APPROPRIATION BILL

Otago Witness, Issue 3214, 20 October 1915, Page 49

APPROPRIATION BILL

CHANGES IN LAW,

LOCAL BODIES LOANS,

CONTROL BY GOVERNMENT.

WELLINGTON, October 12. There are a tew interesting clauses in the Appropriation Bill, wLicti was betoro the House to-day. Provision is made for the payment as from August & of a house allowance ox £2OO a year to each member of the Cabinet instead of to only a section of the Ministers as at present. Another clause validates the payment of travelling expenses to members of the Auckland Harbour Board who were called to Wellington in connection with Go vernment business. The audit officers re fused to sanction the payment. _ t , Another interesting clause is: ino Minister of industries and Commerce is hereby empowered to expend out of the Consolidated Fund, and without further authority than this Act, any sums required for the purpose of paying for supplies ox wheat from Canada or elsewhere.’ From the superannuation allowances pa-ia to Messrs John Strauchon, Charles R. Vickerman, George Hogben, and Donald Petrie, there were deducted amounts in respect of fees received for services rendered while acting as commissioners or assessors. A clause in the Bill gives authority for the repayment to the gentlemen named ox the amounts so deducted. _ . .. . A very interesting clause in the Bill lumts the borrowing powers of local bodies. It states: —“ (1) INotwithstanding any Act to the contrary, it shall not be lawful or competent for any local authority or for any harbour board during the present war with Germany to borrow or contract to borrow any money (otherwise than by way of bank overdraft within the limits of its powers if any in that behalf), whether from the State Advances Office or from any other source whatever, and whether in pursuance of a special Act or under any or, her authority whatever without the precedent consent of the Governor-in-Council; (2) nothing in this section shall apply to the borrowing of money in pursuance of any valid contract made between the lenders and borrower before the passing of this Act; (3) this section shall remain in force during the present war with Germany, and no longer. The Minister of Finance (Sir Joseph Ward) said the purpose of the clause was to prevent local bodies from paying usurious rates of interest. It was very necessary to keep the money market steady, and the Government was determined to act in this In introducing the Bill, the Minister of Finance (Sir J. G. Ward) stated that most of the clauses were inserted for machinery purposes, but there were several new clauses. Clause 25 authorised expenditure from the fund established for the equipment of the second hospital ship. The Bill was read a first and second time. In committee. Dr Newman objected to clause 26, and he also criticised clause 25, authorising the Governor to expend funds for the hospital ship as he saw fit. Ho did not like to introduce the Governor’s name on the floor of the House, but the overplus of money from the last hospital ship had been diverted in other directions when it should have gone towards the second ship. Sir Joseph Ward replied that there was no “surprise packet” in the Bill as contended by Dr Newman. Clause 26 was to prevent local bodies from forcing the rate of interest up when there was no necessity for it. The operations of the clause would last only as long as the war with Germany. As a matter of fact, in London all borrowing by local bodies without legal consent had been stopped for some time. -t*s to clause 25, the Governor did not hold or control the money collected for the hospital ship. Funds wore paid into a public account and administered by the Department of Internal Affairs. The clause was inserted only for the purpose of administering the fund.

Mr M'Oallum objected to clause 24, which contained the vicious principle of paying fees to retired civil servants in receipt of superannuation. He expressed the hope that no retired civil servants would be in future appointed on a commission, as in the case of the Education Boundaries Commission.

Touching on clause 23, Mr M‘Conabs complained that a loss of £95,700 had been sustained in connection with the purchase of Canadian wheat. What was the sum total of this glorious effort to save the situation? Bread had gone up to lOd per loaf, and wheat from Canada arrived weeks after we had started our own milling. The Prime Minister: That is not so. Mr M‘Combs went on to ask what was being done with the money that had been raised in excess of tlie requirements of the hospital ship Maheno. Sir Joseph Ward said that had nothing to do with the Government expenditure. Mr Escott asked for an explanation of the circumstances attendingidho wiping out of the loan of £14,031 to the Waitara Harbour Board.

The Prime Minister explained that this was money borrowed by the board over 20 years ago, on which neither principal nor interest had been paid. He understood that the late Mr Seddon had the matter under consideration, and had agreed to wipe it off. After going into tho departmental correspondence ho came to the same conclusion, as it was thought desirable to give the board a fresh start in view of its having to make new financial arrangements to provide for the growth of tho port. The clause was agreed to. Dr Newman returned to his complaint against clause 25, providing for expenditure out of the funds raised on the hospital ship. The Prime Minister explained that more money was subscribed than was necessary for the equipment of tho Maheno, and as money was required for fitting up a Now Zealand hospital in England, the Governor had suggested that tho surplus be expended on fitting up the auxiliary military hospital at Walton on Thames. He thought the subscribers to the hospital ship would not object to this course. At clause 26, limiting the borrowing powers of local bodies, Mr Hindmarsh moved that tho limitation should not apply to loans by way of deposit. Tho amendment was lost by 32 votes to

