HEATED SPEECH

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20922, 29 September 1939, Page 7

HEATED SPEECH

MR COATES ANNOYED i ATTITUDE OF HON. W. NASH CHARGE OF SIDE-STEPPING (By Telegraph.—Special to Times) WELLINGTON, Thursday “I am hot under the collar, but it is better for ail of us now to speak our minds plainly. I am not pre- ! pared to allow the war to hide anything. I am prepared to put up any j sort of light to have the truth out,” I declared the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates j (Opposition—Kaipara) in the course i of a speech in the House of Repre--1 sentatives tonight. His outburst was a sequel to an answer given him in j the afternoon by the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash. “When we ask the Minister of j Finance a question and ask for an j explanation, what kind of answers I do we get from the hon. gentleman?” !Mr Coates said. “It is well that members and the country should know it. Questions are met with , hostility and his answers show an element of arrogance. Questions have been asked which demand a reply.” Result of Policy As far as import restrictions were concerned, Mr Coates continued, the Minister had got himself into his present position by the policy that had been pursued in spite of all warnings. If the offer of co-opera-tion made by the Opposition was to be met by statements that could be expected from a dictator then what could the answer be? “I for one am not going to accept some of the answers that I have received from the Minister of Finance as being suitable to the occasion,” Mr Coates declared. “There are some who say the war was a godsend for the Labour Party. I wonder whetner it was? I cannot imagine it being a godsend for anybody. “The whole position in regard to imports and exchange requires a clearcut statement in order that the people of this country may know what the position is. Side-stepping, half-answered questions and lame answers won’t do at. all. Tone of Speech Regretted The acting-Prime Minister, the Hon. P. Fraser, said he could only regret the tone of Mr Coates’ speech. He thought it was not helpful and a quite vindictive and unexampled personal attack on the Minister. He had not heard anything like it since he had been a member of the House. Opposition Members: We have. Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition— Stratford): The acting-Prime Minister was not in the House when the incident occurred. Mr Fraser: I was in the House when the Minister of Finance said he had given the answer to the question the previous day. Proceeding, Mr Fraser said he certainly did not think the personal attack the House had just listened to was helpful. Co-operation was too big a price if any of the Government members were to be singled out from the rest in that way. “I am not going to stand by and allow one of our Ministers to be singled out on a policy we are all responsible for,” Mr Fraser continued. “We are all responsible and we all take the full responsibility. We will go on whether we get the co-operation of members opposite or not. “We are ready to hold out the hand of co-operation, but we are not going to stand silent when any of our members are singled out for a quite unwarranted and unprovoked attack. The Government has to be treated as a Government and no members singled out for assassination as long as we are here.” Mr Nash’s Explanation Mr Nash referred to the matter when replying to the second reading debate on the Customs Acts Amendment Bill. He said it might have been that Mr Coates was annoyed because of the manner in which he (the Minister) treated the question. He was sorry that there had been any annoyance, but immediately afterward he took what steps he could to advise Mr Coates that he could raise the question again, as there was a clause in the Bill on which he could base it. He sent Mr Coates a message to that effect. “Did he receive that message or not?” Mr Nash asked. When he received no reply, he continued: “If he received it, I think it was unfair to attack me. If he did not, I think he probably had a right to be annoyed.”