OPENING OF NEW PARLIAMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 117, 2 March 1950, Page 6

OPENING OF NEW PARLIAMENT

MR HOLLAND ANSWERS MR FRASER LABOUR’S ATTITUDE IN 1947 (P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 1. “I can assure Mr Fraser that the Government is proceeding with the preparation of the legislation necessary to implement the policy for which the majority of the electors have voted, and that the conjectures, inaccuracies, and mis-statements made in the report of the Labour caucus, published in the newspapers, do not consti- 1 tute an adequate reason for. an immediate session of Parliament,” said the Prime Minister (Mr S. G. Holland) replying to-day to Mr Fraser’s claim, on behalf of the Labour Party caucus, that Parliament should be called together immediately.

“It is good to see the Leader of the Opposition showing signs of political life,” said the Prime Minister, “but on November 30, the people of New Zealand gave Mr Fraser and his party their answer in language that permitted of no misunderstanding. “It is evident that Mr Fraser is experiencing some difficulty in readjusting himself to the decision of the people—that lie can no longer dictate the affairs of the country,” said Mr Holland. “It will be realised that this Government has inherited many problems from 14 years of socialist administration, and close and intensive investigation of many of these questions is necessary before the legislative programme for the session can be decided.

“Profiting By Experience” “I shall try to profit by the experience of the Labour Government and avoid the mistakes made by Mr Fraser, who, in calling Parliament together, had to ask for an adjournment or fritter away time on trivialities while legislation was being drafted.” The attempt which Mr Fraser was making to put fear and doubt in 'the minds of the people would, he felt sure, be recognised at its full political value, said Mr Holland. This disservice to' the country was a continuation of the technique which was used during the election campaign when Mr Fraser so effectively led his party into the political wilderness.

“Mr Fraser will have to put up a much better effort if he hopes to rebuild his sadly-depleted ranks into an effective political force,” said Mr Holland. “Perhaps I could recall Mr Fraser’s reply to me in March, 1947, when I’ suggested that Parliament might be called together earlier. On that occasion Mr Fraser said: ‘I have no complaints at the very evident efforts of the Nationalist Party to use present industrial and economic difficulties confronting the country for their own party advantage. If the Nationalists have any ideas which are above the level of side-line criticism, and wish to put forward proposals which will be helpful, then .by all means let us have them. There is no need to wait for the calling of Parliament, Political party manoeuvring by the Nationalists contributes absolutely nothing.’ ” “Mr Fraser’s own words of 1947 might well be applied to the current Parliamentary Opposition,” said Mr Holland.

Mr Fraser, when Prime Minister, was good, enough to inform him, at a time which he thought fit, as to when he had decided that Parliament should meet, and he would he happy to extend to Mr Fraser the same consideration, said Mr Holland. , FURTHER COMMENT BY MR FRASER

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, March 1. “1 do not propose to follow the Prime Minister’s example and embark on' personal altercations or attacks,” said the Opposition leader (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) to-night. “Mr Holland’s opinion of my attitude is not entirely without interest, but on this occasion it clearly is a poor sort of evasive subterfuge. The issue raised by the Opposition just cannot be so easily sidestepped. Abusing the plaintiff’s attorney is a worn-out and miserable defence and calls for no originality in statesmanship. “The seriousness of the political situation precludes the intrusion of personalities. It is the prerogative of the Government to refuse a request to call Parliament |ogether immediately, but it is equally the right of the Opposition to make it and give reasons.”