SALARY "CUTS"

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 136, 5 December 1929, Page 10

SALARY "CUTS"

LABOUR'S MOTION

NOT PRE-ARRANGED

ALLEGATION DENIED

| An allegation that the Labour Party's motion in Parliament with reference to the Civil servants' salary "cuts" was pre-arranged was made by Mr. J. Kerr, United Party candidate for the Hutt seat, at his meeting at Koro Koro last night. Speaking of the underpaid men in the Civil Service, Mr. Kerr said that the only party that would do the right thing was the United Party. He stated that. Labour had arranged the motion referring to the restoration of the "cuts" last session so that Reform would not support it, and there was not the slightest chance of it being carried. In reply to a question, Mr. Kenstated that Mr. Wilford did not have anything to do with the framing of the Labour motion, but, for all that, it was so arranged that it would be defeated. The questioner: "Arranged with whom?" ■ i Mr. Kerr: "I won't say whom it was pre-arranged with, but it was prearranged." WITHOUT FOUNDATION. In reference to Mr.-Kerr's statement the Minister of Lands (the Hon. G. W. Forbes), who was in charge of the House at the time the motion was moved, to-day made the following comnieut:— I do not interpret Mr. Kerr's statement as referring to a pre-ar-rangement between the United and Labour Parties. Any statement to the effect that there was such an arrangement would be without foundation. 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. LABOUR'S ATTITUDE. Mr. P. Fraser, M.P., secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party, has handed the following statement to "The Post" in regard to Mr. Kerr's assertion:— "If Mr. Kerr's statement at Koro Koro last 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-arrangemeut in regard to thesaid motion between the United Gov-I eminent and the Labour Party, I wish' 1 to give it the most emphatic and definite denial. It is absolutely without foundation in fact. It does not even costain a modicum of accuracy." '' The facts of what transpired immediately prior to the notice of motion by Mr. Holland are that on three occasions representatives of the Labour Party* met Cabinet Ministers on the question of the wages of Public Service employees. On the first occasion Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. M. J. Savage, vice-chairman of the Labour Party, and myself, met Mr. G. W. Forbes, Acting-Leader of the House of Representatives, and Mr. j T. M. Wilford, Minister of Justice. On the second occasion, Mr. Holland and Mr. Savage met Mr. Forbes. On the third occasion Mr. Holland, Mr. Savage, and myself met Mr. Forbes. "At the first meeting Mr.-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 lowerpaid 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 Mr. Forbes intimated that no definite decision had yet been arrived at. Mr. Holland pressed for an early decision, and again emphasised the attitude of the Labour Party. THE THIRD INTERVIEW. "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. Mr. Holland then informed Mr. Forbes that the Labour Party would have uo 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 the P. and T. 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-eonfidenee. In any ease, Mr. 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 Mr. Holland in conformity with Parliamentary courtesy. These facts are corroborated by the statements of Mr. Forbes and Mr. Wilford in the House of Representatives, and by Mr. Forbes in his statement in to-day's 'Post.'"