PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 29 September 1933, Page 6

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Address-in-Reply Debate SECOND AMENDMENT MOVED Exchange Rise Again Attacked MRS McCOMBS’ FIRST SPEECH. WOMEN AND CHILDREN. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON. Sept. 28. There were, two outstanding f eatures in' to-day’s proceedings in, thio House of Representatives'. One was the firdt speech made by the now woman, mem - her for Lyttelton, Mrs McCombs, who faced a full House and full) galleries. Mrs McCombs, who spoke with no trace of nervousness) dealt comprehensively with many of the outstanding problems facing the women and' children of New Zealand. She was given- a. sympathetic reception I>y the House, faeing accorded a Warm round of applause when she rt> sinned her seat. Special interest in Mrs McCombs’ first speech was evinced in the ladies’ galleTy, which was packed. Fresh interest was added to the Ad-dress-in-Rep'iy debate by the introduction. of a second 1 amendments This was moved by the Coalition member for Wellington iSuiburbs, Mr R. A. Wright, who called for a reversal of the Government’® high exchange policy. . Mr Wright, who spoke with characteristic vigour, denounced the manipulation of exchange and pointed to, the disastrous effects which he alleged the Government’® policy had had on the business community. The amendment was seconded by another Government member, who also vigorously denounced the imposition of 25 per cent, exchange. Mr Wright’s unexpected amendment caused some embarrassment to. the Labour Party, which was faced with the prospect of having its amendment removed from the order paper, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr H. E. Holland, suggested Mr Wright had either acted on behalf of the Government, or with Child-Tike innocence. It was stated in the lobbies that had Mr Wright’s amendment gone to, a division. last night the Government would have scraped home with a majority of only three votes, tot the debate was carried on until 10.30 o’clock, when the House adjourned without any division being taken. MANIPULATION OPPOSED.

Mr. Wright stated that while there were some points in the- Labour amendment with which he agreed, there were others with which he could not agree. He moved to delete the body of Mr. Holland’s amendment and substitute the following: “Believing that the manipulation of exchange is inimical to the public interests, this House desires to return to free exchange uncontrolled. bv the Government and without compensation to the banks.” Mr. Wright said the Government’s action in raising the exchange rate had amounted to class legislation of the worst kind. It had directly or indirectly raised the cost of living and would raise it further. Referring to the proposed establishment of a central reserve bank, Mr. Wright said if the bank were loaded with the burden of surplus exchange it would not show a profit for ten years. The amendment was seconded by Mr. A. Harris, who said there was a lot in Mr. Holland’s amendment to which he could not subscribe, and he therefore welcomed the opportunity of casting his vote in the direction of indicating to the -Government that- the House considered a free exchange rate was desirable at the earliest possible moment. He pointed out that the exchange rate had been raised not by Parliament -but by the Government, and he believed that if the question had been the subject of a vote by Parliament the exchange would never have been raised. ARRANGEMENT DENIED. . The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, said he wondered if the amendment was the result oi an arrangement with the Government or of the “childlike innocence” of the mover and seconder. Had Mr. Wright waited until the Labour amendment was disposed of he could have had the support of the Opposition for his own, but the effect would now be that the Government mem'oers would join Mr. Wright in voting against the body of the Labour amendment and would then vote against Mr. Wright’s own amendment. He inquired whether the amendment was due to an arrangement with the Government.

Mr. Wright: It is not. After referring to the improvement in British trade the Hon. E. A. Hansom went on to criticise Labour's proposal of guaranteed prices to primary producers. He said the Labour Party objected to the 2 per cent, exchange advantage; yet the non-primary producing public would have to meet the cost of guaranteed prices. The farmers would naturally welcome them, but they did not advocate guaranteed prices because they knew the project was neither sound nor equitable. It would not bring fresh capital into the countiy. Mr. Holland had stated that only a very small proportion of the farmers had benefited from raising the exchange. The Minister asserted that every primary producer had received the benefit and immediately passed it on to his creditors. By this process it went into direct circulation, thus increasing the purchasing power of the people. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. FURTHER; VIEWS OF MEMBERS'.

