WAS IT PREARRANGED?

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 963, 5 May 1930, Page 1

WAS IT PREARRANGED?

That No-Confidence Motion STATEMENT BY MR. A. E. DAVY

Caucus Revelations COLLUSION between the Government and the Labour Party, even to the length of pre-arrangement by United ind Labour of the latter party's no-confidence motion in ;he House last November, This is a charge now laid against the party leaders by Mr. A. E Davy, formerly chairman of the United organisation.

-Wtiile the United Party and the Socialist Labour Party are apparently at each other's throats during this Parnell by-election, it should be remembered' that a very different atmosphere surrounds their actions in Par liament,” said Mr. Davy in a statement made to The Sun today. “The result of the poll, should either Mr. Donald or Mr. Bloodworth -win, will result ultimately in added assistance •o the Labour Party. Mr. Bloodworth rrill because of his convictions, and Mr. Donald will, through his party, have to do what he is told by his leader, and act with his party. “I state quite definitely that both parties are hand-in-glove, and there is quite a good deal of evidence to prove It. particularly In regard to the Public Service salaries no confidence motion staged by the Labour Party. I notice that there have been further denials of collusion between the United and Labour Parties, but either some politicians have conveniently short memories, or else thenprotestations are sheer ‘bluff.’ “During the Hutt by-election the Cabinet-selected United candidate, Mr. J. Kerr, stated emphatically from the platform that Labour had arranged ;he motion regarding the Civil Service ‘cuts.’ so that Reform could not support it, and there was not the slightest chance of its being carried. 1 vould point out that Mr. Kerr, in addition to being chairman of the Hon. T. M. Wilford’s electorate committee, is a very close friend, and a political confidant of Mr. Wilford. Mr. Kerr’s original speech in this campaign was written by Mr. Wilford, who advised him generally throughout. A definite statement such as that made by Air. Kerr surely indicates somo real knowledge of the position, and a basis of fact” MB. FORBES’S DENIAL However, the Hon. G. W. Forbes saw lit to reply In the "Evening Post,” saying:— ‘‘Any suggestion that there was a pre-arrangement between the United Party and the Labour Party regarding the motion would be without foundation. The first intimation I had of the terms of the motion was when it was handed to me by the Leader of the Labour Party just prior to the meeting of the House at which the motion was moved.” '1 would ask the public,” proceeded Mr. Davy, “to note two things in re- j sard to this statement —first, the denial of any pre-arrangement ,and sec-! ond. the phrasing of the latter sentence, which is obviously a petty quibble on the ‘terms of the motion.’ used purely as an evasion. The loophole that Mr. Forbes left himself is so wide that his argument falls through. Obviously if he did not know the ‘terms of the motion’ he could still know its general form. “His statement of ‘no pre-arrange-ment’ will not stand investigation, and the facts show that he has misrepresented the position. Before giving jhese I would point out that Mr. Wily>vd, when challenged in the House by A Young stated definitely that he ‘had never seen the motion in ques-

tion until it was brought into the House, and that he had never heard of it before.' UNITED-LABOUR PARLEY “I am dealing with Messrs. Forbes and Wilford as the then virtual leaders of the party on account of the Prime Minister’s indisposition. Bearing in mind that ‘there was no prearrangement’ and that one Minister ‘had not heard it before,’ it is rather curious to discover that prior to the moving of the motion, some days beforehand, three representatives of the Labour Party, Messrs. Holland, Savage and Fraser, met the Hon. G. W. Forbes and the Hon. T. M. Wilford, once, and the Hon. G. W. Forbes alone, on at least two other occasions, and discussed the question of the Public Service salaries. At each discussion the possibility of a no-confidence motion, with its various aspects, was raised. “Even without this point, it is very interesting to note that on the morning of November 4, the day on which the motion was to be moved, the United Party held a caucus in the morning, at which the no-confidence motion was thoroughly discussed. I must stress the fact that a United member during the course of this caucus moved that Air. Holland should be asked to wait until the following day, and that facilities should not be allowed him by the United Government to move it. In reply Mr. Forbes said: “ ‘lt is only fair to allow- the motion to be presented because of the help Air. Holland has rendered in assisting the Government to pass certain legisation, and his wishes should be met.’

POLITICAL BRIBERY “Surely this is collusion of tile rankest kind,” Mr. Davey declared, “and is neither more nor less than political bribery. It is further noticeable that the possible attitude of the Reform Party was not discussed. I state definitely that it was generally known by the United Party that the motion would not be dangerous, and the party members were informed so by the act-ing-leader, Mr. Forbes. He knew definitely that Reform would have to vote against It, supporting the United Government. The whole business was arranged in an attempt to justify the Socialist Labour Party with its supporters, who may have been growing restive because of the Labour Party’s j support of the Government, even; when it was against their principles. ! “I believe the same ex->"anation ‘ covers the Government's direct con- j tradietion of its declared intention re-, garding Defence, and possibly a good j many other instances could be quoted, j “There is a distinct bartering of | political favours in the present House. The United and Socialist Labour Party I are, tongue in cheek, waging a hypo- j critical "battle that can only be described as political dishonesty. They have made a mockery of Parliamentary discussioi), and until they are thrust out of harm’s way they will continue to traffic and barter, politically conscienceless, forsaking the business of ; the country in foraging for party advantage.”