THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1931. THE NEW MOVE AND AFTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20959, 24 August 1931, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1931. THE NEW MOVE AND AFTER.

The emergency action Parliament took on Friday, on the initiative of Mr. Coatcs, was carried out so swiftly that everything could not be made clear, and certain of its effects had to be arrived at by inference. One of the things it was natural to take for granted was that this year's Budget would be recast, and its proposals for readjusting the national finances radically altered. In an interview he has given the Prime Minister makes it clear that this is not his interpretation of the move at all. He said the taxation measures represented the views of the Government and would be pushed forward; that he was not concerned about the immediate future of the national accounts, nor about the state of affairs as revealed in the Budget; that he had done all he could for the present year, but that measures must be taken in order that the country might be in a position to meet any future financial emergency. It is unfortunate that Mr. Forbes should have prejudiced the emergency committee's prospects in this fashion. He hints broadly that the Government members will stand pat on this year's Budget, and insist that only a more distant future be regarded. This is an impossible attitude for many reasons. The Budget itself stands condemned on two grounds, its drastic and inequitable taxation proposals, and the demonstrable fact that the estimates of revenue are absurdly extravagant. If the all-party committee is not to revise the proposals of the document, it might as well not have been appointed. Again, Mr. Coates made it perfectly clear that he advanced his proposal because the alternative was to unseat the Government and go to the country, the Budget being utterly unacceptable. The Labour Party had declared itself only too anxious to defeat the Government on the Budget. How can these two parties possibly co-operate with the Government on the committee if Mr. Forbes insists, as he suggests, that the Budget must standi In another respect the Prime Minister ha 3 been unfortunate in his utterances. In an interview at the week-end he again pressurl the suggestion of prolonging the fife of Parliament, saying "unless this were done the committee's work would be robbed of its value. The main essential at the present moment was the .formation of a National Government in order to bring about political stability and allow of the completion of any plan that might be decided on." Mr. Forbes does not seem to see that his two pronouncements cancel one another. If nothing can be done with this year's accounts, if the Budget must stand, then why the necessity for postponing the election 1 The plain fact is that something has to be done with the accounts and that very promptly, and there is no reason ! that would stand a moment's ! criticism for prolonging the life of i Parliament. It is never safe to | assert too positively what the feeli ing of the country as a whole is, but f it is a reasonable suggestion that to pass the Budget proposals unaltered and to put off the elections would be to take a course that would be bitterly resented and utterly condemned ' by an overwhelming majority of the people. Mr. Coates did not propose his committee to that end, as his speech abundantly proves. If that is to be the purpose of a National Government, then the less heard about the formation of one the better. The suggestion has already been heard outside Parliament that if the three parties cannot agree on what Mr. Forbes has in mind, there will be a fusion of Reform and United, with a postponement of the election by a majority decision. For all three parties to agree on this course would bo indefensible. For the United and Reform Parties to engineer it, with Labour antagonistic, would be utter madness. Yet the amazing thing is that the idea, so far as can be judged, has not come from a Labour source, but one can only surmise from an over-enthusiastic United Party partisan. The worst feature of the attitude the Prime Minister has chosen to adopt is that it spoils the good impression created by ready acceptance on all sides of what Mr. Coates suggested. The idea of concentrating, regardless of differences, on the essential duty of adjusting national finances, of endeavouring to find something better in place of a Budset that Parliament could not accept, has been made to appear secondary to considerations of political expediency. As a matter of fact Mr. Forbes does not appear to realise what Mr. Coates meant or what the'situation is. He repeated in the House what he had said before, that the handling of the situation was beyond the powers of a minority Government. But he has had no reason to regard his as a minority Government when it comes to the essential business of safeguarding the finances of the country. There have been repeated offers of co-operation from the Reform Party,

and at the first definite suggestion of combined action, Labour fell into step to the extent o£ joining in the committee scheme. For reasons best known to themselves, the members of, the Government for months ignored offers of co-operation and assurances of support, pretending they formed a minority party dependent entirely on its own resources. From that attitude, which is entirely remote from the facts, they tried to force the Reform Party into a fusion, ostensibly in the national interests, but now, as Mr. Forbes tactlessly admits, primarily to extend the life of Parliament, a device with an unpleasant flavour of "saving political skins." If this now appears as the dominant motive behind the fusion proposals, the Prime Minister has only himself to blame. The speed with which he advanced the idea of a National Government —and its inevitable sequel—and the persistence with which he clings to it leave no other conclusion possible. There is no need to talk about panic or misunderstanding of the position. Rather than panic, there is likely to be relief at the idea of the Budget position being taken definitely in hand and attacked with more appreciation of the country's needs than has been shown hitherto. If the Prime Minister, abandoning any further talk of prolonging Parliament's life, accepts that task as the purpose of the committee set up, the country will both understand and approve, asking nothing more in the meantime.