ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Gisborne Times, Volume LV, Issue 6202, 6 October 1921, Page 6

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

BASIS OF LIBERAL AMENDMENT. NEED FOIi ELECTORAL REFORM. COUNTRY’S PRODIGAL EXPENDITURE. WELLINGTON. October 5. The debate on the Addrtss-in-Reply was resumed by Mr Forbes who declared that the Opposition amendment was based on the belief that the Government did not represent the majority ot people because more votes at last election were cast against them than for them. That being so any electoral system which resulted in a minority party getting into power was bad. Ue therefore called upon the Government to effect a reform in this connection. Jle expressed preference in (he system of proportional representation for which the Government had already expressed strong preference. Economy was badly needed in public affairs. A great waste went on during (he war and the* country got info the bad habit of prodigal expenditure*. The result was that taxation was pressing heavily upon all. classes, yet tho Government v.'-s not alive to the gravity of the position. The farmers were unable to pay their land tax and they should be given some relief. Departmental expenditure was severely criticised the speaker declaring that drastic cutting down was ‘necessary. This session must become what the Opposition suggested, an economy session. If the Government would only realise the serious n r -ed there was for economy and carry it out the Opposition would be the first to throw bouquets at them in recognition of the fact. The methods of valuing lands in soldier settlements were also criticised. Public works especially in relation to bridges were also criticised and the manner in which much of our- exported meat was handled was condemned by the speaker. The object of the Opposition amendments was to see that the men who sat: on the Treasury benches should do their job ns the necessities of, the Dominion demanded it should hr- done. Mr Lysnar advocated economy in the public ’service, especially in the Defence Department. One of the best means to effect a saving was a reduction in the wages, beginning with members of parliament. Internal loans were condemned, the speaker contending that all monies for development purposes should he raised outside the Dominion. The wool industry, though depressed, was a safe industry that was in danger. Ho was the meat, industry. He approved of the Government's attitude towards Armour’s, but he objected to the leniency shown to Vesty Bros. There was no reason why Armour’s should have to go if Vestys were allowed to stay. The speaker condemned the ITon. E. P. Lees attitude on Ihe cement controversy. The contention that what the companies did was not illegal could not be liehl to cover that: it was right. He had aIL along contended that the Government should have taken t:o themselves greater powers under the Commercial Trusts Act. Now it was clearly seen that the scope of the Act should bo extended to cover all such commodities as cement. Mr Hudson discussed the recent controversy in connection with cement, declaring that the arrangement, come to between the companies was a groatdisaster to his district, and if the combination was not legally a trust then he regretted the Government had nut the power to make it so. Air Isitt (Christchurch North) considered one of the greatest mistakes of the Reform Party was in the manner of its purchase of estates tcu* repatriation purposes. The compulsory system of purchase should have been adopted at a fair market value, which would have avoided the speculative operations that had been witnessed. The Government should take adequate measures to establish a shipping line so that Dominion products c-ould be sent to markets at reasonable freights, lie had no faith in any such scheme undertaken by the producers themselves. A permanent corps of labor should be formed at t lie larger harbors. The people of New Zealand were themselves largely responsible for the present financial slump because tlu-y failed to take warnings repeatedly given to put by while getting- high war prices and wages. They had gone in for an orgy of spending last year. For example, despite the “hard times" the people spent forty millions on amusements. The Premier stated last session that he hoped to be able to reduce taxation. Did lie still liope so Air Massey: “I hope so." Mr Isitt: “Hope springs eternal in the Massey breast." If people would exercise self denial they would pull 111 rough' and the present depression would in the end prove to have produced beneficial effects for the country. He congratulated the Government on its Samoan policy. He declared that the trouble in Samoa was stirred up for unworthy purposes by a. few interested whites, lie hoped the Government would maintain its pre-

sent policy. Mr Vigor Brown (Napier) said tne best thing was to profit by the lessons of recent war years and to do our utmost by joint efforts to help the Government get the country back to normal conditions. Mr Nash (Palmerston N.) said the present position of the meat, and wool markets was unsatisfactory, but there were indications of better prices. He

considered trust methods were operating in the matter of benzine and should bo fully investigated. Before the war petrol was obtainable at 12s a case. To-day it cost 30s. Touching on the case of Armour and Co.’s application for a meat export permit Mr Nash hoped flic Government would not recede from the position it took up last year regarding Armours.

Mr S. G. Smith (Taranaki) deprecated the seizure of the accummulatjfced surpluses for the purchase of land for soldier settlement. TTfe funds for that purpose should have boon raised by way of loan. As a result of the Government’s policy wo had been passing through an orgy of expenditure. This was shown by the fact that while Australia, with 6V million people, increased her. expenditure by only £10,565,376 New Zealand, with It million people increased her expenditure to the extend of £14,009.957. Mr Sodden (Westland) intimated •that he wouldsupport the amendment. He observed that some sup- I porters of .the Government were I quoting Sir John Findlay’s recently reported interview. He proceeded to severely criticise Sir J. Findlay who, he said, got all lie could out of the Liberal party and so far as they were concerned, was now descredited.

This closed the debate so far as Mr Wilford’s amendment The amendment was lost by 3$ to 20 Following is the division list:— For the amendment: Atmore, Bartra.m. Edie. Forbes. Holland, Horn. Is-, itt, Howard. Kellett, McCombs, Masters. Poland. Seddon. Sidey. Smith. Sullivan, Veitch, Wilfofd, Witty. Against the amendment:' Biteliener, Bollard, Burnett. Coates, Dickson, J. MeDicksou., J. G. Dixon, Field, Glenn, Guthrie, Hamilton. A. Hamilton. ,r. R.’ Harris, TTawken. Ilenare. Herries, Hockley, Hunter. Jones, Lee. Luke Lysnar, McLeod, McNicol. Malcolm’. Hander, Massey, Nash, Noswortliy, Parr. Pomare, Potter, Rhodes. Hon. Sir R. H. Rhodes. T. Stewart. Syke« Wright. Young. Pairs: For the amendment—Ngata. McCallum, Jennings, Fraser, Parr~ Savage, Hunan Thacker; against the amendment—Williams, Anderson, TTru. Campbell, Hudson, Cralgie. R.’ Newman, Dr. Newman. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Holland.—P.A.