GAGGED!

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 138, 6 August 1941, Page 4

GAGGED!

duty of every member of the House as trustees for the people—did without party feeling—to do nothing to obstruct a full and free discussion of the Budget even if they did noiidesire to participate themselves. The explanation by Mr Doidge -of his frantic efforts to get his Budget speech before the House by a series of questions was full of pathos until it is realised that these matters properly rest with the Speaker of the Houste and nobody can question Mr Barnard's impariality. and certainly cannot accuse him of bias towards the Government. From the circumstances we can only assume that the questions ask ed by Mr Doidge were either a contravention of the "Standing Ordef" or the censorship regulations or both. The statement by Mr Doidge that he was "Ragged" was: I 1 repeat specious party propaganda to create a "smoke screen" to hide the result of pernicious party interference that encompassed his own servility, fn plain words Mr Doidge gagged himself. I am reminded of what Mr Doidge saicl when speaking at Qkania Matamata in 1935.. "Can an Independent raise an effective voicc In Parliament? Obviously said Mr Doidge it is the one thing an Independent can do and equally obviously it is the one thing the "Party Hack" cannot do. A group of Independents continued Mr Doidge would be invaluable in Parliament at the present time as servility in expected of the Party member." In making this statement Mr Doidge made a very excellent suggestion for ridding the country of the Party system. I will leave Mr Doidge at that. Yours etc., C. H. BURNETT.

Sir;— The sjieech of the member for Tauranga at OtakirL in which ; lie claimed he had been gagged by the Government was a piece of specious propaganda. The action of the Leader of the Opposition to refuse to allow his Party to continue the discussion on the Budget was as unconstitutional as it was indefens-. ible. However the thing is obviojs that Mr Doidge capitulated to Party control and encompassed his own . political suicide so far as his own contribution to the Budget was con- ' cerned > and now seeks to indict the' Government to extri4te&. jiSmself x from his extremity. .Mir Holland's, fiction was after all only another, instance of "Party" regimentation and interference with the -representative rights of the people. M» Doidge could easily have extricated himself from the "Party Gag" on" the grounds of the vital principal, | mooted, but he preferred to capitulate to "party riding order" take the first opportunity to hurl a, "party brick" at the Government, for taking away—as; he alleged— ?i. right to free speech in that lie had himself forfeited, by T his docility to the Party system. The decision of the Opposition to abstain from taking part in the discussion on the Budget resulted in, twenty members of his Party be-. ,ing rendered as inarticulate as a. collection of 'Mrs Jarleys Waxworks*, and the leader of the party as silent and inanimate as the "Sphinx."' 1 am not suggesting for one moment that the Government Party have not been just as culpable in past debates in respect to implementing the Party Gag. My criticism is directed at the wretched cMid pernicious party system that cor dones this serious interference with democratic and representative Gov-"* ernment and the only cure is to smash the system and hurl it out of our political life. A National Cabinet automatically and proportionlately representative are drawn from all political parties in Parliament would not rid us wholly of "Party'* but it would deal it a death blow. Mir Holland and his Party hove with unfailing monotony urged that Parliament should be kept in session so that the country could be kept fully informed of the finances and the Avar effort generally, but when Mr Nash as Minister of Finance calls Parliament together to pre* Gent .his important annual Budget, covering. as it did every phase of the Dominion's activities,' Mr Holland in as many words said "We are only wasting time let us shut up the show ftnd go home." It is the more astonishing when we re-1 member that Mr Holland's attitudo is in direct variance with his publio professions of the urgency and tho importance .of the Opposition re-» taining its right to criticisie as an Opposition party. With an obvious intention to embarrass the Govern-* ment at a critical time i.n our history, and to secure a paltry part# advantage he threw overboard his convictions and an important prin-. . cipal by viciously applying tho "Party Gag." 1 The course he tooit was childish, clumsy and indefensible. He displayed no regard fop the fact that the Miaori and Independent members had not spokeiv and no regard for the people his party represented, in the House. The Budget itself was a masterly exDCsi.tion of the counfrjjr's affairs ■ and reflected the greatesr credit on the Hon Mr Nash and the presenta-. tion gave the House an opportunity —under the standing order—to disr cuss every angle" of our Dominion's domestic policy and war effort. In saying this I anl not suggest* ing that the Budget had my endorsee ment from many points of view but I am suggesting that the action of the Opposition was an affront, m fact an insult, to a man who had with devoted industry and, ability applied himself to an endeavour• tc* £ive the country a faithful and ac* curate survey of our financial post-, tion and his stewardship at the most momentous time in our history. I also hold the view that it was the

(Continued in previous column)