QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

Taranaki Daily News, 7 March 1935, Page 7

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

DEFENCES OF DOMINION

WHITE PAPER NOT NECESSARY. FRUIT MARKETING METHODS. INSURANCE POLICIES AND DEBT. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Mr, F. Langstone' (Lab., Waimarino) asked in the House of Representatives to-day if the Minister of Finance would introduce legislation in the present session to prevent the attachment for debt of life insurance policies. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates replied that it was not intended to introduce legislation as asked. Life insurance moneys were available along with other assets to satisfy debts owing to the Crown, Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) asked when the amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act was to be brought down. The Hon. Adam Hamilton said the Bill would probably be brought down this session. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) asked the Prime Minister whether he would issue a White Paper setting out the Government’s intentions regarding defence, and would he make available to the Defence Committee of the House any agreement entered into with the British Government to supply a force from the Dominion in the event of an outbreak of war? . ~ The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said it was not considered necessary to issue a White Paper as the text of the British White Paper had already been fully published in the Press. Publication of. the paper did not involve any alteration in the defence policy of the Dominion, and no commitment had been made as suggested by Mr. < Jordan. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) asked the Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the marketing of New Zealand fruit at London on the panel system. The Hon. C. E. Macmillan in reply said the position was that a panel of brokers such as existed last season, as well as in previous seasons except 1933, had been appointed by the Fruit Board to handle the sale of New Zealand fruit in the London area. No special restrictions that did not previously exist had been imposed by the board. He understood two firms had declined to handle fruit unless the pooling system of fruit sales was abolished, and they were allowed to sell in the provinces, an area regarding which the board made other arrangements. Having regard to all the circumstances it was believed the board’s policy was a practical, well-considered one which should operate in the best interests of the producers. It was certainly preferable to a system involving indiscriminate handling of New Zealand fruit in the United Kingdom.