ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 4 March 1932, Page 2

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

DEBATE RESUMED MOTION OF “NO-CONFIDENCE” LABOUR LEADER ATTACKS THE GOVERNMENT (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 3rd March. Resuming the Address-in-Reply debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) moved a'formal' noconfidence amendment. Mr Holland commented on the Government's lack of policy as disclosed by the Speech from the Throne. The Government had promised the people at the election that, it would prepare remedial legislation, but instead it had set up a series of commissions to find a policy for itself. The Economy Committee consisted of wealthy men who were being asked to reduce the wages of the workers. Parliament had been called together, but the Government did not have its policy ready. He understood that Cabinet was still quarrelling over the exchange question, and they were being asked to speak on the Address in Reply without first having had the Government’s policy. The Economy Committee had been .asked to report on Ist March, but it was now 3rd March. Members should know the Government’s policy before embarking on the Address-in-Reply debate, otherwise they could not know how to proceed. In the past they had always known in general what the Government proposed. All that was known at present was that the Government intended to make a series of devastating-attacks on the workers. Mr Holland asked if the Prime Minister had ever submitted to the members of the Coalition the proposals in the T.C. and A. Amendment Bill. Mr -Forbes"lsn’t that a' matter of domestic interest?” “BLINDFOLDED AND DUMB” Mr Holland: “Oh, yes, but we are very interested too.” •Mr Holland said that they were haying legislation in the form of the arbitration proposals placed before the House without the members of the Government party being consulted. They were expected to come' to the House blindfolded and dumb as well. He. was wondering to wliat extent the Government members would sit silent. Mr Holland complimented the mover and seconder of the motion on the heroic attempts they had made to fulfil their difficult duty. There seemed, however, to be a good deal of conflict between the two speakers on the subjects they had dealt with. He regretted that the results of the Honolulu Conference had not been made known so that the treaty could be discussed during the debate. The Labour Party had attacked the policy of not giving relief work to a man who had a few pounds saved up, and it was supported bv Mr Bitchener. Mr Holland strongly criticised the' wage reductions the Government had made. It was impossible for people to live on the relief wages that were being paid. Every time wages came down a blow was struck at the farmer, who was faced with decreased purchasing power on the local market. The market in England had been depressed by the widespread unemployment and reductions in wages. These factors had curtailed the purchasing power of the English people. New Zealand could not regulate the English market, but she could exercise a control over her own. He hoped that some of the farmers would learn the value ,of the local market.

INCREASED PRODUCTION Mr Holland advocated increased production from land, making fertilisers more easily available and generally reorganising industry and a comprehensive system of production and distribution. The best, way of providing an internal market for farmers was to pay high wages and keep everybody in work. The effect of reducing wages was to threaten fanners with bankruptcy because they were unable to sell their produce. Surely there was statesmanship enough m blew Zealand to find a way to bring to starving families the produce which the farmers were unable to sell. What was wrong in New Zealand was loss of purchasing power. . . , Mr Holland urged that the principal market for all our products was here in New Zealand. We had a bigger market locally for New Zealand products than we had overseas. Consequently we must pay first attention to our New Zealand market. The first duty was to restore purchasing power by getting men and women back into employment in industries of economic value and not at the starvation rates proposed by the Government, but at standards of wage that would enable the workers and their dependants to live in decency and comfort. There were no famine conditions in the Dominion to-day. There was a superabundance of everything men and women needed to keep them alive. Why was it then that the people were starving in the midst of plenty? Simply because the farmers could not sell their produce. Wage workers could not afford to pay for food because they were denied the right to work. The Labour Party insisted that the unemployed must be got back to work, but it must be work of economic value to the country. He advocated a land policy of not less than a million acres and when the land was ready for occupation, those who had been engaged breaking it in should be given the first opportunity to settle on it. The Government must reduce interest rates. Then again, secondary industries must be built up, offering wide scope for employment. Trade agreements overseas should be entered into, guaranteeing approximately fixed imports and exports .and there should also be provision for guaranteed stabilised prices for primary products at, say, five and seven year moving averages. PUBLIC WORKS POLICY

Mr Holland proceeded to criticise the reduction of expenditure in the Public Works Department and remarked that it meant at least £4,000,000 was to be withdrawn from circulation, largely in the form of wages, and it did not require a mathematician to recognise that the local market would be depreciated to more than that extent. Everyone would suffer. The new policy was going to throw the whole of the men who were taken off Public Works on to relief jobs and would make the Public Works Department a huge relief works scheme. It would make the department practically a slave camp. The policy amounted to a. declaration that, New Zealand could not nrovide men working full time with sufficient remuneration to live above starvation level and that was a libel on New Zealand. MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM The Minister of Public Works (the Rt. Hon. J. G, Coates) said it was contrary to fact to say that the two Government parties had not been consulted on the I C. and A. Amendment Bill and other legislation. The members of both parties were familiar with the Government’s proposals' and although there might not be complete agreement in regard to details, all realised that in order to meet the present situation, measures of an unusual character and undreamt of a few years ago, were abso-

