PROLONGED DEBATE ON FINANCE BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 78, 1 April 1931, Page 6

PROLONGED DEBATE ON FINANCE BILL.

CONCESSION MADE IN MATTER OF SUBSIDIES. Per Press Association. * WELLINGTON, April 1. Up till the adjournment of the House for breakfast this morning the outstanding feature of the Finance Bill committee debate was the number of divisions, which totalled half a century. The closure was applied only on three occasions, discussion on amendments apparently being cut short, either in anticipation of this weapon being applied or on account of the fatigue of members. The division . bells rang repeatedly throughout the . night and early morning, and much of the sitting time, was occupied by members filing in and out of the lobbies. On all. issues the Government had easy majorities. Sliding Scale. Mr W. Nash (Labour, ITutt) moved that the cuts be levied on the following sliding scale: Over £3OOO. 33 1-3 per cent; from £I9OO to £3OOO, 25 per cent; £I2OO to £I9OO, 20 per rent; £950 to £I2OO. 17} per cent; £7OO to £950, 15 per cent; £4OO to £7OO, 12i per cent; £250 to £4OO, 10 per cent. Mr Nash said that this scale would be more in keeping with equality of sacrifice than the fiat rate cut. It would bring in between £BOO,OOO and £900,000, which was less than Mr Forbes wished for, but the money could be made up from other sources. The amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 21. Another sliding scale was advocated by Mr J. T. Hogan (Independent, Rangitikei). who moved that the reduction should be 7} per cent on a salary of £217 and over, 10. per cent on a salary of £390 and over, and 15 per cent where the salary was £824 and over. He said that this scale would bring in over £1,000.000. The amendment was defeated by 42 votes to 22. Suggested Exemptions. Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) moved that the 10 per cent reduction should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages below £l5O per annum. The amendment was defeated by 35 votes to 24. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) moved that in the case of married men, or others with dependents, the 10 per cent reduction should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages to below £250 per annum. The amendment was defeated by 33 votes to 24. Mr Fraser moved a further proviso, that in the case of married men and others with dependents the 10 per cent cut should not apply so as to reduce the total salary or wages below £4 per week. This was defeated by 38 votes to 24. Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland W_est) moved an amendment providing that employees with a salary below £3OO with one child should suffer a cut of 7} per cent; those with two children 5 per cent; those with three children 2} per cent, and those with more than three children no deduction. Mr Savage said that the proposal was identical with that suggested by Mr Coates. Reform Attitude. Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) asked how it was that the Reform Party could make a proposal oije day and then vote against it the next day. Mr D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) said that he largely supported the proposal contained in the amendment. The Reform Party, however, had accepted the Prime Minister’s offer of a tribunal. The amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 26. Mr W. Lee Martin (Raglan) moved that the reduction*, should be deferred until there had been a corresponding fall in the cost of living. The amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 25. Mr J. M’Combs (Labour, Lyttelton) moved that the 10 per cent cut should not apply to wages or salaries below £2lO.

This was defeated by 37 votes to 25. Mr Clyde Carr (Labour, Timaru) moved to ensure that overtime rates should be paid in the Public Service on the same basis as overtime rates under the Arbitration Court awards. The amendment was rejected by 42 votes to 18. BOard Allowance.

Mr W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau) moved to delete the sub-clause which read “ Where any part of the salary of any person consists of board or lodging or use of a house or quarters, the total amount by which his salary is reduced shall be deducted from the moneys payable to him in respect of such salary.” He said that in many cases this would mean that the total reduction would be more than 10 per cent. Mr Fraser said that the clause was particularly inequitable. If a Civil Servant was paid £3OO a year and received a house at an annual rental of £SO he would be reduced by £35,. which meant that his money wages were reduced by nearly 12 per cent. The amendment was defeated by 40 votes to 20, and clause 6 was passed by 40 votes to 21. Grants For Education. Mr R. M’Keen (Labour, Wellington South) moved to amend Clause 7 by deleting the provision for reduced grants to education boards, university colleges and other educational institutions. Mr. Forbes said that the clause simply carried out the principle of the 10 per cent reduction in salaries. It did not affect capitation. .Mr Savage and Mr H. E. Holland pointed out that if this clause were passed it would mean a 10 per cent reduction in the salaries of all nurses in New Zealand. The amendment was defeated by 37 votes to 21.

