THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 318, 6 July 1912, Page 5

THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. By Tol&graph—Pros* Awociation. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. Parata (Southern Maori) continued the debate on the Address-in-Reply. He said that the Government had done a great deal for the benefit of the country. He could not see why the Government persisted in treating'the Maori in a different way to the pakeha. Native land was private land, but that fact did not seem to be recognised. To his mind the native legislation was a public scandal. Mr. C'raigie (Timaru) followed. He said that he was not a very good Party man. He deplored the way in which the present proceedings had been carried on, purely through party methods. Those 1 methods were responsible for an enormous waste of time, which should be employed to better purpose. He sincerely hoped that more attention would be paid to the people of the country and less to party politics. Mi; Glover (Auckland Central) continued the debate. He intimated to the Leader of the Opposition that he would be prepared to follow him if he produced legislation for the uplifting of the conditions prevailing among the masses. The House resumed at 7.30.

Mr. Glover, continuing his speech, stressed the matter of pensions to old soldiers. Only two, he said, had received pensions so far, though numbers had gone before magistrates for examination as to fitness, and to show their qualifications for reward for services rendered to the country. ■Mr. Isitt rose on the completion of Mr. Glover's speech, and asked permission to draw the attention of the speaker to an article appearing in the Christ-church Press, in which he was referred to as "the leader of a small coterie who had forgotten all about their pledges." Further, the article said that the Government was "built on three floors of broken pledges." He wished to inform the House that he had stated in public, before the conference was held, that he would follow no Ministry with Mr. Millar in it. Mr. Laurenson (Lyttelton) intimated that lie also had a matter to ventilate in connection with the same article. The speaker said that the matter could not intercept the No-confidence debate, but might be brought up later. Dr. Te Rangihiroa (Northern Maori) dealt exhaustively with native land matters. From 1801 to 1911 one-third of the native lands had been alienated. The natives had, he said, contributed as much as anyone to the settlement of the land. A great deal had been made of the natives holding unproductive lands. In 1801, he said, there were two and threequarter million acres of native land without title. In 1911 the amount had been reduced to 190,792 acres. Those facts did not point to stagnation of native: lands now unoccupied should be opened for settlement, but for settlement of natives. Mr. Seddon (Westland) explained the 1 reason for the industrial unrest at Reefton. He suggested that the solution of labor difficulties might be arrived at by an amendment of the law that would empower the Labor Department to 'bring parties to a dispute together to conciliate the trouble. In the present state of the law the Department of Labor was powerless to take any action. Referring to matters political, he could not think that any man who had any regard for his word or pledge would in the face of the present political crisis desert his party. He advocate the extension of the experimental farm system. He recognised that a great deal had been done, in that respect by the present Government, but a great deal might be done by experimenting with different soils. He referred to the -urgency for a reciprocal arrangement with Australia regarding farm produce. Mr. Buxton (Temuka) continued, and suggested that the public accounts should include a clear statement of the country's assets. This information A'as not concisely presented in the financial papers, and advantage was taken of the omission to circulate damaging statements. He quoted speeches by the Opposition members on the Advances to Settlers Bill of 1894. Mr. Hindmarsh -moved the adjournment of the House at 11.50. The speaker called for a seconder, and Mr. Isitt rose to second it. Mr. Allen said that Mr. Isitt had already spoken on the motion, and could not again speak. The Speaker decided that he was entitled to speak on a motion to adjourn. The House divided, and the motion was defeated by 39 to 32.