GOVERNMENT SURVIVES TEST

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 812, 5 November 1929, Page 10

GOVERNMENT SURVIVES TEST

Fight on Civil Service Salary “Cut” LABOUR SEEKS RESTORATION Two Reformers Act Alone THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. Monday. RUMOURS of a Labour motion on the subject of the Civil Service cuts and their restoration had members of the Government Party particularly interested this morning. The g-alleries were filled and some at least of those on the Ministerial benches were looking rather perturbed. Although the Leader of the Labour Party said that there was no need for his amendment to be taken as a no-confidence motion, the Leader of the House, the Hon. G. W. Forbes, insisted on doing so. Reform dispelled the clouds of doubt when it came to The time for the division, at about 10.20 this evening. With Mr. Samuel and Mr. Wright as the only exceptions, Reform voted with the Government and another sham political fight was over, the voting being 49 to 20 against Mr. Holland s motion.

Mr. Holland’s motion was: "That this House regrets the failure |of the present Government to make provision lor improving the salaries of the public servants, the great majority of whom have suffered considerable hardship owing to the unjust levy that was made on them in 1922, when the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act was passed; and that this House recommends to the Government that an overhaul of the salary schedules be commenced forthwith. “That immediate provision be made this year for a 5 per cent, increase in the maxima of schedule scales up to £295, and also inclusive of stationary wages of railways servants and others; that a minimum adult wage for all branches of the service be established, and that all schedule scales be dealt with during the next financial year, with the object of providing an adequate living standard for all servants of the State. ' “Futhermore, that the House recommends that to obtain the necessary additional revenue to meet the foregoing proposals a super-tax be imposed on all incomes of £I,OOO and Mr. Forbes said the motion dealt with a very important subject and the Government have to take it as a vote of no-confidence, if carried. He would like to ask to have the matter dealt with forthwith. He did not want to waste time. The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, thought Mr. Forbes was treating the matter rather lightly. The better course would be to allow the motion to go forward, and be dealt with at the stage when it came up on the order-paper. There was no need to rush and this course would suit the convenience of mem- i bers. Mr. Forbes repeated that the question should be dealt with at once. It had been under discussion for a long time and should be cleared up straight away. If the Opposition objected it could be postponed. Mr. Coates: I have no objection at all. The House agreed to immediate discussion. EARLIER DIVISIONS QUOTED In moving the motion Mr. Holland said that he would have preferred the Government not to take it as a vote of no-confidence but as a recommendation. However, Mr. Forbes’s announcement left him no course but to go ahead. During the past seven years Labour had consistently fought the “cuts.” Earlier in the session, Mr. Holland said, he had moved an amendment to the same effect but had held it over in view of the promised statement by the Prime Minister. Since then the statement of the Prime Minister had been made, and there was a clear indication that nothing would be done as far as this year was concerned. He went on to review briefly the position from 1922 upward. He quoted the division lists during the passing of the PublicExpenditure Adjustment Act, and said that certain members now on the Opposition benches, Messrs. R. A. Wright, J. A. Young (Hamilton) and G. R. Sykes (Masterton) had voted with Labpur on several occasions. It should be easy for members of the United Party to fall in with Labour now'. On many occasions occupants of the United Party benches had voted with Labour, and eight of the Cabinet Ministers had done so. It was very interesting to find, on August 30, 1925, Mr. Forbes supporting Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) in an amendment concerning the “cuts.” Members of the Government had promised that if they were. in power the “cuts” would be restored.

