CONFIDENCE VOTE

Taranaki Daily News, 12 September 1935, Page 5

CONFIDENCE VOTE

AMENDMENT DEFEATED MAJORITY SEVEN VOTES COLLAPSE OF THE DEBATE UNEXPECTED DIVISION. By Telegraph " ess Assn.—Copyright. Wellington, Last Night. The need for increasing the population of New Zealand was urged by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) when he resumed the debate on the no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. Barnard said the decline in the birth rate in the past four years was accentuated by the Government’s repressive policy, but that was not the only factor contributing to the decline. An increase in the population would enable more of the primary products to be consumed in New Zealand, and it would encourage the development of secondary industries. It would mean that more would be contributing to the national wealth. A larger population, too, would give added security against any menace from an outside Power. The population should be increased commensurate with the national resources. At this stage the discussion on Mr. M. J. Savage’s no-confidence amendment unexpectedly collapsed, and on a division being called for, the amendment was lost by 35 votes to 1 27. The division list was:— Against. Ansell. Macmillan Bitchener. Macpherson Broadfoot. McSkimming Campbell J. N. Massey Coates W. W. Massey Cobbe Murdoch Connolly J. A. Nash Endean Ngata , Forbes Ransom Hamilton Reid Hargest Smith Harris A. Stuart Hawke Sykes Henare Te Tomo jull Wilkinson Kyle Wright Linklater Young McLeod For. Armstrong W. Nash Atmore O’Brien Barnard Parry Carr Richards Chapman Rushworth Howard Samuel Jones Savage Jordan Semple Langstone Stallworthy McCombs Sullivan McDougall Tirikatene McKeen Veitch Mason Webb Munro Pairs for the amendment: Schramm, Lee, Coleman. Against: Field, Lye, Holyoake. GUARANTEED PRICES OPPOSED. The debate on the main motion was continued by Mr. A. E. Jull (Co., Waipawa), who opposed the guaranteed price scheme. He said that as soon as a price was fixed the incentive for improvement was lost, and once that was lost produce began to deteriorate. He thought some alteration in the electoral law was overdue. He thought compulsory voting should be essential, and that a system of preferential voting should be introduced in the country. The cities should have a system of proportional representation with groups of five members. He contended that big commercial interests in the cities were at present denied representation in the House. Mr. W. J. Jordan <Lab., Manukau) denied charges that the Leader of the Opposition was saying one thing in the town and another in the country. He quoted portions of the address Mr. Savage delivered at Auckland in Support of his contention. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Ind., Wanganui) criticised the excessively high taxation that ruled to-day and said it was largely responsible for the present state of the country. The conditions under which many people were living to-day were very unsatisfactory, yet the Minister said he had no more money to do anything more. _ The Hon. S. G. Smith: I never said that. < Mr. Veitch said the people had paid their money willingly, thinking it had been usefully expended, but what would they say when they learned, that the Unemployment Board was paying 10 per cent, of the cost of the new Wellington railway station? “NO JUSTIFICATION.” Mr. Veitch reviewed the events leading up to the formation of the National Government and said there was no justification for continuation in office of the present Government. He said the National Party now represented about 15 per cent, of the people and the Labour Party 25 per cent., leaving 60 per cent, of the electors of New Zealand not rep» resented by any party in the House. The reason why that stage had been reached was that election after election the great landowners in control of the political situation had said, “You must vote for us because if you do not you will get the Labour Party,” and the fear of the other fellow had caused the people to keep the landowners’ party in force far. too long. Referring to vote-splitting charges against the Democrat Party, Mr. Veitch said he was sure the Democrats would take far more votes from the Labour Party than from the National Party, but he said followers of Labour would vote for Labour, followers of the Democrats vote for the Democrats, and followers of the Government would vote for the National Party. There would be no votesplitting. He claimed that tire advent of a middle party was justified arid considered that most of those who would vote for the Democrats would have voted for Labour if there had been no Democrat Party. He deprecated the practice of delegating the powers of Parliament io boards, and said such boards must cost the country a considerable sum. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.