LABOUR HOSTILE

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 166, 9 April 1932, Page 12

LABOUR HOSTILE

Financial Readjustment POLICY CRITICISED “The Only Possible Course” A stormy reception was accorded the introduction of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill in the House last evening, and Labour members spent nearly an hour in hostile criticism of the Government’s policy. The Leader of the Opposition said that although members were not informed as to how far Ihe Government intended to cut pensions and wages, it war quite clear that the Bill was one of the most dangerous and reactionary measures that had been placed before ’Parliament since New Zealand had had a system of representative government. He assured the Prime Minister the Labour Party would offer the measure every opposition afforded by the forms of the House. It was impossible to go into the details of the Bill, as members wished to secure copies and study its provisions, but he wished to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that the proposals contained in it were given by the Prime Minister to newspaper editors of the four main centres before members of the House themselves were acquainted of the Government’s intentions. Mr. It. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) : The editors were consulted. Secret Meeting Alleged. Mr. Holland said he wished to protest also against the almost disgraceful manner in which the newspapers had suppressed this fact since it had been mentioned in the House, and he invited the Prime Minister to make a statement at this stage about what 4ie termed the “secret meeting” with the newspaper editors, and to reveal to members what arrangement, if any, had been made between " the newspaper editors and the Government. Without wishing to go into this question further, Mr. Holland said this measure would inflict injury upon New. Zealand, and misery and hardship upon the mass of the people. Apparently the interests that it would • mostly serve were those of the greaj; financial institutions. The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, said it was not an uncommon thing for a Government to discuss affairs with newspaper editor's. Mr. W. Parry (Lab.. Auckland Central) : You called a conference. Mr. Forbes said a conference had not been called. Dlr. Parry: Who paid the expenses? Mr. Forbes: The Leader of the Opposition, as a newspaper man, knows that any suggestion pf an arrangement would be resented at onee by those who control the newspapers. Nobody, whether Prime Dlinister or anyone else, would have the temerity to suggest to the newspapers, that they should do anything they considered it was not their duty to do. Dlr. Semple: Did you always say that? Minister’s Hard Work. Dlr. Forbes: I want to pay a tribute to the Dlinister of •Finance who, for the past month, has been going into the question with those who are interested Labour Members: Ah, ha 1 Dlr. Forbes: And discussions have been held with various organisations upon the possible effect of this legislation, which the Opposition will agree is among the most far-reaching that has ever been placed before this country. Dlr. 11. E. Holland: Were the trade unions invited? Dlr. Forbes: I do not - think any measure ever placed before this House has equalled this in its widespread effect. The Dlinister of Finance has been engaged night and day in consultation, and the question of the conference of newspaper editors is only one phase of the legislation. The editors are in no better position than the members of the House. Dlr. Semple: Who blew the gaff ou you? Dlr. Forbes: I don’t know. Perhaps the honourable gentleman knows something about, it. Dlr. Semple: I don’t know. I am not in the circle. Dlr. Forbes: We want this Bill to be printed so it may be circulated.. And when its contents are known, the people will see that justice has been done. (Labotlr laughter.) Dlr. Forbes added that even the members of the Opposition, though• perhaps disagreeing upon some phases of the measure, would admit that it was designed to meet an emergency, and would give it their support. Dlr. DV. J. Jordan (Lab.. Manukau) : You will not go to the country .on it. Dlr. Forbes: Oh, yes; delighted ! “Gross Maladministration.” Mr. J. DfcCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) suggested that the title of the measure should be the National Repudiation Bui. The Government, he said, had been guilty of gross maladministration of the atfairs of the country. The Prime Dlinister could only think in terms of depression. The Bill would intensify and deepen the depression. , ~ , Dlr. W. E. Parry (Lab.. Auckland Central) asked when the Government intended to call a halt in its destructive poliev; did it intend to wait for the people of New Zealand to rise up in their thousands and demand its resignation. The Minister of Public Works, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, said one was forced to the conclusion that the two previous speakers were not yet aware with the serious position facing the country. Labour Voices: Oh, yes we are. • Dlr. Coates said there was room lor differences of opinion, but the Goveinment believed it was adopting the only possible course. If the huge fall in the national income were not combated, the only thing left to do was to let the c'ouiitrv “gallop to ruin.” The sense ot honesty and the determination of the people would see the country through, but if it wavered and attempted to avoid G'e issues, the nation would gi> under. ith all/the efforts already made and the sacrifices demanded, last year ended with a £2,500.000 deficit. This year a prospective deficit of over £8,000,000 had to be faced. The proposals in the Bill covered a three-years’ plan and no other way out of the position could be found. The Labour Party challenged the first reading, which was agreed to by 43 votes to 24