The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1925. THAT WAGE REDUCTION BOGEY.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 10140, 28 October 1925, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1925. THAT WAGE REDUCTION BOGEY.

It ’s rather ft pity that the Min’ster for Labor delayed until after 3lr Holland’s meeting in the Oty Hall making special reference to Labor’s wage reduction bogey. Perhaps the Hon. G. J. Anderson reckoned that the earlier denial by his leader (Mr Coates) should have been sufficient. And so it should have been! But,’, if Mr Anderson had immediately fol-l lowed, Mr 'Coates and Mr McLeod with his statement on the matter, Mr Holland would have been left with absolutely not a vestige of ground for any charge aga nst the Government. Those who attended Mr Holland's meeting here know that he not only misrepresented the whole position with reference to Labor’s ungrounded complaint on the subject but that he also erst doubt on Mr Coates’s word by inferring that Mr .Anderson had actua'ly approved of the proposal in question! Mr Holland we may point out, wished his audience to believe that, because the annual report of the Secretary for Labor included references to a family allowances scheme wh eh had been suggested in Australia.' it necessarily fo Towed that the Minister for Labor had brought it before Cabinet and had it approved. As the Minister now says Mr Rowley’s annual reports contain a lot of interesting information on a variety of subjects, but even if it should favor segue of them, the Govt, could not give effect to them, presumab'y on account of financ’al difficulties. It should be stressed, we think, that Mr Ho land was careful not to outline the scheme in full. He said it would involve a deduction of 7s 6d per week from every worker’s wages. But wlij d'dn’t he te 1 them a little more about it. If he had wished to he polit'callv honest, he would Lave added that it would undoubtedly be a very fine thing for the wo.keis with " children. He might have -added that, under the scheme, _ a man with two children would receive 7s 6d per week more than at present : a man with three children los per week more, a man with four children £1 2s 6d per week more and so on. Mr Holland is cunning enough to know that if he had outlined the scheme properly every married man with two or more children nyght have risen from his scat and “That scheme will do me! What is wrong with the scheme, however, is that it would make its cost a charge solely against industry and Mr Coates has laid-it don n that Government .w,U not stand for that Mr Holland, to haY6 been perfectly, frank, should also have told his audenco that when- Mr Rowley s report was presented to the House - ; t was laid on the table without au?: eussion He shou’d have gob© further and said that it was absolutely true that no Minister had at any time made any reference, favorable or otherwise, to the scheme until. Labor’s vote-catching cry was raised:, when the bogey was promptly exp Oder! It was dirty tact cs on the part of Mr Holland end his comrades to w siiiisfa ti.« had “dec ded’i to make . a 0 7s 6d per week in workers wages 11 it were returned to power. Shameless also was the contention that the proposal “had been placed before Par! ’ament bv one of the Min sters of the Reform Government.” Tactics of that sort may prove fruitful m the case of thouglitless electors, hut, happily, the average working man of to -dav cannot he eauglit so easily. Mr Coleman lias iiow a- chance to put the madder fair’y and squarely before the people of this d.strict if lie sliou.d feel so disposed. '-■■"L. ■