HOUSE SITS ALL NIGHT ONCE MORE

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 78, 1 April 1931, Page 7

HOUSE SITS ALL NIGHT ONCE MORE

APPLICATION OF THE CLOSURE ASSISTS Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, March 31. When the House resumed in the afternoon Mr Semple (Labour, Wellington East), criticised Mr M’Dougall’s statement regarding the price of food. The House continued the discussion on Mr Nash’s amendment to limit the application of the cut to sums exceeding £l9O. Prime Minister’s Protest. A protest was made by Mr Forbes that speakers were not addressing themselves to the argument but were trying to stir up a certain amount of class feeling. He was surprised at Mr Wilkinson, a business man, joining the discussion. The men to whom the £4 limit referred were single men. If £l9O a year were offered generally one would find five hundred farmers applying. Undoubtedly New Zealand was in one of its worst financial straits, yet when the Government endeavoured to put the finances in order it found men acting in that way. He regretted very much the attempt that was being made. There were many people not getting £l9O annually with assured payment at the end of the week. If high levels were maintained the Government would be unable to find payment at the end of the year. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, criticised Mr Forbes’s statement that only single men were affected under the £4 scale. He could find hundreds who would be affected, men working on public works. Mr Forbes knew that included in his programme was the destruction of an agreement with the New Zealand Workers’ Union. Every man working for wages was affected. He alleged that Mr Forbes had thrown to the winds every pledge given to the electors. Mr Barnard (Labour, Napier) refuted Mr Forbes’s allegation that Labour members were irresponsible. The amendment was defeated by 42 to 30. Mr O’Brien (Labour, Westland) sought to exclude from the wages cut those on a basic wage of £4 0s 8d and under. Closure Applied. At 4.30 the closure, on the motion of the Prime Minister, was carried by 48 to 26, after which Mr O’Brien’s amendment was 4ost by 46 to' 29. The chairman ruled that there was no alternative but to put clause 2 of the Bill, and that amendments, notice of which had been given, could not be debated. In view of the importance of the question at issue he suggested that progress should be reported and the ruling of the Speaker obtained. The Speaker ruled that amendments must be put to the vote without discussion. Claus© 2 Carried. # The public galleries were crowded when the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. It was announced by the Chairman of Committees that the amendments would be put in rotation, and the House settled down to a series of divisions, the bells ringing almost continuously for an hour and three-quarters. The result was the rejection by slightly varying majorities of all the amendments. The greatest number of captures to the Labour proposals was eleven. "You have your marching orders. The gallant colonel is in front,” commeqted Mr Langstone as the Hon A. J. Murdoch (Minister of Agriculture) and Colonel M’Donald (United, Wairarapa) walked across together to the “No” lobby. There was a loud cry of “No” from the Labour benches when the question “That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill” was put at 9.15. A division resulted in the retention of the clause by 49 votes to 24.

The Railway Service. Mr Coates invited the Prime Minister to accept an amendment enabling the second division of the Railway Department to enter into an agreement with the General Manager as to the method of the application of the cut, as was done in 1921-22. Mr M’Keen: Are you moving an amendment ? Mr Coates: I am asking the. Prime Minister to accept it. Mr Parry: And if he does not? Mr Coates: He is a reasonable man, and if the amendment is accepted I think we will get further ahead. Mr Parry: Since when did you expect that? Mr Coates: I hope the Prime Minister is a reasonable man. We will see. Mr Forbes said that he had been informed by the Minister of Railways that the amendment was quite workable, and proved satisfactory previously. “ I have,” he added, “no objection to accepting it on the clear understanding that the Minister of Finance determines whether the arrangements made provide the full 10 per cent that the rest of the service has been called upon to carry.” Salaries of Judges. Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) moved fer the insertion of a new clause providing for the application of the “ cut ” to persons appointed to the position of Judge of the Supreme Court when such appointment was made. It was not competent for Parliament to reduce the salaries of Judges, he said, but it was competent for Parliament to reduce the salary attached to the office. The salaries of the present Judges would not be affected. The Closure Again. The closure had its second application at 11.15 p.m., when the Prime Minister moved that the question be put, after Mr Plolland had moved the delegation of one of the sub-clauses with the object of exempting public servants from the operation of the cut. It was ruled by the Chairman of Committees that the matter had been dealt with fully previously, and he considered the question should be put. By 47 votes to 25 the House agreed to the closure. Mr Holland’s proposal was rejected by 48 votes to 24. Other amendments were similarly dealt with, Mr Fraser’s among others being ruled out. Mr Coates’s amendment was agreed to on the voices and the clause was approved by 48 to 22 at midnight. “ Point of order,” said Mr Armstrong. ‘‘lt is just after mid-night, and it is April Fool s Day. I wonder if they are all here." The chairman: Order! Order! Clause 4 Passed. Discussing Clause 4, dealing with exemptions from the cut Mr Fraser said he did not see why the GovernorGeneral should be exempted, although it was quite true that he had offered in an unduly public way to forgo 10 per cent of his salary, apparently in order that the Prime Minister’s policy might be popular. At 12.45 a.m. the closure was applied to the clause. “Monstrous" shouted Mr Langstone. The House rejected amendments by Mr Rush worth (Independent, Bay of Islands) proposing the exemption of Civil Servants receiving £3OO a year, and whose wives were not employed for gain: by Mr Fletcher (Independent .Grey Lynn) suggesting the exemption of married men receiving £260 and less; and by Mr Fraser providing for the exemption of charwomen. The clause was agreed to by 42 to 22. Clause 6 concerning the reduction of the honoraria of members of the Legislature went on the \’oices without discussion. At 1.5 a.m. Mr Armstrong moved to report progress. On a division Mr Armstrong’s amendment was defeated by 44 to 24. The House then settled down to discussing an amendment by Mr Semple (Wellington East) that the cuts should not apply until aftc. the general election.