WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 August 1922, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE BUDGET DEBATE. MR WILFORD LEADS OPPOSITION. SPECIAL TO GUARDIAN. WELLINGTON, Aug. 23. The speech with which he opened the Budget debate in the House last night was one of Mr T. M. Wilford’s happiest efforts. It was not profound, not always strictly accurate, but it bristled with telling points and kept members and the occupants of the galleries awake and interested from beginning to end. The leader of the official Opposition was subjected to a running fire of interjections during the first quarter of a hour ho was on his feet, even the Prime Minister contributing a shot now and again to the assault, hut he refused to be drawn into any controversy across the floor of the House, and finally the attempted interruptions subsided into curt expressions of dissent. Air Wilford plunged into a scathing indictment of tlie Government with bis first half dozen sentences, calling the reports of the Auditor General and of other high officers of State as witnesses to its

“muddling” and “blundering,” “extravagance” and waste.” Perhaps at this stage his words were not altogether consistent with a judicial examination of the facts, but they had the effect he desired in making his audience sit ui> and take notice. GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMY. Having got the ear of the House and such approval as a section of the galleries might express, Mr Wilford proceeded to analyse the features of the Budget in sonic detail, always with the conclusion that the Government’s concern was for the big man and the farmers rather than for the little man and the workers. Its economies, he declared were mere shams and pretence. Among its savings, he said, it had included two millions by which its expenditure had fallen short of its estimates, and lie wanted to know why it did nut make its estimates bigger and bigger so that its economies might he larger and larger. The point seemed to be a legitimate one and bis own side of the House resounded with “Hear, bear. Mr Massey’s retort was that bis critic could not understand plain English, and “Hear, bears” came from the other side. Turning to the accumulated surpluses the leader of the Opposition inquired what the Government bad to show for the seventeen millions it bad squandered and what it was going to do with the remaining seven millions. He was told be would bear all about these matters by and by.

LOYALTY. Towards ihe conclusion of Ins speech and speaking with very considerable warmth .Mr Wilford protested strongly against a statement made by the Prime Minister at Foxton to-the effect that he had admitted in the House Ins readiness to negotiate for an alliance with the partyy led bv Mr Holland. This he said, was a gross slander upon the Liberal Party. He had been prepared to enter into negotiations with the Labour Party to prevent vote-split-ling and so to secure proportional representation ; but the policy ot the Liberal Party was as distinct from the policy of the Labour Party as it was from the policy of the Reform 1 arty. “ \ll I have to sav to the Prime Minister.” he added, “'is that no,member on this side of the House will yield to him in loyalty. T will go further. His lovaltv is flag-waving and lip-service. Onrs is in our blood and hone. the words, of course, were spoken m righteous anger. No one could reai \ doubt tile depth and quality ot Mr Massey’s loyalty. But the imputation against the'lender of the Opposition was unwarrantable and the incident a - together deplorable. thk other sTtm The Hon 0. J. Anderson, the Munster of Labour, was deputed to reply to the leader of the Opposition, ami, though lie possesses neither Mr 'Vllford’s fluency nor Ills breezy imitiner, he managed to acquit himself fairly well. The attack is always an easier task than the defence on occasions of tHs kind, and Mr Anderson is just a little too conscientious and courteous to shine in a battle of words. However be covered the ground very concisely and took some of the sting out ot - ' Wilford’s criticism. The mistake lie made, egged on by some of Ins colleagues’ interjections, was in bolding Mr Wilford responsible for what bad happened in the National Cabinet dining the party truce. Tins was not cricket. A member of a Cabinet cannot publicly divest himself of responsil.diiv for what a majority of Ins colleagues do. Rut when he ceases to be a member of the Cabinet he is no. o be held responsible for the sins ot i c maiority. That is n rule of the gai t and one that must be observed if t e traditions of Cabinet rule are <> 1,0 maintained. But for this lapse Air Anderson did all that was expected ot him. <