LEADER OF OPPOSITION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11251, 1 July 1922, Page 7

LEADER OF OPPOSITION.

"PICKED OUT FOR SLAUGHTER.” Mr "Wilford said that he was opposed to the P. and T. Officers’ Association joining the Alliance of Labour. He did not think that the Alliance- of Labour could function to the advantage of the public service of tho country. The policy of the Reform party in regard to the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act was a cut from tlio general manager to the office boy; and that of the Labour party on second reading was not cut for anybody, not even for the general manager or for members of Parliament. The Liberal policy was to support tho cut /for the general manager and for members of Parliament, but no cut below £320 a year. Personally, ho was of the opinion that the speech of the Prime Minister was no argument at all in favour of making this particular cut against this particular section of the people. He was satisfied by it that there was need for grave economy, wise economy, and care; but there was not one argument in favour of picking out a certain particular section of the public for slaughter. Could the Prime Minister tell them that the extravagances had ceased—that the report of the Economies Committee had been folio wed? That report had never been presented to tho House. Mr Massey: And it won't be. It was confidential to me alone. PUBLIC ENTITLED TO REPOR^T. Mr Wilford contonded that the House was entitled to the report, just as the House of Commons was entitled to have the Geddes report, and the Australian Federal Parliament was. entitled to the Commonwealth Economy Report. He wanted to know what recommendations were made in regard to economy, and how many were carried out. What did tho report say in regard to the Forestry Department, to immigration expenditure, end to certain defence expenditure, the purchase of stores for the Education Department, and various other matters of the greatest importance, to the country P Had the recommendations of the committee been carried out? And, if not, why not? Why, continued Mr Wilford, could not the House have the report of the Arbitration Court with regard to this cut? Mr Massey: I have not read it. Mr Wilford maintained that the Prime Minister had delayed obtaining the report. The Act said clearly that the Prime Minister had to determine the question of the second cut in June on the report of tho president of the Arbitration Court; but the House was in the position of having to vote on this matter without the report of the ©resident of the court, though the Prime Minister had it in his pocket. If the Reform party was prepared to vote and make no protest against such a state of things, it was in their hands, not in his. But he made his protest against the position; and every fair-minded man miiflt know he -was right in doing so. He asked the Prime Minister what was the reason for the second cut; and he was entitled to ask him that, because it was made at tho discretion of the Prime Minister. CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS, Mr Wilford said the Prime Minister had said there was no work for 3000 men out of the Public Service, and yet the Minister for Agriculture, l when asked if 3000 immigrants were coming out, craidi that all the immigrants were going to billets. The Prime Minister said that the immigrants wore not going to billets in the Public Service. Mr Wilford: There are immigrants in the Public Service. Mr Massey: If there are I don’t know them. Mr Wilford: I can take you to where they are. Mr Wilford said he was not opposed to economy, but thought it should not be obtained at the expense of the lower-paid civil servants. He thought, also, there were many State extravagances that ought to be cut out. He would support the proposal which was against the reduction of the lower-paid workers. Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) described the proposal to make another cut as a special tax on those it affected. He thought tho time had arrived for an effort to be made t$ secure a better system of the distribution of {public money; to-day we were coming down to a system that almost bordered on Tammanyism. Cutting down wages in some of the Government departments would be a very costly expedient. ABSENCE OF CANDOUR SUGGESTED. Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin .South) commented on what ho termed the Prime Minister’s want of candour in referring to the statement from tho President of the Arbitration Court. He said that Mr Massey had been inconsistent. First ho had said that ho had reooived the statement in a form not suitable for placing before tho House, and later fre had said that he had not had time to look over Mr Massey said that Mr Sidey had not put the position quite fairly. After ho had received the statement from the President, he had had a brief personal interview with llis Honour, who thou said he would like the statement back to havo another look over it. Tho President had got the speech back, and it had. been returned to Mr Massey that day. "BREAD AND BUTTER LINE." Mr Mitchell said that no on© wanted to increase taxation, but that would be preferable to taking it out of the low-est-paid man, who was just on tho brencl^

and butter line. He suggested that the Government could combine all the three alternatives mentioned by Mr Massey. By reducing the wages of those over £320 a year, by re imposing the 10 per cent, rebate on large estates, say, up to £20,000 value, bv reimposing the 5 per cent, rebate on. incomes, say, over £6OO a year, together with a little more economy in administration, they ought to bo able to get more than the amount expected from the proposed cut in salaries. Air Massey: You would not get a tenth of it Air Alitcbcll: How much money do you expect, to get by the cut? No reply was given.