MR O’BRIEN, M.P.

Grey River Argus, 12 June 1931, Page 5

MR O’BRIEN, M.P.

j AT THE TOWN HALL Wage Cuts and High Interest On the occasion of his pre-sessional address at the Town Hall last evening, Mr Jas. O’Brien, M.P., was tendered a most attentive and enthusiastic hearing by a good attendance. The Mayor, Mr J. W. G’reeitslade, presided and introduced Mr O’Brien. He said he deemed it a pleasure to preside at the meeting. He thought that a l would recognise in Mr O’Brien a sincere representative for the district. He was of a different, brand of politics to Mr O’Brien, but that did not deter him from giving his opinion as to M r O’Brien’s good work for the district. Mr O’Brien was a sincere Labour member who desired to do his best for the whole of his constituency. Both Mr O’Brien and himself were of the same mind regarding unemployment, as it very greatly affected the whole Dominion at the present time, and they all wanted to find a solution to the problem. it was unnecessary to have to ask that Mr O’Brien be given a fair hearing as the West Coast people were eminently fair. It gave him much pleasure to call on Mr O’Brieh to address those present. Mr O’Brie?!, in opening, thanked His Worship the Mayor for his kind remarks. They had pulled together on local bodies and it had been a pleasure |to work with the Mayor. He (Mr O’Brien) wished to be brief in his address, as it was a cold night. He wished to give an account of his stewardship during the last two years, and to give in ■particular an account of the stand which he had taken in Parliament upon certain matters of outstanding national importance. His Party had been asked about their attitude towards the wages reductions by some people who wondered why the Labour Party had registered their proitest against this legislation. He w'ould like to recall for them something in the way of precedents, and wou’d remind them of the passing of the famous Bill brought forward and carried to a successful issue in 1842 by Lord Shaftesbury to have children taken out of the mines and factories of Bri- ■ tain, and to have the long hour of daily toil reduced. Another statesman,' Samuel Plimsoll, was an old man when t he made hi? mark on the Statute Books by piloting shipping reforms through! the House of Commons against the prolonged opposition of vested interests, and in particular the loading bearing his name which had saved un.to’d numbers of the lives of seamen. Such records as those showed how it [meant perhaps a life of sacrifice to secure the economic freedom that was I necessary for the masses of the people, ’the working class, to which end it was [that the Labour Party was working. It was a fact that the Labour Party had supported the United Party on their no-confidehcp motion against the Reform Government in 1929, because Si r Joseph Ward had promised to bring £70,000 000 into New Zealand for the purpose of completing their 'road and railway systems, and of placing people on the land. This £70,000,000 was not to have cost the taxpayers one' extra penny piece. Promises were at the same time given tjiat there would be no wages reductions, and that the unemployed would be found work. When he was being sent to the Imperial Conference, Mr Forbes appeared in some way to be carrying out a progressive policy foreI shadowed by Sir Joseph Ward, but when he returned in January last he; was indeed a different man. Si r Apirana Ngata, a member of the United Government, had said: “The George' Forbes that left New Zea’and was not the same man as the George Forbes: that came back.’’ Mr Forbes certain-! ly had returned a different man and he 1 started only two days after his return Ifo put a different policy into operaition, one with no semblance of Liberal- | ism about it whatsoever. The Prime Minister had at once vetoed the work 'of the Unemployment Board, and he .proceeded to call parliament together I for the purpose of putting into effect very legislation which his party | had sworn to oppose, and the United Tarty at once became more conservative than the Reform Party ever were. They proposed to reduce salaries—even | thos of the poorest paid—by ten P er , cent., and to bring in a measure enabling the Arbitration Court, by spec-, ( ial order, to reduce all wages through- ? out New Zealand ; and also to reduce . | the subsidies of the Hospital Boards, I Education Boards and other local bodies. New Zealand people had been I building up an efficient hospital service, and to-day the hospitals were looked upon as the finest, in the world, I and no private hospital could come up to them. (Applause.) The cut meant | that trainees at the hospitals were to receive 7/- per week. Before the Bill came down, newspapers throughout rhe country had prepared workers for what | was coming when they agitated for [the reduction of wages, and many men [knew that wage reductions were plan-*n-ed. Some of the civil servants even I thought that it would be quite alright. The Government had said that as there I was a slump they would have to have | sacrifices, and nobody would have been i unprepared to make a sacrifice hut I there was naturally a strong feeling lof dissatisfaction when it was found that the burden of the sacrifice was ’put upon the lower-paid and poorer j people. Therefore, when the Finance Bill was brought down, the Labour Party had set out to stonewall it, and had done .so rather effectively. The r stonewall was so effective that at the rend of a fortnight’s continuous sit(ting, the Bill had got no further that | the short title. Mr Forbes and his party then did an unprecedented thing by changing the rules in the middle of the fight. They altered the Standing Orders and brought in the Closure, whereupon the United Party, assisted /by the Reform Party, “gagged” through Parliament the measures re- | during the wages and salaries of workers generally and also tho standard of our social services. Reform members

