LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21639, 9 May 1932, Page 8

LIFE OF PARLIAMENT

UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. When the House resumed at 9 a.m. the debate commenced on the clause extending the duration of the term of the present Parliament. _ Mr Parry exhibited a full-page advertisement in the morning paper headed “Facing the Issue: The Government Resolutely Tackles ..the Unemployment Problem.” He characterised the advertisement as nothing but propaganda, and accused the Government of using for this purpose money extracted from the people to assist the unemployed, Mr - Forbes: It is an appeal to loyal citizens. Mr Fraser: It is sponging on the people’s money. Mr Parry went on to ask why the Government was' ignoring legal opinion that it could not constitutionally extend the life of the present Parliament. Mr M'Leod said the question of extending the parliamentary term to four years had frequently been discussed by the Reform Party prior to 1928, and while there had always been unanimity in favour of four years, there had not been unanimity as to how "the change should be introduced. He had 'constituted one of the section which had always considered .that the Parliament which decided upon the four-year term should not itself participate in the extension. He had during the election campaign informed his constituency that this would still be bis attitude. “ I find myself to-day in a position I have never occupied before,” Mr M‘Leod declared. “Up till now I have never voted in the lobby opposite to that in which my leader has voted, but on this occasion I am afraid I shall.” Replying to Mr Parry, - Mr Coates said there was no justification for the comments on the advertisement". The Leader of the Opposition: Who drafted it? Mr Coates: The advertising agents. The Minister said he was prepared to lay all his cards on the table. The press and the public appeared to be uncertain as to what the new unemployment scheme meant, and it was necessary to make it clear ttyat there was an appeal for contributions in money and kind, otherwise further taxation would be inevitable and the position would become impossible. Replying to Mr Joneg, who asked how much the’ advertisements in the various newspapers were costing, Mr Coates said he thought it would be about £I2OO. The response had already been wonderful. Farmers and others were offering cooperation in large numbers. The Leader of the Opposition described • the advertisements as a political “stunt” for the Coalition Government. He asked why the publication of the advertisements was restricted to newspapers which supported the Coalition. Mr Coates: That is not so. Mr Holland: It is so. It is a grave misuse of public funds. The closure was applied at 10.55 a.m. to the discussion on the clause extending the life of the present Parliament, the proposal being adopted by 40 to 28. The division list was:—

For the Clause (40). Ansell Jull Bitohener Kyle Black Linklater Bodkin M'Dougall Broadfoot Macmillan Burnett Macpherson Clinkard Makitanara Coates Massey, J. N. Cobbe Murdoch de la Perrelle Nash. J. A. Dickie Ngata Field Poison Forbes Ransom Hamilton ' Hargest Stewart Harris Stuart Hawke Sykes Healy Vcitch Henare Williams Holland, H. Young Against the Clause (28). Atmore M’Leod Barnard Mason Carr Massey, W. W. Chapman Munro Connolly Nash. W. Fraser O’Brien Holland, H. E. Parry Howard Richards Jones Samuel Jordan Savage Langstone Schramm Lee Semple M-Combs Sullivan M'Keen Wright Pairs, For the clause: Endean, M'Skimming, Veitch, Campbell, Lye. Against the clause: Wilkinson, Rushworth, Savage, Armstrong, Stallworthy. RACING CLUBS. Mr Langstone opposed the clause which increases racing chibs’ share of the totalh sator tax. He said the times were too serious for public moneys to be used in this way. The racing clubs had elaborate expenses, and if they wanted to save money they should cut down these expenses. They spent far too much money on handicapping, starting, and advertising. Mr Coates said the racing clubs were up against it, and unless they were afforded relief they could not carry on. Mr Samuel pointed out that the clause was to operate for only one year, Mr Broadfoot said he believed there was not one country racing club which was solvent at the present time. Mr Stewart defended the clause from the point of view of tax collection. He said that unless some relief were given they would kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. The closure was applied at 12.10 p.m. An amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition to limit the concession to racing clubs with an annual turnover of less than £15,000 was not pressed, and the clause was adopted without division. SUBSIDIES ON GIFTS. Labour members expressed opposition to the clause abolishing subsidies on voluntary devises, bequests, and other gifts of money, or property, to hospital hoards. Mr Sullivan declaring that it would entail hardship to put this into effect at a time when the boards were so greatly in need of assistance. Mr Atmore said that if the Government’ abolished subsidies it was likely to dry up the source from which such bequests- came. Mr Savage said the passing of the clause would mean that the hospital boards would have to find the subsidies themselves, or reduce their services. The closure was applied at 12.55 p.m., and the clause was passed by 44 votes to 25. The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m., and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

