LABOUR'S "STONEWALL"

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 70, 24 March 1931, Page 9

LABOUR'S "STONEWALL"

FINANCE BILL STRONGLY OPPOSED

HOUSE SITS THROUGH THE NIGHT

Labour's "stonewall" on the Finance Bill, which seeks to give effect to the Government's wage reduction proposals, is in full swing in the House of Representatives. So well organised does the opposition appear to be that progress on the Bill in the" Committee stages bids fair to be held up for some days, and the House is threatened with an almost continuous sitting for the remainder of the week. The House sat continously from 2.30 o'clock yesterday afternoon until 6.55 a.m. to-day, when an adjournment was .taken until 2.30 o'clock this afternoon,.on account of the necessity for certain members to attend meetings of the earthquake committees this morning.

When. the first Order"of tho Day, the committal of the Finance Bill, was called on, Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central), pursuant to notice, moved: •■ , . That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole on the Finance Bill that it hath power to make provision in tie Bill for ensuring that the cost of living, including food, clothing, and rent, be lowered simultaneously with, and in proportion to, the amount of reduction in the salaries of the Public Service employees as specified in Part I. of the Bill; and simultaneously with, and in proportion to, *;tlie amount of reduction in wages as ordered from time to time" by the Arbitration Court under Part 11. of the Bill. A point of order was at oneo raised by the Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Reform, Dunedin West), as to whether the motion was admissible. A THUNDERBOLT. After* several members had spoken to the point of order, Mr. Speaker gave his ruling in favour of the instruction. He commented that the position was a rare, difficult, and intricate one, and he confessed that he had spent hours 'during the week-end consulting rulings on the subject by Speakers of the House of Commons. In the New Zealand Parliament instructions of the ■ jiature had been rare, not more than a dozen having been given in the last 30 years, and the proposal of Mr. Fraser had come somewhat as a thunderbolt. After giving the House the benefit of his researches, Mr. Speaker held that the subject matter of the instruction was not irrelevant or foreign to the Bill and was not subversive to the scheme.the measure proposed. The proposals of the legislation stood, whether or not other clauses were added as a ■ •result of the instruction. The instruction was not mandatory, asjt simply gave the Committee power to i make amendments if it thought fit, and power tlid not already exist to insert i the amendments mentioned in the in'struetion. In ruling, the instruction in order, Mr. Speaker indicated that debate must be confined to the question as to-whether the Committee should have the power sought; .■'■-- - - -r-. ■ "Bound-One," interjected Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central). /TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT. . Mr. Fraser said he intended the motion to be1 helpful to the Government. If the Government was in earnest in its repeated protestations that the standard of living of theVpeople should not be reduced, the motion should be acceptable to the . Government. Mr. Fraser! said that he was not so optimistic as the Prime Minister that the Bill would bring about a reduction in the cost of living proportionate to the reduction in wages, but the motion, if approved by the House, would give the Government the machinery to eniieavour to do what it said it intended to do., Unless such machinery were definitely laid down in the Bill there was no guarantee that the cost of living would not rise through prices soaring. ,-' ■' ' ;.. As Mr.'.Fraser x>rocecded, he came several times into conflict with Mr. Speaker on the matter of latitude in '"debating the motion. ''. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) Seconded the motion, and remarked that the Prime Minister should, welcome the suggestion which had been made by Mr. Fraser, wlo had really solved the' problem of the Government by showing ■how a" reduction in the cost of living jeouia be brought about. Every party was wishful that there should be a reBuction in the cost of living if wages were reduced. A very strong case bould be made out for a reduction in rents, whifch formed a very large pro-; portion of the average family's budget. They knew that the cost of living would not fall in proportion to the fall in wages unless a fall was brought about by-legislation. ; A MOVE TO DELAY WORK. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Independent, GisTiorne) said no good purpose could be Served by either discussing or passing ■the proposed instruction. The Court was already empowered to take the cost of living into account. He believed the motion was a move to delay . the work .of the House. • . Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch, East)' said, the motion was not meant to delay the work of the House, but-was considered to be absolutely neWssary if'they were to discuss the problem intelligently. I* the Ho se was going to ignore the question, ot the ■cost of living it was going to inflict an Ijven greater hardship on the working people of the country than would be laused by the original proposals in the fern: He did not agree that there had ?»eeii any appreciable lowering m the T-ost of living during recent months^ •and said that most members only took into"'account foodstuffs, *hon dealing ■with the cost of living. \ ' Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central): said he'assumed, that the Bill ■would be passed, as a result of the combined vote of the Government and Reform Parties, and they wanted to ensure that before the Bill was passed thequestion of tho cost of living should te dealt with. During the war period i-iirtaitt people had taken advantage of tlie country's position to increase the cost of living, and they wanted to avoid a repetition of that during the present crisis. It was necessary that legislation passed to deal with the position to-day should be even more effective than that passed during the period of the war. m . -, The Rev. C. Carr (Labour, Timaru) said wages should fall only in proportion to a fall in the cost of living. In the past the cost of living had lagged behind the rates of wages. ' Mr. J. W. Munro (Labour, Dunedin North) said that the idea.of the Bill was to reduce production costs and balance the Budget. '*~., , Mr. Speaker: "I am afraid tho honourable member is discussing the Bill." Mr. Munro said it would appearthat some of the Government Statistician's figiires were not reliable, and this was unfair to the worker. He was of the opinion that the high cost of living was 'due''to the high sates of interest, , .No warty 'ponia.hs.Vo mufti objection to the" Finance Bill rf Kving «csts »««■

