A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2148, 10 July 1920, Page 3

A RIFT IN THE LUTE.

REFORM PARTY DIVIDED ON ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

ANOTHER ‘‘NO CONFIDENCE”

MOTION

■Wellington, duly 8

Following Ihe defeat of Mr MacDonald’s no-conlidence motion in the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr Stadium (Dunedin Central) moved that the following amendment, by way of addition, be made to the Addrcss-in-Reply to his Excellency the Governor-Gener-aTs Speech: “We feel it, however, to be our duty to submit to your Excellency that in the opinion of this House your Excellency’s Government should, if not elected by this House, at least be elected by the members of the dominant party in the House.” He said he had been returned as an Independent, and he found it was not an easy matter to break friendships and associations, formed during I lie eight years he was a member of the Reform Party, hut lie Avishecl it to he understood he had not lost respect and affection for the Premier, his old leader. His attitude towards his old friends on tiie other side of the House was still one of good feeling. He therefore hoped to speak without malice towards all. Coming to the Speech, he said it was so empty of policy that it resembled a sandwich with the meat left out. It was a public declaration by the Government of its own importance. They said they could not do this and they could not do that. Perhaps they could not control the prices of imported goods, but they failed to import the bread and butter lines necessary for the

people. The Premier; “What about sugar? What ahoul hnller?” Mr Stalham, continuing, said perhaps in eonueetion with sugar Hie Government did a eerlain amount ol: good. lie proposed to deal willi butter later, fie complained that Minsters did not give the House a lead. The only Minister who had spoktm in the dehate was the Minister of Lands, consequently the House was considerably kept in the dark. Touching the Board of Trade, he declared the people had no confidence in it,' It should he presided over hy a skilled commercial man. No attempt was being made to control the 'profits made by the big companies, which were resorting to every dodge to avoid the deelaralion oi' the big dividends they were earning. There was no ray oi' hope in the Speeeh tor the man with a large family, while onr pensions scheme was inadequate, and, worse slid, it penalised thrift. There ought io be a better distribution of the neeessaries of life. He was asked how this was to he done:' His reply was those who are well oil must make greater sacrifices for (hose who are not. That was the only way they could build up an equalisation fund. That was fair. The butter equalisation fund was m#st unfair. Drastic reform was necessary in connection with the Legislative Council. “What was needed was a revising chamber consisting of a few persons well qualified lo revise the legislation of the House. This -would obviate to a great extent unsuitable appointments, which, without meiifion-

in o' name*, every one recognised should not have been made. The failure to reeoiieile <‘ii))iliil ami lahouv, and the failure to take sufficient. from the hank*, and the failure to revise the Customs tariff, were also condemned hy the speaker. Alter urging the necessity of loyally to the Crown upon the Labour Party as the host means of saving- the Dominion from invasion by the Asiatic race, the speaker passed on to expose the proceedings of the ■'‘Progressive" -Party, during which h« criticised the consistency of Messrs Parr, Lee and Anderson, avlio had since joined the Reform .Ministry in spile of the obligation they had taken that not one of the “Progressives” would lake office wiilumt the consent of all the others. His own attitude was that they should stand to their pledges to the Retorm Government till Hie dissolution of Parliament, ami at Hie General Election stand as a separate parly of Independents, having the first plank in their platform that the Ministry should be chosen by Hie dominant party. It bad been said that the Independent never got anywhere. But what matter if they did not get on Hie .Ministerial benches, so long as they retained their self-respect. He claimed that members of Hie House should have some voice in the selection of Ministers, and he thought the Premier would welcome a change. He mentioned the following as comprising the members of the “Progressive” Party: Messrs Anderson, Parr, Lee, Sykes, Stewart, Harris, Dickson (J. Heed, Dr. Newman, Wilkinson, Marnier and Young, and concluded by saying that though he was an Independent to-day he did not expect lie could be ploughing a lonely furrow for long, as the day was coining when a Young New /calami Party would arise and eventually turn the present Government off the ’Ministerial benches. He moved ]ds amendment. Mr Massey said, in accordance with precedent, he would accept the amendment as a- want of confidence

motion. Mr J. MeC. Dickson (Chalmers) seconded the amendment, because it involved a principle he had advocated at the election, and which had been endorsed by his constituents. He regretted that the Premier had made It a matter of no confidence, because it would prevent many members of the Keform Party voting for a principle in which he felt sure they fimdy believed. He, however, could not imagine three Ministers voting against what they had so

strongly advocated as private members. It was the first plank in the platform of the “Progressive” Party that Ministers should he selected by the dominant party, and personally he declined to become responsible for any Minister in whose selection he had no voice. Members could elect the Speaker of the House. Why not elect the members of the Cabinet? He asked the Premier to declare that he would not make the matter one of no confidence, by accepting the principle, or by at least giving the House a free hand to express its convictions on the subject. MR. MASSEY IN REPLY. Mr Massey reciprocated the kindly expressions from Mr Stathana, but said that nothing had pained him so much as the speech by the menu her for Dunedin Central. His amendment meant that the Cabinet should he selected by the dominant party. This he contended was nol a matter for the House to deal with, because the House had nothing to do with (he private affairs of any party, hut the amendment meant more. It would probably lead to an Elective Executive. But this was not a proper way to introduce a change like this. I t should be done! by a Bill as it had been done many times before. He had voted for th» Elective Executive, but he had changed his opinion, because he became aware of its weakness. The National Cabinet was a ease in point. He was proud of the fact that the National Government did good work, but its weakness was that there were many important questions on which they did not legislate because they Avere, not agreed upon them. He instanced public qnslions on Avhich he said an elected Cabinet would probably disagree, and the result be disaster. Coming to the Governor’s speech, he defended (lie absence ot policy because be never knew but one occasion on which any Govrmncut put its policy into the Speech. He exhibited a copy of the King’s Speech delivered in the Imperial Parliament In .-.how it was hut a brief document and contained no policy. The Government’s policy would he disclosed in the Budget, and he had no hesitation in saying it avoußl he found thoroughly progressive and democratic in its nature.

