PARLIAMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19239, 1 August 1924, Page 8

PARLIAMENT.

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (Pjsb United Pbkss Association.) WELLINGTON, July 31. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. TRUSTEE AMENDMENT BILL. The Trustee Amendment Bill (Sir FRANCIS BELL) was read a iirst time. After ihe transaction of formal business the Council adjourned at 2.40 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. SOLDIERS’ ABANDONED SECTIONS. Replying to Mr B. Masters, the Hon. A. D. M’LEOD said It was not the definite policy of the Lands Department to charge those tailing up soldiers’ abandoned sections 10 per cent, on the capital value. In some oases 10 per cent was charged, but other cases wore dealt with on their merits after investigation. MINISTER AND FRUIT RING. Replying to Mr W. J. Jordan, Sir MAUI POMAR.E said he had nothing to withdraw in connection with his statement that there was a fruit ring operating in Auckland. If there were no legal proof of a ring, there was at least evidence of control, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. IMPERIAL CONFERENCE. Replying to Mr R. M’Keen, the Hon. W. DOWNIE STEWART, in the absence of the Prime Minister, said he had at present no information on the subject of the projected Imperial Conference, but he would endeavour to find cut whether or not New Ztaland had received an invitation and would state the position to the House later on DEBATE ON THE BUDGET. The debate on the Budget was continued by Mr J. R. CORRIGAN (Patea), who declared that financial trusts were operating in the dominion to the detriment of the farmers. We had never produced more than wo were doing at present, but the producers were never so short of money. The Prime Minister came to Taranaki, and had on his return to Wellington published a statement that everything was prosperous there. Taranaki was one of the richest spots in the dominion, but it was not nrosporous. The only prospcrit 1 - the Prime Minister saw in Hawera was two bank building* in the course of erection. That proved trusts were prosperous, but not the country. This was what the Government had driven the country to. Tliev wobbled about like the worn-out axle of a motor car. and yet they had the audacity to claim they were running the country in a satisfactory manner. Mr C. E. MacMILLAN (Tauranga) congratulated the Government on the prosperity of the country. He did not pretend that everybody participated in that prosperity, but those who suffered losses did not do so as the result of the qperations of the Government. The decrease in the values of our produce would create serious trouble. That trouble was practically certain to eventuate, and the Government had to determine who was to suffer the loss. To-day, owing to the slump, many working farmers were on such high-priced lands that they could scarcely make a living. A drop in the prices of our commodities meant that a man must go out altogether, and would become one of the great army of unemployed, which, however, did not exist in New Zealand. Under our bankruptcy law a bankrupt was entitled to retain £25 worth of furniture. ‘.That was not and ho thought farmers who through misfortune became bankrupt should be allowed to retain £2OO worth of stock. He did not think that was excessive, considering what it cost to stock a farm. Mr W. B. PARRY (Auckland Central) said the Budget did not give sufficient information to enable members to traxie the distribution of the country’s wealth. As a balance sheet the Budget fell very far short of what a private company would have supplied. Ho attributed the uneaual distribution of wealth to the operation of financial interests and to the stranglehold of mortgagees. In 1904 the exports were' valued at £14,748,000, with a purchasing power of £13,826,000; in 1914 the exports were valued at ±,26,000,000, with a purchasing power of £24,000,000; while in 1924 cur exports were £52,000,000, with a purchasing power of £35,000,000. That showed an increase in the purchasing pow-er of £lO 000,000 in the first 10-year period, and of £11,000,000 in the second 10-year period. These ’figures demonstrated -oat the increase in exports as measured by the purchasing power was not so very large after all, and ho concluded that the people who were producing the wealth were not peceiviiu' it. When there was a question of reducing taxation to the Government s wealthy friends then they said the country was. prosperous and could afford it. but when the wage earners wanted fair play in tno shape of increased wages we> were told there was no money to do it with. Ho contended the workers wore un fa 'r>y taxed. Talcing the average wage at about £2WJ ne claimed that for a family of two the Customs tax would average about £24, which was 12 per cent of the wage, but the Customs taxation on a man with £IOOO per year was only per cent. lie condemned the action of the Government m reverting to contract system in connection with public works. There was something stogev in connection with the Arapnm hydro-electric contract, and he wondered whether the raising of the recent loan in England had anything to do with it. Mr W. D. LYSNAB (Giabome) said the Government should exercise the greatest economy in connection with public works unless the works were of the strictest urgency. There were several big duplicating schemes in the air which should not be commenced until the people who had no lines at all were supplied with railway conveniences. We ought to have storage battery cars on our reason they wore not running was because of the prejudice of the engineers, but when Edison, the greatest electrical expert in the world, was prepared to give his guarantee as to their efficiency, it was time the Minister took some steps to tost thom, . , _ Wbon the House resumed at 7.30 p.m, Mr Lysnax, continuing his speech, dealt at length with the purchase of the Poverty Bey gbeepfarmers’ Freezing Works by Vesieys. The speaker censured the Minister of Agriculture for permitting the pur°hMr S. G. SMITH (Taxanki) said that although the debate had been in progress two days it was noteworthy that no member of to Reform Party had endeavoured to defend, excuse, _ or apologise for the absence of policy in the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition had ruthlessly exposed the inaccuracies and contradictions of the Budget, and there had been practcally no reply to hia clear line of argument except from the Minister of Edncation who had invited the Liberals to go over to the Reform Party to “ston the fide of Socialism.” What sort of Socialism did ho wish to stop? Was it State railways, State telegraphs. State insurance, for these' were forms of Socialism that ho wished to stop? If so ho would receive a pretty warm reception from the people of this country. He condemned the setting up of a Meat Board os an expensive excrescence because there was nothing which the board had done that could not have been done b v the Agricultural Department assisted by the Council of Agriculture. ’ All that the board appeared to he doing was sending its members trips to the Old Country. Criticising the suggestion of the member for Eormont that third-class land should be planted with trees ho deprecated sending the people away into high and slipping country when there was between Wanganui and Hawera some of the finest, agricultural country in (he world held in large blocks. That was where the people should bo settled, but there was no suggestion cf that sort of thing in the Budget. Dealing with the Budget itself, he said its most striking feature was that it concealed the actual financial position of the country. It was not true, a? alleged, that the good credit of New Zealand was due to_ the personal popularity of the Prime Minister. Ihe fact was that the financiers of the Old Country wore more alive to what was going on in this country than the average citizen ■was. and they knew wo had a fertile soil, a fine climate, and on industrious people. It was because of those things that our I credit wag high. It was an insult to the producers of the dominion to suggest that our excellent credit was duo in any way to the Prime Minister. The speaker condemned as extravagant the importation of motor cars which was going on, and concluded with a criticism of the Minister of Agriculture in his handling of wheat control, whch he (Mr Smith) contended had resulted to the serious detriment of the poultry raisers. The" Hon. W. D. STEWART (Dunedin

