PARLIAMENT.

Kaikoura Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 61, 7 August 1944, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

FINANCE BILL. AIR NABII REPLIES TO CRITICS. WELLINGTON, August 2. The suggestion that the Opposition had been deliberately misleading the country by suggesting that the Government had been spending money unlawfully and illegally, was made by the Minister of Finance (the Hon. Walter Nash) in a spirited reply to the debate on the Finance Bill, when the House resumed this evening. Mr Nash said the Bill was similar to ones which had been before the House on hundreds of occasions in the past, and new members were quite mistaken in suggesting that he had deceived the House. There had been much criticism of clause 6, which validated unauthorised expenditure, said Air Nash, but that had been a usage of the House for 70 years.

Opposition voices: Not to this extent. Air Nash: No, but that is because we have never spent money in the past on the scale we are now doing on account of the war.

Air Nash asked if any thoughtful member would have declined to spend money in the same way at the same time as the Government had done in the instance covered by the clause as unauthorised expenditure. Answering interjections by Mr R. Af. Algie (Opposition, Remuera), Mr Nash denied that he was introducing new matter. He said he was merely explaining major items of unauthorised expenditure. For instance, the £lOO,OOO spent for the wheat industry was unauthorised merely because, to safeguard the industry, that sum had been spent earlier than expected. Another £90,000 had been spent to hasten construction of the South Island Alain Trunk Railway. Would any member say that mpney ought to have been left unspent The Opposition knew they had been misleading the country in the last few days. Air AL H. Oram (Opposition, Manawatu): Why didn’t you give particulars in the Bill? It is you who has been misleading the country. Air Nash rejoined that members of the Opposition had implied the Minister of Finance was a slick, clever, tricky customer simply because he presented a Bill similar to its numerous predecessors. ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE.

I Other items provided for were £122,000 for the public works account (including £38,000 for the Manners Street Post Office site, Wellington), £76,000 for the removal-'of the Borstal Institute in Wellington, which had to be moved when anti-aircraft guns were installed nearby, £394,000 for expenditure under the Social Security Fund, £135,000 for the purchase and operation of the new State coal mines, and £116,232 for the payment of 2/9 a head for bobby calves. These sums, together with the smaller items he had explained earlier, totalled £1,067,000, compared with the total of £1,365,000 of unauth; orised expenditure which the Housew4r asked to approve. As the Government already had power to make £500,000 of •unauthorised expenditure, he had accounted for far more than the difference of £865,000 beyond the authority the Government previously had. Mr Nash said contributions from accounts under the Marketing Act were moneys that had been paid by the Government for cool stores, etc., and had to be paid back to the Government. Opposition members claimed that the Government was robbing the farmer, but they knew' that that was wrong, l>e- - cause an agreement had been made last year between the Government and the farming industry. By that agreement certain moneys were set aside in stabilisation funds, and if there was a deficiency in those fifnds when the account was closed, it would be charged to w r ar expenses. On the other hand, if there was a credit, it would be used to the benefit of the appropriate industry. The Government was not taking a penny, and no payment would be made the fund without the consent of the producers. 'Mr Nash said a further agreement had been reached for payments to the dairy industry to meet additional costs to that industry. There had been criticism of the prices received from Britain, but Opposition members had not mentioned that Britain increased prices for New Zealand produce every time increases were given to Australia or the Argentine. New Zealand’s overseas debt had been increased by £1,000,000 since the beginning of the war, but Britain’s overseas debt w*as £3,000,000,000. Britain had taken goods from overseas to save Britain and us. Mr Nash said he thought Now Zealand was getting a fair price from Britain, but Britain was charging too much for goods sent to New Zealand.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition, Tnuranga): But you asked Britain for more.

AGREEMENT WITH BRITAIN. Air Nash said he had not asked for more. The agreement with Britain was that if there was a considerable price disparity, there should be an adjustment through u reduction in British prices, but Britain said if she reduced prices to New Zealand she would have to reduce them to other countries, whose charges had increased, in some cases by 200 per cent. New Zealand could not live without Britain. It was Britain’s Navy, Army, and Air Force that saved us, and the Tvorld, and after that should we ask for mjoref He had spent two months in London arguing that if prices charged us did not come down, the price of our produce would have to go up. Mr A. J. Afurdoch (Opposition, Marsden): Did you get all you asked for? Mr Nash said he could not get what he thought he ought to get. Referring to retrospective legislation, Air Nash said there were plenty of precedents for passing legislation to prevent people from getting through holes in the law. It should be remembered that when one avoided the spirit of the law and escaped payment of duties others had to make up the deficiency. If any citizen tried to rob other citizens in that way while a Labour Gov- • nment was in charge, he would not t away with it. The Bill was read a second time.