THE FIRST TEST

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19049, 28 June 1924, Page 5

THE FIRST TEST

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION DEFEATED

GOVERNMENT MAJORITY

OF THREE

RAILWAY STRIKE DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT

(Per Presg Association.) WELLINGTON, June 27.

Tn the House of Representatives this afternoon, Air T. Al. Wilford, Leader of the Opposition, said he proposed to say something with regard to the recent treatment of a section of the railway service in the matter of 1 working hours. He produced two agreements made between the Government and railway servants in 1920 and 1921, providing for a 44-hour week. Under this system the Department admitting mak|ing a profit of 1.07 per cent, in 1921, land to-day the profit was admitted to be 3J per cent. There might be controversy as to whether or not it should be greater, but the Department admitted that a section of railway servants still worked 44 hours a week, and all might still have been doing so but for the fact that an unfortunate strike took place. He admitted that by striking the men concerned had broken the agreement made between them and the Government, but the Government had, he thought, rather unfairly taken advantage of it to force upon the men a 48 hour week. This was the more regrettable because, while this was being done by the Government on the one hand, the Government had set up a commission to inquire into working hours and conditions. While this inquiry was in progress the Government should not have prejudiced the position of the men by insisting upon one section working 48 hours. He thought the step taken by the Government could scarcely be defended on the ground of economy, but he would be pleased to hear what the Alinister had to say on that point. His side of the House had no time for strike methods, and did not countenance them, but to test the feeling of the House he proposed to move as an amendment to the motion before the House, “that this House, while opposing direct action and strike methods, affirms the desirability of the 44-hour working week for railway employees in terms of the agreements of 1920-21.” Hon. J. A. Coates, Alinister of Railways, said he did not propose to go into details of the agreements referred to by Air Wilford, but he desired to say that there was something of a catch cry in the term 48 hours. The plain fact was that the overhead expenses of the railways had so increased that it was impossible for the Department to run the railways profitably unless some alteration was made in working conditions, and at the same time people w*ere asking for reductions in all directions, and nothing in the way of a concession was possible until the position was improved. No railway system in the world was running on a 44-hour week. It had been done formerly, but what had happened, Precisely the same conditions had arisen in other countries as had now arisen here, and 48 hours had to be reverted to elsewhere, as well as in New Zealand. He denied that there had been any bTeach of faith with the men on the part of the Government, nor did the Government propose to dismiss large numbers of men nor overwork those employed. On the other hand, the basic wage of all men affected would be materially increased by the change. To reinstate the 44-hour week would cost the Department something like £200,000 annually. It was quite clear that the railway employees were to retain their privileges. It was clear that if railways were to successfully compete with otherforms of transport they must not unfairly handicap those railways. If the handicap i continued, in five years it would not be a question of dismissing 2000 men, but more like 5000. He stoutly repudiated any suggestion that the policy of the Government was to give concessions to settlers at the expense of railway workers. Their policy was to see that both public and workers got a fair deal. Air Alassey deprecated Air Wilford’s action in introducing into the debate matter which at present was sub judice. He quoted authority in support of this contention. At present the Arbitration Court was considering this dispute, and he submitted it was entirely w r rong to permit a debate to proceed which might tend in influence the decision of the Court. He therefore asked the Speaker to rule the amendment moved by Air Wilford out of order. Mr Wilford, in reply, contended that the matter was not before a properly constituted Arbitration Court, but was before a special tribunal, and did not come within the rule quoted by the Premier.

The Speaker said he must agree with the contention of the Premier that the railway dispute was before a Court of Law, and he roust therefore rule Mr Wilford’s amendment out of order.

ANOTHER AMENDMENT Mr Holland contended that it made no difference whether railway workers broke their agreement with the Government or not. The root of the trouble was certain bad economic conditions which so long as they existed must produce discontent and strikes. It wsh the duty of Parliament to first remove those bad conditions, and so get lan end of strike possibilities. He was j proceeding to discuss the question of 1 48 hours for railway men, when the Speaker ruled, in view of his previous ' decision that this matter could not be I discussed. Air Holland accepted that j ruling, but asked the Government to I make a definite statement to the effect i that they did not propose to attack the 1 44-hour week at present enjoyed Joy the locomotive men and cleaners, be- | cause there' was a general impression abroad that such was the Government’s intention. He then proceeded to argue that the salaries of public servants r.-ght through the service should at least be such as to enable them to live in comfort and bring up their families decently. A low standaid of living lowered the standard of morality in every country, but, without desiring to labour the matter, he moved an

amendment to the motion before the House, in effect that the House should increase the salaries of public servants whose case is not at present sub judice, and who are in receipt of less than £5OO per annum to the 1914 standard, as expressed in purchasing power, and that the House affirms the desirability of 44 hours as a working week for all such public servants. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington .South), seconded the amendment.

