LONG DRAWN

Northern Advocate, 27 January 1922, Page 5

LONG DRAWN

RETRENCHMENT DISCUSSION

EVERT CLAUSE COMBATED.

RESPITE INEVITABLE OUTCOME

(Special to "Northern Advocate.") WELLINGTON, This Day.

The House went into committee .-again on the Retrenchment. Bill a few minutes after it met yesterday afternoon. It was reported in the lobbies "that the Prime Minister had decided to go right through with the Bill at this ; sitting, and the House, which was looking rather jaded, was expecting another long night. Most of the afternoon was given to •discussion of the clause relating to teacthers' salaries. Labour members •asked that the proposed regulations allocating the aggregate reduction among teachers should not be operative until they had been approved by Parliament. (EThey did not trust the Minister of Education to determine the matter.

The clause as drafted "was approved by 43 votes to 24. The opponents of the Bill continued to fight each clause and progress was slow. The Government was making no and had a substantial majority at each division. Members were showing signs of ■weariness, but their tempers remained •quite good on both sides, and the vproceedings were not marred by anything in the x nature of personal quarrels or •scenes.

THE BILL PUT THROUGH.

AMENDMENTS ALL REJECTED.

CERTAIN POINTS RESERVED.

Consideration of the Bill was resumed last night. The effect of the Bill upon teachers' salaries and upon superannuation rights and the relation of "the later cuts.to the movement of the <cost of living were among the matters that were discussed at length.

The Prime Minister did not accept •any amendments from the Opposition •Side of the House, but he indicated that certain points were going to receive further consideration.

The committee stage of the Bill was at midnight. The Leader ■of the Opposition then moved that the "Bill should be recommitted in order ; that the House might iave an opportunity of fixing a limit below which • reductions in salaries should not be • made. Hef /reminded Ministers that the proposal to fix the limit at £250 had been defeated by 37 votes to 33, -a majority of only four votes. Mr Wilford's motion was rejected Tjy 38 votes to 26. The House then proceeded with the third leading of the Bill. Mr Holland, TMr Statham and other members recorded in Hansard the arguments that they had used against the measure during ' the committee discussion. The longdrawn debate came to an end at 2.40 a.m., -when the motion for the third •jreadAg was carried by 40 votes to 19.