PARLIAMENT

Grey River Argus, 18 September 1937, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION Opposition Leader’s Speech [Per Press Association]. WELLINGTON, September 17. In the House, Hon. A. Hamilton, Leader of the Opposition, moved the following amendment to the Address-in-Reply: "We deem it our duty to represent to your Excellency that your Excellency’s advisers do not possess the confidence of this House because: (1) The Government’s persistent encroachment on the rights- of private ownership, and its bureaucratic methods of control in industry have created a serious lack of confidence in the development of New Zealand industrial enterprise, thus jeopardising sound progres within the Dominion.

(2) The .Government has failed to honour its election pledge to absorb all able-bodied workers into employment; on the contrary, its policy, which has resulted in higher internal costs, has seriously retarded the proces of absorbing the unemployed into industry. (3) The Government has failed to honour its promis* that, under a system of guaranteed produce prices the dairy farmer would enjoy a greatly improved standard of living, comparable at least with that enjoyed by those engaged in other branches of industry. (4) The Government has failed in its promise $-> reduce the cost of living which, as a result of the present administration, shows a substantial increase.

(5) The Government’s frequent use of the national broadcasting service for propaganda purposes, and its refusal to allow the expression of opposing views, along with the Prime Minister’s threat to restrict the freedom of the press, constitutes a grave public injustice, and an unwarranted violation of democratic rights. (6) The over-riding of the Court of Arbitration by the Minister for Labour, on the occasion of the Auckland freezing workers’ illegal strike, constitutes a grave undermining of our judicial system, and Ministerial strictures on the decisions of Justices is a further attack on what is fundamental to the traditional administration of British justice. 1 (7) As a result of the increase in internal costs, many New Zealand manufacturers have found it impossible to compete with imported goods, which fact must inevitably result in a decrease in factory employment, and a corresponding increase in unemployment. (8) The Government has failed to honour its clear cut election promise to remove the sales tax, and to prevent an increase of taxation.” Mr. Hamilton charged the Government with interference with the rights of private individuals in business, failure to keep election promises, with violating democratic rights through the use of broadcasting for propaganda, and with actions which, he alleged, were undermining the judicial system. He said the mover of the Address “claimed that the Government has faced a problem of great magnitude; but I think I am right in claiming that no government ever took office under more fortunate circumstances. The slump and four years of world-wide depression had passed, the Budget was balanced, every department of State was in credit, and there has been no trouble with regard to money ever since.”

If the Government had had to tackle a period of depression, Mr. Hamilton said, there would have been a different story. Other parts of the world had experienced the efforts of Labour governments in attempting to handle depression conditions, and in Great Britain and Australia Labour governments had been rejected.

“The member for Thames talked about misery and chaos, and made it appear that the country was on the verge of ruin,” said Mr. Hamilton. “It is about time we got away from thal croaking idea, and gave at least some credit to the people who built up conditions in New Zealand to what they are to-day. Some Government mem ; bers have been decrying the country—a country which has been mighty good to most of us, and which for 50 years has been one of the finest coun' tries in the world. I see the Minister for Finance nods his head. He has been round the world, and he knows.”

Mr. Thorn, in giving comparative figures regarding the economic state of the country, had compared presentday conditions with those of the depression years. That was not a fail comparison. Mention had been made tnat exports last year had reached the record figure of £6.4,000,000, but apparently the Government was claiming credit for that, and giving none to the producer. In the depression years the value of exports had averaged £37,000,000, and that gave a measure of the Government’s good fortune.

“That’s where the money comes from in New Zealand,” Mr. Hamilton added. “It comes from our exports, and the member for Thames did not give the producers a word of credit for the state which the country is in to-day.

“The greatest achievement of the Government is its broken promises. It certainly does not make the mistake of being modest. It is claiming credit for everything good that happens, and it is blaming the previous Government for everything that is wrong.’

Mr. Hamilton said that for the last 30 to 40 years, no country in the world had’had a higher standard of living than New Zealand. Those conditions had been built up under a system of private enterprise and endeavour. There might be some evils in our society that needed curing, but that did not justify the Government over-throwing the present order. The Government was diving into businesses that it was not wise for it to 'enter. The Minister for Transport, the Hon. R. Semple, apparently wished to take over all transport services. It appeared as if there were to be single-ownership of transport. It was desirable to get the best out of the modern science of transport for tne benefit of the community, but the method the Minister was adopting was very debatable. Privately-owned and nroperly-regulated transport was better foi' the country than State ownership of all services.

