M.P.'S HAVE LONG NIGHT DEBATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18548, 23 August 1928, Page 8

M.P.'S HAVE LONG NIGHT DEBATE.

MUCH TIME WASTED, SAYS EVERYONE. ■Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, August 22. The House met at 2.30. The debate on the Budget was resumed by the lion W. Downie Stewart, who combated the idea that high wages necessarily produced a high output. There must be high production, other wise the reservoir of supply of money would dry up, and any other view was extremely one-eyed. A significant feature of the debate had been that the discussion revolved round problems affecting the farmer, cheap money, etc. That was only right, because so much in New Zealand depended upon the prosperity of those on the land. The Minister of Lands had been accused of lack of energy and sympathy, but he was confident that was not the view of Mr M’Leod held by the people of the Dominion, who recognised that he had handled an extremely . difficult situation with consummate ability. The Minister traversed the old reasons for raising the rate of interest under the State Advances Act and for limiting Post Office Savings Bank deposits. He maintained that it was always better to redeem dead weight debt than interest earning debt. It was not possible to raise large sums by way of income tax and on incomes of £IO,OOO, because there were only twenty persons in that category. If the margin was lowered to incomes of £SOOO and over there would be 172 people affected, but they were paying heavily now, and be did not think there was much room for increase there unless they wished to take the lot. Returning to farmers' finance, he said that farmers’ associations in Europe were all independent of the Government and actually lent money to the Government. Here it was altogether the other way; everyone wanted the Government to do everything for them. What he would like to see was more self-reliance and greater independence of the Government. Discussing the future of State enterprises, he said there were two lines of policy to be considered. One was that the profits were to be used to reduce taxation and increase social services, the other was that profits should be absorbed by concessions to users of these enterprises. Personally he favoured a middle course. If profits were going to be as great as anticipated, he could not see why all the profits should go to consumers, because the public at large launched the schemes and guaranteed the cost. If the whole of the profits were to go to consumers then the dreams of reduced taxation would vanish.

The motion that the House go into Committee of Supply was then put and carried, and members proceeded to consider the first item on the estimates, Legislative Departments, £85,594. The leader of the Opposition protested against the “ unbusiness like ” manner in which the House did its business. He complained of late hours and to emphasise his point he moved that the vote be reduced by £lO. Evening Sitting.

On resuming at 7.30, the committee continued to discuss the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition, without saying very much about it. At the supper adjournment they still were discussing it, each side of the House light-heartedly accusing the other side of wasting the time of Parliament and the country.

Members continued, with a number of personal interludes, to discuss the question whether the standing orders should or should not be amended, and at 1 a.m. were no nearer unanimity than they were at 7.30 pan. Up to 12.30 a-in. the Labour party load freely participated in the debate. Then Mr Waite, in the course of a speech, indicated that as the House had been kept up by Labour, Reform members were now going to keep the discussion going for some hours longer. After several Reform members had roundly upbraided the Opposition for wisting the whole night by bringing forward a useless amendment a division was taken, when the amendment was defeated by 43 to 16. RAILWAYS APPOINTMENT STRONGLY CRITICISED. (Special to the “ Star. ”) WELLINGTON, August 23. At 1.30 pm., after an amendment to the Estimates by Mr Holland had been heavily defeated, the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the Railway Board’s disappearance in favour of a general manager. The Government, he declared, had acted illegally, and he would challenge this illegal act of administration. The law provid ed for control of railways by a Railway Board. It had never been altered, yet the Government abolished the board, and appointed a General Manager without any regard for Parliament’s will, fixing the salary at £3500 with superannuation of £2OOO after seven years. “ How can the Government expect people to obey the law,” asked Mr Holland, " when the Government goes beyond the powers of the. law, relaying on its immense majqrity to condone what had bene done? ”

Mr E. P. Lee: How has the law been broken ? Mr Holland: The law says that there should be a Railway Board. Mr Lee: What happens if .the board resigns ? Mr Holland: _ Then a new board should be appointed.

The Minister of Finance: Have you never asked us to validate grants made by your local bodies? Mr Holland: That is a different matter altogether. This alteration should have been carried out in a constitutional manner. The position was that the new General Manager was illegally in control of the railways. Therefore, Mr Holland moved to reduce the Legislative Department’s estimate by £9 to indicate disapproval of the Government's action in abolishing the Railway Board and setting tip a new control. Mr Savage said that this savoured of Mussolini tactics. A Ministerial explanation should be made. Mr Coates interjected that it did not matter how the hon. gentleman voted or his party either. Mr Savage: We don’t count now, but the time may come when we will count The Premier interjected that he made an explanation recently to Parliament.

Mr Veitch said that he approved of the change to a general manager, but he strongly opposed the method.

Mr M’Combs asked if the Prime Minister realised he was treating Parliament with contempt. Having usurped its authority he refused explanations. He was earning the title of the Mussolini of New Zealand. Mr Coates (smijing) : No, no. For heaven’s sake don’t call me that. You make me annoyed. Sir George Hunter, who was acting Chairman of Committees, informed Mr M’Combs that it was against the standing orders to refer to another member

as being similar to a person who was not held in high repute. Mr M’Combs: I bow to your ruling and accept 3’our judgment of Mussolini.

The Prime Minister: It was not b3' any means the reference to the Italian statesman, but the terms in which it was used that were lie said that a statement about the appointment would be made when the Railway Estimates were before the House, and also when special legislation was introduced. Technically, no doubt, the appointment might be illegal, but it was not unconstitutional. It was untrue to suggest that the manager was to be exempt from income tax. Ilis superannuation would be provided for in the Bill. Parliament was the only body to stop pa3'ment of the salar3\ The appointment dated from June 1, and at present Mr Sterling was occupying a dual position, being engaged for a good part of the time with the dairy company. He was being paid on a pro rata basis for the time spent on railway work. He would be free for full time railway work about the end of September. Mr Fraser asked if the Railway Board got the railways into such a desperate position that it had to be sacked? lie thought the appointment was good, but the method was bad. Mr Sterling was getting a princely salar3', and a lordly retiring allowance. Mr Atmore said that the Government’s action reduced Parliamentary Government to a farce. It would very properly be reprehended from one end of New Zealand to the other. A division at 2.30 resulted in the defeat of the amendment by 43 votes to 15. The House rose at 2.40.