RETRENCHMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 January 1922, Page 5

RETRENCHMENT.

BILL AGAIN IN HOUSE. • ( LITTLE , PROGRESS MADE. SOME AMENDMENTS REJECTED. ONE CLOSE DIVISION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House sat in committee to-night on the Public Expenditure Amendment Bill.

On clause 2 Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) moved an amendment to delete the word “all” in paragraph H, which at present reads: “All persons employed in the service within the meaning of part 11. of the Public Service Classification and Superannuation Act, 1908 (whether permanently so employed or not)”; to delete the word “all” from paragraph J, which reads: “All employers of the Railway Department”; to delete the words “any other person” and substitute the words “other persons” in paragraph K, which reads: “Any other person in receipt of remuneration from the Consolidated Fund, or from grants made from the Consolidated Fund to whom this Act may be applied by the Minister of Finance, not being a person exempted from the operation of this Act by the next succeeding section”; and by fidding the following proviso: “Provided that this Act shall not apply so as to reduce any salary below £450”; and to delete the word “all” in paragraph I, which reads: “All persons employed in the education service, within the meaning of part I of the Public Service Classification and Superannuation Act, 1908 (whether permanently employed or not).” Mr. Holland contended that ’the proposed cut in wages would have the effect of lowering the standard of life among the lower paid sections of the public service as compared with 1914. Mr. Massey replied that two bonuses, of £45 and £5O, had been paid to the public service since 1914 and it was , only proposed to take away half of this—the secorid bonus —so it could not be said the Bill would reduce the standard of life. It was impossible to increase taxation to meet the situation and they could not reduce taxation until they reduced expenditure.

RAILWAYMEN’S OFFER. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) said the railwaymen’s executive had made a generous offer to accept a shilling a day less wages, but the Prime Minister refused this. Mr. Veitch said this might produce most serious results and involve the country in very heavy expenditure. He understood the railwaymen had already been notified to prepare for a strike ballot. Mr. T. M. Wilford. said he did not favor the £450 limit,, but would vote against any cut affecting salaries under £320. After that the cut should be made on a gradual scale, as was done in the matter of income tax. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton), while opposed to any cut at all, said if it must be made it should be done as Mr. Wilford suggested, on incomes over £450 on a graduated scale. He contended the state of the country’s finances did not warrant anv reduction. The Hon. C. J. Parr said Mr. Holland’s amendment would mean that out of fifty-one thousand people in the State service only 1440 receiving £450 or over would be called upon to make any sacrifice. These received £809,000 per annum out of £9.250,000 paid to State employees, and the most ruthless cut thereon could not save more than about £150,000.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) contended that instead of asking the whole of the people to contribute to the needs of the Government in proportion to their incomes the proposed to penalise a section of the people in the State’s employ. The Bill proposed greater proportionate inroads on lower paid men than on higher grades. AMENDMENT DEFEATED. Mr. A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa) said that unless a drastic reduction of expenditure was brought about the country would soon be reduced to the position now reached in New South Wales, where thousands of men were out of work with no wages at all. Mr. E. Dixon (Patea) thought single men and women should be called upon to make a greater sacrifice than married men.

Between eleven o’clock and 12.30, Labor members, in a series of speeches, continued to contend that retrenchment should not apply to salaries below £450 in course of~which they were in frequent conflict with the chairman, who had some difficulty in keeping them to the question of Mr. Holland’s amendment. At 12.40 am. a division was taken on the first section of Mr. Holland’s amendment, which was lost by 40 votes to 29. There then followed a series of divisions on other portions of the amendment, with practically the same result. A CLOSE DIVISION. On the question that the Act shall not apply so as to reduce any salary below £450 the voting was ten for and sixty against. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington .South) then moved that the’ Act shall not apply to salaries below £320. This was lost by 42 votes to 27. Mr. Fraser then moved that the Act shall not apply to salaries below £250. This was lost by 37 votes to 33. The Premier then moved an amendment, the effect of which'is to give officers and enginemen of the railway department an opportunity of negotiating to accept some arrangement other than a reduction of wages. Following is the division list on Mr. Fraser’s amendment:

For the amendment (33) —Atmore, Bartram. Craigie. .1. M. Dickson, Edie, Forbes, Fraser. Hanan, Holland, Horn. Howard, Kellett. McCombs’. Mackenzie, Masters. Mitchel 1 ., Dr. Newman, Ngata, Parry, Poland. Savage. Seddon, Sidey, K. W- Smith, S. G. Smith, Statham, Sullivan, Sykes, Veitch, Wilford, Witty, Wright, Young. Against the amendment (■>< ) Div chener, Bollard, Burnett, Campbell, Coates, J. S. Dickson, Dixon, Field, Glenn. Guthrie. J. R. Hamilton, A. Hamilton, [ Harris, Hawken, Henare, Berries. Hoekley, Hudson Hunter, .Jones, Lee, Luke, Lysnar, McLeod MeNieoll, Mender.' Massey, Nash, E. Newman, Nosworthy. Parr, Pomare. Reed, Sir H. Rhodes. Rhodes. Stewart, Wil- > UUM. (Left sitting)*

PROTESTS AT REDUCTIONS.

MEETINGS OF CIVIL SERVANTS, Protests against the proposed reduction in salaries continue to be made by civil servants. At Wanganui last night a meeting attended by about 500 passed a resolution of protest. The meeting pledged itself to support its respective executives in any action deemed necessary. At Masterton a meeting comprising 200 civil servants, representing every Government department and all parts of th Wairarapa, and a number of the general public, passed a resolution emphatically protesting against the proposed salary reductions and calling on local members of Parliament to oppose the Bill.

At Greymouth a similar resolution was passed, and it was decided to call upon West Coast M.P.’s to oppose the* proposals.

Palmerston North also held a protest meeting and guaranteed support to the executive.

At a mass meeting of civil servants largely attended, at Christchurch the retrenchment proposals were condemned, and a resolution in the same terms as the recent Wellington resolution was carried unanimously.

i v RAILWAYMEN’S ATTITUDE.

MEETING AT AUCKLAND. STRONG TERMS OF PROTEST.* Auckland, Last Night. The Railway Officers’ Institute resolved: "That as the employers of the Department had nothing to do with creating the financial difficulties of the Government they fail to see why their salaries and wages should be commandeered for extricating the Government; that the railways were constructed for the most part for political and colonising purposes and that many lines were laid, the construction of which a business concern would not have entertained for a moment. To expect the railways to pay an adequate return for the capital expended under such circumstances is unreasonable and attempts to do so resulted in the charges to the public being unduly raised to the detriment of railway business. Whilst assuring the executive of the confidence and loyal slipport the time has arrived when immediate negotiations should be opened with the other two railway societies and other civil service organisations with a view to unitedly combating on common ground the Government’s unreasonable proposals,”

PREMIER’S AMENDMENTS. CONCESSIONS TO LOWER SALARIES. THE RAILWAY SERVICE. (Ffom Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Jan. 25. An order-paper containing amendments proposed by the Prime Minister in the Retrenchment Bill was circulated after the House of Representatives rose this morning. It contained several proposals that had not been mentioned by Mr. Massey when he was explaining his intentions to the House.

The original Bill proposed that in the cases of persons paid less than £BOO a year, the first reduction should be £l5 per annum, increased by £5 where the rate of salary exceeded £320 and by a further £5 where the rate of salary exceeded £5OO. -The amendments provide that the reduction shall be £lO in the case of persons receiving not more than £l9O. The other rates remain. A corresponding alteration is proposed to be made in the wages of persons paid on an hourly or daily rate. The reduction will be 4d a day in the case of persons paid not more than £l9O a year, increased by 4d up to £320 and by a further 4d if the wages exceeded £320. The second cut, to be made not earlier than July 1, 1922, is not to exceed £5 in the ease of persons receiving not more than £l9O a year, and is not to exceed £l5 in all other cases. The third cut, to be made not earlier than January 1, 1923, is not to exceed £lO. A provision is inserted that in the case of persons receiving not more than £lOO a year, the aggregate reductions are not to exceed £l5 a year. A new clause relating to the railwaymen provides that they may affect their reduction by agreement with the Minister for Railways, instead of under the proposals of the Bill, provided that the aggregate reduction is as great as proposed in the Bill.