PREMIER’S POLICY

Taranaki Daily News, 6 July 1922, Page 5

PREMIER’S POLICY

OPPOSITION ATTACK. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. ADDRESS DEBATE CONTINUED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The debate on the Address-in-Reply was continued in the House to-day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford). He opened by complaining that the Government had not fulfilled its promise to substitute some other electoral reform for the repealed second ballot. He was a convert to proportional representation, with the maintenance of the country quota. Mr. Massey: “It can’t be done.” Mr. Wilford: “Yes it can, and I will show you how.” He then proceeded to quote speeches by the Hon, W. Downie Stewart to show that he was in favour of the abolition of the Upper House and of proportional representation. He also quoted from the Premier’s Budget of 1912 to show that he promised to substitute something for the second ballot.

Mr. Massey said he was not going to introduce an idiotic electoral system to please anyone.

Mr. Wilford then quoted from an interview with the Premier, in which he declared in favour of proportional representation, which would give fewer informal votes. What had converted him (Mr. Wilford) to proportional representation was the manner in which the Ulster elections were carried out in 1921. There was now a minimum of error found i*. this system, and the only way in which they would ever get true representation in the House was to place a Proportional Representation Act on the statute book. There were in the House 29 minority representatives. eighteen Reformers, six Liberals, and five Labor members, and while that state of things prevailed they could not have confidence in the Government which maintained it. FINANCE CRITICISED. Mr. Wilford’s next point was that the Government had failed to efficiently administer the finances of the country. He complained of the cost of the Immigration Department, and said aefinitely that immigration should cease at once. There was no justification for spending £250.600 annually on immigration while there was so much unemployment in the country. He denounced the method by .hich the Government first sought to give effect to the moratorium protecting companies holding deposits, and claimed that but for Liberal members pointing out defects in the Bill disaster would have followed.

The House had been denied sight of the Economy Committee's report, and. he read a list of questions regarding economies which he said must be answered if they were asked to believe economies were being effected. While ' economies were being' claimed, the ; Premier and his supporters had no hesitation last session in voting £lOOO to aid Sir James Allen to furnish his house in London. In 1918 the Government had taken over accumulated surpluses amounting to £17,538,000, but they surrendereji those surpluses, purchasing land for soldiers at fabulous prices. They let landowners loose on the country, and the inflation in land prices to-day was due to the purchase of land for soldier settlements. AH was not well with the soldier settlements; there must be a re-valuation of land, and soldiers’ mortgages to the State must lie reduced. otherwise these soldiers would have to walk off. Discussing taxation, he complained of the heavy taxation on companies, which he said was 8s 9d in the pound. Mr. Massey denied that 8s 9d in the pound had ever been paid in this country by any company. AMENDMENT MOVED. Mr. Wilford then moved the following amendment as an addition to the motion moved by Mr. D. Jones (Kaiapoi): “The Government has forfeited the confidence of the House and the country because amongst other things: (1.) It has failed to redeem its promise that on the repeal of the second ballot another method of election would be substituted. (2.) It has failed to efficiently administer the finances of the country, thereby imposing upon the people additional burdens, and has failed to curtail or control gross extravagance and wasteful expenditure in the administration of public departments, and to run such departments on sound business lines. (3.) It has failed to lay on the table of the House the Economy Committee’s report, on which is said to be based the supposed Government economies. (4.) Tt has failed to prevent aggregation o-f land, which is a menace to the well-being of the State. (5.) It has failed to deal satisfactorily with the problem of unemployment. The amendment was seconded by Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South). The Hon. W. Nosworthy asked what was the difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the of the Labor Party. They each favoured proportional representation, a State bank, and both were against the immigration policy of the Government, so it looked as if the compact recently rumoured was about to materialise. THE MEAT MARKET. Mr. Nosworthy said that what the Government had done in the way of getting concessions to meat producers was of great benefit to the country as a whole. He defended the Government’s treatment of Armour and Co. That firm was now operating under the Meat Control Board, and so long as they did business in a legitimate way no one would interfere with them. He was pleased to say they were opening up a good trade with America. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) Criticised the administration of the railways, to which Sir John Luke (Wellington North) replied. He thought the general manager was well fitted for his position and worth his salary. On general principles he was opposed to the importation of engines into the Dominion, but when the Government decided to import the engines complained of he supported them when it was found impossible to have them manufactured in the Dominion. At this stage the debate was adjourned,