CORRESPONDENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1929, Page 18

CORRESPONDENCE

LABOUR’S INSINCERITY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Your readers will have followed with interest the recent political mahouvering by the Labour party in connection with the salaries bf . public servants. The Labour party has desued to convince the public servants that it is prepared to take up the cudgels for them in their demand for increase of salaries. ■ Thus the Labour party has hoped to gain the whole public service vote. ■ What is tho truth? The Labour party moved tho following resolution: That this House regrets the failure of the present Government to make provision for improving tho salaries of the public servants, tho great majority of whom suffered considerable hardship owing to the unjust levy that was made upon them in 1922; this House recommends an overhaul of the salary schedules of the whole service, and that provision be made this year for a 5 per cent, increase in the maximum of schedule salaries up to £295 per annum—” The P. and T. Officers’ Association, in a statement made the following day, observed: “From the debate which took place it was made quite clear j'hat. members generally were of the opinion that improvements of salary were due to the lower paid officers in the P. and T. Department. Despite the assurances given in this direction, the claims of these men have evidently been eacri-" ficed on the altar' of party polities and political expediency.” The statement of the P, and T. Association is absolutely correct. The claims of the public servants have been deliberately sacrificed on the altar of party expediency by the members of the Labour party, the self-styled champions of the public servants. It is obvious that the Labour party's motion could have been carried only if Reform members had Supported it; and, as the P. and T. Association recognises, it would not have been difficult for the Labour party to have framed its. resolution in terms which would have gained the support of the Reform party. Nevertheless, the actual motion produced by the Labour party was obviously designed expressly for the purpose of preventing any Reformer supporting it, hence the dragging-in the quite irrelevant .reference to the; “unjust levy” of 1922. That is to say, the Labour party would not produce a motion to increase the salaries of the public servants without tacking on to it a vote of condemnation of the previous Government; and, I repeat, this was done obviously for the purpose of preventing any Reform members supporting the motion, and so of preventing the motion being passed. A This means that the Labour party engaged in a move intended simply to bluff the public servants into supposing that the Labour party was upholding their interests, while in fact that party—for the sake of keeping the United Government in office — deliberately took .steps to make it impossible for the motion to be carried. But the public servants of New Zealand are not all fools, and will not be so easily tricked and deceived. They will re9ogni.se that the Labour party is using them only as a pawn in its party game.—l am, etc., . ANTI-HUMBUG. Wellington, November 7.