WORKERS’ EXTENSION LECTURES

Opposing the proposal to abolish grants to university colleges for workers’ extension lectures, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said the passing of the clause would mean that the working man’s opportunity to get the equivalent of a university education was to go by the board. The Workers’ Educational Association movement had been of immense value to many people. . Mr F. Jones said it was hard to credit that the Government was wiping out, as an economy, the whole of the adult educational grant.

The Minister of Finance (Mr W. Downie Stewart) called attention to what was happening with a number of similar movements which had commenced as voluntary organisations. While there had been enthusiasm at their initiation, and people had subscribed liberally to their support, as soon as they had got a certain distance they had claimed they were entitled to Government support. Tlio moment the Government conceded a subsidy the whole burden tended to be loaded on to the State, and the Government, once having fathered them, the private springs had begun to dry up. Mr Stewart said he had drawn attention to that tendency years ago, and had pointed nut that as soon as the Government got into difficulties it was inevitable that the subsidised movements must suffer.

Mr H. Atmore expressed regret at the pi’oposal, and contended that the old idea that education began and ended with school life was no longer tenable. The clause was passed by 40 votes to 24. BUILDING SOCIETY CLAUSE WITHDRAWN. The Minister of Finance announced that he intended to withdraw the clause providing that no building society should accept any deposit of less than £IOO. He said the clause had been inserted in the Bill on the recommendation of building societies themselves. There were various classes of building societies, and some of them were using the Building Societies’ Act to range out in a way that had never been anticipated when the legislation was passed. However, since the introduction of the Bill he had received a veritable hurricane of telegrams in connection with

the clause, and it was quite clear the matter required a good deal more investigation than had been given to it. He understood the building societies were meeting in conference at an early date, and he had suggested they might draw up sonic scheme to get over the difficulties that existed. They had agreed to do this, and the question could again be submitted to Parliament in the main session. Building societies realised that legislation was necessary, although the clause did not meet their approval. Mr H. Atmore expressed approval of the decision to hold the clause over.

Mr Barnard said he considered the Minister had acted wisely, because it was apparent the clause was likely to interfere with the conduct of the business of building and investment societies. The clause was withdrawn. MATERNITY BONUS REDUCED.

Criticising the proposal to reduce the maternity bonus payable under the National Provident Fund. Mr W. Nash asked under what power the Government proposed to override the Statute containing the guarantee that the bonus would be paid. He contended that contracts bad been entered into on the definite understanding that the Government had guaranteed to grant the benefits mentioned in the Act.

Mr Richards said he thought it could be claimed that the department had been getting business under false pretences if the Government insisted on passing the clause. Its adoption would shake faith not only in the National Provident Fund, but also in other State institutions, such as the Government Life Insurance Department. He contended that a State guarantee had always been a great inducement to the public to join the National Provident Fund.

The Minister in Charge of the National Provident Fund (Sir A. Ngata) said the National Expenditure Commission had recommended the abolition of the allowance. This clause was in line with, the other proposals contained 'in recent legislation. The legislation of last year had not affected the existing contributors to the fund. They were now being asked to reduce their claim.

Mr Barnard: They are being compelled, are they not? Sir A. Ngata said it was true that in inviting the public to become contributors there had become a vested right in these benefits, but it could not be claimed that Parliament, under emergency conditions, did not have the right to reduce these benefits. ~, TT The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) said that apart from the moral aspect there was the social aspect. It had been considered that the granting of a bonus was a recognition of the supreme social service of a woman who was a mother of the nation. Mr R. Semple also objected to the proposal and declared that_ “ no other body but a gang of political highwaymen would stoop to do such a thing.” The Acting Chairman of Committees (Mr Bodkin) called upon Mr Semple to withdraw the remark but the latter declined. Mr Bodkin: I rule that the words are unparliamentary and I request you to withdraw. . .

