WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1922, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

FIRST WEEK OF SESSION,

A FIELD DAW. SPECIAL TO GUARDIAN. WELLINGTON, July 3. Friday was quite a field day in the House of Representatives. The introduction of the necessary Imprest Supply Bill gave Air Holland, the leader of the Labour Party, his expected, opportunity to move an Amendment recommending the Government to restore tlie amount already deducted from the salaries of public servants, at least m the case of the lower-paid employees, and.not to proceed, with the further deduction it was contemplating; The motion it was contemplating. The motion differed very materially from tho one of which Mr Holland had given no. tice, taking the shape of advice rather than of censure, and by tlie change in its complexion the Labour leader hoped no doubt, to induce one or two Reformers and a number of Independents to vote with him in the “Ayes” lobby. But the ruse was successful only to the length of capturing flic vote of Mr R. A. Wright, the member for AA r ellington Suburbs, wlioso pledges to the public scarcely would have allowed him to place it otherwise. Dr Newman, the member for AVelington East, "liose sympathies also were with the tenor of the motion, preferord to abstain from voting, while Sir John Luke, the member for AVellington North, who was in much the same case, voted boldly at his pair’s call. THE OPPOSITION’S CASE.

Mr Holland did not put the case for the public servants-nearly so strongly as did some of the other supporters of his motion. Having announced his intention not to labour the question, lie proceeded to labour it most deplorably. Because there was a surplus of over £6000,000 in 1920-21, and a deficit, of only £330,000 in 1921-22, ho would have it that there was nothing to justify a cut in the wages of the State employees. The fact that- the revenue for tho year ended May 31st showed a decline of £6.604.848 compared with tno revenue for the preceding year, and tile fact that a further decline of over £2.000.000 during the current year is expected h.v the Treasury officials did not- weigh with him at all. Xor was Mr Sullivan, oflo of the Labour members from Christchurch, who seconded the motion, any more impressive than his chief in handling tho financial side of the question. Mr Ale. Combs, another Labour member, wlio did most of the interjecting while the Prime Minister wa s speaking and followed him when lie sat down, was easily th o readiest and best informed of the Government's critics. MR. MASSEY IN REPLY.

Afr Massey, who followed immediately after tho mover and seconder of the motion, spoke with something less than his usual fire and with a singular tolerance for interjections. At one point lie was provoked by a succession of disconcerting comments thrown across the floor of the House by Mr McCombs into appealing to the Speaker for protection from the “violent, unruly and impertinent interjections Of the member for Lyttelton” ; but he quickly recovered his equanimity and proceeded with his judicial recital of facts and figures unperturbed. Probably lie had elected to speak early in the debate because neither the mover nor he seconder of tho recommendations had attempted to hold the Government responsible for the largely inflated expenditure that preceded the slump. This omission on the part of Air Holland and Air Sullivan left the Alinisters with a much simpler task than otherwise might have been the ease. A\ ith an enormous increase in the irreducible expenditure it was easy to show in spite of anything Air Holland had shown to the contrary, that drastic economy was necessary. The only thing left to determine was whether or not the sacrifice demanded from the public servants was justified by the circumstances.

STILL AN OPEN QUESTION. Tnis was the question that really concerned Ole House, and, though Air Ho land’s motion recommending that the Government’s proposals should be largely modified was rejected by a very substantial party majority, it still remains undecided. Mr Massey during the course of the debate gave the most definite promise that if it. could not he shown that the cost of living had fallen to the equivalent of the proposed reduction in pay the “cut” would not he made. He also hinted, without, of course, committing himself to any particular line of action, that tlie “cut”, in any case, might not, lie more than on,, half the amount originally contemplated, and that conditions might have so improved by December than there would he no need for a third “cut”. If circumstances should permit these hints to be converted into actions the Government and the public seivants will he able to congratulate themselves uiion having reached a reasonable compromise. The State employees cannot expect to escape altogether the economic difficulties that are besetting every other section of the communiy. Wlmt they might do, however, with perfect propriety would bo agitate for the graduation of the portion of the burden they are to hoar.