ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1921, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. MANY PROBLEMS DISCUSSED, UNEMPLOYMENT AND FINANCE. ■ By Telegraph—. Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 this afternoon, and after the transaction of formal business, the debate on the Address-in-Reply was continued. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) admitted that the resume of the financial position given by the Hon. W. D. Stewart last night was very fair, but his speech as a whole in reply to the Leader of the Opposition was disappointing. His reply on the question of electoral anomalies did not prove that the Reform Government was not sitting on the Treasury benches by virtue of a minority vote, and that fact stood. Dealing with the question of unemployment, he declared the Government had signally failed to redeem its election pledges on this subject. They had not I made, as they promised in 1911, pro- ; vision for compulsory insurance against unemployment. In 1913 and 1914 there was no suggestion in the Speeches from the Throne that this legislation would be introduced, and since the war this strange silence continued. Almost every other country in the world had made some such provision as this, but New Zealand had done nothing, notwithstanding the pledges made in 1911. For this neglect there was no possible exi cURe, because the Government came into office on an express promise that : they would introduce unemployment insurance, which was more necessary than any other form of pension. CRITICISM OF FINANCE. Coming to finance, he blamed the Government for seizing the accumulated surplus of £'15,000,000 instead of raising money in England for repatriation purposes. They had seized that surplus for repatriation purposes and now were compelled to raise money in London under much more disadvantageous circumstances than they could when they seized the surpluses. That, he considered, was the Government’s mistake number two. He deprecated the action of the Government in purchasing land for soldiers with cash. Debentures would have been sufficient, and cash should have been saved and made available for the ordinary purposes of the Govern* ment to-day, which would have made all the difference to the present financial position. That was mistake number three. In dealing with unemployment he advocated a co-operative system of labor, and criticised the policy of carrying out what were essential public works by relief schemes and allowing nominated immigrants to arrive without first ascertaining what was the nature of the employment they were taking up, and whether their arrival would intensify unemployment in any particular trade.

Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said it was inconsistent on the part of the Opposition to blame tlie Government for excessive expenditure on the one hand and the existence of unemployment on the other hand. The question of unemployment insurance was a difficult one; difficulties existed, and he was satisfied the Government had faced those difficulties with conspicuous success. He favored an active emigration policy, which was absolutely necessary for the progress of the country, and as a means of dividing the burden of our ever-increasing public debt. We should seek to stimulate foreign markets, and he could not see why bacon should not be added to meat, butter and cheese as one of our staple exports. Reverting to unemployment, the speaker said he thought a little patience and a little forethought would work wonders in bringing men and work together: this country was far too rich and prosperous to long be troubled with unemployment. LOSS ON RAILWAYS. Railway finance was next dealt with, the speaker contending that the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs was largely due to the restricted spending power of the people, who were not so prone to travel now as formerly, while the cost of material had also been a contributing factor. r The Hon. W. Nosworthy said unemployment was the outcome of the war, and affected all countries, and it was therefore absurd to say the New Zealand Government was responsible for unemployment in the Dominion. He defended the expenditure on land for exsoldiers. and he believed the men would weather the difficulties they were at present encountering. Owing to the necessity of meeting payments for heavy importations in 1919-20, the banks and other financial institutions had a hard task in adjusting matters, but it warbeing done. Referring to imported coal, the Minister asked what could the Government have done but import coal when the miners of the country would not do their part. If the miners had produced coal so that export could have been kept up instead of the country being forced to import, we should have Had money coming in. In the matter of housing he considered more self-reliance and self-help was needed. At present too many people were waiting to be spoon-fed. Touching the suggested subsidy for house-build-ing, he was opposed to this form of assistance. It was easy to get into a subsidy, but not so easy to get out. They had had the butter subsidy, but at last had managed to get free of it, and he hoped to be able to dispense with the wheat and flour subsidy (which had already been reduced to 30s a ton) by March next, and that next year New Zealand would not only produce enough for her own needs, but would become a wheat exporting country. FINANCE OUTLOOK.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton), after touching on Unemployment and protesting against any reduction in wages, referred to finance. He said the previous year produced a surplus of and the first four months of the current year showed a net loss of £2,000.090. At this rate, if the loss was continued at the same rate, the year would end with a deficit of £0.000,000, and he asked why should not the fat year be drawn upon to offset the lean year’s defiCMr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) said it was incumbent on the community to give work to soldiers who had fought for the country. Every hour a man was idle was a serious loss to the country bv reason of diminished efficiency. He commended the work done in placing soldiers on the land, and said the increase in productivity of the land thus brought about would more than balance any losses arising through failures. The aation had

been going slow. Since 1910 the population had increased by 210,000, yet the country’s industrial production had shown no increase.

At 10.20 p.m. the debate was adjourned, and the House rose till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.