ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 9 July 1938, Page 7

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

' PARTIES IN SAME LOBBY, i SURPRISE MOVE. I . 1 Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The debate on the Address-ir-Eeply was continued in the House of Representatives this afternoon by Mr. J. C. Barclay (Marsden) who said he was not opposed to the hard working farmer getting equity in his farm but the hard working farmer, businessman and worker had no hope of retaining their equities if left to the tende v mercies of the big money lords overseas.

The Minister of Internal Allairs, Hon. W. E. Parry, referring to the Local Body Amalgamation Bill, said ho had received some criticism of this measure during the debate, lie was no f afraid to meet local body representatives on their own ground and discuss the provisions of the Bill with them. When lie embarked on the question o local body amalgamation, he realised the difficulties that were in the way and he wanted the assistance of local bodies themselves in solving them. He sai l that the hearing of evidence on the matter would be continued by the com mittce set up for that purpose until such time as the committee should reach conclusions to be laid before the House, There was not a single local body, he said, who did not hold the opinion that reform was necessary and he could assure members of the House there was a dire necessity for attention regarding the amalgamation of local bodies of this country.

Amendments Defeated. Mr. A. C. A. .Sexton (Franklin) said Dr. McMillan’s statement in opening the Address-in-Reply debate stopped short when dealing with the Government’s national security plans, where the question of cost should have bee v .

explained, and that was a vital point. He went on to discuss the party system of government which, he said, was not 'in the best interests of the country and moved the following amendment to the Opposition’s no-confidence motion: ‘‘That the words after ‘following grounds' be omitted and the following inserted—‘That the Government made no legislative [(revision for the abolition of fixed political parties in this honourable House and for the taking of a free, impartial vote of honourable members on all matters affecting the safety, honour and welfare of this Do minion and of the Empire’.” Mr. Sexton, when the amendment was put to the House, called for a div ision.

tho first, in (he course of (.ho dol>;ito. Owing to the construction of the amend meat, two divisions wore necessary. The House divided in the ilrst place on the proposal that “the words of the Opposition’s amendment should he omitted.’’ This was defeated by d 9 voles to 1 the voting being on strictly party lines. When the second part of the amendment was put, it gave rise to the unusual spectacle of Government amt Opposition members going into the same lobby. This portion of the amendment was defeated by -l(i to d, those voting for it being Messrs hex ton, Kushworti. ami Wright.

The net result of these divisions is that the Opposition's original amend, meat has been reduced to a simple noconlidenee amendment, the grounds con tained in the original amendment moved by Hon., A. Hamilton last Friday, being omitted.

The .Minister of Mines, Hon. P. CWebb, stnted that the way in which the Opposition had avoided any attack of legislation passed by the Government, was the best tiling- they could do for the Government. The Opposition had not suggested a repeal of any of tne Government’s legislation, therefore it must have been needed or the Opposition would have had serious arguments against it. There never had been any suggestion, said Mr. Webb, that the Opposition would repeal the invalidity pension, return the Reserve ' Bank to private ownership, or undo the other tilings the Government had done. Members of the Opposition complained about the money the Government was spending on public works but there was a demand for that expenditure anu it was not confined to Government supporters. Even the most conservative people in the country wanted more roads and bridges and they could not be supplied without the expenditure of money, in any case expenditure of that money led to increased employment in private enterprises, thousands of workers being required to supply and distribute the things required by the workers. All the Opposition membdrs could do was to complain about the conditions that were entirely due to the mismanagement of the past. There was talk about sitings that had existed for years and the present Government was letting con tracts for house building at the rate of fifty per week instead of the eleven loans granted in one year by the last Government. The achievements of the | Government wore so great, the Minister concluded, that the appalling condition-, of three years ago had been converted into prosperity greater than ever before.

Col. J. Hargest (Awarua) stressed the need for maintaining adequate land forces for defence purposes and com mented on the drop in strength of the forces in recent years. To-day, he said, they were faced with war and rumours of war and they saw countries nearby over-run by enemies simply because they were incapable of defending them selves. The time had come when Mew Zealand must make a step forward in preparing for defence in the event of attack. Col. Hargest pointed out that a sum of £1,2:20,000 was spent on defence in .1028 and last year the expenditure on the same item was £1,102,000. the difference not being very great. The Minister of Defence, Hon. F. Jones: Nearly £1,700,000 has been spent since.

Col. Hargest: Was not a considerable amount of that for new aeroplanes? The Minister: No. Col. Hargest said it was not a question of spending money. It was a question of getting efliciency. Ho contend ed this country should have a highly mobile force of from 15,000 to 10,000 men. It was going to cost money but if the country was worth defending, the money must be spent. The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Minister of Defence, Hon. F. Jones, at 5.25 when the House rose.