ADDRESS-INREPLY.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18424, 3 July 1925, Page 11

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

YESTERDAY'S DEBATE. IX LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (AUfiUJOKD I'BIS9 ASSOCIATION asroßT.) WELLLVGTON, Julv •_>.. "Resuming the debats on the Addtcss-in-Rep]y in the- Legislative Council to-day. The Hon. Sir John Sinclair devoted tho greater part of his speech to discussing the question of consultations between the Mother Country and the Dominions. The questiou, he said, was no nearer settlement than years ago iu spits of the resolution of the "War Cabinet which recognised the right of the Dominions to an adequate Toice in foreign policy. The speaker asked whether the creation of machinery for continuous consultation would not be better, and pointed out that apart from the Imperial Conference there was not in existence to-day ono other body representative of the Empire. He advocated personal touch between sfatesmen from various parts of the Empire, and an equal roice for the Dominions with the Mother Country in discussions on matters of foreign policy. The Hon. J. P. Campbell refuted the statement that recent legislation had been in favour of capitalists as against other interests, and expressed the opinion that it had been both humanitarian, liberal and progressiveReplying to Sir John' Sinclair. Sir Francis Bell dissented from any suggestion that there would be established in London a conclave of Ministers of tho second rank, and maintained that the present system was adequate, whereby the High Commissioner would act betweeu the Home and Dominion Governments. Cable communication between the Prime Ministers was quite constant and absolutely effective.

IN THE HOUSE. In the House of Representatives this afternoon', the debate on the Address-in-Reply was continued by Mr H. T. Armstrong, who complimented the mover and seconder of the motion before the House upon their speeches, but sympathised with them in not having a. better policy to support. He denounced the Hon. G. J, Anderson's reference to Labour's attitude towards the Arbitration Court. It ill-became a Miuister to. chide Labour in that matter, because Labour was fighting for the Arbitration Court, when the Minister and every member on his side were opposing it. Tho Minister had condemned the leasehold sysj tern because, he once had a. leasehold I and lost by it. He could quite understand that because if Mr Anderson was iv> better as a. farmer than ho was as. Minister of Labour, ho would lose on tho leasehold or any other "hold." Ha had endeavoured to discredit tha Labour Party by quoting Bolshevik literature relating to other parts of the 'world, but tho fact was the Labour Party-was winning all the world o.veh and it was Consorvativo Ministers like Mr Anderson who were responsible for the political upheavals taking place. Referring to fusion, Mr Armstrong said the Labour Party had no objection to (fusion, because Labour /regarded both Liberals and Reformers as Conservatives. At the same tijoe, he wondered what Ballanoo and Seddon would think of the Liberals offering to sell themselves body and soul to save their miserable skins, but it did not matter. Fusion had alraady taken place. At the last election there was combination between' the Liberals and Reformers', but in spite of this fusion Labour doubled its representation, and it did not matter w,ha£ they continued to do, Labour would go_. on increasing its strength. This-was what happened'in Australia. There they fused to defeat Labour, but Labour had practically captured Australia, and it would soon be tho same,in New Zealand. MY Cpates was onlv a newspaper-made Primo Minister. He had been made Minister of Public Works because he was the man to get things done, but as a matter of fact he was going on in tho samo oldfashioned way, and with tho samo out-of-date appliances as his Party had criticised the Liberals for following. Mr Coates was not the* man to. get work. done. His record was disappointing. He was like a Chinese.cracker, all fizz and no burst. Whether fusion took place to-day or after the election, Labour was ready for it. They did not object to their policy being described as Socialistic, because all reforms were necessarily Socialistic. This had ever been so, and the only things that_ marked the difference between civilisation and barbarism were the little bits of Socialism which had made life tolerable. Why, then, should there be so much opposition to a party which had no other purpose than to effect future reforms on lines common to ail past reforms? Questions of the'cost of living, housing and immigration wero.| dealt with from the orthodox Labour point of view,'the speaker concluding with an appeal to the Hon. G. J. Anderson to make more liberal provision for .pensions, as he had promised in 1922.

