“CEASE AIMLESS DEBATE”

Taranaki Daily News, 10 July 1929, Page 11

“CEASE AIMLESS DEBATE”

PARLIAMENT URGED TO ACT APPEAL BY LEADER OF LABOUR. LEGISLATION URGENTLY NEEDED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The galleries in the House of Representatives were practically filled tonight when Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, rose to continue the debate on the Address-in-Reply. .Mr. Holland said he hoped the remarks of Mr. G. C. Munns concerning apprenticeship did not indicate that the Government intended to flood the market with boy labour. In regard to the Samoan question, he said the Government would some day ' realise it could not govern the Samoans with a “big stick” policy. There would be no settlement of the trouble till the deportation orders were recalled and the natives given a voice in the government of their country. Any promises in the latter respect that had been made in the past had been broken. The natives had been promised representation in the Legislative Council, but after the election the Government had deported the men who had topped the poll and given the office to others. Mr. Holland, who was the first member of the Labour Party to take part in the debate, said he had risen primarily to make a proposition to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition. He asked that they should join with the Labour Party in ending the present debate to enable the House to get right down to considering the Government’s lef. ation. There was no amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion, and it was imperative that legislation should not be delayed a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. The House was in an unusual state as the parties were more evenly distributed than on any other occasion that he could remember in the history of New Zealand, and he took the opportunity to state that the Labour Party would support or oppose the Government according to the nature of the legislation. UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. The problem that was most outstanding to-day was unemployment, and the Labour Party had taken the opportunity j of stating its, views on the subject dur- \ ing the Imprest Supply debate, when : any criticism of the Government could ■ not be treated in the same light as dur- ' ing the Address-in-Reply debate. Land ' aggregation and speculation in land ; were items to which, the Government • had stated, it would give attention, and he was anxious to see what steps it I proposed to take to deal with these evils.' Mr. Holland criticised borrowing from London when there were millions of idle money in the Dominion, and in this respect he said there was a case of cause and effect in the idle money and idle men. He asserted there were many men who received annual incomes ranging from £5OOO to £10,000, i and sometimes £50,000 who were not paying a penny in K income tax. Certainly they were paying land tax, but they still had these large incomes and should still be called on to pay income tax, which would only contribute their fair share. The average small farmer would be glad to be in a position where he could be called on to pay both taxes. (Hear! hear! from the United benches). Mr. Holland referred to education which, he said, should be designed to fit the child for the occupation which he or she intended to adopt, and if the Minister of Education framed his legislation on those’ lines he could rely on the support of the Labour Party. Referring to railways, Mr. Holland said the United Party had gone to the country and pledged itself to certain principles. Now that it had been returned with a majority it was in honour bound to try to bring that policy into effect. It should bring forward its legislation on these lines, and if that were thrown out the party should then go to the country and ask for a mandate. United members: Hear! hear! That’s what we shall do! Parliament, Mr. Holland continued, should be given the opportunity imme- ‘ diately to undertake the work of reconstruction and restoration of roads following the earthquake disaster. Although New Zealand was faced with a deficit, also faced with this disaster, it was a country of infinite resource, and he was confident it would rise triumphantly above these obstacles. The dis- i aster would cost at least £1,000,000, 1 but it would be faced with spirit. 1 Repeating his appeal “that the pre- t sent aimless debate be brought to a i close,” Mr. Holland said the Minister j of Labour had said much of the legis- i lation was now ready, and he hoped it t would at once be brought forward. 1 f ABSENCE OF AMENDMENT. £ Mr. T. W. McDonald said it was his f opinion that the Leader of the Opposition 1 had not moved an amendment to the Ad-drcss-in-Reply motion because he believed t it in the best interests of the parly not to 1 do so. The Reform Party would be deci- t mated if there was another election. (Reform laughter). i In regard to railways, the Leader of the i Opposition was “sitting on the political fence,” said Mr. McDonald. He would not j say one thing or another but was waiting j to see what best met the party exigencies, j The Reform Government had been re- j duced to its present state because it had ] abandoned legislation by constitutional « means and had substituted government by , Order-in-Council and by the heads of de- j partments. Its policy had been to tax the j small farmer and relieve the large land- c owner. It was the former who had turned them out. The present Government in- * tended to solve the problem of land jettie- j meat and, as the big landholders would not dispose of their holdings at reasonable 1 prices, it behoved the Government to in- r troduce legislation to compel them to do so.

Mr. C. E. McMillan said it was wrong to say the Reform Party had had no land policy. He detailed the steps it had taken in that direction, and he suggested that in some respects the policy should be pursued by the new Government, especially in relation to the drainage of the land settled. He also advocated more intensive development of land adjoining existing railways in preference to opening up land requiring the construction of new railways. He did not think tho South Island main trunk railway would pay, and in view of the development of the internal combustion engine he considered any Government should hesitate. before expending a large amount of public money on any railway. He urged the Government to take all possible

steps to prevent any repetition of exploitation in phosphates which had been prevented by the Reform Party. , The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. J. S. Fletcher and the House rose at 11 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-rnorraw.