NO CONFIDENCE MOTION

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 5 November 1929, Page 6

NO CONFIDENCE MOTION

ON PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES LABOUR PARTY’S EFFORT, MEETS WITH DEFEAT. RECL ASSIFI CATION PROPOSALS. (By Telesrash —Press- Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 4. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr H. E. Holland, gave notice in the House of Representatives to-day to move: “That this House regrets the failure of the present Government to make provision for improving the salaries of the public servants of the Dominion, the great majority of whom have suffered considerable hardship owing to the unjust levy that was made upon them in 1922 when the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act was passed. “This House recommends to the Government that an overhaul of the salary schedules of the whole service be commenced forthwith, that provision be made this year for a 5 per cent increase in the maxima of the schedule scales up to £295 per annum, also inclusive of the stationary wages of railway servants and others, that a minimum adult wage for all branches of the service be established, and that all schedule scales he dealt with during the next financial year with the object of providing an adequate living standard for all servants of the State. “Furthermore, this House recommends that in order to provide the necessary additional revenue to meet the foregoing proposals a super-tax be levied on all incomes of £IOOO and over.”

The Hon. G. W. Forbes, actingLeader of the House, said the Government would have to take the motion, if carried, as a vote of no-confidence, and he asked that the matter he considered forthwith. Mr J. G. Coates said the question was one that recmired a certain amount of consideration. He thought it would be Irntter to deal with the matter when the motion ea.me before the House in the ordinary way. Mr Forbes said it was a matter for the eonsont of the House. hut- he would nre.fer to -deal' with the matter straight away. Consent was niveu for the motion to be taken forthwith.

LABOUR LEADER’S CRITICISM. Mr Holland said lie would have preferred unit it snouiu have oeen tanen u recommendation. to me Uo\eminent, but since tlie Government had stated tuafc it must treat it is as a noeonlideiice motion he would therefore move it as slice, tie said tiie position of the public sen ants to-day was wholly aue to tne Iteiorm Party and its administration, and he was satisfied tnat many public servants had voted for the United Party because they thought their conditions would be ameliorated.

Mr Holland quoted the reductions in the salaries of public servants, and stated their “cuts” had actually been gifts to the wealthy taxpayers in the form of remissions of income and land tax. He read from Hansard particulars of divisions showing that at the time when the .salaries had been reduced in 1922 members of the then Liberal Party had supported the amendment moved by Labour to exempt from the cut those civil servants whose salaries were below a certain figure. He expressed disappointment that the former standard of salaries had not been restored now that tlie United Party had been placed in office.

Mr Holland added that when the cut had been imposed the public servants had been assured that it would be restored when the financial situation was more satisfactory. The Prime Minister’s statement on the- subject when boiled down constituted a refusal to adjust the position this year and a declaration that the present time was not opportune.

Mr Holland claimed public servants were entitled to expect that the United Party, which had as the result of the fortunes of political war been placed on the Treasury benches, would grant them some redress this year. LEADER OF HOUSE REPLIES. Mr Forbes quoted from the Prime Minister’s statement on the .subject, and pointed out that Sir Joseph Ward had to take into consideration the finances of the country. The Minister said lie did not think there could be any two opinions as to the wisdom of providing the best possible conditions for public servants and creating completely contented staffs, but very careful attention had to be directed to the tinanical position of the country. ll© had always been in favour of improving civil servants’ conditions so soon as the financial position warranted it. and that was still his attitude. He pointed out. however, that the Government had been faced with a deficit, earthquake damage, and heavy unemployment.

Air Forbes said that, if Air Holland's motion were carried’ it would be: necessary to raise an additional £500,000 of revenue. The Prime Alinister had assured him that had it been at all possible he would have agreed to the wish of the public servants, but it Jni.d to be recognised that it was essential that the finances of the country should be kept on a sound basis.

Mr Forbes claimed that the public servants, in common with others, would be detrimentally affected if such a state were not maintained. The Prime Minister had informed him that if the year’s returns exceeded the estimates and tiic Government was able to show a surplus at the end of the present financial year he would then be pleased to try to meet in some way, if not in a full way, the request of the officers ol the public service.

