THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 316, 4 July 1912, Page 4

THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATI. • By Telegraph— Pre»s Association. "' Wellington, Yesterday. ' In the House, after midnight, Mr. Russell said that whatever happened the country would not have Mr Maaser as Premier. ' Mr. E. Newman (Rangitikei) mored the adjournment, and at 12.5 the Houwrose. DEBATE IN THE COUNCIL. Wellington, Last Night. Sir W. J. Steward moved the Address-ln-Reply. Dealing with the Speech in a general way, he dwelt mainly upon thtland question, which he considered of th« first importance. He urged a policy of more rapid land settlement and the prevention of- aggregation. He contended* that the time had arrived for the modernisation of the railway system. The Hon. T. Y. Duncan seconded th* motion. He agreed that the land question was most important, and would* remain so. He urged that the fioyernment should do all possible to initiate fruit farms. There was much land in New Zealand suitable for fruit-growing. The Hon. J. Rigg considered that as a declaration of policv tho Speech was a very feeble effort. * Borrowing was, t» his mind, the worst possible way of carrying on the country. He hoped' that th* Arbitration Act would be completely recast. Imprisonment for striking sliould be abolished, and when a union went to the Arbitration Court it should be made to give a guarantee that any agreement arrived at would be observed. He would have preferred a broader policy to lead the democrats of New Zealand. The debate was adjourned, and the Council adjourned. IN THE HOUSE.

The House resumed at 7.30. Mr. E. Newman continued the debate on the Address-in-Reply. He failed to see, he commenced, how any of those who supported the present Government eould do so, knowing the entire absence of policy in respect to the settlement of the lands of the country. He thought that the Government might pay a little more attention to the necessities of back-blocks settlers in the way of roads and bridges, instead of wasting time over luxuries. A great deal had been said about the policy of the Opposition. The Opposition should not have a policy. They were not there to promulgate a policy. At the recent Opposition caucus he was the only member who opposed anything in the way of a policy. He maintained that they were the progressive* of the House. Dealing with financia.l matters, he said that he did not object to borrowing, but to the way in which money was spent. He referred to what he thought was a waste of money in connection with the Dunedin railway station and public buildings in other centres. He complimented the Minister of Defence on the real good service he had rendered to the country by insisting on the compulsory clauses of the Defence Act. He also dealt with other matters which, in his opinion, reflected credit on the Government, but he could not overlook the fact that the Government did not possess the confidence of the House. The Government had no, past, and in all probability they would have no future. They now retained office by a purely political manoeuvre, which was in no way creditable to them. He took strong exception to the manner in which aged gentlemen were appointed to the Legislative Council.

. The Hon. J. A. Hanan followed Mr. Xewman, and submitted that it had not been shown that the members of the Ministry were in the House because of a violation of any constitutional precedent or authority. One of Mr. Massey'a main contentions was that the Ministry should bo removed from office because members were not unanimous in regard to every political question brought up. There never had been a Cabinet agreeing unanimously upon every issue introduced. He had no hesitation in saying that the characters of members of the Ministry stood out on a higher platform than any Cabinet Mr. Massey could form. He inferred to the speeches of members of the Opposition during last session, to show that they had the greatest contempt for anyone who would, break hit pledge. What could they think of members who were now exhorted to break their pledges? That was being attempted every day at present. Liberal mem-, bers who had pledged themselves to support the present Government were being induced to go over to the other side of the House. Was that the correct cedure to follow ? he asked. Dealing witk land matters, Mr. Hanan said that prominent members of the Opposition had. o» the public platform, stated that they were opposed to any increase in the graduated land tax. The reason for that was that the Opposition were supported \>y men whose interests would be prejudiced if the tax was raised. Consequently the party opposed the increase. Mr. Hanan, continuing, said that nothing had been shown to induce any reasonable man to voto for Mr. Massey'a amendment. He had the authority of his chief in saying that they would welcome an appeal to the country, and they were noi afraid of the result. The Hon. G. Laurenson controrertei Mr. Massey's statement that the Government should have legislated to provide for a secret ballot before the Waihi strike occurred. How, he asked, couli the Government legislate when there wae no session of Parliament? Mr. Massey knew that they could not when he mad* the statement. Ho dealt exhaustively with the causes -and effects of strikes in all parts of the world. Could anyone object, he asked, to a man who 9iadl spent twelve hours under the earth coming up into the sunshine and seeing'another riding round in a motor-car showing some resentment at being left out of the enjoyments of life ? He indicated that the Government intended bringing down a Bill providing that all newspaper articles written at election times should be signed by the writer of the articles. He objected to the low type of publi* morality which prompted the Opposition to urge independent members to go over to their side and vote against a party which had done so much for the masses of the country.

Mr. 0. Forbes held that the Opposition had got no policy. He regretted that a party which had worked themselves up to the position they now occupied had nothing to offer the country in the way of a programme. One had, he said, only to look through the recent records of the country to see what progress had been made under the Liberal regime. The Prime Minister moved the adjournment of the debate at midnight, an<l the House rose.