BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1930, Page 9

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

POSTPONEMENT OF CENSUS

GOVERNMENT ECONOMY MEASURE.

PROGRESS WITH LEGISLATION. I

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night. When the House of Representatives met to-day amendments to the Local legislation Bill were introduced by Gov-evnor-General’s message. Moving the second reading of the Bill, the Hon. ... A. de la Perrelle said every clause had been approved by the local bodies concerned. The Bill, was read a second time, . “ Moving the second reading ■ of tho Census Postponement Bill, Mr. de la Perrelle said this was one of the economy measures being introduced by the Government. The cost of the census was about £30,000. Although tho Bill gave power to postpone the census next year it could still be taken if the financial position improved. The result of not taking the census would be that there would be no Change in the electoral boundaries.

Mr. W. D. Stewart said he was opposed to the suspension of the census on the proper date, but the desire to avoid electoral changes was one which indst members would approve. Mr. W. W. Nash said that as the cost of the census would be a charge on next year’s revenue he thought the Government might reconsider its decision to postpone it. It would be unfortunate if the records on which comparisons were based were to be thrown out of continuity. j Mr. H. G. Dickie approved the proposal to postpone the census, stating there were many more important items on which the £30,000 could be spent. This view was supported by Mr. W. J. Polson, while Messrs J. McCombs, G. H. Chapman, E. J. Howard and W. J. Jordan agreed with the opinion expressed •by Mr. Nash. Mr. Chapman remarked that the greater part of £30,000 would be spent on employing semi-skilled workers of the Dominion.

Mr. H. E. Holland contended that it was not right to state the Bill would save £30,0D0; it would merely postpone the expenditure for a year or two. Replying, Mr. de la Perrelle said there was no guarantee that the financial position next year would be any better than at present. He had been informed by the Government Statistician that the census estimations in New Zealand had proved to be among the most accurate in the world. The Bill was read a second time.

ONE-MAN TRAMWAYS.

The Hon. W. B. Taverner moved the second reading of the Tramways Amendment Bill which, he said, had originated from Invercargill, where “oneman” trams were in use. In such cases there was no opportunity for a motorman to gain any previous experience as a conductor and the Bill proposed that training in the shed should be substituted for this service. This would apply only to towns where there was a one-man tramways system. The Bill was read a second time. The Slaughtering and Inspection Amendment Bill was read a second time. Mr. Clyde Carr expressed regret that the Bill made no provision for the establishment of abattoirs in county centres because the inspection of meat exposed for sale in these districts was sometimes not adequate. The Native Trustee Bill was committed and the House went into committee on the Local Legislation Bill. The passage of the Bill proceeded smoothly until the last clause, authorising the changing of the purposes of the expenditure of the Auckland Transport Board’s tramway development loan was reached, when Mr. C. A. Wilkinson objected to the portion of the clause which gave the necessary permission for changing the purposes of the expenditure. He stated such a change was a distinct breach of a well-established principle allowing - the- board to override the wishes of the ratepayers as manifested at the poll on a loan. He moved that the offending portion of the ‘Bill be deleted.

The Minister in reply stated that all the Auckland members had shown the clause long before it was introduced in the House and not one had offered any objection to it. Mr. H. E. Holland said that in a clause such as the one being discussed it was customary for all members affected to bo notified beforehand and he took it this had been done and the lyjcal Bills Committee satisfied that it had been done., AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN. Mr. Wilkinson stated that now the matter had been fully ventilated he was willing to withdraw his amendment, which he did, and the clause was unaltered. Several new clauses were added and the House went into committee on the Census Postponement Bill. Mr. H. E. Holland pointed out that if the Bill was passed there would be a gap of 10 years between the taking of the last census and the next, and thus valuable data would be lost to posterity. Mr. de la Perrelle stated th*at he and, in fact, the whole House, appreciated the value of -census figures. However, it Was a question of costs. The total estimated cost of taking the census in 1931 was £40,000. There was no provision for this amount in the Estimates.

• Mr. J. McCombs suggested that fractions which racing clubs were allowed to pocket, which totalled in all £3'5,000, might be taken by the State and thus get over the difficulty. Mr. J. G. Coates said the measure seemed to be one of retrenchment and everyone recognised when retrenchment was required smnething had to be “shoved off.” They regretted they had to do it, but it was necessary. He assured the Minister that his side of the House would support the Government. The Bill was then passed through the committee stage and the House proceeded to deal with tho Railways Amendment Bill also in committee. The Bill also passed 'through the committee stages and the Slaughtering and Inspection Amendment Bill was considered in committee. Several members said that tho Bill was an attempt to undermine municipal enterprise in favour of. the freezing companies. Mr. W. E. Parry called for a division on the short title of the Bill, but the amendment was lost by 41 votes to 19. The Bill then went through the committee stages. The Native Trustees Bill was passed with little comment and the House resumed, tho following Bills being read a third time: The Local Registration Bill, the Census Postponement Bill, the Tramways Amendment Bill, the Slaughtering and Inspection Amendment Bill, the Native Trustee Bill. The Kawarau Gold Mining Amalgamation Bill was introduced by GovernorGeneral’s message and read a first time. Replying to questions, the Hon. A. J. Murdoch said no Government money was to be invested in the scheme embodied in the Bill. As was known, an attempt to produce gold in this area had failed,

largely owing to the insufficiency of the dam erected. The Bill empowered subsidiary companies to amalgamate with the parent company so that they could work as one in an attempt to win back the money invested and at the same, time produce gold. The Bill would enable the shareholders to win out if there was a way out. All the shareholders would have an equal chance in the venture. Mr. W. A. Bodkin, the member for the district, said he had been assured that the subsidiary companies were interested equally with the company. If the Bill were passed the wishes of everyone would be met. At the request of Mr. Murdoch the Bill was read a second time pro forma and referred to the Goldfields and Mines Committee; The House rose at midnight till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.