DIFFICULT BILL

Evening Star, Issue 21079, 16 April 1932, Page 19

DIFFICULT BILL

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE AJDUSTKENT MEASURE THE COALITION CRITICS [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, April 15. The National Expenditure Adjustment Bill, tho most drastic in many respects of any submitted to a New Zealand Parliament, got through its second reading stage after its third day of discussion before the House rose early this evening until Tuesday. There had been forty-five speakers, and tho Government’s majority for tho second reading was 21, though the debate showed that on specific clauses, when they arc considered by tho House in committee next week, the Government will find some of its supporters in opposition to the proposals.. However, the fate of the measure is not giving concern, as many of those who were associated with the critical group within the Coalition party—formed to make representations for amendment are prepared to accept the Prime Minister’s assurance that the measure represents the minimum needed to establish a sound position, which even then will fall short of balancing this year’s Budget. While the Labour Opposition uniformly objected to the whole measure, there was a good deal of critical comment from within the Government ranks. This class of opposition—including both United and Reform members—thus confirms the reports of a cleavage, which, however, is centred wholly on the Adjustment Bill, and is not necessarily a permanent feature of the party. Criticism from within came first from Mr J. Hargest (Invercargill), who objected to cuts in soldiers’ pensions and Public Service wages, suggesting as an alternative that money could bo saved by reducing the number of extraordinary heavy superannuation allowances, far beyond tho average secured by tho contributors. Mr A. J. Stall worthy (Eden), who reminded the House that Britain balanced its Budget without interference with its obligations to lenders, showed that in committee he would not support interference with rent and interest contracts. This section of tho measure also found a critic in Mr W. P. Endean (Parnell), who contrasted the compulsory interference with financial contracts in the Bill under discussion with the principle of a previous Government measure, which was to take the element of compulsion out of proceedings for industrial agreements. Another Government critic, who announced his intention of opposing certain features when the Bill is in-com-mittee, was Mr A. Harris (Waitemata), who will not support the wage reducI tions or any interference with old age pensions, widows’ pensions, and soldiers’ I dependents’ pensions. A similar attiI tude is to be taken by Mr A. M, j Samuel (Hauraki). Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North), ' a consistent Ministerial suporter, declared his intention of voting against the salary cuts when the opportunity arrives. Mr R. A, Wright (Wellington Subi Li), from whom active opposition to wage reduction was expected, did not disclose his attitude to-day, and when invited to explain how he will vote asked the Opposition to “ wait and see.”

Winding up the debate, Mr Forbes said that the members who had expressed themselves against reductions, irrespective of the responsibility of finance, by no means possessed a monopoly of sympathy for the public servants and pensioners, and he reminded them that if business wore to be conducted on sentiment it would not be long before many of the people now assisted would not bo paid at all. That was the position of the country to-day. Unless the utmost economy and prudence were exercised the country would not be able to meet its payments for wages and pensions. “If we do not face the question of making the economies necessary in the Public Service, there is every probability that these limbless soldiers and the widows and children of soldiers will not be able to get their pensions at all,” said Mr Forbes. “ I have not the courage, however, to let there people down. I would like to take up the attitude of other members, but we have to face facts; otherwise there will be a financial crash, and then these people would not get their payments.” Labour Members: The crash has come. Mr Forbes said he realised tho responsibility of the Government in relation to i' i finance, and emphasised that only by careful administration and rigid economy would it be possible for tho country to pull through and meet its obligations. If a tight rein was not kept on the expenditure, there would be a smash, and those people that members wished to help would suffer most.