BUDGET DEBATE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 180, 1 August 1925, Page 14

BUDGET DEBATE.

A SLOW AFTERNOON.

NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

DEFEATED BY 32 TO 28.

(By Telegnvh.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Friday. By the time Mr. Edie had finished the opening speech of tbe afternoon, on the resumption of the Budget debate, half the benches in the Houes of Representatives were empty, and on some of those occupied members were either sound asleep of dozing, evidently trying to make up for the rest lost by the late sitting last night. Those who remained awake were mostly engrossed in writing or reading, and only a small percentage of the Parliament's personnel, including half a dozen members of the Labour party, gave an attentive ear to the entertainment Mr. Savage was attempting to provide with a recital of the Labour party platform, with particular reference to its land policy.

Mr. M. Savage (Auckland West) said Labour's land policy had been much misrepresented. Much had been said concerning leasehold and freehold. He quoted from an article written in 1898 by Mr. S. Percy Smith, the Secretary of the Lands Department, who pointed out that leasehold enabled the working man to get land when he had little or no capital outside his own strong right arm. That was virtually the position taken up by the Labour party. Under the freehold tenure tenants working lands were completely at the mercy of the owners, who as time went on could go on increasing rents, and the harder the tenant worked the more firmly he fixed the shackles on himself. What the Labour party proposed to do was to prevent inflation by preventing land speculation, as provided in their political platform.

Mr. Savage said that until such time as the Government chose to resume lands they would be sold only through a State Transfer Department. Transfer would be made at cost and people would not have to pay heavy commissions. The Labour party wanted to keep people on the land: the present Government was driving them off. It was the intention of the Labour party to adjust the taxation of city lands to prevent exploitation and secure community valuers for the community. The land tenure proposals did not in any way interfere with the right of inheritance.

Mr. Young (Hamilton): That's an afterthought after the Franklin election.

Mr. Savage: Mr. Holland has repeated it from the North Cape to the Bluff on numberless occasions.

Sir James Parr: Would your usehold be worth inheriting?

Mr. Savage: I would say "Yes, in preference t,o a mortgage."

Sir James Parr: Give mc the mortgage.

Mr. Lee: You'll get the mortgage all right. Tbe protest made by another member yesterday against continuous no-confi-dence motions was backed by Mr. Lysnar,,who said that it was all very well for the strength of the Government to be tested once early in the session, bnt after that this harassing should be dropped. Regarding fusion, he regretted it had failed, because he thought both parties had been in earnest, but as it had failed the best thing was for the House to waste no more time about it but let it go to the electors. He was prepared to do his best for fusion at the proper time. He noted with concern that it" was forecasted that next year German trade with New Zealand would equal the dimension's it reached .before the war. A far heavier duty should be imposed on German goods than upon the goods sent by thfe nations allied with us during the disastrous war which Germany had caused. At the conclusion of Mr. Lysnar's speech the House was aroused * r q m somnolence by the ringing of the division bell on Mr.' Sidey's amendment, "This House has no confidence in the Government, as it has failed to bring into effect a more equitable system of taxation by placing the burden upon individuals in proportion to their ability to bear it." The amendment was defeated by 32 to 28. Mr. H. Atmore and the Hon. J. A. Hanan were absent from the Liberal benches, and Mr. V. H. Potter was absent from the Reform side.

The interrupted debate was then resumed by Mr. Raneome (Pahiatua), who declared, Government denials notwithstanding, that agregation of lands had been going on for years, and was' still going on. He had, in travelling in the country, seen schools capable of accommodating 200 to 300 children, in which the attendance was so reduced as scarcely to justify the employment of one teacher. This waa plain evidence of aggregation. Why increase • transfer duties to prevent small holdings, as forecasted in the Budget? It was not the aggregation of small holdings which was to be feared, but adding one laf"ge estate to another, by which we have had estates of 50,000 acres of first-class land. Further, no provision was made against dummying, which was one of the worst features of aggregation. Touching on industrial matters, Mr. Ransome advocated profit-sharing, and said that if employers recognised in a practical way that workers had rights as . well as capitalists the problem of our secondary industries would be solved. Reform Apologists. The Minister of Education, said Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East), in a blunt attack on the Government, had a trick of hiding the paucity of the Budget by j a glowing description of the wonderful production by the Dominion. The Minister of Education, was one of the most acrcomplished apologists the Reform party had, so accomplished that one realised there must be some personal defect, or in the recent discussion as to who was to occupy the Premiership he would have been considered a possible candidate. Indeed, when one glanced at the Reform party one realised that there were four Reform apologists more accomplished in this- line than the Prime Minister, and when one said that one was not very complimentary. Probably the Prime Minister was fifth on the list of a fourth-rate Government. The Minister of Lands, he held, was more capable than the Prime Minister. He did not know how the former managed to get into the Cabinet, but he had been told ! it had something to do with the pullin* of straws, and that Mr. McLeod had managed to pull a i on „ er Bt (Laughter.) As for the Minister' of Finance, his outstanding accomplish- ■ ment seemed to be that on One special i occasion he stated that, so long afe be was a member of the Cabinet, as individual who had *.<*rt4in brknd 6f >cli- , gion would never be, peri«itt*d to , occupy a portfolio alongside of him. The poverty of outlook displayed by the • Minister of Finance on that occasion Was reflected in the Budget.

