PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 144, 14 March 1931, Page 8

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Labour No-confidence Amendment Defeated

REFORM VOTES WITH GOVERNMENT

Party Attitudes Now Clearly Defined

Whatever hopes the Labour Party had that its decision to exploit every legitimate means in its power to block the Goveinment’s economy legislation would be supported by other than it own members, must have received a set-back when the division upo Mr H E. Holland’s no-confidence amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion was defeated in the House of Representatives last eVen the Labour Party has set out to delay the Government from the start, both the Reform Party and the small band of Independents are at least willing to withhold whatever criticism and opposition they may have until the specific measures to be., brough? down by the Prime Minister make their appearance. That this is so was made plain during the day by members themselves and confirmed by the voting. With the putting of Mr. Holland’s amendment, which promises to be but the first of a series during the Address-in-Reply debate, the House may be said to have entered upon-a fight that will be mainly between the Labour Party and the other forces combined. The issues to be decided are clear-cut for the most part and, although there may be some divergence of opinion, among the sections of the House that voted with the Government last, evening, the broad economic basis upon which the Government’s legislation will be founded will in the long run narrow down the differences to questions of principle. The early part of the day and also the evening was marked by somewhat dull speeches, and it was not until the amendment was put at 8.30 that the House showed any great interest in the debate. Up to that time there were eleven Labour speakers, four from the Opposition benches, three from the Government side of the House, two Independents and the sole Country Party member. Mr. Holland having defined the Labour Party’s attitude on the first day of the debate, his supporters had little or nothing to add, and it was noticeable that almost everyone spent more time in dealing with comparatively unimportant issues than in treating of the major questions to be placed before Parliament. The Reform speakers said little to implement Mr. Coates s opening speech,, although Mr. ,D. Jones, member for, Mid-Canterbury, expressed the opinion that Parliament should not be asked to deal only with one or twei specific points, but that it should tackle more far-reaching problems affecting farmers and national finance. Mr. J. McCombs, Labour member for Lyttelton, was the first speaker after the division on the amendment, and he was sarcastic in his references to the way the voting had gone. He then moved a second amendment, questioning the advisability of the economy proposals outlined in the Speech from the Throne. ■ The House spent the rest of the night in discussing this, six more Labour speakers taking phrt and several speaking for their second time. There is a suggestion that this amendment will not be the last to come from the Labour Party. The House'rose at midnight until 2.30 on Monday afternoon.

BUSINESS CONFINED Private Members’ Chances GOVERNMENT BILLS ONLY j Although the Prime Minister was pressed again as soon as the House met yesterday for at least a little time during the, session for the consideration of private' members’ business, he repeated his decision that as Parliament had been called together for the consideration of urgent business time would be devoted exclusively to Government measures. The question was raised by Mr. PFraser (tab., Wellington Central), who asked if some time could not be given to private member* even although the session was going to be a short one. Mr. Forbes replied that when he gave out the new order of procedure, .to be followed during the short session he had made it clear that urgent Government business would take precedence and that anything that could be left for the ordinary session would be deferred. Since then he had had a good deal of . pressure concerning the giving of time for local Bills, but he had had to reply that . the session being, an emergency one. none of that work would be taken. In any case, the ordinary session would be held in June, so that time would .not be unduly wasted by’defefring business that could wait. In.view of the Prime Minister’s statement, upon the point it "is fairly , clear that nothing but measures the Government itself cares to bring down will be placed before the House. In spite of the. fact that notices of questions are pouring in daily, it is considered unlikely that they, will be answered, this session. As -no ■ committees, are to be set up it is also plain that a number of petitions that have already come forward will not be considered until the June session. . , Eight private Bills have already, been named in the House, and although a special appeal was made for one by Mr. H. G. R. Mason .(Lab.. Auckland. Suburbs). the. Prime Minister’s policy of leaving the- way clear for only Government business has set the seal on time being given for anything else.. LOCAL TIMBER Use in Hawke’s Bay Every effort la to be made by the Government to use New Zealand materials in reconstruction in the area in Hawke’s Bay that was devastated by the earthquake. and strict instructions have been issued to this effect to the Public Works Department. This statement was made by the Prime Minister in reply to a question by Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino), who said several other ' members of the Labour Party had associated themselves with him. Mr. Langstone asked whether the Government was aware that speculative investors bad landed a large quantity of foreign timber at Napier from the American steamer Golden West, a vessel which received heavy mail subsidies. He said this action had apparently ’ been taken with a view to taking advantage of what was likely to'prove a big demand for materials for reconstruction purposes. He asked if the Government would take steps to prevent any State moneys or any part of the earthquake relief funds being used in the purchase, of importedmaterials that would be likely to displace New Zealand materials. The New Zealand sawmillers had large stocks on hand and they were in a, position to meet any demand at short'notice. The Prime Minister said he had had Inquiries made into the landing of timber from the Golden 'West, and it had been ascertained that one merchant had imported a small line for his own use. As far as the Government was concerned, a definite and strict instruction hnd been Issued to the Public Works Department to see that New Zealand timber should be used wherever possible. Referring to the expenditure of relief monev, Mr. Forbes said he did not anticipate that any would be used for reconstruction purposes. The general principle of using New Zealand materials was one the Government had done its best to see carried out in every way.* It did not wish to have foreign materials used where the expenditure of public money was involved.. MORTGAGE PROBLEMS Protective Legislation It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this session to enable a mortgagor to place his case before a tribunal with a view to having the calling up of his mortgage postponed, according to a. statement made by the Prime Minister in reply to a question on the point by Mr. K. S. Williams (Bet., Bay of Plenty ). Mr. Williams, asked the. Prime .Minister whether he .would, without. delay, introduce legislation to enable a mortgagor

