PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21773, 12 October 1932, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 11. v The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m.' .. ■ SESSIONAL COMMITTEES. Notice of motion was given with respect to the setting up of sessional committees., NOTICE OF BILLS. Notice was given of intention to introduce the following Bills: —Otago Harbour Board Empowering (Mr J. W, Munro), Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment (Mr J. M’Combs), Avon and Heathcote Conservancy (Mr J. M'Comhs). , FINANCIAL DEBATE. Resuming the Budget debate, Mr A. E. Ansell (Chalmers) referred to the recent criticism of Parliament, and said that members might perhaps ask themselves whether they bad done their part in uphplding the prestige of the House, which very largely depended on the actions of members themselves. He drew attention to the criticism which had been levelled at members of the National Expenditure Commission, and said that, while it was the duty of Parliament to criticise the report, it was not its duty to attack members of the commission The report had shown the shortcomings in the administration of the past. Parliament ‘ had to assume certain responsibilities, and had to face the task of rectifying matters. It would still be ■ necessary for all expenditure to be subject to the most careful scrutiny.- Mr Ansell advocated the appointment of one supreme administrative body to co-ordinate and govern all forms pf transportation activity in New 'Zealand. He considered that the commission’s suggestion that the Transport Department should be practically abolished was quite out of line ‘with -progressive ideas. Attempts to induce voluntary transport. co-ordination had failed, and -the future would show that there must be compulsory co-ordination. Referring .to the transfer of the revenue from the petrol tax to the Consolidated Fund, Mr Ansell expressed the opinion that the .roads in New Zealand had definitely begun to deteriorate, and it was questionable whether the economy had proved a real one. .. / . Mr W. Nash (Hutt) said the primary was deserving of the greatest possible help, but the help which he received should be measured alongside the help given to other members of; the community. The Labour Party stood for a guaranteed price for farm produce, and he thought that within the next few years it would be possible to guarantee a-price that would pay the farmer to the full. That definitely implied control of New Zealand’s external trade. Mr Nash contended that the National Expenditure Commission had not given a. true picture of the country’s position, nor had it pointed to the road along which New Zealand could travel to progress. He defended the expenditure on social services, and said that if it had not been for that expenditure the Dominion’s national in- •' come might not Have increased as it had. The way to increase the national-income was to provide greater opportunities for the people. „ • -, ; 'Mr P. A. de la Perrelle (Awarua) submitted that New Zealand was still 'faced with the necessity for doing something to assist the fanners. He believed that land values were too high and land taxation wag also too high* A first eusential for the recovery of the farming industry was that markets should be expended and the Department of Industries and Commerce should make every endeavour to open up fresh avenues for the produce of the Dominion. He favoured encouraging secondary industries, buf only so long as they could stand up against competition from outside. 3lr Perrelle said he disagreed with the Pational Expenditure Commission’s recommendation that the trade offices in Australia > and Canada should be closed. The commission also apparently failed to realise the importance of the tourist services to the ' Dominion. He hoped the Government would disregard its recommendations in these directions. J ■' Mr R. Semple (Wellington East) characterised the Budget as “ a mean and miserable document, which_ marked another step on the road to national bankruptcy.’’ He said the only way to establish a healthy national balance sheet was to have a prosperous people. The amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been a definite incentive to employers to reduce wages further, and the South Island farmers had come to the conclusion that they had not gained one penny piece as a result of the wage reductions. Dealing with the proposal to establish a central- bank, Mr Semple said the Government had no man- ' date to barter away the right of the people to have free and unfettered control of their own currency, and he that this would be the result from the establishment of a central bank in the manner proposed. It would chain the country to “the international gang of usurers that had been to some extent responsible for the difficulties confronting the world to-day.” Mr Poison: On the Niemeyer plan it would. . ~ Mr Semplei The Budget says that it ig proposed to establish bank alonji • the lines recommended by Sir Otto Nicmeyer. , The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. EVENING SESSION The Financial debate was continued when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr H. Holland (Christchurch North) urged the adoption" of the National Expenditure Commission’s recommendation that the Transport Department be handed over to the' Public Works Department for administration. He said that whatever were the failings of the I übhc Works Department, it could not impose harder or more unreasonable conditions than the Transport Department did. He wag satisfied that it had not justified its existence. iMr Holland referred to a ease in which the residents of Havelock North petitioned for permission for a taxi service to remain in operation. The Commissioner of Transport (Mr Hunter) replied stating that he could not permit it, and would see that legislation was introduced this session to prevent the service operating. Mr Holland submitted that Mr Hunter was unfit for the position lie occupied. He had informed the representatives of 696 residents .that they had no hope of getting a better service, and that they would get no consideration at his hands. . Mr F. Langstone (Waimanno) asserted that there was no need for the slump in the Dominion. New Zealand could regulate her internal conditions irrespective of what other countries did. It was simply because New Zealand followed the policy of other countries that the depression was felt here. There was no shortage of wealth. There was simply n shortage of income. The first duty of the Government should be to create the money required by the. people based on the Dominion's securities. Mr E. F. Healy (Wairau) referred to his recent trip to Canada. He said, that what he had seen there had led him to ' believe that New Zealand had been very slow in completing her main arterial railways. He had returned more eager than ever to sec the main lines completed. Mr J. O’Brien (Westland) said if tne National Expenditure Commissions recommendation to reduce the number o. hospital districts were adopted it would sound the death knell of the efficiency of the hospitals which at present were wonderful institutions. He also criticised numerous other recommendations, and said the withdrawal of the subsidy for herd testing would be particularly unfortunate. Herd testing had beep of great benefit to agriculture, and had tremendously increased the butter-fat production throughout the Dominion. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and the House rose at 11.25 p.m.