SEEKING LIMIT

Hawera Star, Volume L, 26 March 1931, Page 6

SEEKING LIMIT

FRUITLESS STONEWALL FINANCE BILL OPPOSITION SHEAF OF AAiENDAIFiNTS- LOST 44 PROGRESSIVE feiEDUCTIONS

(By lelegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March. 25. Halt-an-nour after the resumption or the sitting of the House of Representatives at 2.30 this afternoon a division was taken on Mr C.. H. Chapman s amendment to include in the title ot the Finance Bill the words /'‘lndustrial, Conciliation and Arbitration. Amendment/’ The amendment was rejected bv 51 votes to- 20. I his terminated the discussion on the short title, which was passed by, 52 votes to 20, only L/b----our members voting against it. lhe debate on the short title occupied nearly 24 , sitting hours. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates asked the Prime Minister if he had considered the suggestion put forward the previous njirht that the provision contained m the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act, 1921, relating to the E.F.C.A. division of the railways should be inserted in the present Bill. He sard that tinder- the legislation of 1921 the locomotive men had been enabled to make contracts with the general manager, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, which allowed them to accept two separate cuts of 5 per cent, instead of one of 10 per cent. Mr Forbes: How does it work? Mr- • Coates said that practically, the same amount of saving would be effect.ed under an arrangement made by the men themselves with the general manager and with the approval of the Minister of Finance. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central), on behalf of Mr W. L. Martin (Labour, Raglan) moved an amendment to the clause defining salaries to bring it undei the definition of “income taxable under the Land and Income Tax Act. 1923.” He contended that everyone who was fortunate enough to be in a position to pay income tax should be brought under the legislation before the House, It should not single out workers under the Arbitration Act. Mr Fraser intimated that he did not desire the amendment to be discussed at any length, but preferred that the vote should be taken without delay.

A division was taken at once and the amendment was defeated by 53 votes to 21, Mr Black voting with the Labour members' in support of the amendment. MINIMUM FOR, TAX.

Sir J. McCombs (Laboyr, Lyttelton) submitted an amendment to the eftcct that only salaries in excess of £4OO a year should be subject to the reduction stipulated by the Bill. He stud Labour members -still believed it would bo fairer to increase income tax than reduce the workers’ salaries. Ihe Government had said the only alternative to a- cut was wholesale dismissals, but Labour insisted that there were many alternatives. For instance, the Government could, if necessary, effect a cut of IQ per cent, on all incomes over £SOO, which would yield £2,000,000, nearly twice the sum Mr Forbes said he desired to obtain from the reduction of civil servants’ salaries. The Labour Party had failed to eliminate the cut altogether, and it was now going to save what it could out of the miserable wreck the Government had brought about, helped by and at the instigation of the Reform Party.

Mr M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) in seconding the amendment said the principle was very simple and would commend itself to all progressive thinkers. He wanted to make it clear that there would be no cut in a salary of £4od, while in the case of a salary of £450 the cut would apply only to £SO.

The Prime Minister pointed out that the affect of the amendment would be to reduce the saving from £1,399,000 to £200,000.

Mr H. T. Armstrong: Get it some other way. Mr McCombs said he did nut dispute the Prime Minister’s statement, but he • contended that the money necessary to balance the Budget could be obtained as he had said before by applying the cut to all incomes over £SOO. It would be idle to say that such a method would not bring Tn the necessary amount. The Prime Minister’s statement that dismissals constituted the only alternative to a reduction was absolutely misleading.

Mr Chapman asked whether Mr Forbes would exempt from the Bill those workers who had already had their salaries reduced.

Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South said he did. not tliink the Prime Minister had actually said lie would accept- no amendments, and that he would stand or fall iby the Bill as it stood. He would be surprised if Air Forbes Had made such a declaration because they, all knew the leader of the Opposition had stated he intended to move amendments later. Surely the Prime Minister would not he allowing the debate to go on if he knew lie w r ould eventually be dropped overboard when the other party was ready to drop him. Air Howard appealed to Air Forbes to give an indication of what amendments he would accept, and how far lie was prepared to meet the members. Mr H. Ei. Holland stated that his party was against any reduction of salaries, but failing to achieve- this objective it would take the logical course of trying to save the position at various stages, starfnUg* ;Bjr• endeavouring to. exclude salaries of £4OO and below from i the cut. | FURTHER. REJECTIONS. ! j . A division was taken on Air Alc- , Combs’ amendment when the House re--1 sumed at 7.30 p.rii., and resulted in its ‘rejection by 44 votes- to 21. Air Fletcher joined Labour in voting for the amendment. . Mr Howard then moved for the limitation of the application of the reduction to sums exceeding £350 a, year, explaining that this would mean the cut would begin to operate at that figure. A division was. taken without furthei discussion and the amendment was defeated by 50 votes to 21, Air Fletchei again voting with Labour. , The next amendment was moved by Air D. G, Sullivan, who sought the exclusion of sums of £320 and under. He declared that the application of the cut to salaries below that figure would niean a reduction in essential and necessary living requirements, not only of men, but also of women and children. Gould the House afford to do that: Could it afford to pass an Act .t-hal would imperil! the vitality of children, who. would form part of a future generation ?

