LABOUR AND OTTAWA.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 June 1932, Page 2

LABOUR AND OTTAWA.

(To the Editor.) Sir,. —i n your leading article this morning one statement stands out among a number of glaring misicpiesentatione. You state, Less than a year ago the United Government invited the Reform, Labour and Independent members to form a special committee. This was a failure because the Labour members persisted in submitting thenfantastic proposals and would not listen to anyone else.” With your kind pcimission I will remind your readers_ of the true facts. The committee consisted of three United, three Reform and. three Labour and one Independent, Mr. Wilkinson. Experts and alleged experts were gathered in Wellington to give evidence before the committee, the members of which qustioned the exports while giving their evidence. When all the evidence had. been heard the committee adjourned to enable the members to put the data obtained into constructive proposals. During the adjournments for the 10 days the. United and Reform members were having secret meetings iu the Primo Ministers room unbeknown to the other members, with the result that when the committee re-assembled Mr. Forbes had. nothing ready, Mr. Coates had a partially prepared statement, and the Labour members and Mr. Wilkinson both had n constructive policy to table. Mr. Forbes then announced that unless a coalition was formed the committee could not go on. These are the true facts concerning the Parliamentary committee. It was nothing but a scandalous waste of public money, thanks to Mr. Forbes; wasting other people’s money is the Prime Minister’s long suit. Alleged experts like Mr. W. Goodfellow were brought to Wellington and parked in the best hotels at the taxpayers’ expense. This gentleman told the committee that labourers should be paid Ss per day and that farmers did not want any reduction in interest. Now he is going to Ottawa to advise Messrs. Coates, Forbes and Stewart. Your statement regarding the- Labour members’ fantastic policy is hard to understand, because the committee never reached that stage.—l am, etc., FACTS. [Was it not the evident impossibility of reconciling the views expressed by Labour in the committee with those of the two parties that compelled the formation of the Coalition? —Ed., 'Daily News.]