PARLIAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 268, 27 October 1932, Page 9

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BUDGET DEBATE DRAGS ON. SEVEN SPEAKERS YESTERDAY. Wellington, Oct. 26. Resuming the Budget debate in the House of Representatives to-day, Mr J. Hargest (Invercargill) said that New Zealand had had an opportunity to set her house in order during the war and post-war years when the producers were making enormous profits, but nothing had been done. During the war the compelling force of patriotism would have led the people to submit to heavy taxation, and if taxation had been imposed then there would never have been a boom, and if there had never been a boom there would never have been a slump. Legislators had unfortunately followed the Hue of least resistance, with the result that men who came back from the war and young people who had grown up in the post-war years were being asked to shoulder a burden that they could not bear. Legislators of the past had bequeathed nothing but debts to the children of the future. It was now a question as to which should suffer —bondholders overseas or the child yet to be born. He did not hesitate to say that he stood on the side of the child to be. Interest payments overseas should bear some relationship to the price of primary products. THE COINAGE QUESTION.

Mr C. A, Wilkinson (Egmont) said that the report of the National Expenditure Commission was valuable to the Dominion because it had disclosed failures in administration. It should be read by every citizen. The commission had .indicated where certain savings could be made, but he desired to remind the House of a step which could be taken by. which the country could benefit to the extent of. £1,000,000. He referred to the question of coinage, and decJared that sooner or later the Dominion would have to consider the advisability of minting its own coins. Mr Wilkinson urged the Government to reconsider the position in respeet of wheat duties. He contended that the people were paying too much for bread because a small section of the community was being protected to an unreasonable degree. THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM. Mr A. 8. Richards (Roskill) criticised the recommendations of the National Expenditure Commission in respect to the setting up of a board of hospital's. He said that somewhat /similar recommendations had originated from the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association in 1926. Mention had been made in the report of the New South Wales system of control, and it had been suggested that this should be adopted by New Zealand. He pointed out that the Hospitals Commission of New South Wales was a non-political body with power to close hospital's, but it had closed none. The commission had recommended the closing of the some of the New Zealand hospitals. Power to close hospitals had never been exercised by the Australian States because Australia, like New Zealand, found that there was a never-ending demand for more accommodation. Continuing, Mr Richards said that the commission recommended reliance upon voluntary finance for hospitals and more stringent control of collection fees, but such methods in New South Wales and Victoria had been disastrous. The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. THE WHEAT DUTIES. The debate was continued when the House resumed at 7.30 by “Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Riccarton) who replied to Mr Wilkinson’s references to the wheat duties. He said that there was very little difference in New Zealand and Australian bread prices over the counter if the comparison was based on prices at the centres at which wheat was grown. He considered that jf an investigation of any kind was to be made it should be into the cost of the distribution of wheat to other centres and also into the cost from the time wheat left the farmer until the time it became bread. Mr Kyle renewed his criticism of the extension of the school books contract, and asked the Prime Minister to set up a tribunal before which all the cards could be placed on the table. He believed this was the only fair way to meet the complaints made on this subject from school committee associations and other persons outside the House. STATE OF EMERGENCY. Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) criticised the Government’s unemployment policy, and quoted from the report of the Economy Commission to support the contention that the Government was being advised to make conditions even worse by withdrawing established social services. Continuing he said that the whole of the country’s troubles revolved round the payment of debts. The Prime Minister had announced in the Budget that he couM not reduce interest charges to any extent, but a one per cent, reduction on the national debt would mean a saving of over £2,4)00,000 a year. Mr Jordan expressed the opinion that the Government should declare a State of emergency -to enable it to deal with the unemployment problem. He asserted that there were numbers of men, women and children who were not eAn able to obtain the bare necessaries of life.

Mr D. McDougal) (Mataura) dealing with unemployment, said that while he agreed that many men were doing useful work, he considered that others were doing useless work. He asked whether it was fair to ask a boy from a shop to go out in the winter and clear flooded drains. He suggested that the Government shout'd subsidise business concerns to enable the bov behind the counter to stay where he was.

Mr F. Jones (Dunedin South) urged the Government to take steps to control the importation and distribution of petrol supplies in New Zealand, and to take action to ensure that British shipping coirtd not be ousted by unfair ■■ompetition. Continuing, he said that there should be no differential treat-

meat in the payment of relief workers in boroughs contiguous to cities. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.10 p.m. formal WORK OF HOUSE. THE MONETARY SYSTEM. Wellington, Oct. 26. In the House of Representatives today Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West) gave notice of his intention to introduce the Auckland City Empowering Bill. Mr H. M. Rushworth (Bay of Islands) asked whether it was the intention of the Government to set up a select committee of the House to conduct a full open inquiry into the monetary system and possible alternatives thereto. Mr Forbes replied that the matter was uijder consideration by the Government. (Laughter). Mr F. Jones (Dunedin South) asked whether the Government intended to carry out the recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission to charge dental clinic committees £lOO per nurse. He pointed out the present charge was £3O per nurse. Any increase would mean that many clinics would be closed. Committees at the present time had great difficulty in raising sufficient money to meet this and other charges in connection with the maintenance of the clinics. The Hon. J. A. Young replied that there was no intention at present to make such a charge. The Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill (Mr P. Fraser) was read the second time pro forma and referred to the Statute Revision Committee. ARBITRATION LAW. Introducing the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3), Mr R. McKeen (Wellington South) said that the object of the measure was to meet a number of anomalies which had arisen as a result of the passing of last session’s Act. The position; at present was that on the parties failing to reach an agreement and 'declining to refer the matter to the court, the award became cancelled. The bill provided that before any award could be cancelled, a ballot should be taken among employers to determine whether they desired cancellation to' take place. Mr McKeen said that in some instances when the parties had failed to reach an agreement and declined to refer the matter to the Arbitration Court the old award had been revived. The existing law left it in the hands of a few employers to prevent an agreement being reached, whereas it was likely that a majority of the employers were desirous of a settlement, He instanced the ease of the Wellington butchers, stating that immediately after the failure to arrive at an agreement 75 per cent of the employers had signed a petition under which they had revived the old award. Mr S. G. Smith (New Plymouth): Were not the signatures secured under pressure? Mr McKeen: No. Mr Smith: Were not some of them threatened with a boycott? Mr McKeen: Oh, no. Mr McKeen went on to say that the position he had outlined had caused dissatisfaction among some employers, and he considered that if his amendment were accepted it would be possible to bring about a more satisfactory situation. He hoped the Minister would take the matter up. The bill was read the first time.