PARLIAMENT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 1 August 1924, Page 5

PARLIAMENT

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (From our Parliamentary Correspondent) WELLINGTON, This Day. Reference to the cable message respecting the possibility of another Imperial Conference was made in the House to-day by Mr McKeen, who asked the acting leader whether the Government had received an invitation, and if it was the intention of the Government tQ accept and he represented in October. “I am not able to state the position,” Hon. Downie Stewart replied. “I have nol had an opportunity since the lion, member mentioned the matter to me at 2 o'clock this afternoon of seeing the Prime Minister or of seeing the despatches which may be in the office in connection with the matter. If the hon. member will repeat the question to-morrow afternoon or at some future time I will try to give the information that is asked for.” A LITTLE DIVERSION MR LYSNAR AND LABOUR (From our Parliamentary Correspondent) WELLINGTON, This Day. Mr Lysnar (Representative of Gisborne) seldom fails to tell the House of his aversion to the Labour party and its principles as he views them, lie again caused a little diversion yesterday by asserting, amongst other that the Labour Party wanted to rob graveyards. “What they intend to do is to confiscate property,” said Mr Lysnar. Mr Fraser: “Meat works.” (Laughter.) “You want it,” replied Mr Lysnar. “They talk of confiscation. I am fighting against confiscation in that matter. lam directly opposed to them. We don’t want that sort of thing and the people of the Dominion don’t want it. I say, why should the wealth be divided up? Those who put their hands forward and work are entitled to it more than those who put their hands in their pockets and sit in an armchair. Labour chorus: “Hear, hear.” “Hear, bear!” says the extreme La- - hour Party. . . .Mr Lysnar added, “That is their policy. They want the individual who sits i'n an armchair to participate in the deal instead of those who are working out in the backblocks. “Quack quack,” interjected a Labour I back bencher. Allu'ding to some remarks made by Mr Lee (Auckland East) on Wednesday night regard- common ownership, . Mr Lysnar said the Labour Party would have no taxpayers, but would rob other ' people of their property, "the same as they are doing in Russia.” Mr Holland: “Who would do that?” Mr Lysnar: “Your party, the extreme Labour Party.” Mr Holland: “Are you, referring to the men on these benches?” “I am referring to the extreme Lahour benches in this House,”, was Mr Lysnar’s answer. Mr Holland raised a point of order. Was' Mr Lysnar entitled to say. that any member of the House would rob the people? In reply to Mr Speaker, Mr Lysnar said he did not employ the term in the sense that Mr Holland interpreted it, “buf,” he remarked, “the Auckland meihber said they would take these properties from the people.” Mr Holland: “They would rob? Mr Lysnar: “If you say rob, then you'can call it rob. ’ (Laughter.) * Mr Speaker said he did not think Mr Lysnar meant to use.,the word in its dishonest sense. Mr Lysnar proceeded with his condemnation of the Labour party. “You have another go9c]„.illustration, he sai<R “and I again emphasise my. point, He (Mr Lee) said JasL.night that they ought to take one of the graveyards and use it as a playground for children. (Loud laughter.) That shows the principle of these people. The graveyard had'been purchased by representatives of the dead and they would seriously stand up in this House and say that part of if should be taken for a playground for an adjoining School.” Voices: “Shame.” Mr Lysnar: “It shows to what extent they would desecrate the graves of the dead to carry out the Bolshevistic idea. (Laughter.) I asked him if it was full and he said it was. (Laughter.) It shows the nice sort of condition of mind these extreme Labour people have. 'A Labour member: “We are proud oi 511 Mr Lysnar: “If the Auckland people are proud of that sort of thing. I am sorry for Tnem. These people are prepared to do anything.” Air Lysnar concluded by assuring the House he knew something about Bolshevistic teachings, as much as the Labour members themselves. “I think I can see changes coming over the thought and action of the Labour Party which are perhaps more obvious to the looker on than to themselves,” observed the Minister of Oustnffi’s (Hon. W. Downie Stewart) in the House last night. “I don’t hear quite the same note as T heard a year or two from the member for the Btfller and some of his colleagues. When they firstcame into the House they preached the doctrine of a class war.” Air Holland: “They recognise it today as much as ever.” The Minister said that- they not only recognised it, hut they tried to aggravate it, which he thought was a greatmistake. , ~ , T Reference to the reason why the National Government came to an end and the promise of revelations when the time comes for the Liberal party to search the “pigeon holes” was made by Mr Smith in the House last night. He said it was on record that Sir Joseph Ward, as Finance Minister in the National Government, had disagreed with utilising surpluses to purchase land for soldiers, because it would result in a boom. Mr Nash : “Is that all? Mr Smith: “When the next Governmefit takes possession of the Treasury benches —” A voice: “When?” Air 'Smith: “And the pigeon holes have been searched and the mess cleaned up for the first time for many years, and the people of this country get the truth about our financial position, the honourable gentleman won’t say is that all.”

MR T. K. SIDEY’S SPEECH Mr T K. S'jdey (Dunedin South), in the Financial Debate, argued that the surplus should really have been shown as £2,250,000. Perhaps the I nme Minister was TeluotaiKt; to announce that because of his consciousness that it was too big, or that it meant that too much had been taken out of the pockets of the people. He did not want to labour the point, hut two years ago the Prime Minister declai ed that a Finance Minister should no have too largo a surplus. N®^ l Y standing tho increase of £l,2W,uuu in Customs revenue, the total increase in revenue had heeu wiped out by an increase in 'expenditure on annual nppro»rrafciorfSV ' dLfc' was because more money bad been allocated to permanent appropriations that • the Government had jbeen able to claim it had kept expendi- ■ ±urb ; down iii other directions. The Minister of Erucation in. has speech oh‘Tuesday had claimed as a recorid the fact that the Prime Minister had said that the revenue last -year wa« short of the estimate by £8630.' .Past year, the Prime Minister ah his estimate of revenue for 1923-24 included a ; >gum of £128,000 for nation-

al endowment reveuue. Having, however, excluded national -endowment revenue altogether from his accounts, lie ought surely to have deducted from Inst year’s Estimates the £128,000 allowed on that acount in ascertaining whether his estimate of revenue had been exceeded or not. This he had failed to do. Deducting £128,000 from the total estimate of £27,969,000, left £27,841,000 as the estimate for 1923-24 without endowment revenue. This, instead of being an over-estimate was an under-estimate of the actual revenue received by £119,370. Further, when there was added £540,000 of outstanding interest it- would be found that iin.stead of over-estimating his revenue by £8630, as stated in the Budget,. the Finance Minister under-esti-mated it by £659,370.

After dealing with the export- and import- figures. Air Sidey stated that jt was a striking commentary upon the reduction ,jn the National Debt that had been claimed for the past two years, that- Ihe interest and sinking fund charges were last year greater than they wore two years ago by £147,000, and although the payment of interest showed a. small reduction last year of -some £26,000 on the expenditure side, there was over £IOO,OOO less interest on public money on the revenue side after allowing for an amount of £540,000 outstanding. The fact that the Alinister was now talking of seeking a- reduction in the annual charges under Ihe funded debt was an indication that he realised he had made what might- become in a few years a very bad bargain. If would depend upon the terms upon which the whole funded debt could he redeemed. There was little doubt that the Government had made a bad bargain in the exchange of 5.) per cent debentures for 4) per cent free of income tax. Mr Sidey also claimed that insufficient information had lioon given regarding the charges on the last loan. The Budget had been described as colourless and disappointing, and so it was.