Mr. Holland regretted that Sir Joseph Ward was not in the House to discuss the subject. There had again been a statement that the time was inopportune for adjustment, just as the Reform Party had said for the last eight or nine years. The concern of the Labour Party was for those receiving below £3OO who had been levied by tho Reform Party in the interests of the large land owners. The motion was seconded by Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West). Mr. Forbes said that he wanted to deal with the position as it was at present. A number of deputations had w r aited on the Prime Minister representing various branches of the public service, and a statement had been issued in regard to their representations. In that statement Sir Joseph Ward had said that he had asked the heads of the various departments of the State to report on the requests. These men’s views had been given. HEAVY ADDITIONAL BURDEN Regarding Mr. Holland’s remarks about his supporting the amendment moved by Mr. McCombs, Mr. Forbes said that he did not depart one jot from his former attitude. He had been led to believe then, by utterances of Mr. Coates and the Ministers, that the country was in a flourishing condition, and that we had turned the corner. He was in favour of the increases if the financial position of the country warranted it, but tms year had been a phenomenal one from the point of view of finance. It had been found that the money was not available. If the motion were carried a very heavy additional burden would be placed on the taxpayer. Although one means of raising revenue was suggested the amount required to bring about a five per cent, increase in the maxima w r ould be £346,826, and with temporary employees included a further £500,000 would be needed. Mr. Holland was evidently borrowing the arguments of Reform in suggesting a tax on income. Mr. Coates asked to whom Mr. Forbes referred and Mr. Forbes replied no one specifically, but he was referring generally to the arguments raised in the Land Tax debate. Here he was called to order for reference to a past debate. ’l’m not allowed to answer,” he gravely assured Mr. Coates, amid laughter. He spoke of the possible crippling effect on industry nf addition* l taxation as proposed. The Primo Minister, however, had authorised him

to state that if revenue for this year exceeded the estimates, and there vvas a surplus, the Government was prepared to go into the question, and meet, in some way, the requests regarding the lower paid public servants. Mr. Savage said that it was interesting to hear Mr. Forbes's statement and to wonder where he got his figures from. He had had a good deal to do with the question of the restoration of the cuts and would say that not one-fourth of the amount mentioned would be involved. The Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford: The Treasury gives the figures regarding 5 per cent. Mr. Savage said that it was plain the Treasury had not seen the motion before the House. Mr. Wilford said that the Treasury had been asked to give figures regarding the salaries up to £295. FIGURES CHALLENGED The idea of the Labour Party, said Mr. Savage, was to make the increases available to those who could not advance further. Those responsible for getting out Mr. Forbes’s figures would have to calculate again, and they would find in these circumstances not one-quarter of £500,000 would be involved. He said there was one bright speck in Mr. Forbes’s speech, and that was regarding review at the end of the year and the promise of increase in the event of a surplus. He referred to the action of the late Mr. Massey, when Prime Minister, in making the “cuts,” and then bringing down the Land and Income-Tax Bill making remissions amounting to £929,100. It seemed to Mr. Savage that the “cuts” were made to give the remission. Mr. Savage said that income-tax had shrunk over half. Here was a glorious opportunity for Reform to put its principles regarding taxing incomes into operation. Mr. Samuel; We’re with ion. Mr. Savage: You're with us. I’m glad. We’ll see when the division bells ring. Mr. Lysnar: He's speaking for himself. