The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1929 UNITED THEY MAY STAND

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 748, 22 August 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1929 UNITED THEY MAY STAND

A PUGNACIOUS vitality was driven with jarring abruptness by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates last evening into the dull Parliamentary debate on the Budget. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government with (figuratively speaking) a farmer’;! five-pronged fork. In other words, or rather in familiar political jargon. Mr. Coates moved an amendment to the Government's provocative Budget proposals and Sir Joseph Ward interpreted the challenge as a no-confidenee test. Each leader of the strongest rival parties did the right thing in circumstances which have been described extravagantly as being dramatic. An amendment was inevitable, and Mr. Coates chose The best time and place to make it impressive. Thus he staged a good effect. The Prime Minister, as the natural result of great experience and a perfect knowledge of party strategy and tactics, recognised at once That the occasion had come for throwing wigs on the green. It may be said fairly that, if the Opposition Leader had practised similar sagacity and tactics during his term of Government leadership, the L'nited Party today would have occupied a small corner in the House. Cleverly devised and touched with political cunning, his amendment is both disruptive and constructive. The first of its five points obviously has been designed and sharpened in order to put Labour either on-side or off-side in the Reform attack. It stabs the Government’s proposal to increase the cost of living by increasing the primage duty on imports—a proposal whieh has been denounced by the Labour Party with democratic vehemence—and. as an alternative to the unpopular grab at the worker’s breakfast, the first clause of the amendment urges, if more Customs revenue be absolutely required, the imposition of the duty on certain selected luxuries of foreign origin. Here, again, the Reform Party takes wisdom out of the mouth of Labour and, for the purpose of party tactics, demonstrates at the moment that on the question of taxation which must raise the cost of living the Conservatives are the greatest Socialists of them all! No one can deny the virtue of the suggestion to tax luxuries of foreign origin. If this had been adopted and put into rigorous practice long ago, local manufacturers would have been extremely busy on enhancing the wealth of agricultural production, and there would have been hardly any unemployment and much less social misery. All things considered, if Mr. Coates’s amendment thrusts any party into the unhappy position of a toad under a harrow, it is the Labour Party that must suffer the most embarrassment. Should Labour vote with the Government it will not escape indictment for having voted against the interests of its own people in particular and those of the general public. In all probability Labour will look upon the Opposition’s wily amendment as a trap set to catch woodchucks, and thus will refuse to be caught. If, however, the party decides not to vote at all, it will be branded either as a sufferer from moral political cowardice or as a half-brother of the United Party. Most people will take it for granted that no party in the House has any real desire to fling the Government out of power, and precipitate an emergency general election which inevitably would imperil the chances of many members in the three parties to retain their easy billets and appreciable privileges. There has been talk of the possibility of giving Labour its first opportunity, under the disciplinary influence of an overwhelming Opposition, to learn the ways and responsibilities of administrators, but it is not likely that the thin Socialist group in the House would accept such an apprenticeship. Meanwhile, the Reform Opposition holds the five-pronged fork, and the two other parties will have to be more adroit than they have been in the past so as to avoid vital injury. Finally, it may be observed that some members of the Labour Party would like politically to see the United Government hanged, but are averse from Labour assuming the role of hangman. They would prefer suicide and are willing to provide a long rope. Labour must realise now. however, that it can only be with Labour’s aid that the United Government may stand. THE “NOES” HAVE IT A CANVASS of professional opinion shows that the Auckland Hospital Board is entirely in error in contending that its proposal to erect an infectious diseases block in the Domain lias the support of medieal men. Yesterday and today The Sun has conducted an inquiry among members of the profession, with the result that over forty doctors have stated definitely that they oppose the proposal, while only eight are prepared to endorse it. For various reasons a number is either noncommittal, or else prefers not to make a public statement: but the private views of some of these are wholly against the board, and the general result is a complete vindication of those who have challenged the board’s plan. Members of the board who based their attitudes on what they were pleased to term “the considered and unanimous opinion submitted to this board by the medical men of Auckland” are going to find it very hard to make their statements conform to the disclosed facts. The remarks of many doctors shed interesting light on the board’s claims. Dr. J. Howard Lawry considers the proposal “wicked and disgraceful.” Dr. G. Graham Russell says the block should be “miles away.” Dr. R. Tracy Inglis regards the suggestion that the block could lafcer be used for general purposes as “absurd.” So runs the trend of comment right down the list, and a further feature is the mystery of the methods by which the board secured in some way or other the nominal support of its honorary staff. One doctor remarks that he cannot give an opinion until invited to do so by the Hospital Board, and as he is a member of the honorary staff, the inference is obvious. Dr. VT. Cuthbert MeCaw. another member of the honorary staff, virtually says that the staff, prior to supporting the proposal, had been misled. The board is understood to have the support of the DirectorGeneral of Health. Dr. T. H. A. Valintine. and in view of the opinions expressed by professional men who know the conditions it would be interesting to hear the exact grounds on which Dr. Valintine bases his approval. The public would also be glad to have a public statement of the view taken by the local health officers, whose private opinions do not necessarily conform with those of their chief. Altogether, the manner in which the work has been initiated, and begun almost in an of secrecy—with expenditure of £.5.000 or £6.000 —before being fully discussed and given the unqualified endorsement of the hoard, reveals an unsatisfactory phase of the board’s business management. Mr. ’Wallace must admit that his position is now absolutely untenable, but whether this will lead him into a graceful gesture of defeat is another matter altogether.