ADDRESSIN-REPLY

Southland Times, Issue 18974, 22 June 1923, Page 5

ADDRESSIN-REPLY

MANY AMENDMENTS AIR SULLIVAN AND ELECTORAL REFORM MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SPEAKS (Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON, June 21. The debate on the no-confidence motion moved by Mr Wilford was resumed by MR VEITCH (Wanganui) who said that an alteration of the law was urgently required and so prevent Ministers going into electorates where elections were being held and at the expense of the State canvassing in favour of their own candidate. He stated that while a private individual’s expenditure on an election was limited to £2OO, the expenditure by a Minister was unlimited. Previous references to this subject had been made by Mr Massey when in Opposition. To show that he roundly condemned the practice in which he indulged so freely at Tauranga and Oamaru he dealt at length with the promises the Ministers were alleged to have made with a view to influencing the electors in those districts. These promises were in contravention of law and simply amounted to Tammany ism within the law. Coming to general politics he commended the work done by the Plunket Society, which had done an invaluable service to the Dominion in saving the lives of children. In this respect they had provided the country with population at a cheaper rate than the immigrants brought into the Dominion. He therefore advocated the transfer of a considerable sum of money from the Immigration Department to the Plunket Society to enable it to further the good work it was doing. He strongly advocated the establishment of a State Bank and condemned the Government’s legislation in connection with the Bank of New Zealand, which, he said, had resulted in concession after concession being given to private shareholders at the expense of the State. The proposal to call up new capital by the Bank was denounced, as it was not being done, as the Chairman alleged, to provide additional money to lend to borrowers, but simply to distribute further profits from the Reserves and the State was being invited to share in the plunder. That was the true position of the Bank of New Zealand. He raised a question whether it was not wise to limit the profits of this bank and of the other banks doing business in the Dominion, because all had gone far past the paying point. He felt uneasy regarding the Government highways policy, a policy of building better highways which would compete with the railways. It was a mistaken policy to open up great motor roads and, at the same time, neglect the outlying districts. He referred to the success of Agricultural Banks elsewhere and suggested that there was no reason why they should not be equally successful in New Zealand. Safeguards must, of course, be provided, particularly against the State taking any undue risks. The Rural Credit Act, passed last session, was a complete failure and not a single farmer had taken advantage of its provisions.

MR HAWKEN (Eginont) agreed that a different policy would have to be followed if the land was to be settled with the idea of securing increased production. There was scarcely any country left that was suitable for small settlement. If the House considered the relative progress made by the various industries it would be realised that the industry with the greatest future was the dairying. The decision of the Premier to increase the amount which might be borrowed from the Advances to Settlers Department would mean a big thing to the dairy industry of the Dominion. What the Liberal Party had to say regarding the housing question was simply borrowed from the Labour Party. They had no ideas of their own on this important topic. Complaint had been made\that the reports of the Soldier Settlement Commissions bad not been submitted to the House, but he knew of his own knowledge, that that was a question which was extremely intricate and difficult to arrive at an equitable decision on. The Government had invoked the services of the very best men obtainable, and he felt confident, when the reports were submitted, that justice would be done to both the soldiers and the State. He favoured the establishment of Agricultural Banks, the principle of which was thoroughly safe, but the Liberal proposal of a State Bank was a delusion which had been exposed by Sir Joseph Ward. It was much better to strengthen the State’s position in connection with the Bank of New Zealand.

