CUTS ATTACKED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 148, 19 March 1931, Page 10

CUTS ATTACKED

Sir Francis Bell’s View “USE THE SURPLUSES” Penny Tax on Sugar PROPOSALS DENOUNCED As an alternative to a ten per cent, reduction in the salaries _ of Civil Servants, a proposal which he described as intolerable, Sir Francis Bell suggested in the Legislative Council yesterday that, in order to meet the shortage in the Budget, the Government should utilise its accumulated surpluses, including those of the Post Office, and impose a tax of a penny a pound on sugar. “I may stand alone,” he declared,_ “but if it were the last day of my life I would bo glad I stood alone against this wicked and unjust taxation of n. special class of citizen, and, may I suggest, a particularly defenceless class.” A mere exigency in the public finances was not to be placed on the plane of a calamitous earthquake or a war-like crisis, said Sir Francis, speaking on the Address-in-Reply motion. Financial stringency had occurred before and would occur again. It was a matter to be dealt with by business men upon business considerations. He proposed to ask the Council not to be influenced by appeals for patriotism and co-operation. Exactly the same appeals were being made on the other side by Mr. Scullin, Mr. Lang and Mr. Lyons. They were appealing to come together and co-oper-ate —for what? For something which to the mind of most people was dishonest and repugnant Not to be Coerced. Sir Francis said he did not say that the proposals of Mr. Forbes were so utterly repugnant as all that, but still the same appeal to co-operate was being heard in New Zealand. A man who did not agree with the Government’s proposals was not to be coerced and should not be coerced into voting for them by appeals to his patriotism, nor should he acquiesce by silence. He had been referred to in the Press as the Leader of the Opposition in the Council. No such person existed, and if he did it was not himself. It was true that he had been a party man for many years, for no man who sat on the Government benches could be otherwise, but to-day he had no share in the counsels of the Reform Party. He did not know, nor did he care, whether his views coincided with those of the party with which he had been connected so long. If the whole party agreed to something to which he disagreed he did not care. He was no longer under the heel of Cabinet and must take the course which any honest man would take in the circumstances. “No Analogy or Precedent.” For all he knew those who differed from him might be right. All he knew was that he could not be convinced that he was wrong; at least so far the attempt had failed. He assured the Council that he was in no sense an advocate of the Public Service; he had not been in communication with them on the subject of the “cuts,’’ nor had they with him. The position in 1922 had been compared with that of to-day. He did net know whether there was a precedent or an analogy, but even if there were, no precedent could make a wrong right. Sir Francis said he undertook to demonstrate to the Council by incontrovertible evidence, that there was no analogy or precedent in what took place in 1922. In 1912 the greater part of the Public Service was removed from political. control, and a commissioner was appointed later to classify the service, to fix the salaries of the various grades, and to make provision for promotion by merit. The country invited people to enter the Service upon those terms. All Parliament had to do was to pass the gross sum. There was no distinction in principle between the condition that the gross sum for the salaries of Oivil Servants must be passed by Parliament, and the condition that Parliament must appropriate each year sufficient for the discharge of the public debt. A Special Class of Citizen. He was not attaching so much importance to that aspect, but it was a very important matter for the country to remember and consider. Civil Servants were a special class of citizen, with special qualifications, entitled to a fixed rate of remuneration. ... A Voice: Just like the judges. Sir Francis said he ventured to describe the Civil Servants as not only a special class, but as a particularly defenceless class. A further provision of the Service was that every servant had to contribute to the superannuation fund, which was supplemented by contributions from the Government. The Civfl Servant was defenceless in that if he left his employment as any other employee could do when his wages were reduced, he lost the benefit of compound interest on his contributions to the fund, as well as t ho benefit of the Government contribution, in fact, he lost his pension. This was the elass of people the Government proposed to attack. “Intolerable and Unbearable.” There were 26,584 Civil Servants receiving less than £350, said Sir Francis. There were 22,000 receiving less than £“>00 These poor people—he called them poor because they were poor—were being asked to bear a share of the taxation. It was all very well to talk about equality of sacrifice and each bearing a part of the burden, but what justification was there for such intolerable and unbearable taxation? The proposals amounted to a direct levy upon a special class; there was no use disguising that fact under the cloak of economy. Members of the Council did not and could not realise what it pea nt to take £2O out of a Civil Servant’s income or £lB trom some poor typist who was only receiving £lOO a year. ... “This appeal to patriotism, is very moving and very easy,” said Sir Francis. “The same appeal lost us the American Continent; the same appeal led to the Crimean War. . . Mr. Lang says there is no alternative to the repudiation ot the public debt. That argument leads nowhere. There is an alternative. Year by year New Zealand has been accumulating surpluses. There, is an accumulated reserve of two millions. That sum exists; it is not a mere book entry. Post Office Surplus. ’’The desire of the Forbes Government —and a most proper desire —is that each year should stand on its own footing and balance its own account. These. surpluses are for emergencies. This is an emergency. In 1928 there was a surplus te the Post Office of £500.090. Today there must be nearly one and a half millions surplus there. It ought to oe in. the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund pays the deficit on the railways and does not credit itself with the profits on the Post Office. How can there fail to be a deficit in those circumstances?” , , Sir Francis said that the breakfast table was a very sacred thing, but a tax of a penny in the pound on sugar would produce £650,000 a year and twopence would produce a million and a quarter. A small tax on tea would PE 01 ' 1 "® . other quarter of a million. He “id not believe that things were going to be as bad as predicted. Every treasurer un-der-estimated his revenue and over-esti-mated his expenditure. It was a fallacy to assume that the Customs revenue would continue to fall next year. Stocke were limited and new orders would have to be placed. He was confident that the Customs revenue next year would be in excess of this