AN ADVERSE VOTE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 86, 8 October 1930, Page 10

AN ADVERSE VOTE

AGAINST GOVERNMENT

VIEWS OF LEADERS

On several occasions since it assumed the reins of office the United Government has escaped defeat in 'the House of Representatives by narrow margins. The narrowest was the vote of last \Veck, wlien an amendment concerning the dismissal of Post and Telegraph Department officers at Auckland over racecourse telegrams was defeated by one vote, and then only after some members who it was said would have supported the amendment were locked out when the division doors closed. Last night the vote of the House went against the Government for the first time, but the occasion was hardly one on which the question.of confidence in the Government's administration1 could be said to be at stake. Perhaps the House itself was surprised at the result of a division moved while the Agriculture Department Estimates were under discussion. Dissatisfaction was expressed, chiefly by representatives of rural constituencies, against the reduction of the departmental vote by £66,000 this year, and the Eefonn member' for Wallace, Mr. A. Hamilton, moved to reduce the vote by £5' as a protest against such an economy being practised at the expense of a Department upon which the farmers were dependent for assistance in an adverse year. The amendment was carried by a majority of nine votes, and the- total sum for the use of the Department; amounting to £390,000, was thus reduced by £5. "MERELY A GESTURE." "I do not regard the vote as having any political significance .whatever," said the Acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. E. A. Ransom), in an interview after the division. The Minister added that in his opinion the result was merely a gesture on the part of those supporting the amendment that they were- more sympathetic towards tho farmers than were the Government, which, of course, was not the case by any means. It had been clearly recognised by the Government that no more taxation could be imposed on the farming community, and therefore every endeavour had been made to reduee_ Departmental expenditure of all kinds, care being exercised all the time to see that •essential services were maintained. In common with other, departmental votes, the estimates for tho Agricultural .Department had been carefully reviewed on the basis of the unexpended balances of last year, and the reductions that had been made affected what might be termed the non-essential services. The efficiency of tho Department would not in any way be impaired, and in the future as in tho past tho Government would continue to eonservo in every manner possible the interests of the primary producers and help them wherever possiblo in their present position. . NO REAL SIGNIFICANCE. Tho Leader of th& Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said that his party had not taken the question seriously enough to make a party matter of it. In his opinion, the result had no _ real political significance, except that it indicated a dosire on the-part of most members that there should be no cutting down of the agricultural vote.

The discussion on the amendment appears under separate- headings.