SECOND DIVISION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9793, 17 October 1917, Page 6

SECOND DIVISION

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES IMPORTANT STATEMENT BY DEFENCE MINISTER. An important statement with regard to the proposed separation allowances for members of the Now Zealand Expeditionary Force on and after January Ist, 1918, was made in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Hon. Sir James Allen (Minister tor Defence). THE NEW 'SCALE. Separation allowances, said the Minister, would be paid at the following rales per day: First and second lieutenants, drawing pay of rank only, for wife or guardian of bis motherless children, 3s a day. Warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, for wifo 3s a day. Widowed moth ir dependent on tho soldier, or invalid father, who is a widowet and dependent on tho soldier, if total income apart from allotment docs not exceed 10s a week. Is fid a day. Child under sixteen, Is a day. Brothers and sisters under sixteen, dependent on the soldier. Is a day. Mr A. S. Malcolm (Clutha): “Surely the father gets the allowance whether his wife is living or not?” Sir James Allen; “No, only if he is a widower.” Mr Malcolm: “That is extraordinary.” (Hear, hear.) Sir James Allen: “I don’t understand. Perhaps you will raise the question afterwards.” Continuing his statement, the Minister said that he desired to explain, with regard to first and second lieutenants, that under the existing pay and allowances no provision was made for a separation allowance for the wife or children of an officer, his pay being supposed to be sufficient to provide for tho wives and children of officers; but*, owing to the increase proposed with respect to tho wives and children and other dependents of tho soldier having brought tho warrant olncor with a wife and one child to a better position, as regards pay and allowances, than a lieutenant with a wife and half-a-dozen children, or with one child, the Government, in order to remove that anomaly to some extent — it was not possible to remove it altogether—had provided a separation allowance of 3s a day for the wife of a lieutenant or second lieutenant. It did not go any further, as the other officers’ pay, though not high, was considered to ho sufficient for the time being for them to provide for their wives and children. The increase to the wife of a warrant officer (and to tho wife of a soldier or a non-commis-sioned officer) was from 7s a week to 31s a week, or three times as much as before. SOLDIERS’ MOTHERS AND FATHERS. Wi(h regard to the widowed mother, the present position was that she was paid 7s fid a week if her income was under 7s a week; and it was proposed to increase the 7s fid to 10s fid and to increase the amount of other income that she might receive from 7s to 10s a week. That would allow the widowed mother to receive an old-age pension of £26 a year—los a week—in addition to her allowance. Mr C. H. Poole (Auckland West): “Tho old-age pension has been raised to 13s a week.” Sir James Allen: "I am well aware of that; but we cannot go up to 15s a week, because that is more than wo think would he reasonable.” Mr Poole; “Then the addition of 5s a week to tho pension is no good to them I” Tho Hon. D. Buddo; “Does the widow get the old-age pension as,-well as tho allowance?” Sir James Allen: “Up to 10s a week. She is allowed to draw the widowed mother’s allowance of 10s fid aweok, provided her income does not exceed 10s a week; so that she can draw a pension up to £26 a year, but no more.” With regard to the child under 16, added the Minister, the allowance was raised from 9d to Is a day, or from 5s 3d to 7s a week. Tho invalided father was put in the same position, as '-the widowed mother dependent on the soldier; and that was new, there being no provision for him before, Mr A. Harris (Waitemata): ‘Mf tha soldier has a wife, does tho mother or the father still get their allowance?” Sir James Allen,; “Yes; both ; tho wife and tho mother, or the wife and the father would bo entitled to it.” Mr J. A. Young (Waikato) : “You have not made provision for the aged invalid father who is not a widower.” Mr Malcolm; “Is not that an anomaly? If both mother .and father are living, neither gets anything!” Sir James Alien: “That is so. But I don’t think wo can avoid all anomalies. (“Oh!”). We would consider eases like this. That" is one of the advantages of ’ not making these provisions statutory. We are perfectly prepared to consider such cases.” There was no provision, at present, he said, for dependent brothers and sisters, but tho Government were now making provision for them to tho same extent as for the soldiers’ children. Mr J. T. M. Hornsby (Wairarapa) : “There is no allowance for the chronic invalid wife or child.” Sir James Allen: “There is no provision here, hut wo are considering whether we cannot make provision through the Soldiers’ Assistance Board.” COST OF NEW PROPOSALS. Dealing with what the new proposals meant financially, the Minister said that under the present rate of pay and allowances, the estimated expenditure for the thirteen reinforcements sent in the next twelve months —they were sending a reinforcement every” four weeks—was that wives’ allowances would cost £301.000; but, under the Government’s new proposals wives’ allowances would cost £326,000; an increase of £525,000. Mr Hornsby: “Pay it out of loan money.” (Hear, hear. ) The cost of the present allowances to soldiers’ children was estimated at £246,000 for the twelve months; hut under the now proposals the cost was estimated to be £318,000, an increase of £72,000. For wives’ and children’s allowances the total present cost was estimated at £347,000; under the new proposals the cost was estimated at £1,144,000, an increase of £597,000 for only the thirteen reinforcements that would leave New Zealand in tho next twelve moths. The total increase, including the allowances to tho widowed

mothers, tho fathers, and the brothers and sisters, was estimated to bo £509,000. SECOND DIVISION PROPOSALS COMPARED. Comparing the proposals of the Government with those of the Second Division League, the Minister said that the total of tho Government proposals for wives, children, guardians of motherless children, widowed mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters was £353,000; under the proposals of the Second Division League it was estimated that the cost would bo £2,088,000, which would mean an increase of £1,530,000 for the twelve months on the Government scheme. The increases, added Sir James Allen, applied to the waves and children of tire 9000 married men already .-.way as from January Ist next; and they would apply to the wives, children and other dependents of the men of the Second Division as soon as they went into camp. The scheme included tho heme service men, too. The Second Division men would not go into camp till .March, but as soon ns they went in, the sopnration allowances would hove to ho paid to their wives and children. REINFORCEMENTS FURTHER REDUCED. The estimate he had given was based, not on the present quota of reinforcements, nor on the reduction mado some time ago, but on the reduction made duping the last few days, which, he ih ought J brought them down to bedrock. A member: “What is the quota now?” Sir James Allen: “Wo are not allowed to say. By the direct wish, of tho Army Council we aro not allowed to say what tho numbers of oUr reinforcements are.” Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton); “All this expenditure will not come into tho financial year.” Sir James Allen: “"Some, but not tho whole of it.” Mr McCombs: “Less than a quarter!” Sir James Allen said that for the First Reinforcement in January it was estimated that the increased cost re suiting from tho Government's nee proposals would bo some £38,000; tor tho Second Reinforcement the increase would ho £42,000; for the third, £47,000; for tho fourth, £51,000; for tho fifth, £55,000;' for the sixth, £60,000; and for the seventh, bringing them till about July £65,000 —or a total in-' crease of £358,000. (Up till March 31st the increase, it will he noted, would be about £127,000 only.) “VERY, VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.” The Government, he wished to say, had given very, very careful consideration to these allowances; and, much as they would like te make better provision for tho men going away, they felt that some standard had to be set up, and the standard for the minimum rate must bo the standard, not of the man who was well paid, but of, practically speaking, the ordinary working man. Hon. members would find that under those minimum rates the soldier would get 355, his wife 21e, and each child under sixteen Vs a week. “WON’T BEAR EXAMINATION.” If the soldier retained Is fid a day, or 10s fid a week, Tor himself— Mr J. Payne (Grey Lynn); “That’s not enough to buy his extra tucker!” Sir James Allen: “If hon. members will not accept tho statement of the sergeant-major I quoted th© other day, and that of General Richardson that that amount is sufficient; that they have no need for more; and that it is a mistake to let them have more ” Mr Payne: “They have a right to have enough to ©at when fighting for their country.” (Hear, hoar.) Sir James Allen: "Each regiment has a regimental fund, from canteen profits, and so on, and if they have no such fund the Government provides ono; and the sergeant-major’s statement was that for two francs a fortnight they are able to get vegetables, porridge, and other extras not in their rations.” Mr C. J. Parr (Eden): “It is ridiculous! It won’t bear examination.” Sir James Allen: “The sergeantmajor savs that there is no need tor more. So docs General Richardson.’ If he added, a soldier aged twentyone, married a girl of nineteen, he could retain 10s. fid a week for himselt and allot to his wile 24s fid a week, while she would get 21s a week separation allowance, too, making a total of 45s fid a week for a young girl ot nineteen. Mr Payne: “That is one case in a thousand.” Sir James Allen; “There aro hundreds and hundreds of such oases.” _ It Was impossible, he declared, te bring the working man up to tho standard of the . man in tho Second Division League Who had been earning up' to £4OO or £SOO a year. That would bo wrong and unjust, and the Government was not going to do it. Most of the men would have been averaging £3 or £4 a week over tho whole year; eome not that. By their pension scheme the Government had done something for those living in a rather bettor position than that before they wont away; and the increase of financial assistance limit from £2 to £3 a week would do something in the case of the allowances. Though ono would like to do more, the heavy financial responsibilities of the country had to bo considered by the Government and by members; and the standard that had been adopted was that of the fairly well-paid working man. (Hear, hear.) “THE WASTE-PAPER BASKET."

