PARLIAMENT'S BUSINESS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 228, 26 September 1929, Page 28

PARLIAMENT'S BUSINESS.

"OBSTRUCTING PROGRESS."

DENIAL BY LABOUR PARTY.

> Wo have received the following letter ; from Mr. H. E. Holland, M.l\, Leader of ; the Labour party: —I desire to take the strongest exception to your paper's " allegations of the 20th instant, to the ' effect that "despite the overnment's best ' efforts to get on with the serious work 1 of the session the Labour and Reform 1 parties seem to obstruct progress at ' every . turn." So far as the Labour party is concerned, there is no truth ' whatever in the statement. The Labour 1 party has at every stage insisted that the serious business of the session should bo gone on with. To facilitate this, we curtailed our speeches in the Address-in-Reply debate, and then witnessed the spectacle of as many as three Government members speaking in succession. Your reference to the debate on the Optional Clause is glaringly misleading and unfair. The Labour party was merely seeking from the Government a statement of its policy in this connection, the cabled news having been to the effect that, while other countries were signing, Australia and New Zealand were insisting on reservations. We desired that Sir Josep.'i Ward should follow Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald's example and let the people know what attitude his Government had decided to take up. Sir Joseph's reply was in effect that he couldn't state his policy because all the communications between himself and Mr. Mac Donald were marked "secret:" Your report most unfairly makes it appear that when the adjournment motion was moved by myself on behalf of the Labour party the newspapers had already published the fact that the Optional Clause had been signed. As a matter of fact, it was oniy while I was replying that the evening paper was brought in containing the information (sent from London by cable), which Sir Joseph Ward had just declaredl he couldn't give to the House because it was confidential!

Equally Unfair is that portion of your report relating to the discussion which took place on the Hospital Bill. Mr. Savage was wholly justified in desiring to know whether Mr. Stallworthy's public declaration in favour of private wards in public hospitals was a statement of Government policy or mere'.v an expression of perspna! opinion. A Ministerial reply to Mr.* Savage would have shortened that debate considerab'v, but' it was not forthcoming. Jn any case, the discussion was valuable in many respects—and particularly because it resulted in the Minister abdicating his position at the last moment—a fact which would have been appreciated by your readers if they had been permitted to read a fair report of the proceedings