NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2454, 15 July 1922, Page 2

NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. “NO USE TO NEW ZEALAND.” 'VMOTION DEFEATED BY SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY. Speaking in the House last evening on the no-confidence motion by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Massey said personally he was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his action, because it gave the House an opportunity of again expressing its entire confidence in the Government. Personally, he was not ashamed to say that he had changed his mind on the question of proportional representation. When he promised to substitute it for the second ballot the Government was honestly of the opinion that it could devise some system by which members could be elected on that basis and preserve the country quota. After a demonstration by an expert, from Home he (Mr Mas>ey) came to the eonglusion that proportional representation was no use to New Zealand. They were soon going to the country, and how would members feel if they had to face an election in five electorates rolled into one. The position was unthinkable, nor would proportional representation avoid minorityGovernments. He quoted New South Wales’ failure to prove his contention. It- had been urged against his Government that it did not possess the confidence of the majority of the people, but in many cases Reformers were at the last election advised,to vote for Liberal candidates, and in the calculating of the Opposition these Reform vot•*s were counted against the Reform Party. Mr Forbes: That counts both ways. Mr Massey: No, it does not. In not a single electorate were Liberil voters advised to vote for Reform candidates. Air Wilford said that in Palmerston North, Manawatu and Otaki Liberal electors had been so advised.

Continuing, Mr Massey said he believed he possessed the confidence of an absolute majority of the people, and he was prepared to go to the country at any time on a clearcut issue.

After a lengthy reply to criticism of Opposition members, during which Mr Massey said he hoped that nothing would be said or done to damage the credit of the country, he said they must strive to get the country back into a sound financial position. When that was done, prosperity restored to the DomSSf ion, he would be able to look back on the position and believe his life’s work had not been altogether in vain. The division on Mr Wilford’s amendment was then taken with the JQ following result: For the amendment 20, against the amendment 37. The following is the division list For the amendment (20): Atmore, Bartram, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Hanan, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, McCombs, Masters, Munro, Parry, Poland, Sidey, Sullivan, Thacker, Veiteh, Wilford. Against the amendment (37): — Anderson, Bitehener, Bollard, J. S. nett, Craigie, J. M. Dickson, J. S. Dickson, Dixon, Guthrie, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton, Harris, Hawken, Herries, Hockley, Hudson, Jones, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, McNieoll, Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nash, A. K. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Potter, Sir R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Stewart, Sykes, Uru, Young. Pail's: —For the amendment: Witty, Savage, Seddon, Mitchell, Holland, McCallum, Statham, R-. W. Smith, Ngata, S. G. Against the amendment: —Glenn, Hunter, Williams, Pomare, Coates, Campbell, Wright, E. Newman, Tau are, and Reed. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr Holland and the House rose at 9.45.