A NEW MEMBER’S SPEECH.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 34, 25 September 1911, Page 5

A NEW MEMBER’S SPEECH.

REV. L. M. IS ITT. WHERE HE TS. The new member for Christchurch North (Rev. L. M. Isitt) made his stand clear in a speech ho delivered in the House last week at tlio close of the Budget debate. Mr Isitt congratualted the Government upon the fact that even on Opposition testimony it was a veritable hive of industry. As a novice in the House it struck him that the Government was in a very happy position so far as the Opposition was concerned. He had heard the Government attacked in no measured terms for its rashness and recklessness in spending money, and' yet during tlie financial debate there had scarcely been one member ol the Opposition who had risen to criticise who had not at the same time reproached the Government for not going into further expenditure in one direction or the other. (Hear, hear.) Ho wanted to know how the Government could at once meet the demand and escape the reproach of the Opposition. (Laughter.) The other clay he had been amazed to hear the member for Ashburton advocate the bursting up of large drapery firms in the cities for the benefit of the small men and seeking to draw a parallel between this and the breaking up of big rural estates for the good of the people. There was absolutely no parallel between the two cases, and the member who sought to draw 7 one was probably altogether ignorant of the fact that the big drapers existed, by the small men and for the small men. It was absurd to say that the big drapers were monopolists. A member: What about the brewers ?

“They arc outside the category of decent trade altogether,” was tho reply. From tho member for Ashburton’s attempt to create a parallel between largo estates and large drapery firms it was quite plain that the man was talking the most complete nonsense. It was a most absurd parallel altogether.

THE TERRITORIAL SYSTEM

Ho could not help thinking that in launching the Territorial scheme the Government had made two very grave mistakes—mistakes that if not rectified wore likely to wreck the whole system. In the first place, in any sue! scheme there must ho a conscience clause, oven at the risk of it being abused. Ho loathed the lunacy ol war, hut believed that so long as the world remained as it was there must be some scheme of defence. All the same, he held strongly that it was not necessary to violate the convictions ol men who honestly believed that taking up arms was not in accordance with Christian teaching. Ho thought lie could say without egotism that lit knew as much about theology as the .Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition Mr Massey; I am not so sure about that? (Laughter). Mr Isitt declared that they could not “pooh, pooh” the convictions of men who believed that their religion forbade them taking up arms. In Christchurch 6000 had enrolled in opposition to the scheme, and the same work was going on elsewhere. He did not ask for anything extreme, but held that the House must recognise the difficulties the Quakers and other people .were in. It would be the measure of Now Zealand’s shame if, they were subjected to any sort of persecution. They did not want to shirk: but were willing to serve in other capacities. If the Government would introduce a clause to enable the Quakers and those who thought with them to spend on other work the same amount of time that the military training demanded, it would find that they would cheerfully allow themselves to bo put to gorse grubbing, stone breaking, or city beautifying. The second mistake that had been made in launching the scheme was that toe much had been attempted for a start. Parliament jumping at once from a half starved volunteer system to a system which seized the boy when he was fourteen years old and never let go of him until bo readied the age of twenty-five. The Opposition had just as much responsibility in tho matter as the Government had. Every member in the House ought to have known with what a thorny and difficult sub joct it was dealing. The country should have recognised what a difficult proposition it was touching. He would like to see some of tho points he had touched upon in tho Defence Act reconsidered.

DEFENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. He would touch ou broader issues of die Budget. Ho did not know what measure of sacrifice or devotion the Government was prepared to manifest in pushing its ideals of political reform ; but he had a very strong and definite opinion as to tho financial adminhtiation of tho Government, and ho waited that night—it was mainly for that that lie, had risen—to gi'/e expression to that opinion. During the six weeks ho had boon in the rL’use lie had listened to one cons can i strain of insinuation, innuendo, vague charges of bribery and corruption, of maladministration, of political graft, against the men now in power. “Bui i want to say this: that I don’t behove many of the Opposition real’.so the sij.i ifieanco attached to these aspors'ons. I don’t believe any of them nude stand that thousands of ople outside the walls of this House hut a literal interpretation upon the charges, —(hear, hear) —that the members of the Cabinet in this country receive monetary bribes and are guilty of the most reprehensible, discreditable, practices to maintain their office. I know this Is so in my constituency. It is a most deplorable state of affairs, because 1 am sure it has no shadow of truth.” (Hear, hoar.) Ho want--00 to toll the country that ho believed t e administration was clean, and that there was no corruption, no biiberv. no maladministration, and no

political graft. If ho was wrong in that opinion the Opposition were to blame for not having exposed these things. (Hoar, hear.) If the Government was guilty’ of maladministration an t corruption, why did the Opposi- ; tioii spend time wailing over their | private wrongs. For three weeks the Hnu-e had listened to this constant stream of vague charges. There had not been one half inch of fact offered du”’ng that time in support of the charges. Not one single department o‘ criticism had been substantiated. There had only been innuendo. Why had the Opposition loaded their guns with shot to the muzzles and had hit—a seagull, when according to themselves elephants were about? (Laughter ) If the Opposition had nothing babhio their constant tirade of insinuation and abuse, would it not he hotter to devote their energies to pushing on the business of the country? T TiR MINOLOGICAL INEXACTITUDES.

1 know,” continued Mr Isitt, adcbessing the Opposition, “why you hitcin the Opposition waggon to these terminological inexactitudes. (Loud hv- I. tor.) You are doing it because your Opposition waggons are empty. 0] position cries of “No! No!” Mr Isitt: I withdraw that, if one supposition of mine is incorrect. But if it is correct, if you men are going in for single tax and free trade Mr Massey: Who said that? Mr Isitt: The member for Marsdon.

Mr Mander: No, no. Mr Isitt: If plain English means anything it meant that he would go in for single tax and free trade. (Laughter.) Opposition members: No, no. Mr Isitt: I took it down. I expected this protest. (Laughter.) Mr Mander said, “Wo to-day are true followers of Cohden, Bright, and Gladstone.”

Mr Mas sey: There is no single tax there.

Mr Isitt: There was single tax in Cohden! But oven if not; what about free trade? (Laughter.) Now, did tho bon. gentleman believe what ho said, or say what he meant? (Laughter.) Was he a true follower of these men ?

Mr Mander: In their liberal ideas IN THE WILDERNESS.

Mr Isitt: Are there any other ideas? (Laughter.) No, the Opposition waggon is empty. For twenty years they have been in the wilderness viewing with increasing jealousy the inmates of paradise—(laughter)— racking their souls for some policy which would give thorn this coveted ofiieo. Ha had their policy; they sent it down to his opponent in Christchurch. But it. would not fatten a grasshopper. (Laughter.) They had cudgelled their brains for how many years to produce this platform r (Laughter.) He wouldn’t say anything more about it; to do so was cruel. (Laughter.) In regard to other things in the Budget the Opposition stood condemned out of their own mouths. Though collectively they condemned the Budget, individually they supported it. One man thought this would he a good thing, another member that. Why didn’t they think of these things themselves and put thorn in their own programme—the most attenuated, miserable programme —the most beggarly furnished wallet a man ever stumped the country with? (Laughter.) They had fought, the measures cf the Government like Kilkenny cats; and yet they now laid claim to them! Tho Opposition stood whore they were to-day because they had been dragged there. If they would see there was just as much room for good legislation in the future as there had been in the past they might do better. So long as the Government carried on progressive legislation and made living easier for the many, and worked for the public good, they would have no more ardent supporter than himself. (Applause.) But if they allowed themselves to he misguided and rendered timid by tho foolish Opposition, the men who had no political initiative, he would he found launched- against them. (Applause.) An Opposition member: We know now where yon are!