ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Southland Times, Issue 19292, 10 July 1924, Page 6

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. WIDE RANGE OF SUBJECTS COVERED (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 9. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the debate on the Address-in-Reply was resumed. HIGHWAY BOARD CONDEMNED. Mr J. Edie (Clutha), denied that the Government was a farmers’ Government while it was also a poor second to the late R. J. Seddon’s Ministry as a workers’ Government. They took great credit themselves for their highways legislation but the time would come when the country districts would condemn with a bill book and candle everything in the way of Highway Boards. LIBERALS SHOULD JOIN REFORM. Mr W. T. Girling (Wairau) traversed the items in Mr Wilford's amendment, claiming that every one had been dealt with, or was being dealt with. The Liberal Party had no place in New Zealand ♦olitics and should join with the Governnent and assist them in passing useful egislation. FAILURE OF HOUSING SCHEME. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) contended that there was a great deal of unemployment throughout the Dominion and any member who asserted to the contrary was speaking without facts. The success of the New Zealand loans on the London market was no indication of the true financial status of the country, because the Government, which had always pandered to the wealthy classes, was always sure of a welcome on the London market. The housing problem existed in a poignant form in the Dominion, and the Government legislation, fo hich so much was promised. was a <ie. d tetter. Thousands of applications mad-' were only so much waste paper, and were the people so completely fooled they had been in connection with the housing scheme. N > FIVE AFFAIRS. Hon. Dr. Ngata dealt with the question of Native rates and local bodies' grievances in connection therewith. He admitted these grievances » ’• * legitimate and suggested . that the wrong machinery was now being used. The Act of 1900 ’was not suitable to deal with rhe problems and he suggest- , ed that the Native Land Court should be i used to compile a roll of land owners and’ to collect rates since Natives were more familiar with its procedure and the Land Court was mere in touch with the affairs of the Natives than the civil Courts. Native members had suggested that a small commissi« n should be set up to deal with the i problem in each district and that was a suggestion wr.fh should be carried out He had great h.fpes of the Maori race and the number of Maori students attending the Universities was distinctly encouraging. He thanked the Minister of Health for establishing bursaries which would enable Maor. students to take up the study of dentistry and so be of service to the Natives in the backblccks districts. THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION. Hon. C. J. Parr said that out of 80 members of the House 31 were farmers, and in the Government itself the majority of the Ministers either were or had been farmers. Under these circumstances, it was strange that a small, misguided section of the farmers should want to create a Farmers’ Party. There were already three parties in the House and there was certainly no need for a fourth, especially when the Government had never failed to meet the legitimate requirements of the farmers. The existence cf Country Parties in Australia had led to chaos wherever they held the balance of power. Australia’s experience 4 in respect to the multiplication of parties had been a bitter one and we should avoid the same mistake here. This and this alone had been responsible for giving Labour its lease and power, and there was no reason, logical or political, why we should do the same in this country. AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION. Passing on to the question of agricultural education, Mr Parr contended that the Government was doing a great deal in this direction. Apart from specialisation the aim of education in every secondary school was always to give students a bias in the direction of the land rather than to the cities or professions. Unfortunately the influence of parents in the country districts was hostile to this, many country parents saying they had had enough of the farm and wanted their boys to go into the professions in the cities. The Universities had yet to determine whether they would teach only the scientific side of fanning or whether they would try to teach the whole business of fanning. But what was most needed were farm schools where boys could get practical instruction in farming as at Ruakura Farm. Knowing how important the question of agricultural education was to the country, the Leader of the Opposition had included it in his amendment, but in face of what the Government had done and was doing, the whole Opposition criticism under this head lost its point. THE LIBERAL AMENDMENT. Coming to the no-confidence amendment, he said that the obvious object of that amendment was to eject the Government from office and instal the Liberals on the Treasury Benches. He, therefore, had a right to ask where they would get their Ministry from? He saw no prospect of a Ministry being formed which could hold office for a day without the support of Labour, but the Leader of the Opposition had cut himself off from that support, because he had declared over and over again that he and Labour were as far apart as the Poles. Nor were the prospects of the Liberals in the country very bright, because it was generally considered their leadership was weak and in the event of a General Election they must come back as the diminished third party. The Liberals talked loudly about Agricultural Banks, but so far no concrete proposal had ever been submitted by them and until it was shown that the proposal could be made financially sound, the country was not justified in considering it. PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND. Pensions for the blind had been mentioned but he must point out that the Government was under an obligation to subsidise the Pearson Fund for the Blind, which would then amount to about £lOO,000, which would be administered for the benefit of between 500 and 600 blind people of the Dominion. It had been said that the Government had failed in the matter of housing, but he pointed out that since the Government had passed its Housing Act nine months ago,. they had erected 2500 dwellings and made themselves liable for a sum amounting to £2,100,000. That was a record which challenged comparison with the achievement of any other Government. He defended the Government against the charge that the country was full of unemployment and concluded by reminding the House and country’ that while Reformers and Liberals were fighting over no-con-fidence motions, Labour would come in and win the seats. A LABOUR VIEW. Mr F. Langstone deprecated the Premier going into electorates by invitation to perform a public ceremony and then taking advantage of the opportunity to make a political speech. This was what the Premier did when he went to Taumarunui and told the people that he had taken the tax off tea, but who put the tax on tea? He told the people he had reinstated the penny postage, but of what benefit was the penny postage to working classes, who perhaps, wrote only one letter per month? That was a concession purely to the great mercantile classes. The Premier also told them how he reduced the income tax, but who got the reduction in income tax?—not workers, none of whom paid income tax all. The speaker then proceeded to

criticise the Bank of New Zealand, claiming that the Government with four directors cut of six should be able to stop the plunder of people which was now going on by this most insatiable institution. THE ADJOURNMENT. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr W. D. Lysnar and the House rose at 10.35 till 2.30 o’clock to-morrow.