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) objected strongly to the use of the names of four heads of the departments in a political controversy. The action of the Government in this respect was unjustifiable. He regretted that he had found that the heads of departments considered their own salaries not high enough and , the low-paid men’s wages more thah sufficient. It moved him to think of the price paid for Mr. H. H. Sterling’s services, and to read his calm, judicial report, and then think that many men in his department were struggling on four pounds a week. Also is moved him to think of the secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department and of nightmessengers in the post office at Wellington, returned soldiers, some of them, who were getting £ 3 6s a week. “The whole question rested with the Government and it would be better for the Government to risk a deficit and do something for the civil servants.” “AN ARRANGEMENT” Mr. Samuel was of the opinion that it was a pity the Government had de eided to accept the amendment as a no-confidence motion. An arrangement 4|vidently had been come to by the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Labour Party in bringing the motion forward. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): You have no right to say that. Mr. Samuel challenged the Leader of the Government to make a statement to the contrary. Mr. Savage: Anyone could make a statement to the contrary. Mr. Samuel: Yes, they could. Mr. Savage: And it would be as true as yours. Mr. Speaker called for order. After a little more cross-talk. Mr. Samuel said that the Labour Partv had staged a little comedy to forestall Reform. Mr. Fraser: Vote for the motion. Mr. Samuel: I intend to vote for it. I have made my position perfectlv clear on former occasions. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs) Don’t cry, then. (Laughter.) Mr. Samuel was confident that the Government would be voted out when the division was taken. He felt sorrv fo.r the United Party. Mr. Parry: Why 'should you” Mr. Samuel: After sitting here amicably— (laughter)—for four months, none of us is looking for a fight, but since it has been forced upon us we are quite willing to put the gloves on and fight to a finish. Mr. Samuel issued another challenge to Mr. Forbes to make a statement ° n thG SUbject of the arrangew?*r; , Parry: Toi > know he can’t What do you know? (Laughter.) Mr Samuel: We have had several comedies this session. This i* other. ‘ Mr H. E. Holland- But this is i tragedy. B a Mr. Samuel claimed that he was not advocating increases in the salaries th° higher-paid officers, but nf' the lower-paid officers, who were certain c entitled to some advance. 1 ' Mr .Parry sailed into Mr. Samuel He characterised his speech as a tvffi cal manifestation of the his mentalitv. He asked Mr- «° n , a p l arty a ' mUe ' : * am not the leade f »f Mr. Parry: Xo, and you are not fol lowing your leader now Mr. Coates: How do you know’ Mr. Parry had noticed that Mr Samuel had been absent on various important divisions 'auous Mr'' Pa?rv eI: Tr T " at is verv unfair. „ J ‘ It: ls v «ry fair Mr. Samuel: Give an instance from' 9aid „ that ” *’*, evident Horn Mr. bamuel s speech j n u;op 1 1 { n + 1 . on ; Mr. Samuel was the scientific political acrobat of the Reform PaViv He concluded by strongly deprecaUnt ° £ *" ™ g emem b " e ! Th.ru aad the United Part. The Labour Party seems to be trepidation at the consequent., of mntmn. said Mr. R. Wright t \v«n ington Suburbs;. As far as lie could

