THE GRATUITIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12754, 25 September 1919, Page 6

THE GRATUITIES.

OPPOSITION MOTION DEFEATED. A LABOUR AMENDMENT. SIR JAMES ALLEN’S STATEMENT. (Continued from Page 5.) At 2.5 Mr S. G- Smith (Taranaki) concluded liis speech, and Sir Joseph Ward’s amendment was put and declared lost on the voices. A division was called for, resulting in the amendment being lost by 3i to 30. . Mr M’Combs then moved another amendment to tbo following effect:—- “ That without restricting the minimum charges provided for, the Government be recommended to amend those proposals by making gratuities payable from the date of going into camp to the date of discharge, gratuity payment to be 4s per day, 2s to be paid in cash and 2s in 5 per cent Mar Bonds redeemable in five years.” Mr Massey asked the Speaker to rule whether the amendment did not amount to appropriation and was therefore out of order. The Speaker ruled that the amendment amounted simply to a recommendation. It was not an order and the Government was not obliged to give effect to it. It therefore .did not amount to appropriation, and was in order. Continuing his argument Mr M’Combs said the comparison widen the Minister had made between Canadian and Now Zealand payments to soldiers was wholly misleading, and he strongly objected to such a document being circulated by the Government throughout the country. If the Government had followed the Labour Party's advice in paying the soldiers such a rate as they could make proper provision for their dependents there would have been no difficulty in getting recruits in the early stages of the war; but the fact was they weiV too closely concerned in protecting financial shirkers* Mr A. Walker seconded the amendment. Mr P- Fraser supported the amendment because it most nearly complied with the wishes of soldiers and there was ample wealth to make the proposed payment possible. Mr W. A. Ycitch opposed the amendment because it was a waste of time. If the Labour Party had played the game as it should have done, and supported the country through the war, they would have been on a pedestal today and could have won the next election. . .

After Mr H. E. Holland had supported the amendment and Messrs G. Witty and C. J. Talbot had opposed It a division was called for at 3.55, when the amendment was lost by 37 to 6, those voting for it being Messrs M’Combs, Walker, Fraser, Holland and Semple. Sir James Allen in reply said cvery- ' thing that could bo done to get this question of gratuities settled by the National Government was done, and ho read a Cabinet minute to show that the question had been settled on the basis of la per day, costing £1,255,000. He believed this question should have been settled by the National Government, and ho appealed to Sir Joseph Ward to get it settled before they broke up. Even after they broke up he asked the Premier’s leave to give Sir Joseph Ward his confidence, and the Premier agreed he might do so. Ho asked that Sir Joseph Ward might come and seo him. He asked him three times, ana at last Sir Joseph Ward came to seo him. He was not prepared to tell the House what Sir Joseph Ward said, but although he was prepared to give Sir Joseph Ward his confidence nothing was done. Those who blanied th© National Government for not settling the question now knew why it had not been done. Proceeding, he explained that the Government had delayed announcing their scheme because it was deemed advisable to provide for retrospective allowances. He defended the of the Pensions Act and claimed that the Government' bad not neglected to provide for men of the mercantile marine. The amount of Is 6d per day wag determined upon by Cabinet in view of the financial responsibilities ot the country. The Government’s complete proposals would absorb about £6,908,000. The proposal of the leader of tb© Opposition meant an expenditure of £8,755,000, while the Labour proposal would involve an expenditure ot £16,660,760. The position was thus before the House. He was exceedingly sorry they bad not been able to come to an amicable agreement on this question, as he would like to have seen the gift made to the soldiers freely and graciously. Sir Joseph Ward made a personal explanation, denying that he was consulted about the National Cabinet*s gratuitv proposals before Sir James Alien his statement in the House, and he was not at the Cabinet meeting when the proposals were approved. The matter was never brought up at Cabinet after ho returned to New Zealand. He did see Sir James Allen after he left the Caoinct, huh he could not then discuss the matter with him because lie might find himself in complete disagrecment with the party of which he was the head. The proper way to have dealt with this matter was to have submitted it to a joint meeting of both parties instead of trying to rush it; through at one sitting. Then there might have been a chance of getting some sort of agreement about the proposals. The motion that the paper be laid on the table and be nrinted was then put and carried. The Houee rose at five o’clock.

The following is Iho division list on Sir Joseph Ward’s amendment;— For (301. Messrs Anstoy Messrs Poland Brown Russell Bnddo Poole Carroll Seddon Colvin Dickie Semple Sidey Forbes Smith, ,R. W. Fraser, P. Smith, S. G. Hanan Talbot Holland Thacker Isitt Veitch Jennings Walker M’Callum Ward, Sir J, Gr. M’Comha Wilford Myers Wittv. Against f37). Sir J. Alien Messrs Malcolm Messrs Anderson Mander Bollard Maaeey Coates Xash Craigie . Nosworthy Dickson. J. M. Parr Dickson. J. S. Peareo Field, T. A. H. Pom are Field. W. H. Reed Prawr, Sir W. Rhodes, R. H. Guthrie Rhodes, T. W. Harris Scott Hen are Smith, G. H. Harries Statham Hino Sykes Hornsby TJrn Hnnter Wright Lee Young. Luke