Mr Hi. E. Holland., said that judging by the voting in a, similar instance in 1922 the division should be in favour of Mr Sullivan’s amendment. On that occasion the Prime Minister and some other* members of thei Cabinet, also Mr R. A. Wright, voted in favour of a similar amendment. If they were not going to do so now they owed the House an explanation. Mr Forbes said it did not matter what he did in 1922, or- at any other time. He knew what was necessary at present. He did not blame the Labour members for the fight they were putting up. He would h ave been very J pleased to be able to vote on the pre J i sent occasion in the same way as, ho had in 1922 if finances of the country permitted it.

“CALAMITY JANE.”

Armstrong said ho once kneyy an old lady rvho.se utterances reminded him of the Prime Minister’s speeches. 1 hey called her “Calamity Jane.” (Laughter). On a division being taken the amendwas defeated by -52 votes to 22. • Ihe sound of cheering from the lobby ul winch those voting for the amendment had assembled indicated the added support, for labour, and on examination of the division list disclosed that Mir 8,. A. TV right (Reform, Wellington Suburbs) was included, together with I ieteher, among those supporting Mr Sullivan’s amendment.

Moving to limit the operation of the . cut to sums exceeding £3OO, Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manakau) said it would not only mean that civil servantsi earning under £3OO he granted relief, but it would also' be an indication to the Arbitration Court not to reduce salaries of a similar standard He assured the House that there we.e thoiisands of parents througho it New Zealand, who were waiting anxiously that night to learn what the House going to, do about their welfare. Ay ter other Lpfbour members had spoken Mr J>. Jones (Reform, MidCanterbury) said lie wondered jf there nas any -sincerity behind the amendments or whether they were being moved for electioneering purposes. TJktenor of the discussion was that the burden should be placed on those best

a-ble to -bear it, but the Labour Party had not taken account of the fact ihat over 60 per tent, of those who would bo affected by the amendment before the House were .single men. He liiad received a telegram from 200 of his electors urging him to oppose the Bill unless provision was made for a fall in the cost of living. He pointed out that if the instruction moved bv Mr F baser had been carried and the! reduction in wages became dependent on a, fall in the cost of living the salaries of civil servants would already be down by G to 7 per cent, and the remuneration of those outside the service might fall to any level, providing the cost of living did fall. Mr Jones said the Rleform Party wanted family responsibilities to be considered and the Prime Minister had acknowledged

the party’s- suggestion of a hardship tribunal. , . ~ ,

PFLEP OUT OF ORDER

Air Cl Carr, speaking in support of the amendment, was requested by the! chairman (Air W. J. Broadfoot) to return to the subject. He .said he was using an illustration to return to the subject. Air Broadfoot: The member will return to the subject without the illustration. Air. Carr: I submit I am in order in using an illustration. Air Broadfoot: The chair has ruled that yon af.e not in. order. Mr Carr: Yo-u don’t know what an illustration is.! Air Broadfoot: Order! Air Carr : , You don’t know ! Air Broadfoot: Order! Will the member resume his seat. Mr Carr: I appeal for the ruling of the Speaker. A Reform member: Sit down! , At .midnight Air Coates asked the Prime Minister if he had considered Reform’s request regarding lower paid workers. Air H. E. Holland asked if the Reform Party was going to move an amendment along the lines suggested. If so Labour would support it. He appealed to Air Foi-bes to. answer reasonable question,si put to. him., Replying to All- Holland, Air Forbes said he objected- to members saying he would not answer reasonable questions. If he could answer lie would do so. There was no question about the cost of living coining down, and if they cut down overhead expenses it would come down more. There was a lot of talk about the poor man on £3OO a year arid about the Government “Taking the bread off his back.” (Loud laughter). He had promised to bring down legislation to set nip a tribunal, Mr Forbes said in replv to Air Coates-, and that promise would be kept. (Left sitting at 2 a.m.)