PARLIAMENT MR NASH CRITICISES GOVERNMENT

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26465, 5 July 1951, Page 8

PARLIAMENT MR NASH CRITICISES GOVERNMENT

No-Confidence Motion

PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 4. The sitting of the House of Representatives this evening vas taken up by speeches by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Mash) and the Prime Minister (Mr Holland). Mr Nash moved that the Address in Reply be amended to inform the Governor-General (Lord Freyberg) that his advisers had lost the confidence of the House. He claimed that the Government had also lost the confidence of the country. He based his attack largely on increases in the cost of living, and repeated his criticism of the handling of the waterfront dispute. Mr Holland replied briefly to Mr Nash’s references to living costs, his speech being almost wholly a defence of the Government’s actions during the strike.

Mr Nash said that from the attention Government speaxers had paid to Communism since the session began it appeared tnat an attempt would be made to do what had been done in Australia. The Opposition’s reason for opposing Communism was :ieaf. Communism was repugnant to HriAsh traditions. At its last conference the Labour Party had reaffirmed its hostility to Communism, whicn sought to deny tnose freedoms in which the Labour .Party believed and which the Labour Government developed to the highest degree this country had known. Labour’s fear was that the present Government’s advocacy of capitalism would itself breed Communists. Mr Nash said that the Labour Government in 1949 left New’ Zealand at the neak of prosperity, with production, incomes, and living standards higher than they had been. From March 31. 1949. to December 31, 1949, the consumer s price index rose by less than 2 per cent., but in the next three months it rose by 3 per cent., and in the 15 months from January. 1950, to March, 1951. it rose by more than 101 per cent. Further increases had occurred since. Government Promises The Government had promised to reduce taxation, but taxation to-day was unprecedentedly high. The National Party made many promises, but never was there a more unpromising Government in the country than there was to-day.

The National Party, he added, Eromised women that they would no >nger need to be packhorses carrying home their shopping burdens. To-day women had less to carry because they could not buy as much, but they had received no help. Mr Nash said that the initial increase in the cost of living was caused by one thing—the removal of subsidies by the present Government after it had promised not to do so. Tea had gone up by 51 per cent., sugar by 24 per cent., bread by 36 per cent., and bacon by 26 per cent. The cost ot the every-day commodities ordinary people had to buy had soared to an unprecedented level. Since November. 1949, the prices of industrial shares had increased by 15 per cent., those of financial shares by 28 per cent., and all-group shares by 23 per cent. The steep rise in industrial shares was caused by the anticipation of higher profits. The amazing rise in financial shares, he said, was primarily attributable to the abolition of land sales controls. Last year be had said that the registered mortgages would amount in five years to £50.000.000. but already they were up to £46.000.000. There had been a sharp tapering on in savings bank deposits, and bank credits had increased by £54,000.000 since the present Government took office. > These increased advances had done much to increase prices and to diminish the value of the people’s savings. The sum of £lOO in a savings bank account at the end of 1949 was worth only £B9 to-day. Government Policies Blamed Mr Nash said the price rises that had occurred were not solely caused by overseas factors. The Government’s own policies had contributed. He believed the Government would like to restore the subsidies it had abolished. It should do so. because ample revenue was available. The payment of £5 for each child, recently announced, in effect robbed parents of 30s. because parents were entitled to an increase of 2s 6d weekly in the family benefit instead of receiving the Government's charity. Mr Nash said that during the year ended March, 1951, sales of urban land totalled £61,518,000, and sales of rural properties brought the total to nearly £Bo.ooo.ooo—twice as much as for the previous yeah. Yet these transactions had not contributed one new home. The Government had achieved its objective of finishing more State rental homes in 1950 than in any previous year, but of the 4600 completed 3800 were started before the Government took office. In the first three months of 1951 permits were issued only for 234 State rental houses and 1229 other homes.

The average price of houses being ■old had risen by £4OO in a year, ana the average price of rural land had risen by 142 per cent, in the same time. Many men could not obtain rehabilitation finance to build the homes they needed. Other people were having their rents raised.

Mr Nash quoted from a letter written by the State Advances Corporation this year proposing to raise a tenant’s rent from 34s to £3 a week. One State rental house built in 1938 for £l2OO had been offered for sale at £1875 in 1951. Mr Nash estimated that of the £2,500.000 involved in State houses already sold, £500,000 represented State profits. On the evidence, people to-day were paying £5OO more a house than they paid a year ago. He said that 56 State house permits were issued last March, and it was apparent that the Government was abandoning the building of State houses. The loss on State houses to March, 1947, was £242,000, a sum which was represented in the profit received by the Minister on the sale of State houses. There were fewer men engaged in the building programmes of hospitals and schools, and 25 per cent fewer men employed on State house construction. Waterfront Strike Discussing the waterfront situation, Mr Nash said that the workers had gone back because they had been driven. The Government talked of no intimidation, but was continually intimidating people itself with the emergency regulations. The Social Security Department had declined the sick benefit to watersiders who had taken sick about the time the strike started, and it was not until the House met this week that that state of affairs had been remedied. Mr Nash said he was told last Friday that a group of women, wives of watersiders, seamen, and miners, had been refused first by the police and then by the Minister in charge of Police permission to hold a meeting in the Wellington Town Hall. They were then asked for a list of speakers, and were told that various persons on the list would not be allowed to speak. The Minister of External Affairs (Mr F. W. Doidge): Who were they? Mr Nash: I think Mrs Barnes was one. (Government laughter.) Mr Nash said that a person should not be denied the right of free speech because she had been prosecuted in Court. In the last few days the Government had gone further than ever before. It had authorised raids' on trade union secretaries’ offices, and union safes had been drilled open. Government voices: Quite right too. Mr Nash: You could not do that in a British country. This country is not British if that sort of thing can be done. Opposition voices; That is Fascism. Mr Nash also complained that

searches had been made in private homes, including one at night while children in the house were asleep.