MR SULLIV/kN (Avon) in discussing the forthcoming Imperial Conference, complained of the paucity of information given by the Premier regarding Imperial affairs. It was only when the Premier could not evade giving the information that the House got any at all. The Government generally and the Premier in particular seemed to belong to the old bad school of secret diplomacy, a school which regarded the people with contempt, or, at the best, as pawns who were to move hither and thither according to the dictates of their masters. So far as the forthcoming Conference was concerned, three questions arose: (1) Should New Zealand be represented? (2) if so by whom? and (3) what policy should our representative propound? The Labour Party had no objection to New Zealand being represented. They looked upon these gatherings as inevitable, as none of the alternatives were satisfactory; at the same time they did not regard Mr Massey as the most suitable representative. His Toryism was not in harmony with the democracy of the Dominion, and everyone regretted his impetuosity in pledging the country to the war in response to Mr Lloyd George’s cable regarding the crisis in the Near East. The House should therefore have an opportunity of saying by different votes whether New Zealand should be represented and by whom. So far as the policy at the Conference was concerned he contended that our delegate should strive for open diplomacy amongst the nations. He quoted Lord Loeburn against secret diplomacy and argued that as the technical development 1 of war had so enormously increased by which whole communities could be wiped out in a few hours, it was the duty of New Zealand’s delegate to strive by every means for peace. One of the most essential steps to securing European peace was the revision of the Versailles Treaty. The French action under the Treaty had raised national hatred in many quarters and it had been extremely detrimental to British trade. Criticising Mr Wilford’s amendment he claimed that it was couched in generalities. Especially was this so in its reference to electoral reform, which might mean proportional representation, or it might mean preferential voting, the latter of which he hoped would never be adopted as it had all the weaknesses of the second ballot. Bad as was the “first past the post” system, he would always prefer it to preferential voting. After advocating proportional representation as a method of electing the Members of the House, he moved to add to Mr Wilford’s amendment after the words “electoral reform” the following, words: “Providing for proportional representation and the abolition of the Legislative Council.” The speaker’s time having expired no argument were adduced in favour of the latter proposal. The House rose at 5.30. EVENING SESSION. When the House resumed at 7.30 the debate was continued by MR R. MASTERS (Stratford), who criticised the action cf the Minister of Education in granting a District High School at Morrinsville. In this matter the speaker contended that the Minister did not have the advice of the Council of Education as required by the law and the sole reason for establishing that school was to endeavour to influence the votes at the Tauranga election. The Premier, he declared, had been doing nothing but electioneering for months and if he was not at Tauranga he was at Oamaru I at a great neglect of public business. Not

only that, but a Hansard reporter was employed to follow the Liberal candidate at Oamaru and make progress reports to the Premier and a motor car was provided for that reporter. MR MASSEY: “That was a private arrangement.” MR MASTERS continuing said that it might be a private arrangement, but who could say that it was not paid for out of public funds. The Oamaru election was an indictment of the Premier and his policy, and the most important feature cf that indictment was that Mr Macpherson’s mapority was largely made up by farmers, which was only another proof that the farming community was growing tired of the Reform Government. Passing on to the subject of land aggregation he declared that he recently passed through the Orcua electorate where he saw most regrettable scenes of desolation and house after house which had formerly been occupied by families were now empty, while schools were almost deserted because one man had bought up six farms, another eight and another twelve, while aggregation was killing the town of Apiti. The speaker was next proceeding to quote a letter sent to Dairy Companies by the Associated Banks relative to raising the rate of interest on advances made against exports to 7 per cent, when the Premier interjected that it had been altered at his request. MR MASTERS said that he was not aware of that, but he was not going to stand by and see that sort of thing going on without a protest. Criticising the soldier settlements he declared that the State was going to be a heavy loser in many cases, but the most unfair thing about them was the method of revaluing the land. In some cases the soldiers had lost their farms because they could not pay the interest on the original valuation and as soon as a soldier left his farm the Land Board reduced the valuation and offered the farm to some other individual which, he contended wps most unfair to the soldier. The distribution of Nauru phosphates to farmers was found fault with as was also the basis of the railway tariff which was now thirty years old and sadly needed revision in the interests of local industries. The speaker had not concluded his remarks when his time limit expired. The HON. W. DOWNIE STEWART opened up extensive references to the Liberal speakers’ remarks at the Tauranga and the Oamaru by-elections, contending that there had been no abuse of public works or funds on the part of the Government., which had been publicly ‘ admitted by Mr Master’s tribute which could not have been paid any other Government for years past, for what previously had been done in this connection was notorious. Dealing with the banking question he maintained that the position of the Dominion in the Bank of New Zealand was infinitely preferable to that of Australia with its Commonwealth Bank, for the services rendered to the people by the Bank of New Zealand were far greater than similar services rendered by the Commonwealth Bank to the people of Australia. As to the rate of interest charged by all banks doing business in the Dominion it had been stated that if they were as free from taxation as the Commonwealth Bank they would be able to reduce the overdraft rates by at least 1 per cent. He could not understand why there was all this wild enthusiasm for the Commonwealth Bank when Australian financial critics were so enthusiastic about the Bank of New Zealand, and so reserved about the Commonwealth Bank. The Leader of the Opposition was very nebulous about his want of confidence motion. There was nothing new in it and it was quite clear that Mr Wilford had no definite idea of what was going to happen after he got the Government out. Evidently he was just trying to upset the cart in the hope that something would turn up out of the scramble. Dealing with the Imperial Conference he maintained that the Premier could not go Home with his hands tied. If so, he might just as well stay at home, because with limited powers he might find himself unable to take part in the many discussions which would naturally rise at such a gathering. It must be remembered that New Zealand could not be committed to anything the Premier might agree to until it had been ratified by Parliament. It was not correct to say that the Premier would not take any instructions from Parliament. He would do so where that was possible, but it was impossible to tie the hands of a representatives on all questions. Open diplomacy as advocated by the Labour Party was also not always practicable as had been more than once admitted by President Wilson, than whom there was no more strenuous opponent of secret diplomacy. If Mr Holland were himself in power to-morrow and he was going to such a conference he would not expect to take detailed instructions on all questions from the House.

