THE OLD GANG

Grey River Argus, 10 August 1935, Page 3

THE OLD GANG

Smash and Grab (By John A. Lee, M.P.) On Al ay 5. 1932, the Smash-and-(iiali Forbes-Coates Government set out' to exclude the five-year-old children from our schools. Across all the years New Zealand had gradually improved its educational system. Classes had been reduced in size and the school life .lengthened. School Committee capitation ha dbeen advanced to a decent figure. Secondary education had been made more and more obtainable by the sons and daughters of ordinary citizens. The Government Expenditure Bills had already cut down capitation, cut it down so long that to-day insufficient is being spent on school sanitation. The infants had uow to be excluded from school altogether. Smash-and-Grab Forbes-Coates pretended that the exclusion of these children was dictated by more than financial consideration. The Government pretended that children would be healthier in their homes until six years old, that culturally there was a good deal to be said for excluding the children on the grounds of their immaturity. lit' was pretendejd that 'the infants would be advantaged by confining them to their homes. At a time when New Zealand was ready for an age of culture and leisure the children were to be denied culture. Of course the Government had already reduced allowances to kindergartens. This exclusion did not hurt the children of the wealthy, but it was a savage handicap to the children of the average citizen. The children of an unemployed worker suffering from over-crowding would have been far better off in school, but' Smash-and Grab grudged the workers’ children an education of any sort. By May 5. 1932 the clause excluding the five-year-old children was passed.

TEACHERS’ SALARIES ATTACKED. The passage of the above clause necessitated consequential clauses imposing sitil] further indirect' cuts on teachers. Obviously, wherever teachers’ salaries were based on average attendance the exclusion of five-year-child-ren involved either degradation or postponement of salary increments. The exclusion of fiveyear-olds also brought about a surplus of teachers and caused the closing down of ‘the Training Colleges. Hundreds of young teachers found themselves ready to teach and being filled into a rationing scheme which was litilp more than teaching work at relief rates of wages. Probably the worst of ail the cast performed by the Smash-and-Grab Forbes-C’oates Government was incorporated in clause 35 of the Finance Bill. Extraordinary though it may seem. financial considerations were used 'to dethrone democratic principles. How a clause to lengthen the life of Far’inment came to be incorporated in a Finance Bill is something T; have never been able ter understand. It must have been in accordance with the letter of Standing Orders or the Speakout. but certainly the e’ausp seems a'i offence against the spirit of a Democrat ic Government. Of course at' the moment there were many people in the New Zealand Parliament' as anti-democratic as Hitler. At the very least the extension of Parliament’s life should have been dealt with in a separate Bill. We were told that the Government had a four-yea r plan. The Hon. George Forbes justified the flouting of the people’s will by saying that rhe financia’ savings outweighted democratic considerations. Smash-and-Grab not only wanted to Smash the work ers’ standard of living but To Grab the machinery whereby the worker could rid himself of Forbes-Coates. Whilst some of the newspapers, not ably the Wellington “ Evening Post,” .joined with the Government in sneering at democratic considerations, a few agreed with 'the Labour Party in its attitude. The “Auckland Star,” May 2, 1932. said:—“Nothing short of a groat emergency could justify Parliament

extending its own term. The constitutional position is perfectly clear and the Government has not The remotest excus’e. ’ ’ The New Zealand “Herald”:— “The extension of the life of Parliament is an abuse of constitutional powers which should not be tolerated.” The Christchurch “Sun”:—“To push an extending P»ill through this week would bo plain {defiance of the constitutional rights of the electors. Christchurch “Star”:—“They (For-bes’-Coatos Smash-and-Grab) can never .justify a. constitutional -change of this magnitude.” The “Otago Daily Times” and the Christchurch “Press” spoke similarly. But the Government did not want justification. IT had the power. Smash-and-Grab believed that morality resided in power. While denouncing the rioters and passing bills to safeguard law and order the Government passed this Bill which was an inducement to lawlessness and disorder. Parliamentary Government', bought by British peoples with blood sacrifice was sneered at by the Smashers and Grabbers. What were constitutional precedents to a Government which wanted to increase its own life ? Wars may have been fought for democracy but For Les-Coates thought so little of democracy that one clause in a. huge Bill sufficed. At 7.45 a.m. the clause was put To the House. At 10.55 a.m. rhe Hon. Mr. Ransom, annoyed at Labour pro tests, moved “that 'the question be put.” The Gag was applied and the constitution flouted. Tn three hours Parliament had agreed to defy the people for an extra year. “Can Parliament do anything?” The Forbes-Coates Government had smashed the spirit of the constitution and had grabbed an extra year of life in three hours.

In New Zealand the Government had boon in Ihe habit of encouraging charitable bequest’s to our hospital system.® by paying subsidies from the Consolidated Fund. Thus if some public spirited citizen donated money for health research a Government subsidy could bp automatically eoUect&d by the hospital board which received the bequest’.

That the Smashers ‘ and Grabbers were not prepared to stand for any delay in their attack on the health of the opople the following shows. The clause was commenced at’ 12.15 p.m. Forty minutes later, at 12.55 p.m., the Smash-and-Grab crew were intolerant of Labour criticism and the Hon. Mr. Young, Minister of Health, moved, “That the question be now put’.” When the House divided on the

itself only Mr. Black and Mr. Atmore voted with Labour. Forbes-Coates advanced against our hospital systems with great glee. Clause 14 crippled the activities of the Workers’ Education Association. The association had aroused the ire of the Big Business men who reported on expenditure to the Government’. Man ilivGs, they reasoned, to produce profits not to become cultured. And why should a worker have the right to education in history. literature, music, economics, ptc., at the expense to the State ? The Workers Education Asso eia'tion had to be snnashed. Forward went Forbes-Coates Smash-and-Grab. I note the names of Mr. Wright, Mr. Stall worthy and Mr. Samuel among the Smashers and Grabbers.

Clause 49. taken in conjunction with other clauses giving the Minister the right to fix rates of interest payable by limited companies and savings banks for moneys received on deposit, strengthened the hold on New Zealand of the banking monopoly. This clause prevented building societies from receiving deposits of any lesser sum than £lOO. and was designed to force deposit’s into the trading hanks. Smash-and-Grab were interfering with the freedom of an investor to invest his savings to the best of his ability and handing him over to the banking combines. There were sufficient protest’s from Labour to have the clause postponed in its original form. Labour pointed out that the passage of the clause would cause a run on building societies whose investments were now liquid.