FINANCE BILL DEBATE

Greymouth Evening Star, 24 July 1936, Page 2

FINANCE BILL DEBATE

MR. FORBES’ CRITICISM

GOVT’S ‘SHORT & MERRY’ LIFE

[PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, July 23. In the House. Mr. Nash moved the second reading of the Finance B'll. He said that had the cuts not been made in 1931, there would have been no need for the Bill. Had the cuts not been made, there would not have been the amount of suffering there had been in the last five years. It was admuted that real difficulties had to be faced in 1931, but the difficulties and sufferings of the people were extended by cutting wages. Now 1936 had arrived wages would be restored to the 1931 level, so that they could go forward to something better. The Government’s policy had a two fold object. First, to increase production, and secondly to improve the standard of living. The Government had endeavoured to help, first, those most in need and therefore had dealt with the unemployed first, then dealt with wages and salaries, but pensioners had not been forgotten and they were drfalt with. Any increase would take effect from July 1, as was'the case with the present Bill. He explained that where an award had come into existence since 1931, an attempt would be made to readjust the wages as far as possible to those paid in 1931.

Mr. Nash said the clause giving the Minister power to control interest on money at,tcall by building • societies, would remedy the difficulty that had caused trouble for years past, and which tended to keep interest rates up.

Mr. Forbes defended the reduction of wages made by the Government in 1931, and said the then Government had given an assurance the cuts would be restored as things improved, and partial restoration had been made. He asked members to contrast the Budget position this year with a surplus of £280.000, and in 1931, when the deficit was nine million, and steps had then to be taken to meet the position. He contrasted what had happened in New Zealand with happenings in other countries. He said that the Government had not wanted such things to occur in New Zealand. In the United States, many Government servants could not be paid, and the Government was determined that no such thing should occur in New Zealand. Mr. Sullivan: But you left a hundred thousand others unpaid. Mr. Forbes said that better returns for wool and butter, and expenditure on nublic works from borrowed mon-

Uli puum nuinn uuiu av »» ey meant a better Budget, and the Minister of Finance would probably have all the money necessary for reasonable requirements. Mr. Forbes criticised the Government’s proposal to attempt to re-adjust interest rates on loans held in the United Kingdom. He welcomed the Prime Minister’s explanation of the statement, he had made, and that the British bond-holder would be fairly treated. He thought the compulsory return to the 1931 standard would mean hardship in some cases. He believed that the way the present Government was going, made for a short life and a merry one, and if at the ejid of the period of extravagant spending, New Zealand was not in the position of many another country they would be very lucky. He thought the worker would be in a much worse position than he was at present. He predicted that before long the rising cost of living would soon overtake any restoration of wages. Benefits given with one' hand, would be taken away with the other. Mr. Forbes concluded by criticising the Government for the haste with which it was putting through its legislation. Mr. Lee referred to the past Government’s method of passing legislation. In 1932, in 72 days, the Arbitration Court was down and out, five-years-olds were out of schools, pensions had been reduced, the life of Parliament, and

the very constitution, had been tampered with, the unemployed army had grown to an unprecedented figure, business was disorganised, and from one end of the country to the other, there were riots. There might not. be any precedent for haste in doing good, but there was ample precedent for haste for the bad things that, resulted from those actions. He said the Opposition had talked of asking the British people to fund the New Zealand debt at a lower interest, but now the House was asked to believe such a thing had never been done. He referred to the position existing between Britain and America, and mentioned that debts owing to Britain by Italy, France and Belgium had been wiped off, and New Zealand should receive the same treatment accorded to outside countries, and the people would endorse that. Mr. Bodkin said the Bill was an admission of failure on the part of the Government because it showed it had to pay the restoration out of taxation. He reminded the Government they were only restoring a minor part of the cuts. The major portion was restored in much more difficult times.

