PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 256, 12 October 1932, Page 9

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

BUDGET DEBATE RESUMED.

CENTRAL BANK PROPOSAL. Wellington, Oct. 11. Resuming the Budget debate in the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr A. E. Ansell (Chalmers) referred to the recent criticism of' Parliament and to the transfer of petrol tax revenue to the Consolidated Fund, as reported elsewhere.

Mr W. Nash (Hutt) said that the primary producer was deserving of the greatest possible help, but the help he received should be measured alongside the help given to other members of the community. The Labour Party stood for a guaranteed price for farm produce, and he thought that, within the next few years it would be possible to guarantee a price that would pay the farmer to the full. That definitely implied the control of New Zealand’s . external trade. Mr Nash contended that the National Expenditure Commission had not given a true picture of the country’s position; nor had it pointed the road along which New Zealand could travel to progress. He defended expenditure on social services and said that if it had not been for that expenditure the Dominion’s national income might not have increased as it had. The way to increase the national income was to provide greater opportunities for the people. I Mr P. A. de la Perrelle (Awarua) submitted that New Zealand was still faced with the necessity of doing something to assist farmers, l-le believed that land values were too high and that land taxation was also toe high A first essential for the recovery of the farming industry was that the market should be extended, and the Department of Industries and Commerce should make every endeavour to open up fresh avenues for the Dominion’s produce, He favoured the encouraging of secondary industries, but only so long as they could stand up against competition from outside. TRADE OFFICES. Mr de la Perrelle disagreed with the Expenditur' Commission’s recommendations that trade offices in Australia and Canada should be closed. The commission also apparently failed to realise the importance of the tourist service to the Dominion. He hoped that the Government would disregard the recommendations in these directions. Mr R. Semple (Wellington East) characterised the Budget as a “mean and miserable document which marked Another step on the road to national bankruptcy.’’ He said that the only way to establish a healthy national balance sheet was to have a prosperous people, The Amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been a definite incentive to employers to reduce wages further, and South Island farmers had come to the conclusion they had not gained one penny piece as a result of the wage reduction. . Dealing with the proposal to establish a central bank, Mr Semple said that, the. Government had' no mandate to barter away the right of the people to have free, unfettered control of its own currency, and he believed that that would be the result of the establishment of a central bank in the manner proposed. It would chain the country to “an international gang of usurers that had been to some extent responsible for the difficulties confronting the world now.” Mr W. J. Polson (Stratford): On the Neimeyer plan it would. Mr Semple: The Budget says it is proposed to establish the bank along the lines recommended by Sir Otto Niemeyer. The House adjourned at 5.30. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT. When the House resumed at 7.30 Mr H. Holland (Christchurch North) urged the adoption of the Expenditure Commission’s recommendation that the Transport Department be handed over to the Public Works Department for administration. He said that, whatever were the failings of the Public Works Department, it could not impose harder or more unreasonable conditions than the Transport Department did. He was satisfied that it had not justified its existence, Mr Holland referred to a case in which the residents of Havelock North had petitioned for permission for a taxi service to remain in operation. The Commissioner of Transport (Mr Hunter) replied stating that he would not permit it and would see that legislation was introduced this session to prevent the service from operating. Mr Holland submitted that Mr Hunter was unfit for the position he occupied. He had informed the representatives of 696 residents that they had no hope of getting a better service and that they would get no consideration at his hands. . Mr F. Langstone (Waimanno) asserted that there was no need for a slump in the Dominion. New Zealand could regulate internal conditions irrespective of what other countries did. It was simply because New Zealand followed the policy of other countries that the depression was felt here. There was no shortage of wealth; there was simply a shortage of income. The first duty of the Government was to create the money required by the people, based on the Dominion’s security.

Mr. E. F. Healy (Wairau) referred to a recent trip to Canada. He said, that what he had seen there had led him to believe that New Zealand had been very slow in completing its main arterial railways. He had returned more eager than ever to see the main lines completed. Mr J. O’Brien (Westland) said that if the Expenditure Commission’s recommendation to reduce the number of hospital districts were adopted it would sound the death knell of efficiency of hospitals, which at present were wonderful institutions. He also criticised numerous other recommendations and said that the withdrawal of the subsidy on herd-testing would be particularly unfortunate. Herd-testing had been a great benefit to agriculture and had tremendously increased butterfat production throughout the Dominion. The debate -was adjourned on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and the House rose at 11.25.