“The Prime Minister promised to reduce taxation, and no doubt earned a lot of votes that way,” Mr. Hamilton said. “He said that further taxation was out of the question, and that borrowing meant debt in perpetuity. Yet taxation receipts for the year ended last June were the highest ever re-

corded in New Zealand, being nearly! £5,700,000 greater than those for the previous year, which had ween a record. That is the way the Government has brought down taxation."

After the election the Prime Minister had said it was the Government’s duty to get rid of the sales tax at me earliest possible moment. Yet last, year he had collected £582,000 more 1 from that source than in the previous year. That was the way he had got rid of the sales tax. Mr. Hamilton also criticised what he described as the Government’s failure to keep down the cost of living. “The Minister for Industries and Commerce (the Rt. Hon. D. G. siullivan), promised to keep the cost of living down,” Mr. Hamilton said, “and with tnat object in view he introduced the Prevention of Profiteering Act last year. I wonder how it is getting on? Lie was going to fix all prices and impose a penalty on anyone who exceeded them.” Mr. Sullivan: The act permitted traders to increase their prices up to a point equal to increased costs. “The act does not say that,” Mr. Hamilton replied. “A man must appeal and receive a permit, before he can put prices up.” I Mr. Sullivan: That is quite wrong.

That had been the Minister’s effort to keep costs down, Mr. Hamilton said, but. he did not think he had been successful. The Minister might just as well have tried to keep the tide back. Manufacturers, who were an important section of the community, complained that they nad not received fair treatment from the Government, Mr. Hamilton said. He knew of one factory in Christchurch where in 1936 there were 44 employees, working considerable overtime on a 44-hour week. Now that they were on a 40-houi’ week, there were only 24 employees, who were not working full time, and their average income was less than formerly. The company was still selling the same amount of goods, but they were imported and not locally 7 manufactured goods. To a question, Mr. Hamilton said he thought the concern was a glove factory.

The Government had promised, Mr. Hamilton said, that the dairy farmer would be placed on an equal standard with the rest of the community. He wondered if it thought it had done that.

Compared with 1913, Mr. Hamilton said wages had gone up by 74 per cent. The cost of living had risen by 57 per cent. Sheep farmers’ receipts had increased by 58 per cent., the returns of dairy farmers for the last year, the first year of guaranteed price, were up by 7 per cent. That was why farmers were advocating a compensated price, because if everything was going up, the dairy farmer did not want to be left behind. The contention that the housing activities of the Government had been responsible for stagnation in the building industry was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition. The i Government talked about what the Government was doing in the building of houses, but they neglected to say what other people were not doing. The Minister for Labour said that houses would be built by the Government for £6OO to £7OO, and that they would be let from 12s 6d to 16s 6d a week. Everyone knew that the houses had not been constructed for that figure, and that the rentals would probably be double the sum mentioned by the Minister. During the last 12 months 3325 houses had been luiilt, this number being just a little more than half the number built in the preslump years. The Government had put everyone else out of the business. In 1926-27 a total of 7179 houses was built.

Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara): Who was in office then? Mr. Hamilton: It was a Reform Government.

“I think the housing scheme will be a bit of a mess for someone else to clean up,” concluded Mr. Hamilton. “The first thing the Government did

’I was to push up building costs by 25 > per cent. It does not seem to realise the number of small builders it has pushed out of business.” HON. MR. FRASER IN REPLY. ' Hon. P. Fraser said that the only ’ taxation reductions the last Govern j ment had been able to achieve was ’ by lowering the taxes on beei’ and the totalisator. In his references to the ' taxation policy of the Labour Party, Mr. Hamilton had shown “sheer au- ; dacity and recklessness." “The Lead- ' er of the Opposition has not been as careful, well-guarded, and responsible 5 in his statements as we have been ac- ' customed to,” said Mr. Fraser. “In- ' stead of his more responsible position ’ bringing him an increased sense ot responsibility, his statements indicate ! that he considers that the more au- ; dacious and risky he is, ana the fewer ‘ facts he has for the foundation ol 1 his arguments, then the more successful a leader he will be. The honourable gentleman’s references to taxa- ' lion show this. He talks of the sales tax and this Government not takj ing it off. But the sales tax was imJ posed by his Government, and the . reason the collections from it have gone up is that the people are in a j better position to buy the commodities '! on which the tax is levied. The sum J total of the last Government's fiscal achievements was to reduce the lax- ’ ation on beer and the totalisator. Voice: What about the graduated land tax being lifted to assist uhe banks?

