NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEAT BY 47 VOTES TO 24

Taranaki Daily News, 17 July 1930, Page 13

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

DEFEAT BY 47 VOTES TO 24

DIVISION TAKEN IN THE HOUSE

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE ENDS

PREMIER ANSWERS CRITICISM

By Tolugrayh.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion, moved in the House of Representatives by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates was defeated to-day by 47 votes to 24 and the debate on the original motion was continued. Mr. W. P. Endean, making his maiden speech in the House, asserted that the Government’s failure to follow the policy of Mr. W. Downie Stewart in reducing borrowing had been the cause of the present financial depression. The post-war economic situation had not been taken properly into account. The destiny of New. Zealand was so wrapped Up with that of Britain that it was to Britain that New Zealand must look for salvation and prosperity. The Dominion might develop markets in the East and elsewhere, but the bulk of its production must always go to Great Britain. Although there might be cause to look to the finances and cut down expenditure he had no doubt that the industry of -the people and the tremendous resources of the country would soon overcome the depression. Mr. Endean was strongly in favour of land settlement, but he criticised the Government for buying private land instead of developing the big Crown areas that were now lying There had been a lack on the part of the Government of encouragement for small holdings of a few acres on which seasonal workers could retire in the ‘‘off” season and thus reduce unemployment.

UNEMPLOYMENT PROMISES. Mr. W. E. Parry said it had been promised last session that relief would be given to the intensity of unemployment, but he voiced surprise that nothing had yet been done. He confessed he had not much hope of relief being given by the present Government. The only difference between the views of the United and Reform parties in the matter seemed to be that while both concurred in the dismissal of men the Reform Party went further and advocated reduced wages. Mr. Parry referred to the report that the Minister of Railways had suggested as a means of overcoming unemployment that all railway employees should work one week without pay. Mr. Veitch: That is entirely false.

Mr. Parry: Then it was a m isprint? Mr. Veitch: Yes. Mr. Parry said lie wiu? glad to have the Minister’s assurance.

Mr. A. E. Ansell asked the Prime Minister to reconsider the request to grant Customs clearance to goods for South Island ports at the first port of arrival in New Zealand. He contended that all centres should be treated on the same basis. Most vessels called first at North Island ports, and as South Island merchants and businessmeu bad to compete with others in the North Island it would place them under a disadvantage if they had to pay higher duty on the same shipments. Mr. Ansell appealed to the Government to introduce some form of service pension which would provide for cases of returned soldiers who were unable to attribute their injuries definitely to the war.

Mr. T. D. Burnett defended the . retention of the sliding scale of wheat duties. He pointed out that it was very important to protect the large number of wheat-growers in the Dominion. They were mainly working owners. It was also necessary to take into consideration the number of men employed by the wheat industry. Mr. H. M. Rusbworth: What about the consumers? Mr. Burnett: The consumer.,, enjoy the cheapest broad in the world! FIRST DIVISION TAKEN. The bells rang for the first division pf the session at 4.45 p.m., when the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment was defeated by 47 voles to 21. The division list is:-— Ayes (24). Ansell. Hunter. Bitchener. . Jones. Burnett, Kyle. ■ Campbell. Linklater. Coates. Alassey. Dickie. Samuel. Endean. Stewart. Fcild. .Sykes. Hall. Waite. Hamilton. Williams. Harris. Wright. Holland, H. Young. Noes (47). Armstrong. McKeon. Atmore. MacPherson. Barnard. Makitanara. Black. Martin. Bodkin. Mason. Broadfoot. Munns. Carr. Munro. Chapman. Murdoch. Clinkard. Nash, W. Cobbe. Ngata. Je la Perrclle. O’Brien. Forbes, Parry. Jrascr. Polson. t Hawke. Ransom. }lealy. Rushworth. Hogan. savage. Holland, 11. E. Semple. Howard. Smith. Jordan. Stallworthy. Langstone. Sullivan. Lye. Taverner. Lysnar. ■ Veitch. McCombs. Wilkinson. McDougall. Pairs for the amendment: J. A. Nash, MacMillan. Pairs against the amendment: Donald, McDonald. PREMIER REVIEWS DEBATE. i The Prime Minister said he proposed to reply to some of the pointe that had been raised during the debate. He asserted that when the Government had taken office its first step had been to circularise the departments and inform the heads that expenditure would have to be kept as low as possible. In every direction the pruning knife had been applied, even things that had seemed desirable to authorise bad had to be passed by. He did not think anyone would take seriously the Reform criticism that the Government had made no attempt to keep down the expenditure. Mr, Forbes declared' there had been

no note of pessimism in his recent financial statement. It consisted merely of plain facts, showing the people what they had to face and indicating that it would be necessary to co-operate to place the finances on a sound basis. It had been argued that the Government had been boasting of a surplus at one moment and soon afterwards complaining that the country was faced with a deficit of £3,900,000 in the estimates. Those members must have known that the £150,000 surplus referred to the past year and that the £3,000,000 shortage referred to the difference between the estimated revenue and the expenditure of the coming year. He believed it was the feeling of the country that the Government should travel the hard way and face the actual facts of the situation.

Air. Coates: Js it a case of having to be cruel to be kind? Mr. Forbes said it was a case of having to make decisions that were in the best interests of the whole country, and that was what the Government was determined to do. He did not think the people had. desired that any such gesture as a no-confidence motion should have been made; and he believed the voting of the House fairly represented the country’s feeling.

Referring to A rapuni, Mr. Forbes said no attempt was being made to make political capital out of the issue. The Government was immediately endeavouring to cope with the problem and was calling in the best expert advice available. Whether anyone had blundered was a matter that could be left till afterwards; the main thing was to get the scheme into shape again. The Prime Alinister said he had been disappointed by the response that had been made to the offer of land for settlement. It had fallen below expectations. Nevertheless a good deal of land had been taken up. An important factor in the lack of demand was the drop in wool prices. He had gone over the land selected for settlement and he had been agreeably surprised at the quality of it in view of the price that had been paid. Air. R. A. Wright insisted that the Prime Minister’s financial statement had been unduly pessimistic and had had a depressing effect on the people. Air. C. H. Clinkard, replying briefly to the debate, said he was keen on land settlement which, however, would always he a limited quantity. It was essential in order to absorb the everincreasing supply of labour that the secondary industries should be fostered. The Address-in-Reply motion was adopted.