Mr Semple: It is ray deep conviction and I refuse to withdraw. Mr Speaker was thereupon summoned and ruled that Mr Semple s remark was most clearly unparliamentary. He suggested that Mr Semple should withdraw it end express regret for having used the words. Mr Semple: If Mr Speaker rules that the words are unparliamentary I withdraw. „ „ . , The Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) remarking that the words had not been used offensively but had been applied impersonally, suggested that no further action should be taken. Mr Speaker: I take it that that is the opinion of the House, and it is entirely a matter for the House. Mr Stewart agreed to hold the clause over, pending an investigation of the point 4’aised by Mr W. Nash. AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL.

Amendments to the Bill were introduced by Governor-General’s Message. Explaining the amendments, Mr Stewart said that one of® them referred to, the clause affecting the main highways fund. It had been represented to him that something should be put in the clause to show it was not intended that the amount to be received by the Treasury should take precedence to the requirements of the highways fund, It was therefore stipulated that the sum of ,£500,000 was to be available to the Treasury after provision had been made for the minimum requirements of the Main Highways Board. There was also a slight amendment to the clause relating to disloyalty in the public service, with the object of making quite clear the applicability of the clause to certain circumstances. A further amendment concerned timber royalties in connection with Native lands and gave the Native Minister power, with certain concurrences, to remit or reduce specified royalties in accordance with the general idea of getting fixed charges down. There was another new clause, which was designed to meet cases of hardship where estates were unable to raise money to pay death duties. Provision was made for relief in cases where it was not reasonable to charge the full 6 per cent. The amendments also included validating clauses with respect to some local body loans. They removed some doubt which had arisen as to the validity of the Order-in-Council relating to the Local Government Loans Board,, and it was also provided that harbour boards should be deemed local authorities within the meaning of the Local Bodies Loans Act. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland), the Prime Minister (Mr G, W. Forbes) said the amendment to the clause relating to disloyalty in the public service inserted the word “ injustice ” with the object of making it clear that the position he had outlined the other night could be dealt with. The alteration was designed to enable anything in the nature of an organised boycott to be dealt with under the clauses. Mr Barnard: Then, why not insert the word “ boycott ”? Mr Forbes; “ Injustice ” covers the position. Mr Barnard: Yes, but “injustice covers a lot of other things as well. The amendments were referred to the committee on the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition inquired how far Mr Forbes intended to go with the Bill that night. , , The Prime Minister said he had been hoping to comnlete the business of the session that night. All that remained after the passing of the Finance Bill was a small local Bill affecting the Thames district and a few amendments to the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. He did not think these would be contentions. ... ~ . Mr Fraser: Do they include an adjustment of the old age pensions anomalies? The Prime Minister: Yes. The House adjourned at 0 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

CONTRACTS OF APPRENTICESHIP. The Minister of Labour (Mr A. Hamilton) moved to insert a new sub-clause in the clause* dealing with the question of apprenticeship, with a view to ensuring that no application for amending, buspending, or cancelling a contract of apprcnticeship should be disposed of by a magistrate unless reasonable opportunity to be heard had been given to all the parties concerned, to the district registrar of apprentices, and to an appropriate apprenticeship committee, if any. Labour members urged that the Arbitration Court, because of its experience in industrial matters, was better fitted than the magistrate’s court to deal with applications under the clause. Mr Hamilton pointed _ out that the clause concerned only existing contracts and would bear no relation to contracts made after the passing of the Act. Ho said that many people who had become parties to apprenticeship contracts in more prosperous times now found themselves in an extremely difficult position. There was provision that if a magistrate saw- a prospect of improvement in the economic conditions of the employer he could simply suspend a contract for a time. A difficulty was that there was only one Arbitration Court, He thought it preferable that a court of law, rather than an industrial committee, should deal with the cases. . Mr R. Semple expressed a desire that the wording of the clause should be amended to make it more definite that contracts would merely be suspended in

cases where there was a possibility of the employer’s position improving. He wanted to make sure that a boy who had originally been a party to a contract would have the first claim on his employer when it again became possible for the latter to engage an apprentice. Mr R. M'Koen moved to add a provision that every apprentice whose contract was cancelled should be registered by the Apprenticeship Committee, and that when positions were available he should be given the first claim for engagement. This was defeated by 40 votes to 20, and the clause was passed, together with the amendments moved by' the Minister. DISEASED STOCK. Strenuous opposition to the proposal to abolish compensation for the destruction of diseased stock was raised by Mr H. H. S. Kyle, who said it would be false economy to endanger the people’s health. The Minister of Health (Mr C. E. MacMillan) contended that there would not be the slightest risk because adequate protection would still be afforded by inspection. Mr Kyle referred to the danger ot infection from meat sold in the country, adding that there would be strong inducement to butchers not to destroy it unless they were granted compensation. Other members supported Mr Kyle. The Prime Minister said that in view of Mr Kyle’s evidence and his qualification to speak on the subject he was prepared to withdraw the clause. He had no wish to have disease spread in the country.

