ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Southland Times, Issue 18975, 23 June 1923, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

YESTERDAY'S DEBATE VIGOROUR SPEECH BY HON. G. ANDERSON (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 22. The Address-in -Reply debate was continued yesterday. The HON. J. G. COATES, who had just taken the portfolio of Railways, referred to the statement in a city newspaper today, to the effect that he had a progressive policy up his sleeve. It was somewhat over tlie mark that a statement of this kind should be made, when he had only been Minister of Railways a few minutes, and had not had time to get fully acquainted with the work and needs of the Department. All that occurred, was that a deputation asked him to agree to the establishment of week-end tickets, during the summer months over certain lines in Otago to enable people to visit Queenstown. He had replied that whatever was done, there would have to be done in every other tourist district of New Zealand. The Minister added that when he studied the affairs of his new Department he hoped he would be able to do something that might deserve to be termed progressive. MR DE LA PERRELLE (Awarua) resumed the Address-in-Reply debate. He condemned the appointments to the Legislative Council and stressed the need for better treatment of invalid soldiers in the matter of pensions. He quoted the case of a nurse, who served three years without ever parading sick. Since the war she had suffered from rheumatism as the result of her service, but because she had not reported sick during that time, she was now precluded from pension benefits. Soldier settlement was hampered by high prices paid for the land. He contended that taxation, too, was militating against business enterprise. New Zealand had the finest education system in the world, but, unfortunately, it also had the worst managed service conducting that system. Mr Perrelle criticised the manner in which grants were made for primary education purposes, arguing that the system followed savoured of patronage. He hoped that the Racing Clubs’ appeal for reduction of totalisator costs would be heard favourably. The Prime Minister of the day, whoever he might be, should represent New Zealand at the Imperial Conference. MR HOCKLY (Rotorua) said that no Government had ever done so much for the back-block settier as the present Administration, and he dealt at some length with the achievement of the past Government in this respect. He denied there had been any aggregation of land detrimental to the country’s interests. Regarding the Imperial Conference, the Prime Minister should represent New Zealand, as this was one of the most important gatherings of its kind, especially in relation to naval defence, but the Premier’s hands should not be tied by Parliament. In fact, no man worth his salt would undertake the representation of the Dominion at such a conference, unless his hands were free. He hoped the Prime Minister would introduce a Land Bill, including provision for giving men on national endowment lands the option of securing freehold. MR SMITH (Taranaki) supported allegations made by the member tor Stratford, in the matter of land aggregation. Regarding the King Country lands, Mr Smith suid he favoured settling this, but not in such a manner as would render natives landless. There should, however, be more attention paid to encouraging natives to farm their own lands. They needed financial assistance and expert advice. Given these, the Maori would make as good a farmer as the pakeha. The speaker then proceeded to discuss the Administration of soldiers’ pensions, quoting cases in which he contended men were wrongly deprived of pensions. He did not blame the Commissioner of Pensions, but there was something wrong with the pensions scheme, because, unless the soldier said someone was behind him to press his case, his claim did not receive the attention it deserved.

The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Continuing after the dinner adjournment, MR SMITH said he desired to make it plain that he had no personal objection to the Premier representing New Zealand at the Imperial Conference, but it must be understood that the business of the country must not be held up during the Vernier’s absence, as it had sometimes been on former occasions. SIR JOHN LUKE defended the Government against the charge that they had permitted land aggregation. What was happening was that the sawmills, flaxmills and mining claims were being abandoned because they were worked out, and as a consequence schools were being closed and houses vacated, but this was due to industrial causes, not to land aggregation. In view of the more intensive cultivation, which was to come about in New Zealand, he favoured the finding of wider markets for New Zealand’s produce, and to stimulate greater cultivation, he advocated the introduction of agricultural population. He also advocated the establishment of high level crossines on the railways. The cost, no doubt, would be great, but the toll of life taken every year more than warranted this expenditure. MR ATMORE] deprecated the time spent by Ministers in electioneering, especially in their efforts to keep Sir Joseph Ward out of politics, for no New Zealand Parliament was complete without him. In similar terms he denounced sectarianism, which he declared the Reform Party used in conducting its elections. Men had been imprisoned for speaking sedition during the war. In the same way, men who went about preaching sectarianism and seeking to divide the people against themselves, should be imprisoned. After the supper adjournment, the debate was continued by the HON. G. J. ANDERSON who denied that the Reform Party had ever employed sectarianism in connection with its elections. Sir Joseph Ward was defeated at Tauranga for a variety of reasons, but sectarianism played a very small part in that result. The fact was that a certain federation was established, and, he believed, to the hurt of those who established it. It was therefore only natural that when one set of bigots started an organisation, another set of bigots should start an opposing organisation, and that was how the sectarian bitterness came about, but the Reform Party was not in the least responsible for it. It had been said that the Government had done nothing to relieve the housing stringency. That was not correct, for they had done more than the Liberal Party from the time of the initiation of the scheme until it was superseded. The first year the Reform Party came into power they built eight houses, in the second year 200, and up to 1919, 480 houses. The only reason why the Housing Department was suspended was that owing to the cost of material and labour it was impossible to build houses at a payable price. No Government could have done more to help on the housing of people than the Reform Government had done. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the Reform Party had always opposed the operation of the Advances Department. This was quite contrary to fact, because no member of the present Reform Party had ever voted against that Department. On the other hand they had vastly improved it and when the proposed legislation was passed, further great improvements would be made in it, for the extension of borrowing powers would be of inestimable benefit to a large number of small settlers. He wondered if the Liberals would oppose the new proposals of the Government. He claimed the Government had reduced taxation as far and as fast as the financial exigencies of the country would permit. In making public appointments, Reform had never allowed political considerations to interfere, which was more than could be said of the Liberals. During the 21 years they held the reins of Government they never, under any consideration, appointed anyone to any position who was not of their own party. He claimed he was doing his best to improve the position of apprentices in the Domin-

ion, and the Government was prepared to meet as far as possible, the demands dow being made for increased pensions of all kinds. There were no statistics to guide them in many cases and only estimates could be made. On this basis he calculated increases would amount to £1,197,250, which would have to be added to the present pensions bill of £2,459,000. ’Thia could only be done by additional taxation. He did not think the country could stand the necessary additional taxation. He was not prepared to recommend that it should be imposed. Much had been done to relieve unemployment and he km pleased to say that it was not half so prevalent this year as last year. This month last year there were 1825 unemployed on the register of the Labour Department. Thia year there were only 953. Experience proved that when a trade depression came, those who did not have trades were the greatest sufferers. He therefore urged al young men to learn a trade as a standby So far as the Imperial Conference was con cerned, he considered that they could quiri safely send the Prime Minister with a fret hand. If the House did not do so he would be greatly surprised. MR LYE accused the Government of red tape and inefficiency, in support of which he enumerated the aeries of disabili ties under which the backblock settlers laboured. No Minister of Education had had larger votes at his disjiosal than the present Minister, but they had not been administered justly. Large sums had been spent in towns, while in the backblocks, children were being taught in buildings worse than many town fowl houses. Regarding the moratorium, they had nothing but fair promises from the Government, nothing on which country settlers could bank. The country settlers were handicapped by high railway freights and fares, while passengers were compelled to travel on the Main Trunk train under conditions which could only ba described as disgusting. Both fares and freights should be reduced, and travelling conditions must be improved if railways were to be made to pay. On the motion of MR HARRIS, the debate was adjourned. The House rose at 11.30 till 7.30 ob Monday evening.