MR HOLLAND: “On front rank questions I would.”

Continuing the HON MR STEWART said that a certain amount of trust must must be placed in a representative at the Conference just as the constituents placed their trust in the members of the House. He felt that the right course was being followed by the Government in insisting that the Premier must have, to a certain extent, a free hand and that there was no need to fear that he would abuse the trust reposed in him. After the supper adjournment Mr McILVRIDE supported the amendment moved by Mr Sullivan. Proportional representation, he said, gave a just and adequate representation to all parties in the State and if proof of its value was required it could be found in its rapid growth in other parts of the world. If proof of its accuracy was required that proof could be found in the recent Christchurch municipal elections. Had it been in force in New Zealand during the last eight years this country would not now be suffering as it was from the effects of the Reform Government’s legisiation. After the speaker had dealt with the questions of unemployment and the Imperial Conference on general Labour Party lines the adjournment of the debate was moved by MR LYE and the House rose at 10.52 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. tomorrow. MR DOWNIE STEWART. EFFECTIVE DEBATING EFFORT. (Special to the Times.) WELLINGTON, June 21. When Mr Wilford tabled his no-con-fidence motion in February he was followed immediately by the Minister for Internal Affairs (Mr Downie Stewart), who charged him with the responsibility of telling the House and the country how he could carry on the government of the country if the vote went his way. Although it fell to the lot of the Minister of Education to follow Mr Wilford in the present debate, Mr Downie Stewart, who spoke last night, returned to the attack and asked Mr Wilford the same question. Again the Minister expressed the opinion that the Liberal leader would not take the responsibility of saying how he could carry on with the confidence of the country, but was merely trying to upset the cart to see what would come of the scramble. During the afternoon Mr Veitch, one of the Opposition flying squadron which toured Tauranga, impeached the Government with Tammanyism within the law. He was immediately the subject of Mr Stewart’s humour. The Minister happened to be in Rotorua for the benefit of his health, when Mr Veitch was telling the electors that the Massey economies were brought about by reducing soldiers’ pensions and other amazing things. Although he had years previously referred to Mr Massey as a strong man and an able administrator, the name he gave to him at Tauranga was “a first-class scandalmonger and a fifth-class politician.” Sir Joseph Ward at that time might, in the judgment of Mr Veitch, be the missing link between the Liberals and the Reform Party. Now Reform was beyond the pale with him and must be destroyed. Mr Stewart paused to correct some extraordinary statements made by Mr Veitch about the reasons for the issue of the new capital of the Bank of New Zealand, and put some facte abroad

among the Liberals and Labourites that were calculated to disturb their admiration of the functions of the Commonwealth Bank as compared with the Bank of New Zealand.