the Budget, it was nevertheless a good Budget. It was v«rV clear in its statoWest) said although the last speaker did not appear to bo greatly impressed by inent of the financial position, and had been most cordially received by the people of the dominion. So far as Labour was concerned he thought ho noticed a change of thought coming over the members of the present House, inasmuch as thej - did not now stress so much the existence of class war. Mr HOLLAND : Wo recognise it ns much as over. Mr STEWART: That might be so, but be hoped they would not exaggerate it. He thought it was better to minimise these social differences than to emphasise them. Mr HOLLAND: We can’t • minimise the truth. Coining back to the Budget, Mr Stewart said that one of the best testimonials ho had yet heard about the Budget was the opinion of the representatives of one of the Australian States, who heard the Budget ref,d, and to him the sound of the word surplus came as a great surprise as they so seldom heard of such a thing m the commonwealth. He quoted figures to show the financial position of several of the Australian States which were not so favourable as New Zealand’s position. He claimed that when things went so well in this country the Government which was responsible for that condition should be given credit for it. Mr Wilford, in his speech, had confined himself to a criticism of the more or less technical details of the Budget, during the course of which [ be charged the Prime Minister with faking the returns and generally misrepresenting the position. This was simoly absurd, and such language was not likely to be seriously accepted by the people. He had since been through the Budget, and he could find no misrepresentation. Mr Wilford had said there was a. loss of £6788 on the purchase of stock, but this was not so. As a matter of fact there was a handsome profit on this transaction of £45,000, with the remainder of the stock still to be dealt with. If Mr Wilford was unable to connect up the necessary figures he should have asked the Treasury for an explanation. However, since ho (the speaker) had made his explanation he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would not continue to use his original figures throughout the country. Mr Wilford had said no notice had been given of the non-payment of interest on the Discharged Soldiers' Account until it appeared in the Budget. That was not so; because particulars of that transaction were published in the press of November last while he fMr Stewart) was in charge. He denied that there were any propaganda figures in the Budget of 1923, and he warmly resented Mr Wilford’s allegation that the tables of the Budget were “faked,” which was a very ugly word to use. The Budget was perfectly consistent. Its figures were correct, and it put the true position before the country. The differences in the figures in setting out the capital value of the railways quoted try Mr Wilford was explained bv the fact that in one case only the money paid out of the Public Works Account was stated, while in the other case the figures set out the Assets connected with the railways, including the Midland railwav, which was not paid out of the Public Works Fund at all. Discrepancies in the public accounts were often explained by the fact that the Treasury closed at a given date, while moneys in the hands of the department which had not reached Wellington wore subsequently shown in the departmental accounts. The Minister had rot_ completed his speech when the time limit expired. In the course of a personal explanation Mr WILFORD said the Minister had replied to him, but bad not answered him. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr R. M‘KEEN, and the House rose at 10.50 p.m.