ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Southland Times, Issue 19291, 9 July 1924, Page 6

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

THE PREMIER’S DEFENCE

HR HOLLAND AND THE SMALL FARMERS

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE. TWO LEADERS SPEAK. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON. July 8. In the House of Representatives this tftemoon, the Address-in-Reply debate was resumed by Mr P. A. de la Perrelle (whose speech is reported in another column). “END OF THE SHAM FIGHT.” Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames) defended the action of the Government in regard to financial assistance given to the Muirs’ Reef Gold Mining Company, which mine would well repay development. It was the bounden duty of the Government to help such concerns. As to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the majority of his 13 items comprised matters already taken up by the Reform Party, and were now in progress of development to a greater or less extent. Personally, he subscribed to one item in the amendment, viz., agricultural banks, which some of the members of the Reform benches did not agree with. After traversing, in terms of approbation, many activities of the Government, he said the House and country had every reason tn be proud of the position of the Dominion and the manner in which its affairs were being handled. The country had a good Government. Everything was just all right, and therefore he hoped members would end the sham fight and get on with the work of the country. COMPLAINT OF BOYCOTT. Mr S. G. Smith (Taranaki) said there was not a single word in the Governor’s Speech which indicated that the Government had any- sympathy whatever with humanitarian legislation, and it was not until the amendment was moved by the Liberals that their interest in this class of beneficial legislation was awakened. Credit had been given to the Government for the establishment of the Meat Board and Dairy Producers’ Board. As a matter of fact the former had been of no benefit and the latter had done nothing but collect a levy from producers and never would be of any benefit because, in his opinion, the Board was wrongly constituted. In the same way. the Highways Board was likely to do little beyond impose penalties upon progressive districts like his own. The speaker condemned the New Zealand arrangements at the Empire Exhibition, declaring that £lOO,OOO had been wasted in fitting up a position not representative of the Dominion. He blamed the Government for generally boycotting his district and, in particular, complained that the Government had refused to send the Government Geologist to assist an American expert who v a- investigating the oil prospects. He approved of the Government proposal not to lift the Moratorium unconditionally, but demanded a more comprehensive pensions scheme, and denounced the proposal to make soldier pensioners go to the cities for re-examination as a direct attempt to lower the pensions bill of the country. MR MASSEY JN REPLY. A VIGOROUS SPEECH. STATE ADVANCES AND SOLDIER SETTLERS. Mr Massey took up the debate. In reply to Mr Smith's criticism of the Advances Department, he said the Act put upon the Statute Book last year was the most liberal measure ever passed by Parliament. He would not take any credit for what was done under it immediately after it began to operate, because he was out of the country, but more had been lent in one month than had previously been lent in twelve months. From August last year*-when the Act first came into operation, up to the end of the financial year 8000 persons had been assisted with loans, which was a most satisfactory record. NEW ZEALAND AT WEMBLEY. In reply to criticism of New Zealand’s show at the Empire Exhibition, he quoted from a letter written by a New Zealand resident on June 2, in w r hich the writer stated that on that, date he considered New Zealand’s show was better than either the Australian or Canadian from a utility point of view, and he considered the writer’s remarks generally would convey good news to all who wished the Dominion well. The Premier congratulated the mover and seconder of the Address upon the speeches they had delivered, but he was unable to extend a similar compliment to the Opposition. Especially was this case with rhe Leader’s speech, which was the same old oration which he had trotted out all over the country since last election. It was devoid of a single bright word or original idea, and failed to rouse any enthusiasm. The fault lay with Mr Wilford himself, for the people of the Dominion could not forge; his public record from the days of “the soft pedal” onwards. A CHALLENGE. Leaving the Opposition, Mr Massey proceeded to defend the Government against the charges that the Government had bough* land fw soldiers from their own friends at excessively high prices. He offered to have the closest inquiry to any specific charge of this character which anyone chose to make. The fact was that most of the land purchased was selected by the soldiers themselves and was bought by the Land Purchase Department under Mr Ritchie, and no member of the Government ever interfered in any way with the transactions. TAXATION. Discussing the Taxation Commission, the Premier contended that though the Government was not bound to accept its recommendations, all the same ho hoped that the report supplied would be very helpful. He charged Mr Wilford with misrepresenting the financial position of the Dominion in his public speeches, heaping upon the Government the whole blame for the rapid increase in public expenditure and never reminding the public that the Empire had just come through a great war which piled up heavy expenditure in all directions, including pensions for soldiers. Nor did he tell the public that at the first favourable moment the Government had reduced taxation amounting in all to £1,563,590. He quoted from Australian papers appreciation of the Government financial administration as the only Government in the Pacific which had been able to reduce taxation. He hoped before the session ended to be able to propose still further reductions in taxation. The Government had been charged with “filching” funds from the Advance Department. There was no such thing as “filching.” Temporary investments were made in other Departments with surplus funds from the Advances Department, but everything was done under statutory authority and was perfectly in order. However, they had jid.w reached the point when not a penny was owing to the Advances Department. Mr Massey devoted considerable time to discussing Mr Wilford’s meeting at Pukekohe, and <hen proceeded to claim that tbe Government’s taxation policy was not discouraging the formation of companies as was proved by the figures. He admitted thri the Government had increased the Customs duties, but only on -the luxuries. Not a single penny had been put on commodities used by the poorer classes.

