PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21300, 2 April 1931, Page 12

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Pee United Peess Association.) WELLINGTON, April 1. THE FINANCE BILL. Up till the adjournment of the House of Representatives for breakfast this morning the outstanding feature of the Finance Bill committee debate was the number of divisions, which totalled 50. The closure was applied only on three occasions, discussion on the amendments apparently being cut short either in anticipation of this weapon being applied, or on account of the fatigue of members. The division bells rang repeatedly throughout the night and early morning, and much of the sitting time was occupied by members filing in and out of the lobbies. On all issues the Government had easy majorities. Mr W. Nash (Hurt) moved that the cuts be levied on the following sliding scale:—over £3OOO, 33 1-3 per cent.; from £I9OO to £3OOO, 25 per cent.; £I2OO to £I9OO, 20 per cent.; £950 to £I2OO, 17J per cent.; £7OO to £950, 15 per cent.; £4OO to £7OO, 12J per cent.; £250 to £4OO, 10 per cent. He said this scale would be more in keeping with equality of sacrifice than a flat rate cut. It would bring in between £BOO,OOO and £900,000, which was less than Mr Forbes wished for, but the money could be made up from other sources. The amendment was defeated by 41 to 21. Another eliding scale was advocated by Mr J. T. Hogan (Rangitikei), who moved that the reduction should be 7i per cent, on a salary of £217 and over, 10 per cent, on a salary of £390 and over, and 15 per cent, where a salary was £824 and over. He said this scale would bring in over £1,000,000. The amended was defeated by 42 to 22. Mr E. J, Howard (Christchurch South) moved that the 10 per cent, reduction should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages below £l5O per annum. The amendment was defeated by 35 to 24. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) moved that, in the case of married men, or others with dependents, the 10 per cent, reduction should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages to below £250 per annum. The amendment was defeated by 33 to 24. J

| Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) ; moved a further proviso that, in the ! case of married men and others with j dependents, the 10 per cent, cut should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages below £4 per week. This , was defeated by 38 to 24. - , Mr M. J.. Savage (Auckland West) ihoved an amendment providing that employees with a salary below £3OO with one child should suffer a cut of 7i per cent., those with two children 5 per cent., those with three children 2J per cent., and those with more than three children, no deduction. Mr Savage said the proposal was identical with that suggested by Mr Coates.

Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) asked how it was the Reform Party could make a proposal one day and then vote against it the next day. Mr D, Jones (Mid-Canterbury) said he largely supported the proposal contained in the amendment. The Reform Party, however, had accepted the Prime Minister’s offer of a tribunal. The amendment was defeated by 36 to 26. Mr W. Lee Martin (Raglan) moved that the reduction should be deferred until there had been a corresponding fall in the cost of living. The amendment was defeated by'3B to 25. Mr J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) moved that, the 10 per cent, cut should not apply to wages or salaries below £2lO. This was defeated by 37 to 25. Mr C. L. Carr (Timaru) moved to ensure that overtime rates be paid in the Public Service on the same basis as overtime rates under Arbitration Court awards. The amendment was rejected by 42 to 18. Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) moved to delete the sub-clause which read: “ Where any part of the salary of any person consists of board or lodging, or the use of a house or quarters, the total amount by which his salary is reduced shall be deducted from .the moneys payable to him in respect of such salary.” He said in many cases this would mean that the total reduction would be more than 10 per cent. Mr Fraser said the clause was particularly inequitable. If a civil servant was paid £3OO a year, and received a house at an annual rental of £SO, he would be reduced by £35, which meant that his money wages would be reduced by nearly 12 per cent. The amendment was defeated by 40 votes to 20, and, clause 6 was passed by 40 votes to 21. Sir E. M'Keen (Wellington -South) moved to amend clause 7 by deleting the provision for reduced grants to education boards, university colleges, and other educational institutions. The Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) said the clause simply carried out the principle of the 10 per cent, reduction in salaries, and did not affect capitation. Mr Savage and Mr H. E. Holland pointed out that if this clause passed it would mean a 10 per cent, reduction in the salaries of all nurses in New Zealand. The amendment was defeated by 37 votes to 21. Mr Savage then moved to delete the reference in the clause to reduced grants to public bodies. The Prime Minister said the saving so far as hospital boards were concerned would be £64,000. In the ease of local bodies, if they followed the example of the Government and reduced salaries by 10 per cent., there would be a saving of £610,000. Reform members protested against the additional burden that would be placed upon country ratepayers if local bodies were deprived of 10 per cent, of the subsidy, which would amount to £20,000. Mr Jones said an increase of 2d per gallon in the petrol tax had been promised definitely for road expenditure; therefore local bodies were entitled to retain for themselves the benefit of the 10 per cent, saving in salaries. Mr H. E. Holland said the House had now come to an interesting point where there was identity of interests on the cross benches and the Opposition with respect to farmers’ rating and the proceeds of the petrol tax on the one hand and nurses’ wages on the other. The cross benches and the official Opposition were ranged against the Government in resisting clause 7. Mr Coates: Oh, no; not all of it. Mr Holland said this was disappointing, and suggested that the House should go to the ~ote right away. Two good purposes would be served by the adoption of the amendment, because in cutting out the objectionable part of clause 7 relief would be given to the country ratepayers and also the nurses. Mr Forbes said he did not wish to add to the troubles of local bodies. Representing, as he did, a country constituency, he quite appreciated the position, and was willing to excise the portion dealing with local bodies’ subsidies. The Government would have to find alternative means of getting the £20,000 it would lose by this alteration. Mr Fraser: Take another -ut off the charwomen. Mr Sullivan said he could not forbear congratulate the Leader of the On-

position on having extracted a concession amounting to £20,000 in connection with roads and bridges. The Reform Party had only to raise its hands, and the Prime Minister complacently surrendered. Mr Sullivan interposed that he fully approved of the relief granted local bodies, but he was interested in the attitdue of the “ strong man ” who was not going to make one single concession. As soon as there was an indication of a possible vote against the Government, the Prime Minister rose speedily enough, and, although appeals on behalf of the women and children who were struggling to obtain the bare necessities of life had fallen on deaf ears, the Leader of the Opposition had no difficulty in getting his concessions. He congratulated the Opposition on the manner in which it had brought the Prime Minister to heel. Mr Forbes: I have pleased everybody. Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino) likened the Prime Minister to the giant with “head of gold, breast of silver, belly of iron, and feet of clay.” He had capitulated at once, actuated solely by the desire to remain in office. The Chairman (Mr W. J. Broadfoot) ; Order! Mr Langstone: It is a very sorry sight to perceive the Prime Minister making a concession on this point when he steadfastly refused more urgently presented cases on behalf of people on small incomes.