11. On the motion that the Bill ho read a third time, Mr Hindmarsh criticised the attitude of employers towards the Arbitration Court. He explained that since Mr Justice Stringer's appointment to the court the awards had been slightly more favour-

able to the employees, and In consequence of this the employers brought pressure to remove Mr Duthie, their representative on the court, and had urged that Mr Pryor replace him “to put the brake on the court.” Subsequently Mr Scott was appointed. Mr Scott received £SOO from the Government, with an addition of £350 from the employers as an inducement to strive to get favourable awards. He contended that Mr Duthie had been driven off the court because he was not vigilant enough in the interests of the employers, and this by people who professed that they never used improper influence.

Mr Witty complained that all the papers in connection with the State wheat transactions had not been laid on the table. The Cabinet had not shown that consideration towards members which should have been shown. Members had no right to ask for large sums of money at present, but Ministers should not treat members’ requests with indifference, because they were a National Cabinet.

Mr Anstey protested against the Prime Minister assuming that the State transactions in wheat were perfectly satisfactory to all concerned, whereas the result was quite the opposite. It was difficult to get accurate Information regarding the transactions, but the fact stood out that we lost £94,000 on them. In addition, there was an undisclosed loss, bringing the total up to £IOO,OOO. He did not mind this loss if the Government succeeded in its object, but the fact was that the price of broad had not been reduced, the price being lOd per loaf to-day. If the State transactions forced down the price of wheat that loss should be borne by the State, and should not fall entirely on the millers and farmers. The policy of the Government had signally failed in its purpose. The State had lest £IOO,OOO, and the people had not benefited by cheap bread, while the millers and farmers had been severely injured. Ho advocated the re-imposition of the duty on flour, and dealing with the subject on a more comprehensive basis. Mr Isitt combated the idea that the Government should consider the merchants in purchasing wheat. The only persons who deserved consideration in such a matter wore not the speculators, but the people. Ho expressed surprise at the revelations made regarding the Arbitration Court, and contended that neither Labour nor the employers’ representatives should be allowed to sit on the court if they -were in receipt of a subsidy from any organisation. No such man could act judicially. He asked the Prime Minister to make up his mind to restrict “shouting” during the time of war, and he also advocated the encouragement of universal drill amongst those either too young or too old to enlist, as a means of stimulating national enthusiasm. Mr Wilford advocated a. change in the constitution of the_ Arbitration Court, comprised of commissioners appointed because of their knowledge of the trades in dispute. This was the only way by which we could arrive at that satisfaction in connection with labour disputes which everyone desired. v

Mr Glover made an appeal to the Prime Minister to pass some legislation that would reduce the cost of living and so ameliorate the lot of the masses. Mr M'Combs said the Prime Minister prided himself on the fact that ho had purchased 1,000,000 bushels of wheat in Canada, but the fact was that only 100,000 bushels Had arrived in the dominion by the time we were milling our own harvest. Wo lost £93,000 on the Canadian wheat transactions, for the wheat purchased there cost us £308.000. and we had only received £115,000 from tho millers. _ He complained that legislation dealing with victimisation had not been passed, and that a vicious attempt was made by the National Cabinet to bring about labour conditions in this dominion which. the people of England had been protesting against for years. The amendment to the Factories Act proposed by the Prime Minister made it possible for young people 'and women to work Hi hours on seven days per week, without any halfholiday; yet, because the Labour Party objected to that, it had to go without legislation on the victimisation of workers on the waterfront.

