NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Southland Times, Issue 24875, 15 October 1942, Page 4

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Opposition Leader’s Move (P.A.) WELLINGTON, October 17. Notice of motion of no confidence, moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, was one of the first matters to come before the House of Representatives when the session of Parliament was resumed today. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser, pointed out that it was customary to dispose of such a motion before dealing with other business, and it was agreed that the discussion should take place during the evening sitting. Mr Holland gave notice of his intention to move on the next sitting day that, having regard to the handling of certain questions and the effect on the country’s war effort, the House had no confidence in the Government. Mr Fraser quoted rulings to show that such a motion should be disposed of before the Government could proceed with the business of the House, and said that as the session was to be a short one he would like Mr Holland to agree to the motion being taken during the evening. It would be lamentable if the business of the country should be held up for longer. Mr Holland said he was agreeable to that course. PURPOSE OF RESOLUTION

When the House resumed this evening Mr Holland opened the debate on his no-confidence motion. He said he was conscious of the responsibility resting on any member of the House who moved such a resolution. The purpose of the resolution was to provide members with an opportunity' to discuss the important events which had happened in New Zealand during the last few weeks. Both the House and the country were entitled to information on what had led up to the resignations of four Ministers. The Government was elected by the people to make laws and see them administered. If the Government failed to observe impartiality in administration and failed to administer justice fairly and impartially, then it deserved to lose the confidence of the House and the country. In the Waikato strike situation he had found himself faced with proposals of rank injustice. Because the . Government submitted to a minority it was sowing the seeds of anarchy. In this strike the Government had conceded to the workers more than they had struck for. A court of inquiry had investigated the position and given its award that the strikers were not entitled to what they claimed, but the Government had given them State control. The Government’s proposals meant that 13,000 dairy farmers had been robbed of their mines as two of the mines were owned co-operatively by the dairy farmers of the Waikato. They had lost their mines because the miners broke the law. He knew that the mines were supposed to be handed back after the war, but that was an empty promise because the men would strike again before they would let the owners regain control. Mr Holland said it was entirely wrong that the expenses of control should be paid out of the War Expenses Fund. The mines had paid for themselves and should continue to do so. “I was asked to vote for these things that strike a blow at British justice,” he said. “I was asked to agree to what struck at the Government of the country. Those who asked me to vote for these proposals asked too much; they asked the impossible, and I took the only course that appeared compatible with my self-respect.” Mr Holland said that frankly he had found the wrench of breaking from his responsibilities a severe one, but he would rather walk out of public life for ever than subordinate his principles to the exigencies of the moment. WAR EXPENDITURE Mr Holland said that when he had announced his resignation from the War Administration he had referred to “another matter.” As Minister of War Expenditure he had thought there was need for scrutiny of proposed items of war expenditure, and he had suggested a committee for that purpose. He had also suggested that a committee should look into the efficiency and economy of war work and the Army and the Treasury had approved of that. He had prepared a statement for publication explaining this, but the censor had prohibited publication. The people of New Zealand had a right to know how the money was being spent on the war, and he wanted to raise his voice against the misuse of the censorship. He commended the recent statement on censorship issued by the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association. The people were entitled to know of many recent happenings. He had urged that a Ministry of Information be set up. “The people must be told the truth,” he said. “It is no good treating them like children.” An amendment to Mr Holland’s motion was moved by Mr Fraser, who followed the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment was that the House pledged anew its united and wholehearted support for the Government and the War Cabinet in the conduct of the war effort and expressed its determination as representatives of all the people in the Dominion to prosecute the war effort with a singleness of purpose and undiminished energy until victory for the cause of democracy and freedom was won.

The amendment, said Mr Fraser, would more thoroughly represent the opinion of the House and the wishes of the people. Mr Holland had said that the mine-owners had been robbed of their mines. For the time being they were sharing control instead of having absolute control. That was not being robbed of their mines. The mines were there and would be handed back at the end of the war without any capital loss to the owners. It was wrong, according to Mr Holland to control the mines, but it was not wrong to control young men and send them out to fight and die for New Zealand. Every step had been taken to safeguard the capital and profits of the owners. Mr Holland had said that coal was of secondary importance, but he had been told by the chairman of the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company that if the strike continued it would mean the collapse of the dairy industry within a few days. WAR-TIME FINANCE Mr Fraser said Mr Holland had tackled the financial question earnestly and successfully, and it was no action of Mr Fraser’s that had prevented him from continuing that service. Ordinary methods of finance in war-time were impossible, for after the entry of Japan into the war the country had to undertake a vast programme of building and other requirements. A system had to be adopted that was open to criticism normally, but the War Cabinet took steps to control the expenditure and secure full details of what was proposed. Mr Fraser said he considered the action of those who had resigned showed a lack of appreciation of the issues

at stake. Mr Holland had claimed that certain action was taken by the censor to defend the Government. The War Cabinet had laid it down that statements on war policy must be submitted to the Prime Minister and the censor would not interfere. The censor had always given the Prime Minister an opportunity of looking at ministerial statements. Other members of the \Var Cabinet, not all members of the Government, had considered that Mr Holland’s statement was unfair —not to the Government —but to members of the War Cabinet. MISCONCEPTION ALLEGED Mr Fraser said that Mr Sullivan and another member of the War Cabinet had offered to arrange the statement in a form which would throw no reflection on Mr Holland’s colleagues. Why did Mr Holland have a complaint? Did he wish to stab the Government with which he was co-operating in the back? That was the only ground of complaint he could have. The censor had done what he usually did. Mr Holland had suffered from a misconception of what his duty was, Mr Fraser continued. Why? Because he looked upon himself not as a representative of the people of the Dominion, but as a representative of certain class interests. Mr Fraser said he took full responsibility for the suspension of the miners’ sentences. The Government had acted in a constitutional manner. The men were not criminals; they were citizens who had done something wrong. They had sons serving overseas and were entitled to be treated like ordinary human beings. Their families had to be thought about. The Government did not want to outlaw a section of the community. It wanted to win them back for a bettei 1 effort.

The House rose at 10.30 p.m .and the debate was adjourned until tomorrow afternoon.