He challenged any member to deny that. Restoration was not made retrospective further back than July 1, because the Government funds would not permit. The Government he claimed, could not fulfil its promises. He regretted that restoration was not made retrospective to April 1. He thought that the Parliamentarian was the poorest paid public servant in the country, but he would not support payment to a travelling at. the request of a Minister, because the clause as drawn was too wide and might permit of abuses in that a member could travel at the country’s expense to spread propaganda.

MR. POLSON’S SPEECH

GOVT.’S BROKEN PROMISES.

WELLINGTON. July 24. The House met at 10.30 a.in., and the second reading debate on the Finance Bill was resumed. Mr. Sextan referred to the effects of the depression on the people’s morale. He questioned the advisability of the payment of expenses to members travelling on Minister’s behalf.

Mr. Moncur charged Mr. Forbes with inability to look into the future, and to see any different state of society than that existing at present; also with refusing to recognise the advance of the machine age. He said that the present state of civilisation had been reached as a result of the Governments which had tried to lift

the unfortunate, rather than by those who had tried to pull down the tortunate. The country was in process of evolution, and the Opposition must realise that. . , . . Mr. Polson said that he wished to remind Government members, when talking of the overseas debt, to remember that the holders of those loans were our owm kith and kin, and the spread of their interest showed about ,£2OO an individual which showed that the small people had contributed to the loans, and they were entitled to interest on their money. He did not think New Zealand could complain ot the treatment accorded her by the British people and the British Government. The British Government had granted a remission of interest on the war loan. The House was asked to accept a pig in a poke, when it was asked to subscribe to the expenditure of a large sum of money, without

knowing where the money was coming from. He asked the Government to tell the House, fairly and frankly, where the money was coming from to provide its funds. He said that the Government’s promises could he divided into three classes: Broken promises, such as the promises to remove the exchange and sales tax; dodged and distorted promises, such as the marketing scheme; and delayed promises, such as the present Bill. Mr. Polson said that the attempt to reinstate 1931 standards would mean paralysis in some industries and would mean increases in costs. He referred to the increases in costs to the farming community, and said that the Government. despite its assurances, had very little sympathy with the farming community. Referring to the clause enabling the Government by Order-in-Council to add industries to the special schedule of the Factories Act relating to gas works, etc., Mr. Polson suggested that already the Government was finding it necessary to put a patch on the Acts it had passed in the first portion of the session, because of the injustice of it.

Mr. Poison referred to the attitude of one of the Conciliation Commissioners, just this week, when he alleged unwarranted delay on the part of the employers, and said it showed the Government’s attitude. Mr. Polson said that the policy was clearly intended to bear unduly upon industry, and had no relation to costs whatever. It. would have' a boomerang effect on Labour, just as it had had on Labour in Australia. Mr. Coleman said that the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Bodkin said cuts should be restored from April 1, but. he (Mr. Coleman) claimed that if the old Government had been returned to power, there would have been no restoration of cuts whatever. The previous Government, certainly had its problems, but instead of trying to remedy those problems, it aggravated them, and failed to face up to the position. New' Zealand was the last country to feel the effects of the depression, and the only way it could see of getting out of its difficulties was by cutting wages and salaries and it smashed awards. Mr. Coleman said that- the Government was now going to restore the cuts, and to give back what had been taken away. Pensions would be increased, and the Opposition speakers were annoyed because the Government was giving effect to its promises, and because the Opposition could not twit the Government with not carrying out its promises. It amused him that most of the Opposition speakers claimed to be the remnant of the old Liberal Party, the party that had placed on the Statute Book legislation which the Opposition had helped to wreck. Mr. Wilkinson said that the present measure was only one of three. Already there had been two restorations, and hud the past Government been returned. the balance of the cuts would have been restored. He said that the Bill showed the Government was in a state of panic, as the last clause repealed some of the legislation passed only a month ago. The legislation was like the retreat from Moscow, and the Government was running away.

The luncheon adjournment was taken.