NO CONFIDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 September 1921, Page 5

NO CONFIDENCE.

MOTION IN PARLIAMENT. ATTACK BY OPPOSITION. MR. T. M. WILFORD’S CRITICISM. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the House of Representatives resumed this evening the debate on the Address-ih-Reply was continued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford), who said he did not propose to deal with the Imperial Conference, the Anglo-Japanese alliance, or the great Pacific questions until the return, of the Premier, as he thought it ill became him to do bo. He proposed to move an amendment to the Address, and his remarks would be more with the idea of elaborating arguments in support of his amendment. Mr. Wilford said constitutional government was on trial in New Zealand. Constitutional government and the theory of constitutional government was upside down, for the country was ruled by a party which represented a minority of the people. He then proceeded to quote figures showing the votes cast at the last election, as the result of which the Reform Party, with its minority vote, had 44 seats, and the Liberal, Labor and Independent Parties, with a majority vote, had only 32 seats. This would not make for good government of the country. Another bad feature was the manner in which Ministers flitted from one portfolio to another, with the natural result that disorganisation prevailed in each department of State. Never before since the days of Sir Harry Atkinson had the position of affairs in New Zealand been so scandalous, and there was no reasonable check kept on expenditure. J “WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE.”

Wasteful expenditure in public departments was next denounced by the speaker. Dealing with the case of H.M.S. Philomel, which, he declared, was unserviceable, he said £lB,OOO had recently been wasted upon her. Such was the kind of thing the Defence Department was guilty of. He also objected to the manner in which the Government went, on appointing commissions, the most recent of which was the commission to inquire into the conduct of the Public Service Commissioners, one of the commissioners being a gentleman who was himself quite recently one of the Public Service Commissioners. So the farce went on.

Finance was next dealt with, the speaker contending that the Treasury had run dry. Mr. Massey had raised a £5,000,000 loan in London, and was returning with the receipt. Mr. Massey said this loan would place finance on a satisfactory basis, while Sir Francis Bell said commitments in London would absorb the whole of the money. Who, then, were they to believe? Land purchases for soldiers were criticised, the speaker contending that the Government stood for the big man, and all the purchases were in the interests of the big men. Millions had been given to the big men in this way, instead of compelling landowners to take war bonds at the ordinary rate of interest, and the result was that the country had been denuded of money, and there was none for general purposes. The Government were not pushing on with the housing scheme, because they did not believe in it; they had no heart in it, they were tinkering with it, and were utterly without a policy. UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM.

Had they a policy to deal with unemployment? Mr. Massey had said they could not have people going up and down the country looking for work and not able to find it. Further, he said that the necessary arrangements would be made to meet such cases. Where were those arrangements? How did this square with Sir Francis Bell’s declaration that it was the business of local bodies to find employment for the unemployed? What were Ministers doing to keep the Premier’s promise? They were breaking it, as they broke the contract with Mr. St. Ledger, a Crown tenant, thereby making a Crown lease an unsafe security. Taxation was a subject that required the closest inquiry, and he suggested the appointment of a committee of business men to go into the whole question of the revision of taxation. Company taxation was a subject requiring immediate attention, especially so in connection with trusts, one of the worst of which was the oil trust. Petrol was one of the necessities of every industry At the present time; yet people were being squeezed by the existing oil trust. He could land petrol in New Zealand to-day from America at 22s 6d per case, but it could not be bought from this trust for less than 31s to 33s per case. The Government was careless, heedless and helpless in dealing with this trust. He therefore moved the following amendment, which was supported by the speech he had just delivered: “That the Government, which does not represent a majority of the people of New Zealand, has forfeited the confidence of this House by its want of foresight and incompetent administration of the public finances, thereby being in a large degree directly responsible for the present financial crisis and consequent unemployment.” REPLY TO CRITICISM. The amendment was seconded by Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South). Referring to Mr. Wilford’s remarks on the price of petrol, the Hon. W. D. Stewart said that as a result of Mr. Wilford’s remarks on that subject last year a number erf young men were induced to try to import their own petrol, and they were almost rained. The Government had met unemployment with a bold face, and had kept men going in a way not excelled in any country in the world. Mr. Wilford had not fairly quoted Sir Francis Bell. The Government did not wish to shelve the unemployed on to local bodies, proof of which was their liberal expenditure to keep the unemployed going. The Government was in a most difficult position. One section of the public was crying out that extravagance was rampant; yet when the Government retrenched they were blamed for creating unemployment. At 9.20 p.m. Mr. Sidey moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House rose till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.