PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21405, 5 August 1931, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 4. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. NOTICE OF BILLS. Notice was given of intention to introduce the following Bills: —South Wairarapa Rivers Board Empowering (Mr T. W. M'Donald), Petone Borough Council Empowering (Mr Walter Nash, Hutt). RUSSIAN BUTTER. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) asked the Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) whether his attention had been drawn to the cablegram stating that Russian butter wa» being imported into England in boxes identical with those used for New Zealand butter, and what action he proposed to take. Mr Forbest said he had communicated with the High Commissioner asking for the full facts and comments. PRICE OF TOBACCO. Mr G. C. Blftfk (Moteuka) referred to the increased wholesale prices of tobacco and asked whether the Prime Minister ■would take steps to see that the general .public and the retailers were not exploited by reason of the tariff revision. Mr Forbes said the difference between the list of wholesale prices quoted ,and the net increase in duty was accounted for by the allowance of discounts on the increased prices. The net return to the selling companies was within a fraction of a penny of that realised prior to the increase in duty. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr Taite Te Tomo (Western Maori) was granted two days’ leave of absence on \account of illness. FIRST READINGS. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—Auckland Harbour Board and Other Local Bodies’ Empowering (Mr- W. E. Parry), Christchurch Estuary and Rivers Conservancy (Mr J. M'Combs), Christchurch District Drainage Amendment (Mr E. J. Howard),Marriage Amendment (Mr H. G. R. Mason), Rating Amendment (Mr H. G. R. Mason). Explaining the Marriage Amendment Bill, Mr Mason said it merely aimed to give women ministers power to perform the marriage ceremony. CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAYS. The Christchurch Tramways District Amendment Bill was reported from the Local Bills Committee without amendment. ' .', Mr J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said he was glad the committee had-given a unanimous recommendation concerning the Bill, which provided that the powers of the Christchurch Tramways Board with respect to employees should be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Court Act, bringing the board into line with other tramway boards throughout the Dominion REVISION OF STATUTES.

A reprint of the Statutes Bill was reported from the Statutes Revision Committee without amendment. SAFER BUILDINGS. The Building Construction Bill was introduced by Governor-General’s Message and read a first time. Mr Forbes explained that the measure was designed to give effect to the recommendations of an expert committee and •was intended to render buildings not so liable to earthquake damage or damage from other natural causes.

ASSISTANCE TO WINEGROWERS. Moving the second reading of the Licensing Amendment Bill,/Mr H. G. KMason ,(Eden) said it aimed at giving relief to the winegrowing industry. There was no reason why the wine consumed in New Zealand should not be made here. Under the New Zealand law as it stood at present the winegrower had to grow, manufacture, and sell his own wine, allowing co-operation with no other person The growers also were not allowed to havte depots at any other .than their own towns. Some alarm had been expressed that the object of the Bill was to establish wine shops in every street in the country, but such alarm was entirely unfounded. He hoped the Bill would be referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee. Mr K. S. Williams (Bay of Plenty) said that no one could but be impressed with the excellent way in which the vineyards of New Zealand were kept, and as long as we were permitted to drink wine there was no reason why the New Zealand manufacturers should not be allowed to have greater facilities. He proposed to move an amendment when the Bill was in committee to remedy what he considered a defect in the main Act which made it unlawful to remove an hotel license more than half a mile in a borough or a mile in the country. This restriction had been fixed many years ago, and the alterations which bad taken place since had rendered many hotels useless in their present situations as a result of changed road routes etc. Mr ’J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) referred to the wine shop as an undoubted menace and expressed the opinion that if the Bill were passed there would be licensed wine shops all over the country. Mr R. A Wright (Wellington Suburbs) claimed that if the minimum amount of wine which was permitted to be sold were reduced from two gallons as at present to one quart, as the Bill proposed, there would be a big increase in the trade. „ , , . Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said there was no reason why a person should have to buy two gallons of wine when all he wanted was one bottle. He contended that there was practically no drunkenness in France, where wine could be bought freely. Mr W.‘ E. Parry (Auckland Central) submitted that there was no reason why the local growers should not have an opportunity of supplying the New Zealand market in place of imported wines. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) said he did not think the Bill would result m more wine being sold. It merely sought to give preference to New Zealand wine as against Australian. Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier) said the House should be able to consider the question without indulging in prohibition or anti-prohibition views. The measure should be considered fairly, on its merits. , Mr G. C. Black (Motueka) suggested that when the Bill was in committee the definition of wine should be made to include liquor produced from apples. There was good reason for advocating the development of the eider industry in New Zealand. Mr H. Holland (Christchurch North) expressed opposition to any increased licensing facilities. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said he would be favourably disposed to the Bill if it merely sought to give assistance to the winegrowers, hut it would be damaging in its effects and very far-reaching. Mr A. Hamilton (Wallace) expressed the opinion that the local industry plea could be carried too far, Mr J. A. Young (Hamilton) said there were possibilities of abuses in the establishment of wine shops, over which there was less control than over licensed hotels. The Bill was read a second time «tnd referred to the Industries and Commerce Committee.

EVENING SESSION MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL. The interrupted debate on the second reading of Mr W. D. Lysnar’s Meat Export Control Amendment Bill was continued when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m., and the Reform members again spoke in opposition to the measure. After speeches by Messrs F. Waite (Clutha), A. Harris (Waitemata), and A. E. Ansel! (Chalmers), Mr T. Makitanara (Southern Maori) rose and intimated his desire to move the closure. The Speaker said he was afraid that as the House had_ rejected the closure motion late on Friday afternoon he could not at this stage sanction a similar motion. The debate was then resumed by Mr A. Hamilton (Wallace). A division was reached •at 8.45, when Mr Hamilton’s amendment to the effect that the Bill be read a second time six

mouths hence was rejected by 31 votes to 23. The division was as follows: For the amendment (23). Ansell Massey, W. W. Bitchener Nash, j. A. Burnett Ransom Coates Samuel Cobbe Stallworthy de la Perrelle Sykes Forbes Waite Hamilton Ward Harris Williams Kyle Wright Linklater t ' Young Massey, J. N. Against the amendment (31). Atmore M'Donald Barnard ' “M'Keen Black Makitauara Broadfoot Martin Chapman Munns Dickie Munro Donald Nash, W. Fletcher Ngata Healy O’Brien Holland, H. E. Parry Jordan Poison dull Savage Langstone Smith Lye Taverner Lysnar Wilkinson M'Combs Cheers from the lobby into which Mr Lysnar and prominent supporters of the Bill had gone indicated that the amendment had suffered defeat, and the announcement of the voting was greeted with applause. The result of the division left Mr H. M. Rushworth’s amendment providing for the second reading on August 12 before the but Mr J. A. Nash immediately rose to move a further amendment —“ That the Bill be read a second time on October 14. Mr F. Langstone (Waimanno) interjected; Why don’t you make it November 5? Mr Nash: I would be pleased to make it November 4 if I knew the gentleman would be about. , . Continuing, Mr Nash said he felt compelled to move the amendment because ot the danger involved in the Bill. Further opposition to the BUI ; was interrupted approximately at 10 o cloca when Mr Makaitanara again sought to submit a closure motion, but the Speaker declined to accept it. Shortly afterwards Mr W.J. Jordan (Manukau) drew attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present, and the bells were set ringing. The return of two or three members to the House completed the requisite number, gad thq, debate was then continued until the rising of the House; at 10.30 p.m.