FINANCE BILL INTRODUCED IN HOUSE THIS MORNING

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 64, 17 March 1931, Page 5

FINANCE BILL INTRODUCED IN HOUSE THIS MORNING

Parliament Hold All Night Sitting; Labour Attacks Government Policy.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 17. THE EMERGENCY SESSION of the House of Representatives had the first all night sitting when urgency was accorded the Address-in-Reply motion. All amendments were disposed of and the motion was passed by 6.30 a.m., whereupon the Finance Bill, introduced by Governor-General’s message, was eventually read a first time, Labour members forcing divisions on aU the formal stages. The House rose at 7.20 a.m. till 7.30 to-night.

Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister moved that urgency be accorded the Address-in-Reply debate. He said that he desired to dispose of this item without undue delay. Members would have ample opportunity of referring to the Government’s proposals when the particular legislation dealing with them was before the House. Labour members called for a division on the motion, which was carried by 44 to 17. The debate was not wholly confined to Labour members, as Messrs Fletcher and Wilkinson, Independents, took part. Mr Wilkinson’s critical references to the wheat duties provoking Mr Kyle (Riccarton) to defend the wheat industry and demonstrate its claims to protection. The debate on the Address-in-Reply

was resumed by Mr Parry (Labour, Auckland Central), who said:the Prime Minister was making a serious mistake if he thought that the Labour Party was going to let him reduce Civil Servants’ salaries without having anything to say. The Government had treated the matter with nothing less than contempt. It would be interesting to know what members of the present Government Party were going to say to their constituents when they met them. Silent Reform Members. Mr Howard. (Labour, Christchurch South) expressed no surprise at the silence of Reform members during the debate. He said they had the United Party doing the thankless part of the job, and as soon as it was done they would put the United Party out. Reform members were, no doubt, hoping it would not be noticed they were helping to reduce salaries again, as they themselves had done formerly. Mr Howard added that, personally, he did not believe there was any reason for the cut, and he thought if it were agreed to a disservice would be done the country. Mr O’Brien (Labour, Westland) complained that the Government had not forced the cutting up of many large estates and had put practically no one on the land. If there was no other way of meeting the present financial position than reduction of wages Labour might agree to a cut, but he contended that this was not the case. He had been completely disillusioned and wanted to apologise to the people of New Zealand for the way he had supported the Government in the past. In future he would prefer to support Reform, because they did not make wild promises but told the country what they would do. Crown Mortgagors. Mr Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) urged the Government to afford more sympathetic treatment to Crown mortgagors. He said that many farmers encountering difficulty in carrying on were being helped over the period of depression by merchants and stock and station agents and would be greatly heartened if they knew they had the State at their back. The Division. Mr Sullivan (Labour, Avon)

said that honourable agreements had been made between groups of workers and employers. He asked _ how could the Government intervene to tear up awards. It undermined public morality. Ministers were honourable men, but for that reason he failed to understand why they proposed an action which failed to correspond with their personal character. He hoped to hear Ministers* explanations and that they would break their very long silence. The division was reached at 8J55, when the amendment was negatived by 45 votes to 22, the latter comprising all the Labour members, with Messrs Fletcher and Rushworth, Independents. Another Amendment. It was evidently the Labour policy to test out the effect of the various proposals on sections of the House, therefore Mr Savage (Auckland West) immediately introduced another amendment : “That in the opinion of the House definite action should be taken for the protection of farmers and others, who owing to trade depression are unable to meet their obligations arising out of mortgages and other financial commitments, and further that the House is of opinion that (a) a provisional moratorium should be declared to prevent foreclosure pending investigation of the circumstances of each case by a tribunal representative of the interests involved and presided oyer by a Supreme Court Judge, such tribunal to have power, with the consent of the Minister of Finance, to adjust all claims under any financial agreement, and (b) in order to increase production definite action should be taken by the Government to ensure that ample supplies of fertilisers are available at low rates and easy conditions of payment .for all bona fide producers.” Charge of Discrimination. Mr Chapman (Labour, Wellington North) declared that there was discrimination in the application of*the cuts, because many of the highest paid officers would not suffer. He had a list of thirty-three who had been notified of a salary increase after March 31. Mr M’Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) accused Reform of dismissing thousands of men from public works in 1922 and employing them again at relief wages. The Government was now inviting all sections to reduce wages. It had sold its principles, swallowing, the Reform policy. American authorities held the sound view that decreased wages only accentuated a slump. The one thing needed to initiate a forward movement was an adequate number of consumers. The Government had instructed the Industries and Commerce to demonstrate that the cost of living had fallen 10 per cent, but many articles in the schedule, being out of fashion, were extremely cheap. Mr Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) ridiculed the argument that cheap labour wpuld solve the farmers’ difficulties. South Africa, only fourteen days from England, enjoyed the

1 advantage of a million Kaffirs, born j agriculturists,' willing to work for a shilling a day. The proposed cut of 10 per; cent could not reduce the cost of producing butter-fat. Prepared for Long Sitting. Mr Howard concluded just before 1 a m., when conditions were evidently organised for an all-night sitting, half of the Labour members being absent resting, the other half vigorously maintaining the debate -on the amendment. Continuing the debate on Mr Savage’s amendment, Mr H. E. Holland, speaking at 3.30, asked whether the Government had anything to say with regard to the proposals it contained. No Government member replied; and a division, taken at 4.20, resulted in the defeat of the amendment by 40 votes to 22, Messrs Rushworth and Fletcher voting with Labour. Mr M’Keen (Wellington South) then moved the following amendment:— “ That in the opinion of the House the proposals contained in his Excellency’s speech for amending the powers governing the Arbitration Court will lay the foundation for repudiation of agreements which have been freely and honourably entered into by employers and employees, and will have the effect of destroying public confidence in constitutional and peaceful means of settling industrial disputes.’* Mr Savage, in seconding the amendment, said that when society refused to live up to its agreements it was a pretty poor look out. The Govern, ment was trying to break industrial agreements without the approval of the parties concerned. Increased Taxation. Mr H. E. Ifolland said that it was the duty of the Government to set an example for the rest of New Zealand. He went on to criticise the increase in postal charges. He said he believed that it would drive business away from the Post Office. He condemned the action of the Government in adding almost £1,000,000 to taxation without consulting the House. After further criticising the Government’s proposals, Mr Holland said that he hoped it would make no attempt to prolong the life of -the present Parliament. There was no justification for any such line of action. That course had been followed during the war and had meant that Parliament, which should have expired by effluxion of time in 1917, extended until 1919. The position was far worse to-day, since conditions did not justify an extension of the term of the present Government. Of course, fusion of the two Conservative elements was possible, and the Government might survive a little longer. It would, in fact, be better if there were fusion, with Labour in Opposition. It would be better still to have the Labour Party on the Treasury benches, with the other sections in Opposition. Mr Holland declared that the House was entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister concerning the proposals before the debate was concluded. A division was taken on Mr M’Keen’s amendment at 5.55. It was defeated by 37 votes to 20. Continuing the debate on the original motion, Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) criticised the administration of the Unemployment Act. He claimed that there had been no indication in the speeches of Government members when the Bill was before the House that there would be repudiation of the principle of sustenance when' no work could be provided. Referring to fusion, he said that it would be better if the United and Reform Parties got together and discontinued their sham fight. Finance Proposals. The motion was adopted at 6.30, and the Finance Bsjl, dealing with the reduction in Civil Servants’ salaries and the powers of the Arbitration Court, was introduced by Governor-General’s message. Speaking on the question that the Bill be referred to a committee of the whole House, Mr Fraser said that he had no desire to facilitate any stage of-the Bill, not even that stage. There

was no necessity to ask what it contained, because the Prime Minister’s proposals were already known to everyone. Labour members called for a division. Mr Forbes said that it was only desired that the Bill be referred back to the House and read a first time so that it could be printed and circulated among members. The motion was adopted by 3S votes to 20, and the Bill was read a first time, Labour members forcing a division on all stages. Replying to Mr Coates, Mr Forbes said that he would introduce taxation measures after the House had disposed of the earthquake legislation.