ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE ENDED.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1736, 6 September 1919, Page 10

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE ENDED.

LENGTHY SITTING OF THE HOUSE. LABOUR NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED. NO SPEECH FROM THE LIBERAL BENCHES. [From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter.! WELLINGTON, September 6. The debate on the Address-in-Reply has ended, and that without a single speech from the Liberal Opposition. Further, on a motion of no-confidence, moved by a Labour member, three of the Liberal ex-Ministers of the National Cabinet voted with the Reform Party. By a good tactical manoeuvre, Labour span out its stonewall as far as it could, but a party of five cannot last for long, and at 1.17 a.m. to-day the no-confidence motion was thrown out by 28 votes to five, and the formal Address-in-Reply was carried on the voices. It was understood that the Leader of the Opposition was to have token part in the debate, and an unexpected development yesterday afternoon gave Labour an opportunity to allege that the Government and the Opposition had arranged to let the debate "fizzle out," because neither party dare meet the criticism of Labour, but that did not for a moment lessen such criticism.

The whole cause of the trouble lay! in the indisposition of the Leader of the Opposition, The adjournment of the debate on Thursday evening was moved in his name, and, in the ordinary course of events, he would have carried it on to-day. When the House met in the afternoon, however, the Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald stated that his leader was somewhat indisposed, and would not be able to carry on. In those circumstances the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. W. F. Massev) offered to adjourn the deBate further until the evening, and the House took it that that would be done. With nothing more serious immediately ahead of them, hon. members adopted the unusual course of speaking to every one of five Bills for introduction. At least, only three were spoken to and introduced, but the other two were held over until next sitting daj% because Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) desired to speak to them. They were his Bills, but he was not reaoy to go on. During the afternoon Sir Joseph Ward came into the Chamber, spoke for a few minutes with the Prime Minister, and left again. Later, in replving to a question on another matter, Mr Massey let slip that he had been hoping that the Address-in-Reply debate might close that night, for there was far more important business before the country and the House. . , Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald then announced, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, that that side of the House did not propose to prolong the debate longer than was convenient to the Prime Minister. There matters rested until about 4.45, when the other business was clear, and Mr Massey indicated that the Address-in-Reply debate could proceed.

the Reformers not to debate the Ad-dress-in-Reply because the Liberals dare not speak. They dare not allow their misconduct as members of the National Government to be exposed. (Loud laughter from the Liberal side.)

Mr Holland: Hon. members laugh. The kookaburra in Australia laughs just as loudly as that. Proceeding, he said that the Labour Party stood uncompromisingly opposed to both Reformers and Liberals. Men who Were opposed to "extremists"—as the members of both those parties were—would, he took it, object to being called "extremely" honest or "extremely" virtuous. One Liberal ex-Minister had said that he did not want the votes of Extreme Labour, which meant Organised Labour. The hon.. member need not worry—he would not get the votes. No Long Session.

While the House was in session, Labour did not propose to do anything that would involve an extension of the life of Parliament. Oft hoth sides of the House sat the forces which had shirked facing the electors for two years. It was part of Labour's work to send members to the country, so as not to prolong the session. Labour would oppose the introduction of contentious legislation. The railway "cut" was more than a "cut"—it was a "gash," and a very big one. The Coal Crisis. On coal matters, Mr Holland became impassioned. Industrially speaking, he said, the coal miner carried the rest of the world on his back, and what was the miner's reward? The cemeteries of the coalfields told that The only solution to the coal difficulty was to take the control of the mines out of private hands. By that means, coal production would be cheapened, and human life would be made safer. "That's not nationalisation, is it?" inquired an hon. member, as Mr Mr Holland tried to give an idea of what he intended. N "I am not talking about nationalisation," retorted the member for Grey; "I am talking about socialisation, which is a better thing. It does not matter much what you call it. If you run your coal-mines as a social utility, instead of as profit-making concerns, you will have a much better production of coal than at the present time. Military Matters.

Labour Has a Grievance.

Then there was trouble in the Labour camp. Mr H. E. Holland asked what of the Prime Minister's promise to hold the debate over until the evening sitting, but Mr Massev replied that he had promised nothing, and he explained the position. Mr Holland objected that the Labour members, believing that the debate would not be resumed until after tea, had not prepared for it and Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) made the further point that some members who were present when the earlier announcement was made had left the Chamber since, Messrs Payne and Semple among them. The Prime Minister, however, was not to be moved, and announced his intention of going on with the debate. Mr McCombs was on his feet in a flash. "Mr Speaker," he said, "I move the adjournment of the debate." "I second that," added Mr P. - Fraser (Wellington Central), and the House took the joke heartily, for motions are not seconded in Parliament. A Lesson in Procedure. There followed a hurried consultation of the Standing Orders by Mr. Speaker and several members, the result of which was that Mr McCombs learned:—(l) That as the first Order of the Day, which was the Address-in-Reply, had not been called on, he could not move the adjournment of the debate; (2) that if he did succeed in adjourning the debate after it had been called upon it would mean the adjournment of the House for the day; and (3) that if he moved the adjournment and was defeated he would lose his right to speak on the Address-in-Reply. Liberal Silence. The first Order of the Dav was then called upon, and Mr Holland was practically forced to his feet, as no other speaker offered. In his opening, the hon. member for Grey auoted the words of the Hon. G. W. Russell, who, in an interview with a Sun representative in Christchurch recently, said, "As members of.the National Government, our hands are tied, our tongues are tied, and our feet are tied." That was still the position, declared Mr Holland. The Liberals had agreed with

