HOUSE TESTED

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1931, Page 9

HOUSE TESTED

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT LABOUR LEADER’S ATTACK VOTE NOT YET REACHED By Telegraph.—Press Association. ‘ Wellington! Last Night. ; -That the Government does not possess the confidence of the House,” was moved in the House of Representatives this evening by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland. Mr. Holland asserted that the motion created a clear-cut issue. The main question was confidence or no confidence and it was in no way obscured by side-issues. He considered it was only fair that the House should have an opportunity of expressing itself nt this juncture. Pointing out •.that he had previously re* Trained from discusing, in detail the supplementary Budget because he was await- - irig details of the Government’s intentions regarding unemployment; as well hs an an/npuhceirient of its intentions concerning the' election, Mr. Holland said he wished to repeat his endeavours to secure a statement whether or not the Government would face the electors at the usual time. He submitted that a statement of. this nature would have the effect of considerably curtailing the discussion, not only on the present motion but also on such other measures as were to follow. It would be a deplorable thing, he said, if it went forth to the world that a universally unpopular Government was going to deprive the electors of their right to approve or condemn its policy. He wondered if the Prime Minister by interjection would say now what was' intended. On receiving, no reply Mr. Holland quoted Addisoh, remarking that at the very suggestion of an election the Government “Sits speechless-with wonder and half dead ’ith fear.” • : INTEREST PROBLEM. Discussing the supplementary Budget, Mr. Holland said, it seemed the Hon. W. D. Stewart’s only solution of the interest problem was an extension of the provisions of the Mortgagors’ Relief Act, The Government also ' proposed' to ask for power to make , laws relating to the subjects by Order-in-Council, and it seemed to him it would be dangerbus to permit a Government constituted in the manner of that now in office to take such power. The weakness of the main proposal was that it threw tho onus on the mortgagor to move to ifcourt. He would bp deprived of relief in some cases because of the cost to himself'in moving to the court. Mr. Holland drew attention to the Labour Party’s report following. the interparty cofiimittee’s deliberations and contended that it proposed the most efficacious manner of dea|ing with the problem in suggesting a provisional moratorium for the purpose of preventing foreclosures, with ' machinery for mutual arrangements between mortgagee and mortgagor and lessor and lessee, and with. the - additional provision'that if agreement was not reached within three months there should be a 20 per cent, reduction in interest rates and rent, the mortgagee or lessee to have the right to appeal. He submitted that unless wages were restored to the former level thjs reduction was inevitable. ( Mr. Holland criticised the proposal in the direction.of granting rating relief in rural areas. He'said it was intended to curtail highways expenditure by £250,000 and to use this amount as a special subsidy to rural local bodies for the purposes of granting rating relief. He did not. know exactly how many would be affected by this concession but there would undoubtedly be a large number, and when the £250,000 was eventually divided the amount of individual relief must, necesarily be small. There was also a possibility that as a result of the curtailment of expenditure the main and secondary highways might be allowed to deteriorate, and the consequent loss to the ratepayers would be greater than the relief afforded by the concession. Mr. Stewart: Do you object to it? Mr. Holland: No, I’m not objecting to it, but I am afraid it was not going to afford as much relief as has been claimed fo- it. 9 ARBITRATION'AMENDMENT. After referring to the proposals relating to the graduated land tax and the income tax Mr. Holland said-it had been claimed that the suggested amepdment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the direction of compulsory conciliation and voluntary arbitration was in accordance with the recommendation of the 192? industrial conference. This, he declared, was not in accordance with the facts. The recommendation had not come from the conference itself but from the employers’ section of the conference, and the Government was simply following the lead of the Employers’ Federation and the chambers of commerce. A section of the employers, though not all of them, had definitely stated that they preferred the .strike and lock-out system to the arbitration system, and at the present time economic conditions were all in favour of the employers. He contended that with the falling market the workers’ organisations were at a disadvantage. Mr. W. Goodfellow had stated before the economic committee that wages in Canada and Denmark had been reduced to eight shillings a day and had asked why could not they be reduced to the same level in New Zealand. Mr. Holland argued that it was generally recognised that New Zealand could not bring the workers down to that level. He said that if effect were given to the Government’s proposal the employers would hold full power to prevent any case from going to the Arbitration Court. Employees would consequently have no other 'redress than a strike, and at a period when there were tens of thousands of unemployed that was no redress at all. Mr. Holland drew attention to the resolution of an organisation of farmers dissociating itself from the views expressed by Mr. Goodfellow. ‘•no Hope for unemployed.” Dealing with th* unemployment statement, Mr. Holland said there was nothing in it that gave promise ofbetter provision than at present-. He eould not find any portion that held out a glimmer of hope for the unemployed. He alleged that if all the unemployed in the country were registered there would be well on towards 100,000. Mr. Smith-: That is grossly exaggerated! • Mr.' Holland sa?d there were also thousands who were working intermittently and-Were not earning enough to keep their homes going. Mr. Coates’ statement had been' a confession of failure on the part of the Government to make provision for tiie unemployed. There was a suggestion of an increase in the wages tax by 22 2-3 per cent., and he took it that such an increase was definitely part of the Government’s policy. Referring to the position of the coalfields, Mr. Holland said that while the Government was urging the people to buy New Zealand goods it was not following out that policy itpelf by. buying New Zealand coal. While it : was calling upon the employers to ration work,

