GOVERNMENT PARTY SAFE

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 25 January 1933, Page 5

GOVERNMENT PARTY SAFE

MR. FORBES OPTIMISTIC MAY LOSE SOME SUPPORT DEFEAT THOUGHT UNLIKELY. SUFFICIENT VOTING POWER. WELLINGTON. Jan. 24. On present indications it can be ieiiably foreshadowed that the Government will not be defeated in the House on the exchange issue. It may lose, either temporarily or permanently, the support of a few of its adherents, but the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes) is confident of a sufficient majority to secure the rejection of any no-confidence amendment. When questioned on the point today, Mr. Forbes made it clear that no doubts as to the outcome existed in his mind. “The Government will not be defeated on the Bill indemnifying the banks against losses arising out of accumulated exchange credits in London/ 5 he declared. The Prime Minister was asked whether he was prepared to state the ground for his assumption, and whether it was a fact that the consent of the members of the Coalition to the raising of the exchange rate had been sought by circular telegram' prior to Cabinet’s reaching its decision. Mr. Forbes replied that it had been unnecessary to consult members beforehand, since at the final caucus before the House adjourned for Christmas, Cabinet had received from the party what could he described as a mandate. “They left it to us entirely,” Mr. Forbes explained, “to do whatever we thought fit to meet the crisis, and promised to support us in whatever policy we decided to adopt. The only communication sent to members' was one announcing Cabinet’s decision on the exchange question and requesting them to withhold their comment until the full statement was placed before to-day’s caucus.”

DUTY OF COALITIONISTS. Replying to a further question, tiie Prime Minister emphasised that the voting on the Bank Indemnity Bill unquestionably would be on party lines, and any adverse vote would be taken as one of straight-out no-confid-ence in the Coalition. It was suggested to Mr. Forbes that a few city Coalitionists might wish to oppose the measure and vote against it. “Yes,” he replied. “One or two. But this is a major policy issue, and we expect every member of the Coalition to vote for it.” “Will members who vote against the Bill run the risk of expulsion?” Mr Forbes was asked. The Prime Minister said that members who, with full of the facts, voted against their party on a want-of-confidence motion must be aware of the interpretation, which the leaders would place on their action. “But will they be expelled?’ s Mr. Forbes was pressed. The Prime Minster smiled. “Let us take our hurdles' when we come to them,” he rejoined. In response to their leader’s request, members have rigidly refrained from commenting publicly on Cabinet’s decision to force up the rate of exchange, but it is known that there was some blunt talking at to-day’s caucus of the party, which was invested with more than usual interest by the attendance of Mr. Downie Stewart, who doubtless "took the opportunity to fully state his position. Feeling in Ministerial circles is that when the issue is reached in the House, the ex-Minister of Finance will not take any action calculated to embarrass the Administration, but will content himself with a vigorous, yet dignified protest.

CAUCUS A SAFETY VALVE. Members opposed to high exchange hacl their say at to-day’s meeting, but the Ministerial view, expressed befoio hand is that a caucus must necessarily be regarded as a party’s safely valve through which the steam of criticism and complaint can be released. Over the exchange issue they re not expect an eruption. It is contended with some point that the security of the Coalition is assured so long as the present Labour Party remains as the alternative Government. One Minister put it this way. “Much as interference with the exchange may be disliked, the Labour Party as the Government of this country is disliked even to a greater degree, and when the choice is confined to a, high pegged exchange of lAbour jn office high exchange wins.” This' would appear to represent the j general view among the rank and file of opponents of exchange, and although the force of the argument was admitted by one of them last night, he was not slow to add that the Government must not imagine that it "could “get away with everything” simply “because of the fear that opposition, carried to its logical lengths, would give Labour control of the Treasury benches. In addition to the full explanation of the reasons for forcing up the exchange. as set out m a statement Cabinet approved last night, caucus today was informed as to the other items in the Ministerial programme around which the veil of secrecy is still closely drawn. As caucus is to last two days, it can be accepted that members will have a full opportunity to analyse ail the proposals and endjeaviour to impose modifications or elaborations as the case may he. AVhether Cabinet intends to stand or fall by all its propositions is not at present clear. The programme for presentation to -the House itself will he disclosed by the Prime Minister on Thursday night. The House will reassemble on Tbnrs day afternoon, and after formal business,'tributes will lie paid to two former members, Mr H. L. Tapley (Dunedin Worth) and Mr. J. Horn (AVakatipu), who died during the recess. An adjournment will be taken until 7.,in a.m., when the Prime Ministerial pronouncement will be made.

LENGTH OF THE SESSION. Questioned to-day concerning the length of the session, Mr Forbes repeated his statement made on previous occasions that this was always a difficult matter to assess. He said, however, that he did not anticipate the session woiild last as long as had been suggested in some quarters. A month, or six weeks at the outside, should see the completion of the programme, which would be confined exelusivelv to major issues. Minor and semi-import-ant questions could stand ovor until the next session. “AVe have no desire to sit any longer than is absolutely necessary,” he added. “Certainly we do not wish to sit through the summer. and I’m sure that represents the views of members generally.”