to the. lobby, where he lit a cigarette. This was an even more heinous offence Ilian the first,and he was again sternly reprimanded by a messenger. The hectoring tone of some of the messengers when these quite innocent breaches are committed has more than once caused adverse comment.