ANSWER TO LABOUR LEADER

WELLINGTON, Sept. 28. The debate on Labour’s no-confidence amendment to the Addre-s|S‘-ln-Reply motion was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. P. A. de la Perrelle, who dealt at length with the position of the Southland Power Board in relation to the payv ment of interest on its London loan. The board had borrowed money direct from London, whereas other hoards had received financial assistance from loan money borrowed by the Government, upon which Southlandors must necessarily pay their share in the way of taxation, said Mr do la Perrelle. The local bodies, with the exception of the Southland Power Board, had received the benefit of the 20 per cent, reduction in interest, and that fact, taken together with the increased exchange, made a gap of 45 per cent, between the respective positions of the Southland and other Boards.

Mr de la TerreUe added that the Southland Board had had legal advice that it could meet its indebtedness to the London bondholders in New Zealand currency, and he considered if a thing was legal it should be just, lx the 'board had to pay -in sterling it would mean the ratepayers would have to find an extra £20,000 annually. Mr Forbes: How much did they benefit from the exchange? Mr. de la Perrelle said it had been stated Southland farmers had benefited to the extent of £150,000, hut the Southland farmers did not constitute the whole of the consumers. Mr. F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) said that when the duty had been increased on petrol last yea.r an endeavour had been made to persuade the oil companies to reduce prices, hut it could not be done - Competition had done the trick, however, and there had been a substantial reduction per gallon. He alleged a combine of petrol companies by reducing prices was. trying to push another company, which secured its supplies from Russia, out of business, and he thought it would he a bad thing for New Zealand if the combine was successful. He would like to see fair competition, and he believed the Government should take action.

Mr. J. W. Munro (Lab., Dunedin North) advocated more intensive development of goldmining in-., Otago. He said that gratified, as Dunedin people were at the decision to erect a new post office, there were many thinking oeople who believed the money would have been better spent on the development of tile goldfields. Mr. R. McKeen (Lab.. Wellington °touth) said the failure of the World Conference Had indicated that each country would have to deal with its own problems. He contended that the only manner in which New Zealand could solve its currency nroblem was to return to the policy of basing the currency on commodities. Referring to che exchange rate, Mr McKeen said British farmers had been carefully watching the effects of the depreciated New Zealand and Danish currency so far as it concerned competition with their products, and they were now justifiably asking for a greater share of their own market. It would be well for New Zealand producers to look for additional markets. Mr. Taiti te Tomo (Co.. Western Maori) paid tribute to the late Mr J. McCombs who. he said, had fought- well for his principles. He expressed pride and pleasure that Mrs McCombs had t>een elected in her husband’s place. Mr te Tomo complimented the Government on the manner in which it had been assisting the. Maoris to develop their lands. He did not disagree with the principle of Maoris paving rates, but be thought they should be exempted if they were out of employment. LADY MEMBER; APPLAUDED.

On rising to make her first' speech in the House Tvlrs McCombs was vigorously applauded and was given an attentive hearing. She thanked ttie members for the reception they had given her and said she trusted nothing would eventuate in her political career that would disturb the harmonious relationship that seemed to have been established. She desired te remind members, however, that women were never satisfied unless they had their own way. “It happens in this case that the woman’s way is the right one,” Mrs McCombs added. She regarded her election to Parliament as an indication that a great majority of the electors were dissatisfied with the Government’s administration as it affected various matters touching the country as a whole. Criticising the handling of the unemployment problem, Mrs McCombs said the Government appeared to have lapsed into mental euthanasia. The people of Lyttelton had sent her to Parliament to say, “all is not well so far as unemployment is concerned . ” U NEMPLOYME NT RELIEF. ■She was particularly interested in l unemployment so far as it affected wo-, men and youths. The Government collected £7-50,000 annually from women for the unemployment fund, imposing its taxation, sometimes in a manner bordering on the fantastic. She instanced the cate of waitresses employed by a Christchurch rostuaranteur. Tho| post of a meal to customers in this restaurant was 9d. The waitresses partook of a meal in the restaurant after the customers had been served, ft was not of the same value as that supplied to the customers, yet for the purposes of unemployment taxation the Government assessed the meal supplied to the waitresses at Is and taxed them accordingly. She instanced another case in which it had been reported that an employer had paid to the extent of £3O liimself rather than allow the girls to be subjected to what he regarded as unfair taxation. Yet in spite of women’s contributions to the unemployment fund women’s unemployment ” committees were still