AGAINST THE BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 67, 20 March 1931, Page 11

AGAINST THE BILL

mh. r»ij.voivs yotk

COMMISSIONER CONTROL

At livi.st uni: flri'Li'il slipi."-"'!'-''' '■ll' tlu' fnitcd Piivty inti'ii.ls I" u[ii'i)su tlic •jovcrnmt'tit. 's oimTKi.'iu'y rc\(.-n u.'-iiiis-iii£ pi-opi.>siils, iis i-uiitaincil in the l-'in-am-n Bill jioiv I'WWc Die .lliiii.se wi: KupiTScnt.itivf.s. S|ii:;iliiiij,' 1.-ito on Wod-jM-stl.-iy Jiijjlit, Mr. (i. C. Lilai'k (L'niluil, 3lotuoku) AViis i-ritii-al ul: simui phases ol! dcpjii-lni'.-iiliil n'liimiisli-ulioii, iind doclarcd tluil- so long iis sutli things continued lio cunld not .support tho Bill.

.Discussing Piibliu Service Coinuiissionor control, Air. Black di'dared that both tho Commissioner ami the Secretary to tho Treasury had been sitting In judgment upon their own administration. Could anyone suggest that that was fair judgment'/ "1 am absolutely satisfied/ ho said, "that so long as Public Service Commissioner control exists, Parliament may as well not exist." In support of this declaration, he proceeded to quote figures showing that in 1913 the salaries of 4805 employees in tho Public Service totalled £900,612, but by 192!) the number had •increased to 77SS, and the salaries totalled £2,260,000. While officers had increased by 60 per cunt., their salaries ]iad increased 150 per cent; while the administrative heads cost the country £ 16,950 in 1013, the sum of £-12,415 ■was appropriated for them in 1930. INDIVIDUAL CASES. The speaker went on to deal with a •particular case under the Kelson Education Board. At a certain school in the Nelson education district a teacher ■was receiving £250 a year, with increments up to £310. A lady teacher six miles away was receiving £240. Each received a house allowance of £60. Tho total received by both was £015 a year, and not three years ago both were ;<fc the Wellington Training College. In another case in the Nelson education district, a lady teacher was receiving £360 per annum, and had a free house, a fair rental value of which was 25a a woek. Her husband was engaged by tho Public Works Department in November, 1929, and remained there until February, 1931. His rate of pay at ifirst was Is IOJd an hour, but it was afterwards increased to 2s 3d an hour. He received in wages £334 12s 7d. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Cbristehurch South): "How did ho got up there?" ml _ . ' Mr. Black: "Just wait ou. That is not the whole story." He quoted from a document to show that tho man had a 30ewt truck plying for tho Department at the rate of 5s 9d per hour, tho Department paying the driver. Tho truck was employed for 1942} hours and £560 19s lOd was paid to the husband of the lady teacher, who was enjoying •i free house and £360 a year. All ■told tho couple received £560 19s lOd for motor hire, £334 12s 7d for the husband's wages, and £360 a year for the ■wife's salary, and, in addition, there was a free house. "While that is going on in New Zealand," said the speaker, "I cannot support the Bill before the House." Mr Howard: "Well done. You voted confidence in the Government the other <Hv " ' "T am not worrying about confidence or anything else," was Mr. Black's plyMONEY THAT MIGHT BE USED. Continuing, he pointed out that in 1028 tho Engineer-in-Chief ot tho Public Works Department received overnight an increase of £500 in sn ary•from £1500 to £2000. After tho 10 per cent, cut was made he woula be receiving £1800, as compared with £1500 in 1925. Voices: "A good man, too. Mr Black went on to point out in connection with the cuts that there was a number of accounts outside the Consolidated Fund, the to^S? wider which amounted to *.3,-b2,847 on last, year's appropriations. len per cent, of that is £326,284, and under The present Bill that sum cannot relieve 5u any way the taxpayer ot New leaand," said Mr. Black. "Under the existing legislation it can only increase ?he profits of the Pont Office, tho Public Trust Office, the Native Trust Office, the State Advances Office, and the State Krc Insurance Office. Not one V nny pk'ce of that £226,000 can be isedVany way to relievo the taxpayers of New Zealand." It, might be asked where the . extra money was to come from. In reply ho would draw the attention to the repoit of the Tobacco Industry Committee la-st session, when it was definitely proved -I hat one big combine not operating m A rew Zealand alone, but controlling the world's market, charged its own New Zealand concern, as the film industry lad done for years past, at least -00 per cent, over and above the market value of the goods at the port ot export in America for tobacco landed in. New Zealand for home manufacture. Over und above that we could get money in many ways. It was time they thought df tho newspapers. It was time New Zealand did what France did to-day— put 10 per cent, advertisement tax on every advertisement in any newspaper, on any hoarding in any part of the country, and in railway advertising. "We will then got the money," he added "and more than that, the people will not be fooled—they will not go to tho 'best picture fiver.' "