MR. HOLLAND’S COMMENT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17607, 24 October 1931, Page 5

MR. HOLLAND’S COMMENT

DECISION APPLAUDED CRITICISM OF LEADERS BITTER ATTACK ON PARTIES (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Tho Leader of the Opposition to-dav issued the following statement “It is gratifying that the efforts of the Opposition, backed by public opinion, have resulted in the abandonment of the Prime Minister’s proposal to disfranchise the electors. Mr. Forbes first raised the question in a definite form when he arbitrarily ended the work of the special economic committee. He then insisted that before he would permit tho committee to proceed with its deliberations there mustbe an agreement to form a national government and postpone the election Labor members of the committee at that time offered the strongest opposition to any postponement, and since then the Labor Party has consistently demanded that Parliament should take the verdict of the constituencies at the usual time. “It was inevitable that the Reform and United parties should eventually come together in an endeavor to stave oil a Labor victory. Within recent times their respective programmes have had much in common, and whatever differences may have existed between them have now vanished. During the past 12 months there has been a completo jettisioning of the programme on which Sir Joseph Ward secured support .in 1928, and unconditional acceptance, by Alp. Forbes of the policy of the Reform Party. The last vestige of the principles put forward by the party formerly led by Air. Ballanco and Air Seddon lias now disappeared, and the historic enemies of the two democratic statesmen named are in command of the remnant that claimed to be their political successors. REFORM IN COMMAND

“In tho Coalition, the Reform Party is predominant. It holds nearly all the major portfolios; it has succeeded iu driving out of tho Ministerial camp men like fair Thomas Sidey and Mr. H. Atmore, and it has been able to impose its policy on the programme of its erstwhile opponents. For all practical purposes the Reform Party is now tho Government, notwithstanding its devastating defeat iu 1928. This is homo out by Air. Coates when, in his appeal to supporters and selected candidates of tho Reform Party to accept the new situation, ho intimates that the party will maintain its separate identity and will not sacrifice its traditions.

“In the statement issued by Air. Coates lie declares that the grave financial stress and danger disclosed by tho evidence submitted to the special economic committeo is the reason for the allianco formed between Reform and United Party. As a member of the special economic committee, I have no hesitation in saying that nothing whatever was disclosed to that committee that was not already known to its members. The real reason for the alliance—ahout which I have no right whatever to complain—is the mutual recognition of the grave political stress and danger menacing both parties because of the unpopularity of their ineffective and unscientific programmes, and the disastrous nature of their legislative and administrative acts. BROKEN PLEDGES. “I am sure the country will await with much interest the assurance of tho comprehensive plan for the general rehabilitation of tho economic life of the Dominion which Mr. (."bales tells us the Government has worked out. There is something particularly inapplicable, and not without a touch of humor, in Mr. Forbes’ statement that as a result of the Coalition the finances of the Dominion will be maintained on a sound and stablo basis, and that the high reputation of New Zealand for honor and integrity will bo in safe hands. Safe hands can hardly be said to describe adequately politicians who have dishonored every promiso made to the electors, and who have regarded no contract with either tho general pul> lie, State employees, or wage workers as worth the paper it was written on. “The Labor Party, in keeping with its repeated pronouncements, will facilitate the work of the House in order that there shall be no delay in going before the electors. The definite date on which the elections will be held should be made public without delay. The Government may hope to reap some petty advantage by keeping the information' within its own party, but the electors are entitled to know. A regrettable feature is the absence of businesslike methods in matters of such intense public importance as this.”