Mr T. W. Rhodes. Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames) question- 1 e:3 the accuracy of Labour's contention that the workers were worse off under the Reform ' Administration than before" Reform came into power, and quoted various increases given to public servants in support of his view, and as proof that Reform, was solicitous for the welfare of the people. A reduction of taxation was the most pressing need of the moment, coupled with an increase in production. He would -like to see the stabilisation of low values. The Liberal Parts* was no doubt entitled to credit for establishing the Advances to Settlers' Department, but credit and gratitude were also due to tho Reform Tarty -for widening its scope. For the remainder of his speech.- Jlr Rhodes for the most part confined himself to the ventilation of grievances in his own district.

Mr P. A. do la Perrelle. Mr P: A. de la Perrelle (Awarua) contended that the Government, should give more attention to the secondary fndust2 : ies. It was absurd that we should produce raw material in New Zealand, send it away for manufacture and import it again for use by our own people. He advocated an energotic svstem of land settlement with every incentive to continuous occupation. Jt would pav better to give people the land, rather than let it go hack and become a breeding ground far pests and noxious weeds. The Advances Department was in need of speeding up. More prompt replies should bar sent tn applicants, and he totally opposed local bodies being able to borrow money from the Advances Department. The Hon. W. Xosworthy said that that had been stopped. Mr De La. Perrelle expressed his appreciation of this fact, and proceeded ,to urge a display of move enterprise in tho Tourist DeDartment, which should be bringing thousands of tourists to the Dominion every year.

Sir Join Luke. At the evening sitting the debate was continued by Sir John Luke, who devoted considerable time to discussing the oare of waste lands which were rapidlv" degenerating into asylums for noxious weeds. Secondary industries in

the way of iron manufactures and ! sugar beet growing wero advocated, ! At present Now Zealand's exports eou'sistod of Do per cent, of primary products, and only 3 per cent, of tho produets of the. secondary industries. This was not ;i desirable position, because Now Zealand could not. become one great farm growing produce for the Old Country. All youths could not becoine farmers. There must be industries to provide employment for those of the people who were industrially inclined; lienco he urged tho liberal encouragement of secondary industries.

Regarding borrowing, he favoured local borrowing rather than going to England for all, the money .wanted. That, he thought, was one of the strongest points of the many strong points in the policy. of the hire Prime Minister. Tho speaker then proceeded to deal with social and industrial conditions in Great Britain, contending that under existing circumstances, it was the duty of New Zealanders to absorb as much as possible of British manufacture's in preference to foreign goods, and to offer a. hearty welcome to as many as possible of Britain's surplus population who might desire to come to these shores. •

Mr J. W. Muriro. Mr J.. W,. Munro (Dunedin . North) referred to' the discontent. existing, in the railway service. Since the recent striko there had been an idea prevailing amongst some of the men that they were getting "the acid" put on them. He did not think the Prime Minister was aware of the causes which gave rise to this feeling, but lie hoped the Prime Minister would'look into if, because they wanted to see the. Prime Minister'make good. He twitted the Government with reducing the wages of public servants. They gave them a bonus during the war years,, bu.t immediately took it away.. To give with the right hand and take away with, the left was - tantamount to stealing from the workers to give, to their friends, the big landowners. . Tho shortage of houses, he said, was due to the fact that the Government was not in earnest about it. They had reduced taxation and sacrificed revenue which was needed to build houses. This reduction of taxation was not something for the workers, hut was a concession to the rich frjends of tho Government, many of 'whom became rich by profiteering during the war. He called for sincere'legislation against trusts. The Distributors' Association had beaten the Government in Court and wore laughing at them, and the people were laughing at them. Was the Government then going to tighten up the position, or were they gping to'let the situation fall into a state of drift? Then there was the banking monopoly. Was the Government going to start a State Bank against this financial monopoly? The cause of trade difficulties was high land values, _ which meant high rents and high prices to the . people. The freehold was only popular in New Zealand because it afforded people an opportunity to. traffic in land to "their own advantage, and the ■detriment of everyone else who had a right to live on the products of the land.

Mr G. McKay. Mr G. McKay (Hawke's. Bay), advocated more advanced methods of agricultural instruction to potential farmers to place the young industry on a proper basis. He declared that there must be suitable land made available to those desirous of going upon it. For. this purpose the compulsory clauses of the Land Purchase Act should be rigoroualv enforced. 3© strongly recommended the growing of sugar beet as providing one of tlie- most profitable of the secondary industries. The debate was adjourned on. the motion of Mr «T. C. Rolleston, and the House rose at 10.20 p.m.