NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED

Chronicle (Levin), 26 July 1946, Page 7

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED

-Press Association

End to Long Debate in Parliament

By Telegraph—

WELLINGTON, July 25. Till 12.45 a.m. tliis morning tlie llouse oi Parliament eontiimed the debate 011 the no-conlldenee motion moved by tlie Leader oi tlie Opposition, Mr. S. U. Ilolland. A division was called l'or and tliis resulted in tlie motion being defeated by 41 votes to 32. The Prime Minister then asked perinission to move a motion witliout neeessary noiiee, to the effect tliat the Hon. (J. E. Skinner, Minister oi Lands and Kehabilitation, "has rendered good, honest and efficient serviee to the people oi this country, and espeeially to returned servicemen, by his eapable and conscientious administration oi the Servicemen 's Settlement and Land Saies Aet, 1943." Mr. Ilolland objeeted to the procedure, saying he had given the Prime Minister three days' notice oi his no-conhdenee motion and he thought he should have at least 24 hours' notice oi this oue. A motion to suspend the standing orders so that the Prime Minister 's new motion could be taken, was earried 5by 41 to 32 and the discussion on it proeeeded. When the motion eommeiiding Mr. Skimier was put, it was earried 40 to 32.

For tho tliird suctessive day tlie Houae of Keprcsentuth es today debateil [ Mr. fc>. G. lioliaad 's niotiuu of 110 coii lideuce in tlie Governmeut. Late in tlie' afternoon tlie debate seenied likely to ' coJlapse when 110 further Govornnieut | speakers' roso to participato but Oppositioii inembers kept tlie discussion alive. j Mr. W. S. Goosman (Waikato) coa--j fcinuing tlie debate, said the Opposition j wunted Mr. Lewis to get justice. lie ; knew Mr. Lewis aud could say, despite j tlie assertion by tlie Minister ot' Works, ; tliat Mr. Lewis was not a member oi j "the Xational Party. Oue thing whicli j the House was not told was, did Ihe j Minister oi Lands act on his own j initiative or did he eonsult Cabinet j first? The action oi; the Minister wus a I straw in the wind. llow niany other cliairmen had been direeted by hiui? • It was peculiar that tlie Minister, when 1 justifying his action against Mr. Lewis, failed" to say what he luid done to | others. Some of the chairnnui iniglit have aceepted dictatorship but New j Zealand should be tliankful for a nutn 1 like Mr. Lewis who was prcpared to stand up and conie out in the opou and iight tlie Government regardness of tlie consequences. Mr. Goosiuan asked if the Minister of Lands would tell the liouse whether the complainants in the matter wero Mr. Lewis's Land Bales Coimuittee associates. Legal men hal sworn on afiidavit that the eharges against Mr. Lewis were untrue. The Goverunient should stand by that rather tlian eondeinn Mr. Lewis withont a hearing. Mr. W. J. l'olson: Anit slandcr him Mr. Goosman declared that the Government was in duty bound to give Mr. Lewis tlie clianee to be heard. Jf it did not then the only reason was that the Government was not prepared to aeeept the consequenees. lf Mr. Lewis was proved iiinocent, the Minister was in duty bound to tender his resignation to the Government. Hon. W. E. Parry Hon. W. E. Parry said duties and obligations of -Mr. Lewis had not been earried out syinpathet ically and he had prevented the giving of evidence instead of providi ng everv faeility for it. When Mr. Lewis wa put there 1o do a job, it was tlie Government 's function to see that he did it. The Minister of Lands had been well .iustified in his action and it was utter xot to say the Minister did not know his job. He would defend the men he fought with and see tliat they were ptoteeted.

Mr. J. N. Massey Mr. J. N. Massey (Frunkliu) asked that tlie Goverunient should appoint a tribunal, preferably a judgc of the Bupreme Court, to make all the neces sary iuquiries into tlie caso. Tho .Minister had rnade no reply to the Opposition 's questions about the ability of kewis 's associates on tlie committee to carry out their duties. fc>urely,.if the chairnian was at fault, his associate. must be at i'ault, too, but tlieii resignations had uot been asked for. Mr. A. G-. Osborne Mr. A. G. Osborne (Onehunga) saiu oue fact emerged i'roni tlie debate anu tliat was the Opposition 's ineapacity to ehallenge tlie general policy or ua ministration of the Goverunient. The\ had had the opportunity during the Address-in-KopIy debate to move a no conlidence motion on any question on which they differed from the Goyern ment, but they had not earried out that fundameiital custom. Mr. l'olson: Neither fundanicntal nor custom. Mr. Osborne said the question wai whether the will of Parliament was t" l»e trust rated by the improper and un sympathotic adininistration of legisla tion which, in the present case, wadesigned to protect the intcrests ot returned servicemen and women.

