PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1922, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IMMIGRATION QUESTION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Notice of intention to introduce the following Bills was given: Daylight Baking (McCombs): Invercargill Corporation Empowering (Hon. J. A. Hanan); Auckland City and Hospital Empowering (Hon. C. J. Parr). In reply to Mr. lE. Dixon (Patea), the Minister of Education agreed that it would be advisable to instruct taachars to discontinue the term “Australaam” as applied to Australia and New Zealand, as it leads to a great deal of mfaunderstanding by people in foreign envoitries, where extraordinary ignamitte prevailed as to the relative of towns jn Australia and New and it was often detrimental to hue?ness associations Mr. H. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) inquired if New Zealand Was included in the document covering emigration, mentioned in a cable from London as having been signed by Australia and Britain. Mr. Massey replied that New Zealand had no part in such an agreement. He explained that the cable was rather indefinite. What had been agreed upon year ago was to assist Britain to place her surplus people in oversea countries in every way possible. Britain hM' agreed to grant £3OO per,.head to enable men to settle down in new countries and this money would be controfi>4 ed by the colonial Government. So tax; ots New Zealand was concerned it w’»‘i only taking such people ag. it was abte to absorb. Accounts reaching hftn showed that the majority of the immigrants coming here were of a particularly good class. Mr. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) asked for the Speaker’s ruling on a wtter connected with the Parliamentety Licensing Committee’s report, which was shortly due. He desired, to present a minority report, but had been informed he could not do so. The Speaker said no minority report could be brought down from a select committee of the House.

THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY. THE DEBATE CONTINUED. The Address-in-Reply debate was resumed by Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki), who referred to the cost of living and asked why certain goods were so expensive, instancing unmanufactured wool, for which the shops charged 17/6 a pound, and for which the farmer received about 6Jd or 7d. Mr. Field also mentioned the exorbitant charges for room accommodation in the cities. Mr. Field suggested an increased receipt tax of, say one shilling on amounts of £lOO ox* ovey. A bachelor tax should also be, imposed where no dependents were concerned.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) quoted figures relating to imports and exports, declaring these showed that the balance of trade was strongly in favor of New Zealand, yet there was trade dislocation and farmers were in difficulties, due to over importation and over capitalisation of land, resulting from the Government's operations under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act. Mr. McCombs complained that the Government imjnigration policy created the unemplo|Fment problem and forced wages down. In some instances the relief work rates of pay had become the ruling rates for permanent employees of local bodAoa. Mr. McCombs said great discontent prevailed in the public service regarding wages. He recalled an undertaking given by a Minister in 1920 that salaries would be raised to meet the increased cost of living, and he also combatted the recent statement by the Prime Minister that all the groups of figures had never been used in computing the cost of living. Mr. McCombs declared the cuts in public service sai-< aries were not justified by the reduction in the cost of living. The Hon. E. J. Anderson (Minister ,of Labor) refuted the statement that the Government was responsible for reducing wages and that it had given a hint to the Arbitration Court as to what it should do. The condition of the rural worker to-day was twice as good as twenty and thirty years ago. Dismissals from public works had been due to the need, for retrenchment, but wages had not been reduced below the award levels. The Government had provided housing for sixteen thousand people. Mr, Anderson said it had been stated there was discontent throughout the civil service, but he reminded the House that the public service had not only been, given a bonus to meet the cost of living, but up to date the Government had supplemented the superannuation fund to the extent of £1,331,000 and it was suggested they would this year have to provide another £lOO,OOO for that purpose. They had made substantial additions to the pension funds, but because they could not find the ( money to provide pensions for the blind and an invalidity pension they were charged . with being unsympathetic. He said the Labor Party had never done anything to help the Arbitration Act and they had not even obeyed it. Their practice had been .to put grit in the wheels. What had the Labor Party done to avert strikes? There was no better system in the world of averting industrial trouble than our arbitration system and either an employer or worker who wished to wipe that system out was acting in an exceedingly foolish manner. A division on Mr. Holland’s amendment was taken, with the result that it was defeated by 43 votes to 9, the following voting for it: Messrs. Witty, Holland, Fraser. McCombs, Bartram, Parry, Sullivan, Munro and Savage. A ’ motion that a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency for his Speech was carried without a division and the House rose at 10.15 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday