ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 146, 16 March 1921, Page 6

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

DEBATE CONTINUED MORE OPPOSITION COMPLAINTS THE WHEAT CONTRACT When the Address-in-Reply debate was resumed in the' House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, the Speaker asked if the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition during the preceding evening was regarded as a want-of-con-fidence motion. The Prime Minister said the usual practice was to accept such a motion in this way. He thought the safe thing would bo to regard the motion as suggesting wnnt-of-confldence. Mr. Wilford: Hear, hear! The debate was resumed in the House of Representatives at 3 p.m. yesterday. Mr.' T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South), who was the first speaker, told the House that the Dominion for several years had Been experiencing government by regu nticn. He did not think this method ought to be continued until the endL of the year merely because the P’' ln } e X was going to England. What would happen if some exceedingly important matter required the attention of Par lament during Mr. Massey s absence. The Prime Minister: Parliament will b mT"sideV protested that the leader of the Government would not be inNew Zealand, and the would not be a member of the House. He that the Labour extremists were really the best friends of the Government Mr. Parry (Auckland Central): It is an opposition with a backbone. A Liberal member: But no head. Mr. Sullivan (Avon): You will soon be continuing, stated that the Primo Minister had become an autocrat, wHh full power over the Ministry and Parliament. Ho was taking up the: adi hide that the business of the cou ntiy cculd not proceed in Ins absence, postponement of the working session unhl October meant another lush n > «" ch as had been experienced J ast wded business would bo . into two or three months, and another opportunity for postponing legislation would be found. Mr. elv who was going to he absent from the country while the Tariff Bill was in preparation, intended to take charge of the measure in Parliament ''jlien h ~ turned. He obviously would be V nah J® to give a proper amount of attention to and the arrangement was unfair to persons whose interests we going to be vitally affected by the Bill. The need of a reciprocal tariff with Aus tralia had been repeatedly but apparently nothing would bedone this year. Mr. Sidey assured the House the country was .concerned about t e great increase in public expenditure The Government was talking too late of economv. It should have preached economv in the fat years, when the country had plenty of money, and was .spendit lavishl'v. He blamed the Minis, ter of Finance for the unsatisfactory operation of the financial provisions ot the loan. Liberal Whip.

Mr. G. Forties (Hurunui), following, made his protest against postponing the work of Parliament. Some better system should be devised, he sa,d > ' duct Imperial business, than the one which required the Dominion Prime Ministers to leave their other duties to attend these conferences. The proposition to have a resident Minister in London. which had apparently come to nothing. might have met the case. With regard to the business of the country, the work of tariff revision, for mi-’ht easily he carried on in the absence of the Prime Minister. The matter might be referred to a rarliamentarv committee. Summer sessions, he said, were not conducive to the successful conduct of business. Air. Forbes said the country was growing alarmed at the tremendous increase in Departmental expenditure. The party and the eonntrj demanded to know what was being done to check, this expenditure. Despite all the warnings from tae Government about economy, there was no evidence of economy in tiie Government Departments nt the same time the heavy burden of high taxation h.ad to lie borne by the country. He objected to certain features of the land settlement policy. The people were not being given enough information about the .millions that had been spent on the purchase of estates, and in smte of this huge expenditure the .aggregation of land was proceeding. The coun ry had many laws against aggregation hut had never made any of the taws effective. Mr Forbes proceeded to discuss wheat control, and 'suggested that the farmers who had grown wheat last season had not received fair treatment from Hie Government. The agreement that hnd been made ought to he interpreted by a J««ge. because the farmers were saying that the Government had broken its contract. The Wheat Contract. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon W. Nosworthy) .assured the House that vhe wheatgrowers had been treated fairly. 2 full statement of the facts had been published, and he believed that he and the Government had kept their agremeont to the letter. Ninety per cent of the farmers of Canterbury knew this was the case. A few political agitators han made protests, but they did not represent the real opinion of the farmers The Minister proceeded to eay that he believed the Dominion need rot. import any wheat this year. Tlie Government had made inquiries about Australian wheat at the end of last year and had been told that the price would be between 10s. and lie. per bushel f.0.b., part wheat and part flour, for qualities that had been rejected for the Eastern market. The Government was not prepared to do any business on these terms, and it had not go>l any definite quotation this year. But its information showed that a fair value for Australian wheat would be Bs. per bushel and the price to be paid to the New Zealand farmers 'had been fixed on the same basis. The farmers had not been deprived of a shilling that was due to them. , Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) opposed tho Opposition amendment. Great Imperial issues, as well as highly important local matters, required consideration and the business of members of the Hou=e was to assist the Government and not to create difficulties. The Dominion ought to send the best man available to the Imperial Conference. Mr. Lysnar suggested that part, of the accumulated surpluses of the war years should be used to relieve taxation during the present period of depression. The taxpayers were entitled to some relief. I he Government could liquidate some securities in Britain. The Government should demand the full cost of New Zealand s Kharo of tho war as the Dominions share of tho German war indemnity., Imperial -Issues. Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) said he wished that the same importance as was now attached to Imperial issues had been attached to them all along. Objection had been taken to the representation of New Zealand at the conference by the High Commissioner. These objections he did not consider sound. Iho Imperial Conference was merely an irresponsible gathering between the Prime Ministers of the Empire, and there was nothing to prevent representation bv tho High Commissioner. Originally, the Dominions had actually been represented chiefly by tho Agents-General. There was, therefore, no necessity for the

Prime Minister io go to tho conference. If Sir Janies Allen had been appointed to attend, it would have been a deserved reward fol- his services to this country. The position was merely that Mr. Lloyd George had expressed an earnest desire Prime Minister to attend the conference. What else could Mr. Lloyd George have done? No man would bo more amazed than Mr. Lloyd George if he found that his wishes were to be construed by the Parliament or the people of New Zealand as a command. The speaker had an exalted idea of the value of Mr. Massey to the Dominion, and it seemed to him inadvisable for that, reason that the Prime Minister should leave the country just now. “When the barometer is low, the place for the captain is on the bridge of his own ship,” said Mr. Malcolm. He believed that a solution of the problem of Imperial relations might be found in ths institution of a Parliament responsible to tho various States of an Imperial federation, with an executive responsible to the Parliament.

Mr. Massey: And this would be a subsidiary Parliament.

Mr. Malcolm: No. We would bo a State Parliament-

One of the fallacies into which man? persons discussing the theory of an Imperial Parliament fell, Mr. Malcolm proceeded, was the assertion that the New Zealand members of such a Parliament would always act and vote as New Zea ]nnd members. They would do nothing of tho kind. Tn all probability, out of six representatives from one State, probably two would stand for one thing, two 'for another, and the last two for vet ,another. Mr Massev: Do you flunk that the Empire could be run by party government? , . , „ Mr. Malcolm: 'Wes, certainly. New Zealand’s autonomy would not be threatened by the establishment of an Imperial Parlament, Mr. Malcolm went on to argue New Zejitanders would still be taxed bv their own Parliament. He deprecated predictions that this nation or that nation was in the future likely, to become an enemy of. the British Empire. Such predictions had a tendency to bring their own fulfilment. He remembered how one nation after another had been spoken of in tho past, and how international relations had been enibitleiodl in annseqnence. . • • The British •. ■ ho believed, had been the greatest of agents for the advancement of the whole world and it would be a crime if through Neglect on tho part of the Dominions or the Motherland, it was ever permitted to fall to pieces. (Applause.) A Country View. Mr R Masters 'Stratford) supported Mr. Wilford’s amendment. He believed that the Prime Minister was the right man to go to the Old Country, but. he could not see the necessity for Parliament. He proceeded to speak about the present situation of the soldiers who had gone on to the land. The blame Iho recent hold-up on the wharves, with !t, incidental harm ta the interests o soldier farmers, he laid at the dooi the Labour Party. Mr. P. Fraser Central). Talk sense! . ~ _ Mr Masters repeated his assertion. He hnd recently been a member of a Parliamentary party that went through tho country looking to the interests of the fnrmers-partientarly the soldier farmers There was no Labour member in that party But when it had been a question of seeing how Chinamen were getting on in Samoa, four Labour members had made the journey. Mr. Masters pieeroded to deal with educational matters, with special attention to the needs of the country districts. 'Tire. Dominion ought to have the best possible educational fScilitiee in the country in order to help check the drift of population, to tho towns, and thm aim was not be'Og achieved under present conditions. Ihe country children were not placed on anything like conditions of equality with the town children in regard to secondary education.

A “Cabinet Maker."

Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) said he proposed to vote against the Prime Minister being sent to London as the representative of the Dominion nt the Imperial Conference. New Zeaja.il ought to be represented at the conference, hut the High Commissioner could undertake the task, with a clear understanding that he was not to commit the counttiv to any definite policy until Parliament, had been consulted. The House had been given very little information as to the business that, was to be considered! by the Imperial Conference. Ci’U.in matters had been mentioned in a general way, such as foreign policy and defence, and Parliament certainly ought to be consulted before any representative committed New Zealand "n these points. Mr. Smith proceeded to say that one reason why Mr. Massey should not leave New Zealand was the failure of the Government to build the homes reo ui red by the people. A member: Mr. Massey is not a carpenter. Mr. Smith: He has shown he is not a builder. Air. Massey: I am th© Cabinetmaker New ’ Zealand has " over seen. (Laughter.) Mr. Smith nroceeded to refer to maters of domestic administration, including soldier-settlement. He thought that the persistence of industrial unrest was a strong reason why the Prime Minister should not leava tlhe Dominion. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South), who took the floor at 11.15 p.m., said ho tl-oimht the Prime Minister could servq New’Zealand better at the Imperial Conference than at home. It would not be reasonable to send Mr.; Massey to the conference with his hands tied. He must be left to decide on the facts that would be plac-d before him. But while the House was willing to trust Mr. Maseey on Imperial issues, the Prime 1 Minister was not prepared to trust the House to attend to domestic affairs during his absence. Mr. Mitchell proceeded” to discuss the financial position and the problem of soldier settlement. He had much more criticism than praise to offer for the work done by the Government to settle soldiers on the land, time of unemployment was ahead, and he hoped that the Government had taken steps to provide work for men who were thrown out of their jobs. If it hnd not done so, it might be faced with trouble Mr. !•■ M. Tsitt (Christchurch North) moved the adjournment of the debate. The House rose at 11.50 p.m

IN THE COUNCIL

ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE

VIEWS OF SIR FRANCIS BELL

The Address-in-Reply debate in the Upper House was concluded yesterday afternoon.

Tho Hon. H. L. Michel said that) the Prime Minister alone could represent New Zealand at the Imperial Conference. Perhaps as « result of that conference New Zealand would bo called upon to pay more than she had paid in tho past for the protection afforded her by the British Navy. He believed that the people were prepared to pay more if necessary. During his stay in the Old Country, Mr. Massey might suggest to the Imperial Government the payment of £10,000,009 to New Zealand on account of the war indemnity. The speaker did not think that such an arrangement would be difficult to negotiate.

The Hon. W. H. Triggs indicated some of the questions that had arisen regarding the status of the Dominions

within the Empire. He felt that for the preservation of the Empire some solution of these problems must soon Ixi found. With regard to naval construction, he thought the people of New Zealand must bo prepared to put their hands into their pockets in order to help in maintaining an efficient navy to protect the Empire. The problem of Britain’s relations with Japan was an important one nt the present time. During the war Japan had rendered great service, but since the war things had changed. It occurred to him to ask why Britain should enter into any treaty with Japan—why she should not keep herself free. Certainly Britain should make very sure of her ground before entering into any treaty. He doubted if the man in the street had any idea of the magnitude of the issues involved. He did not wish to under-rate the services of Japan in the war, but in vichv of her attitude towards China he hoped that full consideration would be given to every factor of the situation before Britain entered into a renewal of the alliance.