Mr Fraser said the Reform Party was in the position, if it desired, to take over office, but had cold feet in the matter. But it had helped by learning first aid to keep half corpses on the Treasury benches. He asked how long the farce was going to continue. In reality the Reform Party was a Government without responsibilities, and was imposing its will on the country. The strong silent men of the Government were dancing like marionettes at the will of the Reform Party. Mr Sullivan proceeded to comment on the contrast of the Prime Minister’s attitude toward the different issues, but was called to order, and to adhere to the subject before the House, ultimately being ordered to resume his seat. Mr H. E. Holland said it was a most regrettable thing to find a contrast drawn in the manner confronting the House. Would the Reform Party insist on the elimination of the levy on the wages of nurses2 Mr Sullivan again rose and supported Mr Holland’s references to the Prime Minister’s attitude. He said he was delighted to have been able to draw pointed attention to what he had been refused permission to refer to\ when speaking previously. Mr Forbes said he had no intention of doing more than remove the burden on country ratepayers. The principle involved in the two points before the House was entirely different. The 10 per cent, reduction in hospital board subsidies applied only to salaries, and there was no intention of departing from that principle. The House adjourned at 7 a.m. till 9 a.m. When the House resumed at 9 a.m., Mr Forbes’s amendment exempting local bodies from a reduction of subsidies was adopted. Mr Savage’s amendment was rejected by 31 votes to 18, and the clause was passed by 36 votes to 17. The clauses enabling persons compulsorily retired lo retain their superannuation rights were adopted without amendment, There was a discussion regarding the rate of pension which would be received by compulsorily retired men. Mr Forbes stated that the clause was a concession, as otherwise those concerned who failed to complete full service would only be entitled to a refund of their contributions without interest. Pensions would be computed by the Government actuary. He undertook to refer several suggestions from members to the committee now considering the whole question of superannuation. The clause was adopted, and the House then reached the stage at which that portion of the Bill relating to the Arbitration Court came under discussion. Labour speakers complained of "repudiation of agreements,” which they contended was involved in the Government’s proposals. The House adjourned at 11.15 till 2.30. AFTERNOON SESSION An amendment to the Finance Bill dealing with the constitution of the hardship tribunal in connection with the . civil service salary reductions was introduced by Governor-General’s Message when the House resumed at 2.30 p.m. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. G. Coates) asked if provision was made for cases in which difficulty was encountered by civil servants in meeting payments for rent, etc. Did they have power to appeal to the tribunal, or would the tribunal itself investigate the conditions of the classes likely to be faced with hardship? Mr Fraser asked how the tribunal was to be constituted, how it would work, and how it could be made effective. Would its powers be extended to deal with hardships created under part II of the Bill, namely, the portion dealing with industrial agreements and awards ? Mr M‘Combs said the proposal to create a tribunal was a striking commentary on the nature of the Government’s legislation. He asked why the House could not make provision in the legislation itself to cover cases of hardship. Mr Jones said that the Labour speakers seemed to be afraid that justice would be done to the workers as a result of the Reform Party’s proposals. Mr Forbes said the moment anything was done in the direction of giving relief to the workers the strongest opposition to such a course seemed to come from the Labour benches. The tribunal it was proposed to appoint would go into all cases of hardship, and would consist of a judge or someone of similar standing, together with a representative of the Government and a representative of the civil service. The Prime Minister said he felt confident that it would be able to meet all genuine cases. Mr E. J. Howard: It will be like a poultice on a wooden leg. The tribunal would, Mr Forbes stated, deal with all cases where men were caught unawares by the sudden drop in wages. Mr Sullivan expre ?d the opinion that if the Prime Minister really believed be tribunal would , rectify the wrongs that would be created by his legislation he would not have introduced the amendment. The tribunal would never be able to accomplish all that would be necessary. However, if it would save only one single worker from hardship Labour would say “ Set it up.” The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said it was peculiar to find the Government taking credit for having provided a hardship clause to ease the hardship it was creating. It was like a man deliberately running over someone with a motor car and posing as a good Samaritan because be had picked the victim up and taken him to hospital. Mr Holland predicted that the tribunal would be unable to cope with all applications made to it. He did not believe the Government would be inclined to restore to the workers what had been taken from them. The only way to meet the situation would be to leave the basic wage alone and make the wealthy people pay the price. When consideration of the Finance Bill was resumed in committee Mr Fraser again contended that the Government's proposals regarding the powers of the Arbitration Court amounted to breaking the contracts with the workers. The Labour members called for a division on the interpretation of the clause, which was retained by 47 votes to 23. A discussion on the clause giving the

