COMEDY OR TRAGEDY?

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 5 November 1929, Page 5

COMEDY OR TRAGEDY?

A LABOUR MOTION. WAS IT ARRANGED? ALLEGATION BY REFORM MEMBER. (By Telegraph—Special to “The Star.”) WELLINGTON, Nov. 5. The state of uncertainty in the minds oi members regarding, the security of the Go\ eminent as a result of Mr. H- E. Holland’s no-confidence amendment regarding puulic service salaries, which a number of Reform members appeared likely to support, was reflected when Mr. W. E. Parry, Jbabour member for Auckland Central, took exception to a statement by Mr. A. M. Samuel, Reform member lor Thames, that the Labour leader had brought forward his motion in collaboration with the acting-leader of the Government. Mr. Parry characterised Mr. Samuels statement as underhand and untrue, and he had to withdraw ny order of Mr Speaker. Mr. Samuel prefaced his remarks by saying that he regretted the Labour leader's motion bad been made one of want of confidence. The Government should have taken the House into its conlidence. “There is no doubt, in my opinion, that this is the result of an arrangemfent made between the leader of the House and the leader of the Labour Party,” said Mr. SamuelMr. Parry (hotly): You have /no right to say that. Mr. Samuel: I have said that it is my opinion, and I challenge the leader of the House to make a statement to the contrary. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West): Anyone could make a statement to the contrary and it would be just as true as what you have said. “GIVE US EVIDENCE,” Mr. Samuel reiterated his opinion, whereupon the Minister of the Hon. W. A. Veitcli, interjected: “Give us some evidence.” “I have stated my opinion that both the acting-leader of the Government and the leader of the Labour Party must have known that the leader of the Opposition intended to bring down a motion of this kind when the opportunity offered.” Mr- Savage: So we took the wind out of your sails. MIGHT END IN TRAGEDY. Mr. Samuel: That is exactly the position. He said that he, for one, would vote for the motion, although lie regretted it had been made one of want of confidence. There had been several comedies enacted this session, but he believed this was a comedy which might end in tragedy, as there might be sufficient members on the Opposition side of the House voting for the resolution to put the Government out. He did not believe it would cost the Government £600,000 to do what was sought; the amount would be nowhere near that sum.

The leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Holland): It would certainly not be half. Mr. Samuel said that members of the United Party had advocated an increase in civil servants’ salaries on the hustings, and the lower paid officers were unquestionably entitled to some advance. In no other walk of life would men be allowed to come to a standstill and remain hard and fast. Mr. Samuel said he would not speak further, as lie wished to see a vote taken as quickly as possible. In repeating his belief that there had been an arrangement between the Labour and the United Parties to prevent tlie Opposition from getting in with a motion on similar lines, Mr. Samuel said that the Opposition leader’s motion might not have been on exactly identical lines, but it would have met the positionMR, PARRY IN FIGHTING MOOD. “That is a typical manifestation of the cultivation of his own mentality,” began Mr. Parry in referring to Mr. Samuel’s speech, which he characterised as typical of the member for Thames and most extraordinary. (Loud Reform laughter.) It was all very well for Mr. Samuel to make such a speech now, but lie had never taken any action when his own party was I in office.

Mr. Samuel: I’m not the leader of the party. Mr. Parry: No, and he never took a step, and 1 say he is not following his leader to-day when he makes the statement he lias just made. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Coates): How do you know? Mr. Parry said that Mr. Samuel was now suggesting some ulterior motive by saying that the Labour Party was in league with the Government, because the Reform Party had intended to make a similar move- ‘‘His speech was typical of that member,” continued Mr. Parry, “because the member for Thames is the scientific political acrooat of the Reform Party. He is most acrobatic in bis mentality. I have noticed how he attempts to steer clear of all the moves in this House to keep liimseif on the right side. It would not be the first time he has been absent when a vote was taken on au important question.” Mr. Samuel: Explain that. Mr Parry: “Yes, and I can explain it in the same way as the honourable gentleman explained the conference the United Party was supposed to have had with the Labour Party. The member for Thames could give no evidence in support of his statement, but could only say it was bis opinion. We all know the value of his opinion. It is all right for him to get up and make ,a statement and then get off scot free, but he will not get away with it This time. This half-joking business lie had indulged in for a long time has just about reached its limit, and the more sincere section of the Hctase will call the honourable- gentleman’s bluff.” Mr Parry assured the House anil country t.liat there had been no 'preconceived' move between the two parties. Mr Samuel, in an interjection, repeated his assertion. Mr Parry: Oh! Well, if you will say it. somewhere outside this chamber we might- lie able to- satisfy each other whether it was so or not. (Laughter). Mr Samuel: I say it- did. Mr Parry: Well, any how, lam pleased he will vote for the resolution, and I trust he will use his influence with his party. * Mr .Tones (j\lid-Oanterbury): Then why do you go- for him? Mr Parry: I want to- say I don’t like it. I don’t believe in such- underhand statements. It is untrue that there was any arrangement. Mr Speaker; The honourable member must withdraw the worn. Mr Parry: Well, then. I’ll say underSpeaker: The honourable member must withdraw the word “untrue.” Mr Parry : Very we'll, sir, I shall substitute ‘‘contrary to fact.” (Laughter). A QUESTION OF SINCERITY. Mr Parrv said that the Labour Party had consistently endeavoured to get the

cuts restored and now that the chance had come to get something done, he hoped Mr Samuel would vote- for the resolution. Surely there was nothing in the resolution to lead Mr Samuel to bJ.i'cve that there had been -any arrangement between Labour and the Government. If the only iieason why Mr Samuel voted for the resolution was that he believed the .Reform Party would not vote for it, 'then that showed how much sincerity he had.

Mr Samuel, rising to a point of personall explanation, emphatically denied Mr Parry’s statement that on more than one occasion he had absented himself when an important vote was being taken. “I have never evaded a vote and have never absented myself except when not in Wellington, and X strongly resent what was said.” Mr Speaker: Order! ' Mr Samuel: 1 give the .statement an emphatic denial. Mr R. A. Wright, Reform member for Wellington Suburbs, followed Ml'. Sullivan (Avon), who had urged the Acting Leader of the House to reconsider his decision to make ia no-confi-denoe: feet of the. motion. The Labour Party, suggested Mr Wrigkt. was in a state of trepidation over the consequences of it,s action, and he was surprised at the position in view of the good feeling prevailing between them and the Government. Mr H. T. Armstrong: This division wild show where, the goodwill is. Mr Wright, followmg up his point., suggested that the Labour leader had been taken quite by surprise by the action of the Hon. G. NY. Forbes, hence the pathetic a-pgeals to him to- do something, so that the division need not be taken. Personally, he could see no other coni'?© for the Government than to. go to the division. Some members of the Reform Party were no more prepared to put Inborn* on the Treasury benches than Labour was prepared to reinstate Reform. He could not understand how the Government came to make this mistake, and why it did not consider *he financial position before it made such liberal pre-e7eetion promises.