ANGRY RETORTS

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 6 August 1925, Page 5

ANGRY RETORTS

SCENES IN THE HOUSE.

LABOUR’S POLICY

LIVELY DENU NCI AT'J ON

FROM OUR PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER. WELLINGTON, Aug. 5

Labours platform and policy were the subjects of Mr. Isiibfc s strong denunciation in Hue Ho-use to-day, and Mr. Speaker had at last to restrain angry interruption. Labour’s answer subsequently drove the proceedings to a) pitch, of mild disorder. i!he member for Ghrisitohurdh North showed how Britain, our chief market on whom we depend for prosperity, is in industrial danger through socialistic Ministers, who, he declared, were also permeating the Dominion. “Can you imagine more irresponsible, ,selfcontradictory, madder stuff than is ■served out day by day to tan -admiring crowd by members of the revolutionary socialistic party : yes —no —from stunt to finish?” asked Mr. Isitt, who preceded to quote as an example of the “glorious inconsistency” of the resolution of the Labour Party that inasmuch as wansMps were the mere tools of capitalism, they would give the % cold .shoulder to the American sailors. Would they be consistent .and boycott those pien who carried our produce to England in the interests of the capitalist .clasisew?' Labour welcomed “kamarad Jap” or “kamanad Chinaman,” but it demanded the maintenance of white New Zealand. Would capitalistic Japan be ■satisfied with a resolution of 17 colon rites, if there was no other method of maintaining a white New Zealand? Extreme' Labourites declared that there was no go-slow policy in New Zealand, but lie recently went . through Christ,church to " consult the tailors, (shirt makers, tiniibernien, and representatives of many other trades and professions. Every mail declared lie wa>s paying higher wages, but was not producing as much as in pre-war times. Last Monday lie saw the manager of one of the biggest firms in New Zealand, a man u ith no bitterness, but speaking kindly of Labour and of the character of those in his employ. He said “our minimum wage is 25 per cent, above pre-war and our production is 30 per cent lens.” Mr. Isitt asked iiow the Leader of tlie Labour Party could deny that there was a go-slow policy in New Zealand; that tlie party never condemned so like a weapon, which made a, man. an hourly thief and turned the worker into a master.

He put eight specific questions to the Leader or. f the Labour Party, designed to indicate the contradictory, and in some cases, tlie revolutionary nature of their policy. Among them, he asked: “Do members of his party support Air. Holland's statement that interest is something for nothing? Do ‘hey urge the Government to reduce the agreed upon rate of interest oil Government loans, 'or do they repudiate their leader? Does tlie revolu-tionary-socialist party deliberately arid knowingly advocate the system that they think will benefit the farmens but rob all mortgagees of money borrowed from them? With one exception these members united in a message of sympathy and condolence to the Russian Soviet over the death of Monster Lenin, a man who murdered his way do power and violated every principle of democracy, of public meeting, free speech and the press. If hostile to tiian, how does this l ■square with their recent championship of Lyons and with blieir 'loud profession of democraticprinciples. Members of the revolutionary socialist party claim to be loyaL and they take the oath of allegiance. When the Irish rebellion broke out, their official organ, t-lie AliaoriLand Worker, rejoiced that this was the first step in the breaking up of tlie British Empire. The other day the chief promote:- of their socialistic' -Sunday schools istated that he would rather pray for a weasel than for a king. “Why have we never heard one word of disavowal or condemnation'from the members on my left if they are loyal? Why have they abandoned their claim to industrial Parliaments, or do they • still want the present .system of Parliamentary Government 'broken up and industrial Parliament established?” he asked. Air. Jordan, Labour member for Manakau, who was the next speaker, angrily characterised Air. isitt as “a. variety artist who was at the end of bis Career in the House.” “Tb think he could have come down from what he was 20 yeans ago, to the position of .selling himself for a seat in the Upper House,” added Air. Jordan amid disorder and cries of “withdraw.”

Mr. Speaker asked Mr. Jordan to .vLbhdnaw, and Labour members shoutid : “Yv i ! il the Government give an assurance that it is not true.” Mr. Jordan withdrew the offensive expression., adding that there wavs a feeling that Mr. lsitt had served the Reform Party and that lie, would be rewarded with a seat m the Upper House. He had degenerated into- a ■‘squeaker,” “a flag waver and a fighter with his tongue.” He would miss prayers to play billiards. (Protests which led (to Air. -Speaker urging the member to avoid such references.)

Air. Jordan «said Air. lsitt had said the' Labour Party would repudiate interest, but he thought it would be reasonable regarding the war debt, to a-sik that a.s other men offered their lives, men with money should offer their money at as low rates as possible. As for the member for Christchurch North, ho was very’ little else than vanity, tie refused to ispeak unless to the gal.ery. and there was very little consideration in him for other people. Air. Jordan said, in reply to the charges of disloyalty, that many’ men who were denounced as disloyal were not members of the Labour Party. That Party was not disloyal, but they’ were prepared to meet this organised deception. At the last Piaster conference Upnuniumstts made application, for affiliation with the Labour Paity, but were refused admission. The Labour Party were not Communists. They were not running Socialistic Sunday schools and teaching blasphemy. Fie reiterated that they were not disloyal, and were nob engaged in a campaign of hate.