ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3818, 14 July 1928, Page 1

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

MORE SPEECHES. Wellington, July 12. The debate on the Address-in-Reply occupied most of the afternoon and the whole of the evening in the House of Representatives wfhen many subjects were again discussed. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. ,J. A. Nash (Palmerston) shortly after midnight.

The first speaker this afternoon was Mr A. Harris (Waitemata), who said that lie found difficulty in following the argument of Mr Savage who claimed that there was no difference between a dead weight ami a live weight debt. There undoubtedly was a difference. The war debt clearly was a dead weight debt, but loans for advances to settlers, which were profitably invested, must bo classed as a live weight debt, and it mattered a great deal which was paid off. He therefore agreed with the Minister of Finance that a reduction of the dead weight debt was indeed a reduction of the public debt. He congratulated the Government and the Dominion upon the fuel that the country once more had a satisfactory trade balance. He also approved of the policy of the Government in restricting Savings Bank deposits, ns it was not wise that largo sums of rich investors should be lying idle in what should he regarded as » “people’s bank.”

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SUPPORTED.

He strenuously objected to State competition with private enterprise. To fully employ private capital it should have the greatest freedom of action and should not be hampered by competition by either State or municipal enterprises. As a case in point the State. Fire Insurance Department paid no income tax on its while private offices had to do so. If the State was going into insurance then it should compete on 'absolutely even terms with others in the same business. But in exempting the State Office from payment of Income lax no saving was effected in cases of reinsurance because on these transactions th,: British Treasury collected income tax which the Now Zealand insurer hail to pay. It would be better to collect this tax in New Zealand, as then no tax would be collected in Britain. Ho approved of the principle of insurance of third party risk as mentioned in the Governor’s speech, but ho hoped he was wrong in supposing that the Govern ment proposed to keep this branch of insurance as a State monopoly. If third party risks were enforced lie considered that all insurance offices should have a share of this class of busincre.

lie did not object to hydro-electric power boards selling electric appliances to increase their business, but if they did so then the sales of these appliances should be made on the same term's as those at which privat firms could sell, and thentrading accounts should be. kept in such a way that trading profits and losses could be seen. In the same way municipal gas works paid no rates and other charges which private companies had to pay. Government sawmills were unfairly competing with private mills and losses were buried up in railway accounts. He considered that no proper commercial accounts wore kept as they should be. Sawmillers alleged that State timber was being produced at a great, cost and sold at a heavy loss. If this were so. then il \vas no wonder that the timber trade was in a parlous position. lie condemned the “cash on delivery system" carried on by the Post. Office which was encouraging trade with British merchants at* the expense ol local retailers who had rates and taxes to pay. Outside retailers who sent goods out through the Post Office had no such liability to pay. This business in four years had increased from 3500 parcels valued at £12,000 (o 27,379 valued at £97,324, with practically no gain to the Government. Such business created a harmful impression among our people that better value coulci be obtained outside and consequently money was not retained' for development in New Zealand.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. Dealing with unemployment, Mr Harris said that no one yot had been able to discover tho root cause of unemployment. Yet tho problem was here and we had to face it because it was going to bo permanent. A remedy, however, was of greater importance than tho cause and he suggested a compulsory unemployment insurance fund to which the State should contribute its share. The employer also should contribute because tho economic waste of unemployment must react on the private employer while such contribution would engender a better spirit between employer and employod. The cmployco would, of course, also contribute because ho would be the chief beneficiary after a specific contribution had been made. ’lliat, he thought, was tho scientific remedy and tho ono he advocated after a closo study of the subject. He was satisfied that the scheme would not cost the State any more than half the amour’, spent last year on unemployment relief. HYDRO-ELECTRIC WORKS. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Eden) discussed the cost, of hydrlo-oloetric works, wanting to show why the cost was so great. If the Government had made a mistake why not acknowledge it ? They had not acknowledged it. hut had wasted 18 months of time and to save their face had inflicted untold hardship on the province of Auckland. He chided the Government with its fetish for ‘Vi-Offies-." They had gone from a general mating r of railways to the Railway Board and l ack from tho hoard to the general manager. Police uniforms were changed from silver buttons to bronze buttons, and now wo were back again to silver buttons. Such was the circumlocutory “progress” of the Government, which after great expenditure of time and money brought us back to exactly the samo point as that from which we started. GOVERNMENT .CONGRATULATED Mr J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) thought it a good sign that tho people of Now Zealand were importing less as it indicated that they were becoming more self-reliant. During the period of tho slump and deflation no industry suffered so much as the farming industry. Rural values had fallen heavily and heavy losses had been made. Values in towns had been to some extent bolstered up. This had a serious effect on the farming industry bceauso high values in the towns piled up the working costs of farmers. He was therefore pleased to see that there was a tendency of town values to como into lino with rural values. Ho congratulated the Government on their programme of recent legislation which eased the position of farmers. Cheap money was now more plentiful. Cheap fertilisers wore also wanted. Tho Labour Party professed sympathy for tlie farmer, but it was not practical. Labout troubles in the freezing works did more harm to the farmers than political professions did good. Still, with all their difficulties, ho was pleased to say that tho position of the farniors was much moro satisfactory than it was a year ago. NATIONALIST PARTY. Mi’ G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said_ that Ministers were prono to jibe the Nationalist Party by asking the question, Who is tho leader of tno party ?” Ho (Mr

