PARLIAMENT DAY BY DAY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18830, 19 March 1931, Page 6

PARLIAMENT DAY BY DAY.

POINTS IN MEMBERS' SPEECHES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, March 18. “Look at the Difference.” When at Home, declared the Prime Minister in the course of the no-con-fidence debate, he was struck with the way in which business was dispatched in the House of Commons. After the King’s Speech, members w r ent on with the debate, dealt with a motion of no-confidence from the Opposition, and the whole thing was disposed by the House of 600 members in two and a half days. Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South): Look at the difference in the Governments. “Considering this is an emergency session we don’t want a full-dress debate,” added Mr Forbes. “To shorten the proceedings will be in the interest of members, for it will enable them to get back home to their own businesses all the sooner. In asking for urgency I think I am only asking for what is a reasonable thing.” The Leader of the Labour Party: What does the Prime Minister mean? Does the motion mean that you want the House to sit until this debate is finished? The Prime Minister: Yes, that is the motion. Religious Principles. “How are the members of the Government Party going to justify themselves when they go back to their constituencies?” asked Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central), when discussing the wage cuts in the House of Representatives. He referred to the fact that several members of the United Party had large numbers of workers in their constituencies. Mr Parry spoke of the religious principles of the Minister of Health (the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy), and asked whether the wage reductions coincided with those principles. A member: “Cut that out.” Mr Parry: “The honourable Minister knows what I mean.” Mr Speaker: “Honourable members should not really refer to another member's religion.” Mr Parry: “I am not calling his religion offensive. I am just calling the principles.” Mr Speaker: “The honourable meiriber does not mean to be offensive?” Mr Parry: “No, I do not mean to be offensive. I am just calling the Minister’s attention to the principles involved.” Later, Mr Parry expressed the hope that before long they would bear the Minister’s melodious voice in support of the Government’s proposals. Mr P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): “Does the hon. member mean to be offensive about the Minister’s voice?” (Laughter.) “Treated with Contempt.” “The Government has treated this matter with nothing less than eohtempt, declared Mr Parry in his speech on the no-confidence motion. It will be very interesting to know what the members of the present Government party are going to say to their constitutents when they meet them.”

Mr G. C. Munns (United, Roskill) That is their business.

Mr Parry said the statements to be made in future by those Government members representing Industrial constituencies would be of particular interest. One wondered what the member for Motueka (Mr G. C. Black) would have to say to the miners, of Reefton concerning wages reductions. It was hard to know how he would justify his actions in submitting slavishly to the Prime Minister’s proposals. Mr Speaker asked Mr Parry to withdraw the word “slavishly.” He said he would do so, but substitute the word “docile.” Mr Black was leaning over the back of the bench occupied by Colonel T. W. McDonald and Mr D. McDougall and, looking up, he passed a remark to Mr Parry. Hr Speaker: Will the honourable member kindly resume his seat? Mr Black walked to his bench and sat down. Mr Parry then referred to the Chief Government Whip, Mr Munns, who, he said, also represented an industrial constituencey and who would also have to justify his actions in supporting the wage reductions. One would have thought that he would have spoken, especially In view of the fact that he represented a city electorate. Hints of Hostility. Some indication of the attitude the Reform Party may adopt towards the Government before the present emergency session is over was given by at least one Reform member when the Address-in-Reply debate was in progress in the House of Representatives. While agreeing with the neeid for help for the farmers, Mr A. W. Hall (Reform, Hauraki), stated that he would not support the amendment to the Address-in-Reply moved by Mr M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West), because the Leader of the Opposition had stated that the Reform Party would not vote against the Government on a no-confidence motion during the Address-in-Reply debate. Mr Savage’s amendment advocated a provisional moratorium and cheap fertilisers for farmers. Mr Hall said that the amendment was on very sound lines, but his Leader had given a promise that the Reform Party would wot vote against the Government on a no-confidence motion during the Address-in-Reply debate.

Mr Savage’s amendment advocated a provisional moratorium and cheap fertilisers for farmers.

