ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 67, 20 March 1931, Page 5

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

DEBATE IN COUNCIL OPINIONS ON THE CUTS Only two contributions to the Ad-eh-ess-in-Reply debate were made in tho Legislative Council yesterday afternoon. The Hon. Mark Pagan congratulated Sir Francis Bell on his speech of tho previous day. ■ They were • told that there was more joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner than with ninety and vino just men. (Laughter.) There was mo man better able to judge tho justice or injustice of'the Government's proposals than Sir Francis, who had been a member of the' Reform Government which imposed the cuts in 1922. If Sir Francis had been arguing before a Judge instead of Parliament he bo Heved the Civil' servants would have Lad a very fine chance indeed. Mr. Fagan made sympathetic reference to the sufferers in- the earthquake, and paid a tribute to the work which had been performed by the Government and by others in meeting the position. In the two years they had been in office the present Government had had a pretty rough passage, and he would not be unmindful of that when criticising the Government's proposals. He agreed that thp Budget should be balanced, but he entirely, disagreed with the methods which the Government proposed to adopt. He was particularly opposed to the 10 per cent, cut, especially in. the lower-paid man, and the proposal to give the Arbitration Court power to review existing awards. By taxing the lower-paid man they were limiting his ability, to live, but by taxing 'the higher salaried man all_ they wero doing was to limit his ability to save. The higher-paid , man would not cut down his living expenses. There was no doubt that the cuts in the iower-paid man would reduce his standard of living, and that was going to have an effect, on the farmer. He would like to be sure that a. reduction •in the cost of living would follow a reduction in wages, but that had not been the experience in the past. One source of New Zealand's trouble was that £150,000,000 had been added to tho value of land since 1913, and if that point, as well as the costs of production, was looked into they would do more'to help the farmer than •by reducing wages. The worker was bound to suffer, as there was certain to be a long interval between the cuts and any appreciable difference in the cost of living.1 There were many manufacturers who would be unable to pass on the effect of.their reduced costs. After the cuts in 1922 there had been no reduction in the cost of living; in fact, renta went up. 50 per cent, in nine years, despite the fact that the workers engaged in the building trade had had their wages reduced by 10 per cent. He had very little faith in the Department of Industries and Commerce to ]teep down the cost of living. OASES OF HARDSHIP. Tie Hon. B. M'Callum said he was <o.ot going to be critical of the Government or even take up the role of candid- friend, for he believed that it was his duty to be helpful. It was his opinion that there were hundreds of Civil servants who were grossly overpaid. He was willing to leave the 10 per cent, cuts as they were, but he would urge that there should be some way of dealing with cases of hardship. He' congratulated Sir Francis Bell on his eloquent speech, but said it was full of fallacious arguments. It was claimed that the Conservatives had removed the' Public Service from political-Con-trol, but not one-fourth of the Civil servants had ever come under Commissioner control. Sir Francis had shown a great sympathy for the poorlypaid servants of the State, but he ha 4 had no sympathy for the great body of workers outside the Service who would suffer just as greatly as a result of reduced wages. He hoped the day •would be a long time coming before they had to resort to a tape on tea and Bugar^ Mr. M'Callum stressed the need for the Government taking power to deal with the competition with which the railways had to contend from mo-. tor traffic. The Government was illadvised to think of handing over the railways to a board, as such a course had proved' a failure wherever it had been tried. They might as well tali of banding over the Lands Department or any other Government Department to an outside board. The Government should tell Parliament who was going to comprise the proposed board. People ■who had the money should keep on spending.. , The debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. W. Earnsha-w.