WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 January 1922, Page 2

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE RETRENCHMENT BILL. MIXED RECEPTION IN HOUSE. SPECIAL TO GUAKUIAN, WELLINGTON, Jan. 20.The Prime Minister was not at his best when moving the second reading of the Retrenchment Bill in the House 1-i‘t night. Hampered by a sheaf of notes and a running fire of interjections,, he seemed never at his ease and at times laboured his points sadly. Probably he would have been better had ho not anticipated many of the objections that would be urged against his proposals ami attempted to demolish them before they were uttered. This was meeting trouble halif way and meeting it at a disadvantage. But he at least made the necessity foi* tetfenehfnbflt plain aiid presented the facts quite frankly. If either the necessity or the facts had beeh in dispute, the manner of his Speech might have been forgiven for the sake of its matter. But they were not questioned fol 1 k single moment. Whttt- the IloUse had to decide was how it could cut between two find three millions off the pay of the civil service without impairing its efficiency and with the least possible inconvenience to its members. Mr Massey pro= posed to take the highest percentage off the lowest salaries and thus brought himself into Conflict with tl-e popular slogan of equality oi sacrifice. OPPOSITION CRITICISM,

Mr .Massey’s explanation of liis departure from the usual course of procedure was that the higher paid civil servants had not participated iff the c.svst of living bonus and therefore should not suffer to the same pro iff til extent from the operation of retrenchment as those that had. Mr Wilford, who followed the Prime Minister scoffed at this “subterfuge,” and heid strongly that the graduation instead df being against the. low salaried erriployee should relieve him bf a- substantial part of his burden. The logic was sbuild enough and the leader of the official Liberal Opposition appeared to carry more tiidn his immediate followers with him. lie scored also in demanding the production 6f the report of tho Economy Committee, in challenging the basic value of the cost of living figures aiid insisting upon the right of aggrieved public servants to be heard before a properly constituted tribunal, but he was a little toe much of the special pleader 1 and not quite enough of the ardent apostle to be entirely convincing.

THE LABOUR VIEW. The Minister of Justice, the Hoff F. P. Lee, is never at'home in the discussion of finance, affd his attempts to , confute the contentions of his professional brother on the other side of tho House, left the case for the Opposition unseat Mr TT. E. Holland, the leader of the Offieal Labour Party, speaking rather to the crowded galleries than to the House, imparted a piquancy to the debate it had lacked up to this point. He regarded the Bill as the gravest attack ever launched against the workers iff New Zealand and his'party would consent to no reduction in salaries under £SOO. He wanted know what had become of the accurfuvlated surpluses of twenty-three millions. and particularly of last year’s surplus of six millions. He would hesitate to lay hands on the salaries o™ the Governor-General, and the Judges and lie would sec Ministers contributed something more than a beggarly 10 per cent from their big salaries. The labour view of the Government’s proposals was left in no shadow of doubt. DRAGS ON. Reform, Official Liberalism, and official Labour having spoken their pieces the naileries gradually emptied and the debate dragged on through a long weary night without any incident of great consequence. The revival of “legislation hv exhaustion” was inevitable after the Prime Minister had __ thrown down the gauntlet to the various groups of the Opposition. But really no other course was open to Mr Massey after he had determined to get the measure through before the end of the current month, and every member of the House, whether for or against the Government’s proposals, wanted to talk to “Hansard” for the benefit of his constituents, and any indulgence on the part of the leader would have been interpreted into a confession of weakness. The Labour members, and, with less resolution, a section of the Liberal members, have their back to the wall, and though the ultimate result is not to be averted it will he reached only after a trial of physical endurance without any parallel in the recent history of Parliament.