MR. DAVY’S CHARGE DENIED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 964, 6 May 1930, Page 1

MR. DAVY’S CHARGE DENIED

LABOUR LEADER ISSUES ANSWER NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION NOT PREARRANGED “RIDICULOUS AND UNTRUE,’' SAYS MR. HOLLAND SEVEN months after the Labour Party's motion of noconfidence in the Government over the Civil Service salaries question, Mr. A. E. Davy comes forward with the charge that there was an arrangement between Labour and the Government about the motion. “The statement is ridiculous and untrue.”

Thus Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of , the Labour Party, at the Alexandra • Theatre, Green Lane, last evening, ‘ referring to Mr. Davy's statement i which had appeared in The Sun, to the ! effect that there had been an arrange- i ment between the Labour Party and I the United Party with respect to the 1 notice of motion given by the former | relating to the Public Service salaries. I Mr. Holland said that Mr. Davy bad : not established such a reputation for j reliability that any statement made \ by him regarding his political opponents need be taken seriously. The facts were well known. On October 11, when a section of the P. and T. Estimates was before the House in Committee of Supply, he (Mr. Holland) had moved, for the Labour Party, that the P. and T. salaries should be increased to the 1920 stand-' ard. A debate developed, and was proceeding when the luncheon adjournment took place. The House was then sitting every morning. Sir Joseph Ward was ill, Mr. Forbes was out of town, and Mr. Wilford had taken Mr. Forbes's place an acting-Leader of the House. When the House resumed after lunch. Mr. Wilford announced that he had seen Sir Joseph Ward, and the latter was prepared to promise that as soon as he was well enough to return to the House he would make a definite statement covering the Government’s policy on the salaries question. Mr. Wil ford asked, in view of the circumstances, that the amendment be allowed to stand over for the time being Mr. Nash, Reform member for Palmerston North, made a similar suggestion. And, mainly because of Sir Joseph’s illness, he (Mr. Holland) agreed to this course. He had the unanimous approval of the Labour Party and also of the Reform Party ■•when he did this. One dissentient voice could have prevented the withdrawal of the motion, but there was none. He intimated, however, that if the Government’s statement when made was not acceptable, the amendment would be brought forward again. Consequently everyone was well aware that the matter was merely in abeyance. Unfortunately, Sir Joseph Ward did not recover sufficiently to enaole his return to the House, but in due time his promised statement was handed to the Press (it should have been delivered to the House in the

first instance, Mr. Holland thought). The Labour Party regarded the statement as wholly unsatisfactory and clouding the issue. Boiled down, it constituted an intimation that the time was not opportune for considering the claims of the public servants, since the granting of these claims would necessitate additional taxation. REPRESENTATIONS TO MR. FORBES The various public service organisations lost no time in expressing their dissatisfaction; and it was agreed by the Labour Party that he (Mr. Holland) should make representations to

the Government, and endeavour to secure from it an undertaking that the position would be reconsidered and provision made to give at least a measure of justice to the public servants. It was true that he made representations to the Acting-Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes. It was also true that he frequently made such representations on outstandiug questions. It was also true that on oue occasion he met Mr. Forbes when Messrs. Wilford. Savage and Fraser were present. There was no reason why Mr. Davy should not have been there also, or any one else, for that matter.

Mr. Forbes had the same general knowledge that everyone else had that, if nothing was to be done by th» Government, the Labour Party would again move in the House with regard to the public service salaries question. The Labour Party had made that dear alt along. The Reform Party knew it just as well as Mr. Forbes knew it. While their representations were being made to the Government, Labour Party representatives were also interviewing representatives of the organisations of the public servanis, and when the Labour motion was finally drafted it embodied what the public servants’ representatives had indicated would suit their organisations. But the representatives of the public servants had only the general knowledge that everyone else had as to the position. "When they were seen by the Labour representatives no decision had been arrived at as to when the Labour Party would move, or what form the motion would .‘ake. LABOUR PARTY’S MOTION However, when it had become evident that the Government would do nothing that year, and would give no definite undertaking to make salary improvements as from the commencement of the next financial ya&r the Labour Party decided to table a notice of motion regretting the Government’s inaction and outlining the Labour proposals. What he was now stating he had told the public servants of his own electorate in detail when he addressed them at Westpoit immediately after the session. A special meeting of the Labour Party was held between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m; on Monday, November 4, and it was not until then that a definite line of action was agreed upon and the form of the proposed notice of motion decided. The notice of motion was handed to the Acting-Leader of the House a few minutes before 2.30, and Mr. Forbes’s statement in this connection was quite correct. There was no pre-arrangement as Mr. Davy suggested. DELAY BY MR. DAVY The fact that Mr. Davy had waited for seven months before publicly making his allegation completely discounted the value of it. If Mr. Davy had really known that such a prearrangement had been entered into, and if he was satisfied that such prearrangement was wrong, as an honest man he naturally would have placed the facts before the public at once, and would not have waited for seven months before making any statement. Furthermore, if such an arrangement had been made for blank cartridge purposes, and if the Reform Party was satisfied that this was being done, that party could have upset the whole arrangement by voting for the motion; but, as a matter of fact, with the exception of Messrs. Samuel and. Wright, the Reformers voted solidly with the Government, for whom they saved the situation. And Mr. Samuel and Mr. Wright contradicted one another most significantly. The former contended that the motion liad been moved only to get in ahead of Mr. Coates, who would have moved a similar motion, and that the whole thing had been prearranged accordingly; while Mr. Wright insisted that the leader of the Labour Party was the moet surprised man in the House when the acting-leader of the Government made the motion one of noconfidence.

Now, the Labour Party’s motion not only asked for such increase as would be acceptable to the Public Service organisations, but it set forth definitely where the money was to come from, and it was there that the Reformers found their difficulty. The Labour proposal was to impose a super-tax of 5 per cent, on incomes from £I,OOO upward, and since the Reform Party had always stood for the wealthy interests, its members were naturally averse from voting for an amendment with such a proposal. The Reform Party's attitude was expressed in the amendment which they eventually moved, and which was so emphatically the equivalent of a blank cartridge that the Government immediately accepted it. A reply by Mr. Davy to Mr. Holland's statement of last evening appears on Pago 11.