DEBATE DRAGS ON

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 404, 12 July 1928, Page 16

DEBATE DRAGS ON

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY MOTION MORE CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, To-day. Aucklanders had the privilege of reopening the Address-in-Reply debate yesterday, when the for and against speakers in the early part of the afternoon were Messrs. A. Harris (Waitemata) and H. G. R. Mason (Eden). Concerning Mr. Savage’s speech of the previous evening, Mr. Harris said that he differed from Mr. Savage in the view that only the war debt, among New Zealand’s liabilities, could be termed a dead-weight debt. The others, he contended, represented expenditure estimated to yield tangible return. The concluding part of his address Mr. Harris devoted to a plan for the mitigation of the unemployment evil, which, he said, had become permanent. He advocated a form of insurance scheme to which employers, the State, and employees should all contribute. Mr. H. G. R. Mason, after saying he was surprised at the tone of the speech given by Mr. Harris, challenged the contention that unemployment was now a permanent evil, and said it would only be permanent while the present Government was in power, a statement that naturally, was not allowed to pass without much demur from the opposite benches. “ABSOLUTE BUNKUM” A general plea for better postal and educational facilities for people in the backblocks was advanced by Mr. J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo), who mentioned, incidentally, his belief that Labour ideas upon land settlement seemed to be “absolute bunkum.” Following Mr. Rolleston came Mr. G. W. Forbes, who devoted a great part of his speech to the need for electional reform. Hard hitting was the order when Mr. D. Jones, following Mr. Forbes, began an onslaught on the Opposition and Nationalist benches. The latter he described as members of a disunited party without a proven leader. Mr. Veitch, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Atmore in turn came under the lash. Mr. Jones quoted Hansard to show that Mr. Atmore had broken an expressed promise when he joined Labour in the division on the recent no-confidence amendment to the Imprest Supply Bill. Turning to the official Opposition, Mr. Jones said that in a court of law the amendment introduced by Mr. H. E. Holland would be dismissed as frivolous. No evidence had been produced in support of it. In two years Reform would have been in office for a-quarter of the lifetime of the New Zealand General Assembly. In that period it had achieved a creditable allround record. Mr. Holland’s reference, at Hastings, to big holdings, said Mr. Jones, was a misrepresentation of the true position. Many big holdings covered barren alpine country. Mr. Nosworthy: He’s lost when he gets about the snowline. ENTITLED TO FAIR-PLAY Mr. Davy, the United Party’s organiser, in spite of his confident promises, had not succeeded in drawing one Reformer to his colours, continued Mr. Jones, who concluded: “If this Government is put out on facts, I’m not going to squabble about it, but it is entitled to fair play.” Both Mr. H. E. Holland and Mr. Lysnar protested on the conclusion of Mr. Jones’s speech that he had misrepresented them.

If members vote according to consciences the no-confidence motion will be carried, said Mr. H. T. Armstrong, who said, referring to Mr. Forbes, that the Prime Minister could rely on no one more than on Mr. Forbes. The only recent occasion on which Mr. Forbes had not supported Mr. Coates was on the unemployment no-confi-dence vote, when Mr. Forbes scuttled out of the House. Mr. D. S. Reid, in the last speech of the evening, stated that it would be advantageous to the country if the life Parliaments were extended. The country, he contended, had never been better off than under Reform. Mr. F. N. Bartram will continue the debate to-morrow.