SALARY "CUTS."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 242, 12 October 1929, Page 10

SALARY "CUTS."

RESTORATION QUESTION. i: DISCUSSION IN HOUSE. i _____ |; i __ABOUR AMENDMENT I WITHDRAWN. PREMIER TO MAKE A STATEMENT. '{By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON", this day. 'As reported in the "Star" yesterday, 'the Leader of the Labour party moved to reduce the Post and Telegraph Department's vote by £2, as an indication that the party desired that officers' salaries should be restored to the 1922 standard. Just before the House of Representatives adjourned for lunch, Mr. H. E. Holland said the matter had been debated all the morning, but he was prepared to force the amendment to a division unless a Ministerial assurance was given that the "cuts" would be restored. The acting-Leader of the House (Hon. ' T. M. Wilford) said the Prime Minister had asked that the matter should stand over till he had recovered from his indisposition, and Sir Joseph Ward had undertaken to give a statement concerning the Government's policy. This statement the House wou 1 '! be able to discuss. Iγ view of Mr. Wilford's statement on bthalf of the Prime Minister, Mr. Holland sought leave of the House to withdraw his amendment. Labour Party Twitted. When the Chairman of Committees put the question that leave be granted, Mr. A. M. Samuel (Thames) expressed surprise at the attitude of the Labour leader and his party. Mr. Samuel said the Leader of the House had made a statement which was just as indefinite as that of the Postmaster-General. "I was inclined to support the amendment," said Mr. Samuel, "although I must confess that I thought from the first it was only blank ammunition. I am still of opinion that it is only blank ammunition, because now they have [withdrawn the amendment." Sir Apirana Ngata: You are a bit jungraeious. "The Labour party has had many opportunities this session," eaid Mr. Samuel, who proceeded to show that, with the House in its present state, "Labour members might have fought with good chances -of success for increased pensions, pensions for the blind and free school books, not to mention other things in the Labour party's programme. However, Labour members ihad failed to take advantage of their opportunities on this and other occasions. The Chairman of Committees pulled JBIr. Samuel up for straying from the gmendnient before the committee. Reform Government's Record. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) recalled that the Reform Government was responsible for the reduction in Civil servants' salaries, in a year when the national surplus was the record sum of £6,132,000. Despite this record surplus, legislation was brought in to reduce the Civil servants' standard below jthat of 1914. The Reform party objected to the word "robbed," but Mr. McCombs suggested that the word "confiscated" might well be used in this connection, because, having cut down Civil servants' salaries, the Reform Government gave the benefit to wealthy landowners in the form of reduced taxation. Having read out a list of Reform members who voted against an amendment that the salary cuts should not &pply. to Civil servants with, less than I £210 per year, Mr. McCombs said that one would think the Reform party, for sheer decency, would keep out of this attack on the Government of the day. That Government had been in office for only ten months.' The Labour party, having • protested against the "cut" in 1 ,the first place, was entitled to seek the restoration, but Mr. McCombs felt equally emphatically that the party l-esponsible for the "cut" should not join jin the attack. Mr. Coates on Defensive. "For. misrepresentation the member for Lyttelton is a past master,'-' said the Reader of the Opposition (Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates). It was necessary to make the ■* f cut" in Civil servants' salaries when ,ihe whole country was right up against it. The whole question, of the cost of. administration had to be faced at that time, and the question of increased [taxation was under review. Taxation might have been kept up to the niaxiinum, but something had to be done, iand the- Civil servants met the position. P?liey did not object to the cuts. JVIr. McCombs: They had no option! Mr. Coates said wages load been jfeeduced all round by the Arbitration l&ourt; Mr. McComfts: You ordered the Arbitration Court to do it. "Was the only section excluded from (the depression to be tho Civil servants?" ksked Mr. Coates. "We asked Jfrhem to jmeet the position, and they did it." ' Mr. Barnard (Napier): They had to! "It was understood that if they' did jthis, the country would turn round and give them a hand when times were prosperous," said Mr, Coates. He added t'hat the Labour (party had consistently advocated the restoration of "cuts," 'but the jLabour party ihad fio far never won on it. Mi-. McCombs: But your party lost! [(Loud laughter.) "Well, we can take a hiding and eihow (the honourable gentleman how to take It," retorted Mr. Coates. "We ihave no bitterness about that." Two Confiscatory Measures. Mr. McCombs said he supposed the Leader of the. Opposition expected that rtlhe country and new members would believe what had just been said about *he circumstances of the reduction in Civil servants' salaries in 1922. The truth •was that Parliament had been called ittpon by the Reform Government to pass two of the most unfair and confiscatory legislative measures eVer fbrouo-ht forward; «he Reform Government's chief anxiety had Wen to reduce taxation, and it had done this' by reducing Civil servants' salaries and Win.., o ?er the benefits to the -wealthy pasto°ralists bv exempting them W 4om?tS & had done tins Iby .reducing non-tJxable ealanee below £300. Mr. McComKS *he Arbitration Court in 1922 fead been tordered by - «h» Government to make reductions m wa ge ß iby. reason of W laticra which required wages to it* computed on an unfair basis of calcMatione. ti__U

Not a Question of No-Confidence. Mr. Samuel, returning to the attack, said that the- Labour party could drop this amendment when it had a chance of passing it, although in the days when t'lio Keform Government ihad a strong majority, Labour members had wasted clays and days in futile amendments. It was pointed out by Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Ohristchurch East) that it did not matter to the Labour party who restored the "cuts," so long as they were restored. It seemed that the member for Thames was anxious that the Government should be defeated on this amendment, so that the Labour party might help Reform to get back on the Treasury benches. Mr. J. T. Hogau, Independent member for Rangitikei, urged members to accept the Minister's statement, and pointed out that even if the amendment were carried it would not be looked upon-as a vote of no-confidence in the Government, but merely as a recommendation that the "cuts" should be restored. Decencies of Parliamentary Life. The Leader of the Labour party explained that he bad asked that his amendment be withdrawn simply because he was following the custom he had observed in the days when Mr. Massey was in circumstances similar to those of the present Prime Minister. Indeed, he had received letters of thanks from Mr. Massey and Sir Francis Bell for the action he had taken in certain circumstances. Mr. Holland said he would have done as much for Mr. Coates when he was Prime Minister. Personally, he believed in observing the ordinary courtesies and decencies of Parliamentary life. A Minister: Your action is very ', gracious. Mr. Holland said the Labour party would be content if the Prime Minister's promised statement was satisfactory, but, if it was not, the party could move an amendment. If the amendment was forced, he would welcome it, but personally, Mr. Holland believed that the decent thing to do was to extend the courtesy by dropping the amendment. Mr. Coates gave an assurance that the Reform Party had no desire to take advantage of the Prime Minister's temporary indisposition. .Nothing more was heard of the amendment, and the vote was passed.