PARLIAMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

j HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. j By Telegraph—Pres? Association WELLINGTON. August 1. j The House of Representatives met at 10.30 this morning. Answers to Questions. ' Replying to Mr M, J. Savage, the ; Prime Minister stated that the Nurses’ [ and Midwives’ Registration AmendI mcnt Bill would be referred to the House on Tuesday next, and if it was ! the feeling of the House, it would be : referred to the Health Committee. \ Mr W. E. Barnard asked the MinisI ter of Defence whether there was any I truth in the allegations made by Mr F. Waite that the Minister had failed to keep his promise that he would consult Territorial officers before any changes were made in the defence system. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe replied that he had informed Territorial officers that serious consideration would be given before any changes were made, and he would consult General Young and obtain the opinion of experts. He had done this, and had later consulted six officers, one of whom was a prominent Wellington Territorial officer. He had not broken his promise in any way. New Bills. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time:—Hawke’s BayCounty Empowering Bill (Mr H. M. Campbell); Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill No. 2 (Mr J. McCombs). Financial Debate. The Financial debate was resumed by Mr F. Langstone, who asserted that the rationalisation of finance was as important as the rationalisation of industry. He criticised the financial transactions of the Bank of New Zealand in relation to its advances for j city buildings, when everyone was comI plaining of lack of money for importi ant developmental purposes. Mr Langstone expressed disapproval of the Customs increases, and declared that it was unsound and unscientific to impose Customs duties for purpose of raising revenue. The increases I would be passed on to a greater degree, i and the cost of living would be raised substantially. If the Government desired to give protection to New Zealand industries it should do so in a direct, courageous manner, but it was wrong to tax goods that could not be produced in this country. He described it as mean and paltry to obtain revenue by means of a tax on working people’s amusements. The Hon. P. A. de la Perrelle said it devolved upon all sections of the House to sink party feeling in times of difficulty. and he considered the Leader of the Opposition had been inconsistent; in stating that he desired to co-oper- : ate with the Government, only to follow such assurances with a non-con-fidence motion. The Minister attributed the present financial situation substantially' to the difficulties created by unemployment, and this had been largely caused by the Reform Government’s immigration policy. Mr K. S. Williams: How many registered unemployed were there when you took office? Mr de la Perrelle: I have not the figures here. Mr Williams: I can tell you there were 1835. H<JW many are there now? Mr de la Perrelle, continuing, said it was not fair to blame the Government for the conditions that were caused by world-wide depression. Referring to defence, he said at a time such as the present he could not see how anyone could object to the suspension of expenditure for one year. The increased petrol tax would be of great benefit to the backblock settlers. Surely they were entitled to good roads. While the critics of the Government had mentioned the burden that the petrol tax would place on farmers, none had drawn attention to the fact that the petrol used for farm machinery was not subject to the tax. Mr de la Perrelle said he believed the people of New Zealand generally would endorse the Prime Minister’s method of spreading the burden of increased taxation. They regarded it as a straightforward Budget. Mr H. M. Campbell said that unless there was some reasonable curtailment of wasteful expenditure, he believed taxation would be further increased next year. Dealing with defence curtailments, he said if he were satisfied that the change was to be for only one year, he would not have any serious objections. He did not think, however, that this would be the case. It would appear that the step had been dictated by the Labour Party. He asked the Government whether it was intended to continue the guarantee to fruitgrowers, declaring that it was a very important factor in the life of a valuable industry. Mr Campbell advocated placing seasonal workers on small holdings as a means of solving the problem of unemployment. The House adjourned at 1 p.m. Afternoon Session. The House of Representatives resumed at 2.30 this afternoon. Continuing the Budget debate, Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) said he con-

sidered better service by the Railways I could be ensured if a Committee of I railway workers were set up to consider the position. The time had arrived when the Government could abolish first-class carriages on suburban lines. No one ever used them, and furthermore, there were no firstclass carriages on tranrt and ferry services. It seemed that the Department was not out to make the service popular. The Government was doing its best in setting up Committees, but he disagreed with the personnel of the Railway Commission. The Committee of the House was overlooked. The Chairman of the Railways j Committee of the House (Mr J. T. Hogan) was just as experienced as the Chairman of the Committee set up. He complained that various Select Committees of the House were not consulted often enough on matters that came within their scope. It appeared that the House, and even Ministers themselves, did not have as much say in Government services as Departmental heads. Mr Jordan expressed himself strongly in favour of a voluntary defence force. He stated that the voluntary system had never been given a fair trial in New Zealand. When it had been in existence before, it had been starved, but he believed it . should b encouraged. Mr H. G. Dickie (Patea) cited the fact that New Zealand cheese had to be exported in crates made of imported timber, as evidence that the timber industry in this country required over-hauling. Referring to the State Advances, he said he had been looking forward to the tapering off in loans to workers. The housing shortage had largely been overcome, and a loan to a settler was of far more advantage to the country than one to a .worker, though he confessed he wanted to see all workers housed. Dealing with Budget economics, he said the Government had not mentioned the big bonus it had taken from producers. Provision had been made in last year’s estimate for money for a pork bonus, but just after the close of the session it had been announced that it was being withdrawn. It w r as useless for a Government spending millions on railway lines to talk of economy. A tremendous saving in interest alone could be made by effecting curtailment in that direction. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) denied that housing requirements had been met. While there were empty houses in some places, they were too large and expensive for workers. The need for State Advances for this purpose had not passed. He defended completion of the South Island Main Trunk railway on the ground that the province of Marlborough had not yet been fully developed, and would not be until it was served by a railway. The railways had rendered enormous developmental service to the Dominion. When the line was put through it was not merely a question of whether it was going to pay interest on capital expenditure or operating costs. If that view' had been held by the pioneers, New Zealand would still have been a back-blocks country. Mr Sullivan opposed the imposition of the new tax on amusements, and other taxes that would reach a section of the community that could ill-afford to bear them. He asserted that as soon as the time of depression arrived a worker was asked to become a shareholder and bear part of the burden, but when prosperous times came, he was never invited to share in increased j prices and dividends. Mr C. H. Clinkard (Rotorua) crit- 1 icised the action of the Independents' in voting against the Government the previous evening. He asked whether they would have voted the same way 1 had they thought the Government would have been defeated, and the Reform Party returned to the Treasury Benches. He particularly took exception to the attitude of Mr Fletcher, and insisted that the fairest course for the member for Grey Lynn to have taken would have been to follow the lead of Mr Jenkins. Mr Fletcher had been elected to the House as a member of the United Partv, and if he intended to vote against the Party on a no-confidence issue, he should first have sought the endorsement of his electors for his changed attitude. Referring to Arapuni, Mr Clinkard said he had always been of opinion that the work should never have been undertaken because of the nature of the country. Mr Clinkard’s speech was interrupted by the adjournment of the House, which rose at 5.30 p.m., till 2.30 on Tuesday.