FINANCE BILL PASSED

Southland Times, Issue 25434, 5 August 1944, Page 6

FINANCE BILL PASSED

Marketing Account Spending

OPPOSITION WANTED AMENDMENT

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, August 4. The Finance Bill (No. 2) was put through all stages and passed in the House of Representatives this afternoon, but not before the committee stage produced some animated debating on one or two contentious clauses, notably that relating to marketing accounts. The short title was passed as soon as the House resumed and other clauses were passed without comment until the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) introduced a new sub-clause providing for authority to be given to companies to advance money to employees for the purchase of inscribed stock and protecting the rights of persons on whose behalf stock was purchased. The amendment was adopted after a short debate. The Opposition called for a division on Clause 6 validating excess unauthorized expenditure. The clause

was adopted by 42 to 29. The next four clauses were adopted without division. Mr K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Pahiatua) moved an amendment to Clause 11 which empowers the Minister of Marketing to approve expenditure for capital purposes from any account established under the Marketing Act. The amendment sought to provide that the Minister should be empowered to approve such expenditure only with the consent of the appropriate control board. Mr Nash expressed his willingness to write in an amendment that the Minister should take such action only after consultation with the industry concerned. A number of Opposition members contended that there was a vital difference between consultation and consent and Mr Nash was subjected to a barrage of interjection as he discussed the clause and amendment. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago) said the Minister might wish to embark on capital expenditure to which representatives of the industry were opposed. The Bill should provide for either approval or consent of the industry. He said Mr Nash’s proposed amendment merely meant that the Minister of Marketing should consult with the industry and then do what he liked. “DISTURBING ELECTORS” Mr Nash said consultation was the usual term in such legislation and in

agreements between the meat industry and the Government. “You can’t consult with an industry and then do what ' you like,” Mr Nash said. The Opposi- ’ tion was out to try to disturb the elec- , tors of the country. It seemed that the ( Opposition did not want the Govern- , ment to consult with the industry. Op- j position chorus: We want consent not ‘ consult. , Mr F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga): . We want cream. You are offering us j skim milk. ] Mr Nash averred that the Govern- ( ment had gone out of its way to meet the Opposition, yet they were not satis- j fled. After several brisk exchanges Mr J Nash said the Opposition would soon . “be jumping up in their seats again like a lot of monkeys,” but at the request of the Chairman of Committees (Mr R. McKeen) he withdrew the term. 1 Mr Holyoake said that unless Mr ( Nash accepted his amendment it was ( clear that Mr Nash intended, that the ] Government should consult the indus- < try, then do as it wished. j Mr Doidge claimed that only 24 hours j previously the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser had f given an assurance to the dairy indus- ] try that no moneys would be paid out c of the Dairy Account without the con- t sent of the industry. If the Govern- t ment now voted against the Opposition t amendment it would be repudiating its c own Prime Minister. f Mr Holyoake’s amendment was lost < by 28 to 41 and the clause embodying j the. amendment as suggested by Mr f Nash was adopted by 42 to 29. 1 The House adjourned at 5.7 p.m. until £ 2.30 on Monday.