THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1929. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20405, 6 November 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1929. NO-CONFIDENCE MOTIONS.

Parliament has experienced many no-confidence motions in recent years. For a long time the Leader of the Labour Party used to move one at the beginning of each session, choosing the debate on the Address-in-Reply as the occasion. Whatever its chances of being carried, it was always debated with due solemnity. Party conditions being what they are, such a motion now appears on the surface to be of more serious moment, for the two sections of the Opposition, by combining, can defeat the Government at any time. The dominating circumstance at present is that they are not likely to combine for that purpose, any more than oil and water are likely to mix. Any occasion that found them in the same lobby when the fate of the Government was at stake would be one such that no other course was in any way possible. Of the two, the Labour Party would be the most averse to taking the plunge. This has been proved plainly enough in the present session, and, as will presently be suggested, the latest no-confidence motion, for which Mr. Holland was responsible, showed beneath the surface a serious disinclination to have what was obviously meant to be a damp squib develop into a live bomb.. Whether Mr. Holland knew that the portentous motion he moved would be accepted by the acting-Leader of House as one of no-confidence or not, whether he was surprised to have it so classified or not, it was quite evident the last thing he or his associates wanted was that it should be taken as such by the Reform Party and acted upon seriously to do as it might have done, turn the Government out of office. It was a party manoeuvre. It was meant to gain credit for the Labour Party, embarrass the Reform Party and do the Government no harm. Anybody who cannot see that in it does not know how the political wheel turns.

Mr. Holland and his followers have something to live down in their vote over the primage duty. They must know that as well as everybody else does, and in the episode of the Public Service salaries can be seen the first attempt to throw a smoke screen round that inconvenient happening. It is instructive now to analyse what happened. As soon as Mr. Forbes said the motion must be one of noconfidence, there came from the Labour benches a chorus of regrets . that he had elected to do so. What else they expected after the very definite statement the Prime Minister had made on the subject it is hard to see. The members of the party are not really so 'simple as all that. When the first two speakers from the Reform side accepted the situation as it appeared to be, handled the motion as really one of no-confidence, and said they would vote for it, Labour's attitude of regret changed to one of very thinlyveiled apprehension. It was true the motion ended with a suggestion that there should be a supertax on all incomes over £IOOO to meet the cost of what was proposed. This undoubtedly w T as put there to ensure that the Labour Party alone would support it, and would thus be able to claim that it alone supported a restoration of the salary "cuts," assuming such a thing was possible. The Reform Party especially was certainly expected to reject such a device. Yet, when, early in the debate, two members of that party said they would vote for the motion, and it remained doubtful how many more would do the same, the apprehension began to develop. After all, when the Labour Party had voted for the doubled primage duty, for the sake of keeping the Government in, why should the Reform Party not accept the whole of Mr. Holland's amendment and put it out? With such an excellent example of principle falling before expediency, why should it not be followed? , Such reflections being possible, is it at all surprising that painful expectancy reigned on the Labour benches for a time? In the end the affair ended harmlessly, but there is no question which party came best out of it. Before that is discussed, two things should be made clear. First, it was not proved, and no attempt was made on any side to prove, that what was set out in Mr. Holland's motion constituted a justifiable claim by the Public Service against the revenues of the State. It may be or it may not be ; that point was not discussed. Again, the employees of the Post and Telegraph Department have been most concerned in this discussion about restoring what was taken

away in 1922, if, as has already been said, any such thing were possible. The salaries in that department arc not provided from the ordinary Budget. They are paid out of the department's own revenue, now segregated in a special account, and within certain limits adjustments can bo made within tho department itself. All the talk about what it would cost the Consolidated Fund to concede demands was entirely irrelevant as far as they are concerned. That being understood, it may now bo remarked that tho Reform Party voted on principles to which it has adhered all through the many wrangles over this subject. It was in office when the distasteful action of imposing the "cut" was taken in 1922. It has always maintained that action to have been necessary, however reluctantly it was taken. Since then, it has always declared that restoration in tho sense Mr. Holland expressed in his motion was impossible because of changes by reclassifications and promotions since. Its action in helping to defeat his motion was perfectly consistent, while that of keeping him in painful suspense for a time was a justifiable relaxation. By virtue of Mr. Young's amendment, tho party supported a sympathetic investigation of the lower salary schedules, with a view to granting such increases as proved practicable. Tho Labour Party lost its amendment and its claim to exclusive solicitude for the interests of the servants of tho State. Further, it failed in its palpable design to obtain a counterblast to its own reversal of form over tho primage duty. It suffered a bad quarter of an hour at one stage of the debate, and may perhaps remember the occasion. The United Party remains in office. Its members cast a silent vote against Mr. Holland's motion,, and a silent vote in favour of a Reform Party amendment. This habit of voting silently has become so characteristic of the party's rank and file, and of most of the Ministers, that it hardly deserves mention. Thus ended the no-confidence motion Mr. Holland moved.