IN PARLIAMENT.

Wairarapa Age, 30 July 1925, Page 5

IN PARLIAMENT.

MORE VIEWS ON FUSION. DAIRYING COSTS. (“The Age” Special.) PARLIAMENT HOUSE, July 29.— “Not only a fusion of the two old parties, but such a fusion as would enable a member to vote as he thought best in the public interest,” was the view expressed by Mr F. J. Rolleston (Timaru), in the debate on the Nationalist no-confidence amendment. He was not optimistic enough to hope, he a'dded, that the time had arrived, but the time was coming, when the old party system would end. He wished this time could be nearer, but the electors would surely come to the same conclusion and under present eondilions they would prefer men who would support measures irrespective of party. The events of the session should help to bring this about. The member for Wanganui, -who had spoken earnestly on the subject, hadsuggested that the country expected something better than it was getting from the Prime Minister, but he was inclined to remind Mr Veitch that, his party was already responsible for six no-confidence motions in five weeks, the result of all being a foregone conclusion. He regarded the Liberal amendment as deathbed repentance by which they wished to wash out their votes in taxation measures during the last few years. Mr Veitch: A proper party speech.

Mr Bolleston: No matter how sackcloth and ashes are put on, all the water in Jordan eapnot wash away their sins.

Mr Sullivan suggested that Mr Rolleston, despite his resounding criticisms, consistently went into the lobby on one side only. Mr Sullivan hoped that after next election the member for Timaru would have the privilege ef voting for a Labour Government even if he spoke against it. (Laughter.) High Cost of Marketing. Detailed figures of output from five Taranaki farms given to the House by Mr Masters showed that these farms produced 85 tons of cheese and 43001bs of butterfat, a wonderful return from wonderful stock. The gross monetary return was* £8572, equalling £l7 2s per acre, but it cost £2700 to market and Xnuf acture this output, being a irge of £5 8s per acre'on the laud. This was too large a proportion of the farmer’s earnings, but apparently everybody stood by while some sheltered behind the Dairy Control Board. On a comparison with shipping conditions in 1914 the dairy producers Were paying £1,885,714 more to the shipping companies to-day. The shipping trusts were the greatest curse facing the farmer.

“Don’t dare me too much,” was an interjection, of the Prime Minister when Mr Forbes dealt with the fusion negotiations to-night and. expressed strong resentment of Mr Coates's statement at Palmerston that the Liberal interest in fusion declined with the possibility of getting no portfolios.

The Liberal Party, said Mr Forbes, was forced into the position of becoming a National Pjurty. It honestly tried to get the other side to form a new party. The first question put forward in the conference was that if there was anything in fusion it should be. done, by forming an entirely new party immediately. Sir Maui Pomare: What about tho portfolios? A Mr Forbes asked if it was fair for the Prime Minister to make such insinuations when for six weeks tho Liberals asked for a new party. The Liberals told the Prime Minister they would allow him a free hand to choose his own colleagues, even to put back into the Cabinet all the men he had around him. He would defy Mr Coates to say anything to the contrary. Mr Coates: An incorrect and mdst misleading statement. Mr Forbes: His representatives at the conference can tell him the same thing. He repeated that it was put to a Liberal caucus and accepted that the Prime Minister, should have the constitutional right to select his own colleagues. Mr Coates could not say that any Liberal had approached him and asked for a portfolio. Tho Prime Minister: I would not dare that too far if I were you. Mr Forbes: If he can say so, then it is for him to say, but he knows it is different. Ho was given a free hand .absolutely. Mr Forbes advised members who favoured the National Party not to tie themselves up with party pledges,' so that when the matter came up for consideration in Parliament after the election they could act with free hands, and there would be a chance of forming a strong combined National Party.