Mr. G. F. Sim Mr. G. P. iSim (Rotorua) said Govern ment speakers were using references ti their desire to protect returned serviee men, as a shield behind which to hid while they imposed an injustice on Mr Lewis. Tlie Aet applied to^all land ariproperty transactions, not to tliose con ceniing returned servicemen alone. O 12.140 apjrlications relating to farm which had been deult with since the Act eame Into force, only 1800 went t> ex-servicemen. There had been 220 orders made under the land aequisitioi' section of tlie Act, of which possession was taken in 104 eases and land eut. up to make 2.'10 single unit farms. The Aet was designed to keep down lan'1 and property prices generally and no' spoeificnllv to help ex-servicemen. Thv was inrlicaled by ihe fact of the 10.00 land eases having been dealt. with wher no returu,al men were concerned. Mr. A. S. Sutherland Mr. A. S. Sutherland (Hauraki) said after hearing the honibastic outlmrst o'' tlie Minister of Health when he spolc in tlie debate, he (Sutherland) wasorrv he had been boru a Presbvteriac He eonsidered the Minister of Land had been led astray by his politics

Liends when he took action against Mr. Lewis. If the Crown had a grievance against the Hamilton Land Saies Comniitt.ee, why did it. not appeal to a higher court f - Mr. Sutherland said he felt the public of New- Zealand would not tolerate political mterference with the laws of justice. He knew and had fought alongside Mr. Lewis in tlie lirst world war and he did not want to see Mr. Lewis sacrificed by the people who they could not get with 100 miles of Verdun. It seemed to him that sorne Government oliicial had a grudge against Mr. Lewis and it was this which influenced the Minister whose action would shake the . eoiifidence of every Land Saies Committee in the country. Every ex-service-man in Cambridge would be behind Mr. Lewis to whom the Minister should apologise and withdraw tlie accusations against him. Mr. D. W. Coleman Mr. D. W. Coleman (Gisborne) said ihe Opposition had pretended emphatic uidignation during this debate and' iheir atti'tude was nothing more or less! ilian an attack on the Act which was ] the envy of the world. Mr. Lewis had j nothing to thank the Opposition for be- - cause they had been the means of sorne very unpleasant things before being broadcast. He cliallenged the Opposition to produce evidence that the Government or Minister had dietated to the Land Saies Coniinittees. Hid the Opposition reniember how ex-servicemen of the lirst world war were exploited, and the impossible prices they paid for their farms? Land Saies Committees were appointed to prevent that happeniiig to ex-servicemen. of the second world war but that seemed to upset the Opposition because. their friends were not going to get the rake oft's- they received after tlie ''lirst world war. Hon. W. Nash Hon. W. Nasli said that altliough the Minister would not have been justified in interfering with uny particular case, ue would have been failing in his duty if he took iio action wlien he found a particular committee was uot carrying out the law. The Minister saw the Act ueing frustrated in its purpose and acted accordingly. He agreed that there should be no interferenee at any dme by an executive with courts of law but this case was on an entirely difl'erent basis. There was no question of politics, as he saw it, and no question of militarv reeords. The Minister had

power to see that persons appointed to administer an Act were in sympathy with the Aet and it appeared to the Minister that the chairnian of the Hamilton Coiuinittee did not administer the I Act according to its principles. There' could be nothing more dangerous fuc- ! ing this country at present than lettiug! a ioose policy of laissez faire. He knew { of nothing else which would lead toi ilisaster so quiekly than letting land ! prices run up. The Minister had made! a Temarkably good job of administer- 1 ing the Act and' had not interfereil with i tlie ;judicinl system whatever. He had siniply said that the will of Parliament liad not been given effect to. Mr. T. -L. Macdonald. Alr. T. L. Macdonald (Mataura) said the Minister of Lands had committed a wron-g action .which niight have beeu due to inexperience or he niight have been the unwitting instrumeiit of sorne oue with a grudge against Mr. Lewis. ile eonsidered it was the duty of the Government. to set up a public inquirv with the Chief Justice acting-as a L'ommission to investigate the facts of this sordid case. ■ .ur. i raser: There is no sordid case and there will be no inquirv. Mr. Macdonald said if the Government failed to set np an inquirv, then it was obvious tliat it realised tliat its .•ase was founded on shifting sand. All the l'acts presented by Government ipeakcrs would be replied to by the i^eader of the Opposition.

