NO CONFIDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 October 1921, Page 5

NO CONFIDENCE.

A MOTION BY LABOR. HEAVILY DEFEATED. ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The debate on the Address-in-Reply was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party). Mr. Holland traversed the financial position of the Dominion, contending that if there was unemployment in the country it only went to show that there was something wrong with the Government. Speaker after speaker in the debate had stated that the remedy for the 'present position was a reduction of wages, but he contended that what was wrong was our system of taxation, which did not hit the man who ought to be hit. He also desired to say that the Labor Party would resist by all the forms allowed by the House- any attempt to reduce the wages of workers in New Zealand.

He complained of the treatment of the coal miners in New Zealand to-day. Everyone of these men took his life in 1-is hands every time he went down into a mine, yet their lives were not adequately protected, and for this he blamed the Government. He moved the following amendment: —

‘•"We feel it, however, to be our duty to submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency’s Ministers do not posses the confidence of this House for the reasons hereinafter given, viz.: (1) Their failure to bring down a financial policy necessary to the proper maintenance of the public services and the economic progress of the Dominion; (2) their failure to deal with the problem of unemployment on the basis of the right to work on adequate maintenance; (3) their failure to provide adequate housing for the people’; (4) their wasteful policy of heavy coal importations instead of local production; and (5) their refusal to furnish information with respect to the cost of imported coal.” IMMIGRATION POLICY. The amendment was seconded by Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn), who denounced the suggestion that workers’ wages should be reduced as a solution of the present financial stringency. For the existing unemployment the Government was largely responsible. The Government was not only bringing out people for whom there was no work, but the Government was criminally responsible for misrepresenting. the position to these people before they came. The policy underlying the Government’s immigration scheme was to get cheap labor; it was another phase of the policy to reduce wages. This was one of the chief reasons why he had no faith in the ability of the Government tc look after this country’s affairs, and for that reason he supported the amendment. Mr. V. H. Roskill, discussing the unemployment position, admitted there were some deserving eases, but he contended that the bulk of uie agitation was pure political propaganda. Discussing the coal position, he maintained that the miners’ recent demands had been made with the sole object of reducing the output; bank to bank simply meant a shortened day, and shortened hours meant a reduced output. The miners, however, had seen hoist with their own petard; they had gone slow when they thought they could erabarass the Government and the country, caring nothing for the consequences of their action, but importations of coal had robbed them of the advantage they possessed, and they were no longer in a position to strike or go slow. They were no longer able to dictate to the people at large. BURDEN ON SHEEP FARMERS. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South), said the present session would count in the history of the Dominion as one of the most important eyer held, firstly because the House and the country would have to listen to a momentous statement from the Premier concerning Imperial affairs, and secondly because they would have to consider the tariff question. They would find industries overseas over-capitalised and offering us large quantites of cheap goods, and consequently we would have local industries asking for protection, and rightly so. He wished the House and people to understand that the Labor Party would not blindly follow’ the Premier in Imperial matters unless all the cards were laid on the table and the House , was told plainly and frankly all that the country was committed to. Then, when Labor came into powrir, they would repudiate any undisclosed propositions. Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) said he had been struck by the temperate tone of the speeches delivered by members of the Labor Party, and this convinced him that they‘were out to help the country in its present difficulties. This, however, was not the case with all leaders of Labor. In this connection he referred to the position of the sheep farmer, whose only revenue came from wool, yet an oiticial of th/j Shearers’ Union was going about stopping men from going to work when men wanted to work. The sheep farmers were “up against it”; they wanted their work done and they were prepared to pay Arbitration Court rates. Was it, then, fair that they should be held up by one man? He appealed for a better spirit between Capital and Labor, and in these stressful times they could help each other with results mutually beneficial. LEVY ON CAPITAL.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that after making his pathetic appeal on behalf of the sheep farmer, the last speaker should be able to appreciate the position of the unemployed worker, because unlike the sheep farmer, who had piled up large protfis during the war years, the worker had been ‘"up against it” all the time. He regretted the present Government had not kept pace with the need for social legislation, which at one time made New Zealand the wonder and admiration of the thinking world. . . We had got into difficulties arising largely out of the financial policy of the Government, and as relief from these difficulties he suggested a levy on capital which would reach those people who made huge profits during the war period Tn that time the cost of living increased to the workers by 35 per cent, and their wages only increased by On per cent. On the other hand land values increased £46,000,000. and commercial company shares had gone up considerably in value, which was the nroof 'of the enormous profits they

made. To meet that position, the best method was a levy on wealth. A levy of 20 per cent, on the existing wealth would realise £1'10,000,000, which would pay off the war debt and relieve the people from that burden. Ai division was then called for on Mr? Holland’s amendment, which was defeated by 40 votes to 9. The following supported the amendment: Holland, Sullivan. McCombs, Bartram, Howard, Horn, Poland, Witty? Atmore. The following are the pairs: For amendment, Savage, Parry, Fraser, McCallum; i against the amendment, Craigie, Hudson, Uru, Anderson.