MB M'LAREN AND MR FISHER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7851, 13 July 1911, Page 8

MB M'LAREN AND MR FISHER

(To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —I notice that Mr McLaren, M.P., could not resist til© temptation ct painting out to the ©lectors of Wellington East that both Air Fisher and Wright had “ratted'’ - ' ou the question oi the leasehold. Air MciLaren omitted to point out to his audience that the vote to ho referred was accepted as a no-confid-ence motion by Sir Joseph Ward, and ho (Air MoLaren) red:rained from voting aitogethcr when the division cam©. _ The vote meant the fate of tho Ministry* Where was Mr McLaren? He iorgot to explain this last night, notwithstanding tho fact that h© spoke for two and a half hours. Then Mr McLaren went on to say that ‘■‘‘oven Mr Fisher could not £ret a private Bill through tho House.” Wrong again, Mr Air Usher’s Bill extending the muniodpal franchise was passed right through ithe Lower House and, though rejected in the Council on the motion of Mr T. Kennedy Macdonald, was made law the following year. Air Fisher’s Bill of last year amending the Advance© to Workers Act was taken np by the Government and mado law, with Mr AlcLarea's approval.' i«tr Fisher's Sunday Labour Bill has been introduced three times and will go on. being introduced by Air Fisher until some reform is effected,

If I may bo permitted, may X ask Mr McDaren what he has done ? He introduced two Bills which were such “botches" that he had to abandon them in despair- He has made many—far too many—long dreary speeches, which always fill tho lobbies and empty the House. Let Labour ask Mr McLaren what ho has dene in Parliament? He has a programme as long as all other parties put together and scope for sheaves of Bills in the interests of Labour, but he just drones and drones away and says Look what I said." He will be, asked at election time “What he did," not “What he said.” Mr McLaren knows,, as every other member of the House knows, that out be w t legislation emanates from the Bills of tho private member. Ask any old member who knows. It is the one way of bringing a member’s views before the House, of airing reform nnd thus earning publicity. Why,, it was Mr T. E. Taylor who moved a Bill re “nationalisation of industries," a plank in Mr McLaren’s own platform. Did ft do any good? Mr McLaren wall ask. Well, my answer is that to go on droning about reform in a minor key won't help your platform. Draft some Bills from your platform, move some lire amendments an the House, don’t talk people silly when asking for their support; resign from the City Council so that yon won’t be absent when no-confidence motions are being voted on. I shall he very glad to help Mr McLaren to mend his ways on the platform or off it- , ie can never hope to do any good as he is going. He had better trv and get alive this session. I shall do ‘what I can in the interests of Labour to keep him up to the mark.—T am. etc., F. M. B. FISHER. July 12th.

ME WEIGHT IN REPLY. (To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”! Sir.—ln your issue of this morning Mr D. McLaren. M.P., is reported to have said at his meeting on Tuesday night that I had gone wrong on the land question, or, in other words, had broken my pledges. This is not only misleading bat quite incorrect. By referring to "Hansard” it will bo seen tbat on every occasion when tho question was freehold versus leasehold I consistently voted leasehold. On one occasion, however, when Mr Massey moved a freehold amendment to the Financial Statement, which was accepted by tho Government as a want of confidence motion, I voted for tho amendment because I ™ pledged to vote against the Government on any no-confidence motion. Mr McLaren did not vote at all. How, then, have I broken my pledges, seeing that the issue in question was not freehold versus leasehold, but one of no-confidence in the Government, and I was pledged to vote against the Government on any no-con-fidence motion? Perhaps Mr McLaren will explain.—l am, etc., E. A. WRIGHT. July 12th.