Mr Holland proceeded to speak of the soldiers, and cited cases of what he considered to be hardships imposed on injured men, often as the result of absurd red tape restrictions. Retrospective payments of allowances to married men had been made in respect of wives, but not of children, so that a man with four children who volunteered at the outbreak of the war was left in the same position as a married man without a family who went under compulsion. Proceeding to read lengthy statements by conscientious objectors of the treatment which they had received at the Front, Mr Holland announced his intention of getting right to the bottom of the "barbarous punishments" inflicted, not only on these men, but UDon the ordinary New Zealand soldiers.

Concluding, Mr Holland said that some of the Labour members had been sneered at as being in their political swaddling clothes. That was untrue, but still it would be far better to be in political swaddling clothes than to have the soiled sediment of the political grave hangina to one, "as you gentlemen have," addressing the Liberals, "and as you gentlemen have," turning to the Reformers. In Defence of the Miners. - The next speaker was Mr R. Semple (Wellington South), who said that he intended to deny the charges which had been levelled against the coalminers of New Zealand lately. Numbers of men had left coalmining work, and a number of mines had been worked out, which explained the shortage of coal.

"Going slow," was not responsible. He declared himself in favour of nationalisation of the mines. Private concerns should not be allowed to gamble with the fireside of the people. With nationalisation must come a more scientific method of working the mines, to get rid of the waste that there was at.present. He gave West Coast instances of mines which had been destroyed by flooding long before the coal supplies were exhausted. Miners got 1/11 per ton, plus a 174 per cent, war bonus, for picking coal from the pillars. For hewing it from the solid they got 2/4 per ton, plus a 174 r«er cent, war bonus. The coal could be put on board ship at Grevmouth for well under £1 per ton. Then, after a few hours' steam to Wellinaton, the public was asked to pay from £3 to £4 per ton for it. He wished to know where the extra money went. The watersiders did not get it, but the Union Steam Shin Company got a good share. The State had paid that company 25 per cent, of the total value of the coal produced since the opening of the State Mine. That was for freight on State coal. Working Conditions.

goldminer, Mr Semple dwelt on the dread phthisis, and the very small Government assistance granted to its victims. He declared that the Prime Minister of this country was the implacable foe of the workers. There was not a grain of sympathy in his heart for the downtrodden. When they had appealed to him his answer had been prison for himself (Mr Semple) and the club for the rank and file. Labour had not come into the House to perpetuate' class dissension, but to help to obliterate all class distinction. "There is wealth and plenty to spare in this country," cried Mr Semple, working up to his peroration. "There is no need for a hovel; there is no need for a low, degraded woman; there is no need for a neglected and unloved child; there is no need for unemployment in this country; there is room for all, and there is wealth for all; there is a place and a plate at Nature's table for all if this country is managed on reasonable and democratic lines." "Filling In Time." Mr A. Walker (Dunedin North), who followed, was applauded by the House. He frankly confessed that he was on his feet only to fill in time until one of his colleagues should come upon the scene. . The hon. member thereafter spoke rationally and calmly of some of the problems lying ahead of the country. An Amendment Moved. Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) took up the running. He declared that while the Reformers were largely the representatives of the landed monopolists of the country, the Liberals were the representatives of the commercial monopolists and industrial "sharks" of the country. The two parties should be one. They had worked together for so long—and rightly so—why had they not remained together? On all great questions they stood united, and in political principles they were not divided. There should be a permanent merger, and then, instead of these mock fights between Liberals and Reformers they would have one great fight between the Labour Party, representing the great masses

