NOISY POLITICS

Evening Star, Issue 22879, 10 February 1938, Page 8

NOISY POLITICS

SOUTH DUNEDIN MEETING MR J. HARGEST’S STORMY RECEPTION APPEAL FOR FAIR HEARING IGNORED Turbulently noisy scenes marked the political meeting which Mr James Hargest, M.P., addressed at the South Dunedin Town Hall last night, the member and also the chairman (Mr J. J. Marlow) being frequently denied a hearing by the disturbing element, which was_ of considerable force and volubility. Both at the start of the meeting and during its noisy progress, the chairman made appeals for a fair hearing, yet they were ignored. For only a very brief spei! was Mr Hargest able to speak without interruption, although interjections never ceased, and the stamping, hooting, and ironical cheering and laughter were resumed with greater vigour and continued till the end of the meeting. The hall was packed, and the most vociferous and antagonistic section remained standing at the back of the hall. Police officers were in attendance, but their presence exerted no subduing influence, and it was only with difficulty that Mr Hargest was able to give his address. He had no opportunity of paying attention to continuity, for the efforts to divert him from his main political themes were too persistent, and the introduction of side issues by his opponents had to be handled. Not since a now famous occasion when a former Prime Minister gave a speech in the Town Hall ip the city has there been so rowdy a political meeting in Dunedin.

From the time the chairman (Mr J. J. Marlow) introduced Mr Hargest and asked for a fair hearing, a run of interjections and deafening outbursts were experienced. Mr Marlow said Mr Hargest was going to present one side of the political question. “Is he going to tell the truth ? ” asked a man.

Mr Marlow said the member for Awarua was a man of his convictions and a keen fighter. A front-row man: He never carried a sugar bag. A survey of Labour’s failure in other countries was being made by Mr Hargest when he was told that the audience was not interested and wanted to know what the National Party was goJI }.S t° do in this, country. His praise of the Mayor of St. Hilda met with a mixed reception, and it was remarked against Mr Marlow that ho “ never carried a sugar bag.”- ' CHEERS FOR HON. F. JONES. An outburst of cheering for over a mmute greeted mention by Mr Hargest of the Hon. I<, Jones, and when it died down someone asked: “How do you like that? He then explained that he was speaking on behalf of the National Party—a new party, a claim which was not endorsed by a large section of the audience. “ It’s the old party with a new name, suggested a man, and Mr Hargest was counted out to six. He said some people suggested it wms the old gang, and it was evident from the applause that a section with that belief was present. His statement was loudly disputed, and he then admitted that the Coalition Government was very soundly licked by the Labour Party at the last election.

Voices: Absolutely, and so will you be.

The description of the Government as a Socialist Government provoked an instant outcry, and the correction was given that the name was the Labour Party.

Mr Hargest: We- will compromise, and call it a Socialist Labour • Party. There is nothing wrong with the name of Socialist.

“Why bring it up, then?” he was asked. “ Why not bring in the Communists?”

Mr Hargest referred to the new party, and there was loud laughter at the comment “ The Garden Party ” from the back of the hall. Ho said that if the people endorsed Labour and socialism his party would accept the verdict.

A Voice: They will walk in. “ What about your policy?” was loudly asked when Mr Hargest told his audience that Labour would be opposed by one candidate only in each electorate, and he believed Labour would not win a majority of the seats. The noise continued, and in reply to a comment Mr Hargest remarked it was said a year ago that the National Party had no policy. Voices: You haven’t one now. FEAR AMONG LABOUR. “ The attendance to-night of the Labour Party supporters shows that there is a mighty great fear among them today,” said Mr Hargest, his comment provoking an almost deafening burst of laughter and cries of “Hot!” Mr Hargest said Labour knew the writing was on the wall. Yes, for the National Party ” came a retort, which was generously endorsed. For but a minute Mr Hargest was able to speak without interruption. He then mentioned that the legislation was dictated by the trades unions and councils. A Voice: Listen to the bogy man! Reference to the need for the safeguarding of the rights of the people was made by Mr Hargest. who mentioned the formation of tne Wellington Constitutional League and the Auckland Freedom 'Association, and claimed that they were non-political in character. They were dubbed “ the old man’s business party ” by a man in the noisy section, and the clamour was resumed when Mr Hargest said Labour’s legislation was for only one class of society. His claim that he was a worker provoked a renewed autburst, and he was told that he did not know the meaning of the word. The noise was so intense that Mr Marlow appealed for order. Mr Hargest’s remarks on prosperity and sharing of wealth were too much for the loquacious man in the front row, who made no attempt to disguise his disapproval. He put on his hat and walked out of the hall, being farewelled by loud applause from his voluble friends at the rear. Mr Hargest remarked that he was sorry to see the elector depart, as he was his best suppoter, COUNTED OUT, Labour’s experiences in government in New South Wales and England were being dealt with by the member, when he was loudly told to talk about New Zealand and about his policy. The advice was supported by deep cheering and heavy stamping of feet. The din held up proceedings completely, and when the chairman moved to the front of the platform to appeal for a hearing for

