SALARY “CUTS”

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 62, 6 December 1929, Page 12

SALARY “CUTS”

LABOUR PARTY’S MOTION « “NO PRE-ARRANGEMENT” REPLIES TO MR. KERR’S ALLEGATIONS An allegation by Air. J. Kerr, United Party candidate in the Hutt by-election, that the Labour Party’s motion in Parliament with regard to the Civil servants salary “cuts” was pre-arranged, was the subject of brief comment by the Minister of Lands (Hon. G. AV. Forbes) in a statement to the Press yesterday. Air. Forbes, who was in charge of the House at the time the motion was moved, said he did not interpret Air. Kerr’s statement as referring to a pre-arrangement between the United and Labour parties. “Any statement to the effect that there was such an arrangement would be without foundation,” said Air. Forbes. “As a matter of fact, the first intimation I had of the terms of the motion was when it was handed to me by the Leader of the Labour Party just prior to the meeting of the House at which the motion was moved.” AN EMPHATIC DENIAL LABOUR’S ATTITUDE Air. P. Fraser, AI.P.. secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party, has handed the following statement to “The Domjpion” in regard to Air. Kerr’s assertion: — “If Mr. Kerr’s statement at Koro Koro on Wednesday evening relating to the motion of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives on the question of the wages of Public servants refers, as it certainly seems to refer, to a pre-arrangement in regard to the motion between the United Government and the Labour Party, I wish to give it the most emphatic and definite denial. It is absolutely without foundation in fact. It does not even contain a modicum of accuracy. “The facts of what transpired immediately prior to the notice of motion by Air. Holland are that on three occasions representatives of the Labour Party met Cabinet Alinisters on the question of the wages of the Public Service employees. On the first occasion Air. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, Air. Al. J. Savage, vice-chairman of the Labour Party, and myself, met Air. G. AV. Forbes, Acting-Leader of the House of Representatives, and Air. T. Al. Wilford, Alinister of Justice. On the second occasion, Air. Holland and Air. Savage met Air. Forbes. On the third occasion Air. Holland, Air. Savage and myself met Air. Forbes.

“At the first meeting Air. Holland plainly asked on behalf of the Labour Party that something effective and substantial should be done in the way of an increase in the wages of the lower-paid Public servants, including the railwaymen, and the post and telegraph employees. Mr. Holland also made it perfectly clear that if the Government could not accede to this request the Labour Party, in conformity with its consistent and repeatedly declared attitude, would take action in the House of Representatives. It was understood at the conclusion of that meeting that the matter would again be submitted to Cabinet. “At the second meeting Air. Forbes intimated that no definite decision had yet been arrived at. Air. Holland pressed for an early decision, and again emphasised the attitude of the Labour Party. “No Alternative.” “At the third meeting, Mr. Forbes definitely intimated that the Government could not see its way to do anything further in the matter at that time. Air. Holland then informed Mr. Forbes that the Labour Party would have no alternative but to give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of the Labour Party that the lower-paid Public servants, including the railwaymen and post and telegraph employees, should be given an increase in their wages, and that the Government would have to take the responsibility of deciding whether such motion when tabled was, or was not, one of no-confidence. In any case, Air. Holland said the Labour Party would move such a motion and divide the House. “I want to state definitely and explicitly that no one, other than members of the Labour Party, knew the terms of the motion until shortly before the House of Representatives met on the day in question, when a copy was handed to the Acting-Leader of the House by Air. Holland in conformity with Parliamentary courtesy. These facts are corroborated bv the statements of Air. Forbes and Air. Wilford in the House of Representatives, and by Air. Forbes in his statement today.” ' MR. NASH REPLIES “I don’t know exactly what the questioner meant,” said Air. Nash at his meeting at Koro Koro last night, when referring to Air. Kerr’s statement that the Labour Party’s motion witli regard to the Civil Service cuts had been prearranged. “If there is one thing more than another that one can indulge in,” he continued, “it is innuendo —it makes one suspicious.” Air. Nash said apparently Air. Kerr had indulged in innuendo. T«e motion, he added, was drafted and taken down to the House of Representatives, and no one, with the exception of the members of the Labour Party in Parliament and himself, knew anything about it. Air. Wilford did not know what was in it. The Government said that they were going to take the motion as one of no-confidence, which was not the intention of the Labour Party. The fact that Air. Kerr had made sueh a statement had caused an unprecedented thing to happen—it had caused the Acting-Leader of the party for which lie was standing (Hon. G. AV. Forbes) to repudiate the statement. It was Air. Nash’s hope that Air. Kerr would withdraw the statement at his next meeting. A DIFFERENT VERSION MR. KERR EXPLAINS Further reference to the matter was made by the United Party candidate, when speaking at Waiwetu last night. “At Koro Koro,” said Air. Kerr, “I was charged with saying that there was a pre-arrangement with the Labour Party. 11 did not intend to convey that the Labour Party had a pre-arrangement with the United Party. It was impossible for anyone to take that from the remarks I made. The United Party was not in collusion with any party in the matter. I must, as a gentleman, accept the statement of the Labour leaders. They say no party had any hand in the framing of that resolution, and as a gentleman I must accept that, but I would like to say that the hand of cunning was in that resolution. ... It was so worded that the Reform Party would not support it. . . I say the tiling was pre-arranged and if they don’t like the word pre-arranged I will say it was arranged by the Labour Party.”