Forbes) was the elected leader of the Nationalist Party and it was common courtesy that his leadership should be acknowledged. That was a parliamentary rule. Much had been said about the Reform Party’s loyalty to the Prime Minister, but the divisions on tho Licensing Bill showed how shallow that loyalty was and the Prime Minister must fool in that connection that

lie had not been treated as he would like to have boon. Ho (tho speaker) demanded tho fulfilment of the Reform promise for a better electoral system. It. had been said thorn was no room in New Zealand for a third party. If so, tho responsibility was on the shoulders of a Government which had failed to pass legislation which would prevent vote-splitting. But tho people were determined to get rid of the present Government and they were so unanimous on this point that vote-splitting, or otherwise, they would make the change which would have to bo made before electoral reform could bo brought about. Ho deprecated the policy of the Government, in running road transport in conjunction with tho railways. Tlieso woro two notirely distinct services and the Government should not have interfered with private enterprise which was more capable of running road transport than tho Government was.

MONEY ON RURAL SECURITY. Continuing his speech in the evening, Mr Forbes expressed the hope that the Government would do its best to encourage lenders to advance money on rural security so that conditions would bo made easy for them and so that they would not be penalised when they did so. Dealing-with the Te Wera estate, he deprecated the proposal of the Minister of Lands to set up a committee to inquire into the Minister’s connection with (he purchase. That was beside the question. No one imputed any impropriety to the Minister. Everyone knew that the Minister acted on the advice of his experts. But if those experts had given unsound advice they should he deprived of tho opportunity to tender such mistaken advice again, lie defended the Liberal Government against the charge of “criminal neglect” in not making roads through, and to much of tliei land settled by them. The fact was that the Opposition of that day made the Government’s position as difficult as possible, hampering their finance by unfair criticism. Even if the old Li Leva) Party had blundered, that blundering was small compared with that of the Reform Government, in conned ion with soldier settlement. lie urged increased settlement, and quoted from the Year Book to show that laind occupiers were on the decrease rather than on the increase. The Government had made increased settlc-mnt- a plank in thir election platform. They even threatened to use compulsory purchase clauses if voluntary methods failed, but nothing had been done. Though tho Land Purchase Board •said there wore many estates which were attractive from a cutting up point of view, the Land Purchase Board was at a standstill, but unless there was more settlement tho production of the country could not he increased as it must bo. It was time the Reform Party overhauled their election pledges and looked to see if they could not manage to line up to them. lie did not doubt that there were difficulties in the way, but he was satisfied, that the people of New Zealand would not rest until they had an advance movement in the direction of increased settlement

