CASE FOR UNITY

Hokitika Guardian, 14 August 1931, Page 7

CASE FOR UNITY

PLEA IN THE HOUSE. UNFAVOURABLE RECEPTION. WELLINGTON, August 11. Tile 31 mister for Industries and Oommorce was ' heckled this alter- ' noon when he was defending the Cabinet's proposals to balance the Budget, and urging the formation of a National Government. “Jf any other Party had power to-morrow morning,” said Mr de la Perrelle, “not one of the enactments of this Government would be repealed.” (Laughter and derision from the Reform and Labour members.) Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino): You are romancing. “The Government has fearlessly carried out its duty,” Mr de la Perrelle went on. “When avo Lad cannons to the right of us and cannons to the left of us Ave Avent right ahead and did our duty.” Mr W. P. Enrlean (It., Parnell): Yes, you are heroes. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party): Like the Battle of Balaclava, yours is not to reason Avhy. Mr de la Perrelle referred to the conciliatory Budget speech of the Hon. W. DoAvnie Stewart Avho, he said, Avas regarded as “the brainy element of the Reform Party.” Mr J. A. Nash (It., Palmerston); Of the House. Mr de la Perrelle; Well, Ave will include him in fim list, He thinks so anyhow. Mr Nash: Oh, no. Mr do la Perrelle Avent on to say that the Leader of the Opposition had said he believed the next year or tAvo would he exceptionally severe, and that the serious economic state of the country called for the co-operation and unity of every member. This statement called for lavo questions: “Why not call for unity hoav?” and “What does he mean by unity?” Mr Nash: Don’t you agree .Avith that? Difficult Times. Mr de la Perrelle: Certainly. Ts this not a time, Avith grave depression hanging over the country, for the utmost unity among all Parties, and the very best efforts put fonvard to assist in lifting the country out of the morass to better times. The speech of the member for Dunedin West and the manner in Avhieh he had received the Budget, said Mr de la Perrelle, Avere appreciated by members on the Government side of the House and ho advised the lesser lights of the 'Reform Party to take a leaf out of Mr Stewart’s hook, particularly regarding the sinking of Party differences. Tt was a statesmanlike speech, and not that of a politician. Mr Endean: Are they doing it in England ? Mr de la Perrelle: That is a different thing. Air de la TYrrelle then turned to the of Mr Ansell. avlio had openly j declared that' his side of the House found the taxation proposals unacceptable. “Was the member for Chalmers sneaking for that side of the House or for himself?” he asked.

Mr .T. Bitohener (TL. Waitaki): Why should Ave accept- them? Mr Nash: Are you speaking for the

Government ? Mr do la Perrelle: T ?m speaking on behalf of mvseP. lmt the Government wdl probably endorse a. good deal of what T am saying. , Reform voices: A good deal ?

Mr de la Perrelle: Was the member for Chalmers justified in making this statement r or his Partv? Mr T). Jones (R., Mid-Canterbury): Yon want to know.

Mr do la Perrelle: I do not think it matters.

Mr A. M. Samuel (R., Thames): Then why bring it up? v