The purchase of Reparoa Estate (near Rotorua) for soldiers was defended, the Premier contending that no estate in New Zealand had a better prospect of becoming an unqualified success. The advances made by the Government to the Muirs’ Gold Reefs Company was next explained and defended on the lines already published. RAILWAY FARES AND FREIGHTS. Discussing the alleged increases in the railway freights and fares, he elucidated the position of rates on timber and dairy produce, explaining why the rates had gone up. The principal reason was the extra working costs, arising from the bonuses awarded to the men during the war. He I hoped soon to be able to reduce railway ; fares and freights, because he realised that j they were too high. Only the other evenI ing the Opposition had voted to increase the overhead charges, and that was just the sort of thing that would prevent reductions he and the Minister of Railways hoped to bring about. PREFERENCE AND ELECTIONS. Coming to the question of Imperial Preference, he read a telegram he sent to the British Prime Minister, setting out New Zealand’s view of the subject in the hope that it might influence Mr Ramsay MacI Donald’s mind. Unfortunately it had not I done so, but he was still hopeful that Preference would be given effect to, the prospects lof which were better now than ever they were. He defended himself against the I charges of interfering in the British elections. All he ever said in England was that he hoped there would be less party and more patriotism. In Belfast he told the people plainly what the industrial position of Britain was, while in Canada he spoke as a British citizen to British citizens, which he had a perfect right to do, and as he had been doing for years, although the Manchester Guardian, which was quite out-of-date, had evidently only awakened to the fact. In conclusion, the Premier warned the Opposition against the proclivity of maligning their opponents in the course of their political activities, clinching his warning by the well-known Shakespearean quotation: “He who steals my purse, steals trash.” THE LABOUR LEADER. WILL SUPPORT LIBERAL AMENDMENT FARMERS’ INTEREST AND MORTGAGES. Mr H. E. Holland said it was a pity the House could not have agreed upon coming to an immediate vote on Mr Wilford’s amendment, because everyone knew exactly what the result wmuld be. The vote on the Imprest Supply Bill settled that. The Government majority would be the “eternal three.” Coming to the Liberal amendment, he said it merely consisted of so many planks in the Labour platform and therefore the Labour Party, which was always consistent, would vote for it. Yet there were one or two notable omissions from the amendment. Where was the reference to electoral reform ? Perhaps it was left out to make ready for the jerrymandering which was to take place in connection with the electoral legislation, which was to come down. There was no reference to the production of coal, but the time must come when it would be determined that all coal used in New Zealand must be produced in New Zealand. If New Zealand coal could not be profitably used on the New Zealand railways it was only because the State constructed its locomotive in such a way that they could only burn coal produced outside New Zealand. FARMERS’ FINANCE. After dealing at some length with the “sham fight” which was going on betwee*n the Government and the Liberals, the speaker proceeded to deal with the land question. He said important as the Moratorium question was, it was only one phase of the land question before the Government. When the proposals came before the House, members should be supplied with details of mortgages owing in New Zealand and the rates of interest being paid. He considered one of the first duties of the House was to reduce the rates of interest, because it was impossible for farmers to pay the six or seven per cent, at present charged by the lending institutions. PLENTY OF MORTGAGES. Continuing, the speaker proceeded to argue that the freehold tenure was not an unmixed blessing, as comparatively few of the farmers were the real owners of the properties they occupied, fully three-quar-ters of the capital value being under mortgage until to-day. The totaL registered mortgages in the Dominion amounted to £258,208,558, the interest bill on which averaged at 61 per cent, amounted to £16.783,554. Seventy-seven per cent, of mortgages affected sums under £5OOO, so that it was clearly the small men who were in the grips of the mortgagee. In face of this, members on the Reform side of the House said it was taxation from which the farmers were suffering. Their big trouble was their interest bill. Not only under the freehold system did the mortgaged farmer not have an acre he could call his own, but he had not a fat bullock or a fat sheep he could call his own, in support of which statement he read a letter in which the mortgagees claimed the right to say where and how the stock from the farms should be sold. LAND SALES. The speaker next referred to the frequent sales of land, every transfer of which added to its cost. He quoted one series of six sales, every one of which was made by the same land agent, whose commission amounted to £11,113, to say nothing of stamp duties and other costs. He reiterated that a reduction of taxation was not the sole remedy to the farmer suffering from high rates of interest. Inasmuch as the Liberal amendment was largely made up from the Labour platform and was much as it was a vote of no-confidence in the Government, the Labour Party would support it. THE ADJOURNMENT. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr T. Edie and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.