SOCIAL SERVICES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 150, 27 June 1931, Page 13

SOCIAL SERVICES.

ARE THEY "SMASHED DOWN?" ATTACK BY MS. SAVAGE. '.: GOVERNMENT CURTAILMENTS. '' '■'.'•■' ' > A I •■ '!■, ,— ,11* ill I : (By Telegraph;— Own Coirressoodent* | ' \ •v?ELIiIN | GTON, Friday. "The social services of New Zealand are being smasned down by.the present Administration/' declared Mr. M, J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) m the House of Representatives to-night when attacking the <3^ ri ff^'A,S tailment of the estimates of the Auckland Hospital Board. Mr. Savage said that when the Finance Art was passed during the emergency session it was understood that the estimates would be reduced by £12,000, covering wage and salary reductions, but thei reduction was nearer £20,000. .now could the board carry on andmamtain the present standard of service under those circumstances? Indications in recent legislation were that the Government was deliberately attacking tlie country's social services. Replying, the Minister of Health, Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, said it was a sound principle to make social services as self-reliant as possible. If that were not done there was danger of their breaking down in time of crisis just at the time they were needed most. He vigorously defended his attitude towards the curtailment of the Hospital Board estimates, stating that no one regretted more than he the necessity for the alterations. He admitted that the demands made had been almost cruel in comparison with the experience of the past. However, 95 per cent of the boards were co-operating in a magnificent way, and a large proportion of the boards had been able to budget this year for some hundreds less than the arbi-

trary figure submitted by the Department. The Minister said he knew the boards were being asked to perform what was almost an impossible task.

Mr. Savage: The Department insisted upon a reduction by the Auckland Board in wages all round. The Minister: No. It was suggested that the amount of difference between the Department's estimate and that of the board, which was about £6000, could be met at the discretion of the board if the 10 per cent reduction in wages and salaries were applied. I don't suggest that the Minister has power to determine that the board shall so adjust its finances by making reductions in wages. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central)': Was it then just mere bluff on the Department's part? The Minister: No.' It was a matter of hard fact, and a matter of the finances available. When the Budget proposals come before the House no doubt the extent of the gigantic task ahead of the House will be better understood, and perhaps the economies in which we are asking the co-operation of the boards will be better appreciated. Whether I am in the House or out of it it will be to me next year a tremendous relief to knpw that the economic position will be such as not to make absolutely necessary further serious reduction in the social services we now enjoy*