it had not assisted the miners at Dobson in their attempt to ration work. There it had been suggested the employers could assist by granting members of their staffs leave of absence for -a period of weeks, without . pay. Why had it made no such attempt to cope with the situation in this Way in the Public Service, thereby keeping on the staff men who had been dismissed?

Air. Holland also protested against the failure of the Government to afford relief in cases of eviction of tenants. He admitted there might be instances where the landlord coijld not afford to allow tenants to remain in possession where rent was not paid, but he said it should be possible to make some provision for the payment of rent, thus avoiding tiie casting of people into the streets. He had received a letter from his daughter, who was a member of the Buller Hospital Board. She had described appalling conditions in the town of Alillerton which were mainly brought about by the Government’s coal policy. There might not be other instances where a whole town was in distress, as was the case at Alillerton, but similar conditions were to be found in all towns in,New Zealand. “PULLING DOWN” POLICY. The whole difficulty had been created by the Government’s failure to organise the production and distribution of the country’s resources. The Government was proposing economies, amounting to £10,009,000 in the Public Service; its whole policy was one of pulling down rather than building up. Every batch .of dismissals created a fresh problem, and every time wages were reduced it helped to precipitate the crisis which the Government claimed it was trying to avoid. Manufacturers . and retailers liad given evidence that their business had fallen off enormously as the result of wage reductions and dismissals. Air. Holland asked whether it was true that at the same time as this pulling down policy was going on the superannuation of the general manager of railways was to be increased. Air. Forbes: No!

Air. Holland said Air. Stewart in his statement had hinted that there was a possibility of reductions in pensions. Air. Stewart: You don’t give me credit for having avoided them in the meantime.

Mr. Holland said there could be no return to prosperity until the purchasing power of the people was increased by 5 the restoration Of wages to the former standard. The Labour Party was prepared to stand or fall by this policy in preference to the Government’s pull-ing-down policy. ■ The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes commented on the length of Mr. Holland’s speech. He said Mr. Holland- had about talked the House to death and could scarcely expect a coherent answer. If an argument needed a great volume of words there was usually little in it. Mr. Holland appeared to be in some ■ doubt regarding the support available to the Government, and the motion would allow Him to find out. DATE OF ELECTIONS. Referring to the election, Mr. Forbes said Mr. Holland would have to wait until he was ready to make au announcement, and in the meantime candidates could go on preparing. Mr. Holland kept on insisting that the Government should have a mandate from the people, but the Labour members had to dp’ what they were told by' au outside organisation. •Mr. W. L. Martin (Lab., Raglan): That’s wrong! That’s wrong! You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Mr. Martin shook his fist at the Prime Minister amidst a general uproar, and was called upon-to withdraw. After a brief hesitation he did so, and Mr. Forbes continued amid repeated interjections. from the Opposition benches. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) was next called to order for saying, “It’s a lie,” wheii'Mr. Forbes alleged a representative of the Alliance Of Labour attended the Labour Party caucus and told the party what it had to do. The Prime Minister said the Labour Party had leg irons on, but he believed in his own judgment and would use it irrespective of any outside influ-, euee. Mr, Martin: It is the biggest lot of claptrap 1 -have ever listened to! Referring to the £250,000 subsidy to local bodies, Air, Forbes said that if it were placed alongside the usual subsidy it would amount to about 7s. 0 l-Bd. in the £l, and he was sure the local bodies would be satisfied with what the Minister of Finance had done., (Loud hear, hears from several members,) Referring to unemployment, Mr. Forbes said it was not fair of the Leader of the Opposition to twist the facts instead of attempting to help the Government in what it was doing. Mr. Forbes contended the Mortgagors’ Relief Act was operating successfully and was helping to keep men on the land. What did Labour members care about what the Government was doing to assist farmer's? he asked. They did only what the Labour organisation wished, and that did not take the farmers into consideration. They said they must not cut down expenditure on education, but why should education be inviolate? Was it better to have a high education, or to pay debts? Then there were objections to the proposed alterations to the Arbitration Act, but arbitration would have to be adjusted if men were to be placed in employment. New Zealand was passing through strenuous tinieS and the Government was facing them. The Labour Party would try to gloss them over, but what was • the use of that? If labour restrictions had to go tbey would be swept away so that the country could pay 20s. in the £l. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) said the Prime Minister Had not replied to one point made by Mr. Holland. He had attempted to make some explanation regarding tile elections, but no one eould understand what he meant. Mr. Parry denied that the Labour Party was controlled by outside Labour organisations, and said the organisations were in no way connected with the New Zealand Labour Party, and had never been represented at a Labour caucus. Would tiie Prime Minister deny that a representutive of the Reform and United organisation had arrived from Auckland on Tuesday morning and delivered an ultimatum to tiie effect that there was to be no election for 12 months because there was no money? Mr. Forbes: Yes, I’ll deny that! ECONOMIC -EVIDENCE. Air. Parry said the supplementary Budget was supposed to be based on the evidence taken before the economic committee, but how could members prove that if the evidence was denied them? Mr. Stu wart: Didn’t your leader let you see it? Mr. Parry: The whole House should have seen it; there was no reason why it shouldn’t. Air. J. S. Fletcher: Oh yes there was. Air. parry: The only possible reason is that they were afraid. > Air. Fletcher: That’s the reason. The Hom D. Jones said Mr. Parry had claimed that the Labour Party was not controlled by outside organisations. The Minister quoted from a report of a meeting of the Alliance of Labour in which instated that the meeting instructed the Labour Party to oppose legislation. He added that Mr? Roberts,°of the Alliance of Labour, had recently issued another declaration that the Arbitration Court had to ? o. Air. Holland: Is that another instruction to us? i Another Labour memoer: It shows

we were not influenced by the instructions.

Air. Jones said it would appear from the Labour speeches that the Labour Partv was to be the saviour of the worli. Mr. AlacDonald’s Government had failed to solve the problem in Britain.

Mr. P. Fraser: It did. better than the New Zealand Government!

Air. Jones said Mr. jjacDonald and Mr, Snoivden had been forced to recohimend increases in taxation aiid economics. The Labour movement, however, had refused to agree to this. Mr. Fraser: And quite rightly, too. Air. Jones: And the Labour leaders had to seek the assistance of the Conservative Party to save Britain. Air. F. Langstone: From American bankers.

Replying to Mr. Holland, Air. Jppes said the . mine-owners at Dobson had been rationing work for some mouths before it was eventually found to be uneconomic to carry on work on those lines.

Air. Jones said he had prepared a letter to gas companies and other importers of. Australian coal pointing out the position of the New Zealand coalfields and urging them to use New Zealand coal. He asked Labour members to do some missionary work among the workers’ . \ . The debate - was interrupted by the rising of the House at 16.30 p.m. till 10-30° a.m. to-morrow.