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon) contended that the present basic wage received by many workers was altogether inadequate,. and it was nothing less than a living miracle that many wording people were able to bring up families at all. A family with four children could not live decently on less than £5 5s 9d per week, yet it was wellknown that many public servants were receiving a basic wage of loss than £4 per week. In the matter of the treatment of their servants, the Government should be a shining example to all other employers. He hoped the Government would not resist the amendment just for the sake of resisting 'it, but would look at the postion broadly and sympathetically. Mr Wilford said he and his party had always resisted cuts in the salaries of £320 and under, and were prepared to do so again, but they could not support the proposal in Mr Holland’s amendment to raise the amit to £5OO. If Mr Holland wanted the support of the Liberals for his amendment he must bring his policy into line with theirs.

Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) contended if Great Britain, with all her war problems, could afford to pay her public servants a bonus of 105 per cent, in March, 1922, surely New Zealand, which had made millions out of the war, could pay her public servants a bonus of 62 per cent. He put in a special plea for workers in the Post and Telegraph service wffiosc basic wage was £3 13s 4d. They therefore were in a worse position than railway men, whose basic wage was £3 19s lOd. Post and Telegraph men were £1 3s 8d short of maintaining their J 914 standard of living. If it was necessary to impose taxation to provide salaries sufficient to raise public servants to their 1914 standard, then it should be done.

Mr Fraser said Great Britain had fixed £5OO as the salary below which no cut should be made, and if Britain could do that New Zealand could do it. £5OO had been adopted in the Labour amendment because that was the limit fixed by Great Britain. Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin .South) defended the Liberal Party against charges of inconsistency in opposing the amendment. They were not in favour of reducing all salaries, but thought a man getting £lO per week was in a position to take what reductions were coming. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said Mr Holland’s amendment was not the result of 'sympathy with the workers. It was simply a move to get some political advantage. Hon. G. J. Anderson, Minister of Labour, said the Government had been charged with gross extravagance, but when they insisted on saving the country over two millions by reducing bonuses to public servants they were immediately charged with parsimony. The House adjourned at 5.30 till 7.30. The House resumed at 7.30. Mr Anderson contended that the amendment aimed at putting salaries back to the 1914 level, which would cost at least a million and a-half sterling. He contended that salaries now paid really amounted to very nearly the 1914 basis. A civil servant was in a better position than a private individual, having a settled income and superannuation and other privileges. Mr Holland: “He pays for it.”

The Minister replied that the country contributed a large amount to the superannuation fund. The Government was doing all possible to conserve the finances of the country.

Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) defended Liberal members from attacks made by Labour speakers on the attitude assumed by the former towards the question of Public Service salaries in recent sessions. He combatted the statement by the Minister of Railways that the number of men employed in the Railway Department had increased by 4000 in recent years. Of the increased cost of carrying on the railways in 1922-23 (£1,531,000), wages only accounted for £860,000. The rest was absorbed in coal and various stores. Mr Veitch contended that the present unsatisfactory condition of the railways was largely due to faulty administration, and wasteful methods. Mr Veitch hoped locomotive men would not have their wages reduced or their hours increased. It would a harmful policy to attempt to secure economical running by cutting down the men’s pay. “I do say this, however,” said Mr Veitch, “we cannot go on having strikes and continuing superannuation at the same time. The men should remember that even if as a result of a strike they forced an agreement to higher Wages, they must in the end come to Parliament to raise the money to pay them. He appealed to the House not to look too severely upon the mistake made by the men recently. Mr Veitch advocated the elimination of the highly paid section of railway officers from the superannuation system, because they had an unfair advantage over the lower paid section of the Second Division. High officials should have a scheme of their own.

Mr O. J. Hawken (Egmont) said much was being heard about civil servants, but nothing was heard about the interests of the people who had to pay. The farmer, for instance, worked longer hours,’under worse conditions, and for loss pay, than civil servants. It was the Government’s duty to see that the Civil Service was paid a proper wage, but it should at the same time see that people also received a return commensurate with their efforts. That afternoon’s spectacle reminded him of an auction mart. It seemed to him the two parties were attempting to outbid each other for a certain vote with other people’s money. Such a situation astonished him.

Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) contended that civil servants’ wages were reduced without any justification. There were civil servants in Christchurch employed on an hourly wage which would give them, if they had no sickness, £3 13s 4d weekly. If the amendment was defeated it meant that these people would be sentenced to a further term of £3 13s 4d per week. Wage reduction would react upon the farmer and manufacturer by bringing about less prqduction. Present conditions only really benefited rich people who lived in idleness, riding on the backs of useful people of the country. For the ordinary family to live to-day in conditions equal to the 1914 level it

would require to receive double the wages received in 1914. Mr Armstrong contended that industry was quite able to pay this extra amount to the people who did the useful, necessary work of the country, whose trade conditions during the past year had been described as the best on record. It had been stated that public servants received annual increments of salaries. Did the £3 13s 4d per week man get the increment 1 ? Mr J. Horn (Wakatipu) said that when it was shown that the farmers really needed assistance the Liberals would do their best to see they got it. That, however, was not really germane to the subject of the amendment. He urged that lower paid sections of the service get better treatment, and especially must the widow and children of the lower paid man be given sympathetic and practical aid. Mr E. Masters (Stratford) said that if the farmer had been landed, as stated by Mr Hawkin, it was as a result of the present Government’s actions. Railway freight on dairy produce, for instance, had been raised by 140 per cent. The increase on ordinary goods was 40 per cent. If the railways were run on business-like lines the question of pay to the staff would not cause much concern. The railway tariff was out of date, and charges were driving traffic to motor transport, with the result that the roads were being destroyed. The amendment proposed by the Labour leader was not really in the interests of the lower paid men of the service, who were deserving of better pay than they were now receiving. Labour professed sympathy with farmers, but did it do anything to prevent preferential treatment in the matter of income tax on money invested in local body debentures, investments in which had led to the tying up of money which might otherwise have been available for the needs of the farming industry, income from which paid a higher tax. Air E. J. Howard (Christchurch) thought the debate had developed into a sham light so far as the Liberal members were concerned. When the division bell ran there would be no light. The Liberals would vote with the Prime 'Minister on this occasion. Touching on the recent railway strike, Mr Howard said Labour had been blamed for it, but, as a matter of fact, it knew nothing of the strike till it came. It was inefficient administration that caused the trouble. He declared that since the strike ended there had been systematic pin-pricking. Railway men had been forced to leave the Alliance of Labour and then compelled to work a fortyeight hours’ week instead of forty-four. Railway men could not help themselves, and had to accept these conditions, but it was Labour’s purpose to do all it could for them. '

SPEAKER ADMITS WRONG RULING. The Speaker interrupted the debate to make an explanation regarding his ruling on Kir. Wilford.’s amendment, which he had disqualified on the grounds that he believed at the time railway matters were sub judice. He had since discovered this was not so. Members of the Arbitration Court had been appointed to a special board to inquire into matters affecting the railway service, and this board could only make a recommendation. It was not a Court of Law. Had ho known these facts he would not have ruled as he did. Mr. Wilford thanked the Speaker for his ruling, and said he had no intention of taking advantage of the mistake that had been made. ST. JOHN’S DAY. The Prime Minister accepted the Speaker’s ruling and the incident ended. Hon. Downie Stewart, Minister of Customs, said that in spite of differences between the Liberal and Labour parties, both were rivalling each other in creating the civil service as a privileged class, who were not to bear burdens which ordinary citizens had to bear. That was a policy which must end in disaster.

Air Massey said that they had heard during the debate much regarding concessions to the Public Service, but he would like to inform the House that the Treasury had just reminded him that he would have to provide £170,000 this year for superannuation to public servants alone. He had been attacked because he had not called Parliament together to settie the strike. He maintained that the Government had settled the strike in a better manner than Parliament could have done. Air Howard: “You have not settled it yet.”

Air Afassey said he did not know whether that was a threat or not, but the Government was not going to allow any branch of the Public Service to run the country. That could only be done by constitutional means, and the Government would not tolerate anything else. He had heard that he was to be prevented from reducing taxation, but he maintained that no country could succeed if the people were too heavily taxed, and in spite of opposition he proposed to ask Parliament to reduce taxation this year just as ho had done in previous years. To him it was humiliating to see the manner in which the two opposition parties were seeking to obtain support from the Public Service, but he warned them that if much more of that sort of thing went on it would result in the whole question of Public Service salaries being taken out of the hands of the House and given over to the Arbitration Court. He denied that the Government had ever reduced salaries, as had been so often stated. They had reduced bonuses, as was agreed upon when those bonuses were granted, and that reduction was the turning point in the finances of the country, which was then passing through intense stringency. It had been said the Government was the enemy of the workers, but no Government in the history of New Zealand eyer did so much for the workers as his Government, and he quoted figures supplied by the Public Service Commissioner to show how the Government had increased salaries in the lower grades of the Public Service since 1913, and even taking in the inccreased ost of living these people were never better treated in their lives. These in creases had increased the burden of taxation on the people to the extent of 4| millions. Speaking of the railway service, he referred feelingly to the responsibilities of locomotive men, and he hoped there w r ould never be anything in the nature of reduction of their salaries or extension of hours. Nothing but most extreme depression would justify such a course.

A division was then called for on Mr Holland’s amendment, which was re jected by 55 to 17, only the Labour members votting for it. The debate was continued by Mr Monteith, after which Mr Sidey moved an amendment on similar lines to the Labour amendment, but substituting £320 for £5OO. Mr Holland stated that the Labour Party, consistent with its general attitude, would support the amendment,