WAGES SCALE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 255, 24 July 1936, Page 12

WAGES SCALE

Opening of Debate on Finance Bill AIM OF GOVERNMENT “Imperative to Adjust Distribution” “We intend to use every method we can find to raise wages and salaries to the level prevailing before April 1, 1931,” said the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, when moving the second reading of the Finance Bill in the House of Representatives last night. “The main feature of this Bill would not have been necessary if another course had been followed by the Govrnment in 1931. We are taking steps now to restore cuts —in reality to heal cuts that need never have been made. Had the cuts made in 1931 not been so deep there would not have been half the suffering there has been in New Zealand since that time.” Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) : Why not restore them to April 1? Mr. Nash: It would not have been necessary even to go back until July 1 had it not been for the reductions made in 1931. It amazes me that someone who was responsible for five years of suffering should grumble at three months.

Mr. Kyle: I am'not grumbling.

“No one would suggest that the Government of that day did not have real difficulties to face in 1931,” continued the Minister, “but in the opinion of members on this side of the House the difficulties of the Dominion and the sufferings of its people were extended by the wage-cutting policy adopted in 1931. However, 1936 is here now, and we are taking the necessary steps to restore the cuts.” Forward to Something Better. Mr. Nash said that the whole purpose of the Bill was to restore the position of 1931 so that the Government could go forward to something better. It would not be content to remain in 1936 on 1931 standards. He mentioned that employees of the State Advances Corporation would not receive an increase in wages, as they had been given a standard of wages ruling in 1931 when the corporation again became a State institution. Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Pahiatua): Why differentiate? The Minister: There is no differentiation. We are treating all alike. Sir Alfred: why not go back to April 1? The Minister: We would take back the sufferings of the people if we could, but there are some things that are impossible, even in this country. “The Government's policy lias a two-fold purpose,” continued the Minister. “The first object is to increase production, for we cannot restore standards of living without increased production. It (is also imperative to adjust distribution, and this is one of the'steps we are taking toward that end. We believe also that it will tend in some way to increase production.”

The first aim of the Government had been to help those on the lower rungs, continued Mr. Nash, and with that object in view it bad increased the pay of the unemployed. The next step, which was the present one, was to restore wages and salaries inside and outside the Public Service. “We have not forgotten the pensioners,” lie added. "While the Minister of Pensions cannot yet bring down the Bill which he has mentioned on more than one occasion, it will come, and it will provide for increases to the old people. Their increases will also dale from July 1.” Position When Cuts Were Made. Pleasure at the provisions in the Bill restoring the depression cuts in salaries and wages to members of the Public service and workers generally was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, who contrasted the conditions prevailing to-day with those that existed at the time the reductions were made by the previous Government. When the cuts were imposed, said Mr. Forbes, a promise was given that when the finances of the country permitted restoration would be made. On the first signs of any improvement the last Government had made a restoration of 5 per cent, to the Public Service. This was followed by another restoration of 74 per cent. At that time a definite promise was made that if the improvement in the finances continued the whole of the cuts would be restored.

The Budget surplus of £280,000 for the past year was in striking contrast to the position at the time the reductions were made, when the Government of the day was faced with an estimated deficit of £9.000,000 unless certain measures were taken to narrow the gap between revenue and expenditure. The last Government’s difficulty was to find the money to pay the public servants, but it was determined they should draw their salaries for the whole of the 12 months and not have to go without their wages as public servants had to in some parts of the world. Economists had shown that with the falling off in returns to the farmer, every business in the country suffered immediately, said Mr. Forbes. In the train of those falling prices had come unemployment. To-day the position was that there was evidence of substantial increases in business in practically every line. Increased prices for wool had brought into the country last year an additional £8.000.000 It was estimated that this year the pay-out for butterfat would increase by £2,000.000. The Minister of Finance had been handed over a surplus of £280.000. in itself a creditable thing for the Government responsible. That Government had been able to change a huge deficit into a surplus.

“We know that the Minister of Finance can look forward to a greatlyincreased revenue total this year.” Mr. Forbes added. “The increase in revenue from wool, the increase in butterfat returns and the expenditure of an enormous amount of borrowed money by the Minister of Public Works are all going to assist in restoring the position to what it was. The Minister has an easy task in relation to revenue, and I think that he will find the revenue necessary for all reasonable requirements” “Piling Up Costs.” “The portion of this Bill dealing with the restoration of cuts does not go as far as the last Government would have gone if it had still been in power,” said Mr. W. A, Bodkin (Opposition. Central Otago). “The Government is only restoring the minor

portion of the cuts this evening. The major portion was restored by the last Government in more difficult times. I suggest that the only reason why these restorations have not been made retrospecive to April 1 is that the finances of the country will not stand it. Government finance has in recent months reflected a rise in the prices of primary produce yet we have the humiliating admission of the Government that because the money stream of the Government does not warrant it the restorations cannot go back beyond July 1.” Referring to the statement of the Minister of Finance that the Government aimed to increase production and adjust distribution. Mr. Bodkin said it sought to achieve that, end by piling up the costs of the primary producer. Legislation passed in recent months would add to the difficulties of the manufacturer, and it would also have the effect of increasing costs. It would be impossible for any fanner to produce certain commodities and market them in any market in the world at a profit. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment