DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 January 1922, Page 5

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

MANY CLAUSES CHALLENGED. SERIES OF DIVISIONS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The debate on the Public Expenditure Adjustment Bill was resumed in the House in committee to-day. Clause seven, providing for further reductions being made in certain cases in April and July next, was deleted on the Prime Minister’s motion, with a view to inserting a new clause. On clause eight, dealing with the rates of reductions in teachers’ salaries, Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) moved an amendment providing that regulations giving effect to such reductions should not apply until approved by Parliament. Mr. Howard contended that it was desirable to end the day of government by regulation.

The Minister said the proposals could not be brought before the House, as they could not be prepared in time; therefore applies* tion through the medium of regulations was necessary'. The Prime Minister agreed that a review of the proposals by Parliament was desirable, but he pointed out that it could not be done in this financial year, which was nearly at an end. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) said the Minister of Education had already antagonised all branches of 'the teaching service, and to give him this authority to make reductions in salaries by regulation was to give him most dangerous power in his hands, as it was likely to provoke serious revolt throughout the teaching service. TEACHERS TO BE CONSULTED. The Minister pointed out that the administration of the department could not be carried out in detail by statute. There were twenty-six different grades or classes of teachers, each of which required special consideration. Further, a start could not be made with the framing of the regulations until the department knew what amount of money the House allowed for distribution. As soon as that was known the details of the salary reductions would Legin, and the teachers’ own representatives would be consulted, so as to arrive at a method of distribution as equitable as possible. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) suggeste.l that whatever arrangement was made on this occasion should not be subject to further revision until placed before Parliament.

The amendment was defeated by 43 votes to 24.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said a division had been taken on an amendment which was designed to make the best of a bad job. He now proposed to test the feeling of the committee on the whole clause, which, he contended, would be vicious in its application, and likely to lead to grave injustice. The clause was retained by 42 votes fo 26. Clause nine, providing that reductions shall not operate in such a manner as to bring any public servants’ remuneration below that received by a subordinate,- was retained unchallenged. Clause ten, covering reduced grants to education boards and university authorities, was subjected to lengthy criticism, but was retained by 48 votes to 21. QUESTION OF PENSIONS. On clause eleven, saving the rights of contributors to superannuation funds, Mr. Veitch moved an amendment making the clause apply only to persons in receipt of less than £450 a year. He said the superannuation funds required careful conserving, and he thought the higher paid officials would receive a sufficient pension even on a scale in accordance with the proposed reductions in salaries, and they should not be allowed to become a burden on the fund to which they only contributed on a higher scale for a short timfit

The Hon. W T . D. Stewart said Mr Veitch’s amendment would work an injustice on the higher paid service men if they we- t deprived of the option to pay on a higher scale during the balance of their service in order to secure the full pension benefit to which they had been contributing all ’ along. The Prime Minister said the matter had not been finally dealt with, pnd the Government actuary was being asked to go into it further. The amendment was lost on the voices. Clause eleven was passed on the voices. On clause twelve the Prime Minister moved to add sub-clause two, stating: “All rates of salaries and wages, which by any scheme of classification are appropriate to any position or office, shall be deemed to be reduced by the amount of any reduction effected by this Act in the rate of remuneration of any person holding such position or office.” Mr. Veitch urged that the Bill should not be allowed to affect overtime rates paid to railwaymen. The Minister of Railways (Hon. D. H. Guthrie) said the Bill did not propose to interfere with overtime. The sub-clause was carried by 55 votes to 13. On clause 13, computation of rates of reduction of salary, Mr. Howard moved an amendment that the regulations shall not have effect unless approved by Parliament. Mr. Massey said this would hang the Bill up indefinitely, and the amendment was defeated by 45 votes to 13. On clause fourteen, giving the GovernorGeneral power to make regulations, Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) moved to make the clause applicable only after approval by Parliament. This was lost on the voices. SUBSEQUENT REDUCTIONS. The Prime Minister moved a new subclausc to clause eleven, safeguarding the interests of those public servants who do not elect to contribute to the superannuation fund on the higher scale when their salaries are reduced. This was adopted on the voices. The Prime Minister moved a new clause seven, providing that further reductions may be made in certain cases on July 1. and January 1, 1923.

Mr. Veitch moved an amendment prescribing the method of arriving at the reductions. He explained that the Premier’s clause provided that the Minister of Finance shall take the report of the statistician as to the cost of living into consideration, while his amendment provided that the Minister of Finance must, in calculating the fall in the cost of living, be governed by that report. The amendment was lost by 40 votes to 27.

Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) moved a new proviso to clause seven, providing that there shall be no reduction in wages or bonuses until the cost of living in all groups has fallen ten points below 52 per cent, increase on prices ruling in 1914, the computation to be made on a six-monthly moving average basis from the six months ending July, 1914, to the six months ending March and September in each year. He said there was no guarantee that prices had fallen to any material extent, and until that fall was assured there should be no reduction in salaries or wages. His amendment provided an equitable method qf arriving at this information.

On a division the proviso was rejected by 40 votes to 24. Mr. McCombs moved to add the following proviso to clause seven: “Provided no reduction in the wages bonus shall be recommended unless there is a fall in the cost of living (all groups) equivalent to or greater than ten per centum; provided, further, that if an application is received by the judge of the Court of Arbitration to hear evidence from societies representing State employees the judge shall hold a sitting of the Arbitration Court to hear cuch evidence as in the case of an indusr trial dispute.” After a brief discussion this was rejected by 41 votes to 21.

The clause was then added to the Bill, which reported with amendments.

THIRD READING. On the question that the amendments made in the Bill be agreed to, Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) moved that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering sub-clause B of clause 6. He said he did this for the purpose of giving the House another opportunity of putting some limit to the lower salaries which should not be touched. The House by a narrow majority had defeated an amendment that salaries below £2lO should not be reduced. His personal opinion was that no salary below £320 should he touched, and he appealed to the Premier to fix some limit below which the lov .■ paid public servants should not suffer any loss. ■Mr. Wilford’s amendment was briefly supported by Mr. McCombs and Mr. Statham, the latter stating ■ that he voted for the second reading of the Bill because he believed some reductions must take place, but the reductions as provided in the Bill were so inequitable that he could not possibly accept them. If this motion was not carried he must vote against the third reading.

The amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 26. Following is the division list:—

For the amendment (26)—Atmore. Bartram, Craigie, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Hanan. Holland, Howard Kellett. McCombs, Masters, Mitchell. Dr. Newman, Parry, Poland. Savage, Seddon, Sidey, S. G. Smith, Statham, Sullivan, Veitch, Wi 1 ford. Wj tty, Wright.

Against the amendment (38) —Bitehener, Bollard, Burnett, Campbell, Coates, J. M. Dickson, J. S. Dickson. Dixon, Fkdd, Glenn, Guthrie, A. Hamilton, J./R. Hamilton Hawken, Henare, Herries; Hockley, Hudson, Jones, Lee, Luke, McLeod, McNicoll, Mackenzie, Mander, Massey, Nash, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Reed, Sir H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Stewart, Sykes, Young.

On the motion that the Bill be read a third time Mr. Holland, on behalf of the Labor Party, entered Into a final protest against the Bill. Mr. Statham further explained his attitude on the Bill, emphasising his desire to see the reductions made on a graduated scale.

Messrs. Bartram. Atmore, McCombs and Parry also adversely criticised the Bill. The discussion is proceeding. (Left sitting).