TORIES ANSWERED

Grey River Argus, 21 May 1942, Page 3

TORIES ANSWERED

By Mr J. O’Brien, M.P.

Speaking on the Financial Debate during the recent session of Parliament, Mr. J. O’Brien, (Westland), 'trenchantly replied to criticism from the Opposition benches. Although Mr Holland said he would accept the War Budget, he and other members proceeded to criticise the Government to the best of their ability. Mr. O’Brien in reply, said: Sir, the hen. member who has just resumed h.is seat gave us one of the usual, but perhaps not so vindictive, speeches he delivers in this House. Mr. Holland: Let the hon. member follow his example. Come on. Mr. O'Brien: I heard references to good wishes and good thoughts that were going to prevail during the debate. Nobody was going to say anything detrimental about the other side. I came to the conclusion, for the first time in my life, that I might haye to say very little about the Opposition. It was soon disillusioned, once the Opposition members started. The Leader of tiie Opposition never once let a chance go bv without trouncing the Government for all he was worth. Consequently, I can have something to say now. Mr. Holland: Be your old self. Mr. O’Brien: Members of tho Opposition get rid of some wonderful logic sometimes. The hon. member who has just resumed his 'sea'll said Ithe cost of producing butterfat had gone up 4d per lb. He ought to have a fairly good memory of the time when it was about 7d a lb, and when every farmer was crying for assistance, "and when all that the Tories could offer was a lOd per lb repayable advance. The hon. member forgets that his side fought an election on something they called “compensated price.” It is pretty dead now. They had a lot of trouble to get their leader’ to accept it, and finally, they decided to drop it. It could not win an election,. because it was too stupid. Even if costs mave gone up 4d per lb. (and they definitely have not) the farmers are a lot better off now. This word “costs” I hear dwhen I first entered the House twenty years ago. Tories said the farmers’ trouble then was costs. I can remember when they got their labour for nothing, and they still complained about costs, Tiie time of “over the fence” policy! And then they said they were going 'to save the farmer from his income tax! The small farmer at that time did not pay income tax! But instead of saving the farmers income tax, they gave a wonderful bonus to the big squatters. The hon. gentleman referred to the Salvation Army collecting for the orphans in their homes. I just wonder whether the hon. gentleman would tell the Salvation Army something about the Social Security Fund—which pays 15s a week to orphans. There is now no need'for the Salvation Army to go collecting round the country when they can get 15s a week for orphans. Why did not the hon. member tell the whole story when he was telling some of it, and expecting to put that stupidity down the throats of the people. Oh, how Opposition members dislike that Social Seeuriey! We remember that when we were introducing it, they brought actuates to show that the country could not pay the amount of money necessary to give us social securiev. They told us it could not be done—that We country would be bankrupt! That was four years ago—and the country has not pone bankrupt. The hon. member did not tell us what, the Consolidated Fund has been saved in paying pensions. When all '.s said and done, the Consolidated Fund has been saved a great, deal. Mr. Holland: Does the- hon. gentleman forget that he promised 30/a week superannuation? Mr. O’Brien: That will come in good time! The only thing the hon. gentleman wants is superannuation for the wealthy men who are drawing the £l2/10/- a year at the present time. Members of his own Party in my district say it is wretched —that thev are taking the money from the widows and orphans who

need it. I listen to the vaice pleading with the voter outside: “I am a good fellow; I will not cut wages; I will leave the Social Security Fund alone;” and all that kind of thing. However, I shall have something more to say about social security later on. Then we heard about the loan, and we had the statement that nobody would invest money here because of the heavy taxation he would have to pay. I would inform the hon. gentleman that there is no need for money to come to this country. There are millions and millions of pounds lying in the banks. In February last the sum of £60,000,000 was deposited in the trading banks without bearing interest. Mr. Lee: Why pay interest for the money we need then? Mr. O’Brien: I believe that too! I suppose there is about £200,000,000 awaiting investment now. But the investors want to send it overseas. Why? I suppose because the depositors cannot get big interest for it here. That is one of the reasons. I shall deal with that matter later on. Of course', if they could only get 6 per cent, or 7 per cet. interest and let the other fellow do the work while they looked on, it would be a glorious, decent country to live in! They would like to sit around and ■draw dividends, while the other fel- 1 low did the work, and they looked on and criticised. At the commencement of his address, the Leader of the Opposition said he would not indulge in carping criticism. Then he said he had not heard any complaints about the Budget, and that the people were taking it very well. After saying he had heard no complaint and was going to hip the Government, the Leader of the Opposition set about to tell us a lot of things. He wanted to know what Great Britain was going to think when the produced, shipping his produce Home, had to pay the worker £4 a day. Then he held up a lemon withered, and about the size of a boy’s marble, which, he said, had cost him 4d. There was something wrong with the person who paid 4d for that lemon! There is not a person outside a Mental Hospital who would pay 4 for such a lemon! When members from the other side show so little intelligence as to pay 4 for such a lemon, is it any wonder that we will not have a National Government ! (To be continued)