I "I am not saying anything of a personal nature against members of the Reform party," continued Mr. Lee, amid laughter. "I enjoy associating with and meeting most of them. They are mostly good fellows, but I wonder at timed what title they have to the position, they occupy. The other day I was attempting to discover what accomplishment the Miftister of Internal Affairs had to his credit, and I discovered that one day, long back in the dusty past, he delivered a speech on the of birch timber for telegraph poles" (Laughter.) Regarding fusion, the position reminded him of the hackneyed comic song: "There was I, Waiting at the Church." (Laughter.) It seemed as if in the recent scramble for portfolios, members were prepared to dr6p every guiding principle. It was said that the Liberals wanted five seats in the Cabinet. Members of the Reform party who alleged this should substantiate the charge or withdraw it. "I do believe," said Mr. Lee, "that members of the Nationalist party had an idea that if they waited the Prime Minister would, in due course, receive his instructions as to who should be selected; and thej would secure some of the plums, which were the only reasons for the fusion. The pressure of the Labour party," he continued, "was going to force coalition between the other two parties after the election if not before. The only small ray in the Budget was half-a-crown added to the old age pensions, squeezed and wrung from the callous heart of the Government. • Referring to the case of a soldier settler at Patetonga, who had sunk money and energy in useless land and who had failed to obtain compensation from the Government, Mr. Lee declared that, though unvanquished by the Hun abroad, he was vanquished by a Hunnish Government in New Zealand. A committee favourably considered this men's position, but the Government refused his claim, because if it did not, it would also have to recognise the claims of hundreds of others.

State Fire Purchase. The member for Auckland East went on to refer to the purchase by the Government of a building from the Bank of Australasia at the corner of Queen and Wyndham Streets, Auckland, for a State Fire Office, but which had not been used for the purpose for which purchased, and was now occupied by a few individuals selling clothing and renting offices. Questions had been asked, but the Government refused to say what they paid for the building. Who recommended the purchase? Why was the building not used for the purpose for which it was purchased? What rents were now received, and what was the cost of renovations? "There is grave concern about this in Auckland," said Mr. Lee. When some understrapper in the Advances Department, or someone else, can go and buy premises being vacated by a bank, and the State be .embarked on an expenditure Of thousands of pounds for alterations, and later the building is found unsuitable and rented to private enterprise, surely the public is entitled to know who was responsible for this transattion. As far as the Labour party is concerned, we will let the Government hear a little about it during the elections, and unless we get the information the Government will have something to answer."

Last elections, declared Mr. Lee, the Reform party had thrown over every fence in Auckland a pamphlet containing blasphemous parodies of hymns. (Disorder.)

The Speaker called Mr. Lee to order. The Minister of Agriculture: That is absolutely inaccurate.

Mr. Lee: I withdraw the term "blasphemous," but I will put it this way— Mr. Speaker: The hon. gentleman's time is up. (Laughter.)

Ministers Defended. Mr. R. H. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) deprecated the member for Auckland East referring to the Prime Minister as a man of no consequence. This was most ungenerous, and the hon. member was not usually ungenerous. Only a short, while ago, before Mr. Coates assumed office, the Prime Minister's praises were sung by members in all parts of the House, with special reference to the railways administration.

Mr. Howard (Christchurch South) Name some of them.

Mr. Wright: I daresay if I looked up Hansard I would find you were one, particularly for your district. (Laughter.) Mr. Howard: I asked nothing. Mr. Wright said the remarks made by Mr. Lee were quite out of place. It was unjust to condemn the Prime Minister before he is tried out. He had had no opportunity so far to show just what metal he was composed of, and until that time arrived, it was ungenerous to condemn him. As regardrMr. Lee's attack on the Minister of Lands, said Mr. Wright, the Minister got into the Cabinet by his consistent advocacy of

Mr. Smith: Squattoeraey.

Mr. Wright: He obtained his position because he was well qualified for it. . He ventured to Bay that the Prime Minister would be in the House as long as he cared to remain there.