THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21110, 9 August 1938, Page 4

THE WEEK IN THE HOUSE

“MARKING TIME” ONE OUTSTANDING SPEECH (From Oui Parliamentary Reporter i WELLINGTON, August 8. Another weary week in the House of Representatives saw the Financial Debate, which has extended over 10 s tting days, still uncompleted. Very few fresh arguments have been introduced to relieve the monotony and in general the debate has been only a continuation of the political practice of “marking time” in anticipation of actual legislation. The outstanding speech of the week unquestionably came from the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nationalist, Kaipara). It was left to him to give the first real critical analysis of the Budget on the grounds of financial practice, and he accomplished this task with skill and with a complete mastery of facts r d figures. The chief point made by Mr Coates was that the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, has been able to f ~ecc ;t a Budget surplus this year only because he has “raided” the Employment Promotion Fund to the extent of £1,328,500 and diverted that money as credits to departmental and Public Works expenditure. Mr Coates also alleged that in Cv-inection with the maintenance of Public Works and Services, the Minister had found it expedient to transfer certain expenditure from Revenue Account and to load it on Loan Account, these items totalling no less than £325.000. This pra tice of financing maintenance out of anything but revenue was described by Mr Coates as being fundamentally vsound, and the conclusion which he reached was that, with the “raid” on the Employment Promotion Fund end the improper use of loan moneys, Mr Nash's estimated surplus of £58.090 would turn out to be a deficit of about £1.500,000. Two Ministers have taken part in the debate since Mr Coates’ speech. They were the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. W. E. Parry, and 'he Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, but neither made any attempt to challenge the accuracy of Mr Coates’ figures. Their only suggestion of a reply was that the last Government had been in the habit of granting subsidies out of the Employment Promotion Fund for various purposes.

A strong point made by Mr Coates in connection with the “raid” on the employment Promotion Land was 'h.t moneys from that fund would nov be available for a similar purpose next year. They would be earmarked lot the Government’s social security proposals. As a result, he said, additio lai revenue would have to be raised or else the Government would be forced to curtail expenditure in other directions. While Mr Coates was speaking, the Minister of Finance appeared to be noting his points with almost furious concentration and at times he appeared to be eager to enter the discussion. However, there was not a single interjection during Mr Coates’ speech and for that reasor more than ordinary interest should attach to the Minister’s reply to the debate which is likely to be given some time durng the coming week. “Incidents” The other points of interest which arose during the week were in the nature of "incidents.” The first >1 these occurred when the Speaker, the Hon. W. E. Barnard, made reference m the House to a letter in the press by Mr J. Hargest (Nationalist, Awaruai. This letter, according to Mr Speaker, was in effect a criticism the procedure of the House, and he was in some doubt as to whether or not it constituted a breach of privilege. Subsequently personal explanations were given by Mr Hargest and also by the Minister of Finance and Mr W. M. C. Denham (Labour-Invercargill) whom Mr Hargest had accused of acting in collusion in the asking rf an urgent question on housing matters, and there is a possibility that the final word has not yet been said. The only other stir in the House was caused by Mr F. W. Schramm (Labour, Auckland East), when he made a vigorous attack on the alleged electioneering methods of lady speakers in the interests of the National Party. There

was an inference to be drawn from interjections by the Rev. Clyde Carr (Labour, Timaru), that the speaker vo

whom Mr Schramm was referring • as the wife of a member of the Opposition, but firm action by Mr Speaker prevented the discussion in this respect from getting out of hand.

Mr Speaker also issued a timely warning as to the language which members are expected to usd when they are referring to persons outside the House. The proceedings of Parliamnt were now broadcast, he saia, and that fact brought into sharper outline the necessity for employing moderate and temperate language. Social Securit; So far 54 speakers have taken part in the Financial Debate—37 Government, 15 Opposition and two Independents—and the fact that Government speakers have outnumbered all others in the proportion of mor. than two to one is proof that the Government found it desirable to prolong the lebate. However, it seems that the end is bound to come some time this week and then, according to the Prime Minister, the way will be clear for the introduction of the Bill giving effect to the Government’s social security oposals.

This Bill will be the major item of the session and is bound to create w : - spread interest. The general nature of the Government’s proposals is well known, but the Bill will give information concerning the setting up of the new Social Security Department and its administration of the existing pensions and unemployme.x'. laws. The general impression is that the new department will control the health services under the scheme, but that the Health Department will exercise a considerable degree of supervision. Until the Bill itself appears it is not possible to estimate how long the discussion on it will last. The Opposition disagrees with proposals so far advanced on the grounds that thej do not represent true social insurance and that the financial basis of the sch *me is unsound. It is on th: question of finance that the main Opposition attack is likely to be directed.