BUDGET DEBATE

Grey River Argus, 17 June 1943, Page 4

BUDGET DEBATE

Works and Housing PA WELLINGTON, June 16. Tn the House this afternoon, continuing .the Budget debate, Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat. Waikato) urged closer supervision of expenditure under the War Expenses Account.. He stated that practically n 0 job was being carried out to a definite programme. Jobs were being changed from day to “day, principally, at the whim of officers One officer would order one thin« to be done and another officer 0 would later countermand the order and direct something else to be done This state of affairs was due to competition between the PubI fie Works Department, the Air Force. ' and the Army. Plant and material had been grabbed and held on jobs regardless of expense. Mr. C. H. Chapman (Govt. Wgtn. North) said that the housing problem i in New Zealand was many years oid, I and it had its origin in 1916, when the Massey Government passed its Rent. Restriction Act. which had restricted I rents, but had not been accompanied 'by any housing policy, and house I building had been impeded. The ■ shortage of houses had continued uni til the time that the nresent Gov--1 ernment had. taken office. Then the • present administration had commenced its housing policy, but, due to the war conditions, unfortunately, the position was not much better to-day. ‘ Mr. J- A. Lee (Grey Lynn) asked Mr. Chapman how profit on the sale of houses could be controlled. . Mr. Chapman said that, in a few days, or a week or so, Mr. Lee would see that the control of profiteering in house property was proposed bv'» the Government. i An Opposition member: that will ■ be Mr° P H la G. Dickie (Nat. Palea) said he thought that the rehabilitation problem was being badly handled, it peace were declared to-morrow, they

would not be ready to handle men who came back. A year* ago the Government said that a pamphlet was being prepared to be given to every returned man setting out everything that the Government was prepared to do for rehabilitation and repatriation. That pampnlet has never been .published. Some sixteen thousand men had been demobilised in recent months. Only twenty-live men had so far been placed on the land. Mr. Dickie contended that the handling of the Scrimgeour case would cause uneasiness in the minds of people. Perhaps, he said, the man concerned was receiving a little of what he deserved. To him (Mr. Dickie) it did not appear that a tandeal had been given. Mr. W. T. Anderton (Govt. Eden) declared there should be a regulation prohibiting the farmers who have benefited from Mortgagors’ and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Act from selling their properties above the values laid down by the Commissions which operated under the act, plus the values, of the improvements since that time. Farm lands, he said, were now changing hands at enhanced, prices, and people who had benefited under the act were selling their properties at enhanced prices. There should be a regulation covering the sale of those properties which received relief under the act. Dealing with the question of attributability Mr. Anderton said that the Budget had placed on the Department the onus of providing that a soldiers’ disability was not due to war service.

Mr. Gordon: Does that apply to the soldiers, of the last war as well? Mr. Anderton said he certainly thought so, because he could, not imagine the Minister of Finance making one rule which applied to servicemen of the present war which would not equally apply to those of the last. war.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10' p.m.