TO-DAY’S PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 21078, 15 April 1932, Page 10

TO-DAY’S PARLIAMENT

DEBATE ON ADJUSTMENT BILL MR BODKIN ATTACKS COMMISSION MEMBERS REFER TO AUCKLAND RIOTS [Pek United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 15. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.ra. The Hon. J. Young, replying to Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden), said he could give an assurance that he had no knowledge of any proposal to sacrifice the School Dental Service as part of the economy plan. PAYMENT OF APRIL SALARIES. Mr J. Bitchener (Waitaki) asked what was the actual position in regard to the payment of April salaries in the Civil Service. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, replying on behalf of Mr Forbes, said the salary adjustments under the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill would operate from April 1, 1932. This principle was the same as that adopted last year. Pending a final decision as to the graduated scales of reductions, all departments had been instructed last month that in respect to the first half of this month’s salary abstracts were to be prepared at the then_ current rates of pay, and that adjustments arising out of reductions as decided upon would be made in abstracts for the second half of April. Arrangements were in hand for this procedure to apply so as to avoid as far as possible any delays in the payment or hardship occasioned by the delayed adjustment. URGENCY ACCORDED SECOND READING. Urgency was accorded the second reading of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. The debate was resumed by Mr F. Jones (Dunedin South), who criticised the wages and pension reductions. He contended that if there had to be reductions in salaries there should be no exemptions. He said that last year the Prime Minister had appealed to the judges of the Supreme Court to accept a reduction, but they had refused, in spite of the fact that one of the judges was sitting on the Arbitration Court which had cut the wages of workers. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Otago Central) urged the Government to consider the alternative economy proposals put forward by Mr Hargest and others. He described the comments of the Economy Commission on emoluments and privileges of members of Parliament as “ ridiculous and misleading and typical of the little men who comprised the commission.” Mr Bodkin went on to state that the remuneration of members of Parliament was small enough at any time, but when they were called upon to spend nine months of the year in Wellington, as had been the case in the last two years, it was practically impossible for other than the Wellington members to carry on. The allowance for travelling did not nearly meet the amount members had to expend, and services received at Bellamy’s could be obtained elsewhere at a smaller cost. The commission had failed to recognise that the cost of maintaining and cleaning Parliament Buildings throughout the year was debited to Bellamy’s account. That was why Bellamy’s showed an apparent loss. RICH MAN’S PARLIAMENT. Mr Bodkin declared that any but the rich would be driven out of parliamentary life by sheer, economic necessity if their honoraria were reduced in the manner proposed. He knew of one member who would not be able to carry on were it not for the fact that members of his family kept his home going. Mr D. W. Coleman (Gisborne) contended that the cost of living had not fallen as had been claimed by the Government. In fact, there had been an increase in the cost of the total necessities of life, though he admitted that the prices of certain foodstuffs had fallen. Mr R. Harris (Waiteraata) described the Government’s policy as , “ wrong and wholly unsound,” and he intimated that he would vote against wages and pensions reductions when the Bill was in committee. MALADMINISTRATION ALLEGED. Mr J, M‘Combs (Lyttelton) criticised the Government’s policy, and referred to the Auckland disturbance. He said that while all regretted the fact that innocent traders were made to suffer injury, it was entirely due to the maladministration of the Government. It was unfortunate that the Government had set an example in lawlessness. Parliament had enacted legislation providing for sustenance where work could hot be found, but the Government was openly flouting this law. The lawlessness in Auckland must be deplored, but the Government’s lawlessness must be deplored even more. Mr W. Veitch (Wanganui) said that while he did not agree with those who advocated the doubling of Government expenditure to meet the present situation, he considered it a mistake for the Government to devote all its efforts to the cutting down of expenditure and making a balanced Budget the paramount consideration. It should devote more time to constructive proposals. The House adjourned at 1 p in. UNEMPLOYMENT BILL PASSED INSISTENCE ON I.C. AND A. ACT AMENDMENTS DECISIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 15. The Legislative Council met at 10.30 a.m. On the motion of Sir James Parr, the Council decided to insist on its amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, and Sir Francis Bell, Sir Thomas Sidey, and Sir James Parr wore appointed managers to confer with the House. The Council went into committee on the Unemployment Amendment Bill. Sir Francis Bell suggested that a clause should bo included, making peaceful picketing on relief jobs illegal. Ho said endeavours -were being made to keep young men from going into the country. Sir James Parr said he doubted if the Bill was a proper place to insert such provision. In view of recent happenings, he thought it would be necessary for the Government to pass emergency legislation. He would confer with the Government on the point. Several members urged that a clause should be inserted to provide that those

with savings in the.bank should not bo debarred from securing employment. Sir James Parr said that there was nothing in the Act to prevent this. It was a matter of administration. The Bill was reported from committee without amendments. On the Third Reading, the Hon. L. M. Isitt expressed regret at the scenes which had taken place in Auckland, and said it was deplorable that the leaders of the country were being subjected to such irritation. Ho believed that the newspapers should close their columns to propaganda against the Government. Replying on the Third Reading, Sir James Parr made reference to the Auckland demonstration, and said that if he wore in authority in Auckland or Wellington ho would prohibit processions through the main streets. If unemployed desired a march they .should do so in the back streets, where'no one could see them. The Third Reading was agreed to, and the Bill-was passed. The Council adjourned at 12.15 p.m. until the ringing of the bells.