MAJORITY OF EIGHT

Grey River Argus, 12 September 1935, Page 5

MAJORITY OF EIGHT

FOR THE GOVERNMENT No-Confidence Division (Our Parliamentary Reporter.) PARIJAMENT BUILDINGS, September 11. For the remainder of the session at least, the Government appears to br> safe. The division on the No Confidence motion moved by the. Leader of the Opposition, was taken in l hc House this afternoon, and the vote resulted in tho House expressing confidence in ilie present administration. The voting was as follows:— For motion 27 Against motion . . 35 Government majority ... 8 Although there was an element of surprise, the vote was taken early in the debate, it was apparent that an arrangement had been made that the division should be taken before certain Government members left the House on “urgent public business." There are certain features in connection with the division to-day which are of interest. Two of 'the In dependent members. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) and Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont). who have consistently in the post opposed tho Gov eminent, voted to-day against the amendment moved by the Opposition. Four Independents supported the amendment. They were Messrs McDougall, M. Rushworth. Sta'lworthy and Veitch. DIVISION LIST. The list is as follows:— Against amendment (35): Ansell, Bitchener. Broad foot. Campbell. Coates. Cobbe, Connolly, Endean, Forbes, Hamilton. Hargest, Harris, Hawke, Homare, Jul 1 , Kyle, Linklater, McLeod. MacMi’lan, McPherson, Me Skimming J. N. Massey. W W. Massey, Murdoch. J. A. Nash, Ngata, Ransom, Reid, Smith, A. Stuart. Sykes. Tetonia Wilkinson. Wright and Young. For the amendment (27): Armstrong, Atmore, Barnard, Carr Chapman, Howard. Jones, Jordan, L-’.ngstone, McCombs. McDougall. McKeon, Mason, Munro, W. Nash, O’Brien, Parry Richards, Rushworth Samuel, Savage, Semple, Stallworthy. Sullivan, Tirikatane, Veitch and Webb. Address in Reply

EDUCATION SYSTEM CRITICISED. r ger T*res« A ssocia‘vm 7 WELLINGTON September 11. The Addross-in-Reply debate was re <umed this afternoon. Mr Wilkinson said he was greatly interested in Labour’s scheme of guaranteed prices, as he represented a rural electorate. Labour speakers, so far. had been very vague and he wanted *o know what Labour proposed to pay for commodities, and how t'he money ,v as to be raised. Tho question of fix- I ed hours and wages for farm workers nlso concerned him. Until r.p secured that information, he could only conclude the proposals wore put forward I for electioneering purposes He refer | rod to high taxation and said that | bei’wo! n 1932-35 taxation increased by <7,500.000. He claimed that New Zea-I ’and was the highest taxed community *n the world. Government taxation was <l5 18s 7d per head, and local body taxation £3 15s a head making a total of £l9 13s 7d a head. Ho hoped the Government’ would fake that •nto consideration when framing the Budget. Relief was es-ential if the country was to got out of ’"ts diffieulGos. He appealed for an immediate sealing dowm pol’cv. He referred to the- farmers’ adjustment legislation passed kist session, and said 'that tho legislation was of considerable benefit ’o the hard-up ‘’armor but it did not co far enough, and ho urged the Government the necess : tv for anmndino- ii tn make it more effoetive for tho hard Up farmer. He referred to + ke provision for equity, which was deleted p rom the original Bill. Ho. thought fhat aspect should bo further considered. and some equit-v granted the farmer for his work, during tue period nf supervision. Coming to the question of wheat, ho said the total quantity of wheat had gone down by no less than one-third. The amount to be harvested was not sufficient, for the req lirements >f New Zealand 'To urged that monov should be made availah'e to rhe j •'armor at low rate of interest and that I provision for repayment', with say six months notice, should be mad? in long term loans. He suggested the setting I up of a housing commission to enable people to establish homes for themselves. He would like to see the Government considerably reduce the exchange rate, which was cripp'ing business, and making prices of imported goods far too high for people’s pockets. Mr Su’livan said it was obviously impossible to answer Air Wilkinson’s | questions regarding guaranteed prices until they were actually handling the situation, and knew the circumstances obtaining at the time, but the principal laid down was that t^ ie basis of the guaranteed price would be first and foremost something that wou d give a decent living wage to the farmMr Hargest referred t’o the 12 points med.' by the Leader of the Opposition n a speech at Auckland. He said that eight of the points were included in 1 he Governor-General’s speech, the other four were unworkable. Dealing 1 with Mi’ Ravage’s charge of extravag-

ance owl the part of the (governments in recent years. Mr Hargest mention'd that the war accounted for a large part of the increase in the national debt. Public, works, such as hydroelect riu schemes, also absorbed a great (leal of money. Reverting to Air Savage’s Auckland speech, Air Hargest .-a d that one point was restoring cuts in pensions and civi' service salaries. Ihe present Government' was doing that gradual y. Regarding safeguarding '•ivil servants 7 superannuation rights, had any civil servants - ' rights ever been in danger? Not one he said He defended the Government’s handling of the unemployment problem. and said that while There were undoubtedly cases of hardship, he had never come across any of .starvation such as the Opposition alleged existed. The Opposition criticised the Government all round, and gave jf no credit for what it had done. He contended

ihe high exchange benefited severa. industries, which could not exist it tlic exchange were lowered. He claim,d too, that the returning prosperity ot farms was due to the Government s actions. He urged greater assistance for secondary industries. Mr Semple said he had ample evidence from all parts of New Zealand, some from religious organisations, that there was destitution and starvation in New Zealand. He produced a blanket, which he said was a sample of those issued to the unemployed. He said: “You cou d shoot peas through it” Mr Smith asked Mr Semple if lie could have the blanket to have the matter investigated. Mr Semple agreed to hand it over. ’ Mr Semple concluded that the Government had failed to take advantage of the opportunities, and his opinion was that a number of those sitting on the Government side of the House were going to get a shock when t'he election results were known. Mr Wright criticised followers of the Labour Party for interrupting non Labour speakers at meetings. He said he personally had been refused a hearing when there was no call for it. He opposed the high exchange, which he considered was against' the interests of the country. He also opposed the Labour Party’s guaranteed price scheme, and said that both Labouand the Government were bidding for the farmers’ vote. Regarding the guaranteed price, it was the ’ taxpayer who had to make up the difference between market price and the guaranteed price, just as it was the taxpayer who had to pay the high exchange. Mr Barnard said the fault for interruptions at .the meetings usually lay with the chairman hut it must be remembered that people had suffered sorely in the last four years, and it could not be expected that a meeting at which a Government candidate was speaking would be like a prayer meeting. He outlined Labour’s policy and defended it. He referred to the Hawke’s Bay earthquake borrowers, and thanked the Government for the relief given and hoped that relief would be extended. He also asked the Government t° reconsider its previous decision not to grant further assistance t'o the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board in restoring the hospital buildings and equipment. The debate was adjourned.