The clause was withdrawn. PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Discussing the clause instituting special power for the dismissal of disloyal public servants, Mr J. A. Lee said it was apparent the Government was in a state of panic, and that a system of espionage was to be built up. Mr W. E. Barnard said the clause was un-British in every respect. One would imagine the country was in a state of revolution. He criticised the amendment which made the incitement of injustice a reason for dismissal, asserting that “injustice ” was the vaguest term —one which would not be found in a legal dictionary. It had no legal meaning. He considered the clause would engender distrust between man and man, and argued that there was already ample power on the Statute Book to deal with disloyal public servants. If there wore any.

The Prime Minister said there was nothing on the Statute Book to deal with an organised boycott, such as that to which he had recently referred. The Government had at first thought, on receiving petitions asking that there be no further wage reductions, that these were honest expressions of opinion, but it had later been shown that signatures had been obtained as the result of pressurc < having been brought to bear. In addition to the communication from the Thames, he had had men ringing him up to tell him to take no notice of their names on petitions, because they had signed them under a threat of boycott. Mr O’Brien said if the clause were passed no man in the civil service could dare protest against any of the Government’s legislation. Mr P. Fraser said there ivas no democratic country in the world with a weapon of the kind on its Statute Book. Its injustice could be equalled only by its silliness. The Government might well bring out the rack, boot and thumbscrew of the middle ages. These instruments of torture would bq no more intimidating to a civil servant than the threat to deprive him of his livelihood and reduce his wife and family to starvation. He was to be subjected on tbe word of an informer to instant dismissal, and was not even to be allowed the right of appeal to which even a murderer was entitled.

Mr E. Semple said the clause would leave the civil servant at the mercy of the "lowest form of creature that crawls upon, the earth—‘the pimp.’” It could be deduced from the Prime Minister’s remarks that the object of the clause was to employ the threat of dismissal with the object of preventing civil servants from signing the petition at present being circulated throughout the country calling upon the Government to resign. Mr Coates said it had been quite clear from the Prime Minister’s remarks that the intention was to nip in the bud the efforts to blackmail a section of the community. The Government must take very definite powers in order to prevent the spread of action of that kind. Amid exclamations of protest from tne Labour Party Mr Coates moved, at 11.30 p.m., to apply the closure. Mr W. Nash exclaimed: “That is the meanest thing you have done. You have given the House no chance. If that is the method you are going to adopt, you are going to. incite this country.” The Chairman: The member for Hutt must restrain himself. The closure was applied bv 40 votes to 19. The Government’s amendment was adopted by 39 votes to 20. An amendment, moved by Mr Barnard to omit from the clause the reference to .statements seeking to bring the Government of New Zealand into disrepute, was defeated by 39 votes to 20. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE.

The Chairman of Committees then moved (at 11.55 p.m.) to report progress. This was challenged by the Labour Party and the bells were set ringing. After they had rung for two minutes Mr Smith left the chair and sent for Mr Speaker without putting the question. On Mr Speaker’s arrival in the Chamber, Mr Fraser raised a point of order, stating that the Chairman had failed to put the question. Mr Smith explained that his reason for leaving the chair was to avoid a Sunday sitting, as there were still two divisions to be taken before finality could be reached with the clause.

Mr Speaker ruled that the division should have been taken once the question had been put. Mr Coates, while not disputing Mr Speaker’s ruling, said that he, personally, had a very strong objection to sitting on Sunday. Labour members: So have we. Mr Speaker said he, personally, would not like the House to sit on Sunday morning, but in giving his ruling he had not been able to take members’ consciences into consideration. He mentioned that the English House of Commons had not infrequently eat on Sundays, though this had not occurred to any extent in recent years. A compromise was ultimately reached by the House, and at 10 minutes past midnight an adjournment was taken till 10.30 on Monday morning.