FINANCE BILL

Grey River Argus, 20 July 1945, Page 5

FINANCE BILL

STABILISATION AND SUPERANNUATION. P.A. WELLINGTON, July la. A Finance Bill was introduced oy Hon. W. Nash, and read the first time to-night by the House. Mr. W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford), when the House met, said memoers of the Opposition had not received their copies of the Bill until after tea. They had not had time to study the measure. Some of the clauses were. far-reaching and intricate. The Minister’s explanation would oe helpful, but the Opposition would like any further debate on the Bill to be postponed. Mr. Nash said that the debate could go on to-morrow, and on Monday, if necessary. Pie considered tnat after he had moved the second reading, the debate could go in into tne evening. The Speaker (Hon. F. W.. Schramm), said he would see that tne rights of minorities were observed, and he called on Mr. Nash to speak. Mr. Nash then went through the Bill, clause by clause, in detail. Describing a clause authorising payments from accounts under tne Marketing Act, the Minister said that this would enable the Marketing Department to reimburse certain payments made by the Government to stabilise the cost of the production, processing, and export of primary products. . , ~ .Mr. Polson said that if stabilisation was to be applied in New Zealand, it should be applied to every section, and not only to farmers, upon whom, he said, the economy of the country depended. Britain nad obtained a benefit by buying NewZealand produce at a low price. Bulk payments were made in recognition of'those prices, and were earned by primary producers, who did not receive them. One part' of the community, he said, had earned money which had been taken to bolster up other sections of the community. If that policy were continued, it would sell farmers into slavery. Mr. C. M. Williams (Govt., Kaiapoi). said that the farmers had benefited as much as anyone else had from the stabilisation. Lumpsum payments were made by Britain They were made because New Zealand had kept down the cost of production by the stabilisation measures, which were paid for out of the general funds. , , Mr. G. H. Mackley (Nat., Masterton), said the Government would be the first to object if a private employer paid the superannuitant only two hundred pounds because he was receiving three hundred pounds superannuation, but that was just what the Government was doing. Mr. T. PI. McCombs (Govt., Lyttelton), said the Bill went a Jong way to remove an injustice to re-employ-ed civil servants. It made the payment of increases retrospective to the time when the increases were made. The debate was adjourned, and tne House rose at 10.23.