lutoly imperative. The Speech from the Throne indicated that the Goveinment- would bring down any measures it deemed necessary and surely that was wide enough. They had several measures on the stocks and they would be presented in due course. The Government had been criticised for setting up Commissions, but it was entitled to ask for what advice it thought fit. Mr Coates considered that New Zealand, at the present time, was in as good position as any country in the world. From the Leader of. the. Opposition’s remarks, one would have thought that the country was a slave camp, but that picture was ail 'erroneous one. The camps were temporary shelter from a storm which-would soon pass.-! The Leader of the Opposition had stated that high wages were a solution of the problem and he'asked whether that included restoration of'the cuts imposed on Public Servants arid by the Arbitration Court. The trouble I, with New Zealand to-day was that industry was no longer profitable and until profit in industry returned there would be unemployment. In Russia all the people worked for the State, but Soviet principles were not wanted by British people, who believed in a system of private enterprise. Farmers’ production costs were 40 per cent, above the amount they received for their products and until primary industry was placed on a stable basis, the country would not get out of its difficulties. Mr W. Nash (Labour, Hritt): "Until they make a profit we must go hungry.” : Mr Coates said that it was the duty of the Government to help industry by removing the shackles which , were hindering if and at the same time provide as much relief as the country could afford. • The decrease of £4,000,000 in expenditure on Public Works was due to the fact that New Zealand could no longer draw upon the London market he did not think it would he wise to look to London for large sums any longer. Discussing unemployment, Mr Coates said that the number'of unemployed in October last was 51,400, but by the last week in February, the number had been reduced Lo 44,107. The Leader of the Opposition: ‘‘How many men in single camps?” Mr Chates: "1066.”

Continuing, he said there were also a number of men who were subsidised farm labourers. An interesting feature of the unemployment problem was the number of men who had been sent to the gold fields. A year ago there were 1800 men employed in gold prospecting, but the latest return showed that there were about 4100 men on gold fields. Many of the men who had been sent on to the goldfields were now in a position to maintain themselves as they were earning as much as £3 a week. Some were earning much more than that. It Was absolutely impossible to give full rates of pay under present conditions. Mr Holland advocated a shortening of hours without any decrease in pay. That was an utter impossibility. It was not even sensible. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) moved as an addendum to Mr Holland’s amendment that the Government does not possess the confidence of the House because of its failure to submit proposals to reduce interest rates on debts, both private and public, reduce bank overdraft rates and rents, and further, because it has not taken steps to provide for a full investigation of the nanking, currency and credit systems in the Dominion. He said it seemed that the Government had adopted Reform’s policy and that the real leader of the country was Mr Coates He stressed the need for interest rates to come down to enable people to meet their commitments. He also alleged that the State Departments were harrassing those who had borrowed money and were now in difficulties. Unless the Government took action to meet the position it was no longer fit to carry on the work of the country. During the election, the Government had created a psychology of fear, which had done much to' bring about the present state of affairs. If the exchange rate were artificially increased, it would bring disaster to the Dominion. It would increase the cost of living and produce more unemployment Customs taxation would also be increased. The amendment was seconded by Mr H. M. Rushworth (Country Party, Bay of Islands) and defeated by 49 to 26, Messrs Rushworth, Black, Atmore and the mover voting with Labour. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) criticised the Government for setting up boards and commissions as unjust to

the country, especially at a time when economy was necessary and as indicating inability to cope with the situation_ Mr A. E. dull (Government, Waipawa) said the people looked to the Government to take action regarding interest rates and he expressed the hope that it would consider extending relief measures to country taxpayers. He outlined a scheme for utilising the services of members of Parliament by the appointment of a series of Select Committees charged with the performance of administrative functions, the committees to meet monthly and perform a good deai of the administrative work of the various departments and report its recommendations to Cabinet through the Ministerial, head. Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) claimed that all sections of the community feh a want of confidence in the Government. Ministers had no confidence in themselves and consequently referred important matters to Commissions. He urged loan conversion with a reduction of 1 per cent-, in interest, saying three millions a year in interest, which would be available to keep men in employment and enabling the’unemployment levy and charge to be abolished. Mr J. Connolly (Government, MidCanterbury) making his maiden speech in the House, made an eloquent plea for compulsory reduction in interest rates. The first Bill that should have been brought down should have been one to adjust interest. Rates on first class mortgages should be reduced to 5 per cent. The average rate on loans in the Dominion was about 61 per cent." and it was obvious the people could not carry the burden. The only remedy was to ease the position. There were times in the history of every country when the Government was justified in making adjustments in the interests of the people as a whole and if interest rates were eased up, the farmer, merchant, worker, and business man would all benefit. Mr J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) urged the expansion of secondary industries and said that no doubt New Zealand was heading for repudiation and would do that quicker than any other country. The Hon. A. D. McLeod said he felt sure that employers in New Zealand did not wish to force down wages. He expressed the hope that- the Dominion would never resort to repudiation. Default was possible, but he did not think anyone favoured wilfully setting aside their obligations The farmer's’ views on exchange had been wilfully _ misrepresented. They advocated freeing exchange and not pegging it as high as possible. The debate was adjourned.