EVENING Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1931. MORAL OF THE SESSION

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 98, 28 April 1931, Page 8

EVENING Post. TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1931. MORAL OF THE SESSION

The emergency session of Parliament which opened on the 11th March, and which the Prime Minister expected to complete, a task of almost unexampled difficulty, in three weeks, has been extended to nearly seven, and it is in accordance with the perverse uncertainty of human affairs that after, successfully grappling with the most far-reaching problems it should have narrowly escaped disaster on an incidental point in a measure which everybody declared to be beyond the sphere of party. When the Hawkes Bay Earthquake Bill came up for its second reading in the House of Representatives the tone of the debate presented an encouraging contrast to that of the bitter, prolonged, and to a large extent deliberately obstructive controversy over the Finance Bill. The foolish, undemocratic, costly, and futile tactics by which the Labour Party succeeded in showing that New Zealand's danger is Labour's opportunity and in-drastically curtailing the almost unique . privileges hitherto enjoyed by minorities in our House of Representatives were, replaced by a helpful and. constructive spirit. The Reform Party's attitude, though it had previously been for the most part dominated by this spirit, seemed to be no longer hampered ■by the fear that too hearty an approval of the Government's policy 1 might compromise their freedom l when the old, unreserved party warIfare is resumed in c few months' lime on the hustings, or perhaps earlier still.

f For those who are simple enough ito think that, in a time of national danger the nation's interests should be given precedence over the interests of party, and that this precedence can never be permanently secured under a three-party system, the debate on the second reading of the/Earthquake Bill was welcome as a,lucid interval in the contentions and suspicionsl which imperilled the chief business of the session. But as these ! simple folk, though constituting, we believe, a' considerable majority of the people, are not yet represented by a majority in Parliament, it was perhaps just as well that the hopes with which they were inspired'by the second reading debate on this conspicuously non-party Bill should have received a severe shock before it was through Committee. The week-end.was overshadowed by the possibility that the difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition over Part 111. of the Earthquake Bill, which proposed a special tax on insurable property, and the certainty that Labour would support the Opposition might result in the wreck of the Bill, and eveii !of the Government. But the expectation that the Prime Minister would treat any amendment directly challenging the tax as a no-confidence i motion was fortunately not realised. The'decision which he announced yesterday to withdraw this part of the Bill rescued the Government and the House from an embarrassing position, and the country from the grave risks of an immediate dissolution. But the narrow escape supplies another glaring, illustration of the dangers of the three-party system, and increases the interest with which the replies of Mr. Forbes and Mr. Coates to the demands submitted by business men from the four chief cities are awaited.

iOn the rising of Parliament today public sentiment will be divided between a sense of relief at the discharge •by Parliament of a supremely difficult,- invidious, and momentous task, and gratitude to the man who led the way. Mr. Forbes lias had to deal with a more alarming economic slump than that which confronted Sir Harry Atkinson in 1887 and Mr. Massey in 1921 and 1922. He has brought to his task just the same coolness, courage, and disregard of party interests that they brought to theirs, and he has done so in the face of far more serious political difficulties!. Atkinson and Massey were political veterans at the height of. their "power when they shouldered their respective burdens, and they had fairly compact majorities behind them. But, so far as the Premiership or the Ministry of Finlance is concerned, Mr. Forbes was a mere novice when his call came. After he had held. these offices for eight months, during five of which he had been out of the country, he returned from London in January to face a very serious financial and economic position. Within'a month —the1 time would have been about a week shorler if the Hawkes Bay earthquakes had not intervened —Mr. Forbes had, helped, of course, by the labours'o.f faithful colleagues during his absence, taken stock of the position and issued a candid and comprehensive statement, together with

a di-as'tic programme of retrenchment and reform, and an appeal to the country for support. Before another month had passed Parliament had assembled for a special session Ito deal with his proposals, and in less than two months more, a considerable part of which was taken up with a Labour stonewall and with passing an amendment of the Standiing Orders in order to break it down, !(he whole programme has been, enacted, substantially as passed. If the magnitude and complexity of the difficulties to be overcome, .and of the certainty that the remedies , would be unpopular in proportion to ■their faithfulness be fairly measured, the task undertaken at such short notice and put through so rapidly must appear to be worthy of a Seddon .or a Massey with a record majority behind him. But it has been accomplished by a man who, las we have said, is a novice in his !high office, whose powers of leadership were unknown, even to himself, [and who with not much more than 'a third of the House at his command, !has often been uncertain whether jeven the crucial clauses of his measures would be carried. Jn these circumstances it is obvious that the Prime Minister owes much to the loyalty of the Opposition, but it has been an uncovenanted loyalty, and for that reason it has repeatedly 'left both the Government and the country in doubt as to the- result. The session has, nevertheless, not only escaped disaster but achieved a great success. But what security is there that disaster will be escaped at the General Election, if the old differences, which ihave been in abeyance with such happy results during the session, are to be given full play again in the coming session, and before the electors? Not only can there be no security for the evolution of a strong, sound, and efficient Government from a triangular contest on the old lines, but in the absence of a much more definite understanding than has yet' been attempted the odds against such a happy result seem to be heavy.