PARLIAMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 291, 21 September 1935, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

(Abridged from Press Association). - WELLINGTON, September 20. In the House of Representatives this morning the debate on the Budget was resumed by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon), who said that, judging by the statements of the Minister of Employment, there 'were 50,000 relief workers and probatily 50,000 other workers receiving less than £3 a, week. He alleged that the increase in unemployment closely followed reductions in wages. The reductions of wages had intensified the effects of the depression and increased unemployment, especially on the waterfront, in factories and in the transport services. He thought, however, that, there was some stimulation to manufacturing industries, but he would have preferred to have seen that achieved in some other way, for the ill-effects outweighed the benefits. Mr Sullivan criticised the Government for reducing the unemployment tax. He said it was a scandal that local bodies should have to go on collecting to assist those in need. He did not think the people would give as they had in the past. Mr W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) said that while he. did not always agree with what the Government had done, he would be a great deal less than fair if he did not recognise the assistance the Government had given to the farming community, both directly and indirectly. He did not think that Labour’s policy of guaranteed prices would attract anybody among the farming community. Labour was in power in many countries, but had any of them suggested guaranteed prices? They knew when they assumed the responsibilities of government that it could not be done. He contended that the man who was on a wage in 1932 was in no worse- position to-day through the reduction in wages, as the fall in the retail cost of goods had been more than the fall in wages compared with those of 1932. Mr Poison contended that the raising of the rate of exchange had increased the spending power of the people and had benefited all sections of the community. He contended that Labour candidates throughout the country had said that money to pay guaranteed prices would be found by taxation or by the issue of credit.

Mr T. PI. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton) dealt with unemployment problems on the same lines as earlier Labour speeches. He said that New Zealand needed planning in industry, and advocated a State dental and State medical service. He thought Labour’s policy was to do the greatest good for tho greatest number of people. The Hon. J. A. Young said that the Government’s aim was to teach people to do tho right things for themselves, and not rely on the Government to do it for them. Regarding health, he said that there was no country in the world that had a better record for health than New Zealand, which also held the record for longevity. He contended that there had been great improvements in children’s teeth, but much responsibility rested on the parents to see that the children observed proper habits and diet. He contended that prior to the cutting of wages there was a steady decline in the number of unemployed, and it continued after the “cuts” had been imposed. He reviewed the position leading to the “cuts” in wages and the formation of the National Government, and said that if Labour had played its proper part, they would have luid one or two Labour members in the National Cabinet. The Government hoped l to be able to go further and restore the “cuts” to 100 per cent., and go ahead with the -reclassification of the Civil Service. He asked Labour to explain what price they proposed to guarantee for butterfat, and if the price was above the present price, bow were they going to obtain the money to make it up. Also, if the price was above the present level, how they proposed lo prevent the exchange rising. Mr A. S. Richards l(Lab., Eoskill) criticised the administration of the Government during the depression, and referred specially to unemployment and the effects of the “cuts” on wages and salaries. '

The debate was adjourned when the House rose at 5.30 p.m.