BRISK DISCUSSION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 199, 24 July 1931, Page 7

BRISK DISCUSSION

MEASURE BEFORE PARLIAMENT FIRST READING THIS MORNING

MEASURE BEFORE PARLIAMENT.

FIRST READING THIS MORNING

(By Telegraph—Special to Standard.) WELLINGTON, July 24. The War Ministers’ Profits Bill, introduced in the House of Represent tatives by Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) provoked a brisk discussion to-day. During the war, he said, the Government of the day tried to regulat© prices and in many countries took up to 80 per cent, of the excess profits. Now Zealand’s Excess Profits Act only operated for a short period and took 40 per cent. The Government also imposed drastic embargos on export, tlio fixing and lifting of which rendered some firms liable to heavy losses. Astriking instance of the injustice of these operations occurred in connection with a company in his electorate, a valuable industry being harassed and made to suffer great loss without a chance of legal redress. He could not go into the merits of the case, but the. Woolston Tennerics Company’s petition had been before the House and received a unanimous recommendation from a select committee, but the Government of that day took no action. On the. other hand, other firms were allowed to make colossal profits, and * his bill authorised the Commissioner of Taxes to investigate the profits made by companies in which .Ministers of the Crown held shares, contrasting their profits with the pre-war period. Then information would be available which would enable further legislation to be introduced if the Government wished to tax a proportion of those excess profits obtained. Several Christchurch Labour members supported the Bill, and Mr Langstone (Waimarino) advocated a wider scope. He referred to the large profits of a certain company, and, when called to order as irrelevant to the Bill, said there was a war Minister on this company, but he had not mentioned his name as he (the member) was in another place. Rt. Hon. J. G: Coates, Leader of the Opposition, reminded the House that there was not at present a Minister in the ~.Hoqse.?,who was' Tin-office .during the 1 war.,The suggestion had been matte that new matter had been disclose^' 1 that morning. “It has been mentioned here before. The simple answer to the innuendo which has been expressed is that the matters referred to have been dealt with by a Royal Commission already. Mr Justice Hosking, one of the most able of our Judges, investigated this very case.” He added that, following on the commission’s report, the Government asked three judges to overhaul the whole case again. Everybody wanted to be fair .to this company, and the three judges confirmed the commission’s report. ' fy “Most of.'us know the honourable gentleman Ao, whom reference has been made by ‘ innuendo,” said Mr R. A. Wright, “and I -want to that there is no more Tionourable or straightforward man than that gentleman.” Reform hear, hears. <. « Mr Wright contended .that' ,if there had been anything in the matter the Bill should have been brought down years ago. It looked as though the Bill was a vindictive measure, although he hoped that was not the case. He expressed regret that a Bill by innuendo should cast reflection on one of the most honourable gentlemen who ever sat in the House or any other chamber. The Bill was read the first time.