PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 241, 12 July 1928, Page 12

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE - 'a, ■■ ' • ■ ■ PARTY LOYALTY QUESTIONS The House of Representatives devoted yesterday to tho • no-confidence debate on the Address-in-Reply motion, the speeches generally having a quiet tone. The question of party loyalty was broached by Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui), who recalled incidents in the House last’session when the Licensing Amendment Bill was being considered in committee. While identifying himself as Leader of the Nationalist .1 Party, Mr. Forbes threw no light on his party’s connection with the new United Party. The confusion created in the minds of Government members through the multiplicity of party names was referred to by Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere), who also twitted Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) on his . voting in the House in 1912. The House rose at 11.15 p.m.

NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE RESUMED BY HOUSE SEVEN MORE SPEAKERS The no-confidencc debate oil the Address iu Reply motion was continued in the House ol Representatives yesterday, seven more speakers participating. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata), who resumed the debate, said he disagreed witli the contention of Mr. Savage (Auckland West) that there was no difference between dead-weight debt, such as the war debt, and other debt. A member: Does it matter which one you pay off first? "Yes, it certainly makes a very big difference,” declared Mr. Harris, who r, went on to criticise severely State interference in private business. His remarks .under this heading are reported elsewhere. Touching /Upon the unemployment problem, Mr. Harris urged the inauguration of a compulsory insurance scheme, to which the State, the employer, and the employee should contribute. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) said he did not agree that there was any advan- . tage in paying off dead-weight debt before other liabilities. The only distinction that could be made was with respect to loans with different rates of interest. It would certainly be . advantageous to get rid of debt incurred at high rates instead of debt carrying a lesser rate of interest. The point that really concerned, the Dominion was the objects for which the money was borrowed. If the loans were frittered away Voices: Frittered away? They were war loans. ’v ■'. 1 Mr. Mason contended that there was no kudos due to the Government for reducing the dead-weight debt before other debt. He proceeded to describe the conditions of unemployment, stating that at the last election the Government had said New Zealand was on the eve of a great era of prosperity. Instead, thousands of men were out of work, and soup kitchens were in operation. The absence of a land policy resulted in country adjacent to the railways lying idle. “Beneficial to tile Fanners.”

Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) commented favourably on the improvement effected in conditions for the farmer. Up till a few months ago the fall in values was confined almost entirely to the country. Now, however, there were indica- ( tions that a fall in values was taking place in the towns, which he regarded being beneficial to the farmers as a whole. Their position to-day was undoubtedly •far better than it was twelve months ago. The stimulation of land settlement could not be brought about by any direct action of the Minister of Lands'; it would only be effected when farming was made a more profitable occupation. To invest money in idle lands with working costs so high was not a wise proposition. He emphasised the necessity of mail services being maintained in sparsely-settled districts, and went on to rfefer to the activities of the Highways Board. He doubted whether tho principle that the user of the roads should contribute towards their upkeep and maintenance, and not the occupier of the land, as was the case in the past, was being put into practice under the present allocation of petrol ’ tax funds. . , “Alleged Vote Splitting,” Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) blamed the present Government for not having done anything iu the direction of electoral reform so as to prevent vote-split-ting at the elections. That was a matter t|iat was entirely in the hands of the Government. The Prime Minister was quite satisfied with the present system, no doubt thinking that the Government would continue in office under- it, but the public was not so simple as to be' taken' in by that all the time. The party responsible for vote-splitting was the party at present sitting on the Government benches. (Laughter.) He did'not mind the laughter, because he believed that after the next general election there would be many long faces in the Reform Party. (More laughter.) The last election showed that the Labour and the Liberal Parties polled 320,000 votes, 'which was a majority over the votes polled against them. The time would come, however, when there would be an alteration in the system, but that alteration could only come with' a new Government. Unemployment Disappearing. In the opinion of Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) the amendment before the House was the greatest compliment that could be paid the Government, if after its sixteen years in* office, the grounds there set out were the only ones the Opposition could advance to support its plea for a change of administration. Mr Jones outlined the record of the Reform Party during that period, referring among other matters, to the magnificent educational services rendered the farming community, the reading and railways policy, and the availability of fertiliser supplies from Nauru Island. It was true that there, were fewer men on . the land than previously, the reason being that there ■» was not the money to employ the same amount of farm labour and domestic help. He was quite satisfied that with the money now coming into New Zealand, unemployment was going to cease; it would not be many months before it disappeared. At one time Russia was a great wheat exporting country, yet 'today, through the destruction of production by the same methods that some men were seeking to have applied to New Zealand, wheat had to be imported to feed a starving population. “And they are selling their pictures to buy it,” said the Postmaster-General (Hon. W. Nosworthy). Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said that never had the farmer been in a worse position than -be was today. It was quite true that modern machinery was taking the place of labour, but the extra profits were going to the owners of the machinery; the worker had not benefited at all. The finance policy of the Government was dictated by the financial institutions. Why not give the State Advances Department a chance? he asked. . The Postmaster-General (Hon. W. Nosworthy) : It has bad about £85,000,000 My. Armstrong said the bairns and other leading institutions would not lend money for the purposes of the State Advances Department; it was not in their interests to do so. Nothing had been done “to save the farmers from the vicious raid that was being made upon Their farms by' the banks. Steady Settlhmcuf. Mr' [>. !!. Reid (Waikato.) contended that a far better Government would be

