ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1922, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

NEW LIFE TO THE DEBATE. CRITICISM BY LABOR PARTY. AN AMENDMENT MOVED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Laat Night. Another stage in the debate on the Address-in-Reply was reached in the House to-day. The Liberal Party’s amendment was disposed of yesterday, and now the Leader of the Labor Party (Mr. H. Holland) has given new life to the debate with another amendment. Mr. Holland referred to statements regarding the loyalty of Labor and said this was a matter. requiring definition. When Labor had protested against profiteering and other abuses it was termed disloyal, yet often those who denounced Labor were guilty of robbery and other crimes against the people. He contended that Labor, by its intense desire to preserve all that was best in the country’s traditions, and to further the welfare of the people as far as possible, proved itself the most loyal party in the House. He urged that the House should give a mandate to the Arbitration Court to restore the bonus taken away by the cut in the case of the lower paid ranks of public servants. He challenged the Prime Minister to state particulars of the remission to land and income tax payers. Mr. Holland declared that while the Government gave remissions on these taxes it increased customs duties. FARMERS’ TROUBLES. Referring to the difficulties of farmers, he contended these were not due to the cost of rural labor, but to the high prices of land and the consequent heavy interest chargee on mortgages. He quoted instances of farmers who faced ruin through high interest charges. The present system of traffic in land must be abolished before farmers’ difficult conditions could be ameliorated. Since 1914 incomes had increased by £35,000,000 and to the payers of income tax remissions were made, while public servants were being asked to accept cuts in salary. The value of primary and secondary production in New Zealand doubled in recent years. In 1920 the value added to raw materials by the labor of each worker was £92, of which labor absorbed £6O 10s.

The Labor Party of New Zealand had no intention of keeping out people from Britain, but it did object to the manner in which immigrants were being enticed to come here while unemployment was so prevalent. There should be permanent work at standard wages with decent housing for all immigrants on arrival without displacing the people already here. Mr. Holland contended the Governmnet had departed from its promise to give the public service full civil and political rights by refusing to allow it to become affiliated with the Alliance of Labor.

He moved the following amendment to the Address-in-Reply: “That in view of the cost of living being now at the same level as when the last wages bonus was granted, legislation should be introduced restoring the bonuses to public? servants; that the state of the public finances was such that no excuse existed for reducing public servants’ salaries; and that if the public finances were in such a state that increased revenue was necessary, then the Government was not justified in remitting land and income taxes; further, that the Government failed to fulfil its promise to confer full political and civil rights in the public service, and by its failure to provide adequate representation of New Zealand at the Washington and Genoa conferences it has forfeited the confidence of the House and the country.

COST OF (EDUCATION. Mr. Munro (Dunedin North) seconded. He urged that work should receive the fullest payment for labor, as a reduction in wages re-acted on trade all round. The conditions which brought about the Government’s decision to cut public service wages and caused reductions in othew workers’ pay, were due to the Government’s own shortcomings by permitting profiteering, speculation (especially in land) and other abuses. The Hon. C. J. Parr said the whole of the Opposition speeches were large in assertions against the Government, but small in proof, as. for instance, the statement that since 1912 departmental expenditure had grown from £7,000.000 to £15.000,000. Examination showed two of his departments were responsible for £2.500.000 of this increase, but he asked the House to say where he could economise in education. Salaries alone in that department amounted, to £2.204,404. Other items were quoted with a view to showing that further reduction* in expenditure could not be_made. yet in face of the >\Mns spent on education they were not large enough to satisbv teachers, boards or committees. ‘ Mr. Parr defended the practice of saluting the flag now observed in schools, and denied that it resulted in machine-made loyalty. The proposal to establish junior high schools was he said not a concession to wealth, but was’intended to promote an aristocracy of brains, and the worker’s child would have the same opportunity as the rich man’s child. The debate was adjourned and the House rose till 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.