THE PEOPLE WERE LET DOWN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 16 October 1942, Page 4

THE PEOPLE WERE LET DOWN

= NEW ZEALAND at this time is inH debted to Mr George Forbes for his M faithful presentation to the House H last night of the ordinary person’s §§ reactions to successive stages in the H Government’s handling of the Wai- §§ kato coal strike. What he felt must M have been the feelings of tens of i thousands of people whose opinions A do not spring from Party bias but 1 who still believe in plain dealing and ft in brave words being backed by H deeds. His sentiments were free of Ij any suggestion of political guile and f§ were expressed with transparent J honesty of purpose. Here is an epiH tome of what he said:

In the early stages of the strike the people read the strongly-worded statements of leaders of the Government, particularly those of Messrs Sullivan, Webb, and Semple. They naturally inferred that these men had full knowledge of the situation and knew what could and what could not be done. It. was tell that at last a stand was to be taken. The i Acting-Prime Minister issupd a statement asking for the support of the public in the steps that were, contemplated. Following reassur- 1 ances from within the War Cabinet! that the law would be observed the' Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hoi ] laud) publicly said he would stand! by his then colleagues in their action. Then came a sudden change. Mr Holland looked round for those who had asked him to stand by them —and they had run away. They had apparently found out that, if they persisted in their intentions, there would be no coal. Why didn't they think of that before they spoke those strong words about wreckers? asked Mr Forbes, They had let the people

down. In that dangerous atmosphere the contentious issue of State control of the mines was brought lip in spite of the undertaking given when the War Administration was formed that controversial issues would be shelved as far as possible. If this matter i had been brought to Parliament and State control had been proved to be essential to the prosecution of the war, there was not one member who would have objected to it, added Mr i Forbes. Was this what was meant jby working together? After his considerable Ministerial experience it [ was not his interpretation of co-ope-j ration. Could they ask the Leader ' of the Opposition to sacrifice what--1 ever reputation he had for consist- ! ency by staying in the War Cabinet? ! To that question straight-thinking ; people will give the same answer as : given by Mr Forbes and by Mr HolI land himself.