PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 120, 21 April 1932, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

ANOTHER LONG SITTING EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT BILL The House of Representatives yesterday afternoon agreed to certain minor amendments in the Unemployment Amendment Bill, including the exemption of the wages of persons under 16 years of age from the provisions of the tax and a change in the incidence of the taxation from 3d in. every 5s to Id in every Is Bd. The National Expenditure Adjustment Bill was accorded urgency and the discussion in committee continued until a quarter to five o’clock this morning, progress being reported after the sixth clause had been passed.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

MINOR AMENDMENTS.

EXEMPTIONS EXTENDED

Per Press Association,

WELLINGTON, April 20. When the House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. to-day minor amendments to the Unemployment Amendment Bill were introduced by Gov-ernor-General’s Message and were accorded urgency. Explaining the proposed alterations, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said the wages tax was to be imposed on the basis of Id for each Is 8d of wages, instead of 3d for every ss, as originally stated in the Bill. Another alteration in the wording made it perfectly plain that rent could bo paid ns assistance out of the unemployment fund. There had been requests to grant exemption from payment of the emergency charge in the case of young people, and an amendment exempted those or 16 years of age or under. Mr J. McCombs said he was the Minister had not seen fit to' exempt women from the payment of the wages tax until such time as the board provided an adequate scheme for the relief of unemployed women. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that exemption on the basis of age would not be nearly so fair as exemption on the basis of wages or income. He pointed out that some people under 16 liad fairly large incomes, while on the other hand many people well over 16 were receiving extremely low wages. Mr Coates pointed out that the exemption applied to wages and salaries, but not to incomes of young people under 16 years of age. Labour members urged that women receiving £1 per week or under should be exempted from the payment of the tax.

Tlie amendments were adopted. ARBITRATION ACT.

The report of the managers’ who conferred with the managers from the Legislative Council concerning the points in disagreement on the amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill were submitted. Hon. A. Hamilton said the change made in the clause giving the right to women workers to have their wages fixed by the Arbitration Court was a slight one, making the Government’s intention quite clear and giving full protection to tho wages of all women workers in all unions. The provision for the bonus system of payment of wages had been struck out. The report was agreed to.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE BILL.

MEASURE ACCORDED URGENCY. Urgency by 40 votes to 16 was accorded the committee stage of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes intimated that an adjournment -would bo taken on the passage of the section relating to public servants’ salaries. He stated that amendments would bo introduced to remove a number of anomalies in the Bill. Among them was one which would remove the provision that the annual increments in the public service should not be granted this year. It had been pointed out that this provision would operate much more harshly against some members of the service than against others. The Header of the Opposition' (Mr H. E. Holland) expressed gratification that this concession had been granted. He further suggested the elimination of the pensions reductions and, failing this, that some age limit should be fixed beyond which the reduction of old age pensions should not apply. Mr Forbes stated that there was no provision in the pensions system for differentiation on an age basis. Mr J. McCombs referred to the section of the bill relating to rent reduction and pointed out that the reduction would not operate unless the property owner received seven per cent, interest on the valuation of the property, over and above the amount expended on rates, maintenance, etc. He considered this would mean that in many cases there would be no reduction at all. Hon. W. Downie Stewart: “That part of the Bill is being modified.” Mr Forbes explained that an amendment would be introduced later to deal with this aspect. While it was considered reasonable that a property owner should receive a fair return for his investment, it was realised that there were special circumstances at the present time, and an amendment would leave it for the Court to decide whether the question of return on investment should be taken into consideration in relation to the reduction in rent.

Mr McCombs said that this treatment was still in striking contrast with the manner in which the Government was dealing with workers, who were not being given the right to appeal to the Court. Definite reductions in rent and interest constituted a logical corollary to definite reductions in wages because, although such a course was perhaps not quite moral, it was justified on the principle that two wrongs went some way towards making a right. Mr C. A. Wilkinson said the blot on the Bill was the exemption of the banks from interest reductions. WTiile people who in many cases would have to borrow from the banks were being subjected to a 20 per cent, reduction in returns on their investments, the banks were being allowed to escape with a voluntary arrangement to reduce their rates by per cent. Amendments to the Bill were introduced by Governor-General’s Message when the House resumed at 7.30. Mr Forbes said these amendments related -to part I. of the Bill. A good many amendments affecting other portions of the Bill would be brought down later. Among the alterations proposed in connection with part I. was that which he had mentioned during the afternoon, namely, the restoration of annual increments in the public service. It was also proposed to bring board and lodging allowances within the meaning of the term salary under the Bill, and to enable Crown houses to be treated on the same basis as other houses with regard to rent reduction.

AMENDMENTS TO BILL.

ALL NIGHT SITTING

SIX CLAUSES PASSED

The amendments were referred to the committee on the Bill. The short title of the Bill was passed at midnight by 41 votes to 24. To enable a vote to be taken on the reduction of wages and pensions, Mr P. Fraser moved to strike out parts I. and 11. of the Bill. This was defeated by 41 votes to 28, Messrs Atmore, Black, Harris, Rush worth, Samuel and Wilkinson voting with Labour. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, 'Mr Forbes said that the aniendj ment to the clause defining “salary would mean that the allowance in respect to board and lodging would be included in the basis on which the cut would be made. It had first been proposed to exclude this allowance from the operation of the reduction, but it had been pointed out that tins would result in an inequality.

EXEMPTION OF NAVAL FORCES. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 20. The exemption of members or the New Zealand naval forces, including officers and seamen transferred to the New Zealand station, from the wages cut is included in the amendments to the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill which were introduced this evening. Another amendment gives the right to superannuation fund contributors whose salaries have been reduced to receive a refund of surplus contributions on retirement. A corresponding provision is made in respect to magistrates.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 21. The discussion of the National Expenditure Adjustment -Bill in committee was continued by tiro House or Representatives until 4.45 this morning when progress was reported alter the sixth clause had been passed. There are still nine clauses to be dealt with before the committee stage of the first section of the Bill is completed. During the debate on the clause defining “salary” Labour members contended that, if house and lodging allowances were to be subject to a reduction, there should be no exemption in the case of travelling allowances. TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES. Mr McKeen said that in the last financial year five departments had spent £109,371 in traveling expenses, and under the same heading Ministers had charged up £11,753. Judges of the Supreme and Arbitration Courts, together with magistrates, had collected £11,630 in travelling expenses. Four offices paid under the Native Land Purchase Account had received £IOB7 in travelling expenses and allowances (an average of £271 each). Mr W. H. Barnard suggested that superannuation in excess of £3OO a year should be regarded as salary, within the meaning of the Bill and should be subject to the “cuts.” He moved in that direction. The acting-chairman, Mr J. A. Nash, ruled the amendment out of order. On Mr P. Fraser’s motion, Mr Speaker’s ruling on the point was sought. Sir Charles Statham _ upheld the chairman’s ruling, pointing out that the amendment was out of order so far as it applied to superannuation, but was applicable to retiring allowances.

The Leader of the Opposition subsequently moved a proviso to limit the exemption for travelling allowances to £1 per day. This was defeated bv 42 votes to 27 and the clause, together with the amendment relating to house and lodging allowances, was passed. The clause setting out the persons to whom the wages and salary reductions should apply was passed by 43 votes to 27, and the clause exempting members of the New Zealand naval forces from the reductions was adopted without a division.

_ MEMBERS’ SALARIES. Speaking on the clause relating to the reduction of the salaries of Ministers of the Crown and members of Parliament, Mr P. Fraser said. he believed that all members were opposed to a reduction of their salaries, but if they voted in this direction they should also vote against a reduction in the salaries and wages of others. / Mr R. Semple said the Government had only to go a little further and it would be impossible for a member of Parliament to live decently. _ The report of the Economy Commission had done more to lower the dignity of the House than anything else and had created a number of false, impressions concerning members’ privileges, i Mr A. Harris protested against the expenditure incurred by the Economy Commission. Ho said that, while economies had been introduced which would bear heavily on the poorer section of the community, thousands of pounds were being paid to wealthy commissioners. He was opposed to all the cuts.

Mr H. T. Armstrong said that it was already impossible for him out of his honorarium to provide for the needs of himself and his family, to say nothing of what would hapj>en when the reduction came into operas tion.

Mr F. Lye said he would support the clause. His own feelings were against further wage reductions, but he had subordinated his opinions to those of Cabinet because lie saw the necessity for balancing the Budget. At the same time he strongly resented the references made in the commission’s report to members of Parliament. Mr R. Wright, criticising attacks on Bellamys, said that if tne Press were not careful it would bring such discredit on Parliament that Parliament would no longer be a bulwark against revolution. Mr G. R. Sykes said that the report of the commission in regard to Bellamys was the most misleading document ho had ever seen. He that the time was approaching when Parliament would become a place for rich men only. ~ Mr H. Atmore said he would vote against all the reductions. .The clause was passed by-43- votes

REDUCTIONS IN PENSIONS.

AMOUNT OF SAVINQ.

DEFINITION OF SALARY

RECENT DISTURBANCES

QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY,

to 27, Messrs Black, Atmore, Harris, Samuel and Wilkinson, together with the Labour members, voting against it. The House rose at 4.45 till 2.30 this afternoon.

WELLINGTON, April 21. An announcement that the proposed reduction in pensions would result in a saving of just over £3001)00 was made by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, when replying to arguments advanced during the discussion on a short title of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. This saving represents a ten per cent, cut in the annual pensions bill,- which now stands at £3,220,000. Mr P. Fraser suggested that that part of the Bill dealing with reductions in pensions should be completely reviewed. He asked what sum was likely to be saved as a result of the reductions.

