GRATUITIES SETTLED

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 1, 26 September 1919, Page 8

GRATUITIES SETTLED

AN ALL-NIGHT DEBATE

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S AMENDMENT

DEFEATED

HOUSE REJECTS SOLDIERS'

DEMAND The debate on the gratuities question was continued in the House of Reprcsentatives after The Dominion went to press yesterday morning. The division on Sir Joseph Ward's amendment proposing to refer the question back to the Government was taken at 2.10 a.m., and resulted, as already announced, in the defeat of the amendment by 87 votes to 30. Tho division list was as follows:— For-30. Ajrn:nst-3i. Anstey Allen Brown And-jrson Buddo Bollurd Carroll Coales Colvin Craigie Dickie Diclson, ,T. M.Porbes Dickson, J. S. Praser. P. PieM. T. A. H. Hannn Field. W. H. Holland Praser. Sir W. Isitt Guthrie. Jennings Harris M'Callum Hen ire M'Combs Hemes Myers Hi no Poland Hornsby Poolo ■ Hunter Russell Lee Seddon Luk'! ' Semple Malcolm Sidev Mar.der Smith. P. W. Massey Smith. S. G. Nash ' Talbot Nosworthy Thacker PanVeitch Pearce Walker Pom are Ward Peed Wilford Rhodes ]?, H. i Witty Rhodes. T. W. ! Scott Smith G. H. Stafham Sykes TTru Wrijht Young A Labour Amendment.

Mr. J. M'Combs (Lyttelton) moved as a further amendment the addition of the following words to the motion: "And that without restricting the minimum period provided for, the Government be recommended to amend its proposal by making tho gratuities payable from the date of going into camp to tho date of discharge, tho gratuity payment to be 4s. per day, 2s. to bo paid in cash and 2s. in 5 per cent, war bond*:, redeemable in fivo years.

Tho Prime Minister asked the Sneaker to nile as to whether thk amendment was out of order as involving appropriation.

The Speaker held that tho amendment was in order. It was merely a rccommendatior. to tho Gdvernmmt.

Mr. M'Combs proceeded lo state that the Minister of Defence, in comparing Now Zealand and Australian rates of gratuity, had selected tho periods most favourable to New Zealand and least favourable to Canada. Mr. A. Walter (Dunedin North) told tho House that tho Labour Party had never tried to prevent men going to tho war. It had opposed conscription on the ground that voluntaryism was not exhausted and could to stimulated by increased pay and allowances. Labour men had applauded mm who went to tho front and had subscribed for presentations to them. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) regarded Mr. Walker's explanation as lamentably weak. It was u. fact "hat tho Labour Party would be in a much better position to-day than was actually tho case if it had shown itsolf able to take broad viows. What would have happened to tho Empire, faced by a hostile nation in "arms, if all its men had been satisfied to subscribe for prosentations to those who would fight? Mr. M'Combs's amendment was rejected by 37 votes to 5. Only three Liberals, Messrs. Anstey, Hornsby and Talbot wero in tho chamber. They voted against tho amendment. The Government party was well represented. ministerjn" reply WHAT HA.PPENET) IN THE NATIONAL CABINET. Sir James Allen, replying said that oven-thing that a human bsmg could do had "been done by the National Government. Last session he had brought tho question before Cabinet, and it had beer, sottled. His statement to (his effect had been questioned. He proposed thereto™ to read the actual Cabinet minute. It was to the effect that ,£1,25,1,000 be granted for bonuses to members of tho New Zealand Expeditionary Forco on the basis of one week's pay lor every 13 weeks' service in the cas-s of married men, and ono week's pay for every 18 weeks in the case of single men. Would the Leador of the Oppositon deny tho accuracy of that minute? Sir Joseph Ward: You announced it to me in tho Houso. Sir James Allen: Will tho honourable gentleman say that he was not present at the Cabinet meeting? . 'Sir Joseph Ward: You announced it to me in tho House. Sir James Allen: Were you at the Cabinet meeting? Voices: Answer the question. Sir Joseph Ward said that if the Minister would givo him the Cabinet papers he would make a statement on them. . ~ ■ Sir James Allen said thiit actually he had mentioned tho matte.- first to Sir Joseph .Ward in tho House taauso there was a special reason for hastening the matter. Sir Joseph Ward accepted tho proposal, and it was confirmed in Cabinet noxt morning. When ilhe schemo was mentioned in tho Ho>ise there was a chorus of approval on evnry hand from members. The total expenditure proposed tlven as gratuities was .£1,250,000. Further steps wore takon to get tho matter sottled by the National Government, "I agree that the matter eihonld have been dealt with by the National Government before wo dissolved,'" said Sir James Allen. "I saw the Leader of tho Opposition and asked Mm before we broke up to get this question settled. Will he deny that? Sir Joseph Ward: I deny it put in that way. Sir James Allen: "Then after wc hod broken up I asked the authority of the Prime Minister to approach tho Leader of tho Opposition to see if we could not get this matter settled -without party wrangling. I asked Turn to como to see me. I asked 'him two or three times. He came up to, my room. I was prepared to give hull my conndence, to tell him exactly what was proposed, to receive his suggestions, and, if possible, to adopt his suggestions, and so bring about harmony in the House instead of wrangling. I am not going to disclose what tho honourable gentleman said to mo. I don't think I am at liberty to do so. Nothing happened. Ho -vould not accept my confidence, although I offored it." Sir James Allen addel that ho had been prepared to hear all Sir Joseph Ward had to say, but nothing was done. Tho chango from tho original proposal (had been due to the appearance oi the Canadian gratuity scheme. The Canadians blundered in their original scheme by fixing a sum for each rear's service. This meant" that tho payment did not vary with servico In a fair extent, and complaint was made. Th,? minimum rates could not be reduced, and so tho Canadian scheme had to lie levelled up. and that chango had set a standard which Now Zealand followed. The differentiation between married men and single men had been abandoned because separation allowances at the full rate had been made retrospective, '"lie disadvantage at which mar.riod men had boen placet] had been largely removed by the a. option of tho retrospectives principle in the payment of allowances. Generous Pensions. Sir ..Tames Allen said ho wished to draw, tho attention of tho House to some pensions actually drawn by tho widows of soldiers. Four widows with 6ix oliil-