Mr Savage then moved to delete the reference in the clause to reduced grants to public bodies. The Prime Minister said that the saving so far as hospital boards were concerned would be £64,000. In the case of local bodies, if they followed the example of the Government and reduced salaries by 10 per cent there would be a saving of £610,000. Reform members protested against the additional burden that would be placed upon country ratepayers if local bodies were deprived of 10 per cent of their subsidy, which would amount to £20.000. Mr Jones said that, an increase of twopence per gallon on the petrol tax had been promised definitely for road expenditure. Therefore, local bodies were entitled to retain for themselves the benefit of the 10 per cent saving in salaries. “ Identity Of Interests.” Mr 11. E. Holland said that the House had now come to an interesting point where there was identity of interests among the cross benches and the opposition with respect to farmers’ rating and the proceeds of the petrol tax on the one hand and nurses’ wages on the other. The cross benches and the official Opposition were ranged against the Government in resisting

Mr Coates; Oh, no, not all of it. Mr Holland said that this was disappointing, and he suggested that the House should go to the vote right away. Two good purposes would be served by the adoption of the amendment, because in cutting out the objectionable part of Clause 7 relief would be given to country ratepayers and also nurses. Mr Forbes Makes Offer. Mr Forbes said that he did not wish to add to the troubles of local bodies, representing as he did a country constituency. He quite appreciated the position and was willing to excise the portion dealing with local bodies’ subsidies.. The Government would have to find alternative means of getting £20.000. It would lose by this alteration. Mr Fraser; Take another cut off charwomen . Mr Sullivan said that he could not forebear congratulation to the leader of the Opposition on having extracted a concession amounting to £20,000 in connection with roads and bridges. The Reform Party had only to raise its hand and. the Prime Minister complacently surrendered. Mr Sullivan interposed that he fully approved of the relief. .granted to local bodies, but he was interested in the attitude of the strong man who was not going to make one single concession. As soon as there was an indication of a possible vote against the Government the Prime Minister rose speedily enough, and although appeals on behalf of women and children who were struggling to obtain the bare necessities of life had fallen on deaf ears, the leader of the Opposition had no difficulty in getting concessions. He congratulated the Opposition on the manner in which it had brought the Prime Minister to heel. Mr Forbes: I have pleased everybody. Chairman Intervenes. Mr F. Langstbne (Labour, Waimarino) likened the Prime Minister to the giant with “a head of gold, a breast of silver, a belly of iron, and feet of clay 7 -.” He had capitulated at once’ actuated solely by a desire to remain in office.

The chairman (Mr W. J. Broadfoot) Order!

# Mr Langstone: It is a very sorry sight to perceive the Prime Minister making a concession on this point when he steadfastly refused more urgently presented cases on behalf of people on small incomes. Mr ‘Fraser said that the Reform Party was in a position if it desired to take over office, but it had cold feet in the matter; but it had helped by learning first aid to keep half corpses on the Treasur} 7 " benches. He asked how loiig was the farce going to continue. In reality the Reform Party was the Government, without responsibilities, and was imposing its will on the country. The strong, silent men of the Government were dancing like marionettes at the will of the Reform Party. Attitude Criticised. Mr Sullivan proceeded to comment on the contrast of the Prime Minister’s attitude toward the different issues. He was called to order and requested to adhere to the subject before the House, ultimately being ordered to resume his seat. Mr H. E. Holland said that it was a most regrettable thing to find a contrast drawn in the manner confronting the House. Would the Reform Parfy insist on the elimination of the levy on the wages of nurses? Mr Sullivan again rose and supported Mr Holland's references to the Prime Minister’s attitude. He said that he was delighted to have been able to draw pointed attention to what he had been refused permission to refer to when speaking previously. __ Mr Forbes said that he had no intention of doing more than to remove the burden of the country ratepayers. The principle involved in the two points before the House was entirely different. The 10 per cent reduction in hospital board subsidies applied only to salaries, and there was no intention of departing from that principle. The House adjourned at 7 a.m. till 9.

t When the House resumed at nine o’clock Mr Forbes's amendment, exempting local bodies from reduction in subsidies, was adopted. Mr Savage’s amendment was rejected by 32 votes to 18. The clause was passed by 36 votes to 17. Superannuation. Clauses enabling persons compulsorily retired to retain superannuation rights were adopted without amendmeftt. There was a discussion regarding the rate of pension which would be received by compulsorily retired men. Mr Forbes stated that the clause was a concession, as otherwise those concerned wfio failed to complete the full service would. only be entitled to a refund of their contributions without interest. The pension would be computed by the Government actuary. He undertook to refer several suggestions from members to the committee now considering the whole question of superannuation. The clause was then adopted. Arbitration Court. The House then reached the stage at which the portion of the Bill relating to the Arbitration Court came under discussion. Labour speakers complained of “ repudiation of agreements ** which, they contended, was involved in the Government's proposals. The House adjourned at 11.15 till 2.30 to enable the Address-in-Reply to be presented to the Governor-General. The motion moved by Mr J. McCombs, Lyttelton, in the House yesterday was to protect from the cut the basic wage of £4 0s Bd, not £5 Od 8d as published. The motion was defeated by 41 votes to 30. (A report of the debate last night appears on page 7.)