either him or Mr Hargcst—no one ivas certain to whom the display was directed —the counting-out process was twice followed. Not a single word of Mr Marlow’s appeal could he heard above the renewed stamping. At last Mr Marlow succeeded in raising his voice. “ How can Mr Hargcst speak if you have not the decency to permit him to do so? ” he asked. The chairman was promptly advised to sit down. The stamping of feet was renewed, and disorder broke out when a demand was made for fair play. Finally, there was a lull, and Mr Hargest remarked that those shouting him down were afraid of his criticism of the Labour Party. The ironical laughter prevented him from continuing for a few moments, and then a young woman persisted in interrupting him with “ What about your policy ? ” “ You will have to sit down,” Mr Hareest told her; “ I hate to ask a lady to sit down, but I have paid, for the use of this hall to-night. I will come and see you to-morrow night.” The young woman would not take his advice, and Mr Harget turned a blind eye on her pose. Finally she sat down. The reply that the way to reduce the cost of living was to put Labour out of power did not meet with approval, laughter and hooting holding up proceedings. In a momentary lull a voice at the back of the hall declared: “ He’s not a politician. He’s a comedian.” MORE INTERRUPTIONS. *' Did you carry a sugar bag to the relief depot? ” MnHargest was asked when he was dealing further with the cost of living; and a small section applauded his reply that 30 years ago he carried his swag from shearing shed to shed. He had also carried sugar bags to the relief depots to help others. Mr Hargest was given little chance of expounding his party’s policy without interruption, the next coming when a man produced a copy of the ‘ Evening Star ’ and declared that the member had made an insinuation against the Minister of Railways while speaking at North-east Valley the previous night. “ Wait till Sullivan gets a sight of you, and he will have a piece of your blood,” Mr Hargest was warned. He denied that he had ever used the word, and the man then advanced to the front of the hall and read the report aloud. For a brief spell the meeting was moderately quiet, and Mr Hargest made an attack on the broadcasting service, which he maintained gave no better programmes than three years ago, when the staffs were small. . Voices: Three cheers for Scrim! “ I am glad to see that that gentleman has some friends in this country commented Mr Hargest. A voice: What about Sterling? Above_,the resultant clamour, a man raised his voice with a claim that Mr Scrimgeour earned his salary, and Mr Hargest retorted that the first year’s operation of commercial broadcasting resulted in a loss of £6,000. The director was paid £1,500 a year because of bis ability to put over propaganda. Bedtime stories wore mixed with propaganda every night and everybody else was denied the right to do the same. LABOUR MAN’S APPEAL. Calls for an explanation of the National policy became incessant and Mr Hargest said it was a good one.— (Ironical laughter). The first thing they stood for was— A woman: Starvation! “The right to freedom,” said Mr Hargest, “ and that right is being denied me to-night by people who should know better.” A man rose in the body of the hall and said he had always voted against the Nationals and would probably do so again, but Mr Hargest was asked for his policy and the audience should listen to it. The interjectors took that advice to some extent and for a while the noise was lessened, although the interjections were as frequent as before, until the speaker was asked whether he would challenge a statement on overseas interest by Dr D. G. M'Millan, M.P., in the House. “ Dr M'Millan says a lot of things we don’t think worth while to challenge ” was Mr Hargest’s reply, and it. provoked one of the worst outbursts of hooting of the night. “ You ought to be in Hollywood,” said one of the men. STILL NOISIER DISPLAY. Mr Hargest was subjected at question time to a bombardment of questions. He was asked if he endorsed Mr T. K. Sidey’s statement that Labour was an irresponsible Government. Mr ‘ Sidey came from the side of the hall and explained that he said the method of the introduction of the 40-hour week was the act of an irresponsible Government, because it did not consult industry as to its likely effects. Labour did not promise the 40-hour week in the election manifesto. His following remarks were inaudable in the laughter and booing and he was advised to sit down. A few minutes later, Mr Sidey attempted to move a vote of thanks to the speaker, but he was counted out. The next series of questions were followed by provocative remarks to Mr Hargest and at last, despite an uproar, Mr Sidey succeeded in moving the vote. Someone was' preparing to move an amendment when the chairman declared the motion carried. Mr Hargest’s proposal of thanks to the chair met with a vary mixed reception, hoots being mixed with the applause, and as they left the platform a few sang ‘ The Red Flag.’