ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 6 September 1935, Page 7

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

DEBATE CONTINUED HR PARRY’S ATTACK (By Telegraph) (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, sth September. Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) resumed the Address-in-Rcply debate. He attacked the Hon. A. D. McLeod for saying there were some among the unemployed who did not want work. If that wort so, if it were true the unemployed had become demoralised, it was due to the way his (Mr McLeod's) Government had treated the unemployed. Some persons were saying that Britain and New Zealand were on the verge of a boom, hut that was not justified. He quoted figures of unemployed in Britain in 1929 and 1955 and contended that the unemployed were greater now than in 1929. The only industry that showed an increase was the war industry and the statement that New Zealand was on the upward move to prosperity was based oil a. rotten foundation. The reason for the increase in the price of butter to-day was that there was a shortage of butter supply in Britain. The Government was not responsible for it. The Labour Party were not the only ones dissatisfied with the acts of tlie Government. Church leaders had expressed dissatisfaction with the way the country was being administered. Arguments that if Labour got into power, the people's deposits 'in the Post Office Savings Bank would be endangered was a poor argument, especially when it was remembered that if the people rushed to the bank to get their deposits to-day, they could not get them.

'FARMERS NOT HELPED” Mr D. McDougall (Independent. Mataura) said the Minister of Lands had given them some very interesting information about the help given the farmer. He did not know of any farmer in the southern province who had been helped by the .Minister, in fact lie had put them off the land. He did not think it in the Minister’s nature, to help any man who was down arid out. The National Government was a Reform' Government with a few half-baked Liberals in it. It would be better if they threw them overboard. Another Minister had gone down South and had quoted a lot of figures to a meeting. He was quite sure those present after liciaring the Minister did not ,know their way in or way out. Mr McDougall quoted at length from a speech made by the Hon. R. Masters before the 1928 election, until asked by the Speaker to make his own speech instead of quoting that of somebody else. He criticised the Government for the wny it dealt with applications for pensions .and said, if he had his choice of following either of the leaders, he would choose the Minister of Finance. DANGEROUS LEVEL CROSSINGS. Mr A. E. Ansell (Government, Chalmers) congratulated the Governments, especially the Minister of Public Works for undertaking to eliminate a number of dangerous level crossings that would give useful work to a large number of men for a considerable time. He congratulated the Minister of Lands for inaugurating, and the state of the Small Farm Scheme on Otago Peninsular. He contended that greater attention should be given to a reduction,' in the number of road accidents. He advocated the adoption of a plan under which every motor vehicle operating on roads should be inspected every six fnouths, brakes, lights and ''general 1 equipment to be testeel by a special plant that would force the ramshackle vehicle off the road or else compel the owner to put it in proper order. He complimented the Government on obtaining’ such, in low rate of interest for the. Conversion Loan. He dealt with the' guaranteed price proposal and said lie considered the scheme was not practicable. If money for that scheme were to be token from those who had it, it would mean that, the already high taxation woukKbe increased and he thought the term that would be applied to it would be ‘confiscation.

EXCHANGE .RATE Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) defended Mr Savage’s statement that raising the exchange had put a brake on Ne>y Zealand’s imports from'Britpin. He said the bargaining, of the Government had injured New Zealand manufactures. Since the debate opened, Government members had only criticised Labour’s proposals -and had put nothing forward from the Government. He contended that during the depression the purchasing power of the people should have been expanded, not reduced, so that they could purchase the large _ increase in production. When the cut in wages was restored, unemployment decreased mid if wages had not been reduced, there would have been no unemployment problem. _ . Mr Armstrong said the cost of living had increased since wages were reduced. The sooner they woke up and reversed the policy the better it would bo for everybody. It was an economic impossibility for the farmer to get better prices for his product until wages and "pensions were increased. The debate was adjourned and Gif House rose at 10.30 p.m.