IN SESSION.

Grey River Argus, 13 July 1922, Page 8

IN SESSION.

IMPREST supply debate, MR PARRY’S SPEECH. (Special to “Argus. WELLINGTON, July 11. ■ Speaking in Parliament in the Im -prest Supply Bill debate, Air Parry. Labour member for Auckland Central, •aid:—l want to associate myself with the amendment moved by the lion member for Buller, and, in doing so, to say that I was very dissatisfied with the reply of the Prime Minister in connection with this very important question. I feel that the Prime Minister did not give us the same amount of information that lie usually gives in connection with other questions, and that his statement was not .only confusing but he appeared to be handling a question that he was not altogether sure about. Before passing on to the second cut, I want to say something in connection with the recent decision of the Arbitration Court, which ,in my opinion, did not take ipto consideration factors that should have been considered. The Judge should have acceded to the request of the Labour representatives for a national investigation before the reduction of wages was declared. The proposal was so large, it involved so many people, and the question of reducing the national spending power of the nation was so important, that I really think the Court and the country would have been well advised to have had a national investigation before the “cut” took place. There are many quotations that have been made from the pronouncement of the Court; but the main thing that seems to have been omitted in connection with the decision is any real effort on th« part of this national institution to fix a wage compatible with .the real definition as quoted from eminent authorities. Certainly the Judge quoted many authorities in connection with the matter, but I would point out that the quoting alone of very nice phrases will not prov'd. the working people of this country with a living. That will not satisfy the people of this country who are not receiving a wage consistent with a decent standard of civilization, they want something more than very lofty definitions of a living wage. So far as the decision is concerned it practically means that the Judge of the Court really contented himself by quoting definitions on that subject, and in no way attempted to embody them in reality. If there is on-o thing more than another that would have been approved of by the working class of this country, who are now very dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, it was for the Judge to have agreed to the investigation asked for by their representatives, hi fact if the Government had agreed in the first place to a national -investigation, then we should have had some reasonable chance of having what we contended was a living wage determined by the national institution of this country. However, that investi-

gation has not taken place. Now there is one point I want to emphasise here to-night and I want the Prime Minister and the Government to take particular notice of it, because, in my opinion, it is very important in view of the fact that, it is a decree of our national legal institution and that is whit the Judge of the Court considers the basic wage should be based upon. I quote from the decision ‘which says: “The only. way in which effect can be given to the finding of the Australian Basic Wage Commission or any similar commission is based on the recognition of the fact that the average family in New Zealand comprises only 1.57 children under fourteen years of age, and that the average number of children to each adult worker is less than 6.94. We in New Zealand have reckoned only two children to the average family, but this is over the mark. The claim of the Union for full wages for all adult males, irrespective of their obligations, is irreconcilable with the claim for an adequate wage for the married man with a family of three or more children. The point 4 desire to emphasise is this: that when the Judge of the Court decided to -embody that in the decision as a principle, he did not even take into consideration the requirements of the Education Act, which compels the child to attend school until it is fifteen years of age, or in other words, he laid down this principle that means in the future, the working man of this country is not going to receive any consideration in his wage from that institution for his child when it reaches tho age of 14 years. If there is one thing that we should emphatically pro test against it is the principle ihat is embodied in decision which means that the working man of this country is going to be called upon to practically kick his child out of Ths home to earn its living when it Tea ehrs 14 years of age. So far as we are concerned we are going to tight that to the very last ditch, and I believe it behoves every man in this country, irrespective of the party io which he may belong, to jealously safeguard that sacred principle that every working man’s child should bo given the opportunity of sufficiently educating himself for his station in life. We shall not only fight this principle politically, but we will also fight it industrially. The fight waged against this principle some 60 or 70 years ago, as members will see if they ;urn up the -early history of the factory <