LABOURITES CRITICISED. Mr D. Jones (Ellorsmere) devoted considerable portion of his speech to discussing the affairs of the Nationalist and United Parlies, which he said were generally understood to be without a head, but ;now they appeared to be without a tail. Coming to the Opposition amendment, ho said that the charge against tho Government was that they liacF not found sufficient, money for farmers and homebuilders. Yet Mr Holland had been telling people all over the Dominion that people were suffer, ing from mortgage hold. In their amendment they were advocating farther mortgagehold because more loans meant more mortgages, and moro stranglehold. Since the Government had come into power they had lent settlers and others over £43,000,000. Could it then be said that nothing had been done? Because no other party had anything like such a record the first charge against the Government, therefore, fell to the ground. He denied that the Government’s policy was in any way influenced by financial institutions. That was not fair criticism, having no foundation in fact. The speaker contended that the loan operations of the Government on the London market had been skilfully handled, with the result that New Zealand’s credit stood high in the estimation of the British investor. The Opposition had been extremely rash and inaccurate in their quotation of figures -in the hope of deluding the people, but it was comforting to know’ that when the Opposition had to resort to such methods then there could not be much wrong with the Government. If the amendment represented the heaviest indictment against the Government after 16 years of office, it was the greatest compliment that could be paid to the Reform administration. MORE CRITICISM. Mr 11. T. Armstrong said that Mr Forbes might describe himself as leader of the Nationalist Party, but as a matter of fact there was no vote on which the Prime Minister could more safely rely than that of the Leader of the Nationalist Party. The only occasion on which he did not vote with the Government w’as when lie scuttled out of the House and took his party with him. The Government took credit to themselves because the banking institutions were in a flourishing condition. That was true, and it was equally true that other people were not flourishing. The workers were’ having as hard a time as at any timo in the last 30 years. Was this right in a country which was producing wealth as great as any country in the world ? Surely under these circumstances their living conditions should show some tangible improvement. Tho Government’s example of low wages on relief works was being copied by private employers, reducing the standard of living of the people, for which there was no possible justification in view of the increased wealth per head of population. If fanners who were producing this wealth had derived no benefit from it, where had it gone To benefit the banks, of course. Workers were not getting benefit from improved machinery which was a clear indication that the socialisation of these improvements were necessary. Criticising the immigration policy of the Government, he went o.n to refer to the large number of farmers, who had left the land. Many farmers’ sons had left New Zealand to take up land in Australia. Under the Labour Governments in Australia it was possible to take up laind on a deposit of £l. Tho no-confidence motion before the House was perfectly justified, and if every member voted according to his belief it would be carried. Mr D. S. Reid (Waikato) advocated cheaper fertilisers for farmers and an extension of the life of Parliament to five years. Dealing with farmers’ problems, he maintained that there was a great deal of subdivision going on, and many new settlers were being established. With another season such as they just had lie was confident the farmers of tho Dominical would have passed through most of their troubles. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr F. N. Bartram, and at 11.15 the House rose till 2.30 to-morrow afternoon.-

Wellington, July 1% The fii'st speaker in the afternoon was Mr F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn), who said that he did not find fault with the Minister of Lands for not settling the land if it was correct, as ho said, that he had no lands to settle. If there was no land to settle then why did the Government broadcast iri ’Britain a pamphlet proclaiming that there "was land for everyone. Hon. W." NosworthyThat pamphlet was not being circulated. Continuing, Mr Bartram said if that was so then ho must protest against the waste of public money "in printing pamphlets which wero not being circulated. Mr Nosworthy: It is being used for political. purposes. . , Mr Bartram replied that it had been printed for political purposes. Coming to tho housing problem, ho marvelled at the temerity of the Minister of Finance when he said that thero was less need to find money for housing since the housing shortage had been caught up. This he denied was the case in Auckland whore rooms were being changed into so-called flats, which were utterly destructive of tho social life of tho community. There was no blinking the fact that the building of houses was not proceeding.at the same rate as the demand. . Tho housing problem had not been solved, and thero was no justification for the Government slackening its efforts in this direction.

