RESTORING CUTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1936, Page 12

RESTORING CUTS

THE FINANCE BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE

COMMITTAL DEFERRED

The second reading debate on the Finance Bill was concluded in the House o£ Representatives yesterday afternoon, but the Committee stage was deferred.

The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (National. Oroua) deplored the reflections cast

jon the previous Government and its' eJTorts to carry the country through aj difficult period. The present Government had inherited a balanced Budget and a period of rising prices and im-' proving trade. In the country districts,' the Government's legislation had caused considerable apprehension, and people were wondering what was going |to happen next. He commented on the jmore "dangerous" pieces of legislation brought down by the Government, some of which were definite steps towards Socialism. Mr. Cobbe criticised the powers given to the Minister of Finance, and said that complete control of the monetary system by a politician bristled with dangers. The marketing legislation was another example of Socialism. It took the chief products of the country out of the hands that produced them. He declared that the public would not be sold another gold brick. Many of those who had drifted into Parliament on the crest of the jguaranteed-price wave would go out with the ebb of the socialistic tide. EXCUSES MADE. j Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government, j Eden) regretted that the majority of1 those who had spoken on the Opposition side of the House had stressed the point that if they had been introducing the Budget they would have restored the cuts as from April 1. The Leader of the Opposition had made excuses for his own and previous Governments. The last Government had looked after vested interests at the expense of the wage earner. In making the cuts retrospective to July 1 the Government was doing the right and proper thing. It was not creating a benefit for any special few. If the AnWiT;? glA' en back t0 an as from the f f <} G °pP°sition would bemoan he fact that private enterprise would SkSSl 8 t0 meet the extra *«? Mr. S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth) said that the previous speaker had gone back as far as 1912 iftat was a time when the Reform Government was in office. Several Government members: What is the difference? . Mr. Smith: This is not a union meeting, when everybody talks at once. "PRICKED CONSCIENCE." Mr. Smith said that if past Governments had committed sins, some of the blame must be shared by Labour, who had supported the United Party The Prime Minister had ' been most prominent in his efforts to bring Parliament to the people, and he wondered why the Bill, which was more important to the people than the industrial legislation, had not been broadcast. The reason was simple The conscience of the Prime Minister had pricked him because of broken promises to the electors. The Prime Minister had made no suggestion—nor had any of his colleagues—for the solution of the unemployed problem. The position was becoming worse. The" country stood aghast when the unemployed reached 20,000, and at that time nobody was to get anything unless he did something for the money received. Today there were 20,000 on sustenance and 75 per cent, of them did not want sustenance—they wanted work. That work the Labour Party promised. Referring to an interjection by the member for Roskill (Mr. A. S. Richards), Mr. Smith said he wondered i£ the hon. member would vote for a motion that the cuts be .made retrospective as from April 1. Mr. Smith wanted to know the reason for the co-opted members. Was it because salaries were pooled? Was it because Ministers were not capable of carrying out their jobs? Why not appoint more Ministers, instead of having this "half-pie" system of co-opted members and creating dissension within the Government's own ranks. Mr. H. E. Herring (Government, MidCanterbury) said he wanted to have his little say about this money Bill, his interest in which was probablyexplained by the fact lh?t he had never suffered from a superfluity of money. The Bill was in the nature of a foundation stone, and he was sure that the resulting structure would be a monument to the care and ability bestowed upon it. Replying to the debate, the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) said that if the restorations of salaries and wages to civil servants were made retrospective to April 1, it would mean that the civil servants would be treated better than outside workers, who, after all, were just as much civil servants as those working in Government offices. He was certain that no civil servant would wish to benefit at the expense of others in the community.

The Bill was read a second time on the voices.