UNITED AND LABOUR.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 262, 5 November 1929, Page 12

UNITED AND LABOUR.

"ARRANGEMENT" ALLEGED. HOT DENIAL BY MR. PARRY. SHARP CLASH WITH MR. SAMUEL. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Monday. j The state of uncertainty in the minds of members regarding security of the Government as the result of Mr. H. E. Holland's no-confidence amendment regarding Public Service salaries, which a number of Reform members appeared likely to support, was reflected when Mr. Parry,. Labour member for Auckland Central, took exception to a statement by Mr. Samuel, Reform member for Thames, that the Labour. Leader had brought forward his resolution in collaboration with the Acting-Leader of the Government. Mr. Parry characterised Mr. Samuel's statement as "underhand and untrue," and had to withdraw, by order of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Samuel prefaced. his remarks by saying he regretted that the Labour Leader's resolution had been made one of want of confidence. The Government should have taken the House into its confidence. "There is no doubt in my opinion that this is the result of an arrangement made between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Labour party," said Mr. Samuel. Mr. Parry (hotly): You have not the right to say that. Mr. Samuel: I have said that is my opinion, and I challenge the Leader of the House to make a statement to the contrary. Mr. Savage (Auckland West): Anyone could make a statement to the contrary, and it would be just as true as what you have said. Give Us Evidence. Mr. Samuel reiterated his opinion, whereupon the Minister of Labour, the Hon. W. A. Vcitch, interjected, "give us some evidence." ■ "I have stated my opinion that both the Acting-Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Labour party must have known that the Leader of the Opposition intended to bring down a motion of this kind when opportunity offered." Mr. Savage: So we took the wind out of your sails. Might End in Tragedy. Mr. Samuel: That is exactly the position. He said he, for one, would vote for the resolution, although he regretted it had been made one of want of confidence. There has been several comedies enacted this session, but he believed this was a comedy which might end in

tragedy, as there might be sufficient members on the Opposition side of the House voting for the to put the Government out. He did not believe it would cost the Government £500,000 to do what was sought. The amount would be nowhere near that sum. The Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Holland): It would certainly not be half. Mr. Samuel said members of the United party had advocated an increase in Civil servants' salaries on the hustings, and lower paid officers were unquestionably entitled to some advance. In no other walk of life would men be allowed to come to a standstill and remain hard and fast. Mr. Samuel said he would not speak further, as he wished to see a vote taken as quickly as possible. In repeating his belief that there had been an arrangement between the Labour.'and United parties to prevent the Opposition getting in with a motion on similar lines, Mr. Samuel said the Opposition Leader's motion might not have been on exactly identical lines, but it would have met the position. Mr. Parry in Fighting Mood. "That is a typical manifestation of the cultivation of his own mentality," began Mr. Parry, in referring to Mr. Samuel's speech, which, he characterised as typical of the member for Thames, and most extraordinary. (Loud Reform laughter.) It was all very well for; Mr. Samuel to make such a speech now, but he had never taken any action when hie own partv was in office. Mr. Samuel: I'm not the Leader of the Mr." Parry: No, and he never took a step. And I say he is not following his Leader to-day when he makes the statement he has just made. The Leader of the Opposition (Kt. Hon. J. G. Coates): How do you. know? Mr. Parry said Mr. Samuel was not suggesting some ulterior motive by saying that the Labour party was in league with the Government because the Reform party had intended to make a similar move.

"His speech was typical of that member," continued Mr. Parry, "because the member for Thames is the scientific political acrobat of the Reform party. He is most acrobatic in his mentality. I have noticed how he attempts to steer clear of all.the moves in this House to keep himself on the right side. It would not be the first time he had been absent when a . vote was taken on an important question." Mr. Samuel: Explain that. Calling His Bluff. Mr. Parry: Yes, and 1 can explain it in the same way as ,the honourable gentleman explained the* conference the United party was supposed to have had with the Labour party. The member for Thames could give no evidence in support of hie statement, but could only say it was his opinion. We all know the value of his opinion. It is all right for him to get up and make a statement and then get off scot free, but he will not get away with it this time. This half joking business he has indulged in for a long time has just about reached its limit, and the more sincere section of the House will call the honourable gentleman's bluff."

Mr. Parry assured- the House and the country that there had been no preconceived move between the two parties. Mr. Samuel, in an interjection, repeated his assertion. Mr Parry: Oh, well, if he will say it somewhere outside this chamber we might be able to satisfy each other whether it was so or not. (Laughter.) Mr. Samuel: I say it did. Mr. Parry: Well, 1 anyhow, I am pleased he will vote for the resolution, and I trust he will use his influence Then why dp you go for him? ' Mr. Parry: I want to say I don t like it I don't believe in such underhand statements. It is untrue there was any arrangement. Mr. Speaker: The honourable membei must withdraw the word. Mr. Parry: Well, then, I'll say underground. ~ , Mr. Speaker: The honourable member must'withdraw the word untrue. Mr. Parry: Very well, sir, and I snail substitute "contrary to fact." (Laughter.) A Question of Sincerity. Mr. Parry said the Labour party had consistently endeavoured to get the salary cuts restored, and now that a chance had come to get something done he hoped Mr. Samuel would vote for the resolution. Surely-there was nothincr i n . the resolution to lead Mr. Samuel to believe there had been any arrangement between Labour and the Government. If the only reason why Mr. Samuel voted for the resolution was that he believed the Reform party would not vote for it, then that showed how much sincerity he had. Mr. Samuel, rising to a point of personal explanation, emphatically denied Mr. Parry's statement that on more than one occasion he had absented himself when an important vote was being taken. "I have never evaded a vote, and never absented myself except Avhen not in Wellington, and I strongly .resent what was said." '~.'

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Samuel: I give the statement an emphatic denial. Mr. Wright, Reform member for Wellington Suburbs, /followed Mr. Sullivan (Avon), who had urged the ActingLeader of the House to reconsider his decision to make a no-confidence test of the motion. The Labour party, he suggested, was in a state of trepidation over the consequences of its action, and he was surprised at the position in view of the good feeling prevailing between them and the Government. Mr. Armstrong: This division will show where the good will is. Mr. Wright, following up his point, suggested that the Labour Leader had been taken quite by surprise by the action of the Hon. G. W. Forbes, bene--} the pathetic .appeals to him to do something so that a division need not be taken. Personally he could see no other course for the Government than to go to a division. Some members of the Reform party were no more prepared to put Labour on . the Treasury benches than Labour was prepared to reinstate Reform. He could not .understand how the Government came to make this mistake, and why it did not consider the financial position before it made such liberal pre-election promises.