NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, 17 July 1930, Page 2

NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

DEFEATED BY 47 VOTES TO 24. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE CONTINUED. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, July 16. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the debate on the ad-dress-in-Reply was resumed. Mr W. P. Endean (Parnell), his maiden speech in the House, asserted that the Government’s failure to follow the policy of the Hon. 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 our production must always go to Great Britain. Although there might be cause to look to our 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' depression. He was strongly in favour of land settlement but criticised the Government for buying private land instead of developing the big Crown areas that were now’ lying idle. There had been lack on the part of the Government of encouragement for small holdings of a few acres on which seasonal workers (ould retire in the off season, and thus reduce unemployment.

Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland), stated that it had been promised last session that relief would be given to the intensity of present-day conditions, but he voiced surprise that nothing had yet been done. He confessed that 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 went on to refer to a report that the Minister of Railways had suggested as a means of overcoming unemployment that- all railway employees should work one w r eek without pay. Hon. W. A. Veitch: “That is entirely false.” Mr Parry: “Then it was a misprint?” Mr Veitch: “Yes.” Mr Parry said he was glad to have the Minister’s assurance. Mr A. E. Ansell (Chalmers) asked the Prime Minister to reconsider the request to grant Customs clearance to goods for South Island ports at 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 Souih Island riierchants and businessmen had to compete with others in the North Island it would place them under a disadvantage if nhe.v had to pay higher duty on the same shipments. Mr Ansell appealed to the Government to introduce some form of service pension w’hieh would

ovide for cases of returned soldiers who were unable to attribute their injuries definitely to the war. Mr T. D. Burnett (Temuka) defended the retention of the sliding scale of w’heat duties. He pointed out that it was very important to protect the large number of wheatgrowers 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. Rushworth: “What about the consumers.”

Mr Burnett: “The consumers enjoy the cheapest bread in the w’orld.” The bells rang for the first division v the session at 4.45 p.m., when the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment was defeated by 47 votes to 24.

The Division. The Division list was as follows: For the amendment (24) Ansell Hunter Bitchener Jones Burnett Kyle Campbell Linklater Coates , Massey Dickie Samuel Endean Stewart Field Sykes Hall Waite Hamilton Williams Harris Wright H. Holland Young Against the amendment (47) Armstrong McKeen Atmore Macpherson Barnard Makitanara Black Martin Bodkin Mason Broadfoot Munns Carr Munro Chapman Murdoch Clinkard W. Nash Cobbe Ngata de la Perrelle O’Brien Forbes Parry Fraser Poison Hawke Ransome Healy Rushworth Hogan Savage H. E. Holland Semple Howard Smith Jordan Stalhvorthy Langstone Sullivan Lye Taverner Lvsnar Veitch McCombs Wilkinson McDougall Pairs. For the amendment— J. A, Nash Macmillan Against. Donald McDonald Debate Continued. The? Prime Minister then said that he proposed to reply briefly to some of the points that had been raised during the debate on the Address-in-Re-ply motion. He asserted that when the Government had taken office its first step had been to circularise Departments and inform heads that expenditure would have to be kept as low as possible. In every direction, the pruning knife had been applied, and even things which seemed desirable to authorise had 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 expenditure. Mr Forbes declared that there had been no note of pessimism in his recent financial statement. It consisted merely of plain facts showing the people of the country 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 after complaining that the country was faced with a deficit of three millions in the Estimates. Those members must have knowm that the £150,000 surplus referred to the past year, and that the three millions 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. Mr Coates: “Is 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 of New Zealand had desired that any such gesture as a noconfidence motion should have been made, and he believed the voting of the House fairly represented the country’s feeling. Referring to Arapuni, 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. The question of whether anyone had blundered was one which could be left till afterwards. The main thing was to get the scheme into shape again. The Prime Minister 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 the land in view of the price that had been paid for it. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington), insisted that the Prime Minister’s financial statement had been unduly pessimistic, and had had a depressing effect on the people of New Zealand. The House adjourned at 5.30. When the House resumed at 7.30, Mr Wright, continuing, said the Minister of Lands had asserted that the present difficult situation was due to the Government having been caught in a backwash of faulty Reform administration. This was a serious statement for a Minister to make, but he had given no reason for it. Mr Wright contended that it could not be justified by facts. Mr W. Nash (Hutt) criticised the dismissals from the railway service, and asserted that the course that had been adopted had only accentuated the seriousness of the present situation. He wondered whether the Government had given consideration to the question of what men it could do without, or whether it had simply told the managers of various railway branches that they would have to dispense with a certain number of men. Mr Nash contended that the workers were always ready to co-operate with the Government and with private employers to increase production, so long as they were given a fair deal, but when they found that unemployment was increasing they naturally began to wonder whether the position was being created by their own added efforts. Mr D. Jones (Mid-Canterbury) advocated a policy of purchasing New Zealand requirements from countries which bought New Zealand goods. He criticised the high United States tariffs, and declared that the American fiscal policy had created a desire for retaliation in so many parts of the world that people in the United States had begun to wonder whether they had blundered. Mr Jones said the Reform Government had been criticised in connection with losses on returned soldier settlement but he was satisfied that those losses were more than justified. He pointed out that unemployment had cost approximately one and a half millions last year, and he compared that expenditure with the losses on a scheme which was now responsible for a large share of the country’s production.

Mr P. Fraser (Wellington) said Mr Jones had commenced like a second Columbus discovering America. There had never been a more ridiculous paragraph in the Press than that obviously inspired by Mr Jones himself, in which Mr Jones had been represented as shaking his fist at America, and declaring that New Zealand would retaliate against the trade barriers. Mr Frrser added that Mr Jones had got ur ! a most pontifical and infallible m. -:er after his visit to Britain and America, and had simply passed off sheer audacity in place of arguments in disputing statements made by the member for Hutt.

Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, expressed regret that the other Parties had not accepted Labour’s suggestion that the debate on the Address-in-Reply should be curtailed. He declared that the Reform Party had expressed opposition to the payment of standard wages on relief works, whereas the Labour Party considered that there should be no relief works at all, but that the men should be employed on other works and paid standard wages. Both the Government and the Reform Party had referred to the drop in export values, but what they had failed to make clear was that the 1928-29 year, with which comparisons had been made, was an exceptional one. Furthermore Mr Holland contended, wool, the estimate value of which was £1,322,000 had been held back from export because of price conditions. There was no shortage of money in this country. There was a huge volume of natural resources, and the problem of the day was to apply idle labouring power to those resources in a scientific and productive manner. Every palliative that could be conceived might be introduced, but the only real solution of unemployment was to find work. He asked why it was that at a time like the present, when production had increased. it was not possible to find work for everyone. The difficulties in New Zealand were by no means comparable with those in the Old Country, and Parliament, should be able to produce legislation that would deal immediately and permanently with .the problem of unemployed. Mr C. H. Clinkard (Rotorua), replying briefly to the debate, said- he was keen on land settlement, which, however, would always be a limited quanity. It was essential in order to absorb the ever-increasing supply of labour that our secondary industries should be fostered. The Address-in-Reply motion was then adopted.