Mr Hall said that the amendment was on very sound lines, but his Leader had given a promise that the Reform Party would not vote against the Government during the present debate. Mr P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): “Haven’t you a mind of your own?” Mr Hall: “The United Party has been accused of taking the policy of the Reform Party, and perhaps the Labour Party has also been taking it.” Later, Mr Hall said: “It is quite possible that in the next few weeks we will vote against the Government. Whether the honourable members of the Labour Party will follow us, Is for them to decide.” A Labour member: “We will lead you.” Drifted into a Hurricane. Mr W. P. Endean (Reform, Parnell) said that it was a most serious matter that the Government did not grasp the essential remedies necessary to stabilise the country. The lack of remedy had been responsible for 30,000 men being unemployed, and he agreed with Mr Jones that Parliament should not rise until the whole problem was solved. The promises made by the Government had never been fulfilled, and unfortunately in politics they could not be sued for a breach of promise. Last session the Reform Party had pointed out the approaching economic storm, and the Government had drifted until it was now in a hurricane. The Unemployment Board had been disappointing, and one continually saw men being employed on unproductive works. The Government had unfairly relegated its duties towards the unemployed

to a board. Had the Government put the men on opening up unproductive land, the country would have been in a much better condition to-day. Instead the whole policy of the Unemployment Board had been wasteful. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. G. Smith): “You have not given the board any assistance whatever.” The country wanted a solid, sane Government which would govern the country wisely and that Government was not the Labour Party. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Independent, Gisborne) : “And not Reform.” (Labour laughter.) Mr Endean said that unless New Zealand developed markets outside England she would have to wait patiently until England improved. “We have to put our house In order,” said Mr Endean, “and the present Government is not doing that.” The Rev. C. Carr (Labour, Timaru): “Put them out.” No Longer Liberal. “What a position for a Liberal Party to be in,” exclaimed Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) in the House of Representatives pointing to the spectacle of the Government reducing the wages of those who were least able to bear it. • A voice: “But are they?” Mr Sullivan: “It is a Government that claims to be a Liberal Government—that claims to be carrying on the traditions of Seddon, Ballance, and the rest of them. Does any member of the House, does any supporter of the old Liberal Party, If any of them remain through the length and breadth of the country, believe that under any circumstances the right honourable gentleman who led the Liberal Party for so many years would ever have attempted to balance his Budget by reducing the provision for food and clothing and the necessaries of life to a class of the workers who are down almost to the bread line and who have practically nothing to spare? “I am utterly disappointed with the Prime Minister and his Government. I never believed it was possible that a Government claiming to be a Liberal Government could come down with such proposals. . . The Government is behaving more harshly than even the Conservative interests would do. It is harsh, arbitrary, and inconsiderate.”

The Pledge Breakers. “The electors have no time for pledge-breakers,” said Mr J. O’Brien. “They would rather have a good Tory who tells you what he is doing than a Government that comes in with glowing promises and two years later repudiates every one of them. I have been disillusioned and want to beg the pardon of the people of the Dominion, and apologise for going into the lobbies to keep the Government in office. I would sooner support the Leader of the Opposition, who, whatever he has said and done, has never made promises and broken them. We always knew what this gentleman stood for, and knew where we were with him. I would rather see him back on the Treasury benches, because I have more faith in him than the present Leader of the Government.” Mr Wilkinson: Aren’t you breaking a pledge now? Mr O’Brien: With . pledge-breakers one can break no pledge. Flashes from Debates. “The proposals placed before the House by the Government will definitely handicap us rather than give us a better distribution of our income.”— MrW. Nash (Labour, Hutt). “We should label this the ‘pinch and scrape Government.”—Mr J. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton). “The wheat-growers are the privileged class in this country.”—Mr H. M. Rushworth (Country Party, Bay of Islands). “New Zealand is a sort of Tom Tiddler’s ground where the financiers of Europe may pick up gold and silver.” —Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau.)