COALITION RIFTS

Southland Times, Issue 21821, 26 September 1932, Page 8

COALITION RIFTS

MR FORBES SPEAKS OUT ATTITUDE OF MR SAMUEL RESIGNATION SUGGESTED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, September 24. Rumours have been revived in the lobbies of Parliament House concerning dissension in the ranks of the Government, particularly in view of the fact that both Mr Samuel and Mr Stallworthy deliberately stayed away from the caucus of Coalition members on Friday. This cannot be said to be a new development in the political situation, for these two members and several other Coalitionists openly opposed certain of the Government’s proposals last session. However, their continued dissatisfaction is an indication of further criticism of the Coalition by its own members this session. Mr Samuel gave signs of his opposition to the Coalition on the question of pensions of miners’ widows in the House on Thursday when he asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intended to pass legislation this session, as promised by Mr Coates when the National Expenditure adjustment Bill was before Parliament, restoring these pensions, many of which were to expire at the end of this month. It was then stated by Mr Forbes that no such definite promise had been given and that although it was not intended to pass legislation restoring these pensions en bloc each case would be considered on its merits with the object of avoiding hardship. This reply drew from Mr Samuel the rejoinder, “Absolute betrayal.” According to the National Expenditure Adjustment Act the pensions payable to miners’ widows will in future be drawn for only two years after the death of the husband, but additional provision was made whereby no cancellation should be effected until six months after the passing of the measure. It is asserted by Mr Samuel that a definite promise was given by Mr Coates that legislation would be passed later ensuring that these pensions would not be stopped, and it is upon this point that a difference of opinion has arisen.

One or two other members of the Government have recently criticised policy questions and it is now learned that some straight talk was indulged in at the caucus, particular reference being made to the extension by the Minister of Education (the Hon. R. Masters) of the primary school text books contract for another four years. It is reported that Mr Masters spoke at some length on the question at the meeting and that those present were satisfied with the arrangement made after it had been fully explained. Mr Samuel and Mr Stallworthy openly opposed the Government on several occasions last session while the National Expenditure Bill was under consideration and on one occasion when pensions clauses were under consideration the Labour Party, with the votes of the Independent and Government members, reduced the Coalition’s majority to two.

Up to the present the Prime Minister has not shown any desire to exercise “disciplinary” action against those members of his own party who have voted with the Opposition, for his opinion has been that there has been room for differences of opinion on certain questions, in spite of the fact that the Government’s position might be jeopardized. He made it clear in an interview to-day that he has all along taken a serious view of temporary defections, particularly as Government members were elected to support the Coalition’s broad policy, and that no one elected on this platform now has the right to swell the opposition vote to an extent that might mean the defeat of the Government. Mr Forbes was emphatic today that the statements that Mr Coates had promised repeal of the legislation affecting miners’ widows was quite absurd. He said that no one could believe that the Government would pass legislation for the abolition of certain pensions at the end of six months and promise at the same time to repeal this legislation before it became operative. It was clear that Mr Samuel had not understood that such a promise had been made at the time, for he went so far as to vote against the Government when the clause in question was in dispute. The best thing Mr Samuel could do in the circumstances, said Mr Forbes, was to resign his seat immediately and contest a by-election. He had been elected definitely to support the Government in its broad policy of reconstruction, but he had never told his constituents that he would jeopardise the Government’s position in voting against it on certain points. Had he told his constituents this he would never have been returned. The same applied to other members who might be disposed to attack the Government on individual questions. As far as the Thames seat was concerned every persuasion possible had had to be exercised to secure the withdrawal of the United candidate in the national interests so that a supporter of the Coalition could be returned. Now the very Government which Mr Samuel had been elected to support was being attacked by him. The position was impossible. OFFER TO RESIGN MR SAMUEL’S ANNOUNCEMENT. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, September 25. An offer to resign his seat on certain conditions was made by Mr A. M. Samuel to-night when replying to comments made by Mr Forbes on Mr Samuel’s antagonistic attitude to the Government in connection with the withdrawal of miners’ widows’ pensions. "I am prepared to debate the question at issue on any public platform in New Zealand against Mr Forbes or Mr Coates or both,” said Mr Samuel. “If twenty-five per cent, of the audience say I am wrong in declaring that a definite promise was made in connection with the question of pensions to miners’ widows, then I will resign. I am also prepared to resign on certain other conditions which I will announce later.”