FINANCE BILL

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 March 1931, Page 7

FINANCE BILL

SECOND READING CARRIED

AFTER LONG SITTING

[SPECIAL TO “STAB.”] 1

WELLINGTON, March 21. The second reading debate on the Finance Bill and the Labour amendment W'as continued in the House yesterday. A motion by Mr, Forbes for urgency to be accorded the second reading was challenged from the Labour benches, but carried by 50 votes to 24, Messrs Hogan, Fletcher,.- Rushworth, Wilkinson, Black and Harris voting with Labour. Mr Sullivan deplored Mi’ Forbes’ attitude in the matter of breaking arbitration contracts, and said that if such contracts were broken by the Government, employers and employees could no longer be expected to honour them. Mr Forbes’ statement was unguarded and regrettable. Mr Sullivan ,argued that-the wage cuts would' not bring.'dowh the cost of living. Mr Wilkinson said that he would support the second reading because the Bill would later reach the committee stage, when it might be amended. A wage cut was inevitable, but he would support a modification in re-

spect of the lower salaries. He could not support the arbitration clauses, as they repudiated agreements. Most workers outside the civil service and awards, already had their wages cut seriously, and the worst of all, many employers had been - obliged to reduce. staffs.' If the Bill were not passed, members would have voted to retain .their salaries, and that cojild not be. It would be invidious position. He stressed the plight of farmers and said that many would be penniless in the coming - winter. Mr Waite asked if /it were proposed

to. repeal the family allowances which had been of the greatest value to many poor people. The cost of unemployment was likely to increase considerably in the next two years, and he asked how the extra money was to be found. The real trouble about farmers’ costs was the cost of their farms. Advocating a new system of taxation, which would assure the necessary revenue at all times, he said that the present system brokj down during the depression. Mr Savage advocated a greater burden on -those best able to bear it. Persons paying income tax were given exemptions for insurance and dependents, but thorn below the income

tax minimum were now asked to bear a reduction without any exemptions. There should be a graduated system in accordance with the ability to pay. Mr Dickie sdid the duty on beer and spirits should be increased, but a tax on sugar would not bring in the desired revenue. He criticised the wheat duties, -which were raising the price of bread and crippling the poultry industry. He did not favour abolishing the duties altogether, but they should be within reason. There were too many departments of State, and they could also reduce expenditure in respect to the secretariat of the League of Nations. Export control boards could also be amalgamated and a saving made in the High Commissioner’s office. , '

Mr Parry maintained that Labour's attitude .to the Government’s proposals were fair and equitable, and no answer had been made to the suggestion for a surtax on higher incomes. The Minister of Labour (Mr Smith) denied that the Government was trying to reduce the standard of living of the 'workers. He had lived the life of a lower-paid civil servant for 20 years, so it was harder for him to agree to the proposals than any other member of the Cabinet. The Arbitration Act merely gave the Court power to reduce by general order the wages paid under the awajrds, and every union had the right to go before the Court and ask for exclusion from the general order. No apprentice 'working under present awards would be affected. If there was to be a reduc-

tion in salaries and wages, all should participate. Mr Smith detailed the various increases made under the 1918 legislation, and' said that, when the cost of liying began to fall again, the Court, o/i at least two occasions, refrained from making any wages reductions. There was no talk of repudiation at the time of the 1918 legislation. In a time of crisis so grave as the present, every member of the House

SHOULD FORGET PARTY ;

and not attempt to take party advantage of the Government by charging it with repudiation of contracts. (Government applause). An arbitration award was not a contract as between employer and employee. The law of the freedom of contracts was still left to both parties. There was nothing: to- prevent any employer or worker agreeing to work at any old figure above the minimum rate. Most of the wages were fixed in normal times, but when conditions became abnormal the State was justified in taking action to enable wages to be brought into line with current economic conditions. Mr Smith w’tent on to refer to the action of Labour Governments in Australia, in giving the Arbitration Court power to vary awards, and he had instanced several “cuts” which had been made in various States. A suggestion had been made that the deficit could be made up from income tax, but who knew to-day what the assesable income would be for this year?

“If it could be shown me that what I am doing to-day is going to inflict unnecessary hardship on the workers of New .Zealand,” he said, “I would have no hesitation in walking away from this side of the House.” Mr Barnard urged an increase in excise duties to aid the revenue. Mr Ansell supported the Bill with reservations. He regretted that Mr Forbes did not call an industrial conference before making his statement to the country. It would have cleared up misunderstandings. Members who were advocating no reduction in wages but an increase in taxation, were really, putting up the rate of interest. He criticised the rentals charged by the Government for railway houses. ~ After midnight, only Labour mernbers participated, and the division on Mr Jordan’s amendment was taken at 4.30 a.m. The amendment was defeated by 46 to 21, Mr Harris voting

with Labour,, while Messrs Black, Rushworth and Fletcher paired in support.

The, second reading was then carried by 47 to 20, this time Mr Harris voting in support. The House adjourned at 4.55 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Monday

, DECLARED “BLACK”

MEMBER EXPELLED FROM PARTY

[special to “stab.”]

WELLINGTON, March 20.

Summary expulsion from the United Party is the penalty Mr G. C. Black > has paid for voting with ' the Labour' . Party against the Government, this . afternoon on , the question of according i urgency to the second reading of the Finance Bill. “Mr Black’s vote against the Government on a motion moved by myself, claiming urgency for the passage of the second reading of the Finance - Bill,” said Mr Forbes, to-night, “can only be regarded as a definite indication that he no longer desires to support the United Party, which he wa-4 returned at the last election to do. The adverse vote if carried against the Government on a matter affecting 'its control of the business of Piriliament, must be accepted as a vote

of no confidence,, and would necessitate its resignation. Under* those circumstances, I, as Leader of the Party, can only accept his decision, and regret the parting of the ways.” Mr Black subsequently issue'd the following statement: “I have found it necessary to disagree with the proposals of the Government as outlined in the Finance Bill, at present before Parliament to meet the financial situation. I object also to this important matter being forced through the House without the fullest consideration. Because I have adopted this attitude, the only attitude a genuine supporter of the*late Prime Minister could adopt, the present leader has elected to decree I am no longer a meniber of the Unitpd Party. I am consequently compelled to take my place on the Independent Bench, but neither the attitude of Mr Forbes nor my place on the Independent Benches will alter in the • slightest, my demo- ' cratic principles.”

Mr Black, member for Motueka, resigned his position as a Government Whip on the death of Sir Joseph Ward, since when he has not shown unswerving allegiance to the Forbes Ministry. His attitude towards the Finance Bill, was not unexpected.