RESTORING THE "CUTS."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 262, 5 November 1929, Page 12

RESTORING THE "CUTS."

IMPOSSIBLE JUST NOW. GOVERNMENT'S WISHES. REPLY TO LABOUR PROPOSALS. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The first notice of motion given when the House of Representatives met yesterday was that relating to public servants' salaries by Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour party, which the acting Leader of the House, the Hon. G. W. Forbes, announced would be accepted as a motion of no-confidence in the Government. He wished it to be taken immediately, as the Government did not wish to have a question of that sort hanging over. In moving the motion, Mr. Holland quoted copiously from the . records to show how often the present members of the Government and their supporters voted against the operation of the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act on the lower salaiies. He contended that every vote in that way constituted a promise to the public servants that if ever those members got into power they would secure redress. Those divisions gave a promise that if either Labour or United got into power the position created in 1922 by Reform would be remedied. Supertax Suggested. Mr. Holland moved: "This House regrets the failure of the present Government to make provision for improving the salaries of 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 this House recommends to the Government that an overhaul of salary schedules be commenced forthwith, that immediate provision be made this year for a 5 per cent increase in the. nuxxima of schedule scales up to £295, and also inclusive of the stationary wages of railway servants and others; that a: minimum adult wage for all branches of. the service be established, and 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. "The House recommends that to provide the necessary additional revenue, a supertax be levied on all incomes of £1000 and over." Government's Attitude.

Mr. Forbes, in announcing the acceptance of the motion as one of no confidence, dealt immediately with the reminders which the mover had given of his own attitude towards the salary "cuts" on lower levels. "He quoted my own speech," remarked Mr. Forbes, "and I.have not departed one jot from it. I said at that time that taking the statement of the then Prime Minister we were entering on a prosperous time. 1 assumed from that that the Government would have sufficient finance to dca! with the claim. That is the attitude I have taken up, that when it is at all possible to give these increases they should te given." Mr. Forbes then reminded the House of the financial difficulties the Government was now endeavouring to overcome, due to the deficit it has inherited, the abnormal expenditure caused by the earthquake, and the phenomenal outlay to relieve unemployment. He said he was informed by the Treasury that to pay the 5 per cent increase up to £295 per annitm would mean an additional expenditure of £346,823, which did not include temporary employees. It might really mean half a million. Mr. H. S. Dickie .(Patea): Put on some more primage. : Mr. Forbes: That is not the motion. I- think the mover has been following some arguments used in the land tax debate, where the suggestion was made that any additional revenue required should come from the supertax on incomes. • Mr. A. M. Samuel (Thames): Did you arrange it between you? Prime Minister's Attitude. Mr. Forbes said he had discussed .the question with the Prime Minister, who had told him that if he could possibly have met the position he would have been pleased to do so, but one of the most important things was to keep finance on a sound basis, otherwise every class in the community, including the public servant, -would be prejudiced. "The Prime Minister has authorised me to say that if the returns prove to be more than the estimates, and he is able to show a surplus at the end of the financial year, he will be ready to go into the question and try to meet in some way, if not in full, the requests of the officers of the public service and the lower paid men, who are the concern not only of the Government, but of practically every member of the House. If anything can be done to meet their position we shall be only too willing to do it,* and he would be agreeable that any increases that could be made should date from April 1. That is going as far. as the Minister of Finance thinks it opportune to go." This statement, added Mr. , Forbes, showed that the Government was not "•oing back on what it had said in previous years, that it was prepared to assist the public service, but when it was faced with a financial stringency, as sensible men they had to recognise that the interests of the country as a whole must be put before interests of a section. The claim should not be forced at the present juncture.

I ' Opposition Leader Puzzled. The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon J. G. Coates, confessed himself puzzled over the motion. His first information came from United quarters and he thought to himself: "Is this an attempt of the Labour party, with the connivance of United, to try and give the Labour, party an opportunity to put itself on side with the Civil Service? Then he was more than ever puzzled when the Acting-Leader of the Government did not take the motion in the ordinary course. Why the haste? It was a cunningly devised motion, which iustifled the Labour pprty, and it had tacked on a tag which made it impossible for the United party to acquiesce. Mr. Coates went on to say that there had been a solid comhination of Labour and United right through, but now, in the dying hours of the session, there was this motion with thorns in it, which allowed the United party to say it could not he accepted. ' Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch South): Give us your amendment. Mr. Coates ignored the invitation and proceeded to show that the "cuts" were absolutely justified when Parliament agreed to impose them. He realised there was a case for the lower-paid men, but thought the cost would be more than £346,000. The country had arrived at the point when it must consider the question of public service salaries, and whether it could stand the overhead cost. If lie had the six months' financial returns' he could quickly see whether his suggestions, would be carried out.

Mr. Forbes: It would be a shot in the dark. Mr. Coates went on to characterise the motion as being devised in criticism of the Reform party, and, as he saw it, in collusion between Labour and United. Members: No. no. ' Mr. Coates: Well, I am mighty suspicious, but if I am wrong I will withdraw any imputations. I thought it over carefully, and thought I could see the nigger in the woodpile. Mr. Coates again deplored the absence of the six-monthly financial returns. He demanded fuller information from the Government regarding financial resources and the cost of carrying out the pro-' posals, and suggested that £10 a year extra might be paid to officers on £295 and under. A Minister Explains. The Government could not find the money to restore the. "cut," said the Minister of 'Education, the Hon. H. Atmore. However, the House had been given an assurance by the Acting-Leader of the House that the' Government would review the position at the end of the financial year, and it then be in a position to make an adjustment. That adjustmei t rnio-ht be ntrosp active if finances permitted. No one could go beyond that statement, and it should appeal to every reasonable person in the country The estimated co,', of the increase (-ought by the Labour party was i?4Q,¥93. > ."£250,000 Given In Increases." It had to be remembered, said Mr. Atmore, that £250,055 had been granted in annual increases in Civil servants' salaries this.year, and of that amount officers in receipt of salaries of £295 and less had been paid .£1^5.791. The Hon, T. M. Wilford: That is in annual increase?

Mr. Atmore: Yes, so that we see something has been done. There 'is plenty of teasoii for caution at the present tjme. Mr. Atmore said it had been estimated "that to give a £10 increase all round to officers on £295 and under, would cost the country another £192,000 per annum. He contended that any dispassionate critic would sfay that the Government's attitude was correct, because no party on the present national income could carry out what was proposed. Mr. Young's Amendment Carried. Mr. J. A. Young (Hamilton) moved as an amendment to substitute for Mr. Holland's motion the following: "This House recommends the Government to expedite the statutory reclassification of salaries of employees of the State in the several Departments, as each such reclassification is due, and further recommends thai the Government, make a specific inquiry into the question of minimum adult wages paid to its employees, with a view to placing low-paid wage-earners on a fair and equitable basis, and restoring as far as is practicable the rate of loss made by those receiving a salary not exceeding £295 per annum." On a division Mr. Holland's amendment was negatived by 49 votes to 20, the minority being the Labour members, with Mr. "Samuel and Mr. Wright (Reform). Mr. Young's amendment was adopted without -a division.