TOBACCO GROWING. Mr R. P. Hudson (Motueka) advocated tho appointment of an organiser to discover avenues of employment for children leaving school. There was need for further land settlement, and ho particularly stressed the importance of tobacco growing in his own district. Considerable success had been achieved in this direction and he suggested that similar success might easily bo achieved elsewhere. The value of this export last, year from Motueka alone was estimated at £50,000. Thero was, however, doubt in (he mind of growers whether this output could bo absorbed, and in order to encourage cultivation he urged the Government to increase the subsidy. If it did so to an extent of ten times the present amount, he was confident it would not lose tho money. LABOUR POLICY. Mr J. A. Loo (Auckland East) said that a feature of the debato had been tho persistent apology on behalf of the Reform Party. It was a deathbed policy because there was not the slightest doubt that Reform was in- its expiring stage. Another feature of tho debato were tho charges against tho Labour Party that, it had changed its policy frojn carmine to pink. There might be modifications in details, but on fundamental principles Labour had made no change. All that, had happened was that with greater publicity the people were beginning to understand the Labour Party’s policy better and as they understood it more clearly it seemed to them less carmine in colour. Reform, however, had made definite changes in its policy. Going, back to 1911 when their first programme was announced, ho extended that thero were numerous specific instances of a chango of heart on tho part of Reform which loft them no room to criticso other parties on tho ground of chango. The speaker then proceeded to re-state tho Opposition's condemnation of tho Government’s financial policy in connection with tho Post Office Savings Bank, rural credits, and the Bank of Now Zealand which, he said, insetad of making advances to settlers, was lending money to build picture shows in tho cities. So far as the Government was concerned they had money for Singapore, but none for settlement. If they did buy land they bought at To Wera or some similar impossible estate. Tho Minister of Lands had said that tho Labour Party was seeking to bribe the electors by providing increased pensions fc-r tho aged. If that was bribery, then he and tho Labour Party would plead guilty. But what about Reform? They had paid to tho wealthy landowners five millions moro than tho value of tho land for soldier settlers. Was that not bribery ? When tho issue was submitted to the electors they would have no difficulty in finding for the Labour Party. GOVERNMENT DEFENDED. When the House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Mr V. H. Potter (Roskill) was defending tho Government against tho accusations of tho Labour Party. When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr Potter, continuing his speech, quoted an analysis of tho national debt showing the largo proportion which is interest bearing, and asked the official Opposition if it could successfully challenge any item. Ho wondered where was the financial stringency which tho Labour Party talked about, when £1,860,480 was put through the totalisator in the Auckland district in a year. Sixty-three thousand pounds was paid annually in amusement tax, and tho Dominion’s annual drink bill was £9,000,000. Ho charged tho waterside workers with holding stop-work meetings when perishable fruit arrived in Auckland, with the result that producers made a_ loss, retailers made a loss, and the public suffered a big increase in the price of fruit caused by such wastage from delay in getting tho fruit on to the market. He reminded Labour they could not do without capital. Russia had tried it, and failed dismally. The speaker then proceeded to outline tho Government measures which became law and from whic hho claimed- tho workers had benefited. Ho had every, confidence that tho people of Now Zealand would realise that the'- Reform Government had been through a severe crisis, but notwithstanding this they had done more for the workers than any Government in any part of tho world. “WHO ARE THE SOCIALISTS?” Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said that while Labour was becoming more pink the Government was becoming more red; so much so that it was hard to distinguish one set of Socialists, from the other, and as) a result the Government was becoming thoroughly mistrusted by businessmen. This raised the ■ question of “Who are the Socialists?” . He referred to tho recent conference of Chambers of Commerce and other business interests made up of a class of men who vote for the Government and who found the money with which the country was deluged at the last election in the interests of Reform. To these men tho Government gavo a promise that 'they were against Socialism. But they had so far departed from this promise that big business was becoming alarmed because big business had relied on the assurance. Tho Government preferred individual effort to Socialistic practice. That the Government was trending toward Socialism and interfering with private enterprise was disclosed by the speeches of its own supporters, some of which ho quoted at length, and it was on these references that he based his statement that the Government was becoming , red. One would think that they had been to Moscow or Sydney, ancl had been dipped. Hon. W. Nosworthy : We have got the red dye. Mr Atmore: And at the next election you will die red. Mr Adam Hamilton (Wallace) said that the criticism of tho Government disclosed by tjie debate hod not been very effective. It had been weak and washy and not such as warranted a no-confidence motion. SETTLERS ASSISTED. Mr 11. G. Dickie (Patea) commended the Government for the steps they had taken to assist settlers living on deteriorated lands, much of -which was in his district, and of which ho had personal knowledge. The concessions made were greatly appreciated ancl would in time repay the Dominion. He had formed a very poor opinion of the recent industrial conference. Tho country should he run by more practical men than professors of political economy, ancl both the Meat Board and tho Dairy Board should consist of fewer members, as at present the boards were costing too much. Less money should be spent on our territorial system and more on aviation, which must play a part of greater importance in the next war. He had every confidence in tho Reform Party and Reform Government.

Mr G. R. Sykes (Masterton) said that’ the Labour Party had criticised tho Government for not spending more money on settlement and on homes for the people. In Queensland where tho Labour Government had been in office many years much less had been done in this respect than in New Zealand under tho Reform regime. Mr C. E. McMillan (Tauranga) advocated cheap fertilsers for use for farmers and detailed his personal efforts to secure concessions from manufactures, which had resulted in a reduction of 6s 6d per ton. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Mr J, A. Nash (Palmerston North) and at 12.30 the House rose till 2.30 p.m.