ADRESS IN REPLY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 14 July 1928, Page 7

ADRESS IN REPLY

Resuming (lie Address-in-Reply Debate, Mr J. R. Hamilton (Awarua) expressed the view that the House was very indebted to tho member for Tauranga, who had always been anxious to keep down the price of fertilisers. TTio unfortunate part of the affair so far as the member for Raglan was concerned was that his name appeared in ‘ Farming First” as a member of tlm directorate. Mr Martin: “That’s wrong.” Mr Hamilton: “I am only trying to point out that the member for Raglan is in very unfortunate company.” Mr Martin': “I am very proud of tho company I am in.” Mr Hamilton “110 is associated with men who are connected with the Farmers’ .Fertiliser Company, with men. who did their very best to keep the price of fertiliser up. Mr Fraser: “The Reform Party wouldn't be fair.”

Mr Hamilton: “At any rate, it y/ill be very difficult for the member of Raglan to extract himself from the company of those .men. I have a great deal of sympathy for the member for Raglan, for, when he came into the House, those on this side of the House felt that he was in a very unfortunate position. 1 The member for Raglan has not explained to the Houso where he stands on thin patter, or how he comes to be associated with ‘Farming First.’ ” The farmers, he said, were now in a very much better 'position than before in respect to the supply of fertilisers. Commenting on the improvement in economic conditions, lie said it was due to the better prices being obtained by tho producers; There was still room for caution, and people should not be carried away by the favourable prices being paid at present. Critics of the Government. said it should be put out of office, but they did not show any good reason for that. He had boon interested in the statement of .Mr E. A. Ransom (Pahiatua) that lie* would ho willing to sell out his property to the Government for 10 per cent.' less than he had given for it. Hundreds of people in the Dominion would he. willing to accept 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, less than they had given. A lot of people had bought their land too dear. The Leader of the Opposition could find out whether people were being driven off the land by going round to see how many vacant farms there were. Mr IT. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East): “Have you been round?” Mr Hamilton: “Yes.”

Mr Armstrong: “Then you must have had your goggles on.” Mr Hamilton doubled whether there was one per cent, of vacant farms from Picton to the Bluff. He did not know about the North Island, but North Island members told him that the position was the same there. It was wrong to say that the Government was driving people off the land. “NO CONFIDENCE” AMENDMENT DEFEATED The House divided on the Labour no confidence amendment, which was defeated by 4d votes to 14, Mr Atmore voting with Labour. Besoming the debate on the original motion, Mr T. Forsyth (Wellington East) remarked that the Opposition had not found much in the, .Governor-Gene-ral's Speech to criticise. The cry of unemployment would bo increasingly heard, unless greater provision was made for boys to learn trades and lie absorbed therein. The no confidence amendment had been on the same lines as in the former sessions. The Leader of the Opposition had •been harping on the same old string and it was nearly worn out. He should change his tune. Mr Forsyth referred to the advances to settlers and workers, and asked the Leader of the Opposition how he would have raised money for those and other necessary purposes, without increasing the Public Debt for which they criticised the Government. When Opposition members were slating the Government concerning the enormous size of the Public Debt, it was fair that they should explain in what respects they considered money should not have been raised. The speaker went on to refer to changes in the Labour platform ami remarked that the party was indulging in window-dressing because of the approach of the General Election. Mr W. It. McKeen (Wellington South) inferred to the, division list, declaring that. Mr Atmore was the only consist on!, critic of the Government, for fin- N.i lioliulisfs had denounced the Government and yet voted for it. The speaker criticised the Government's action hi increasing tiio rate of interest- on Slate advances and declared the Government was charging fy; per cent, for advances, whereas the working expenses of the Department cost less than 2s per cent, ire wanted .to know if the Government intended raising more money to enable the Department to catch up arrears.

The. Minister of Finance: “We are putting in a certain amount. Mr McKeen: '"Do you intend to raise a, special loan?” 'The lion. W. Downie Stewart: “No special loan.” Mr McKeen alleged land aggregation and speculation were going on and said it paid better to sell land than use. it. The speculator should be eliminated. GOVERNMENT PEFENDED The Minister of Education (the Hon. It. A. Wright), referring to Mr McKetn’s charge that the Government had

done nothing to stop land speculation, asked how tills was going to be avoided. It was going on all the tinie and it was only natural that land owners anxious to sell should seek favourable markets. The bigger the profit the better, pleased would the vendor be. It was only human nature. The purchaser had his remedy. If he thought the price was- too high he need not buy. Tne Minister defended the Minister of Lands, who had done his very best to keep the men on the land.

Passing to railway questions, Mr Wright admitted there was _ji huge deficit on the running of the railways, but deficits were not peculiar ten New Zealand. They were common all over the world.

Mr Wright said it was a good electioneering way to say the Government had been borrowing excessively, but there was not a member of the Opposition who would say where the borrowed money should not have been borrowed. Members asked for expenditure in their own districts and then said, “Look at this wicked Government borrowing again.” He gave a strong denial that the Government was attempting by paying reduced relief rates to force down wages. The Government was not interfering with the Arbitration Court at all.

Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) maintained that the Government had handled the finances well, and said New Zealand did not want to be in the position Australia was 'in. He wanted to know why they would have 12 members on the Dairy Board as six would tbe ample to do all that was necessary. The Meat Board should be congratulated for having carried on a sane policy. Had the Dairy Board done the same tho country would have been saved much’ loss. The debate ended at 9.30 p.m., and