Turning his attention to Mr Holland, he endeavoured to convince him that if the country sent Mr Massey to the Imperial Conference with only the powers of a delegate, pledged to a certain line of discussion and action, he might just as well be left at home. Mr Stewart’s humour reached its peak when he referred to the admissions of Mr Sidey, Mr Wilford’s lieutenant, that the Government called him “the tiger.” By a strange coincidence, however, his sister discovered that the Sidey crest was a tiger sitting on its hind legs holding a Union Jack.

The speech was voted the cleverest debating effort of two sessions. The appeal for the back-blocks settler sounded by the mover of the Addreas-in-Reply (Mr Rolleston) found an echo in the utterance of Mr Hawken, a Taranaki member, who advanced the principle that the best means of effecting closer settlement was to halve the size of farms of about 140 acres in his district and to have a sinking fund clause in the application form for every advance to a settler. Another Taranaki member, Mr Masters, selected a number of his favourite subjects for criticising the Government, the price of phosphate, the administration of the railways, and soldier settlement. For his use of the word “bribery” in connection with the grant of a school by the Minister of Education to a district in the Tauranga electorate, he was rebuked by the Speaker. On the same topic during the afternoon Mr Veitch drew a retert from the Minister that on the same day that the school was granted three more were granted in various parts of the country, a vindication of the legality of his action and a refutation of the charge of bribery that Mr Veitch had also imputed. With so many amendments it is likely enough that members will get tired of having to remember the numerical order of their precedence, and be glad to get to a division soon after the week-end. LABOUR’S “SURPRISE.”

Labour’s surprise, which was expected, did not eventuate last night when the leader of the Party made his speech, but it was revealed this evening just before the tea adjournment. Mr Sullivan (Avon) had been speaking for an hour, during which he reiterated all Labour’s arguments in favour of proportional representation, adding that although in the recent municipal election in the four main centres Labour polled proportionally as high in each under proportional representation at Christchurch they won six seats, while in the other centres they won not more than two at the most. Within a few minutes of the adjournment he moved an amendment to that of the Leader of the Opposition to add the words after “electoral reform” the following words: “Providing for proportional representation and the abolition of the Legislative Council.”

The House became confused with the multiplicity of amendments before it and the Prime Minister intervened, asking the Speaker in what order the amendments would be taken. The speaker replied that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. was before the House and the amendment just moved by the member for Avon would be disposed of first. “There are three motions before the House,” added the Speaker. “They may all be discussed together as they all involve the main question. When the amendment of the member for Avan id disposed of, we take the amendment to ti>e main question moved by Mr Wilford. Finally we get to the main question. In regard to the other two amendments, Mr Ngata’s amendment will first be put, then Mr Nash’s amendment and then we get back to the main question.” BRIBERY CHARGE ANSWERED.

The words “bribery” and “corruption” were freely used by one rtf the Opposition members and Mr W. A. Veitch in the House of Representatives yesterday, when referring to the activities of the Minister and the Minister of Education during the Tauranga campaign. Mr Massey, beyond expressing a corrective interjection, took little notice, but Mr Parr took an opportunity, when Mr Veitch had finished his speech, of offering the facte to the House, by way of personal explanation. The Minister of Education took strong objection to the suggestion that his offer of a district high school at Morrinsville coincided with his activities in the electorate in which Sir Joseph Ward was so signally defeated by Mr C. E. MacMillan. “It is suggested that I did an illegal thing on the eve of an election,” said Mr Parr. “The whole of the correspondence fully vindicates the legality of my action. There was a resolution by the Council of the Education Conference that district high schools should be established where attendances were likely to be satisfactory. The only thing necessary was for Morrinsville to get a sufficient proportion of pupils. I accordingly established the high school there. On the same day at the request of three education boards there were provisional high schools established at Piopio, Warkworth, Patea and Riverton.”