COUNTRY OR PARTY?

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 151, 29 June 1931, Page 7

COUNTRY OR PARTY?

A DEFENCE OF REFORM

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Your correspondent, Sir. T. A, Fraser, has surely a vory short memory. In his letter which appeared on Friday evening, he actually wrote of the Reform Party as "standing aloof in our time of stress." Standing; aloof, indeed! Has Mr. Fraser forgotten the way in. which, last year, Mr. .Coates and many other Reform, members were continually warning the Government of the • situation into which the country was drifting, and begging it to take action while there was yet time to avert a crisis?. He should read, for, instance, Hansard or newspaper reports of 17th July, 1030. He should remember how on 10th October, 1930 Mr. Coates again drew attention, in a most arresting and emphatic manner, to the approach, of a serious crisis. "I do not wish t& appear as an alarmist,-" said Mr. Coates' on-that occasion, "but I. do think it is the duty of. every' right-thinking person. to face the hard facts." He then went. on to give facts and figures to prove how serious the: position -was even' then becoming, and urged the Government to act ■while there was yet time. , But.the Government still ignored the warnings. Nothing was done,- month after month, while tKe ; situation; steadily drifted from bad to worse., A further!reasoned review; of the whote position was given by Mr. Coates on ls't January, 1931 in his Ke* Year message through the Press. i, Agaia on 19th January the Reform Party, following a special conference, issued another public statement; of the position and another call to. the Government to take action.

Then, on 21st January, 1931, the Reform Party deliberately resolved to depart from the traditional function of an Official Opposition, and,, in view of the serious economic crisis and. the United Government's absolute lack of policy, Mr. Coates (though. Leader of the Opposition) took the unprecedented step, of publicly recommending a policy to the Government..ln this publio statement Mr. Coates reviewed:. the economic position, emphasising.-.the need for action; and, as all careful students of . politics will remember, he ithen definitely recommended to the Government a policy under the following heads:. (1) Advance* to farmers to enable them to buy fertilisers; (2) mortgagors'-.relief j (3) derating; (4) tariff amendments to reduce co3t of living and costs of production; (5) re-valuation of'land;- (6) National Economic Conference to work but methods of reducing costs of production in industry, in such a way that "the necessary readjustments shall not fall unduly upon an/ section of' the farmers, business1 men, workers, or investors, but shall be shared fairly by all";1 (7) payment by results; (8) State trading departments to pay. full general and local taxes; (9) drastic reduction of Government expenditure; (10) cessation of railway construction in all cases where the annual: loss of the line were completed would be greater than the annual loss if construction ceased now; (11) removal. of railways from political control; (12) payment, of less than standard wages oh relief work. } ■ Mr. Coates concluded that manifesto by declaring; "I and my. party still adhere« to our original offer, made to the United Government when it 'first assumed office, that we were prepared to assist the Government in passing any measures in the real interests of the community as a whole. The Government can rely upon our support if it will now initiate these urgently; necessary measures." Yet now Mr. T. A. Fraser talks of the Reform Party as "standing aloof." •■■>...-• v Three weeks later Mr.: Forbes issued a statement.in which lie indicated that he would adopt some of the recommendations of the Reform Party. During the first session of ' Parliament he did introduce measures dealing with (1) Government ex- ' penditure, (2) mortgagors' relief, (3) railway control The Reform Party did not approve or the Government's flat per*, centage ■ cut on Public ■ Service salaries; and suggested that aa abatement should be made in the case of those receiving small salaries if they had dependent children; but when the government refused to accept this suggestion; the Reform Party, decided not to press it to the point of defeating: the Government. The Railway Bill was also subjected to constructive criticism by the Reform Party, and greatly, improved as a result. Later, the Reform Pirly forced the Government to drop its measure to impose a most inequitable fira insurance tax. Eventually, also, Mr. Coates, after persistent efforts, was able to prevail upon the Government to assist the farmers to obtain supplies of fertiliser*. But generally the Reform Party; give the Government most generous assistance throughout the session, enabliug ft to pass the legislation necessary to meet tie economic crisis. Was that "standing aloof," as Mr. Fraser suggests?" The day alter Parliament had risen Mr. Forbes made his proposal-that the Reform Party (and. ajso the United Party) should disband, with a view to forming a new; hotch-potch "Nationalist" Party. Mr.' Coates, as spokesman. for the Reform Party, refused to adopt .this proposal, giving his,reasons for believing that sucli a step would not be in the national interest. He added,1 however: "The Reform Party will continue to support such measures of finance and economy as tha present crisis demands; and if further help is required, not merely in the House, but! in the -preparation of legislation, I am prepared in the public interest to furnish a small committee of Reform members to confer, with your Ministers before tha legislation is introduced." This was aa unprecedented offer for a Leader of tha Opposition to make to the Leader of tho Government—«n offer not merely to suppopfe but achisily to Belp in the preparation of, measures which would be in the national interest at this time of national crisis. Surejy even Mr, T. A. Eraser could not describe this as "^standing aloof." It Is true tha* Mr. Forbes absolutely ignored this offer.of co-operation, displaying thus not only grave discourtesy, but also raising in many people's minds an unfortunate doubt as to the'sincerity of his original s I proposal. The fact stands that Mr. Coates did make this offer, and that Mr. Forbes ! greeted it with a loud and eloquent silence; Ihe ignored it absolutely. But if was hardly Mr. Coates—was it?—who was "standing ialoof. . : •■,-.. ' " ■ :

- Mr. j"raser concludes his letter with a dogmatic assertion, that ■',' the weight «6 public opinion is opposed to the attitude taken up by the Reform Party." Well, it may be_ that Mr. Fraser has some special Sjualification to enable him to judge what "public opinion" is. But usually when people write about "public opinion," they, mean the opinion of themselves and peri haps a dozen of their o\m immediate asso« ciates—or the opinion of the editor of tha local paper. Be that as it may, in the Hauraki by-election Mr. Forbes definitely, declared that he would regard that election as a "test" of public opinion in regard to fusion; and public opinion in Hauraki r&i vealed itself in a reduction of the vote for Mr. Forbes, the United Government, and the fusion proposal, by 66 per cent. The fusion candidate lost his deposit, while the Reform (and anti-fusion) candidate scored a clear majority over the combined vote of his three rivals. This can be taken as at least as reliable an indication o£ public opinion" as the dogmatic assertioa of your correspondent, Mr. T. A. Fraser.-* .1 am, etc.,

MALVERNIANy ,;