Mr Holland Replies “The Reds threw down a challenge to constitutional government, and we took up the challenge,” said the Prime Minister, opening his speech. Mr Holland said that if, as now appeared, the strike was nearly over, the Government would not wish to boast: its feeling would be one of relief. The Government had done its duty, and it could give an excellent account of its stewardship. I hope that at a very early date we may hold a meeting o f the Cabinet to review the regulations and remove as much of them as possible, which is “J/ 5 ,?,? 1 desire ” said Mr Holland. turiL H ?H said that the manufac«n g industries were never better were more jobs vacant m industry than ever before. . (n 1950-51, 16.400 houses had been built, compared with 15,800 for the previous year. It was thTpolicy of l h ®. Government to encourage the building of private houses. There was no foundation for the statement that women to-day had less to carry home because they had not the . m ° ne y bi buy the goods they wanted. Butter, cream, and cheese Z uni ? 10n b ad rise n considerably in Wellington since controls were removed.

„ tt „ Issnesof Strike a sa *d that the country had been through one of the worst l nd !^t ria i<i- Cr i ses it had ever experienced. The question that had, tobe faced was whether industrial democracy was to survive, or whether was to replace it. wnetner Nothing had contributed more to the ™ii n / e °» f Gover . nm ent than Labour’! Policy of appeasing those who had challenged authority. No one had f^? e rtr t l£ C 0 Of the wateru w ut the People had sufff5 e li Cheerf P l y ' A great responsibility timp re # ted On the opposition in % a ®F ave . national emergthe Opposition’s silence the li>f k th!f W t e J e encou ,L ag ? d in their be“tL -I they would be helped. But when silence would have been golden Th e »^ ader °* l he Opposition spoke up. There was a stage in the strike when only a littye help was needed to encourage the strikers to break away from their enemies. That was an opH?« t « nity h< ? lp 0131 the Leader of the Opposition lost. There was not one word of protest from the Leader of the Opposition when 500.000 cases of apples had to be destroyed and buried, when hospitals were threatened by a gas shortage. 3 8 G. F. Skinner (Opposition, Buller): Quite incorrect. .‘"When the Government was worried o Y er .J h ®. sabotage, the bashings, the intimidation, and threats to the security of the country and when the call was Trrafe Tor volunteers, then the Leader of the Opposition did raise his voice said Mr Holland. “But what aid he say: /This organisation is not necessary. The Leader of the OppoS!Uon did not say a word about the watersiders sending in their registration cards, and where was the Leader of the Opposition when servicemen loaded ships with meat for Britain and cables were sent to Britain urging the watersiders there not to unload the cargoes when they arrived?

“No One Really Short” The Government had overcome every disability it had encountered as a r ® su the strike, and no one was really short of anything, though some people might not be getting as much sugar and fuel as they would like The Prime Minister praised the work of the servicemen who, he said, had saved the country at a time of a cold war without a question or a quibble. , “1 20 weeks the Government had had more headaches than most people / ,ttf etilße - The Government inherited 14 years of muddle and appeasement. F

We have taken the Reds on, and yet our reward is a no-confidence motion,’ said Mr Holland. The main complaint, he added, seemed to be that the Government had taken some extreme powers it did not use. . Mr Holland said that Mr Nash had tacitly, if not explicitly, encouraged the Communists. “What has surprised me is the number of enemies within our gates and the influence they exert among men and the ease with which New Zealanders are dominated by outsiders,” he said. , Many strikers, he added, had been led to disaster against their own better judgment. Mr Holland told of watersiders who had come to his home by night for fear of being observed, or had written k hI .T Pteading that the Government snouia stand firm and confessing their sense of shame at the spelling system, by which they were paid for being at home.

Mr Holland said that in recent months the cold war had been fought against people highly trained in subversion, treachery, and sabotage. They won suuport and sympathy from wellmeaning people who were led into a trap It would be better if some of the churches kept out of such troubles, Zu u • , The Communists would use the churches to help them to establish a churchless State.

Protection of New Unions The new unions, Mr Holland said, would be protected. It was bad luck for many watersiders who would lose their employment, but they should have taken sound advice sooner. Mr Holland said that because the emergency regulations were in operation men and women could go to work without being intimidated, incitement could be stopped, picketing prevented, essential goods and services kept going, and demonstrations prevented which might lead to riots. The police could be given extra powers to protect women and children. The regulations contained the right to open correspondence, a right which alreadv existed under the Post Office Regulations. But in this instance the particular regulation was to prevent the distribution through the mails of a leaflet bearing the image of a rat and the words “Don’t seab,” together with the Royal coat of arms and the line, “Issued by the Department of Health.” Mr Holland went on to say that representatives of organised Labour in New Zealand had risen above party differences during the waterfront strike. The Federation of Labour and the New Zealand National Party had in cominon the belief in the. principle of conciliation and arbitration and in placing the country first. The federation had _ always tried to get reason to prevail in the trouble, but the Leader of the Opposition did not even try to get the men back to work, in spite of the lead given by industrial Labour.

The Government had given the countrv the leadership it sought and had given the world some new aspects in the settlement of industrial troubles. All the expense the strike

involved would be worth while in the creation of a new era in industrial relations and harmony. The Prime Minister was warmly applauded by Government members when he resumed his seat. Both speakers occqpied 90 minutes’ speaking time and were given extensions. The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 2.30 pjm. to-morrow, when the address-in-reply debate will be resumed.