Mr Hornsby: “Do you propose to allow m cun hers to discuss this scheme now, and can we move amendments?” Sir James Allen: “You can discuss it, and you can refer it back to the Government. That is all.” Mr G. Witty (Ricoarton); “Move that it bo printed.” Sir James Allen: “No, there is no need for that.”

.Mr Payne: “Move that it he put in the waste-paper basket.” (Laughter.!

Mr ,T. M. Wilford (Hutt): “Are these draft regulations, and subject to revision?” Sir James Allen: “It is the draft of a special general order. That is the way pr-y and allowances are dealt with. They are subject to revision, but there is no intention to reduce them.” Mr Wilford; “Are we limited to the discussion of this most important matter from seven minutes to 4 till 5.30 only?” Mr Massey: “No. There is no limit The discussion can go on tliis evening if the House desires. I don’t suppose for a minute that it will bo finished by 5.30." The Prime Minister suggested that the debate should he taken in committee, so as to give mem-

hers more latitude and allow more members an opportunity of taking part in the discussion. 1 ‘THINKING OF THE ELECTIONS I” Mr Hornsby moved that, if the debate was held in committee, it should bo reported. (Laughter.) A member: “Thinking of the elections!” (Renewed laughter.) A division was called for by -Mr Hornsby on tho question as to wnether the debate in committee should bo reported. The motion that it should be reported was lost by 42 votes to 21. in reply to a question Mr Massey said that if members wished an alteration in tho pejisions they cdlild only signify this wish by moving that the report bo referred back to tho Gov. ernment.

Sir James Allen said that the Government would gather from tho debate members’ wishes on the question.

MR MILFORD OPENS,

Mr T. M. Wilford said that to his mind this was a very inconvenient way to discuss such proposals. Ho was absolutely disappointed with tho separation allowance for a wife. Tho wife should have the £2 2s apart from what tho husband allotted to her out of his pension. The allowance for children should be further increased. The proposals in regard to a widower’s allowance allowed too many loopholes for escape. A widower who applied for his Is fid per day had to be an invalid, ho had to bo a dependent before ho got his allowance. If he did not answer these full qualifications ho might not get the allowance. The Government’s proposal was absolutely misleading. The Minister should really remodel tho whole of the proposals in regard to the allowances mentioned. Ho would like to move an amendment in this direction if it was necessary, but ho would prefer tho Minister seeing that there was a necessity for amendment to intimate that the Government would reconsider the matter. “MEAGRE AND BEGGARLY PITTANCES.”

Mr J. Payne (Grey Lynn) said it appeared as if the gentlemen who contributed to the war loan to escape income tax were now to benefit at the expense of a soldier's dependents. The Government was proposing that the wife of a soldier should receive the miserable pittance of £1 Is a week. The Government would send the last man, but to get the last shilling appeared as difficult as to get blood out. of a stone. The provision of Is a day for a. child was absolutely ahsurc]. The suggestions of the Second Division League for 10s 6ct a week was surely little enough. The allowances wore meagre and beggarly. AN AMENDMENT MOVED.

Mr Payne moved that the proposed allowances be referred back to _ the Government for the purpose of indicating to them that the House was dissatisfied with the provision of only 2ls a week for a soldier’s wife, the inadequate provision of Is a day for children, and the drastic proposals tor allowances for an invalid fathorMr Payne agreed to hold his amendment over until later in the discussion.