“Oh, yes. They did that loo,” replied Mr. Fraser, “but I am talking about the taxation policy of that Government as it affected general commodities. Its greatest achievement was to reduce the taxation on beer and, of course, I have no doubt that such a step was a great benefit to the community 7 generally. “Then we are accused of using the broadcasting facilities for propaganda, but to-night the fact that probably tens of thousands of people who are listening-in, and who hear the Leader of the Opposition, can do so without let or hindrance is a most conclusive refutation of that charge. Now, what opportunity 7 did the last Government give Labour, when it was in opposition, to get its side of the question over the air. Policy 7 statement after policy statement was made by the last Government without the Labour Party being given a chance to state its case. That the people of the Dominion can put themselves into the galleries of the House, as it were, at will, and listen to the debates, even though they might be living in the remotest parts of the country, is the fairest refutation of the charge.” Mr. Hamilton: I did not make that complaint. Mr. Fraser: The honourable gentleman does not know himself what is in his own amendment. Here is the Government, for the first time since broadcasting has been on this national basis, giving equal opportunity to its political opponents and at the same time being under a pledge that on a controversial matter of any sort the other side will get its equal opportunity. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: Only in Parliament.

"No. Not only in Parliament,” Mr. Fraser retorted. The right honourable gentleman himself repeatedly mads statements over the air when his Government was in force, and gave the other side no opportunity to reply.” Mr. Fraser claimed that Mr. Hamilton had also been reckless in his statement about a languishing industry—the glove industry. Actually the treaty arranged with Belgium by the last Government had dealt that industry a death blow. Perhaps the agreement had been made in good faith, hut that was the general effect. Yet the Leader of the Opposition had quoted this case, of an industry suffering from some act perpetrated by his own Government, and tried to blame it on to the Labour Government.

“There is not a point which the Opposition could rake up from the dim-

mest obscurity and to which we will not reply,” said Mr. Fraser to Mr. Coates, who interjected about the position of manufacturers in the Dominion.

An election pledge made in 1911 to institute a national health insurance scheme was recalled by Mr. Fraser, when replying to the charge made by Mr. Hamilton that the Government had not kept ns election pledges. The allegation was another example of the Opposition’s audacity. The Leader of the Opposition would have had it. believed that his Government was in the habit of springing to it immediately, and putting its own pledges into immediate effect; but in 1911 the Reform Party, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member— Mr. Hamilton: I was not here then. Mr. Fraser: Well, it would not be very much wrong if the honourable gentleman was not here now; but in any case, in 1911 the party to which he belongs promised this national health scheme. “That was before the war,” interjected Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Fraser: Yes, certainly, it was before the war. Almost back to Adam in fact. “Anyway, the party to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, promised to investigate that scheme, but 2t> years have come and gone and that pledge has not been fulfilled. The Opposition was asking for reduced taxation, Mr. Fraser continued. Probably its members would advocate reduced pensions to attain that goal. As for the record of the previous Government, Mr. Forbes had said he would do the same things again under the same conditions, but apparently Mr. Coates had had a change- of heart. The latter had told a meeting of young Nationalists in Auckland that “some of the less popular methods taken during the depression could have been avoided.”

Discussing Labour’s election pledges Mr. Fraser said wages and salary cuts had been restored, national control of credit had been achieved, and the guaranteed price scheme had been put into operation, hours of labour had been reduced, ajid health and education services had been extended. Al! that had been accomplished in the first session, which was an unprecedented fulfilment of promises in the New Zealand Parliament. Savings bank deposits, which were one of the best tests of prosperity, had increased from £24,100,000 in 1935 to £30,600,000 in 1937.

It appeared, said Mr. Fraser, that members of the Opposition could not oppose a single piece of legislation which the Government had placed on the Statute Book. Wage-slashers and reducers of pensions had become converted on the Opposition benches, even if they did not approve of the guaranteed price scheme. The Government. had the commendation of Mr. W. Goodfellow and of London authorities, and the gratitude of dairy farmers throughout the Dominion. AH over the country the people had a sense of security. He had recently visited Mr. Coates’s electorate, and at a meeting, which was not political, a man had risen and had said the district was certainly not opposed to the guaranteed price. Mr. Fraser referred to housing and unemployment, aifd said the Government would not rest until everybody in the country was properly housed, and until every able-bodied man was in work. "The Opposition has launched a challenge to the Government,” Mr. Fraser concluded. “It. knows it cannot succeed in this House. It is endeavouring to impress the country The country was impressed at the last election, and it will be similarly impressed at the next.”