POLITICAL NEWS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18353, 26 August 1929, Page 10

POLITICAL NEWS.

SIDELIGHTS ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. Superannuation Subsidies. One hundred and seventy thousand pounds represented the subsidy paid by the Railway Department to its superannuation fund for the year ended on March 31, according to the annual report on the operations of the fund recently presented to Parliament. Members’ subscriptions, £166,439, increased by £7838. ‘ Interest amounted to £65,537, an increase of £7244. The expenditure on life allowances, £240,710, increased by £12,849. The balance of income over expenditure was £127,548, compared with £125,255 for the previous year. At March 31, 2415 persons were on the fund, involving an annual liability of £258,632. The “Big Trombone.” The title of the “big trombone of the United Party” was applied to Mr W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) when speaking in the House of Representatives on the Budget. Mr Bodkin, who had set out in his address to reply to the speech of the Reform member for Mid-Canterbury (Mr D. Jones), commented on that member’s absence from the Chamber, stating that he had disappeared after receiving his “Hansard” proof, and had not been seen or heard of since. Reform Voices: That is unfair. The tables were turned on Mr Bodkin shortly afterwards, when Mr Kyle was speaking. Noticing the absence of the member for # Central Otago, Mr Kyle, who had commenced to reply to points made by Mr Bodkin, remarked: “Oh, he’s run away.” (Laughter.) Mr Kyle had no doufyt that Mr Jones was away on urgent public business in Canterbury, as Mr Bodkin had been in Otago last week. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino): Are they afraid of another election? Mr Kyle:: I don’t know. I am not. Mr Kyle said he looked upon Mr Bodkin as the big trombone of the United Party. He certainly was the loud speaker. Very noticeable, however, were the anxious looks cast by the Prime Minister at Mr Bodkin when he was delving into the land settlement question. Reporting Speeches. “I have noticed the difference in the reporting,” the Prime Minister said, in reply to Mr Holland’s complaints. “I think the House generally has. It is not fair. The speech of the member for Mid-Canterbury, which was one of the most unfair speeches I have ever listened to Mr Speaker: Order! Order! I am i afraid the Prime Minister is referring to a past debate. (Laughter.) The Minister: I noticed that the speech of the member for Lyttelton, which was a capital speech (Reform laughter), and a complete answer to the speech of the member for Canterbury— Reform Voices: No! No! “ on every material point raised,” the Prime Minister continued, but was again called to order by Mr Speaker, who drew attention to the reference to past debates. “Well, I have noticed the difference in the reporting,” said the Prime I Minister, “but I don’t know how it can be met. We will take an opportunity of putting cur views on record in an endeavour to educate the public on the unfairness that has been distinctly established by having the speeches of one side reported in full and the replies to them suppressed. That is absolutely unfair ” “Can’t we deprive them of their privileges?” queried a Labour member. Mr A. Harris (Waitemata): Why, my speech was not reported at all in the Auckland “Star.” The Prime Minister: “I don’t think anyone would have reported the hon. member’s speech. Had it been reported, I should not have read it. If there is any way in which we can obviate discrimination in reporting it will be most cheerfully done.” A Plea For Protection. Further protection for industries > natural to New Zealand was advocated I by Mr R. W. Hawke, Government member for Kaiapoi, when speaking on the Financial Statement. He had been advised that the mill in his electorate had dismissed a number of men and women owing to the languishing state of the industry. If anything could be done to assist such an industry, then it was clearly the duty of the House to do it. Mi’ W. J. Poison (Stratford): You are not suggesting more protection? Mr Hawke: I would protect the industries natural to New Zealand provided a burden was not placed upon the people. “You vote that way, then,” suggested Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South). Mr.Hawke: “We will wait until the ; time comes.” Millions of pounds, he added, were going out of New Zealand for goods which could be produced in New Zealand. If the super land tax failed to bring in the required revenue, then the sport of kings should be taxed. “I would give it to these big men in small doses,” said Mr Hawke, , amidst laughter. “I would take it out of them every day instead of once a year.” Ministers Criticised. In the course of the Budget debate, , Mr Kyle said that the PostmasterGeneral had given it out that the land tax proposals in the Budget would not affect city properties. The statement ! had been made to the country, and he only hoped that when the Postmaster- ; General addressed the House he would ! give his reasons. The apathy of the Minister of Education in letting his education policy be known to the House was also commented on by Mr Kyle. “We were to have the policy of the junior high schools some time in January,” proceeded Mr Kyle, “but we are now in the middle of August and I half-way through the session, and j

