ADDRESS IN REPLY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 158, 6 July 1934, Page 6

ADDRESS IN REPLY

THE SILENCE OF LABOUR VIEWS OF PRIME MINISTER. WITHDRAWAL WELCOMED. 1 Per Press Association. J WELLINGTON, July 5. The Address iu-Keply debate was resumed in the House, the Hon. W. Bownie Stewart charging the Opposition with abandoning the policy of free speech, the Deputy-Leader having, with a wave of a hand last night, ordered his colleagues desirous ot speaking to keep quiet. The Bt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said that within his memory of the House the Leader of the Opposition always followed the mover and seconder of the Address. Instead of the Leader of the Opposition they hail a paper representing him, and when a statement was made that members of the- Labour Party did not intend to participate any further in the debate it was a welcome one. In the past session speeches on the Address were made almost entirely by members of the Labour Party and Labour members had told the people during the recess that if they wanted to see who did the work to read Hansard. Member of the House knew’ that the man who talked most was the man who delayed work being done. He did not remember an Ad-dress-in-Reply debate that had been of the high order of that of the present one. He was hopeful the Labour members would continue the policy and they would be able to finish the session in reasonable time. He suggested that the procedure of «he British House of Commons should be followed, so that when the debate was commenced mem bers knew exactly how long it would last. Speakers were arranged, and as a result, speeches of a high order were heard. He suggested that a committee should set up to go into the matter and se if something on those lines could be adopted in New Zealand. That was the offer he made. Mr. Ransom had shown what was required to put Labour’s promises into practice. Mr. Forbes said that Labour’s policy was dependent upon securing control of the banks. It stood out a. through the speeches of the leaders and members of the party that control of banking should be transferred to the State. Large sums of money were deposited in the banks in New Zealand. They were the savings of the people. One of the things Labour was determined to take was control of the banks so as to be able to control the savings of the people, and they would be used to carry out Labour’s promises—restore cuts, guaranteed prices, standard wages, invalid pensions and other things. Lang took control of the Savings Bank in Australia and it had to -hut its doors. The whole of Labour’s programme hinged on obtaining control of the banks. The people of New Zealand had sufficient sense to know that when Those promises were made they had to have some sound foundation to enable them to be carried out. The fact that promises had been made running to nearly forty millions sterling showed how desperate the Labour Party was to convince the people of the Dominion. Re did not think Labour was likely to return to power on these statements, or the people would be very disappointed. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Eden) criticised Mr. Forbes for his attack on the Opposition. He said it was not the responsibility of the Labour Partv to produce a policy for New Zealand. It was the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Not one word of a constructive character had come from the Leader of the Government. Mr. Forbes had relied largely on Mr. Ransom’s speech of the previous night. It was time he became a leader instead of a Jea ner.