Mr Forbes said one would like to avoid reductions in pensions. It was' no pleasure for him to bring down such proposals, but they were absolutely necessary. One had only to examine the figures to realise the phenomenal growth in the pensions bill. In 1914 the sum paid out in pensions amounted to £548,000 but to-day that sum had increased to £3,220,000. The number applying for assistance to-day would increase that figure year by year. Pensions were growing at such a terrific rate that no country with the small population of New Zealand could carry the burden. They were below the standard of 1914 in respect to the prices they were receiving for their primary produce, but they now had to pay out in pensions a far greater sum than they were paving in that year. Mr D. W. Coleman: Tho £3,220,000 includes war pensions. Mr F. Langstone: Will you say how much interest has increased since 1914?

Mr Forbes said the question was whether the country could carry the burden. It would be a delightful experience for him to be able to scatter among the people everything that Labour members asked for. The position was that the country could not afford to do that. The total saving in pensions would amount to a little over £300,000. It would be seen that pensions had been cut as tenderly as possible. In view of the increased purchasing power to-day compared with two or three years ago, those receiving the old age pension would actually be in a better position. He should imagine that the bulk of the pension was spent in food, and there had been a reduction in the prices of foodstuffs. They had to consider the enormous increase year by year as a result of people coming on the pensions fund at. the present time of stress. The £300,000 that would be saved would be required to meet the additional demands, and next year pensions would again be back to the sum paid out at present. Unless the Government did what was proposed the whole thing would break down. The Government had done the best that was possible under the circumstances, and the smallest possible cut had been made. Mr W. E. Perry said he considered it unnecessary to reduce pensions, Mr J. McCombs said the Prime Minister had failed to tell the House that the pensions increase was largely due to war pensions. There was the probability that war pensions would become a diminishing factor. Mr J. A. Lee said the returned soldier mortgagee had been singled out for exceptional treatment. He had a 4£ per cent, mortgage, and although his rate of interest might be cheap the value of that was more than destroyed by the fact that he had bought in the highest market. Mr G. K, Sykes: What about readjustments? Mr Lee said it was true that a certain number of soldiers had shared in the revaluations, but a huge section of returned men had received no benefit whatever. Soldiers who had bought city property would not benefit.

.WELLINGTON, April 21. According to the amendments to the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill the definition of “salary” lias been widened to include emoluments whether paid in money or not; for instance, free housing or quarters. Allowances in respect of board and lodging will be included in the computation of the salary for the purpose of determining the amount of deduction in salary to be made. However, in cases where salary includes' benefits, the value of which is not paid in money, it is proposed that the amount of the reduction shall be wholly deducted from the monetary portion of the salary. Travelling allowances, in addition to travelling expenses will be exempted from the term “salary.” There is provision that the Minister of Finance may declare any emolument not to be salary. A machinery amendment is made to determine the method by which benefits connected with board and lodging allowances' shall be valued

A declaration that the Labour Party could not be absolved from some responsibility for recent disturbances in view of the fact that it had been organising throughout the country for a set purpose was made by the Minister of Public Works, E,t. Hon. J. G. Coates, in speaking on the second readl ing of the Public Safety Conservation Bill in the House of Kopresentatives on Tuesday, night. “The Labour Party is not so innocent of what happened in Auckland,” Mr Coates said. He expressed the opinion that the attitude of some Labour speakers had been inflammatory, and he quoted statements in support of this.

Throughout his speech ho was subjected to continual interjections, and Mr Speaker was forced to threaten stem measures with certain Labour members who persisted in heckling. “I doubt even now whether the Leader of the Opposition realises his responsibilities, said Mr Coates. “I think, however, that it is dawning upon members, because there has been a nervous tension upon their part the whole afternoon while this Bill has been under discussion.”

Mr Coates added that he thought many of the Labour speakers had controlled themselves, and ho had the assurance of Mr Jordan, chairman of the Labour Party, that the Opposition stood for law and order. Sir Coates also thought Sir Richards had said something to the same effect. Mr Richards: And always have been. Mr Coates said he wished to remind Mr Richards of a speech the latter had made at a meeting of 100 Mount Roskill unemployed in January, 1932. Sir Richards had then taken, exception to the presence of five constables, stating: “Why should we put up with the insult of bluecoats being sent along to a meeting of the workers ?’’ Mr Richards: Quite soi. Did you order them to go there? Mr Coates said someone had remarked that the Labour- members were speaking with two voices, and he thought that was a fair assumption to make. The Labour members could not

be absolved completely from the responsibility for bringing about the frame of mind in which many people we re “The Labour Party is not so innocent of what happened in Auckland,” added Mr Coates. “They have to say something much more definite than they.have said so far.” Labour members: That is very, very unfair.