The Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, December 8th, 1932. A POLITICAL SCANDAL.

Grey River Argus, 8 December 1932, Page 4

The Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, December 8th, 1932. A POLITICAL SCANDAL.

Though scarcely sensational, it was a. remarkable, and most discreditable, thing which Cabinet Ministers were last night obliged in the House openly to admit. It was nothing less than gross and glaring political discrimination and favouritism in the selection of appointees for positions at the Government's sole disposal. No denial was made, because none dare, be attempted, of the fact that all of the Mortgage Adjustment Commissions that have been set up throughout the Dominion have without exception been recruited from supporters of the Government. While one Minister alleged that all of Hie appointments consisted of the best men

available for the jobs, another explained just what constitutes the best qualification in (he Coalition estimation. This Miyister, Air Coates, made, the explanation, not only without qualification, but with explicit emphasis. It was doubtful, said he, if the Government could have found one single supporter of Socialistic, doctrine in all New Zealand qualified to serve on these Commissions, lie also declared that the difficulty would be to discover any member of the Labour Party who was a farmer and who could understand the difficulties of the farmer. Here is a definite admis. sion that in the Government’s eyes either membership of the Labour Party or the acceptance of any Socialistic principle constitute a disqualification for membership of these tribunals. Doubtless there remained nothing else whatever for the Minister to say by way of excuse for the fact that he could, when asked, name not one appointee who was not a Government supporter, or what one Labour Member described as a good Government Party man. The pub. lie therefore can draw no other conclusion than that the Commissions have simply been packed barefacedly and brazenly. It is an illuminating sidelight on the whole Coalitionist manner of procedure, whether in handling their politicians inside Parliament or in excluding their opponents from having any voice or influence outside Parliament in this most vital economic sphere. The occasion when daylight was shed on the scandal was that of doubling the grant for these tribunals, £5OOO having previously been voted, and a similar sum being allotted to make the total £lO,OOO. One Member, perhaps flippantly, remarked that £250 a year was very acceptable, but it is not to be suggested that the appointees fail to give service for their emoluments to the best of their ability. According to Mi' Coates, indeed, their service is reckoned to be influenced by their political leanings, since "he says the Government has ruled out Labourites precisely on account of their being Labourites. To be such, it appears, renders men—and farmers at thatz—unable to appreciate or understand farmers’

difficulties. The suggestion here is that the Labourite might be unsympathetic towards the farmers, or, in other words, the mortgagors. Now does Mr Coates really for a moment imagine, or expect anybody else to believe he imagines that Labourites are so biased in favour of the mort-gage-hold and the mortgagee that they would give the farmer a raw deal as compared with the sort of a deal the mortgagor would get from a Coalitionist supporter? J f he expects anybody to stomach that delusion, he is better able to delude himself than most people had fancied. The mortgaged farmer need have no fear of hostility from a Labourite member of such a tribunal, were there such a member. If there is any interest that is likely to have been apprehensive as to a Labourite appointee, it certainly is not that of the mortgagors, hut rather that of the mortgagees. lienee it is a pretty poor brand of eyewash to try on the public in saying it is regard for the poor farmer that has led the Government to exclude any Labour sentiment from the tribunals who are adjusting mortgages. So lame a. defence of the .utter bias shown, may be considered preferable to none at all. but it is worse than no defence. It. only adds insult to injury. The public, in view of all this favouritism, will be very apt to question the standpoint of the Alinistcr w ho said Ihe votes for the Commissions are entirely a great investment. The country is composed of more than, one political section, ami its truest interest can only be fully served when there is fair play for every section.