Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ATTACK RESENTED

FINANCE MINISTER MR. COATES’ CRITICISM IMPOST RESTRICTIONS SUGGESTION OF DICTATOR ! „ i./iv .. I' : ; MR. FRASER’S DEFENCE (Tor Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Free criticism of the policy of the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash, was voiced by the Rt. Hon. J. G. .Coates (Nat., Kaipara), when continuing the second reading of the debate on the Customs Act Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives last, evening.

Mr. Coates complained of the hostile manner with which, he said, the Minister had dealt with questions from the Opposition concerning the import restriction policy. His answers hacl shown arrogance, said Mr. Coates, and he failed to answer the. queries which demanded an answer, thus leaving sections of the community completely in the dark concerning the ment’s policy.

The Opposition had offered the Government its whole-hearted cooperation in the prosecution of the war, but if that co-operation were to be met by statements which were plainly from a dictator there could be no doubt as to the result.

Not Going To Accept Replies

“I am not. going to take some of the answers given by the Minister of Finance,” continued Mr. Coates, “and I am convinced that he is taking steps to tie the country into a greater knot than it is at present.” “I can only regret the tone of the last speech,” said the acting-Prime Minister, the Hon. P. Fraser. “It is not helpful, but I consider it is vindictive. I have not heard ' anything like it since I have been in this House. The right honourable member mentioned an offer of co-bperation, but co-operation is too big a price to pay for any of out members to be singled out for personal attack on a policy for which all members of the Government arc responsible.” (“Hear, hear” from Government benches.)

Co-operation, continued Mr. Fraser, was not to be bought at a price of personal attacks on any members of the Government or Ministers. The Government would go on whether if got co-operation or not. No matter how much it welcomed that, co-opera-tion, the Government took full responsibility for its policy, which, since it had come into office, had relieved the distress and anxiety of many.

“If there is to be co-operation,” he concluded, “then the Government must be treated as the Government and not one of its members singled out for personal attack.”

Answer By Mr. Nash

Mr. Nash, replying to the debate, said Mr. Coates’ annoyance had probably been caused by his reply to a question which Mr. Coates had asked during the afternoon regarding the

import restrictions and which he had considered was the same as one asked by another member the previous afternoon. He had replied that he had nothing further, to add to his explanation of the previous afternoon. If Mr.. Coates hacl been caused annoyance, it had been quite unintentional on his (Mr. Nash’s) part, And he was -sorry that annoyance had teen caused. Ho had immediately sent & message acrossthe floor of the-House 'to Mr.'Coates, stating that the. same question could be brought up* Under 1 clause; in th’S present bill arid; 41 Mr.' Coates then repeated the question, the'; answer would be given. If Mr. Coates had not received that communication, then Mr. Nash said he could understand his annoyance; but if he had received it, then he considered that his attack hacl been grossly unfair.

Continuing, Mr. Nash denied that lack of sterling exchange had been responsible for preventing a single gun or piece of equipment that was needed for New Zealand’s defence coming to the Dominion. At the present time there was a sum of £3,000.000 Sterling untouched, lying in England for defence purposes, he said.

Referring to the granting of import licenses, the Minister said that on account of the war -the Government might be compelled to reorganise the whole procedure for’ the first ' six months of next year. It had been suggested, he said, that further taxation might be imposed on tea, but he doubted if this would be wise..

The bill was read the second, time. Urgency was granted the bill, which passed through the remaining stages, ■and also the passing of the Statutes Amendment Bill, the Rural Housing ■Bill and the Pharmacy Bill.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GISH19390929.2.99

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20055, 29 September 1939, Page 10

Word count
Tapeke kupu
707

ATTACK RESENTED Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20055, 29 September 1939, Page 10

ATTACK RESENTED Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20055, 29 September 1939, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert