A SHARP EXCHANGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22519, 13 March 1935, Page 6

A SHARP EXCHANGE

FARM FINANCE PROPOSALS MR COATES AND MR POLSON (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, March 12. A sharp exchange occurred between the Minister of Finance, Mr Coates, and Mr Poison in the House to-night when the Minister suggested that Mr Poison had made use of info: matiOn given in the caucus to criticise publicly the Government's mortgage finance proposals. The House was in committee on the Mortgage Corporation Bill. Mr Coates was replying to the criticism of the amendment brought doun by th e Government fixinc at 4£ per cent, the dividend on shares issued by the corporation and in the course of his remarks he said he knew that Mr Posou had listened to the dis cussion in caucus. ' Mr Poison: The suggestion that I used anything that occurred in the caucus is beneath you. Mr Coates: There can be no other reason for the statements that you have made. I say quite definitely that so far as investing organisations are concerned they are opposed to this Bill. One should be fair.

Mr Poison: Your attitude should be fairer.

Mr Coates: If I am wrong I am prepared to apologise and express regret for the statement I have made. Mr Poison: The suggestion you made is that I made use of something from the caucus and I give that an emphatic denial. I should like to say I have never spoken of caucus matters outside the caucus. I did not attend to-day's caucus so that I could not say anything about that anyway. Mr Jones: Didn't they ask you? Mr Poison: Oh, yes. Continuing, he said the Minister's charge was a serious one. The Minister had accused him of changing his tune and had said that he could only have done that by revealing something that had happened in the caucus. That was not correct, but it could not be said that the Minister had not changed his tune. A few years ago he had been in favour of co-operation and now he was going whole-heartedly for share capital. The Minister in his anxiety to belittle an opponent was very astute in his endeavours to "work a point" that was really beneath his position as a Minister.

Mr Poison added that he had clearly shown the Minister where h e himself stood on the Bill. Mr Coates: When?

Mr Poison: The Minister knows very well and he also knows why I cannot tell him.

When Mr Poison resumed his seat the chairman of committees called the House back to the Bill.'