dren were each receiving £2W. Two of the men were labourers, one was a' baker, and one a fish curer. Another widow with six children received .£338 n year, and in his life her husband could not have earned moro than JM a week. These woro actual cases, and lie quoted them to show that tho Pensions Act was not illiberal. As to the mercantile marine, a bonus was paid to men on tho transports, and a special bonus while in the danger zono. This had been paid by the Government as by shipowners. Tho Government had also made provision by way of pension respecting merchant service men on tho transports. He had always admitted that the pay of somo New Zealand officers was not satisfactory, and he had wished to improve it. Other colonial officers of higher rank had early in tho war received much higher pay, but this had been corrected later by increasing the pay of New Zealand' officers. It could not be truly said, certainly not in the later stages of the war. and not "even in the earlier stages, that the New Zealand officer was worse raid than the Canadian officer. The Cost. Last of all, tho question of tho cost of the gratuities scheme had to bo considered. The estimates for the current year had shown a deficit of cE900,000, and in consequence of this expenditure estimates had to be cut down. This made it impossible to propose a heavier expenditure on gratuities. Ho was sure that the returned soldiers did not want to imnoso on tho country a heavier burden of taxation at tho present timo. Mr. J. M'Combs: But you aro not getting it by taxation. You aro going to get it bv loan. Sir James Allen: "Will the honourable gentleman tell mo how to get a loan without paying for it?" He said that the total cost of granting the soldiers' demands would be c£;(!,7G0,O0O, including allowances made last 'year. For the gratuity alone, at the rate of 45., the, onsfc would be ,€15,700,000. That was n heavy bill to face. He was sorry that Parliament was not able to come to a uuanimou6 decision on this matter. Not Consulted. • Sir Joseph Ward said he had been misrepresented. The Minister had referred hi tho gratuity scheme of 1918. He himself had not been consulted about that scheme. Sir James Allen intimated to him in the House that the Prime Minister had given authority to stato an amount to the House. Sir James Allen made this statement to tho House on tho evening of September 9, 1918. "1 took no exception to that," said Sir Joseph Ward. "But I did not acquiesce. I did not acquiesce for Hie reason that I did not control Defence expenditure at any time when I was Minister of Finance in the National Cabinet. I never interfered with the Minister of Defence, directly or indirectly, so far as financial authority was concerned. He cannot contradict me on that point. Sir James Allen made his statement to tho House about gratuities on the night of December 9, 1918. Tlio mattor went before Cabinet after the announcement had been made publicly in tho House. I was not consulted about it. I don't think I was at tho Cabinet meeting tho next day, when this matter was brought up. I have no recollection of ever hearing tho matter discussed in Cabinet after the' timo tho honourable gentleman made his statement in the Houso. The Minister has papers with him. Ho has tho Cabinet papors. Let him stand up and read my name out as" having been present. It is not there." Regarding tho other point, the fact was that filter his return from England ,in 1919 gratuities never came before Cabinet. The Minister of Defence did not bring tho matter before Cabinot. Sir James Allen: I brought it beforo you. Sir Joseph Ward: "Itwas not brought beforo the National Cabinet." The Finance Minister had said something about on interview on the subject of gratuities. At that interview Sir James Allen had suggested a discussion on th" gratuities proposals, but this he had refused to do. The reason was that he could not como to a conclusion which might in tho end prove to be ono not acceptable to his party. This ho had told Sir James Allen. Sir James Allen: And something more. Sir Joseph Ward: "I don't like these suggestions that are being made." Ho repeated that tho National Government had not discussed gratuities after his return from England. He suggested that tho attitude ho had taken after his retirement from tho Government was quite a proper ono, such as might havo been taken by Mr. Massey in like cimun. stances. Sir Joseph Ward added that in his opinion there would be no need to increaso taxation, even if tho 2s. gratuity were granted. On the contrary, taxation would bo reduced within a reasonable time.

Sir James Allien: Oh I Sir James Allen said that the gratuities scheme had first been submitted to Cabinet on December 5, and on that occasion tho proposals were referred back t» the Minister of Defence. Sir Joseph Ward was recorded as having been present at the meeting, There was fear of delay, and he inontioned the matter to Sir Joseph Ward, giving him the proposals verbally, in order to get the business on before 'tho passage of the Appropriation Bill on December 9. Sir Joseph Ward nwiniereed in the proposals. , Sir Joseph Wwl denied this. He said that he had never acquiesced. Ho had simply offered no objections. His own recollection was that he was not present at the Cabinet meeting on the following 'Sir James Allen said that ho had no record at to whether Sir Joseph Ward was or i»ns not present at this meeting on December 10. Tho motion to lay the paper on the table was agreed to. The House adjourned at 5 a.m. until 7.30 p.m.