PARLIAMENT

Wairarapa Daily Times, 31 July 1936, Page 5

PARLIAMENT

FINANCE BILL DEBATE Although the Finance Bill restoringcuts in wages had been fairly well debated in its initial stages, Parliamentary interest in its provisions was keener yesterday than ever. Urgency was taken for the measure so that the Bill could be put through and sent to the Council for final passage before the end of the month. Members of Hie Opposition showed a ieen desire for information about the delav in the appointment of two State representatives tp the directorate of the Bank of New Zealand. They were asthat the appointments would be shortly. On resumption after the dinner adjournment there were flashes of tempei occasionally, and at one time it looked as though the pot would boil over. The Minister Of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, however, in refuting a charge that he had deliberately misled the House about 'the clause making it an offence for an employer to dismiss . a •worker in order to deprive him of increased wages and shorter hours, skilfully ‘ ‘ turned away wrath. ’ 5 The clause was retained-by 40 votes to 17. Progress thereafter, though relatively slow, was steady. TO-DAY’S SITTING. NATIONAL ART GALLERY BILL. WELLINGTON, This Day.. In the House of Representatives this morning, the Hon. W. E. Parry, in moving the second reading of the National Art Gallery and Dominion Museum Amendment Bill, said it was a ‘ ‘ wash-ing-up” Bill, and largely a machinery measure. He paid a tribute to the enthusiasm of those responsible for the xufcftaking, and said the previous Govhad offered a subsidy on a £ for £ basis up to £IOO,OOO. The present ■Government, since last December, had contributed £37,000, and, on completion of the building, had undertaken to provide £7OOO yearly for maintenance, as it expected that the citizens and local bodies of Wellington will be able to find the balance of the maintenance money required. WAGES CUTS RESTORATION.

Urgency was taken in the House of Representatives early,/.yesterday afternoon for the Finance Bill, which, inter alia, deals with a national restoration of wages to the 1931 levels. Discussion in the committee stage was opened by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara), who, because of periods of absence from Wellington, made his first; contribution to the debate. “We have the remarkable feature of the introduction of a finance Bill which, is not related to the finances of the country,” Mr Coates said. •“Restorations of wage cuts are simply . ordered and.they, have, got to be made; The last Government restored the greater portion of the cuts —nearly all of them "as far as they affected the lower-paid civil servants —and it gave a clear indication that as sopn as, the revenues of the country justified it, the restoration would be completed.” The Prinie Minister, Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage; A very safe promise. ■ ' Mr ' Coates: Yes, but is there not some,thing in the word safety? The second part of the Bill, dealing with the restoration of cuts-to workers outside :the, Public Service, presented a difficult' problem, Mr Coates said. Generally speaking, 1 any ■ form of blanketing legislation was, undesirable, but that was the effect of this particular part of the Bill.' it did not take into account at all the possible effects, on different industries,'-Some of which might be forced out of existence, purely as a result of lack of elasticity in the legislation. It was laid down that an employer a man because of the necesincreasing wages was liable to a fine of £25. In some cases where a man was entitled to £SOO a year under the new legislation, it might pay an employer to dismiss him, pay the fine, and then employ a man at £3OO a year. By paying £25 apparently the employer got out of his whole obligation. -“It is essential to good government and to the control of trade and commerce,” said Mr Coates, “that the country should have some knowledge of the position under which these restorations are held to be justifiable. There has been no calculation as to what the legislation is likely to cost.. An indication that when making the restoration of wages to the 1931 level employers would not' be compelled to pay higher than the award rates where workers were -under awards was given by the Minister of Finance, replying to various points raised during the committee discussion. “We can restore wages to the 190 l level now, but ultimately we hope to have them infinitely better than ‘ the 1931 rates,” stated the Minister, when T£ Jlring to an Opposition question whether the Government aimed at perpetuating the 1931 wage level. . _ Strong exception to the clause m the Bill making it an-offence'for an employer to dismiss a worker in order to deprive him of the benefits of increased wages or shorter hours was taken by the Opposition. There were some lively exchanges during the reply of the Minister of Finance, following his statement that a similar provision existed in legislation passed by the party represented by the Opposition when the Government of the day. After several other Opposition members had expressed their views, Mr Nash said he questioned if the Opposition was really in earnest in its criticism of that section of the clause placing the onus on the employer, for the provision was taken from an Act pass-' ed by the Opposition when the Govern- . ment of the day. The Industrial ConJt jgiiation and Arbitration Amendment W 1925, stated; “In every case where the worker dismissed was immediately preceding his dismissal a president, •vice-president, secretary or treasurer of

an industrial union, or an assessor for a council of conciliation, or represented his union in any negotiations or conference between employers and workers, it shall lie on the employer to prove that such worker was dismissed for a reason other than that he had acted in any of the said capacities.” “■You are side-stepping,” interjected Mr Smith. Mr Nash: This provision in the Finance Bill is taken from your own Act. Mr Smith: They were an entirely different set of circumstances. Mr Nash: Does the clause in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act put the onus on the employer or the employee? —on the employer. An Opposition member: But there is no fine.

Mr Nash: Yes, the fine is the same, £25. ... As soon as the case put forward by the honourable member for New Plymouth is confounded he says I am side-stepping.