MEMBERS’ PATRIOTISM

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 October 1930, Page 10

MEMBERS’ PATRIOTISM

PERSONALITIES IN HOUSE

[special to “star.”]

WELLINGTON, September 30.

Some heat, and not a little feeling, were displayed in a verbal passage at arms, which occurred between the Member for Thames, and the Minister of Defence in the House to-day.

Mr Samuel was referring to the contract for the supply of small arms ammunition for use by the Defence Department, when he was interrupted by laughter from the Government benches.

“The silent members of the Government laugh,” he retorted, “and that is all they can do. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Defence were the only members of the Government who spoke in disparaging terms of the contract of 1924. We realise that both of -them are absolutely against the defence of their country.” The Minister of Health (Mr Stallworthy): That is pure bunkum.

“The Member for Thames is one of those who dares to say I am against the defence of my country,” said the Minister of Defence (Mr Cobbe). “I want to say that no Member of the House has suffered more or lost more than I have. One of my sons is lying dead, and another lying wounded as the result of war, and some people in the House who talk about defence matters were hiding themselves a long way from the front in the war No member of the House can refer to my actions in connection with defence. This sort of thing I have never heard raised before in the House, and I am sorry a Member should have descended to such a thing. (Loud United Party applause). Mr F. Waite (Reform): We all lost relatives at the war after all. Mr Barnard (Labour): Play the game.

“Yes, there is a question of playing the game,” said Mr Waite. “I lost a brother in the war, and got damaged two or three times myself.” At this stage he was called to order by the Chairman for not speaking directly to the Defence estimates, and he went off on another track. A little later, however, Mr Samuel returned to the subject. “I am sorry if I have hurt the Minister’s feelings,” he said, “by my remarks regarding his attitude on defence. I simply stated that he and the Minister of Health were against defence. I said nothing about the last. war. I have no knowledge of what relatives the Minister had at the war, or had killed in the war, but I want to say that he is in no more a peculiar position in regard to that than other people. 1 would have forgiven the Minister and said nothing further if he had not said something about somebody being behind the line. I want to ask him if he meant anyone in particular. Cheers came from the Minister’s own party when he said it, and I want to remind the House of the attack that was made on me once before, in this connection, and I want to know what the Minister meant.’

The Minister of Labour (Mr Smith); Does the cap fit? “Now I am in the peculiar position again,” said Mr Samuel, “of having to explain myself. There were six boys in our family. Four of them went to the Boer War, and there were five in the last war, and every one of them did his duty. I have nothing to hide. I was in command of a regiment, and carried out my duties according to orders and so far as being behind the lines is concerned, I commanded my regiment for the last six weeks, and during the evacuation of Gallipoli. I was also mentioned in despatches for work done on the Peninsula. The Minister of Educa tion smiles sneeringly as usual. I would not have brought this under notice if the the Minister had not said something about some members being behind the line. I was not one of them. Perhaps some of the Minister’s own members were.” Further discourse along the same lines was prevented by the intervention of the Chairman.

LABOUR AND EMPIRE.

[special to “stab.”]

WELLINGTON, September 30. An argument concerning Labour’s attitude on defence, arose through a remark by the Member for Napier (Mr. Barnard), who criticised some of the utterances from the Reform side of the House, and quoted Mr. Waite as having said that the defence system was no good unless they could send an expeditionary force overseas. Mr. Barnard said that Mr. Waite was like a miniature Alexander, sighing for fresh worlds to conquer. At the present moment they were concerned only with the defence of New Zealand. Mr. Coates: Not the defence of the Empire. Mr. Barnard: We are primarily concerned so far as these estimates are concerned with the defence of our own country. Mr. Coates: Is that the policy of the Labour Party?

Speaking at a later stage Mr. Coates remarked the debate had revealed to the House, the policy of the Labour Party. They were not concerned with the Empire. Mr. H. E. Holland: He did not say that.

Mr. Coates: The honourable gentleman can twist as much as he likes. The Member for Napier said they were not concerned with the Empire. Mr. Parry: Play the straight game. Mr. Howard: He corrected it immediately. Mr. Coates said apparently the Labour Party was not concerned about the othei’ parts of the Empire. Mr. Barnard said that Mr. Coates had either misquoted him or entirely misunderstood him. Mr. Waite had said the Defence estimates were useless, unless they made provision for sending a force overseas, and he had replied that they were not concerned with the estimates of other parts of the Empire, but those of their own country. Mr. Jordan declared that Mr Coates, for the sake of political propaganda in Waipawa, had tried to belittle Mr. Barnard.