BREAK WITH PARTY

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 112, 4 February 1933, Page 12

BREAK WITH PARTY

Mr. Stallworthy’s Move NO MORE CAUCUSES Letter to Prime Minister In a letter he has forwarded to the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, Mr. A. J. Stallworthy, M.P. for Eden, announces he has no intention of attending further caucuses of the Coalition Party as at present constituted. For some time past Mr. Stallworthy has absented himself from caucuses of his party, and he stated yesterday that he felt compelled in the interests of his constituents practically to sever his connection with the party. Mr. Stallworthy was returned at last election as a member of the Coalition. He states that he has waited patiently but in vain for 15 months for the policy of national reconstruction and rehabilitation, on which the Government was returned, to materialise. When the Government’s programme culminated in an inflation of the exchange he felt compelled to act as he had. He now felt absolutely free of the Coalition to exercise his absolute independence on behalf of the constituents of Eden, on the merits of all measures submitted to the House. He did not propose, however, to associate himself with the Independent, group in the House. In his letter to Mr. Forbes Mr. Stallworthy gives the following reasons for taking the course he has adopted :—

1. In my opinion the methods of the Cabinet are a travesty of representative Government. Members of the Parliamentary party have not been consulted in framing the legislative proposals which most times have reflected pressure of influences outside the House rather than the corporate wisdom of the elected representatives of the people. 2. No doubt, largely the result of the Government’s failure when deciding policy and framing legislation to consult members of Parliament, and through them the electors of the Dominion, much of the Government’s policy has iu my opinion been subversive of the public good and of principles fundamental to social stability and progress. 3. The coercing of the commercial banks to artificially raise the exchange rate New Zealand on London to 25 per cent, when the favourable trade position of New Zealand does not warrant it is, in my opinion, the culmination of a policy of Government interference with business that has been disastrous to the Dominion and which is now a serious major hindrance to economic recovery. 4. Your plain declaration in November last that the question of exchange was entirely one for the banks and that the Government would not interfere, and your recent volte face as Prime Minister in doing what you said previously the Government vVould not do, and what the banks declared was “not in the interests of the Dominion,” seemed to me to be a grave breach of trust. Mr. Stallworthy also declared that the Prime Minister’s vacillation had involved many of his constituents, along with thousands of others in the Dominion, in financial difficulty and ruin. Since last election it had become painfully obvious that Mr. Forbes was now Prime Minister in name only, and that the leadership had been surrendered to the Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. The Government had no moral right to remain in office as- it had lost the confidence of the people. NOT SURPRISED Prime Minister’s Reply INSINUATION - RESENTED The following reply was sent yesterday by the Prime Minister to Mr. Stallworthy :— Dear Mr. Stallworthy.— I desire to acknowledge the receipt of your letter intimating that it is not your intention to attend any further caucus of the Government party. I may say that your letter has not come as a surprise, because it has not escaped my notice that since you had safely secured your return as a supporter of the Coalition Government at the last general election you have never shown any desire to be helpful to the Government in the very difficult duty they had to carry out. the performance of which was bound to give rise to some unpopularity. On the contrary, you have shown a disregard of the pledges given nt that election, and you have consistently adopted a hostile attitude toward the Government.

I must, however, take the strongest exception to the paragraph in your letter in which yon state that “a small minority, by receiving advanced information of the pending rise in exchange, have secured inordinate gains at the cost of the distress and ruin of fellow-citizens.” If (he insinuation is intended that certain people received premature information of the Government's decision improperly through Ministerial sources, then I <]esire to say that such an insinuation is absolutely without foundation, and, in my opinion, unworthy of one who has so recently held Ministerial office himself. I observe that you have handed your letter to the Press. I propose to take a similar course in connection with this reply. Yours faithfully. G. W. FORBES.