brought down simultaneoifSly so that the -effective purchasing pow,er of wages remained unaltered. The debate was continued alon£ similar lines by other Labour members, but they found difficulty in filling in their full half-hour, and in keeping within th.c limits of. the'subject under debate. ' ■' INSTRUCTION UNNECESSARY. Mr. F. Waite (Boform, Cliitha) said that instruction was unnecessary, because when the Bill became law the drop-in prices would.be automatic. He believed that labour, costs were- the chief determining factor in the price of commodities, and any reduction in wages would result in cheaper goods. When wages had been reduced in Queensland, the cost of living had fallen and unemployment had decreased until the total out of work was less than in New' South Wales. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said that the Prime Minister hoped the cost of living would fall, and Mr. Waitej whom he jocularly alluded to as the "Deputy Leader of the Reform Party," believed the cost of living would fall. Ho submitted the time had arirved for Parliament to act and to give -a definite, instruction. He referred to the number of people on small incomes who had fixed liabilities which would not be reduced automatically—commitments such as time-payments, the education of their -children, etc. When the- price of wool was at its lowest there was little fall in the price of woollen goods, and now that wool was on the rise again the prices of woollen goods would rise. It was quite clear that, without some provision on the lines of the instruction, there would be little or no drop in the cost of living, and frho effective purchasing power of wages would fall. Instances of how Civil' servants would faro in facing the cost of living if the cut was made were given by Mr. B. Somple (Labour, Wellington East). Citing tlie case of a railway worker (with a wife and two children) earning £.14 11s 2d, he gave the estimated monthly committed expenditure, excluding food, clothing, boots, etc., as £U 14s Id, made up as follows:, Kent, £.4 6s; water rates, 2s 8d; superannuation, 16s "d; Kick- benefit, 2s 6d; union, 2s; lodge, 10s 7d; insurance, 10s. 8d; insurance furniture, Is; unemployment levy, 2s 6d. The total remaining foS. the family" to live on' was thus £7 19s Sd per nionth,«or £1 19s lid per week. The cut would reduce,this to'£.l 16s per week. But the present value of the £ was 12s lOd, so that the family would have in actual value only £1 3s per week to live on. He submitted that it was impossible for a family of four to live on such a low sum. The motion, said Mr. J, M' Combs (Labour, Lyttelton), would apply the acid'test to Mr. Forbes's sincerity. CALL ON SOCIAL SERVICES. \ The point was made by Mr. B. M'Keen Wellington South), spealdng'shortly before midnight, that if the Government made no specific provision in the Bill to e-nsure a drop in the cost of living, it would soon have to come to the assistance of the workers in -other directions—through social services, for instance/ The hospital boards would have to- find -more money for charitable aid, and the burden would fall on the ratepayers, who were also suffering the wage reduction. The House would not be doing the fair tiling by the workers if/it did not lay ■down some safeguard against their exploitation in the- matter, of prices; At midnight the Reform benches were totally, deserted, except for the member for Western Maori district, Mr. Taiti te Tomo, who seemed to be much interested in Mb first experience of a "stonewall." Six, Labour members were at their desks, and the bulk of the quorum was being maintained by sixteen members of the United Party, including tho Prime Minister and seven of his Cabinet colleagues. A SMALL DIVERSION. Towards the close of Mr. M'Keen*'s speech Mr. Speaker was temporarily relieved in .the Chair by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. W. A. Boclkin). A few minutes later the Deputy Speaker announced that Mr. M'Keen's time Had finished. Mr. M'Keon immediately protested that the five minutes' warning bell had not been rung. '. . Mr. Bodkin replied that he had had an instruction from Mr. Speaker as to when Mr. M'Keen's time ran out. Seeing an opportunity for prolonging tho debate by a diversion, Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino) urged that Mr. Speaker's ruling should be called. "It is tho custom," ho said, "for the boll to be rung " Mr. Bodkin: "The speaker's time was up." Mr. Langstone subsided, and satisfied himself by counting heads to see if he coulddraw attention to the state of the House. Unfortunately for his purpose,; more than the requisite number of members was present. "Oh, cut it out and get to a vote," exclaimed Mr. Lysnar with mock-seri-ousness half an hour later, when Mr. C. H. Chapman (Labour, ' Wellington North) was holding the floor. At 2 a.m. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) announced that he would be the last speaker, to Mr. Fraser's motion. All the Labour members except Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan) had spoken, and Mr. Howard apologised that Mr. Martin had a bad eye. It had taken nineteen consecutive speeches from the Labour benches, he said, to try to convince the Government that.it would have been better to give more liberty to the House in.Committee. MOTION DEFEATED. The division was taken at 2.35 a.m., the motion being defeated by 46 votes! to 22. . ' . ' The House went into Committee at 2.35 a.m. Mr. Fraser raised objection, to the proposals of the Government being brought down in a Finance BilL In 1922 the two proposals were brought down in separate Bills, and the Government of the Day had been much more frank with the House. "I don't know whether the House is aware that there are some very important proposals in this Bill," said Mr. Sullivan, his remark bringing expressions of mock surprise from his colleagues. ■ '.. . "I think this : Bill should be called the Public Service and (renea-al Wage Earner* ' .W/nnjpitioi B!It," suggested Mr. Mvma,,