possible if the lite of P.-irlianiciil were e<lended to five years. (Hear, hear.) Ample evidence wus available that the country was prospering, and that there .were still better times ahead. 11 was quite wrong lo say that tlic farmers to-diiy were in. a worse position than ever previously.: m his opinion they were in a better position than they had been for many years. 'I he life of the farmer Dad been made mm-li more enjoyable ami tenable by the provision, by (lie present Government, of ronding, hydra-electrical and telephonic facilities. Wild, exaggerated statements tliat men were leaving (lie land liad done the farmers great harm, ami militated against llieir obtaining fiii.-incc. In his opinion settlement was steadily proceeding: there was no boom, but good, sound sellleineiit was going on.

The adjournment of Ibe debate was moved by Mr. I l ’- M. Bartriini (Grey Lynn), and tlic House rose at ll.lv p.m.

PARTY LOYALTY

REFORM MEMBERS ’ TWITTED LICENSING BILL DIVISION * MR. FORBES’S REMINDER The manner in which certain members of the Reform Party voted on a critical division on last year's 'Licensing Amendment Bill was cited by Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) in the House of Representatives yesterday as a reason why that side of the House should not talk too much about loyalty.

Mr. Forbes first defined his. position in the party with which he is associated in-the House. "Speakers from the Government benches,” said Mr. Forbes, “have made a joke about the United Party not having a leader or a policy. As far as the National Party is concerned, I don’t think there is any question regarding leadership. In ordinary courtesy I am the leader of the National Party in the House.” The Minister, of Health (Hon. J. A. Young) : It is the leadership of the United Party that questions have been asked about. Mr. Forbes repeated that he was the leader of the National Party. The Minister of Health: That is not disputed. - . . • Mr.'Forbes then gave his interpretation of what was-signified by the voting on the motion of the Prime Minister in Committee last session that progress be reported on his Licensing Bill. “If the Prime Minister had any right to ask for the loyalty of his party and his Ministers, he had it in regard to the business of the House ” The Minister of Health: It was not a party issue. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui): Oh, 3 Continuing. Mr. Forbes said that the Minister of Health had inquired whether the motion to report progress meant “leave to sit again,” and the Prime Minister had intimated that that was his intention; '“Apparently that was not enough for the Minister of Health, declared Mr. Forbes. “Even though the whole matter had been transferred to a question of procedure of the House, he considered it clearly his duty to go into the opposite lobby to his leader. I don’t know what is regarded as loyalty to the Prime ’■ Minister by members of the Ministry, but I thought he could have relied upon them to that extent. I do not remember a previous occurrence like that in this House. If it had not |>een for the votes of myself and ‘some others, the Prime Minister might have been sitting in that Committee) chair to this day. I should say.it is just as well for Ministers and members to remain silent on the question of loyalty.” “A Chinese .JoSs.” The member for Temuka (Mr. T. D. Burnett) was next taken, to task for ,n statement he made in an interview iu the south just after the session concerning his attitude on the licensing question. Mr. Forbes quoted Mr. Burnett as having said: “I yield to no one in my allegiance to the Reform Party or in my appreciation of the magnificent work that party has done for the Dominion; but when firmness in a Prime Minister degenerates into obstinacy, and is cutting right across the expressed will of the people, I have seriously to consider my position in regard to the party and the Government.” “Mr. Burnett,” continued Mr. I'orbcs, "is looked upon as one of the . loyal members of the Reform Party, and that is what he says! They seem-,to look upon the Prime Minister almost as the. Chinese look upon a joss. (Laughter.) If the Chinese are offended with the joss they pull it down and jump on it ; if they are pleased with it they put it up again. I don’t know what the Prime Minister may think of it, but I would certainly feel, if I were he, that the party had not been, loyal to, me in the way I had a right to expect. “Following Our Leader.” Mr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) . said the statement had-been made by its organiser that half the Reformers were joining the United Party. “Has he got one of us? inquired Mr.,i Jones. Voices: No! Mr. Jones: No, not one. Here wo ti l are, following-our own leader, and following him with confidence.

TE WERA PURCHASE NO SINISTER SUGGESTION “No one has suggested a charge against the personal integrity of the Minister of Lands or that there is anything not above board in regard to the Te ’Worn purchase,” said Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hiirunui) in the House of Representatives last night .when referring to the offer of the Hon. -A. D. .McLeod to refer all the papers connected witli Te Wera purchase to a committee of tlic House. , ■ , . . . .“It has been a perfectly fair sale and purchase,” added Mr. Forbes, who said the point was that not one application had been made to take, up tlic land. It-was only right that members of Parliament should inquire why such a blunder had been made.