A REFLECTION ON THE COENTRY. Mr J. T. M. Hornsby said it would be waste of time really to discuss the proposed allowances as he could already sense the feeling of the majority of the House. Mr Payne: “You mean they will try to cork us.”

Mr Hornsby said it would boa, reflection upon members and upon the country to say that tho wretched pittances proposed wora all the country could giro. He was not at tho .caucus that morning, but be felt bis own inability to combat the decision arrived at. “THE OPINION OF SOME PAMPERED BRAT.”

Dr Thacker supported the amendment. The House sarw a. Minister who had gone down to welcome Miss Ada Reeve, who bad done so much for the soldiers, and had declared that he loved her—(laughter)—telling the country that lOd a week was suflioent for tho gallant Anzacs. He would be ashamed of himself if such proposals as were now before the House were carried. The Minister had quoted from a letter received from an officer at the front that lOd a week was sufficient for a soldier. This was probahiv some pampered brat, the son of some Now Zealand millionaire, who from his exalted position considered lOd a week quite enough for a soldier. _ He would endeavour to find out this officer’s name and publish it. THE REWARD FOR BRAVERY. Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said that tho Defence Minister in his statement that lOd a week was enough for the soldiers was easting a serious reflection on the soldier. Ho not only said the allowance was sufficient, hut that the men were not to be trusted. These men had put up tho greatest record in the British Empire, and it was proposed to reward them with lOd a week.

Dr Nowman disagreed strongly with the allowances to the soldiers. These men faced danger, they slaved and toiled for tho Empire, and they should be paid for it. THE EFFECT OF A CAUCUS.

Mr McCombs (Lyttelton) said it was quite obvious that the expenditure in connection with tho allowances would not occur in this financial year, but in the next. Sir James Allen said tho Government were providing for thirteen reinforcements from now.

Mr McCombs said the Government should make the regulations entirely retrospective so as to benefit the married men new at the front. The members of tho Second Division League had not "only reason to he dissatisfied with the Government, hut with tho majority of members in regard to the proposals. He had only to look around the House to see the utter indifference of members to the discussion. It was not difficult to find the reason. MR WILFORD QUOTES FIGURES. Mr Wilford said that since ho had spoken last he had examined the -Minister’s figures in reference to the amounts of the allowances. Ho found that the increased amount the Government was giving to the dependents only ran into £127,000, and the increased payments under the proposals to tl-e end of July £353,000. * Ho had taken the Minister’s figures on this matter up to March, when the three, contingents had gone away the total increase would come to £127,000. Previously the Minister had stated that the soldiers and their dependents would mean a liability of £2,032.691 for the year; now the Minister gave it as £1,157,000. These figures did not tally. In reply to a question by Mr Wilford, Sir James Allen stated that, the sergeant-major who had instructed him about soldiers’ allowances was a sol-

0.1 wjio nau. uceu iwtuuj *■“' House. 2klr "VFilford said if t-Tue was so the sergeanUmajor was anything but the “haw haw Johnnie” alleged, but was a native of Wellington who had ocen through the whole campaign, and bad been wounded and gassed. Ho was as straight and honest as one could wish. Mr Poland (Ohinemuri) said that the soldier in question might bo a fine soldier and a man, but this was no argument for giving soldiers the miserable pittance of lOd a week. It was not fair that married men should, on going to the front, have to leave behind 3s a day of their pay for their wives. The allowances for the dependents of the Second Division should be such that they could live in reasonable comfort. Sir James Allen said that the members appeared to be mixed betve > actual payments and the estimate liability. The annual September next -would be _ Sir James added that be bad - said whether lOd a week was -nmeicnt or not for the soldier. He had merely quoted the opinions of men who had been on active service Mr Statham (Dunedin Central) con isldored that a husband fighting at the front should at least hate £1 H * week The allowance for children should be increased from 7s a week to 10s Gd. A compelling force. Mr J. Vigor Brown (Napier) said the Minister had declaimed again again that the country could not increased allowances. _ There was no such word as “can’t.' The Government would have to do it or get out. (Hear hear.) Thousands Oi pounds were being squandered by mismanagement and vet the Government refused to' do justice for the men who were sacrificing their lives at the front. Parliament was only in existence as the custodian of the people s money, and if the people wanted money, then they should get it. lucre v.as no gettin" away from the fact that the Government snould have to give the money. If they did not they should go to the country. If they refused, then they occupied their present position on false pretences. The Government should only have one object in view now, and that was to win the war, but to win it by doing justice to the men fighting for the Dominion and to the dependents of these mea. He could not see hew the child of a widow should receive 10s a week and