The Hon. T. Mac Gibbon believed the Prime Minister to be the man best qualified to represent New Zealand abroad. He trusted that there would be no more of iflie captious opposition offered in some quarters to Mr. Massey’s attendance at the conference. He felt the highest admiration for Sir Francis Bell’s action in sacrificing to the interests of the country his owq cherished plans for a visit to Britain.

Tho Leader of the Council, Sir Francis Bell, delivered a fairly lengthy speech, in which he first made reference to tho remarks of the Hon. W. H. Triggs regarding tho relations of tho British Empire with Japan. He dissented very strongly from tho opinions expressed by: Mr. Triggs. He .appealed to councillors who heard irresponsible utterances and read irresponsible literature on the subject to ask themselves whether it was better to deal with a friend than to reject a friendship—whether it was better to claim, as lie understood it had been claimed, that Britain should stand "as a strong man armed, keeping his house,” than to admit that there were peoples and Powers with whom it was well that we should 'be allied. Some of the members might bear in mind that the treaty with Japan was made at a time when that great nation was in doubt with which of the Powers of Europe to ally herself. Some seemed to forget what the people of New Zealand owed to tho sevices of the Japanese by the side of the Empire in the war. His words were not to be taken as advocating emphatically one view as against another, but merely as an expression of his dissent and the dissent of those for whom he spoke, from the sentiments that had been expressed that afternoon. With regard to the visit of the Prime Minister to Britain, a curious argument was employed by a certain political party to the effect that the business of Parliament could quite as well go on when the Prime Minister was out of the country as when he was in it. Such an argument was put forward in the very face of the fact that the greater part of the time of Parliament, was spent in the consideration of business brought down by tho Government, of which the Prime Minister was the head. Another objection was made by a strong body in this country to secrecy and secret diplomacy. Whatever might be the merits of that argument, he know of no Iwdy more secretive or more careful in its diplomacy to prevent a hearing or discussion by others than the body itself which alleged that nothing should bo done without a mandate _or secretly. It was at all events a rebuking of sin by a person who was not generally dissociated from iniquity. What was the use of an Imperial Conference unless it was attended by the persons who had eventually to determine whether they would submit the results of that, conference to their Legislatures? Moreover, to whom was the sort of information necesenrily conveyed at these meetings to be committed if not to'the Prime Ministers? After the last Imperial Conference the heads of the various parts of the Empire had gone back to their Dominions seized of information that had enabled those parts to follow something like a 'uniform plan of action when a real crisis came. There might be times when the presence of the Prime Minister in London was of more importance to the country than his presence in New Zealand. He was the one peson who properly represented the country in the discussion of matters with another country. In the speaker’s view, the confidence that was necessary between the various Prime Ministers and the opportunities of discussion that arose between the heads of the several Governments of the Empire were not sufficiently underwood. Before the motion was put, the mover (Sir AVilliam Hall-Jones) made a brief rC Th’e motion was carried unanimously.

ARMOUR AND CO. AND VESTEY BROS.

MR. LYSNAR’S CHARGES.

Dealing with Armour and Co. in a speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives last the member for Gisborne (Mr. W. D. Lysnai) said that this firm was flouting the decision of Parliament not to grant it an export license. He had information indicating that Armour and Co. were.openly buying in New Zealand and having theta freezing done by certain works. He asked the Government to investigate this matter at once, and to cancel the license of any freezing works found to be assisting Armour and Co. to defea the will of Parliament. , In regard to the firm of Vestey Brothers Mr. Lysnar said that it was absolutely necessary for the Government to take'action. This concern, "'as now running four freezing works in the Dornin ion and had some interest in others. The head of the firm, Sir William Vestev had said in sworn evidence given at Home in connection with the incometax question that his firm -as three times stronger than any one of the fave constituting the big /merican Meat Trust Vestey Bros, had bought ficez ing works in Gisborne, and at the commencement Of the season hadl refused^ to freeze for certain individuals. they had now stopped buying. This course of action was not calculated to inspire wnfidence in tho people of the Dominion tor the cessation of buying was merely an attempt to depress the market further.