ONE MAN FOR TWO FULLTIME JOBS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22507, 15 September 1938, Page 9

ONE MAN FOR TWO FULLTIME JOBS

TO TBS EDITOX OT TH« PS EM. Sir, —Allow me to thank your correspondents, “Hater of Humbug” and Mr C. Hepburn—the first for his endorsement of my contention that the office of Mayor is a full-time job; and the second for his valiant but dismal failure to shift the granite fact that a man cannot be in Wellington for six or seven months and put in a full year's work in Christchurch as Mayor., According to Mr C. Hepburn, I am suffering from “sour grapes.” Not a bit of it! The grapes are not sour; they are on the plate within easy reach, and sweet as the grapes of Eshcol. It is Mr Macfarlane who Is suffering from “sour grapes,” and he will have the case really bad in a few weeks’ time. If your correspondent were not so hasty and biased, he would know that I never suggested that when a man enters Parliament he must drop everything else; but I "did say that a man cannot be half a year in Wellington and do justice to the office of mayor of a city like Christchurch. There may be a few comparatively small boroughs where they can spare their mayors and suffer little loss. The position in Wellington is altogether different from the case of Christchurch. There, the member is on the spot all the time; the Mayor of Christchurch would have to be away for more than half the year, and the duties of what Is an every-day-of-the-week job would for long periods be thrown on to others not so capable. If the editor of “The Press” or the manager of Heaths or the D.I.C. had to ask their board of directors to be allowed to spend half their time In Wellington, what would be the result? I think new managers and a new editor would be wanted. Whatever the qualifications of these gentlemen might be, they would have to get out. But to reason thus, according to C. Hepburn, implies a “warped vision.” I am sorry I cannot make the matter more simple to meet his comprehension. I am asked by your correspondent to produce “some fundamental complaint.” I produced it in my first letter, but Mr Hepburn was too Labourblind to see it. For his benefit, I repeat that no man however honest and well qualified can properly do the work of two full-time jobs. I find I have understated the case. Mr Macfarlane appears to want three jobs. He is already the secretary of a labour union, on salary; also Mayor of Christchurch on honorarium: and he wishes to be a member of Parliament, which office carries another honorarium. Is there any other little thing he would like? I think I have a perfect right to refer to the financial aspect of these various offices. In stressing the point that no man can properly attend to the duties of mayor of a city, and be half the year in Wellington, I have only partly stated the case against Mr Macfarlane. We have already too much Labour In Parliament, in the City Council, and the Tramway Board. Ratepayers, to their sorrow, axe finding that out. Dipping the hand into other people’s pockets has become epidemic, and passing bills a farce. ’ , .. Mr S, G. Holland has manfully asked for more justice and reasonableness, and deserves the thanks of all sensible men. The way the whole Labour pack has howled at him is a compliment to the way he is doing his work in Parliament. Again, a member of Parliament should not have to consult any man or any union as to his line of action. Will Mr Macfarlane subscribe to that? We are told that candidates for Parliament used to go round kissing babies, and saying soft things to mothers. Now, however, they deal out “soft soap” in other wavs. I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr Macfarlane: the loss no doubt is mine. Maybe, if I came into touch with him. I might find myself in agreement with many of his ideals, and I hope I shall have reason gratefully to apnreciate his work as mayor, but I trust’he will have to be satisfied with the two full-time jobs he has at present.—Yours, etc., ONE MAN. ONE JOB. September 14, 1938.