A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1860, 9 July 1920, Page 5

A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

REFORM PARTY DIVIDED ON ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

ANOTHER "NO CONFIDENCE”MOTION.

Per Press Association,

WELLINGTON. July 8,

Following- the defeat of Mr Mac Donald's no-confidence motion in the House of Representatives this afternoon. Mr Statham (Dunedin Central) moved that the following amendment., by way of addition, be made to the Addicss-in-Reply to his Excellency the Governor-General's Speech “We led it, however, to be our duty to sub mit, to vour Excellency that in the opimon <.l this House your Excellency s Government should, it not elected by tins House, least be elected by the members ol the dominant, party in ttic House.- He said ho laid been returned as an Independent, and he found it was not an easy mailer to break friendships and associations, formed during the cignt years he was a iiienuioi of the Reform Party, but lie wished it to be understood lie had not lost respect and affection for the Premier, his old leader. His attitude towards his old friends on the other side of the House was still one ol good feeling. He therefore hoped to speak without malice towards all. Coming to the Speech he said it was so empty of poncy that it resembled a sandwich with the meat left out. It was a public declaration by the Government of its own importance. lacy said they could not do tins unci they could not, do that. Perhaps they could not control the prices of imported goods, but they failed to import the bread and butter lines necessary lor the people. The Premier: “What about sugar? What about butter?’’ Mi- Statham, continuing, said perhaps in connection with sugar the Government did a certain amount ol good, lie proposed to deni with butter later. He complained that, Ministers did not give the House a lead. The only Minister who had spoken in the debate was 'the Minister of Lands, consequently the House was considerably kept m the dark. Touching the Board of Trade he declared the people had no confidence m it. It should bo presided over by a skilled commercial man. No attempt was being made to control the profits made by the big companies, which wlto resorting lo every dodge to avoid the declaration of the big dividends they wore earning. There was no ray of hope in the Speech for the man with a large family, while our pensions scheme was inadequate and, worse still, it penalised thrift. 1 here ought to bo a better distribution of ilio necessaries of life. He was asked how this was to be done? His reply was those who are well olf must make greater sacrifices for those who arc not. That was the only way they could build up an equalisation fund. That was fair. The butter equalisation fund was most unfair. Drastic reform was necessary in connection with the Legislative Council. What was needed was a revising chamber consisting of a few persons well qualified to revise the legislation of the House. Tin’s would obviate to a. great extent unsuitable appointments, which, without mentioning names, every one recognised should not have been made. The failure to reconcile capital and labour, and the failure to take sufficient from the banks, and the failure, to revise Hie Customs tariff were also condemned bv the speaker. After urging the necessity of loyalty to the Crown upon the Labour Party as the best means of saying the Dominion from invasion by the Asiatic nice, the speaker passed on to expose (ho proceedings of the “Progressive” Party, dm-ing which he criticised (he consistency I of Messrs Parr, Lee and Anderson, who had since joined the Reform Ministry in spile of the obligation limy had taken that not one of the “Progressives” would take office without the consent of all the others. His own attiude was that they should stand (o their pledges to the Reform Government till the dissolution of Parliament, and at the General Election stand as a separate party of Independents, havingthe first plunk in their platform that, the Ministry should be chosen # by the dominant party. If had been -aid that the Independent iievJr got anywhere. But what matter if they did not get on the Ministerial benches, fif> long as they retained their selfrespect. He claimed that members of the House should have mime voice in the selection of Ministers, and he thought the Premier would welcome a change, lie mentioned the. following as comprising (ho members of the “Progressive" Party: Messrs Anderson, Parr. Lee, Sykes, Stewart, Harris, Dickson t.L McC), Rood, Dr Newman, Wilkinson, Mandcr and Young, and concluded by saying that though, lie was an Independent to-day he did not expect he could be ploughing a lonely .ut low for long, as the day was corning when a Young New Zealand Party would arise and eventually turn die present Government off the Ministerial benches. Ho moved his amendment. Mr Massey said, in accordance with precedent, he would accept (he amendment as a, want of confidence motion. The House rose at 5.3 C. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr J. McC. Dickson (Chalmers) resumed the debate by seconding the amendment because it involved a principle ho had advocated at the election, and which had been endorsed by hi.s constituents. He regretted that the Premier had made it a. matter of no confidence, because it would prevent many members of the Reform Party voting for a principle in which he felt sure they I firmly believed. He, however, could not imagine three Ministers voting against j what they had so strongly advocated as private members. It was the first plank m | the platform of the “Progressive” Party ( that Ministers should bo selected by the j dominant party and personally he declined to become responsible for any Minister m, whose selection ho had no voice. Members i could elect the Speaker of the House. VMiy not elect the members of the Cabinet? He) asked the Premier to declare that ho would not make the matter one of no confidence. I>V accepting the principle, or by at least giving the House a free hand to express its convictions on the subject. MR MASSEY IN REPLY.

