BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1929, Page 11

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

LAND POLICY OF GOVERNMENT.

W PLYMOUTH MEMBER SPEAKS.

JBj Telegraph.—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night.

Petitions presented in the House of Representatives to-day again included a large number praying for an amendment of the Gaming Act, also two for the aboof capital punishment. Notices were given by various members of motions to appoint select committees for the session.

In reply to the debate on the return State advances to fishermen, Sir Joseph Ward stated the scheme was not working satisfactorily. The principal difficulty was the lack of security for advances. He undertook to make a fresh investigation of the position. Mr. S, G. Smith (New Plymouth) refiunted the debate on th© Address-in-Replying. Referring to Mr. A. M. Samuel’j? statements alleging lack of confidence and publie support since the United Party had assumed office he said the complete success of the dotation of the £7,090,000 loan in London at better terms than had been, obtained for a very long period was a complete answer to the first charge. So far as the second allegation was concerned he claimed the failure of a certain United Party supporter at a local body election could not be considered evidence of waning support for the party. The candidate in this case was untried in public affairs and had opposed a man of wide experience. Mr. Smith quoted the ease of the failure simultaneously at , another local body election of a Reform supporter. j Referring to the Government's land policy Mr. Smith, said there were hundreds of young men who were anxious to go on the land. In’ New Plymouth • alone there were many young men who had been educated and had had actual experience on the land and who had unfortunately drifted to the City. He had had repeated inquiries from all these men as to when they would be given an opportunity to take up land. They, in common with young men throughout the country, were keenly interested in the policy that had been outlined by the Government. DUTY- ON WHEAT AND FLOUR. Mr. J. Bitehener said he was opposed j to the abolition of duties on wheat. Un- ; less New Zealand wheat farmers were given a cnance to grow wheat at a reasonable profit the country would eventually find itself dependent on outside markets for its daily bread, and it might then be called on to pay fabulous prices for its importations of wheat and flour. He considered wheat growing was the most hazardous form of farming and was therefore entitled to consideration. ’ It was also responsible for the employ- . meat of a large number of men who , would find it difficult to find work else- . where in the event of the failure of the j industry. j

Mr. Bitchener criticised the calculation of the farmers’ profits on last year’s yield which, he said, was much above the average. He' ; contended that all wheat farmers in the country would agree With him in welcoming the abolition of the duty on wheat so long as the Government at the same time abolished protection in every form.

Mr. A. J. Murdoch said the United Party had been criticised for its failure to carry out certain promises. He felt sure no reasonable elector had expected the party to be able to give effect to all its promises in a few months. Its preelection pledges would be carried out in rotation and the country could rest assured that every promise would be honoured as soon as possible. Referring to the land policy Mr. Murdoch said the Government would take every precaution against the inflation of values as the result of its purchases of land, and it would endeavour to see that every man going on to the land had a chance to do well. It was time a real solution for the unemployment problem was provided. Palliatives such as the expending of money on unproductive works were, not satisfactory. A vigorous land policy was the most pressing call of the present time and it would be the Government’s intention to settle men who were ready and willing, to go on. the land but had not previously been in a financial position to do so. The Prime Minister said he was disappointed that the debate had occupied so much time. He had been impressed by the sameness of the speeches of the Opposition members. Replying to the reference by Mr. Holland to the suggestion for the curtailment of the debate, Sir Joseph Ward said he had not thought it fair to ask new members who wished to take this opportunity to speak to refrain from doing so. Referring to the proposed appointment of a trade commissioner to Canada, Mr. W. D. Stewart emphasised that it would be necessary to make sure that the appointee had a sound knowledge of both Canadian and New Zealand conditions.

Mr. Stewart said it appeared to him that some flystem should be evolved •whereby the railways commenced by one Government should be continued in the event of another party gaining power. He did not know how the difficulty could be overcome, but when projects involving such large expenditure as railways were undertaken there should be some prospect of continuity. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.