POLITICS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 50, 28 February 1923, Page 9

POLITICS.

THAT SHORT SESSION. MR. SAVAGE ON THE LIBERALS. Mr. M. .1. Savage. M-P-, addressed a crowded gathering at the Leys Institute last night on '"Politics, and the Short Session," Mr. P. Hickey presiding. "When Mr. Massey," be said, "went back with only 08 members in a House !of 80, the Labour party was wise to I what would be his political move. He I would take one of the forces of the I Opposition—one who would otherwise : vote, against, him —and place him in the j Chair, so as to nullify his vote. Hud the i Government given the Chair to one of | its own members it would have had its | voting strength of 38 (excluding political 'rats') reduced to 37. the Govern- ; ment had a number of people equally ! qualified for the "job' of Speaker with I Mr. Statham on tbe Reform side of the House. Labour had no means against | this political string-pulling, excepting to ■ nominate Mr. McCombs, and there was no person in the House who took a bigger or more intelligent interest in proceedings than the member for Lyttelton. Labour protested against the questionable strategy of the Government, nnd divided the House, but with the exception of the member for Ohinemuri the Labour party voted alone. The next day the Labour pajty moved the amendment on Mr. Wi. ford's bald amendment on the Address-in-Reply— and the Liberals walked out of the House, instead of doing their duty and voting.

Mr. Savage defied any one to say where the Liberals stood in regard to proportional representation—only one or two had declared themselves in favour. The majority had spoken in fay? our of increased pensions and pensions for the blind, but these things were not found on the Statute Book. The time had come, he considered, to bind members of the House to certain definite principles in black and white. The Labour amendment had dealt with pensions, proportional representation and housjng, but did the Liberal* stand f° r these things when ,_they walked °Ut of the House t The leader of the Liberal party had since asked the Prime Minister whether he intended to introduce certain legislation in tlie com'Ug session —and that very legislation was demanded in the Labour party's amendment which the Liberals refused to vote for.

I Mr. Savage declared that there was no need for a third party—the Keformers and the Liberal's were the same but in name, their fundameu',al principles were on a par. If they would be straight, and occupy the same platI form, the people would know where .they were. Just now the Liberal por-ty I was the recruiting ground for the Re- . formers—they took them a? they , wanted tlmm. Imagine the Liberals j fighting the Reformers on the platform, ' and after being returned as the enemies of the Government, going and voting with the .Reform party! Would the electors much longer tolerate sueli hypocrisy? Tlie Liberal action on the Labour party's amendment on the Ad-dress-in-Reply was one of cowardice and hypocrisy. Labour could not attempt to work with such people —men who ran away when the first shot was fired. The Liberals were still making threats against the Government and the Uov« eminent was still getting recruits from them. Mr. Massey had row promised a i housing scheme for the workers —a I liberalisation of the old measure—but ! this had been squeezed out of—the Gov? j-ernment. Let the electors keep squeezing. The Government had no intention ef bringing ill proportional representation. It was going to foist upon the country preferential voting, which wis a different tiling entirely, and a system by which two large parties could squeeze the smaller party right out of it so that the minority would have no representation whatever. The speaker concluded by stating that the moneyed class was well and truly represented by the present Government and its open or behind-coyer supporters, and that it would require the Labour party to shift them.