FINANCE BILL DEBATE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 90, 25 March 1931, Page 6

FINANCE BILL DEBATE

W ELLINGTON, Mafell -24

The adjourned sitting of the House of .Representatives was resumed at 2.30 this afternoon when the debate, in committee, on the short title of the Finance Bill was continued by Labour speakers. Mr W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) dcplor ed the reduction of grants to hospital fcoarcln, education boards and University cohoges,, insisting that these items should not sulloi under any circumstances. The Unemployment Board coul'J not cairy the load unless it received fuvtlicj help. from, the Gpycrnment and thus n further responsibility would fall on the social services applied by bospita’. boards. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) asked for consideration of the plight of workers in the Hawke's Bay district who had suffered through the earthquake. •

Mr H. MeL. 'Culnpbell (Reform, Hawke’s Bay) broke the continuity, of the Labour speakers to ask the Prime Minister to delay the effect of the Bill so far as it concerned people in the earthquake area from Wairoa to Waipawa. Their homes had been damaged and they were hard put to it. The 'difficulty would only apply to married hi on with homes and the number would not be very great. He suggested that they should be exempted from reductions for, say, twelve months. The Prime Minister: I will bo pleased to go intp it.

Mr If. E. Holland: Tire Prime Min istcr has spoken at last.

Mr W. Nash again referred to,,the question of grants to hospital boards, whereupon Mr Forbes replied that reductions applied only to salaries of hospital board employees which could be reduced ten per cent. It had nothing whatever to, do with the functions of hospital boards. As Mr Forbes sat down there was a burst of ironical applause from the Labour benches.

Mr H. E. Holland took strong exception to the -proposal to reduce the remuneration of nurses, and hospital attendants, adding that if the Govern ment lived up to its promises it would be moving in the direction of increasing these salaries. Other Labour members supported Mr Holland’s complaint and also deprecated the proposal to reduce the salaries of school teachers.

At about 3.45 p.m. Mr W. .1. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) drew attention to the state of the House, and bells were set ringing to summon a quorum. Shortly afterwards Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) again raised the question whether there was a quorum or not, but while ho was speaking a couple of member? entered the House and the count of heads proved that the necessary number was present. Mr.M.vJ. Savage (Labour, Auckland West)-, appealed to Mr Forbes to say whether he would consider inserting a clause limiting operation of reduced salaries to a specified period, remarking “Some of us have, a notion as to why the prices of primary products went down so far, .and we are not prepared to admit that they will always b» down. For that reason wo desire some provision to be inserted in the Bill to indicate that the reductions will not be permanent.” He considered that the country was entitled to such a stipulation; other wise there would be an injustice done to the working community, to say nothing of the injustice of the measure as a whole.

French Labour sneakers joined in fh n attack on the Bill about five o’clock replacing colleagues whose privileges to speak on the short title had been exhausted. .

The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m. Opposition Leader’s Suggestions.

Labour speakers continued the de-ha-to on the short title of the Finance Bill when the House resumed nt 7..10 p.m., but there was a chnnrre in the scene when the Leader of the Opposition (Ft. Hon. ,T. 0. Contest rose, and suggested that it was about time the House got on with the business. He did not advocate hurrying the legislation through without reasonable consideration, but he added: “We all know the political game and. perhaps, the least said about it the soonest mended.” Everyone regretted the position with which the country . was faced, and he, in common with others, regretted the necessity for the Bill before the House. He. had not heard how those opposing the Bill proposed to meet the position by means of alternative schemes. He submitted that there was no alternative other than very heavy taxation. It was well known that the ’ country’s spending power was reduced and the problem was, where was the money to come from to keep up existing rates of wages and salaries? Enterprise throughout the country was faced with the difficulty of maintaining numbers of its employees. The position could not be, side-stepped, it was there 'and faced the country fairly and squarely, if money was not available to continue paying everyone at existing rates it seemed inevitable that retrenchment would have to be the alternative to reductions, and that was not desired. ..Ft was necessary to ensure that the load was born as equitably as possible. Everyone appreciated the manner in

LABOUR’S STONEWALLING SUGGESTIONS FROM THE OPPOSITION SHORT TITLE STILL UNDER DISCUSSION The House-of Representatives, facing a Labour stonewall on the Finance Bill, sat until 6.35 a.in. yesterday. Debate was resumed at 2.30 p.m. in committee on the short title, and there was no evidence of any change in Labour’s attitude. The scene changed at the 7.30 p.m. resumption, the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. J. 0. Coates) appealing to the House to discard the “political game” and get on with the business. . He asked the Prime Minister to consider the adoption- of a graduated scale of wage reductions for married men, but the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes replied-that the Government was determined on the flat rate of 10 per cent, to effect a definite saving of expenditure. It was a case of alO per cent, cut or many dismissals. The Leader of the Opposition also appealed for a revision-of the cut as it affected men in the Second Division of the Railway Service. ,

The Prime Minister announced that a Hardship Commission would be set up to deal with cases of hardship in the civil service.

which the members of the Civil Service, from the highest to the lowest, had always carried out their duties in every capacity, and when the legislation affecting them was before the House their position should bo regarded in the most favourable light. After instancing one or two cases in which hardship would be experienced as the result of the reductions in salaries, Mr Coates said he had two suggestions to make to the Prime Minister. The first, related to members of the second division of the railways, who, under the legislation of ,11)21, had been enabled to make contracts with the General Manager, subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, which had allowed them to accept two separate cuts of five per cent instead of one of ten. He suggested that the same procedure might well be followed now.

Hon. W. A. Veitch: Only locomotive pi on were affected by that arrangement.

Mr Coates stated that the saving in expenditure would amount to the same and ho thought that employees would favour the arrangement. Outlining his second suggestion Mr Coates said that everyone recognised so far as a married 1 man with a family was concerned that Parliament wanted to do the fair thing. It was this section which was most concerned with the cost of living- and rents . He asked the Prime Minister to take time to consider whether it would be possible lo reduce the cut by two and a-half per cent (to 7J per cent) in the ease of p married man with one -child, by live per cent (to five per cent) in the case of ;a married man with two children, and by 7-J per cent (to 21 per cent), in the case of a -named man with three children, and to wipe out »the cut altogether where there were four, or more; children. He estimated that the cost of this concession would amount to £200,000. That was to say that instead of saving £1,400,000 the 'Government would save £1,200,000. It would be a question for the Government as to where it could make up the additional £200,000. He could see no valid reason why the proviso should not be inserted so that, in the event qf the cost of living coming down, the ten per cent cut should then be allowed to apply throughout the service.'

Will Stand Finn, Mr Forbes thanked the Leader of the Opposition'for his suggestion that the House should get on with the business, and said that while he recognised the right of any section of the House to register its protest against legislation introduced, ho believed the timo had come when it w r as reasonable to expect progress with the Bill. Ho pointed ’ out that the present was not art ordinary session. It was an 'emergency session, and it, was desirable to do the business as rapidly as possible. 'There was earthquake legislation as well as measures dealing with the economic position of farmers to be considered when the House disposed of the Bill now before it. Every day the- Housd was in session was adding to an expenditure which the country could ill afford. He thought tho Labour members had made it quite clear that they-were opposed to the Bill, Jock, -stock and barrel. No one would go away with any other impression. It was, he repeated, time to expect progress to be made. Mr Ji O'Brien (Labour, Westland): Then you withdraw the cut!

Continuing, Mr Forbes said that uni ho was just as sympathetic as anyone else, but he realised that if the many cases of hardship had been cited, steps outlined in tho Bill were not taken the alternative would be drastic retrenchment. The . Government was seeking to spread the money available for salaries all over the service to avoid cutting down the numbers employed. The latter was one of tho last alternatives he wanted to take.

i Mr R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East):, That's a threat. Mr Forbes drew attention to the growing army of unemployed, and said the Government desired to do all possible to meet the necessities of those men. There was no other way to deal with tho situation than that proposed, and ho appealed to the House to allow tho matter to go through. If ’the vote wont against tho Government’s proposals and anyone else could suggest a better method of overcoming the difficulties he would be only too willing to step to one side and allow someone else to take. control. He was quite willing to abide by the House's decision, but as long as lie was in a position of responsibility he was not going to let the people of this country down. At, the conclusion of his speech Air Forbes was applauded by his colleagues. ■ . Graduation Not Favoured. Air A. Harris (Reform, Waiteniata), said that Mr Forbes had not replied to the suggestions offered by tho Leader of the Opposition. If that meant, that he intended to put the Bill through without any amendment in any form he was going to have a struggle and Air Harris thought he ought to have the struggle. Rising to his feet the I’riiue Minister said that ho did not want anybody