to place his ease before a Judge or a tribunal for the hearing of evidence before definite action could be taken by the mortgagee, particularly when. he was the vendor. He added that he did not suggest that legislation should bring about a general moratorium. The Prime Minister said legislation would be brought down dealing with the question of the calling up of mortgages. It was proposed that a tribunal as suggested by. Mr. Williams should be set up, and it would decide whether the calling up of a mortgage was a matter of urgency or whether it would bo postponed,

Mr. P. Fraser (Lab.. Wellington Central) : Will that apply to houses? ‘

The Prime Minister said the Bill had not been finally drafted. He himself had been going into the question of giving the legislation a general application to go beyond rural lands pure and simple. It was proposed that the mortgagor should have the right of calling for a review of the situation in which he was involved. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) : Does that include the State Advances Department? Mr. Forbes said he thought the State Advances could deal with-its own cases itself. Every case brought before it for consideration was receiving careful attention and sympathetic hearing. He considered a great deal of trouble would be avoided if everyone acted as the State Advances was doing-. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said the question of penalties would require to be dealt with by legislation. The Prime Minister said that point was being considered. ADJUSTMENT BOARDS Mr. G. C. Munns (U„ Roskill) drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the increasing number of mortgagee sales' in Auckland. He asked whether the Government would consider the setting up of an adjustment board, composed of, say, three business men, who would be empowered to make a recommendation to the court concerned in selling or bankruptcy for a period to be determined. Mr. Munns added that in a recent issue of an Auckland newspaper there were 21 advertisements of property sales. Nineteen were mortgage sales, one in exercise of power of sale in agreement for" sale and purchase, and one trustee sale in a deceased estate. By bringing the debtor and creditor together, homes and property might be saved, and in many instances mortgagees’ own interests would be secured by adjustments. VARIETY OF TOPICS Government Criticised ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE A variety of topics was discussed during the continuation of the Address-in-Reply debate and speakers by no means confined themselves specifically to the Government’s proposals. Reference to the insurances companies which held fire risks but refused to pay out in cases where property had beeu destroyed by fire following the Hawke s Bay earthquake was made by Mr. J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland). Many houses, he said, had been very slightly damaged by the earthquake and lmd practically withstood the shock, but they had been destroyed by the subsequent fire. Companies holding fire insurance risks which refused to pay out in these cases should be prevented from doing business in New Zealand. “We on this side of the House have a good deal of sympathy with the people who have to handle the country’s finances to-day,’’ said Mr. F. Waite (Ref., Clutha), who was the second Reform member to speak in the debate. “To a large extent we are disappointed, with the statement that has been put'out by the Prime Minister. We can agree with some parts of the statement, but there are many things we expected that have been omitted.” South Island Main Railway. Mr. Waite contended that the Government was not warranted in going on with the construction of the South Island Main Trank railway. The solution of the railway problem was wrapped up in ‘the transport problem, and he did nor think Parliament should adjourn until that question was dealt with. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) said he never believed it possible for a Government claiming to be a Liberal Government to bring down proposals making such a vicious attack on the lowest , paid workers in the country. The’ Government had behaved more harshly than had even been suggested by Conservative interests throughout the country, such as I Farmers’ Unions and Chambers of Commerce, Reform members in the House had not even suggested shell treatment. But as the Reform Party was, it could not possibly have done worse than the present Government. He was not going to appeal to the Government, but to Parliament to consider the position of the lower-paid married men with families, for if the Government was permitted to carry out its policy they would have to go without some of the necessaries ot life- " ' “’1 Labour Party 'has to take- its share of the responsibility along with the