the child of a wife whose husband was at the front only 7s. . THE CAUCUS AGAIN. Mr A. H. Hindroarah said it wa* plain that a certain section of the House would silently approve of the proposed allowances. This was due, of course, to the caucus. Many of these members had. sons at the front, and they had taken fine care to see. that these sons were officers. These men would be amply provided for, but how about the poor private and sons of people outside of Parliament P The proposed allowances were not -.sufficient. Mr Leo (Oamnru) failed to see why the children’s allowance should fall short of the pensions scale. It should be 10s weekly. Ho objected to the Government’s idea that the soldier should be responsible for a guinea towards his wife’s support, because ho had little enough for a furlough. At the rate the expenditure was going it would be impossible for either New Zealand or any other countries to stand many more years of war. If Now Zealand's finances could not stand it be would like to know why. Sir John Findlay: “Weren't you at the caucus?” Mr Lee: “No, I .was not. This is the place whore we should hear about it There Iras been a studied silence among Ministers.” A NOTE OF WARNING. Sir John Findlay said those who had attended the caucus that morning had an opportunity of hearing from the Government a free and full statement as to the ability of the Government to meet its claims. If the assurances members bad received that morning were true, then no greater evidence of lack of confidence in the Government could be found, than for those members to vote against the Government’s proposed allowances. A member: “The statement might have been the result of an error of judgment.” Sir John continued that as one of ihcse who were present at the caucus ho was convinced in at- the Government had stretched their finaecs as far as possible, and that any further step might jeopardise the safety of the Dominion. They had been assured that the breaking-point had been reached, and that unless financial prudence was exercised disaster threatened the country. He was sure tliat there was not • e. member present but must have been convinced by the statements - made. Members were In h-nour bound by the

resolution passed. It iv.is necessary, said Sir John, to hare such secret con.-foren'-’s. It did not indicate nnyth’.ng n'a rciin';, and members wore not alarmed that m.orrdn;'. hut worn non-viru-cd that the Government had gone ns far as public safety would permit. Mr L. M. Isitfc (Christchurch North) said that very silly sneers were being thrown about, hints that mouthers were being dragooned. 'What influence was keeping the House silent? The popular vote-catching cry was on the other side. His attitude had been changed through the assurances cf four responsible Ministers that the Government had already gone as far as it could go. That it had, in fact, gone further than the finances warranted. KIR JOSEPH WEIRD AND THE CAUCUS. Sir Joseph Ward said that Cabinet had 1 carefully considered the matter with an anxious desire to go farther, but they feared to do so in view of tho financial position of the country. At tho caucus mooting time morning each of the Ministers had told hon. members that; and ho had stated to them a groat deal more than ho could say in tho House that evening, (Hoar, hoar.) The Second Division League was not playing tho game. If the Government bad to be driven at tho bayonet’s point by tho men of tho Second Division League, then _ the? would have to tell the Second Division to stay hero. (Hear, hear.) They could not do what some hon. members were urging with absolute indifference upon the House —hon. members who had not got the responsibility. Mr Piayne: “You get out, and give it to me.” (Laughter.) Sir Joseph Ward said that ton. members said that tho allowances did not moan an annual payment that it only meant finding further borrowed millions, which cost only £60,000 a year per million. Did not hon. members realise that they had to got twenty-eight millions of loan money in New Zealand this year? Mr Payne: “Tell us something wo don’t know I” Sir Joseph Ward: “Yet hon. members said in a light-hearted way, ‘You have only got to barrow another million or two millions.' ” But, added the Finance Minister, hon. members knew that if the Government was not very careful in the amount they proposed to borrow tiboy might create a condition, he would not say of alarm, but a condition that would bo very serious for the country. “POPULARITY SEEKING.”,

