CRITICISM RESENTED
The Government appears to be unusually perturbed at various comments which have been j aroused as a result of the final i report of the National Expenditure Commission. When this report first appeared, we expressed the opinion that it would em- : barrass the Government and that j prediction has obviously been fulfilled. Already the "Pominion" newspaper and one of the members of the commission, Mr. A. ! Macintosh, have been accused of j a breach of privilege in presum- ! ing to criticise the part which ! the politicians have played in bringing the country to its present position, and judged from the attitude of members of the House, they are likely to be joined by any other organisation or individual which has the temeri ity to raise its voice in protest. i Mr. Macintosh was refreshingly j outspoken in his references to i the part which politics have 1 played in aggravating the posij tion and as a result of that outj spokenness his remarks are to be i submitted to a Committee of t Privilege of the House together i with the editorial comments of | the "Dominion." Mr. M. J. Sav- | age, one of the stalwarts of the j Labour Party, waxed righteousl ly indignant when referring to , recent criticisms of Parliament S and alleged that an organised ■ campaign was being conducted ; to discredit the peoples' repres- ! entatives in Parliament assembled. Mr. Savage declared: "That . sustained press and chamber of commerce campaigns backed by • the commission's report, to de- • stroy the prestige and growth I of the Parliamentary system | would be obvious to everyone. | All members, irrespective of | party and despite the intense opposition of the large section | who for many years had opposj ed the policy which had landed | the country into its present posii tion, were openly accused of negi lect, incompetence and even per- | sonal advantage at the expense ; of economic administration of ! public affairs." .Statements of ! this natiire are more than a ! little ridiculous and go further to support the alleged derogatory opinions of our political administration of which Mr. Savage complains. The freedom of the press and of individual opinion have justly been the pride of British democracy and after perusing the statements made both by Mr. Macintosh and by the "Dominion", we fail to see in what way they fall outside the scope of legitimate criticism. The commission has pointed out the extent to which departmental expenditure, authorised and fostered by party-govern-ment, has imposed an increasing burden upon the taxpayer. These are matters upon which the taxpayer is entitled to form his own opinion, and the country will form its own conclusions froin the attitude which Parlia-. ment has seen ht to adopt in receiving these criticisms. We have previously pointed out that the present Government cannot be held to account for the position, but that very many of its present members under other colours, have been parties to the legislation of which the commission complains. The commission has performed a public service in drawing attention to these matters and taxpayters ^enerally will respeet the frankness with which it has made its recommendations. The matter is one which falls legitimately within the scope of press and public critieism and the politicians will nqt justify their position by endeavouring to suppress critieism through the forms of the House. We cannot perceive anyth|ilg in recent criticisms of Government administration which can be reason-
ably construed as an organised campaign to discredit the country 's elected representatives. Apart altogether from politieallegal technicalities, the fact that politicians are not prepared to accept critieism without raising points of privilege will undoubtedly arouse comment. If thalt comment is of an unfavourable nature, the politicians have only themselves to blame. Furthdr protests on the lines of that voiced by Mr. Savage will merely incline the public to the view that some at least of om* politicians have found a cap which fits them. ' -
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RMPOST19321008.2.13.1
Bibliographic details
Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 348, 8 October 1932, Page 4
Word Count
653CRITICISM RESENTED Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 348, 8 October 1932, Page 4
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Rotorua Morning Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.