Government for the position. into- ■which New Zealand has drifted with its finances to-day,” declared Mr. D. Jones (he ~ Mid-Canterbury). He would give the Primo Minister credit as far as some ot his proposals were concerned, so long as the legislation brought,down was on fair, and equitable lines. He was not saying that the Government was responsible tor the whole of the trouble that had developed in the Dominion, but its past policy had, no doubt, aggravated the Pt The anticipated deficit of £4, 800,000 at the end of the next financial year was not the big problem. The problem that had to be faced was how the people ot New Zealand were going to bear the £26 000,000 reduction in the national income through the drop in the price ot ter’s statement were carried out, the Government would put on of the people of New Zealand £i,000,000 in increased taxation. Other Problems Also. Mr Jones considered it was not sufficient for the House to meet to increase taxation and reduce wages. There were other problems that had to be tackled. Mortgagees who had been in . a strong financial position were being wiped out by ' the score. The Government.had not met the farmer in connection with rates at interest, and it was only fair to the farmer and the working man in New Zealand that this question should be dealt with this session. The Reform Party was prepared to deal with it. Nest September, October and November were going to be critical months so far as farmers’ finance was concerned. The exchange rate was another pressing problem. So far as New Zealand was concerned the exchange rates were an exceedingly heavy burden. I would like to see the Government address itselt to this question,” said Mr. Jones, for New Zealand is becoming the dumping ground of Australia.” Lower Living Costs. The announcement that he would not support Mr. Holland’s amendment was made by Mr. J. T. Hogan (Ind., Egmont), who said he would give the Government the opportunity of introducing its legislation, after which he would treat each measure on its merits, and vote accordingly. He said he regretted the necessity for the Government’s decision to reduce Public Service wages. It seemed to him, however, that the reduction was inevitable, although the question arose how they were going to deal with it and give the least hardship to those concerned. He did not think it fair to reduce the wages of those receiving small salaries, and he questioned whether it would not be best to introduce a graduated scale If wages within the Public Service were to come down, those outside it would have to be reduced also A reduction in the wages of Public Servants would not be sufficient to bring about a fall in the cost of living, and side by side with the former proposal would have, to go legislat'fori providing for the variation of Arbitration Court awards. The country would also have to have a definite proposal from the Government for a reduction in the cost of living, it was hoped that the Prime Minister would set up a commission, see to the more effective functioning of the Board Qt Trade., or investigate some other, means whereby living costs could be forced down. Rents had come down in some isolated instances, but they had not fallen, in general. Generally speaking, there hud been no reduction in the cost of living, and it was essential . that it should be brought about. . One of the greatest troubles facing the country had been the. psychological attitude that had been adopted in financial and other circles. The announcementthat a deficit of £4,500.000 was to be expected at some fairly distant date was enough to result in the money being withdrawn from investment. It was most important, that the Government. should give ajead ,in a reduction of interest rates The present rate, of 51. per cent, for 'bonds sold "over the counter was too lr Mr W. ‘P- Eiidean (Ref.. Parnell) contended that the Government had relegated . its duty of dealing with unemployment to the local bodies. As a result there would be a burden of rates under which ratepayers would stagger for many years, even after prosperity find returned. Everywhere there was evidence of waste and nothing had been done by the Government to remedy the position. ’ , • Unorganised Producers.

Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Ind., Gisborne) said the time had passed when party politics should enter into the treatment of the country’s ills. He had taken the lead among the members of the Reform Party in making the decision to become an Independent. He did not care particularly which Government was in power as long at it was not that of fiis friend the Leader of the Labour Party. (Laughter,) The real trouble at the moment was that the primary producers were nor getting value for their products. This resulted from the fact that the producers were not organised although the buyers were. The reduction of Public Service salaries would not help the position at all. What Parliament had to consider was the fact that the primary ' producers, the real source of the country’s wealth, were losing about £20.000.000 through no't being organised. One of the greatest problems of the moment was ,the fact that farmers were unable to get financial accommodation. This question should receive the urgent consideration of ihe Government., AMENDMENT LOST Labour Votes Alone Mr. Lysnar was the last to speak before Mr. Holland’s no-confidence amendment was put. The outcome was that the Labour Party went into the ayes lobby alone, all Reform members present and also the Independents voting with the Government. The amendment was lost by 50 votes to 20. Details of the voting are as follow:— For the Amendment Against the Amend(2o) : ment (50) : Armstrong Ansell Barnard Atmore Carr Bitchener Chapman Black Fraser Bodkin H. E. Holland Broadfoot Howard Burnett Jordan > Clinkard Langstone, Contes McCombs Cobbe McKeen de la Perrelle Martih Dickie Mason Donald, Munro Endean W. Nash ' Field O’Brien Forbes Parry Hall Savage Hamilton Semple Harris Sullivan Hawke TJealy •lull Kyle Linklater Lysnar McDonald McDougall Macmillan Macpherson Makitanara, , Massey Munns . Murdoch J. A. Nash Ngata Polson Ransom Rusliwortli Smith - , , . Stall worthy ’ Stewart ' , Sykes Taverner • Te Tnmo Veitch Waite Wilkinson Williams Wright Young The following members were absent fio;-.i (!:■ c'- unbev >rtra the .livv ien was Trlte:i: Messrs. L,yo. Jones. 11. Holland, Henare, Fletcher, Campbell and Hogan.

