“DRUMS OF DOOM”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 399, 6 July 1928, Page 13

“DRUMS OF DOOM ”

LIVELY PASSAGES IN HOUSL WELFARE AND THE BANKS (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, To-day. WHO is the gentleman who calls himself the ‘Vv elfare League’?” asked Mr. IT. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, when his amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion gave him the opportunity, yesterday afternoon, to deliver stringent criticism of the Government’s financial arrangements, and to accuse the Government of compliance with propaganda circulated by the Welfare League on behalf of the Associated Ranks.

SIXCE Mr. Holland implied collusion between the Government and the banks in many financial negotiations, and stated that the Government had lowered the maximum amount for deposits in the State. Savings Bank at the dictation of the private banks, it was inevitable that his observations should often bring him into sharp conflict with the gentlemen on the Ministerial benches. This led to several brisk skirmishes, in which the Hon. W. Nosworthy and the Hon. W. Downie Stewart figured prominently. Altogether, with Mr. Holland in hard-hitting mood, and Mr. Downie Stewart showing his nimble humour at its best in the opening phases of his reply, the afternoon’s proceedings in the Address-in-Reply debate were the most entertaining since the opening of the session. The amendment to the Address-in-Reply, moved by Mr. Holland, and seconded by Mr. E. J. Howard, was as follows: “But we deem it our duty to represent, to your Excellency that your Excellency’s advisers do not possess the confidence; of the people of the country. Among others, are the following reasons: They have failed to provide adequate financial assistance for farmers and home-builders, and they have permitted their policy relating to the Post Office Savings Bank and the State Advances Department to be influenced by privately-owned financial institutions to the detriment of the whole Dominion.” Mr. Holland devoted his speech to criticism of Dominion finances. From the very charges on which his amendment was based Mr. Holland was aggressive. Among other Government failures, he said, were failure to provide adequate assistance for farmers and home-builders, while in the policy of the State Advances Department and the Savings Bank the Government had been influenced by privately owned financial institutions.. These privately-owned financial institutions came often under the Opposition leader’s lash. “The hanks,” he said, “are more concerned with reaping huge profits that with functioning as social utilities.” Concerning Sir George Elliot, Government nominee on the Bank of New Zealand directorate, Mr. Holland also had much to say. “BOGUS ORGANISATION” After mentioning that Mr. Waite, proposer of the motion, had adroitly and often astutely avoided the embarrassing negatives in the Government policy, and voicing the hope that the Government would allow members the fullest opportunity of discussing the Samoa report, Mr. Holland plunged straight into the financial vortex. Of the recent five million pounds loan in London, so successful according to the Government view, he said New Zealand could, had better judgment been exercised, have obtained still better terms. An interval of cross-debate with Mr. Nosworthy was followed by the onslaught on the Welfare League. “There has been deliberate propaganda, especially through that bogus organisation, the Welfare League, which never had an honest existence, and never consisted of more than two or three men, circulated on behalf of the banks. It was a coincidence that Government policy frequently echoed the expressed sentiments of Sir George Elliot. Reform chorus: Great men think alike, Mr. Holland: The Welfare League is the publicity office of the associated banks. What was the Bank of New Zealand’s contribution to the Welfare League? Was it true, he went on, that within a month or two of the 1925 elections, after the Government had been returned with a strong majority, the rate on State Advances had been raised from 4i per cent, to 5s per cent.? Mr. Coates: Oh, should they? Mr. Holland referred to “that most extraordinary economist, Professor Tocker, the ‘white hope’ of the Government,” and also to Mr. Poison, who, he had been informed, was a supporter of the Government. “So much of a

supporter,” he said, when the Reform benches laughed, “that he was sent abroad, and put on the Rural Credits Board.” Mr. Coates: That is not political. Mr. Holland: I notice no Labour member is ever put on it. Mr. Downie Stewart: The best men are wanted. LABOUR PROGRAMME “Mr. Poison,” added Mr. Holland, “doesn’t think my way.” Voices: He doesn’t think the Government way either. Another voice: Pie does not think at all. An extension of time was granted to Mr. Holland on the motion of the Prime Minister, and his trenchant criticism finally terminated after his address had lasted an hour and aquarter. Mr. Downie Stewart, who replied to him, at once devoted a humorous 15 minutes to a review of Labour’s quest for power. Five years ago, he recollected, Mr. Holland had said the drums of doom were beating for the Reform Party, but apparently Mr. Holland was still as far away as ever from the Treasury benches. He had heard many Labour members only able to justify their opposition by saying: “Who can you put in if you don’t put us in?” Some time ago Mr. Holland had been a critic of land agents. Mr. Holland: Not of land agents, of the system. Mr. Stewart: What difference does it make to the poor land agent if, deprived of his livelihood, it is on account of the system or the individual. Nationalisation of industries, he went on, had formerly been the cry of the Labour Party. Mr. Holland: It is still in the programme. Mr. Stewart: It may be still in the programme, but it is kept in the dark. He remembered a Dunedin Labour candidate, opposed to him. who was disciplined because of his inability to abide by the party’s platform. Mr. Holland: He wouldn’t live up to the programme. Mr. Stewart: No, but now the programme is living up to him. Mr. Holland, he went on, claimed to have discovered some deep conspiracy between the Welfare League, the banks, Sir George Elliot, and—possibly—Mr. Poison, to run the finances of the Dominion on unsatisfactory lines. He wished to remind Mr. Holland, however, of the huge deficits which had been a uniform feature under certain Labour administration. As for the Welfare League, not very long ago the Labour member for Wellington Central had used the Welfare League’s criticism in a denunciation of the Government, and as for the banks, well the banks managed their business, and the Government similarly looked after its own. The speakers, when the debate continued in the evening, before benches at times very sparsely populated, were Messrs. W. A. Veitch, the Hon. J. A. Young, E. J. Ploward and J. Mason. Except for intervals, in which Mr. Veitch exchanged thrusts with the Prime Minister and Mr. Howard indulged in whimsical fancy at the expense of Reform, the proceedings tended to be dreary. Mr. Veitch likened Mr. Coates to a sea captain who had his hand on the wheel, only occasionally as a matter of form. A Voice: Your party is all captains. Further heckled, Mr. Veitch referred to Mr. Coates as a former Liberal who had become a cuckoo which had pushed others out of the nest. Mr. Young dealt solidly and conscientiously with figures, after which Mr. Howard’s sallies enlivened the debate. Touching on Samoa, Mr. Ploward predicted the “Road of Loving Heart” would be built again for the Hon. O. F. Nelson as it had been for R. L. Stevenson. Mr. Mason reproved Mr. Holland for what he termed “misrepresentation” in his (Mr. Mason’s) electorate. The debate adjourned at 11.30 p.m. until to-morrow. The next speaker will be the Plon. D. Buddo.