PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE. DIVISION ON AMENDMENT. GOVERNMENT’S MAJORITY. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House of Representatives met at 3 o’clock. Only fifteen minutes were occupied in the transaction of formal business, after which the debate on the Address-in-Reply was resumed. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) declared that the Opposition’s amendment was based on the belief that the Government did not represent the majority .of the people, because more votes at the last election were cast against them than for them. That being so, any electoral system which resulted in a minority party getting into power was bad. He therefore called upon the Government to effect reform in this connection, and expressed preference for a system of proportional representation, for which the Government had already expressed strong preference. Economy was badly needed in public affairs. Taxation was pressing heavily upon all classes, yet the Government was not alive to the gravity of the position. Farmers were unable to pay their land tax l , and they should be given some relief. Departmental expenditure was severely criticised, the speaker declaring that drastic cutting down was necessary. This session must become what the Opposition suggested, viz., an economy session. If the Government would only realise the serious need there was for economy, and carry it out, the Opposition would be the first to throw bouquets at them. PROBLEMS OF PRODUCERS. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) advocated economy in the public service, especially in the Defence Department. One of the best means to effect savings was an all-round reduction in wages, beginning with members of Parliament. The speaker contended that all moneys for development purposes should be raised outside the Dominion. The wool industry, though depressed, was safe. The industry that was in danger was meat. He approved of the Government’s attitude towards Armour and Co., but he objected to the leniency shown to Vestey Bros. There was no reason why Armour’s should 1 have to go if Vestey’s were allowed to stay.
Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) eaid the Government should take adequate measures to establish a shipping line, so that the Dominion products could be sent to the markets at reasonable freights. Mr. Isitt said he had no faith in any such scheme undertaken by the producers themselves. A permanent corps of labor should be formed at the larger harbors, which would dispose of the present labor difficulties so far as that phase of industrial conditions was concerned. The people of New Zealand were themselves largely responsible for the present financial slump, because they failed to take warnings repeatedly given to put money by while getting high war prices and wages, so as to be able to face hard times. They had gone in for an orgy of spending. Last year, for" example, despite “hard times,” the people spent forty millions on amusements. The financial strain entailed by a mad race for pleasure was bad for the moral fibre of the people. The Premier stated last session that he hoped to be able to reduce taxation. Did he still hope so? Mr. Massey: “I hope so,” jVJr. Isitt: “Hope springs eternal in Mr. Massey’s breast.” If the people would exercise self denial they would pull through and the present depression would in the end prove to have a beneficial effect for the country. * THE CANTEEN FUND. Mr. J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) said the present condition of the moat and wool markets was unsatisfactory, but there were indications of better prices. Touching on the case of Armour and Co.’s applications for a meat export permit, Mr. Nash hoped the Government would not recede from the position it took up last year regarding Armours. Mr. T. E. Seddon (Westland) urged the Minister to make a statement to clear up the position regarding the canteen funds, which he understood now amounted to £llB,OOO. This fund was originally intended for the relief of widows and orphans, but statements appearing in the Press led him to believe that a portion of this fund had been diverted to the cost of war histories, which he thought was entirely foreign to the original purpose of the fund. THE DIVISION LIST. This closed the debate so far as Mr. Wilford’s amendment was concerned, and at 11.30 p.m. a division was takeny the amendment being lost by 38 votes to 20. Following is the division list:— For the amendment: Atmore, Bartram, Edie, Forbes, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Kellett, McCombs, Masters, Poland, Seddon, Sidey, R. W. Smith, S. G. Smith, Sullivan, Veitch, Wilford, Witty. Against the amendment: Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Coates, Dickson, J. M. Dickson, J. S. Dixon, Field. Glenn, Guthrie, 4- Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton. Harris, Hawken, Henare, Herries, Hockley, Hunter, Jones, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod, McNicol, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Nash, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Sir R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Stewart, Sykes, Wright, Young. Pairs for the amendment: Ngata, McCallum, Jennings, Fraser, Parry, Sayage, Hanan, Thacker. Against the amendment: Williams, Anderson, Campbel!,' Urtl* Hudson, Craigie, E. Newman, Dr. Newman.
The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. H. 'E. Holland (Labor Leader) and the House rose at 11.40 p.m.
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. ADDRESS-IN-REPLY-DEBATE. The Legislative Council met at 3 p.m. The Hon. W. H. Triggs continued the debate on the Address-in-Reply. He expressed satisfaction at the meeting of the Washington Conference, and as he held th&t the Empire should speak With
a united voice, he was not altogether disappointed that separate representation had not been given to the Dominions, but he hoped someone would be present to keep the British representative posted with the views of the Dominions and local conditions. The Hon. W. Earnshaw advocated reconstruction of the arbitration law, and held that it was the duty Jf the Government to consider whether-preference to unionists should continue law, when unions had allowed Bolsheviks to obtain power and abuse it. The debate was adjourned, and the Gomieil rose At 4.5 Q
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19211006.2.52
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 6 October 1921, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
989PARLIAMENT. Taranaki Daily News, 6 October 1921, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.