who remarked that tho Government had apparently decided on the present title in order to suggest that there was very little in the Bill. NO BRIGHT SPOTS. A failure to find any bright spots in the Bill was confessed by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier), who said the brightest thing about it was its allconcealing title. His audience was a small one. There were only three other Labour members in the Chamber, and the remaining benches were mainly remarkable for recumbent figures'. Speaking at 4.5 a.m., the Leader of the Labour Party said he took it that the object of calling the present Bill a Finance Bill was to prevent its being amended by the Legislative Council. He drew attention to the fact tha,t the Bill was an emergency one, and stated that there was 110 provision to restore tho salaries of Civil servants once the emergency had passed. -It was a reasonable thing to expect Ministers of the Crown to make some explanation of the details of the measure. Mr. Fraser said the Reform Party had refrained from participation in the debate because, its members were virtually parties to the legislation, although they knew they could not defend it. Mr. Parry: "They are ashamed of it." - . . "Mr. Fraser:, "I would not say that; I woufd say they are not proud of it." '■.'.'... ■"■''" In the opinion of. Mr. Munro, the legislation was a carefully-laid plan by interests outside Parliament to raid the wages of the workers of New Zealand. "Very weak," interjected the Minister of Labour (the Hon. S. G. Smith). Mr. Munro: "Apparently the Minister of Labour is having another night'marc." The Minister: "The member's speech is part of the nightmare." (Laughter.) At 4.45 a.m. the Chief Government Whip "counted the heads." t The only occupant of the Reform benches was Mr. W. H. Field, who appeared to be taking a very slight interest in the proceedings. "SMARTING UNDER THE BILL,". "We know the Minister of Education is smarting under the provisions of the Bill, but he cannot raise his voice because he is a Cabinet Minister/ said Mr. Parry, who went on to extend the sympathy of the Labour Party to the Minister in his dilemma. At the same time the Minister was appealed to to make a statement regarding the extent tho education, system would be affected by the legislation. "The Government is playing a very low-down game when it suggests that the wages of the apprentices—the boys and girls who receive 15s a week — should be reduced," declared Mr. Armstrong. He said that the alleged serious position of the country existed only in the distorted imagination of the Prime Minister. "The Finance Axe" waj another title suggested by Mr. Carr, who said another alternative would be the Workers' Compulsory Unemployment and Destitution Act." \ At 5.15 a.m. Mr. Barnard referred to the fact that of those members of the United Party who were awake the majority were Ministers,! and he appealed for some reply to bo made to the arguments which had been advanced from the Labour benches. _ .

At 6.15 a.m. Mr. Field had been joined by Mr. Taite Te Tomo, and these two members held the fort for the Beform Party. '"■■,. At 6.55 a.m. the Prime Minister moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair until, 2.30 p.m. He explained that there were' two earthquake committee meetings this morning.