THE WAGES REDUCTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19158, 26 October 1925, Page 11

THE WAGES REDUCTION.

MR, HOLLAND ANSWERED.

MINISTER STATES POSITION.

HOW MATTER ORIGINATED

[BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.] GORE, Saturday.

The Minister for Labour, who has just returned to Gore after visiting country districts, replied to a statement made by Mr. Holland in Wellington that the Labour Minister had carefully considered a reduction in wages of 7s 6d a week, owing to a proposition appearing in the annual report of the department. What Mr. Holland conveniently ignored, Mr. Anderson said, was the fact that the report, although presented to Parliament in pursuance of law, was written by the head of the department and not by the Minister.

"Apparently Mr. Holland holds the opinion that the Minister for Labour should dictate to the secretary what the latter should publish in his annual report," said the Minister. This he had never done, and as far as he knew it had not been the practice of any previous Minister for Labour. Other previous Secretaries of Labour bad incorporated in their reports views that no Minister of the Crown could hope to give effect to, but which at tlie same time were of universal interest. As far as the deduction of 7s 6d a week from the wages of workers was concerned, to be placed in a central fund and paid out to those with large families, he was totally opposed to such a scheme, and had never stated or implied that it should be enforced, or that it was desirable to attempt to enforce it. He had not placed such a suggestion before the Government and the Government had never considered the matter.

The opinion on "family allowances'' in the report was merely an academic expression on a labour matter bv the Secretary for Labour, himself. "If Mr. Holland believes it is the Minister's place to interfere with the personal opinion of his officers, or automatically to adopt them as matters of Government policy, and would earry that principle into practice if he ever had the opportunity, lie would quickly find that a free people such as the fvew Zealanders are would immediately repudiate him and his views," said Mr. Anderson.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

NATIONALIST'S CRITICISM

MEMBER'S SPIRITED REPLY

Some remarks regarding the Legislative Council which were made in Wellington by Mr. J. J. McGrath, Nationalist candidate for Wellington North, have drawn a. reply from the Hon. W. H. Triggs, M.L.C. A passage in a speech by Mr. McGrath ran as follows: "If any of you have attended the sittings of the Legislative Council you must, with the exception of a few members of the Statutes Revision Committee, have been pained and humiliated by the tragedy of a number of garrulous old men going through the farce of revising legislation. Many of these honourable gentlemen have long passed the time when they could be regarded as physically and mentally fit,* indeed it seems sheer cruelty to allow some of them at large without some competent nurses to care for them."

Mr. Triggs, in his reply, said: "Until death robbed us recently of two very able and respected members of the profession, the Council included six lawyers, against whose ability and mental fitness not even Mr. McGrath would venture to utter one word of depreciation. It is true it contains several ex-members of the Lower House. . . Three of these ex-members have been Prime Ministers of New Zealand, and these include the present leader of the New Zealand Bar. Two of them have been High Commissioners representing New Zealand in London. They also include an ex-Speaker, and an ex-Chair-man of Committees of the House of Representatives.

" Apart from men of legal and political eminence, there are also in the Council men of experience on local bodies and education boards, practical farmers, men of business,' journalists, and an acknowledged leader of the medical profession. It includes among the shrewdest and ablest, of its members three Labour representatives, who, unlike the Labour representatives in another place, continue to work at manual callings during the recess.

"Mr. McGrath makes a grudging exception in favour of ' some members of the Statutes Revision Committee.' As a lawyer he must know that the most valuable work of the Council is done in committee, and consequently does not corne under the direct notice of the public. He must know that much of the legislation that comes from the Lower House would be unworkable but for the revision it receives in the Council. He should also know that many of the local and private bills as drafted by practising lawyers with little or no experience of Parliamentary work have to be practically redrafted before they are fit to go on the Statute Book." In a rejoinder Mr. McGrath said: "It is not the Council I object to—it is the method of appointing the members." Mr. Triggs thereupon pointed out that in the report of Mr. McGrath's speech there was no mention made of the mode of appointment.