PARLIAMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19551, 6 August 1925, Page 9

PARLIAMENT.

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (Abridged from Press A ssociation Telegram.) WELLINGTON, August 5. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p-m. to-day, and after dealing with purely formal business adjourned at 2.35 p.m. until Tuesday afternoon next. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DEBATE ON THE BUDGET. When the House met at 2.30 p.m. the debate on the [Budget was resumed by Mr HOQKLEY (Rotorua), who said those who wore not blinded by prejudice would admit that the Budget was a most satisfactory one. It -gave a plain statement of the country’s position, which position was one of marked prosperity. The satisfactory nature of the Budget was shown by the weakness of the opposition criticism. They had talked about almost everything but the Budget, and when asked for specific proof of such criticism they had been unable to produce a single proof. Much had been made of the Auditor-general’s report, but only minor criticisms had be-en seized on, and the larger matter mentioned by the Auditor-general, and which was favourable to the Government, had been ignored. Personally, he favoured the policy enunciated in tho Budget in regard to local loans. He also favoured the land, policy of the Government, which was freehold, and which ho hoped the Government would continue and extend. LABOUR’S LAND POLICY CRITICISED. The Liberal Party had not so far produced a land policy, but the Labour Party had, and ho had listened with great interest to tho speech by Mr Savage last Friday. The land policy as enunciated by him was the result of the' Franklin byelection, because that ©lection was fought out almost entirely on the, principles of Labour’s policy. . Mr Hockley then proceeded to criticise the various planks of the Labour policy, contending tnat the main objective was the nationalisation of laud, which was only another word for socialisation. Ho condemned the proposal to preserve the national endowment, which was one of the worst investments ever made by tho State. The proposal that tho tenant should have absolute security of’tenure meant that no tenant could be disturbed, whether he paid his rent or not, and what morality was there in the suggestion of the Leader of the Labour Party that the former got the full fruits of his labour there would be nothing left for the mortgagee. It was statements like this which put farmers against Labour’s policy for. the termers were men of honour, and they were prepared to keep their engagements. The mortgagee was a-useful person in our commercial life, and his money, being used in development, was of just as much service to tho country as the labour of the farmer himself. Talk such as that of the Leader of the Labour Party was only throwing dust in the eyes of the jioople. Then the statement that the farmer would have full value for his improvements was a nice-sounding phrase, but it was only so much bunkum.. How could the real value of any improvements bo ascertained? It was only guess-work. There was a clause in the policy dealing with “community created values,” but there was no such thing. The man who took up bush -land was entitled to every penny of tho value bf that land, and thp community was not entitled to a penny of it. That all transfers were to be to the State was absurd. This was shutting out the open market. Those who framed this policy had evidently not considered what this meant. Then those land wore to take Government bond. Why should they bo compelled to do this? Many landowners had put their own golden sovereigns into the land. Why should they have to accept bonds which might in time be made non-interest bearing, for the opinions of the Labour Party might change in this direction? They proposed to acquire lands compulsorily, but how whore they to get tho money in view of all other schemes Labour had in view, all of which would involve huge expenditure, an expenditure which the country could not face? The remaining clauses of Labour’s land policy wore dealt with critically and described as idle promises which meant nothing. In conclusion, Mr Hockley said the present indications were for a prosperous year. Prices were good and there was no reason why the next Budget should not be as good, as, if not better than, this one. MR ISITT AND THE SOCIALISTS. Mr ISITT said he was satisfied that this country would never recover from tho losses caused by the war until labour conditions wore made more sound. We were not selfsupporting. We all depended on tho Old Country tor our main markets, and if any economic disaster overtook us then we must suffer proportionately. Could we look at the labour conditions in the 01 cl Country with complacency? She was left with huge debts after the war, with her industries disrupted, and she was compelled to recover her markets against cheaper foreign labour. Sir Phillip Gibbs, a friend of Labour, had said the root of all trouble was that of wages. It was not a question what wages men could do with; it was what the industries could pay. That was the whole position, and if economic trouble fell upon Britain it must react upon us, as we depended so much upon the Old Country. It would not be so if we wore a united • people and were able to develop the resources of our country to the best advantage. But across the way stood the Revolutionary Socialists, who were out to destroy every class and ©very section of society but themselves. Thrift with them was not a virtue, but a vice, because thrift was tho basis of capital. Revolutionary Socialism was materialistic to its very marrow, but he contended that no movement could prosper unless it had the foundation of religious grace and fervour. Then the Socialists were delightfully illogical. They would give tho cold shoulder to the American fleet because the warship was the tool of the capitalist, but they saw no inconsistency in working the ocean tanks which carried the produce out 9f which they said the capitalist was making huge profits. They repeatedly denounced the excessive borrowing of the Government, but they were always demanding huge expenditure on various objects which they declared were necessary to the government of the people. He said deliberately that many of these demands were made, well knowing that no Government could meet them, but they were made for the distinct purpose of increasing tho discontent of the masses of the people. Another example of their lack of principle was their advocacy of that vicious weapon “go slow,” and their claim that they were the lineal descendants of .Grey, Ballance, Seddon, and Reeves. Would Grey, in the hour of the Empire’s peril, have gone weeping round tho country deprecating war activity or national patriotism? Would Ballance, Seddon, and Reeves have supported them in their idol ism of Lenin and Trotsky? Such a claim was an insult to the names of those great men who were true* Imperialists, and had a pride of race and a love of country. Tho member for Christchurch North concluded by- putting a series of questions to the Leader of the Labour Paty (the full text of which, together with Mr Jordan’s reply, appear under a separate heading. ' LABOUR MEMBER’S REPLY. Mr JORDAN (Mauaukau) then proceeded to comment on the want of land settlement going on in New Zealand, contending that there was thus little prospect for those immigrants who were streaming into the country. The development of the lands and the industries of the country would do something for all the people of the dominion, and not, as the Government was now doing, helping only a section of the people. Continuing, Mr Jordan said, in reply to the charges of disloyalty, that many men who were denounced as disloyal were not members of the Labour Party. That party was not disloyal, but it was prepared to meet this organised deception. At last Easter’s conference the Communists made application for affiliation with the Labour Party, but wore refused admission. Tho members of tho Labour Party were not communists. They were not running Socialistic Sunday schools or teaching blasphemy. Ho reiterated that they were not disloyal, and were not engaegd in a campaign of hate. Tho House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. THE EVENING SESSION. The House resumed at 7.30. FARMERS AND TAXATION. Mr SMITH (Taranaki) asked if any person from whom tho Government had bought land at high prices during the boom had, in face of die general demand for a revaluation, ever handed back or offered to do so any of the money so obtained. Ho regretted (he absence from the Minister’s

