LONG DEBATE CONCLUDES

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1929, Page 11

LONG DEBATE CONCLUDES

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY MOTION

CHARGES AND ANSWERS HEARD.

WAS THE DELAY DELIBERATE?

By Telegraph.—Prosa Association

Wellington, Last Night. Mr. R. A. Wright resumed the Ad-dress-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives to-night. He said the Reform Party would gladly have agreed to terminate the debate some time a<*o, but he believed it had been protracted by the Government because it had not had its legislation ready. He had never before heard so many provocative speeches by new members as he had heard from the United Party benches, and he believed the object of these remarks had been to draw Reform speakers. and it had succeeded. It was only natural that members on his side of the House should answer such charges.

Mr. Wright referred to the complaint concerning the brevity of the report of the Hon. H. Atmore’s speech in Wellington papers. He said a good deal of what the Minister of Education had said had already been reported on previous occasions, and that was probably one part that had been omitted. He contended that the newspapers of the Dominion as a whole were perfectly fair. The Minister’s references to railways had been very technical, and possibly for tnat reason had been overlooked by the Wellington morning paper. Mr. Atmore had charged the Reform Government, continued Mr. Wright, with extravagance m connection with railways in the north. The House had voted the money for those railways and Liberal members must have had their opportunity then to voice their objections to the expense. He could not remember any such objection having been raised.

The present Prime Minister, Mr. Wright added, had placed the cart before the horse in promising money at 4f per cent., and now that he was unable to raise it he had sought for a scapegoat, and had chosen the former Minister of Finance. Mr. Wright did not believe any action of Mr. W. D. Stewart had embarrassed the Prime Minister in his loan transactions. It was Sir Joseph Ward’s duty to explain publicly what he meant. BORROWING BY UNITEDS..,

Mr. Wright submitted that the borrowing policy of the United Party would result in the inflation of land prices and this, together with the large expenditure on public works and in other directions, would be likely to result in trouble sooner or later. He spent, some time criticising Ministers .and other members of the United Party, creating considerable amusement and provoking a good deal of interjection. The Hon. T. M. Wilford. in the course of a reference to the departure of the Governor-General, said that because there had been a change of Government in Britain it should be emphasised that those who -were chosen to succeed their Excellencies must be wisely chosen. He had seen the results of unfortunate choices in other countries and he trusted such would never be New Zealand’s fate. Referring to the remark of Mr. D. Jones that since the Government had attained office the rate of interest had risen and the Prime Minfster had been the best friend of the money-lenders, Mr. Wilford said as far back as 1891 tlie rate of interest was 10 to 13 per cent. When Sir Joseph Ward initiated the advances to settlers scheme, he was instrumental in reducing the rates from 8, 9 and 10 per cent, which private capitalists were then charging in the absence of competition, and he had the money-lenders at his throat. The result, however, was that there was a reduction throughout the Dominion. REDUCED INTEREST RATES. Mr. Wilford asserted that the rate of interest had dropped since June 10, 1928. He knew of trust estates that had reduced the rates from 7 to 6J and even to 6 per cent. Sir Joseph Ward,had reduced the rates on Government issues from 5i to 5 1-8 per cent., and it was to his credit that the rates on local bodies’ securities had dropped. The Advances to Settlers Department had been obliged to borrow money to meet the arrears of applications before it, and although it had had to charge a slightly higher rate of interest it had been able to make advances, and the people, in the speaker’s own electorate, were m-ateful to get it at the price. ° Mr. Stewart, Mr. Wilford continued, had asked the Prime Minister to plac.i on the table the cables referring to the London loan transactions, but he must have known this could not be done. Mr. Wilford read a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury stating in effect that all the correspondence and all the negotiations leading up to borrowing m London were under a confidential seal, and these conditions must be held inviolate. Mr. Stewart therefore had asked for what he knew he could, not get. Mr. Wilford insisted that the late Minister of Finance had embarrassed the present Ministry in its loan transactions. Mr. Downie Stewart, in explanation, said he had not known and did not know now of any reason why a Government- should not lay on the table the cables relating to negotiations that had been completed six months ago. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (mover of the motion that an Addrese-in-Reply be presented to the ' vernor-General), in reply reiterated his statements concerning land aggregation and replied to criticisms of his speech. The debate then concluded and the motion was adopted. Replying to Mr. Coates, Sir Joseph Ward said the Imprest Supply Bill would be considered to-morrow. The House rose at 11.55 p.m.