Tin* Minister contended that such a statement from the Prime Minister, who had to give due consideration to the finances of the country, was as fair as possible. He thought it was in the interests of the country as a whole that the position should not be forced at the present time, and he had [.sufficient faith in the public servants to feel sure that they would not look on the position from a selfish point of view. MFMBEPS’ OPINIONS. Mr M. J. Savage contended that to give effect to the motion before the House would not cost one-fourth of £500,000. The one bright speck in the Minister’s remarks had been the statement that lie had been authorised by the Prime Minister to say that if there were a surplus the position would be reviewed. Mr Savage said he thought the only possible inference was that if there was a surplus the public servants’ salaries would be increased, and he took it that the Government would begin with those whoso salaries were most .unsatisfactory to-day.

| Air P. Fraser said the Labour Party did not bring tbis motion forward simply to. jamb the Government into a difiicult position, but it had taken the step because it believed something should be done. It was not statesmanlike of the Government to make a statement and stand by it with tho determination to concede nothing. It would he far better to give the public servants something substantial and risk a deficit than t<> do nothing. Mr Fraser said he would just as soon see the present Government do the job as any other Government. Tlie main tiling was to get the job done. By taking up a stand on behalf of the public servants the Labour Party believed it was taking a stand cm behalf of all workers, because there were signs that an attack was being made on wages generally, the Arbitration Court having refused to grant increases. Air W. D. Lysnar said he regarded the resolution as a party move and aspolitical propaganda so that the Labour i’rty mignt coquette with the civil seivau’es and win their favour. Air W. E. Parry : You have always said that! A»lr Lysnar : Then it must be true. li Is nn, an opportune time to do what is askee. Air Lysnar added that he was in favour of a reclassification. It would be a physical imposibiUty to restore the cuts in individual cases because au the . majority of instances the reolassiliea- , tion effected since tne cuts had restored nearly all that was lost. Air J. AiCombs criticised the acting- j Leader of the House for treating the , moikm as one of no-confidence. lie con- , sidereal it was a matter on which the i Government should have been .prepared . to accept the judgment of the House. ( The Minister’s attitude had inflicted an , injustice on the rank and file of the , United Party, many 0 t - whom during the election campaign had been loud in their , protestations concerning the treatment ( of tuc puo-lic servants. t Air C. H. Chapman suggested that Government should reconsider the posi- e tion. He maintained that the improve- s ments suggested in Air Holland's resq- t lution could be effected at a cost not s exceeding £IOO,OIIO, and he contended a that there was ample in the super-taxa-tion of incomes exceeding £IOOO to pro- a vide this amount. j

Mr A. AI. Samuel suggested the motion had been moved by arrangement between the acting-Leader of the House and the Leader of the Labour Party to forestall action which they must have known was contemplated by the Leader of the Opposition. He regretted the Government had declared that it would treat the motion as one of no-confi-dence. He for one would vote for the motion, and he thought there would be a sufficient number from the Reform Party taking the same action to put tho Government out.

DENIAL OF ARRANGEMENT. Mr Parry assured the House and the country that no arrangement had been made as Mr Samuel suggested. He trusted, however, that Mr Samuel would influence the rest of the Reform Party to vote for the motion. Mr D. G. Sullivan said he considered the public servants had an unanswerable ease. He urged the acting-Leader of the House to reconsider his attitude towards the motion. He felt sure a majority of the electors would be in favour of the position of the public servants being improved at such small cost, and he did not think Mr Forbes was justified in creating a crisis by treating the motion as one of no-con-fidence. He was satisfied the finances of the country were easily sufficient to meet the comparatively small cost involved. He did not think the terms of tlie motion would meet the case of the civil servants fully', - but they would indicate that Parliament recognised the justice, of their claims. Air R. A. Wright said at least some members of the Reform Party werej placed in an awkward position. While 'they desired to see justice done to the civil servants they were not prepared to place Labour on the Treasury benches any more than Labour was prepared to plate Reform back. THE GALLETWES CROWDED. When the House resumed at 7.80 the public interest was demonstrated by tin packed galleries. Air Wright declared it was a pity that the clause referring to the supertax was included in the motion, but he had no alternative. He was not prepared to vote against the motion, but lie would reserve tlm right to vote later against the proposal to impose the supertax on incomes.

Air FI. T. Armstrong said it fvas quibbling for the Government to say it had no money to grant the increases sought. He suggested a decision had been readied by the Cabinet and that the rank and tile members of the United Party had not been consulted. Air C. Carr said the motion did not go as far as lie would have liked, but he was glad it contained at least some improvement. Air C. El. AlacAlillan said lie was prepared to support the motion with certain reservations. He took strong exception to the words stating “majority of wiiom have .suffered considerable hardships owing to tho unjust levy that was made on them in 11)22.” He considered the financial position at the present time would permit the increases sought without the imposition of additional taxation. He objected to the recommendation contained in the motion’ calling for tiro imposition of a supertax on incomes.

