ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12483, 26 June 1926, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

A VERY DULL DAY IN THE HOUSE DISCUSSION DRAGS ON WAS IT A SPEECH-OR A SERMON? The Addre«s-in-Reply debate was continued in the House yesterday, but the day was hopeless ly dull.

Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) touched on the references to the Samoans, which other members had made. He thought the S'amoans might be helped in a practical way as well as by lip service Ho congratulated the Government, as he understood they were calling tenders for an up-to-date ship for the Samoan run. New Zealand had 27 islands under its control, more than Uritaiu had 100 years ago. Our territory extended from about 8 degrees south of the equator to the South Pole- He thought New Zealand’s future success depended on its transport services. He contended New Zealand was lagging far behind many other countries in the matter of the purchasing power of wages. FRUIT AND IRON Mr R. P. Hudson (Motueka) welcomed the appointment of the Hon. K. S. Williams as Minister for Public Works. Mr Williams understood the backblockers* requirements. Referring to the fruit trade, he said the export last year reached three-quarters of a million cases. The industry hoped soon to be independent of any subsidy and to be able to stand or fall by their own efforts, but that time had not come yet He trusted and believed that the growers had the sympathy of every section of the community in the struggle they had had in building up the industry. Regarding the attempts to develop tho iron industry in the north of the South Island, he said that the stumbling-block was the importation of iron from Ihdia, where the wages were small for coolie labour. Be appealed to the Government to deal sympathetically with a request which would be made for some form of assistance. Mr Jordan quoted a statement by the Prime Minister, who had Said hy interjection: “We don’t want the men, but will give them 10s a day if they are up against it.” Mr Coates: Why not quote the whole text? Mr Jordan? I heard no other text; unless we enlarge the text and make it a sermon. Mr Coates: Well, your speech is the nearest approach to a sermon I have heard for a long time. Mr Jordan: Perhaps you- haven’t heard a sermon for a long time. Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill) ventured an explanation of his attitude in supporting Miss Ellen Melville at the Eden by-election. He had, he said, always made it clear that the charges of bribery and corruption made during the contest had not been connected in any way with the Prime Minister and the Reform Party’s organisation in Wellington. In eaying this, however, he was not absolving the Prime Minister and the party 7rom responsibility for the “messup.” The party’s own paper had said that one member, meaning himself, had for personal reasons entered the contest. He had no way of repudiating this charge except on the floor of the House, and he did so now. “I emphatically deny that I acted for personal reasons,” declared Mr Potter. “If it had not been for the cool indifference of the Prime Minister and the party the whole dispute could have been settled within the ranks of the party.” After referring to the good record in the General Election of two unsuccessful aspirants for the party’s nomination, Miss Melville and Mr S. Oldfield, Mr Potter said that he felt it his duty to uphold the principles of the Reform Party, especially that of the square deal. He would still maintain that Mies Melville had not had the justice and fair play to which she

was entitled. By undertaking tho Grey Lynn contest at the General Election she had gained hundreds and thousands of votes for the party throughout the Dominion. “MEMBERS ON LOAN” Speaking for himself, Mr Potter said that he could not be justly accused, even through the Reform Party’s paper, of disloyalty, seeing that he had been loyal to the party’s principles. “I regret the unfortunate happenings in Eden,” he added, “but I do not want the Labour Party’s thanks for loaning them a member for the next three years. I must say I prefer a candidate with a platform to a man who has none and who is a former opponent.” Mr Potter attacked the method used in selecting a Reform candidate as unconstitutional, and said that the people of Auckland admired Miss Melville for coming out against a vote-splitter. Sir James Gunson, ho said, had come before the electors in 1919 as an “Independent Progressive,” with the slogan. “New men and new methods,” indicating that he was opposed to the late Prime Minister and to the methods of the Reform Party. He refused to stand at the General Election in spite of all appeals. Mr Potter said that he was not there to defend Miss Melville. If the Reform Party had given her its support she would have been one of tho most valued member of the House, but she had received pitiable treatment at the hands of a certain section of supposed Reform supporters in Auckland. He regretted having to refer to the matter, but he oould do no less. It had been stated from one end of the country to the other that here wa« dissension in the Reform Party. There was none so far as he was concerned. The section lie had referred to had been converted to Reform since 1919. It was not for him to say whether they had become converts for their personal good or for ’the good of the country. For himself, he had yet to learn that any loyal Reform supporter oould be truo to hia principles and be charged with disloyalty. 'BUS REGULATIONS Mr Potter condemned the principle of government by Ofder-in-Council, and referred in particular to the new omnibus regulations. He could not see thereason for Cabinet making a decision to operate six days before the session commenced upon a matter which had been under consideration for two years. These regulations were the most iniquitous legislation which had been brought into force in this oountry. He claimed that they were the aftermath of the enormous price paid by the Auckland City Council for its trams. He could not understand the attitude of the Prime Minister in making the regulations a party measure, and wondered if Mr Coates would take it as a vote of no-confidence if they were defeated in the House. If left to the House the regulations would be substantially altered. Mr Potter then turned to gambling, and averred that the principle of art unions and raffles was the same whether the prize be £SOOO or £2O. The handling of art unions should be placed at the discretion of the whole House, and not left in the hands of an individual Minister of the Crown. The Prime Minister: Have you a remedy ? Mr Potter: I have a remedy ao far as one member is concerned. And I hope I have some colleagues with me. Mr R. McKeen (Wellington South) contended that land aggregation bad grown more under the Reform Government than under any other Government.

The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr G. Forbes (Hurunui).