Mr. C. M. Williams. Mr. C. M. "Williams (Kaiapoi) said Lliere was evidence that Mr. Lewis had mixed his f'unctions as a practising solicitor with his duties as chairnian of tlie committee. Witliout reflectiug on uis honesty, it was clear this had made it difiicult- for him to carry out liis duties satisfactorily. Had a iay member of the comiuittee been asked to resign, Ihe Opposition wouid not take the sanie attitude but Mr. Lewis was a lawyer and lawyers had a trade uuion that was a niodel of solidarity. Mr. P. Laugstone. Mr. F. Langstone (Waimarino) said ihe case in which Mr. Lewis had asked ror the renl of tlie property to be pussed at £329 but reduced by the court to £201 10s, was a serious oue. Capitalised at tlie rate tlie Act would permit, that uieant Mr. Lewis had souglit to increuse the capital value of tlie property by £2(300. The Opposition must feel regret at having made a no-confidence motion of this issue. He eonsidered tlie Alinister had i'ully vindicated hiniself aud the Land Saies Act had been well administered. Mr. r. W. Doidge. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Tauranga) said that three uiglits ago tlie Leader of the Opposition had moved the no-confidence motion and the Prime Minister, on tlie ground that tlie debate was a waste of time, moved urgency. Meanwhile tlie Opposition had made good its case. This af'ternoou the Government let the Opposition carry the burden of the debate and at night, wlien tlie country waiting to hear tlie Leader of the Opposition reply, the Government awoke with the intention of preventing Mr. Holland going on the air. Mr. Clyde-Carr: Out manoeuvred. Mr. Doidge said that was how the Government played the game of politics on an issue wliich had aroused the intense interest of the country. Mr. Olyde-Carr: You're blowing up a bubble with invisible soap. Mr. D. G. Sullivan declared that Mr. j Doidge 's suggestion was oue of the | most impudent suggestions he had lieard | during manv years in the House. Mr. Holland Replies. After Government speakers had maintained tlie debate for most of the 1 evening, Mr. Holland commeneed his reply at 11.20 p.m. He said he had no | coinplaint to make at the Government '$ j tactics. t Mr. Glvde-Carr: I should think not. j ! Mr. Holland said he had enjoyed the| evening listening to Government speakers driving nails in the coliin of the Lubour Partv, with the Prime Miuister

presiiling as funeral director. If Mr. Fraser thought the country was going to be impressed by putting up a row of speakers iu order lo keep tlie , Leader of tlie Opposition from replying during the hours tlie House avus being broadcast then the Prime Minister was mistaking tlie temper of the country. Mr. Holland said when the report of the Minister's request for Mr. Lewis' resignation lirst reached him, lic was profoundly shocked but iuquiries cuniirmed his Avorst fe'ars. Wlien he first moved the motion three days ago, ho felt there wus no answer to the allegations against tlie Government. Hhe thought the Prime Minister would seize the opportunity to say a mistako had been made and a grievous harmj done an innuocent citizen. He thought i tlie Prime Minister would make an apology and get out of it as Avell as j possible. That was not done aud, Mr. j riolland said tliat, ffankly, after liear- j ing Mr. Fkinner and Mr. N'ordmeyer, i Jie had soine doubts and felt tliat if j what they said was the truth, then he j had not been told the whole truth. The j stringing out of the debate, howcver, , had given the chance for iuquiries to] be made and he founil that the Minis-i ters' statements were not correct. j Everything he had said Avlien moving ] the motion had been confirnied and, in fact, tlie position was worse than he| had realised wlien. the debate started. ! When the Prime Minister had resorted j to tactics lie had used in regard to tlie j debate, the public knew the Government did not want its case expJoded as it would be exploded. No oue would bc under any misappreliension. The Opposition said there had been interferenee with the adininistration of justice. The Government1 claimed that interferencye was justified. The Opposition said that there could be a case for a Land Saies Committee chairnian, but only after an inquiry by an impartia) tribunal. To remove a man because his judgment's were insufliciently favourable to tlie Government, was intoierable. Any man charged should have an opportunity of knowing what he was aci'used of and a chance to clear hiniselt instead of being clismissed on the accusations of disgruntled persons.