Happily, the people ■ had sufficient confidence in tile Government to know that they were not going to run tho country into danger, to please hon. members who, if not seeking popularity, wore still trying to put tho Government in a .very difficult position. Dad the hon. member for Oaimam know, when he' said 10s per child should .be given, that the Government had already stretched right out to the extreme limit what they felt able to do before they submitted their proposals at all? Yet hon. members had asked for another million or two millions! ■'Whom the Government provided £300,000 for old ago pensions, hbn. members voted against the £99,000 of revenue from the ten duty, which would never have been proposed but for the increase of pensions, He Government having already gone to the maximum amount for land tax and income tax. If the Government were to agree to hon. members’ proposals, hon. members wore in duty bound to give tho Government first tho taxation to boar it. (Hear, hoar.) Mr Payne: “What arc they ashing for ?”

Sir Joseph Ward said that, in round figures, tho Second Division League were asking for just a million more than the Government had provided. Mr Payne: “What does it moan in taxation P” Mr Malcolm asked that tho Minister be allowed to proceed without interruption. COUNTRY’S TAX BURDEN.

■Sir Joseph Ward stated that tho revenue, due to war taxation chiefly, was Up to 17i to 18 millions. Prior to the war they were never within three or four millions, probably five millions, of that amount. Did they think that after tho war the country could maintain that revenue, or that they could carry, on tiro ordinary industry and the businesses, small as well as largo, of the Dominion, unless they could make a groat reduction in tho imposts they were bearing? If they put tho pensions up .too.high, he warned them, they would have men standing in different parts of the country advocating a reduction of pensions. In tho history of tho country the whole of tho pensions system had been once already swept out of existence. Mr Payne: ‘That will never happen again.” Sir Joseph Ward declared that the House would not give them the necessary taxation for the increases demanded. They could only got tho money in three ways —by an export tax, by a poll tax, or by increased Customs duties. If they attempted to get it by an export tax they would have to reduce the high income tax on the producers by £500,000 or £600,000 ; and that would mean a very heavy export tax indeed. Ho for one was not prepared to put a poll tax on tho people. They were driven right down, therefore, to Customs taxes, whether they liked it or not, for £400,000 or £500,000 a year; and he, for one, did not like it, because it must mean taxes on food. Surely members did not want to get under the lee of the Government and say, “Wo have done this because tho Government saiu bo!” Why could they not go and educate their constituents, and tell them what the financial position was? Those who were at the caucus that morning knew that as a result of the loan an enormous sum had been drawn from the Government Savings Bank, which was one of tho sources that they ordinarily depended upon for loans to local bodies and to settlers. BORROWING TO PAY TAXES.

MrWilford; “Individuals have had to mortgage their futures to subscribe to the loan.”

Sir Joseph Ward: “And hundreds of people are borrowing money to pay their taxes to allow the war to be carried on. We shall have to borrow 38 millions this year, and will have to borrow much more if the war goes over this financial year.”

LOYAL TO DISLOYAL COLLEAG'u Lit Mr Witty said tKafc every member who had heard the hon. gentleman’s speech must admire his loyalty to the rest of Cabinet. Ho was loyal to the backbone, find ho was the man who had to hear the burden. He had to find the money. But the men who spent the money—the spendthrifts—-

were not as loyal to him. (Hear, hear.) How long,'ho asked, were the allowances going ,to last - ?. Only during the war. Two or three months, perhaps. Probably they would never have to be- given at all. (Hear, hoar.) These demands would never have boon made tho position would never have arisen, had not the hon. gentleman in the cha.r (Sir James Allen) and others promised such- a-largo number of- men Old Country. ■ (Hear,-'hear.) - - ' Mr Massey ; “That is a wrong thing to say!” (Hear, hear.).- -■ . . Mr Witty fcaid that he- had said it both in the House, and outside,-and howould say it again-; 7 (Hear, hear.) lhey had promised iar too many men to the Old Country; (hear, hear.) Dr Thacker; “That, is so.” . ... Mr Witty: “And, we .'.have allowed far ton many men to. shuffle out of it. Wo should have sent every toy soldier and every single man who was ntto go before calling on trie marriedmen. The Second Division -men- wore asking too much, ho said.--- They wore not playing tho game. Ho was with tho Minister there, and only too ifilad; to help him. . 7 7 ' , T Mr Massey said that ho could not allow to pass unchallenged the lion, member's statement that the Minister for Defence had been .responsible' tou sending far too many . men and . ter wasting millions. The hon. .member know better than-that. . Mr Witty: “No. I don’t.” mm. . PRIME MINISTER INDIGNANT.

