ELECTION PROMISES.

Evening Star, Issue 21092, 3 May 1932, Page 1

ELECTION PROMISES.

TO TUB EDITOR.

Sir.—Allow me, as one who was present at the meeting in question, to correct Mr Harrison in his letter of April 29, and to place before your readers the true facts. Sir Charles Statham, the night before the General Election, thought it fit and proper to criticise the Labour Party for its references to the Five-year Plan for New Zealand—this from the candidate who could take no port in party politics, and who right throughout his campaign maintained that his hands were tied. In his criticism of the Five-year Plan, which he construed as a Labour Party bogey, and especially the clauses dealing with the reductions of social services and pensions, he said; “This is absolutely ridiculous, and rather than stand for such legislation I would resign the Speakership,” which efiateinent was greeted with loud applause. Now, that proposed legislation has become law', and the Speaker’s promise is still unfulfilled. That same evening Sir Charles Statham was asked the question ; “ In the event of the Coalition Government introducing a Bill for the further reduction in wages, attack on the social services of this country, or amendments to the Arbitration Act, and a fifty-fifty division, how would you record your vote? ” His answer was; “ I would vote against the raeas'ure.” This after saying that the Government could not be cast out on the deciding vote of the Speaker. Surely this proves that Sir Charles was adopting other than honourable methods to secure votes and to lure electors into a false sense of security regarding these contentious matters. At the close of Sir Charles Statham’s meeting one of the electors present rose and disabused the minds of those present as to the Fiveyear Plan being the Labour Party’s bogey. Just how true he was the recent legislation of the Coalition Government will prove. He told those present where it originated; also that it would most likely never have been published had those responsible for it foreseen that the Coalition Party wou.d go before the electors for the mandate to enforce such legislation, instead of exi tending the life of the then existing Parliament, ns they desired. He pointed out that Mr Coates’s unemployment scheme was one of the planks of the Five-year Plan, and so was the amendment to the Arbitration Act, which was prepared for last session of Parliament, but was of such a contentious nature that the Government was not prepared to enact it without a mandate from the people. So that the major points of the plan which Sir Charles formed ridiculous have now become law, and Sir Charles is still Speaker of the House.—l am, etc., F.A.L.P. May 2.