PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22353, 29 August 1934, Page 10

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Pa United Press Associatioh.) WELLINGTON, August 28. The House met at 2.30 p.m. CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST. Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) moved the second reading of tho Church Property Trust (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, which was carried. NURSES’ SALARIES. Mr E. Jonfts (Dunedin South) asked the Minister of Health (Mr J. A. Young) whether in view of the proposed increase in the salaries and wages of 5 per cent, to public servants he .would approve of hospital boards increasing the salaries and wages of nurses and other hospital employees by a similar amount. Mr Young replied that of 45 hospital hoards that had made salary reductions the same as the public service four had restored the second cut during _ the present financial year. No objection would be taken to hospital boards which had , made two reductions following the Gov- ‘ ernment’s example. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Mr J. A, Hargest (Invercargill) was granted three days’ leave of absence on account of illness. CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL. The debate on the second reading of the Customs Act Amendment Bill was resumed. • , _ Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that the low tariff submitted to the House

was not in accordance with the spirit ot the Ottawa Agreement but with the -spirit of the Government itself, and it was an anti-New Zealand industry spirit. New Zealand was giving Britain specially favoured treatment apparently in the hope of receiving specially favoured treatment, but it had resulted, in nothing. He said the New Zealand tariff was about a quarter of that of Australia. If the Australian tariff gave a reasonable opportunity to the British competitor and the British Government had accepted it why was it necessary for the New Zealand Government to lower its tariff still further in order to give the British manufaeturer a reasonable opportunity for competition? Mr D. S. Reid (Raglan) urged a reduction of duty on electric and gas stoves by 10 per cent. Mr P. C. Webb (JJuller) criticised the Government for not placing a duty on crudejtoil and oil burning machinery to assist the coal industry. He also supported a tax being put on Australian coal. The Bill was not only not doing anything to help the coal industry but was doing much to injure it. A commission composed of experts had recommended that a tax of 2jd per gallon should be placed on crude oil and that the tax on benzol, which vaa manufactured in the Dominion gas work*, should be removed. Mr E. P. Healy (Wairau) said that the tax on iron pipe* had placed the British and Australian manufacturers in the position of being unable to tender for big jobs and left the New Zealand firm the only one that was able to tender. He instanced the irrigation scheme in Marlborough and said, that the Ne-w Zealand company had increased the price 6d a foot for large pipes since the new tariff had been introduced and had put the scheme out of the question. He criticised the removal of the duty on stock foods as. it would severely affect New Zealand barley growers. Mr H. Holland, (Christchurch North)

congratulated the Government on its compromise in the tariff regarding electric r stoves. He said the new tariff waa' a reasonable one and the industry gave employment to & large number of men in Christchurch and Dunedin. ilr W. H. Field (Otaki) said the tariff carried out the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement and took cognisance of the position of local industries. He was not altogether satisfied with the sliding scale of .wheat and flour duties. Some importers were making . large profits from the sale of cheap Japanese goods. Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) said the tariff should'be shaped to suit Mew Zealanders,; but actually it was shaped to suit persons in England. New Zealand had always given Britain spcfcial treatment and it was time New Zealand began to consider herself; . England was looking after herself first and it waS time New Zealand did the same. The Government had always looked at New Zealand from the farmers’ point of view. The present tariff looked at New Zealand from the farmers’ point of view. Mr D. M-Dougall (Mataura) said it was impossible to bring in a tariff that would suit everybody. Goods made in' New Zealand boot factories and woollen mills were much better than the imported articles.

EVENING SESSION

The House resumed .at 7.30 p.m. The Customs Act Amendment Bill debate was continued when the House resumed. Mr. M'Dougall said that if the same protection -were given secondary industries as was given to wheat New Zealand would be the /appiest country in the world. He criticised the wheat grower for the assistance he received, lie said he did not blame- the farmer, who was only touting for Distributors, Ltd., which was the “nigger in the woodpile.” The people were paying far too much for bread, but the Government did nothing. Mr R. Semple (Wellington East) said he wag satisfied that juggling or tinkering. with tariffs was no solution of the problems facing the world to-day. The tariff was one of the main things that led to conflict among nations. Representatives of the nations should meet and arrange trade agreements instead of building up tariffs. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said the wheatgrowers were not entitled to any more protection than' other farmers in New Zealand. He agreed that 'primary and secondary industries must be developed together. He spoke of-Japanese competition, and referred specially to pottery,-stating that all goods should be marked with the country of origin. Mr J. Connolly (Mid-Canterbury) said he had always believed that primary industries could not be carried on unless the development of secondary industries went hand in hand. He thought the report of the Tariff Commission showed that one thing to be avoided was the setting ud of a tariff board to deal with the question of tariffs. He defended the wheat duties, and said that some of the costs between the grower and die consumer might be too great, but the grower was not responsible for that, so why attack him? Mrs M'Combs (Lyttelton) protested against the reduction in the excise duty on beer and asked why it was made. The Tariff Commission did not recommend it. No mention was made of it when the resolutions were first intoduced. The whole thing had been done secretly .without any adequate reason being given. The proposals meant a straight-out gift of 1112,000 to the) brewing industry. The brewers were nof only not deserving of that gift hut did not require it. Mrs M'Combs said she ventured to say that not ong member of the House would say an increased consumption of drink would be to the benefit of the country. Had the duty been taken off tea it would have meant some difference to the budgets of the working people. As it was the reduction of the beer duty would not lie passed on to the public. She doubted if jt would even be passed on to the hotels. Mr J. Nash (Palmerston) said he thought that manufacturers were now generally satisfied with the duties before the House. He supported the wheat duties and said New Zealand should grow its own supplies and be independent of other countries. He protested against the re-establishment of the duty on electric ranges. It meant a great deal ,to power boards. Canadian ranges could be landed in New Zealand at £l6. The protection afforded New Zealand ranges was 8(1.8 per cent. Power boards desired that ranges should be available to consumers at the lowest possible price in order to increase the use of power. Mr W. E. Barnard (Napier) sought further concessions for the tobacco industry and supported Mrs M Combs s protest against the reduction of the beer duty.

Mr A. E. Jull (Waipawa), referring to the beer duty, said that before the war there was an excise of 3d a gallon. That was increased to Is 6d a gallon and now it was reduced by 3d, The suggestion that the brewers would lie allowed to retain that was absurd. The benefit would go to the consumer in the amount of liquor provided. In Britain the excise last year was reduced by Sd. While many people held the same views as Mrs M'Combs a great number held a different yiew, and those engaged in the trade during, the last two or three years had suffered severely. Mr D. W. Coleman (Gisborne) said the Government seemed more concerned about finding employment for British workmen in Britain than for finding work for New Zealand workmen in New Zealand.

The debate was adjourned when the House rose at 11.50 p.m.