Mr Massey: “i.ac.n .Lo. ought to know better than'that. Is it nop a fact that at the beginning of the war people all over the country were tdaraoxiring few* more men sent. . A member; “And .the press.” (Hoar, hear.) „ , £ • Mr Payne: ‘ ‘They were all hysterical except tho Labour men.” Mr Massey: “Because of tho refusal of the Defence Minister to take them, many of our boys went to Australia and to England, and enlisted there.” The war had. already cost the country very Little short of forty millions sterling, and ho maintained that hon. members were not treating the Government fairly, honestly, nor generously. They were carrying a burden such as had been put on ti.D shoulders of very few Governments jri any country. Things had been "said in the caucus that morning that could not be repeated in the House, because they would be reported all over the country. He did not say that to alarm, the people. He thought that there; was no need for alarm. ’ But, if they wont too far now, cither in men or, finattoi aTly, they might * hot bo • able ,to - do what wa.s right either in 7 cenncctdon with reinforcements or financially. Ho behoved, however-, that witbrcaiutiou and common-sense they could get through tho crisis without,, danger-,-but it was not fair to come along arid ask them- to incur a further expense, of a; million pounds, beyond their proposals.

SUGGESTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT. ■ . ■ .

Mr J. Anstcy (Wadtaki) said Hie attended the caucus, and did not-agree with the statement of - Sir John Find l lay that every member present was in honour bound to support tho allowances 'of tho.-Government; 1 ' Bjr avoiding the great 'waste ho knew -was going on in the’ Defence Department he was sure that the allowance for soldiers’ childrori could ho increased from 7s 6d to 10s a week. Mr Brown said‘tho Notional Government was - '"shirking; its ditty; “Why. should not a special tax he placed on non-combatants? There were -eighty, members in the House; surely thl'-y would not complain: of-A special -"tax?Thero w-0re;.,.50,000 noit-eo-mbtataiiis m Now Zealand. They would not object to a tax of £1 a year each.- 7 - Dr Thacker, suggested - a special- tax on the picture film merchants. By taxing the 7 film ate 3d a' foot ' £IOOO could bo brOnglit' in, ' every week 1 and over £50,000-a year,): TEDIOtJS, REPETITION.

At five minutes .to 12 the Chairman of Committees . stated, with ■ reference to a speech by Mr Paynej-.-that, certain arguments had - been- repeated, so,, often that it had become,-tedious repetition; 7

That applied in particular to the statements about the caucus.

Mr Webb: “It is a case of ‘cork us.’(Laughter.) Mr Bayne said that while they were asking for only £60,000 a year, tho Finance Minister, by means cf a securities tax, could retrieve- his blunder of exempting tho war bonds from income tax and get some £600,060. On a division being taken, Mr Payne’s amendment was defeated by 41 votes to 13. FOR. THE AMENDMENT 13. Anscey Statham Brown Tracker ■■Jtictcher \ ditch Hornsby . Walker -McCombs Vvillord i’a.vno Witty Poland AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. 41. ■ Alien Massey Anderson Myers ■ Bollard Newman. E. Buddo Ngufa . Buick Nosworthy "'Craigio Okcv ■ Dickson, J. M. Parr Field, T. A. H. Pcarco Field, W. H. Poole Fraser Rhodes, E. H. ; -.Glover Rhodes, T. IV. ~ .Guthrie Russell . ' Parian Scott Harris Smith. G. H. .-. Herdman Talbot .Herries Thomson Hunter ■ Ward b .'leanings Wilkinson McCallum Wright MacDonald Young Mander PAIRS. For —Webb and Hindmarsh. Against—Findlay and Colvin. Tho resolution was carried on the voices,’ and at 12.15 p.m. the House adjourned till 2.30 this afternoon.