Messrs. Vincent Ward and A. M. .Samuel are at present abroad. Consequently their names are also missing from the division list. • WAGES PROPOSALS Second Labour Move As soon as the result of the division had been announced Mr. J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) rose and intimated that he intended to move another amendment. He commented in strong terms upon the way the voting had gone, and at the conclusion of his address he moved as an amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion: “That we deem it to be our duty to represent to your Excellency that-in the opinion of this House the proposals Contained in your Excellency’s Speech to reduce wages and salaries to meet the fall in revenue are inequitable, as such proposals cannot be applied to other persons whose incomes are derived from business, professional or other sources, and that we are further of the opinion that in lieu thereof additional revenue should be raised by a direct and graduated tax upon individual incomes irrespective of their sources.” Mr. McCombs said he did not know whether to congratulate the Government on securing the, entire support of the Opposition or the Leader of the Reform Party on having driven the Government into the adoption of everything he had been advocating for a long time. The Government had staged a complete reversal of policy. “It has been the most complete record of a gross betrayal of the people that this Parliament Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the honourable member should not use the word “betrayal.”. Mr. McCombs: May I say that I think there has been a great betrayal of principle? . Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is worse. (Laughter.) Mr. McCombs: I think, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member had better withdraw it. Mr. McCombs said he would bow to this ruling. He said the United Party had been in office for just over two years. It had won the election with one of its pledges to restore Public Service salary cuts. It had not done so, and now it proposed to inflict a further injustice upon the Public Service. The Leader of the Reform Party was now the man in power. Recently he put forward seven points. The Government had adopted six of them. Had Sir Joseph Ward lived, the House would have been considering other and more equitable proposals to' right the position. ft was unprecedented for the Government to invite private employers to follow its example in forcing down wages. It was estimated the Government would save £1,500,000 by means of the proposed salary cut. If New Zealand increased the excise duty on beer and the duty on spirits, by an amount equal to that adopted in other countries recently, the increase in revenue would be £1, 500,000. This could be done and. an order made preventing the brewers and merchants from passing on the extra duty. Refusal to Spend. Mr. H. T.: Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said the wage reduction proposals had been dictated by the financial institutions. If the Government wanted to assist the farmer it could materially help him by way of a reduction in interest rates. The policy outlined by the Prime Minister had “put the wind up” thousands of 'people and” they would not employ labour. Thousands had buttoned up their pockets and refused to spend; .«■ Mr. J. W. Munro (Lab., Dunedin North) spoke on the same lines as other Labour speakers. Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) considered that half the amount of the £4,500,000. deficit at the end of next financial year could be made up by a slight readjustment of the present scale of death-duties. ■ . The adjournment of the debate?was : moved by Mr. W. E.- Parry (Lab., Aucji--land Central). The debate will be resumed at £.30 p.m. on Monday. . H LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Address-in-Reply Debate The Address-in-Reply in the Legislative Council was moved yesterday afternoon by Sir' James Allen. Sir James said he agreed in the main with the principles behind the 'Prime Minister’s proposals. The present situation 'was a difficult, one, but New Zealand knew how to face difficulties. Employers had already started to reduce costs, in compliance with the Prime Ministen’s wish. Hardship would be involved, but the cost of living to-day . was .lower'than it was In 1921. A further fall in the cost of production could be anticipated and that would mean a further fall in the cost of living. He could understand Labour’s objection to the wage “cuts,” but at the same time he felt it was only reasonable to expect them to make some sacrifice. He had been told by the Heads of two big firms that their respective employees had made a voluntary offer to accept less wages, but nothing could be done, as the law had to be obeyed. Careful consideration should be given to the income-tax proposals. It,.was the men with money who employed labour and if they were taxed unreasonably the result would be seen in unemployment figures. The soundest policy for New Zealand was to keep the farmer on the land and assist him through his difficulties. New Zealanders should stand by each other for their country’s sake. In the long run everybody would benefit. Seconding the motion, Sir William Hall-Jones said that Parliament had assembled under unprecedented circumstances. The Prime Minister had taken a firm stand and was to be commended upon his promptness. The large majority of the people wanted to see “party” placed aside and the problems tackled in a statesmanlike way. More taxation was inevitable; the Budget had to be balanced. House rentals had dropped appreciably, and a reduction was taking place in the price of food. He would like to see the piecework system in operation in New Zealand. Touching upon the de-politicalisation of the railways, Sir William said the only solution of the problem as he saw it was to dispense with a few hundred employees. Commissions had been tried before. How could a board be expected to solve a problem -which had baffled the Government? > Sir John Sinclair said that the wave of depression passing over the . world compelled the people of all nations to revise costs of production. The problem was "to adjust , the position with a minimum of hardship. There must be allround sacrifices. Both employee and employer were vitally interested in industries being able to carry on; if they could not carry on on a competitive basis ■ unemployment. would be increased. Unemployment was too serious to be made a party question. He urged co-operation between worker and employer. The' adjournment was moved by Sir Francis Bell, and the Council rose at 4.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next. LORD RUTHERFORD The honour’ conferred upon Lord Rutherford of Nelson was the subject of reference in the' Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. ' The Hon. A. S.. Malcolm asked the Attorney-General whether the Government would submit to Parliament'a resolution congratulationg Lord Rutherford on the honours conferred on him by the ■ King, and so give the whole of the people of New Zealand the opportunity in honouring one of New Zealand’s greatest sons? The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Sidey. replied that as the present session had been called to deal with urgent economic matters and earthquake 'legislation. the Government was of opinion that congratulatory motions, no matter how: deserving they might be. could not lie •Jilted into the' session’s work.

