PARLIAMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 130, 14 March 1931, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

NO-CONFIDENCE DEFEATED.

ANOTHER LABOUR AMENDMENT. ATTACK OX WAGES "CUT." (Abridged from Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March Is. . In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the debate on the Address-in-Reply and the no-confidence amendment moved by the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) was continued. • Mr J. O'Brien (Lab., Westland) criticised the action of the insurance companies in Tel"using to pay out in connection with -earthquake losses, and expressed the opinion that they should be prevented from doing further business in the Dominion. Mr J. O'Brien said the record of the Government had been a miserable failure. The attempts to solve the unemployment problem, up to the present, had been hopeless. The money paid into the fund was being wasted. What was wanted was productive employment. Mr | Forbes held out no greater hope to farmers than that he would appeal to mortgagees and stock and station agents on their behalf. No hope had been given them of reduced rents and interest. South Island Main Trunk. Mr P. Waite (R., Clutha) confined his remarks to a criticism of the completion of the South Island Main Trunk rainway. He said it was the worst financial proposition the Government had undertaken, and would result in an estimated loss of i£loo,ooo per annum. Mr 1). G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) described the present session as a menace to the working class. The Prime Minister's dismal utterances,'- followed by wholesale dismissals, had spread the mentality of depression. The Government had behaved every bit as harshly as the Reform Government could have, and he was surprised that such treatment was coming from the Liberal Party. ~ J Mr T>. Jones (R., Mid-Canterbury) said the prospective Budget deficit was not the biggest problem facing the country. The biggest problem was how would the people carry on with a reduction of £2(5,000,000 in the national income. If the Government carried out its present proposals, it would have added £7,000,000 per annum to taxation during its term of office. It was useless to cut wages and increase taxation to balance the Budget without considering the budgets of the primary producers. Interest charges were far "too high, and the Government should provide cheaper money. Mr R. Semple {'Labour., Wellington East) attacked the Government's attitude toward railway construction. He said there was no excuse for the somersault in. its policy. It apparently made promises to the electors without first having made an investigation into the possibilities of carrying them out. The stoppage of railway works had resulted in tremendous hardship to workers. Men had been dismissed without notice. He could remember no parallel -case of brutality on the part of a Government toward its servants.

Graduated Reductions. Mr J. T. Hogan (Ind., Rangitikei) expressed himself in favour of a graduated scale of wage reductions if it were shown that reductions were absolutely necessary. He thought that before the House agreed to any cuts at all the Prime Minister should state when he thought he could increase wages again or restore the cut. It should be possible to do so at the end of six months. Referring to the proposal to get up a tribunal to inquire into cases of the tailing up of mortgages, Mr Hogan urged that such a body should have the authority of Parliament behind it. It was ridiculous to suggest that ~ attempts to reach amicable arrangements between mortgagor and mortgagee were likely to be successful. Mr Endean's Complaint.

Mr W. P. Ehdean (R., Parnell) complained that the Government had made no attempt to prepare, for the present economic crisis, though it had been warned of its approach. He .submitted that the uneasiness on the part of financiers as to the consequences of the administration of the United Government with the support of Labour, had resulted in their being afraid to lend money. , '■* Mr W. D. Lysnar (Ind., Gisborne) said nobody had dealt with the basic cause of the economic crisis, which was that there was no proper organisation for the marketing oi : the produce of the Dominion. He strongly criticised the ■Government's decision not to complete the Gishorne railway. He blamed the Leader of the Opposition for stampeding the Government into this decision. Amendment Defeated. The division was then taken on the no-confidence amendment, which was defeated by 50, votes to 20, only the Labour members voting for the amendment. Mr J. McComhs (Lab., Lyttelton) said he did not know whether to congratulate the United Party on having gained the support, of the Reform Party arid the Independents, or whether to congratulate the Reform; Party on having driven the Government in the direction it had been asking it to take for the last two years. The Reform Party had put forward seven points and the Government had accepted six of them. The Opposition! still hoped that the Government would accept the remaining point. Mr McCombs intimated that he proposed to move a further amendment, drawing his Excellency's attention to the position ot affairs in this country. He strongly criticised the Government's proposals, and expressed the opinion that had Sir Joseph Ward lived he would have found a different method of balancing the Budget. He suggested that a better method of raising additional revenue would have teen an increased tax on beer and spirits, producing £l,soo,ofX>. He moved an amendment in the following terms: —

"We deem it our duty to represent to vour Excellency that in the opinion of the House, the proposals contained in your Excellency's speech to reduce wages and salaries to meet the fail in revenue are inequitable, as such proposals cannot be applied to other persons who%> incomes are derived from businesses, professions, or other sources, and' are further of the opinion that in lieu.thereof, additional revenue should be raised by a direct graduated tax on individual incomes, irrespective of their source." The amendment was seconded by Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau). j who said the need of the present day was v

a statesmanlike policy that would Ijring down the interest rates. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) asserted that the no! icy of the Government was being dictated 1 by business interests. Mr J. W, Munro (Lab., Dnnc-im North) joined the previous Lr-iour speakers in condemning the proposal to cut wages. A reduction in t' o standard of living, he said, would tend to sow the seeds of revolution. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) and Mr C Carr (Lab., Timaru) also supported: the amendment. The debate was adjourned at midnight, when the House rose tilJ Mouday.

WITHDRAWAL REQUIRED.

STATEMENT BY MR McCOMBS. WELLINGTON, March 13. Following the win by the Government on the Labour no-confidence amendment in. the House to-night, Mr MeCombs, who moved another, said he did not know whether to congratulate the Government on having secured the support of the Reform Party. Mr Bitchener: They lost yours. (Laughter.) Mr MeCombs: Or whether to congratulate the Leader of the Reform Party on having driven the TJniteds iri the direction tliey have been • asking them to take during the last two years. It has been a sorry sight, the greatest reversal of policy, betrayal of the people. Mr Speaker intervened with a call to order. / Mr MeCombs: Might I say there has been a great betrayal of principle? Mr Speaker: That is worse. (Laughter.) Mr MeCombs: Then I leave it at that. , ; Mr Speaker was persistent in reciuiring withdrawal, therefore Mr MeCombs, amid laughter, complied.