ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 176, 26 June 1926, Page 7

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE. I MANY SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. > ' » Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, June 25. When the House of Representatives resumed this afternoon the debate on the Address-in-Iteply was continued by Mr Howard (Christchurch South), who ' said that in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition Hon. W. Downie Stewart had explained something about the censorship of books, but he had ! evaded the main point made by Mr . Holland, namely, that there was dis- , crimination against working class j books. If any member had the right . to “crow” over the result of the election it was the Prime Minister, because of the fact that so many of his supporters who sat in the House were only there because the Prime Minister 1 1 was there. “A vote for mo is a vote 1 for Coates,” ran the party’s adver- £ tisemonts, and if the Labour Party i had done as well at the election as the i Prime Minister had done they doubt- I less would be as vain about it as he was. The Labour Party had been ] chided with being the “left wing,” i but after Mr Lysnar’s speech last night £ it was evident the Reform Party had < a left wing too, and a. wing with few feathers in it, so that those who lived in glass houses, even if they were big glass houses, should not throw bricks at their neighbours. 1 ( ■ BOYS ON FARMS. [ Mr Hudson (Motueka) said ho did { not doubt that tho Government was , doing the right thing in bringing out , public school boys from England, but c they were taking a great risk. The £ boys were just at the age when their , careers might be nlade*or marred, and } the greatest care should be exercised s as to the class of farmer into whose j employ they were drafted. Further, t there .should be suitable people appointed to go round periodically and £ see these boys, talk to them and dis- ; cuss their prospects with them. , If i this were not done tire boys might be- ; come discouraged in their loneliness t and subsequently drift from the conn- ( try, where they were wanted, into the! 1 towns, where they were not wanted, j j Mr Jordan said the Government 1 claimed that the large deposits in the t Post Office Savings Rank was a proof t of the people’s confidence in them,.but t over the last five years the withdrawals i had been larger than tho deposits, s which was surely proof that the c people’s confidence was waning. The t Government had failed in its duty in the matter of providing the people c with homes, as thev had failed to pro- 1 vide for manv suffering people whose 1 families could get no consideration i until the breadwinner was dead. t Mr Potter (Roskill) occupied the 5 opening portion of his speech in an j explanation of his attitude in connec- t tion with the Eden by-election. £ MOTOR BUS REGULATIONS. .'1 i When the House resumed at 7.30 s Mr Potter denounced what he called c tho “iniquitous motor bus regulations,” contending that it was unfair i to make city councils, who were in- t terested parties, licensing authorities, c

What was required was an independent licensing hoard which would deal fairly between all parties. He hoped the Prime Minister would place . the regulations before the House and give members a free hour to deal With them. He condemned the ease with which art unions could be held in New Zealand as tending to corrupt the morals of the young. He hoped the house would reject the proposal which . he understood was to be made to establish a double, totalisator and urged that it was tim* the Government and not the Racing Conference controlled racing in the Dominion. He demanded rigid inspection of hotels. If that of a milk vendor put a quart of clean water in his milk he was heavily fined, but there was no inspection of hotels worthy of the name. Ho saw no reason why hotels should not come under the Saturday half-holiday law, and those houses which did not provide accommodation for a reasonable number of the public they should have their licenses cancelled. MARRIAGE LAW. Mr Mason (Eden) denounced that “barbarous” British marriage law under which British women marrying foreigners lost their nationality, instancing cases of hardship which arose as a result of New Zealand girls marrying American sailors in New Zealand., He protested against pensions being placed on a contributory basis, 'but urged that immediate provision should be made by the State for incapacitated citizens. GOVERNMENT’S POPULARITY. Mr J. Mason (Napier) returned to the question as to whether the Government was or was not a majority Government. He admitted that more votes were recorded for all the other parties than for the Reform Party, but looked at from the other point of view if a small majority of votes was • recorded against the Government an! overwhelming majority was recorded j against'the Labour Party. Further, no Reform candidate seeking re-elec- ! tion had been defeated, which was a j sure proof of the Government’s j popularity. He defended the reduc- ! tion in the income tax on the ground that industry was being crushed by excessive taxation and before normality could bo restored some relief had to be given. Ho quoted Mr Ramsay MacDonald as saying that this was the course which a British Labour Government would adopt. He maintained that tho Reform Party had fostered and . encouraged the social legislation put in the statute book by their predecessors, while instead of the farmers having a “grouse” against the Government for neglecting their interests, the farmers had clearly shown their appreciation of the Government’s efforts on their behalf at tho last general election. Mr McKeen (Wellington South), declared that the customs duties had been increased and consequently, the cost of living had been increased to the workers, while the “cut” in the public, servants’ salaries made the position of those people doubly difficult, a result due to the policy of the Government. The speaker criticised the pensions scheme as administered by the Government, and said that war worn soldiers wero not receiving the benefit of the pensions which a grateful country was only too ready to grant them. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr Forbes and at 11.17 p.m. the House rose till 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.