In reply to Mr Stalhani, Mr Master oullined , the movements within (he Reform Party which led up to Mr Slatham’s proposal. He declared that when he met his party he expressed his willingness to reconslruct'his Cabinet, but when he was (old the Party should select the new men he put his foot down and refused to agree to it, because he could not do so and retain his selt-re-Hieet. He was willing to accept suggestions from the parly, hut he maintained 1 hat the Premier must retain the final choice in the matter of Cabinet appointments. He gave reasons why he made the recent appointments, contending that the men chosen were good men, and the Cabinet, as at present constituted was a strong Cabinet. There never was a more whole-hearted, enthusiastic set of men in charge of Hie public ' affairs of Hie Dominion. There was a great deal of work still to do, and I hey would do it. He defended the delay in making appointments on the ground that it was necessary to he careful, but the country had not suffered. He. proposed lo appoint another Minister in a few weeks, hut he could not do so till the no eonlidenee motions were out of the way. Coining to the electoral system, on which they had been blamed, he did not care what electoral system they had, so long as it was fair. It. had been said Hie Reform Party got into power on Hu; minority vote, hut he pointed out that the Reform Party did not contest sixteen seals, and they were entitled.to a share in the votes east in these electorates. Proportional representation was suggested, hut it had failed in New South Wales, and he was satisfied it lent itself to intrigue in a way that the Second Ballot never equalled. He hoped no such system would ever he iultodueed iu New Zealand, because Hie electorates would he too large and Hie country quota must go. He then proceeded Vo detail Hie work done bv Ministers to show that Ministers were fully employed, and (ho interests of Hie country had not suffered. A great volume of work was pressing upon Ministers. .I’hal was Hie reason why Parliament could not lie called together earlier. Mr ■Statham said there was no ray of hope iu the Governor's Speech. He thought there was, because the heads of the Departments had Hie courage to speak their minds and offer n note of warning to the people of New Zealand. Tills was one of the finest countries the sim ever shone on, hut .we hud to be careful with it all the same, and careful financial administration was tho first necessity. He defended the appointments to the Legislative Council, which had not. been confined to the Reform Party. Their repatriation scheme was the finest in the world, and an effort had been made to catch the unpatriotic rich man, hv resorting to compulsion in raising loans. The cost of living was the next; subject dealt with, the difficulties in the path of the Government emit rolling prices being reiterated. He foreshadowed legislation dealing with the question this session, which he hoped would effect an improvement without iutlieting injustice. But the real remedies were industry and economy on the part of the Government and the people. A passing word of warning was given to the Labour Party against their Socialistic tendencies, which would fail just as Australia’- experiment failed. The Premier then passed on to a defence of the Valu-

sition Department, which daring the past three years had effected revaluations which added 35 millions to the unimproved values of lands.' Re-valuations were now arranged for, and only twelve comities would remain to be dealt with. That, he thought, was a very creditable record. Next he dealt with land settlement, than which he declared had never been so much in the history of the Dominion. This, he claimed, would help us over the time of financial stress through which wo might yet have to pass. Finally, he asked Mr Stadium to withdraw his amendment and - submit his principle to the House in the shape of a Bill. If he did so he could have the assurance of the head, of the Government that he would have every opportunity of getting it discussed. (Applause).

The debate was continued by lilessrs Rolled, Parr, Mauder, Dr. Newman and Mr Lysnar, avlio discussed the general principles of the elective executive.

Mr -Holland criticised both the Liberal and the Reform Parlies, hut declared the Labour Party would vote for the amendment.

The division was taken, and Mr Slalham’s amendment, was defeated by 41 lo 30. The following is the division list:

For the amendment (30)—Messrs At more, Bart ram, Craigio, Dickson (J. Met'.), Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Hanan, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Kollell, McCombs, MacDonald, .Masters, Mitchell, NoAvman (Dr. A; K), Parry, Poland, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, Smith (S. G.), Stadium, Sullivan, Thacker, Veileh, \\ itfy and Young.

Against the Amendment (41). — Messrs Anderson, Kitchener, Bollard, Burnell, Campbell, Coates, Dickson (J. S.), Field, Glenn, Guthrie, Hamilton (A.), Hamilton (J. R.), Harris, Ha when, ITenare, Herries (Sir William), Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Jones, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, McNlcol, Malcolm, Mauder, Massey, Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Poller, Powdrell, Reed, Rhodes (Sir R. II.), Rhodes (T. W.), Smith (R. W.), Sykes, Unj and Wright.