WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 September 1922, Page 7

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE BUDGET DEBATE. MR. WILEORD LEADS OPPOSITION. (Special Correspondent.) Wellington, August 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 he was on his feet, even the Prime Minister contributing a shot now and again to the assault, but 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. Mr. Wilford plunged into a scathing indictment of the Government with his 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 up 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 some 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 he wanted to know why it did not make its estimates bigger and bigger so that its economies might be larger and larger. The point seemed to be a legitimate one and his own side of the House resounded with “Hear, hears.” Mr. Massey’s retort was that his critic could not understand plain English, and “Hear, hears” came from the other side. Turning to the accumulated surpluses the leader of the Opposition inquired what

the Government had to show for the seventeen millions it had squandered and what it was going to do with the remaining seven millions. He was told he would heai’ all about these matters by and by. LOYALTY. Towards the conclusion of his 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 his readiness to negotiate for an alliance with the party led by 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-splitting and so to secure proportional representation; but the policy of the Liberal Party was as distinct from the Policy of ■ the Labour Party as it was from the policy of the Reform Party. “All I have to say to the Prime Minister,” he added, “is that no member on this side of the House will yield to him in loyalty. I will go further. His loyalty is flagwaving and lip-service. Gurs is in our blood and bone.” The words, of course were spoken in righteous anger. No one could really doubt the depth and quality of Mr. *Massey’s loyalty. But the imputation against the leader of the Opposition was unwarrantable and the incident altogether deplorable. THE OTHER SIDE, The Hon. G. J. Anderson, the Minister of Labour, was deputed to reply to the leader of the Opposition, and, though he possesses neither Mr. Wilford s fluency nor his breezy manner, he managed to acquit himself fairly well. The attack is always an easier task than the defence on occasions of this kind and Mr. Anderson is just a little too conscientious and courteous to shine in a battle of words. However he covered the ground very concisely and took some of the sting out of Mr. Wilford’s criticism. The mistake he made, egged on by some of his colleagues’ interjections, was in holding Mr. Wilford responsible for what had happened in the National Cabinet during the party truce. This was not cricket. A member of a Cabinet cannot publicity divest himself of responsibility for what a ma jority of his colleagues do. But when he ceases to be a member of the Cabinet he is not to be held responsible for the sins of the majority. That is a rule of the game and one that must be observed if the traditions of Cabinet rule are to be maintained. But for this lapse Mr. Anderson did all that was expected of him.