Arbitration Court power to make a general order amending awards and agreements followed on the linos of the debate on the second reading. Mr M'Combs denounced the clause as a product of the agreement breakers and asked how the members supporting it could criticise Mr J. T. Lang, Premier of New South Wales. Mr Armstrong moved an amendment excluding from the operation any general order on the wages of industrial workers earning £4 or less per week. The House adjourned at 5.30. EVENING SESSION The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr Fraser contended that the wage levels did not affect prices and that a start toward economic recovery should not be made by attacking them. Tire cost of labour did not enter into production costs to any great extent, at least as far as the primary producer was concerned. The benefit that would accrue to farmers through an all round reduction in wages was very small and it could not be compared with the benefit they would derive from a reduction in interest charges. So widely was this view accepted now that it could be accepted as a truism. Prices were controlled by overseas conditions and not by local circumstances, so that so far as wages were concerned they did not enter into the question of price levels in the Dominion. New Zealand had first to look to the overseas markets for rehabilitation of her economic position. The panacea was not to be found in reducing local wage levels. Mr Fraser added that low wages would be disastrous for the secondary industries, as they would have the effect of restricting local consumption. Mr Armstrong’s amendment was rejected by 44 votes to 21. Mr M'Combs moved an amendment to the clause relating to the general order amending awards, etc., setting out the following proviso: “Provided that the court shall not reduce the rate of remuneration of any such workers to a lower wage than will in the opinion of the court enable such workers to maintain a fair standard of living.” He said an instruction to the same effect had been embodied in the legislation of 1922, and it_ was on this model that the present Bill was based. He appealed to the Government to accept the proviso. On the motion of the Prime Minister the closure was carried by 44 votes to 21 when applied to the debate on the general order. clause at 10.15. ’ Mr M Combs’s proviso was rejected by 40 votes to 23. The committe then divided on the clause, which was passed by 42 votes to 21.

The clause giving the court power to make special provision with respect to any section of workers exempted from the operation of the general order was passed without debate or division. When the clause dealing with apprentices was before the House Mr Fraser urged the Government to leave the apprentices alone. The Minister of Labour (Mr S. G. Smith) explained that no apprentice under the Apprentices’ Act who was under contract at the time the general order took effect would be subject to the variation in rates of remuneration. The clause was inserted to make provision for future contracts, and was designed to avoid anomalies in the event of lower rates being fixed '-fpr journeymen. Mr H. E. Holland asked what was the position of. apprentices in the Railways Department. The Minister of Railways (Mr W. A. Veitch) said the first; section of the Bill made it clear that all railway employees, including apprentices, would be subject to the 10 per cent, reduction. The clause was adopted by 40 votes to 21. The committee then reached the last clause which relates to the commencement and duration of the second part of the Bill. Mr W. J. Jordan (Manukau) moved that the date on which the section should come into operation should be postponed from April 1 as proposed in the Bill to December 1. He said there would normally be a general election between those two dates. He trusted that such election would be held and that its outcome would be a clear indication of the opinion of the electors on the merits of the Bill. The amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 21. Mr Jordan moved a further amendment seeking to limit the duration of the section to August 31, 1932, instead of December 31, 1932 as stipulated by the Bill. The amendment was defeated on the voices. The House was divided on the clause, which was adopted by 43 votes to 21. An amendment providing for a hardship tribunal was adopted on the voices, and the committee stage having been completed the Bill was at 11.30 reported to the House with amendments. Mr H. E. Holland moved that the Bill be recommitted. Mr H. E. Holland placed on record the attitude taken up by the Labour Party while the Bill was being considered in committee. He again appealed to members on the United benches to go to the country before making such a wide departure from the fundamental principles on which the party had secured office. Mr Holland added that there was just a possibility that the Government with the aid of the Reform Party would, now that the wage reducing legislation had been forced through, seek to prolong the life of the present parliament in the hope that by the effluxion of time the electors would forget what it had done. He wished to lodge the strongest possible protest against such action beting taken. If the Government went to the country immediately it would be heavily defeated. The motion for the recommittal of the Bill was rejected by 40 votes to 21. Speaking on the report stage of the Bill, Mr Armstrong referred to the closure incident and Mr J. A. Young’s amendment limiting its operations to the life of the present Parliament. He said “ this was a dirty business, to which Labour objected.” He was ordered to withdraw, and said: “ I withdraw, but I say no decent Labour member would be a party to anything of the kind.” (Left sitting at 2 a.m.)