GALLERY GLEANINGS

What Members .Say.. - IDEAS, VIEWS, AND QUIPS “I am now in.my proper place.”—Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), who recently became an Independent. “Some of the United Party are matured men—l mean physically.”— Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East). “The Government has out-Toried the Tories?’ —Mr. J. O’Brien (Lab., Westland). “The grit and determination of the people, of New Zealand will not get this country through its difficulties; what is wanted is good government.”—Mr. W. P. Endean (Ref., Parnell). Life of Parliament The possibility of the life of the present Parliament being extended beyond the three years which expire next November was suggested by Mr. J. T. Hogan (Ind., Egmont) yesterday. He was discussing the Government’s proposals concerning reductions in Public Service salaries, and he said that if the scheme were put into operation an undertaking should be given by the Prime Minister to review the position in six months’ time. Parliament would be sitting in September, and it would be a good chance to revise the cuts and see if they could not be restored or altered. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) suggested the cuts would be restored just before the next general election. ’ “The question of the election does not come into it,” Mr. Hogan said. “It is being suggested all over the country that there should be no election at all. At the present stage of the question the election does not come into it.” This statement was greeted by surprised remarks from various parts of the House, but Mr. Hogan did not pursue the point It is stated in the lobbies that the Government at one time did give the question of prolonging the life of Parliament some thought, but that the idea was abandoned. The Reform Party is stated to be averse to any sueh move, and in its present state of mind the Labour Party cannot be expected to agree to the Government being allowed’ to retain the Treasury benches any longer than it can help. Many Questions for Decision Disagreement with the statement of the Prime Minister that the present session was an emergency one to deal with certain defined subjects was expressed by Mr. D. Jones (Ref., Mid Canterbury). Mr.- Jones contended that the session’ should not be treated as an emergency session to deal with a particular class of business, but that it was the duty of members to address themselves to the task of solving the many difficulties and problems that had arisen in the Dominion. A lot had been said about the cost of a meeting of Parliament, but all the officials of the House except the messengers were permanent employees, and. their salaries went on whether Parliament was in session or not? The same applied to members, and further, they were paid to deal with the i country's business. That was their job. ■ Calling Parliament together did not involve a big sum. He took strong exception to the statement that the present emergency session -was to deal with.two or three specific problems. ' “Conspiracy of Silence” A complaint that five Ministers were out of.the House at a time when questions of vital importance to the country required their attention was expressed yesterday by Mr. R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East). “There has been a conspiracy of silence among the responsible Ministers of the Crown since the Government’s proposals were, put forward,” Mr. Semple said. “At the present time there are five responsible Ministers - missing from their piaces?in the House. “At a time when questions that have disturbed , the nation are being discussed every Minister should be in his place in this House so that he may be able to justify the proposals his Government has submitted to the country. It is not sufficient for a Government in a hopeless minority to throw its proposals on the table of the House and then treat the House with silence and contempt. I think it is altogether wrong.” Less Publicity In response to private suggestions by members of Parliament that the Government’s new telegraphic rates are likely, to prove unduly harsh as far as reports' of members’ speeches are concerned, the Prime Minister has called for a statement from the Post and Telegraph Department as to a possible adjustment. This may result in new limits being allowed on the volume of reports at concession rates during Parliamentary sessions. The Prime Minister said last evening that he had been too busy to go fully into the question, but he expected to be able to make a statement in a few days’ time. A somewhat curious position has arisen as a result of the new Press telegraphic rates. Special newspaper correspondents at Parliament have cut down by perhaps three-quarters the amount of matter sent out to their papers. In consequence members are not being reported'by them, or, if they are, only scantily, and as the broadcasting of his views as expressed in the House is of vital interest to a politician, some dissatisfaction has been expressed by members. In addition, the general work of Parliament is not receiving such lengthy treatment by the correspondents as has been the case in the past, and the opinion is held in the lobbies that quite apart from personal publicity, this state of affairs should be altered. Adjectives Run Wild The manifesto issued by the United Party in 1928 has come in for much not-ice-in the House frpm time to time and members have had 'frequent resort to it in their efforts to pillory the Government for alleged breaches of promises. It remained for Mr. R. Semple (Lab.. Wellington East), yesterday to use it as a peg upon which to hang a series of adjectives that startled the House and left it mildly amused. He flourished the document in his hand and he declared that the United Party had broken all the promises contained in it. He said he had rend some remarkable documents in his time, but that was “the most memorable, historical, fascinating, hypnotising and paralysing manifesto” ever handed to the public by any political group.