The Prime Minister said ho would not refer to Mr M‘Combs’s remarks on the wheat transactions, but' he must correct the impression which might be made by his remarks on tho two Labour Bills to which ho referred. The justification for the Factories Act Amendment Bill was that milk in milk-condensing factories must be dealt with every day as it came in, and without power to do so the factories could not be successfully carried on. Milkcondensing was going to be a large industry in the dominion before long, and we should do all in our power to encourage it. The amendment to the Arbitration Act was dropped because it was contentious legislation. He had been warned by certain members that, after the Factories Act Amendment Bill had been obstructed by the Labour Partv, thev would not allow the Victimisation Bill to go through. On top of that he received many protests from all parts of the dominion, and he thought it would ho better to hold the whole matter over till next session, when it could be investigated by the Labour Bills_ Committee. Reverting to the wheat questions, ho defended the work of the (Statistical Department. whoso figures satisfied him that at one time wo had onlv 10 day’s supplies in tho dominion. So far from tho Government imnorting in excess of requirements, if it had not for tho importations even how we would not have had sufficient to supply us till the Australian harvest came in. The loss on the State transactions was £24,559, of which tho people got tho benefit. Against that loss it must bo remembered that the cargo of the Hesperus increased in value by £30.000 between tho time she left Canada and her arrival hero. Ho deprecated an attack upon wheatgrowers, who should receive every cncouragement. Tho farmers were not anxious to go on growing if they were to be attacked. He was anxious to see as much wheat as possible grown, because it was a good thing for the country. ITe mado comparison between food prices in Australia and New Zealand, in most of which wo wore cheaper than the commonwealth. Tho critics of the Government ought to bo fair, and givo credit where credit was due. _ Mr Tsitt’s suggestion as to stopping “shouting” would bo brought before the Cabinet and carefully considered. Mr Ell advocated tho planting of unoccupied railway reserves, and the extension of penny-in-thc-slot telephones and the postal note system. He complained that, in tho allotment of portfolios in the National Cabinet, the more important offices were retained bv the Massey Party. Mr Webb emphasised tho necessity for unanimity amongst all classes at pi-esent. He deplored the fact that complaints as to

victimisation amongst -waterside workers had been ignored. In discussing food prices, he asserted that as a result of the high prices of meat 2L> per cent, of the retail butchers bad gone out of business. He considered that the first duty of the Board of Trade was to review the whole question of moat prices. He denied the accuracy of the Prime Minister's statement that there was no exploitation in food prices. It was absurd to expect young men to enlist while it was felt that food pirates were growing rich while they wore dying in the trenches. He trusted that this matter would not bo bluffed off again next session, but that legislation would he introduced that would do something to enable the Board of Trade to do the good that they all hoped it would do. Mr Payne said that in pursuance of the present we were apt to forget the fact that thousands lost their lives every year as the result of capital’s inhuman effort to secure dividends. Ho appealed to every young man to enter into the struggle in Europe. Ho asked them to remember that the lives of comrades in the trenches might be saved if help came in time. Conscription was not necessary, but the circular issued by the Minister of Defence was ill-choson. It practically invited employers to dismiss their employees, though no doubt it was well meant.

Mr Fletcher said ho regretted that the amendment to the Arbitration Act had been dropped .arid he suggested that the Prime Minister and Sir J. G. Ward should make an effort to mediate between tho unions and those workers who were now refused admission ns soon as Parliament adjourned. Many of tho people who were denied an opportunity of joining the unions had two and three sons at tho front, which surely was ample proof of their loyalty. He felt confident that if tho suggestion was carried out it would meet with very general approval, and make peace where there was now bitterness and heart-burning. Sir Joseph Ward, in reply, said he wanted to allude to tho two Labour Bills which had been dropped this session. Tho member for Lyttelton had put a most unfair construction upon the delay in connection with these two Bills. He (Sir J. G. Ward) appreciated tho great factory laws we now had on our Statute Book, and never once during his long parliamentary career had he refused to support those laws; therefore he was entitled to describe tho opposition to this amendment to tho Factory Act as a spurious effort, to preserve the rights of workers. The Bill gave to milk condensing factories no more than dairy factories and jam factories now had the right to do. It had been suggested that Flio staff should bo doubled, and the factory work two shifts, but that was absurd, because the factory was away in the country, where a plentiful supply of labour was not, available. All that the Labour Party did by its opposition to the Bill was to prevent the amendments to tho Arbitration Act from passing. All that tho Factory Bill proposed was that employees might work on Saturday afternoon to enable milk that came in that day being dealt wich. Members of the Labour Party must not run away with the idea that they were the only representatives of the workers in the House. He himself always did his best for Labour, and Tie resented; an action which was a combine against himself and against his district. In tho interests of perishable articles, the Bill was necessary, while it in no way infringed the great principles underlying our factory legislation. In discussing the question of taxing war profits, Tie declared that ho did not believe the war profits in the dominion amounted to £2.009,000. If tfioy amounted to £1,000.000. and we got 25 per cent, of them we would not get as much as wo were getting under the Budget proposals. So far as meat prices were concerned, he considered that tho method adopted by tho Prime Minister in fixing prices was the best for all parties concerned. Speaking of the work of the National Cabinet, ho said, while there mignt have been odd clauses in Bills which created friction in a broad way, it had created a feeling of confidence throughout the dominion. It enabled war matters to bo dealt with in a way that gave general satisfaction, and enabled necessary reinforcements to ho sent to the front. This was no time for personal bickerings. Tho main thing was to secure victory in tho great war, and When that was done it would be time efiough to return to party warfare. In the meantime, he did not think the people would stand the operation of ordinary party politics, but when tho history of the National Cabinet was written ho felt sure the verdict would ho that it came in at tho right time and in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.