Mr J. A .Nash said he had always made the reservation when advocating the restoration of the cut that he would support no motion moved by the header of the Labour Party. One reason was that if Air Holland were (successful it would mean that he would be called for to form u Government. Another reason was that the motion called for a supertax on incomes.

i OPPOSITION LEADER'S VIEWS. . Mr J. O. Coates said lie was puzzled [to know where the motion had come i from and asked, “Is it an attempt by the Labour Party, with the connivance oi the Government, to put itself 011side with the civil servants V” AJi- Coates criticised the reference to the levy as “unjust.” He contended it was imp-osible in 1922 to carry the heavy overhead costs, and because of falling prices it was impossible to carry on with the high levels of taxation. He was perfectly satisfied the Government ■of the time had been justified in its action. The only alterative would have been to dispose of the services of a large number of civil servants. The Reform Leader said it must he recognised now that the cuts could not be restored as many anomalies would be created. He pointed out. however, that there had been a banking up on the £290 and £240 marks, and as this I seemed inadequate to enable men to live reasonably, raise families and live up to the standard expected of them, the Government must consider the position. He asked whether it would con - si tier an increase of £lO nor year for men on £295 and for those below that figure. He expressed regret that the Government had not made the financial position for the half year known to members so that they would be in a better position to- judge where increases could be afforded. The Hon. H. Atmore said the desire to help the Rover paid officers in the

Government departments was nut confined to :uiy one party, but lie- contended no party in office at the present time could afford to restore the cut. No leader could have gone beyond the declaration by Mr Forbes that when if was known whether there would be a surplus the Government would go into the matter again. The Labour Party evidently recognised the present income was not sufficient to meet the increase because the motion contained an admission that this could not be done without a supertax on incomes. The acting Loader of the House had -stated the Govornent at the end of the financial year ,if in a position to make an adjustment, would make it retrospective of the finances, permitted, and in addition to that Mr Atmore pointed out that £250,000 had already been granted in increases to public servants this year.

Mr G. R. Sykes said lie wais in favour of the Labour Party’s representations in relation to civil servants, but the fly in the ointment existed in the proposal to the taxation on incomes. RE-CLASSIFICATION PROPOSED. Mr. J. A. Young, after reviewing the position, moved the following amendment: “That the House recommends the Government to expedite the statutory reclassification of salaries oi employees of the State in the (several lepartments as eacn such reclassification is due, and further recommends that the Government make a specific nquiry into the question of the mininum adult wages paid to its employees j vitli a view to placing low-paid wagejarners on a fair and equitable basis md restoring as far as is practicable he rate loss made by those receiving i salary not exceeding £295 per an--10111.” . Mr. Eorbes said the Government was irepared to expedite reclassification, t had previously announced its in tenion to do so. Mr. Coates asked whether the Govrjimenb had tried to work out a cheme whereby those who had reaciiea he “banked up” classes and were deerving of promotion could be granted n increase in salary. Mi'- A. Harris said he would vote gainst Air. Holland's motion because i- was purely and simply a party move.

Mr. A. M. Samuel said the Government’s statement that £250,000 had been added to the salaries of public servants could not he taken as a redemption of the pledge; it simply represented the natural increase in salaries that would have had to be paid whatever Government was in oiiice. Mr. Lysnar said he was in favour of the reclassification of the salaries schedule. The motion as originally phrased was then put and was defeated by 49 votes to 20. Mr. Holland said it did not seem to matter what happened to the amendment; it was a wholly meaningless, vague representation that the Government could 1 easily accept without altering the public servants’ position one jot.

Mr. Forbes said everything asked in the amendment consisted of the actions the Government had intended to take. It did not ni any way affect the position of the Government and he had no hesitation in accepting it. The amendment was carried on the voices. The division list was as under:— Ayes (20).

Armstrong Martin Barnard Mason Carr Munro Chapman 0 ’Brien Fraser Parry Holland, H. E. Samuel Howard Savage Jordan Semple McCombs Sullivan McKeen Wright Noes (40). Ansell Lysnar. Atmore McDonald Bitchener McDougall Black MacMillan Bodkin Macpherson Broadfoot Makitanara Clrnkard Massey Coates Munns Cobbe Murdoch de la PcitcHc Nash Dickie Ngata Field Pans am Fletcher Bushworth Forbes Smith. Hall Stallworthy Hamilton Stewart Harris Sykes. Ilcaly Taverner Henare. Vcitch Hogan Wilford Holland, H. Waite Jenkins Wilkinson Jones Williams Linklator Young Lve