Mr Massey reciprocated the kindly ex-1 pressions from Mr StuUiam, but said that, notliinj? had pained him so much as the speech by the member for Dunedin Central, llis amendment meant that the Cabinet should be selected by the dominant party. This lie contended was not ft matter for the House to deal with, because the House had nothing to do with the private aft airs ot an y party, but the amendment meant more. It would probably lead to an Elective Executive. But this was not ft proper way to introduce a change like this. It should be done by a Bill as it had been done many times before. He had voted for the Elective Executive, but he had changed ms opinion, because ho became aware ot its weakness. The National Cabinet was a case in point. He was proud of the fact that the National Government did good work, but its weakness was that there were many important questions on which they did not legislate because they were not agreed upon them. He instanced public questions on which ho said an elected Cabinet would probably disagree, and the result be disaster. Coming to the Governor's speech lie defended the absence of policy because he never knew but one occasion on which anj Government put Us policy into the Speech. He exhibited a copy of the Kings Speech delivered in the Imperial Parliament to show it was but a brief document and contained no policy. The Government s policy would be disclosed in the Budget ami he had no hesitation in saying it would lie found thoroughly progressive and democratic in its nature. In reply to Mr Slat ham, Mr Massey outlined the movements within ihc Reform Party which led up to Mr Statham s proposal. lie declared that when he met his party he expressed his willingness to reconstruct his Cabinet, but when ho was told that tin* party should select the new men lie put liis foot down and refused to agree lo it, because ho could not do so and retain his self-respect. Ho was willing jo accept suggestions from ihe party, but ho. maintained that the Premier must retain the final choice in the matter of Cabinet appointments. He gave reasons why ho made the recent appointments, contending that the men chosen wore good men and the Cabinet fts at present constituted was » strong Cabinet. There never was a more whole-hearted, enthusiastic set of men in charge of the public affairs of the Dominion, I There was a great deal of work still to dc and they would do it. Ho defended the , delay in making appointments on the ground that it was necessary to be careful, but. the country had not suffered. He proposed tc ■ appoint another Minister in a- few weeks, but he could not do so till the no commence motions were out of flic way. Com

mg to the electoral system, on which they bad been blamed, ho did not cure what electoral system they bud. *o long’ as it was fair. It had been said the Reform Party got into power on the minority vote, but ho pointed out that the Reform Party did not contest sixteui seats and they were entitled to a share in the votes cast in these electorates. Proportional representation was suggested, but it, bud failed in New South Wales and lie was satisfied it lent itself to, intrigue in u way that the Second Ballot never equalled. lie hoped no such system would ever be introduced in New Zealand, because the electorates would be too large and the country quota must go. lie then proceeded to detail the work done by Ministers to show that Ministers were fully employed and the interests of the country bad not suffered. A great volume of work was pressing upon Ministers. That was the reason why Parliament could not be called together earlier. Mr Statbam said there was no ray of hope in the Governor’s Speech. He thought there was, because the heads of the Departments had the courage (o*speak their minds and offer a note of warning to the people of A’ew Zealand. ’ This was one of the linest countries the sun over shone on, but we had to he careful with it all the same, and careful financial administration was the first necessity. Ho defended the appointments to the Legislative Council, which hud not been confined to the Reform Party. Their repatriation scheme was the finest in the world and an effort had been made to catch the unpatriotic rich man, by resorting to compulsion in raising loans. The cost of living was the next subject dealt with, the difficulties in the path, of the Government 'controlling prices being reiterated. Ho foreshadowed legislation dealing with the question tin’s session, which ho hoped would effect an improvement without inflicting- injustice. But the real remedies wore industry and economy on the part of the Government and the people.- A passing word of warning was given to the Labour Party against their Socialistic tendencies. which would fail just as the “New Australia” experiment failed. The Premier . I then passed on to a defence of the Valuation Department, which during the past 'three years had effected re-valuations which 1 added 35 millions to the unimproved values lof lands. Re valuations were now arranged j for and only twelve counties would remain to ho dealt with. That, he thought, was a I very creditable record. Next be dealt with, land settlement, than which he declared there had never been so much in the history of the Dominion. This, he claimed, would • help ns over the time of financial stress through which wo might yet have to ]>uss. j Finally, he asked Mr Statham to withdraw his amendment and submit his principle to the House in the shape of a. Bill. If be did so be could have the assurance of the head . jof the Government that he would have every opportunity of getting it discussed. (Applause). , . After the supper adjournment the debate was continued by Messrs Kollett, Parr, Maoi Donald, Leo, Hamin, Anderson, Mander, Dr. Newman and Mr Lysnar, who discussed the general principles of the elective executive. . Mr Holland criticised both the Liberal and the Reform Parties, but declared the Labour Party would vote for the amend- ) merit. . . . ~ At 2.5 a.ni. the division was taken on Mr Statham’s amendment, which was defeated by 41 to 3C. The following is the division list:- , , r For the amendment (50) —ATessrs Atmore, Bartram, (,’haigie, Dickson {J. McC.), Ldio, Forbes, Fraser, Hunan, Holland, Horn,Howard, Isitt. Kollett, McCombs, MacDonald, Masters, Mitchell. Newman (Dr. A. K.). Parry, Poland. Savage, Scddon, Sidev, Smith ' (S. G.), Statbam, Sullivan,Thacker. Ycitch. Witty and Young, i Against the amendment (41) —Messrs Anderson. Bitchener, Bollard. Burnett, Camp- , hell. Coates, Dickson (J. S.), Field, Glenn,i Guthrie, Hamilton (A.), Hamilton (J. R.), . Harris, Hawken. Henare, 1 lorries (Sir Wil- ■ Ham). Hocklev. Hudson, Hunter, Jones, - Leo. Luke, Lysnar. McLeod, McNicol, Mal- > colm, Mander, Massey, Nash, Nosworthv, ; Parr Pomare, Potter, Powdrell, Reed, - Rhodes (Sir 11. ID, Rhodes (T. W.) Smith (R. W.), Sykes, Uru and Wright. On the - motion of Air McCombs, the debate on the i Address-in Reply was adjourned and the - House rose at 2.10 a.in.