Mr Semple went on to show how the nature of the work made the employment broken, so considerablv reducing the average earnings of the miner. He spoke strongly of the housing conditions on the West Coast coalfields, contending that the problem must be tackled in a practical and scientific fashion. It had been said that the Miners' Federation had blocked other men from coming to this country from Australia. That was incorrect. What had happened was that the Australian miners had cabled to the Miners' Federation before coming over, and the reply of the secretary (Mr Glover) had been that conditions here were not as they should be. Mr Glover's advice to the Australian men had been not to come over under the present conditions. As a practical miner, who had worked all over Australasia, he stated that the coalminers of New Zealand worked harder than others with whom he had ever worked. Turning to the cause of the quartz

of the people, and the Liberal-Re-form Monopolistic Party. Mr McCombs continued with a general review of the sins of the National Government, but always serving out a generous measure of his criticism to the Liberal side of the Coalition. In closing he moved as an amendment, that these words be added to the Address-in-Reply. We feel it, however, to be our duty to submit to your Excellency that it is essential that your Excellency's Government should possess the confidence of this House, and of the country, and to represent to your Excellency that such confidence is not reposed in the Government as at present constituted. A Boomerang. Mr Massey questioned if this amendment were„m order. "As to that," responded Mr McCombs cheerfully, "I call your attention to the fact that it is word for word with the motion moved by Mr Massey in 1912 against the Liberal Government." An hon. member: You've followed a bad example. Again the Prime Minister objected. No notice had been given of this amendment, and he had heard it ruled on several occasions that with >such an amendment it was necessary for the member moving it to give notice to Mr Speaker at the beginning of his speech. Mr Speaker said that he had ruled before on that point. It was usual for such notice to be given, but there was nothing in the Standing Orders to compel it. Mr McCombs (to Mr Masesy): Ohl Face it, face it! Don't funk it! "Decline of Liberalism." Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) seconded the amendment, and continued the attack on the Liberal Party, which, he alleged, had stolen much of Labour's policy. Once there had been Liberals in'this country, but now the party lived in the past. It belonged to the past. Hon. A. M. Myers (Auckland East): It was never more vigorous than it is to-day. Mr Fraser: Then the Liberal Party

can keep a secret. No one would even suspect it of such vitality. There is no evidence of it. There were only six members on the Liberal benches at the time, and Mr Fraser took advantage of the opportunity. "It is hard to find the Liberal Party to-night," he said; "it is almost as thin as it will be after the next General Election." Inculcating Jingoism. Getting away from the heinous sins of the Government, Mr Fraser overhauled the general administration of the country and the world, and deplored that an attempt was being made to inculcate the principles of the "jingo" into the school children of this country. In such an innocent publication as the "School Journal" its traces couldbe seen, for the.pages of that publication were besmirched with sentiments which should never appear in a schoolbook. If they allowed the military caste to write the school books of the future they knew what result to expect. School Books Criticised. Mr H. E. Holland (Grey) supported the amendment. He also had something to say on the question of school books. Those used in New Zealand to-day, he admitted, were far better than those of olden times, which were full of the sordid tales of kings and their battles. Instead of giving instruction in militarism, instead of teaching anything in the way of national hatred, and saying that, because we happened to be born on one little spot, we were so. much better than the people of other parts—instead of doing all this—we should teach the children the great lesson of human brotherhood and human love. Education meant something far higher than the, singing of "God Save the King," and the waving of a flag. Mr R. Semple (Wellington South) further supported the amendment, and he, too, directed much of. his criticism at the Liberal side of the National Government. He stated that Sir Joseph Ward had,said that a better fleet than that of the Union Steam Ship Company could have been built before the war for

£1,500,000, but the National Government had refused to commandeer that fleet, with the result that the company had got about £5,000,000 of the country's money as payment for transport services. At 0.56 a.m. Mr J. McCombs drew Mr Speaker's attention to the fact that there was not a quorum (20) in the House, and that there were only two members on the Liberal benches. The bell was rung until a quorum was secured. At 1.5 a.m. Mr Semple finished, and Mr A. Walker rose to move an adjournmentj-for which he advanced various reasons. There was no seconder, and the motion lapsed. Mr Walker then attempted to speak to the amendment, contending that he had not done so already, but Mr Speaker ruled that the motion for adjournment was a speech on the amendment, and the end of Labour's tether was reached. Mr McCombs did make another effort, arguing that he had not spoken to the motion for the adjournment, but it was an attempt at bluff that failed. The Division. When the division bell was rung; for the vote-on the no-confidence motion, there were only two Liberal members in the House, the Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald (Bay of Plenty)* and Mr C. Talbot (Temuka). The hon. member for,Temuka left the Chamber, but before the doors were locked the Hons. A. M. Mye,rs and T. M. Wilford re-entered along with Mr J. T.-M. Hornsby. There was not a strong muster of Reformers in the House, but these four Liberals voted with the Prime Minister and the Government was victorious by 28 to five. The members of the Official Labour Party—Messrs McCombs* Walker, Semple, Holland and P. Fraser, alone voted no-confidence. The three Independent Labourites, Messrs W. A. Veitch, S. G. Smith, and J. Payne, were not in the Chamber after the early part of the evening. The House rose at 1.17 a.m.