ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Taranaki Daily News, 16 March 1921, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. DEBATE IN HOUSE CONTINUED. VARIOUS TOPICS DEALT WITH. By Talegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the resumption of the debate on the Address-in-Reply was called on in the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr. Massey announced that he would regard Mr. Wilford’s amendment as a motion of no confidence in the Government. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) objected to a lengthy prorogation of Parliament, because if a crisis arose then the position could not be met by legislation but must be met by regulation. In the past no one was more severe in criticism than the Premier against government .by regulation; yet now he was putting his Ministry in the position of doing that very thing. Mr. Massey: “Parliament will be called together if necessary.” Mr. Sidey said that when Mr. Seddon went to London to attend an Imperial Conference he left Sir Joseph Ward to carry on the business of Parliament and the country. Why could the Reform Party not do to-day what the Liberal Party ' did then? The prorogation of Parliament now meant that the business, of the country must be dealt with during another rush session, when so many questions were calling for immediate settlement. THE WHEAT CONTRACT. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) followed. He complained of extravagant administration, especially in the Public Service, and he also complained that high prices were paid for soldier settlement lands. Mr. Forbes declared that the contract made by the Government with the wheat growers had not been kept.

The Hon. W. Nos worthy declared that the latter statement was absolutely contrary to fact. This was the first time he had ever been accused of not observing his contract. Mr. Nosworthy referred to the statement which he issued to the Press, and he declared that the facts set out in that statement were correct.

Mr. Forbes: “I have read it; it does not meet the position at all.” Continuing, Mr. Nosworthy recapitulated the circumstances under which the Government had fixed the price of wheat, declaring that every condition promised by the Government to the wheat-growers had been carried out to the letter. Growers would not be deprived of a single farthing to which they were entitled, and any statement to the contrary was not in accordance with fact.

Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) agreed that New Zealand should be represented at the Imperial Conference, but he did not agree that this was sufficint reason for proroging Parliament and postponing legislation. No satisfactory reason had been given why the High Commissioner should "not represent New Zealand at the Conference. The Imperial Conference was an irresponsible body, without any constitution, and therefore anyone could represent New Zealand. Mr. Massey: “That is not so; he must be a Minister of the Crown.” PREMIER’S ABSENCE OPPOSED. Mr. Malcolm, continuing, said that was not always so, and it would have been a graceful act to allow Sir James Allen to represent New Zealand, as he had taken a keen interest in Imperial affairs, and had already represented New Zealand at important Imperial gatherings. Boiled down, it came to this, that Mr. Lloyd George had sent a request that Mr. Massey should attend, and that request seemed to .be taken as a command, but that position was absurd. The Prime Minister’s presence in New Zealand was urgently necessary, because the job of governing the Dominion was big enough to occupy the whole attention of one man. Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) announced that he would support Mr. Wilford’s amendment, because there was a widespread feeling in the country that Parliament should not be prorogued and legislation stayed. Amended legislation was especially needed in connection with land settlement and improved administration was required in connection with education. Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) said that unless better reasons were given than had been put forward why the Premier should leave the Dominion to represent New Zealand at the Imperial Conference he would vote for Mr. Wilford’s amendment. There was no reason why the High Commissioner should not represent New Zealand at the conference, and so let th£ business of the country, especially the housing of the people, go on. NEW LEADER CRITICISED. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) thought the Premier should attend the conference, and so help to preserve the unity of the Empire. Further, he should go with a free hand. He should be trusted to do his best for the Dominion, without being instructed how to vote on this or that,question; but. while they were prepared to trust the Premier, he was evidently not prepared to trust them, otherwise he would have appointed one of his colleagues to lead the House while he was away. He would have found that the business of Parliament would have gone on smoothly, and that there were no unfair party fights during his absence. He resented the appointment of a gentleman who was not a representative of the people to lead the Government while the Premier was away. This was not in keeping with the ‘principle of representative government.

Proceeding, Mr. Mitchell criticised the soldier settlement policy of the Government, declaring that much of the land was bought at too high a price, and a day of reckoning must come. On the Tiraumea Estate alone he estimated the loss would not be less than £40,000. The debate \vas adjourned till tomorrow. on the motion of Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North).