see. each member had been bee the Government to try to do « R * thing to prevent the division taken, but appealing to the Gov. 1 ' 1 * ment with a pistol at its bead hardly likely to bring it round to h!* Labour Party’s way of thiksi * (Hear, hear.) The Labour Party nfuJf (Hear, hear.) y Mr. Holland. Mr. "Wright thourk was under the impression that hmotion would go on the order paner ■ the ordinary way and would have hp called upon later on at the Gov?!'’ ment’s pleasure. The greatest prise had been shown by Mr. Holla when Mr. Eorbes announced that tt motion would be regarded as cruel * and would be gone on with imiuMately. He regretted that the tnoti? bad been declared one of no-confiden a a it placed a number of members * an awkward position. If it were C ar ried the Government would resign ann there was a possibility of the Labcn Party coming into power. Although number of Reform members would fit* to see justice done to the civil servant they were not prepared to vote to om the Labour Party on the Treasure benches. Mr. Wright concluded by saving tha* according to his principles, he had v option but to vote for the amendment reserving the right to oppose the i P come surtax. After the tea adjournment Mr. c I* MacMillan (Tauranga) indicated tha he would vote with Labour and Mr t A. Nash (Palmerston) would not v o r« for the amendment as Labour wou’h thereby be placed on the Treasure benches. MR. COATES SUGGESTS INCREASE Tho Leader of the Opposition. Mr Coates, suggested to the Government that it should consider an increase r £lO, say, for men at the top of thf £295 grade and below*. He thought in respect to costs increases, that they would be greater than the Governmer estimate of £346.000. To give effcr to the £lO increase suggested wouto involve £17.000 for men on the £2?:. mark. £16,000 for those between £26' and £240. and £29,000 for all other grades below those. The question %»-?* whether the Government could jnstif' expenditure to the country and st&ivj the overhead costs. Mr. Coates tc gretted that the six months’ revenue and exnenditure figures had not been made available to the House, for xvfih those judgment of the position could be arrived at very quickly. m : Coates went on to characterise th* motion as a work of collusion betwee llie Labour and United Parties- ari drew a denial from Mr. Forbes. Mr Coates said that he had thought ov*r the position very carefully, and though! he saw a nigger in the woodpile. Rf was glad to know* it was not so. Mr. Fraser: Apologise to the nigger (Laughter.) Mr. Coates said that the men wer * entitled to an increase, but increase could only be considered from tha point Of overhead expenses and cost' Mr. .T. McCombs (Lyttelton): What was the surplus in 1921—£6,000,00*" There was no need for “cuts” then Replying to Mr. Coates the Minister of Education, the Hon. H. Atmorr maintained that no party in office at the present time could find money t« restore the “cut.” Mr. Forbes had said that the Government at the en-1 of the year would review the position and if the finances were satisfactory would make the adjustment retrospective. No one could g<> farther than that. Air. Forbes had also said that £346.893 would bf necessary to make a 5 per cent, increase this year. Annual salary increases had been granted to the extent of £250,055, and of this amount £185,791 had gone to men on the £295 mark and less. It was a financial impossibility to pay out of the coffers what was not in. Labour had pointed out, in its motion, that it would be necessary to put a steeplygraded super-tax on incomes. Air. G. R. Sykes (Masterton) was in sympathy with the Labour motion, but he was not prepared to vote for an increase in taxation. He preferred in the event of the Labour Party gaining office, to vote with the deri! he knew rather than the devil he did not, and therefore he would vote with the United Party. REFORM'S AMENDMENT Next Air. J. A. Young (Hamilton' moved as an amendment that this House recommends the Government t» expedite the statutory reclassification of salaries of employees of the State in the several departments, as each such reclassification is due. and further recommends that the Government mak'' a specific inquiry into the question of the minimum adult wage paid to its employees, with a view* to placing lowpaid wage-earners on a fair and equitable basis and restoring, as far as i : practicable, the rate loss made by tho?'' receiving a salary not exceeding £29!* per annum.” Speaking to the amendment Mr. Forbes said that the salary bill of thf State had been added to this year by the ordinary scale increase b v £250,000. If the Labour motion were carried into effect over £ooo,P f "’ would be necessary, which was a hi? bill for any country. Air. Forbes asked if members though the Government had increased taxation in its first year in office just for fun He read Air. Young’s amendment, and said the Government was agreeable to expediting reclassification. Mi*. Armstrong, referring to tb* amendment; Was that agreed on bv both parties? Air. Forbes indignantly denied tlu 5 and said that there had been no agreement on any motion in the chamber When he heard Air. Holland’s motion he had no figures or note” use in reply to it. It was ridiculoi* to say that the Government would l* guilty of collusion fn a vote of ncconfidence. (Laughter.) Air. Holland’s motion was w* l by 49 votes to 20, Air. Samuel ani Mr. Wright, of the Reform party, 'OtiflS with Labour. The division list is as follow*: — AYES—2O Armstrong Martin , Barnard Mason Carr Alunro Chapman O'Brien Fraser Parry Holland, H. E. Samuel Howard Savage Jordan Sempl* McCombs Sullivan AfcKeen Wright NOES—49 An sell Lvsnar Atmore McDonald Bitehener McDougall Black Macmillan Bodkin Alacpherson Broad foot. Makitanara <*linkard Massev Coates Munns Cobbe Murdoch de la Perrelle Nash Dickie Xgrata Field Ransom Fletcher Rush worth Forbes Smith Hall Siallw-T’hy Hamilton Stewart Harris s- k°. Healv Taverner Henarc Veitch Hogan Waite Holland, H. Wilford Jenkins Wilkinson Jones Williams Linklater Young Lye .. r ; e& Mr. Young’s amendment was ca| ‘ t on the voices, and the House roll p.m.