statement of any indication of the land policy to bo put in operation by the Government. The financial position ci Now Zealand, owing to the growth of the public debt, the small margin of exports over imports, and the lack of thrift among the people, was causing grave concern to many experienced business men. The country had to meet an annual interest bill of over £56,500,0C0, and the Government was not justified in grunting revisions of income tax in the case of people in receipt of a largo income. The small farmer might have received a remission of 10s to 20s in land, tax, but he had been required to pay 40s or 50s da a motor vehicle so be had not “benefited” very much. So far as Taranaki was concerned the Highways Act had proved of very little use. Farmers were handicapped by the high cost of fertilisers ami other requisites to carry on their work, and by the high rates of' interest through their having to go to the private moneylender because the State Advances Department would not help or was dilatory in dealing with applications. Mr Smith complained that there were too many boards set up to deal with various phases of the country’s productive activities. They cost a great deal of money, and it was doubtful if those in the several industries really wanted the boards. He commented •on the fact that members of these boards in travelling through the country seemed to find it incumbent upon them to act as propagandists for the Reform Party. The Budget held out little hope for the worker requiring financial aid to provide his family with a homo. Mr MTLYEIDE (Napier) expressed fear that the strength of the Reform Party had gone with the passing of the late Prime Minister. Touching on fusion ho declared that the outstanding fact emerging from the recent negotiations was that members of the Reform and Liberal Parties must amalgamate to oppose Labour, and to exploit the common people represented by members on the Labour benches of the House. TAXATION REBATES CONDEMNED. Mr MTLVRIDE condemned the rebates of taxation on wealthy people while the general burden through Customs duties was increased. If the Government would accede to the Labour Party’s pleas to make provision for the improvement of the ordinary people’s standard of living the result would bo the stimulation of trade. Mr MTLVRIDE appealed for something to be done immediately to prevent serious disaster occurring as a result of extensive erosion at the Spit (Napier), whereby houses and the inner harbour works were threatened with destruction, BORROWING POLICY. Mr CORRIGAN (Patea) considered the Budget was simply a record of inflated “property.” It’s suggestion that loans be raised locally was a confession that the London moneylenders looked askance at New Zealand. " Now a raid was to be made on the money held in the dominion. - He condemned the proposal to send a delegation abroad to study the operation of agricultural banks, contending that all thenecessary information waa available here in the dominion. He appealed for a revision of the war pensions system and gave instances of cases of men who were incapacitated and unable to secure a pension or redress of any kind. Some form of insurance of a self-reliant kind should be introduced on the lines of Mr Lloyd George’s scheme. Marine insurance should be a State monopoly. ( MILITARY PENSIONS. 1 ' . ' Mr MONTEITH complained of the? shrinkage of* military pensions, while the Government could spend some £3600 ,on a commission to investigate the private quarrels of the member for Gisborne. The Budget did not contain a word about the people’s standard of living. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr M‘KAT, and the House rose at 11.35 p.m.