THE MONETARY SYSTEM

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19629, 25 October 1933, Page 6

THE MONETARY SYSTEM

INQUIRY FAVOURED REPORT TO THE HOUSE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, October 24. In the House of Representatives today, Mr F. Lye (C„ Waikato) presented the report of the Public Petitions Committee on 25 petitions praying for an examination into the present monetary system and possible alternatives with a view to such Government action as might meet the national requirements. The committee, in recommending the petitions to the Government for favourable consideration, also recommended that a Parliamentary Select Committee be immediately set up to conduct a full and open inquiry into the present monetary system and possible alternatives to it. Mr Lye stated that the committee’s decision had been a unanimous one. It had been felt that a Parliamentary Committee would be quite competent to meet the wishes of the petitioners. Mr J. A. Lee (Grey Lynn) said that the unanimous recommendation of the committee proved conclusively what was apparent to everyone in New Zealand, namely, that members of Parliament had lost all power to control the Government’s actions. The time had arrived when it was being represented that legislation should once more be determined by Parliament. He congratulated the committee on its finding. The adoption of its resolution by the Government would create a national Government almost within two minutes. If it were the purpose of Parliament to institute a system of banking that would enable people to enjoy the productivity that belonged to them, every member of the House would, on that basis, be prepared to co-operate at once. If the Government really believed that Parliament should determine how the people were to live it would give effect to the resolution. “ Most Important.” Mr A. M. Samuel (Ind., Thames) sdid that he believed the finding was one of the most important a Select Committee had ever presented to Parliament. He pointed out that there were a majority of Government supporters on this, in common with other Select Committees, and he urged that the proposed investigatory body be appointed without delay. The Government could • not ignore the recommendation. If it did, the institution was not functioning as it should function.

Mr H. M. Rushworth (Country Party, Bay of Islands) congratulated the committee on its finding. The petitioners had asked for a commission over which a Supreme Court judge should preside, but that was a matter for the Government to decide. Personally, he thought that the House and the country would prefer a commission to be presided over by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It only remained to be seen what was the Government’s reaction to this unanimous recommendation of the committee. The House and the country would await that decision with some anxiety and interest. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) expressed a hope that in the event of a committee being set up, its composition would be determined on a nonparty basis, and that the form of inquiry would not be such as to ensure a finding which harmonised merely with the views previously expressed by the Government. Would the Government agree to put to the test the belief that the Solution of the present difficulties might be expected from the reorganisation of the monetary and currency system. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes: Why did not the Petitions Committee conduct the inquiry itself? Mr Sullivan: It could not do so under the order of reference under which the actual petitions were considered.

Mr Forbes: The petitions were sent to the committee, which could have obtained the powers necessary for dealing with them. Mr Sullivan said that the most satisfactory course would be to appoint a Select Committee composed of those members, irrespective of party, who were most competent to arrive at a sound conclusion.

Commission Supported. Mr C. H. Clinkard (C., Rotorua) said that while he did not think New Zealand would be able to act independently in the matter of the reform of the monetary system, he did think that the time was opportune for the appointment of a commission as requested by the petitioners. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) said that the Government was out of step with public opinion in endeavouring to superimpose the existing monetary system on New Zealand. The inquiry recommended must take place whether the Government liked it or not. Mr Forbes said he would like to ask the Petitions Committee what evidence it had taken on the petitions to justify the statement that there was a claim for the investigation sought. Mr Lee: The superabundance of productivity and starvation. Mr Forbes said that if another committee of 10 members were appointed it would not be composed of better brains than those of the members of the Petitions Committee. He thought that the committee should have taken evidence itself and asked for further powers after pursuing the question to a certain point. It seemed that the committee was troubled with an inferiority complex. It could have considered itself as competent as any other committee to make the inquiry and present a report to the House. He did not think that there was anything to be gained in setting up a fresh committee. Government Criticised. Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said that the Government Was hopeless and the Prime Minister had practically admitted it. The committee could spend weeks taking evidence to justify the recommendation that an inquiry be held. Everyone except the Government knew that something was wrong. The Government did not want to do anything. It had no policy and it wanted to hand over the monetary system to someone outside New Zealand. Mr Lye, replying to the debate, said that the committee nad properly dealt with the matter and had not suffered from any Inferiority complex. It was not within the province of the committee to hold an inquiry into the monetary system. The committee had made its recommendation and the responsibility now rested with the Government. The report was referred to the Government.