have not /heard what the. Minister intends to do.” Mr Kyle twitted the Government with its praise of the speech of the Labour member for Lyttelton (Mr J. McCombs). It seemed also that Mr McCombs had been briefed by the Government to assail Mr Jones’s arguments. Misrepresented! An allegation that he had been misrepresented was made by Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford) in the House of Representatives. “I wish to make an explanation, Mr Speaker. I have been misrepresented by the member for Raglan,” said Mr Poison. Mr Speaker pointed out that as the speech referred to had not been made that day, Mr Poison could only make an explanation by consent of the House. “A point of order, sir,” said Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames), rising to his feet. “The member for Raglan is not in the House, and I suggest that the member for Stratford defer his explanation until he is here.” Mr Poison said he wished to take the earliest opportunity of correcting the misrepresentation. It was only on reading his Hansard proof that he had noted it. The remarks of the member for Raglan had already been published. “Leave it until the member for Raglan is here,” suggested the Leader of the Opposition (Right Hon. J. G. Coates). # Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South): You are only referring to the newspaper report. “No, I am not,” replied Mr Poison. Mr Speaker asked whether it was the wish of the House that Mr Poison should be heard. Mr Howard: No. Mr Speaker said perhaps it would be better if Mr Poison deferred his explanation. Mr Poison: Very well, sir. “Dull But Not Stupid.” There was an exchange of compliments between Mr W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) and Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames) in the House of Representatives during the Budget debate. During his remarks on the Budget proposals, Mr Bodkin said that he hoped members would excuse Mr Samuel, who had interjected. “He is too dull to grasp what I am saying,” said Mr Bodkin. Mr Speaker: Order! Order! Mr Samuel: “I may be dull, but 1 am not stupid.” (Laughter.) “People who know you say there is a distinction without a difference,” retorted Mr Bodkin, who went on to say that the Reform Party were conjuring with 'the farmer, and that members of that party, who were adept as misrepresentation, were detailed to go round the country and tell the farmers that they were to be ruined by the Government. Mr Samuel: They have got nothing on you. (Reform laughter.) Mr Bodkin: The argument about ruining the farmers would get the member for Thames, too, if he were a farmer. .*. . Mr Samuel: He is a farmer. Mr Bodkin: The farmers of this country are an intelligent and educated body. Free Trade Opposed. “A reactionary policy, honeycombed with danger,” was how the Labour member for Wellington East (Mr R. Semple) described the free-trade policy advocated by the member for Bay of Islands (Mr H. M. Rushworth), when speaking on the Financial Statement in the House of Representatives. Mr Semple said that one of the great responsibilities of the House—indeed, it was the greatest—was to find employment for the unemployed and those leaving school every year. He had spent some time going into New Zealand’s imports from America: There was, he contended, no need to import one single motor body, for there was the timber in the Dominion and the skill to do the job. “Why do we commit industrial suicide by importing goods when we can make them in our own country?” asked Mr Semple. “It might be said that the labour in New Zealand can be employed on the land. That is true, but we have got to turn attention to other avenues of employment. It is a mistaken policy to allow America to dump the goods she is doing in New Zealand.”

Ministers Questioned. The member for Timaru (Mr Clyde Carr) has given notice to ask the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr Wilford) • (1) Whether 33 per cent, of persons imprisoned during the year 1928 had not previously been convicted? (2) Whether it is a fact that last year 87 per cent, of the persons convicted, though not necessarily imprisoned,’ had been convicted before? (3) Whether the method adopted for dealing with this 87 per cent, is sufficiently scientific and remedial? (4) Whether any special treatment is adopted with prisoners, whereby the stigma of imprisonment may be avoided, and costs saved to the Department? (5) Whether the figures regarding those sentenced to reformative detention demonstrate that the majority of such delinquents do not again appear before the Courts? A note attached to the questions says: Dr. Burt, the wellknown London expert, reports that where sociological and psychological examination of delinquents has been made, and treatment carried out, the successes are 62 per cent. Replying to a question by Mr Clyde Carr (member for Timaru) whether he will provide an opportunity for reopening the question of the reduction of the amount paid as bonus for the destruction of keas, the Hon G W [ Minister of Agriculture) 'said that before deciding to reduce the amount of the bonus, the whole question was carefully considered from all points of view, and it is therefore not proposed to re-open the matter at the present time. e