system, was a long and bitter one. 1 Wave no more to say in Connection with that decision, except this: that the Government should very seriously consider the effect of it before deciding upon any further cut in the pay of the Civil Servants of this country. However, it is difficult to sec how the Government can depart from the decision of th-e Court. It would be unfair for the Government to call upon the public servants to undergo a greater reduction that the workers under the jurisdiction of the Court. Some hon members to-night referred to the fact that the workers to-day were not as -well off as they were in 191-t. As a matter of fact it will be found that the purchasing power of the worker to-day on the av-erage is not as great as it was in 1914. 1 have a little table here which I will place oil record to show the correctness of what I have said. It will be found on page 303 of the Year Book of 1899. May, Increased 1898 1922. to d. d. d. per cent. Bread (per lb) 1J 31 to 3.1 120 Beef (per lb) 3 : | 71 to 81 100 to 120 Mutton (lb) 3 6 to lOO to 125 Sugar (per lb) 2£ 4J- 72 Butter (fresh) 9° t .1/10 125 Cheese .. 5 J 1/to 1/2 120 Milk (quart) 3 6 to 7 over .100 “These prices show a total increase of 106 per cent, and the general labourer in that day was receiving about 8/- per day, and yet when wc come to compare the purchasing power of the average wage worker to-day and in 1898, the fact, no matter how paradoxical it may appear, is that his purchasing power to-day is not as much as it was in 1898. Sir, the Primo Minister, mentioned the necessity of making a cut all round. Well—one can understand the necessity of a Government ‘at a period like This, economising and being careful of its income and looking closely at the Treasury funds, but when we analyse the situation it reveals a policy of contradiction. That the Government should make a present to an institution like the Bank of New Zealand of approximately £17,000 by way of a rebate on land and income tgx, and at the same time pass an Act taking 20 per cent from the man whose income is about £4 10/- per week, is to me, sir, a contradiction. It is a position that needs some explanation. Here wc have ah institution that is able to pay a divi-

dead of 14 per cent, and yet the Government make a present to it of approximately £17,000, while at the same time it takes 20 per cent off the man who is receiving £4 10/- per week. According to statistics the civil servants received an average wage increase in the cost of living of 43 per (•■•‘nt, equalling an average increase in wages of £3 17/2, which is 8/8 per week short of the increase in the cost of living. In other words, during the period from 1914 to 1922, the civil servants of this country suffered to th-e extent, of 8/8 per week over that period. This l&ss works out at approximately £9,000,000, which they lost during that period. Sir, in view of that position, I say it. does seem unfair, and it lends very strong support indeed to the idea which is held in this House, that this legislation is in the nature of a special tax upon that section of the community. An extraordinary position is disclosed when one comes to analyse those figures and then analyse the situation as it effects th-e other section of the community in New Zealand. In 1914 the total assessable incomes amounted to £13,850,261. In 1917-18 they had increased to £36,645,375. In 1920-21 they had increased to £4.8,606,887, which is th-e latest figures available in our Official Year Book. These figures show an increase for 1920-21 over 1914 of £34,756,626. That appears to be a rather significant increase in the incomes of the wealthy section of th-e community during that very prosperous period. Side by side with that the private wealth increased from £285,000,000 in 1914-15 to £562,000,000 in 1920-21, an average yearly increase of £46,000,000. I want this specially noted by my friends who are ’interjecting that during that period no revaluation of land took place in New Zealand. To be fair we must also analyse the wealth accumulated by the working class people of this country. I want to be quite fair about the situation, in order to give, if possible, some idea of the inequitable distribution of the wealth of -this country. According to the Post OtIfice Savings Bank, which hon members on the other side always admit is 11\9 j working class bank and the only institution from which we can ascertain from year to year exactly as to how the workers are improving their position, from the point'of view of savings. a point whicji was emphasised [by the employers’ representatives at the recent Arbitration Court sitting. The employers’ representatives quoted Iho total amount of doposis in 1914 as compared with 1920, and said to the Judge that -it was -evidence of the increased prosperity of the wage workers. Now let me analyse these figures and I find that the total amount of savings in 1914 was £19,048,029, while the depositors were 483,261, or an average per depositor of £39. In 1920 the total deposits were £43,352,031, while the number of depositors was 664,819, or an average per depositor of £65. That represents an increase per depositor over 1914 of £26 or -i yearly increase of £4 6/8. While, on the one hand, the assessable incomes increased from £13,000,000 in 1914 to £48,000.000 in 1920-21, an increase of £34,000,000 over 1914, and the private wealth increased to the

extent of £46,000,600 per {j’-ear, the v Diking class accumulated wealth to tin extent of a paltry £4 6/4. Yet, in face of this unfair distribution of the country's wealth the Arbitration Court recently decreed that the workers of this country should be contented to go back to the- standard of 1914, or in other words it dt-<- <-.'s that tho working class is not eniiiicu Io participate in any share of the material progress that has taken place during the prosperous period from 1914 to 1920. 'The workers recognise that that section of the community which has participated in this vast accumulation of wealth have a considerable amount of it to-day, and th-ey feel if the Government only decided to do the right thing, they would impose taxation on that section of the community that can afford to pay' it, and thus ensure to the workers of this Dominion -a decent standard of living. The Prime Minister said that he did not know where we were to get the money from. Why, we had 39 land owners in this- country with combined incomes amounting to £600,001) in 1921, and 622 owners with combined incomes amounting to £3.154,614. 1 think these figures will indicate to the Prime Minister that there are very wealthy people in this little country, who can afford to disgorge and a levy on those very large inconfes would afford a reasonable chance to the workers, to enjoy a decent standard of comfort.