actually had sat and watched from their places in the House to see when the division bells rang that the Government would be sure of a majority, while at the same time Reform mein bars took it in turns to vote against the Government simply in order to “save their faces’’ with their own constituents. There would then be a score of the Reformers during the next elections pointing to the division lists to prove they were not in favour of the wages reductions, and the, cuts in the civil servants’ salaries. The Government had been able to got their legislation through, with the help of “the gag” and the Reform Party. The Labour Party had put up the best

fight that they knew how to make against the passing of the Bill. They had asked for all salaries under £2OO a year to be exempt, but despite their . efforts, the Bill was carried in toto by » means of “the gag.” The Labour Party had moved that the salaries of i charwomen be exempted from the cut, |as most of these women were bread•winners and were up at 3 a.m. to clean I out Parliament at an average weekly t'wage yf 30/-, with which they had toj ; keep sick husbands and orphan children, but Mr Forbes and his so-called [ 1 United or Liberal Government gagged j •J the Bill through for the reduction of' 1 that miserable pittance of 30/- perl a week. The Government had said that I •the Arbitration Court awards of wages already in force were not contracts ’ but merely agreements. The reason ji why the Labour Party fought the t 1 measure so sternly was that the Govi eminent were, asking the working peo-j - pc, the poorer-paid people, and the f civil servants, who were only a secl tion of the community, to make the l sacrifices, saying that they were going. , to take £1,500,000 from the civil ser- ? vants alone to help in balancing the 5 budget. The Labour Party had point-1 ed out that there was no equality of j ’ sacrifice. He (Mr O’Brien) had been - attacked because of his attitude in op-’ ■ 'posing the cuts in the civil servants’/ , salaries and he wished to make his, ' position clear. He knew as well as ■ anyone that there was not a civil ser- > vant or any other worker who would' ; object to his salary being cut if an | ■ equal sacrifice were made by every | • citizen. It -was. however, most unfair that only the working people a-id ! those on small salaries were asked to - bear the most of the cost. Neither he I nor those associated with him could ■ agree to reduce the salaries and wages ■ and nt the same time let the other - ‘ and much larger incomes off scot free ' If a civil servant or a worker had - his salary reduced ten per cent.. aHj I others should be treated accordingly. : The civil servant on a fair salary lost ■ ten per cent, of his income and still - had to pay income tax on the remains der, but the incomes of private persons • were not affected at all. even by an ' ■ increase in income tax. An increase in '' income tax was foreshadowed for the ■ coming session, but if a ten per cent. [ increase were made it would mean, as i it did before, ten per cent, only on the amount of tax. Of that increase his own experience was that although he had an income of about £5OO . a . year his increase in taxation was 7/7, but his was considered ‘‘earned injeome,” so he got a reduction of 8/4, '' and thus the increase did not hurt ,' those receiving £5OO a year very much. lAs far as he was concerned he was prepared to sacrifice one-fifth of his in- ! come to help the country along if every other £5OO income were sacrificed likewise. The civil servants would willingly .have taken the cut as long as the ‘other fellow also lost some of his alary. But the helpless civil servant was taxed and the man with the big income was not taxed at all. There I was no equalitv of sacrifice in the Finance Bill. The Government want- j ‘ ed money to balance the budget, and, why not take it from the people who had got it? That would have been’ fair. The primary and secondary producers of the Dominion had worked wonders during the last ten years. 1 Workers had added value to materials! to the extent of over £310,000 000. Ex- , ports had gone up tremendously and ; their factory production had also increased. In" this direction £157.000.000 , had been paid in wages and overhead costs, but they could bo quite sure] workers did not get £150,000,000 of it., and that the overhead costs absorbed a very large part of the total. Dur-, ing the slump in 1921, they had been advised that what was wanted was* more production, and production was . increased accordingly. But when that , had been actually done, they found > i that they were so poor that nobody , knew what to do! On account of a temporary slump there were 40.000 ' unemployed in the country who were 1 having a hard time. Farmers and - •other producers wondered how they i 'were going to carry on. Yet there wasj'more money in the banks of New Zealand to-day than ever before. Seven- L teen years ago there was £24,000,000}. in the Dominion banks, but on December 1, 1930 there was fifty-two, or ' nearly fifty-thre-e million pounds in the Dominion banks in ca c h. On the 13th April of this year, according to the : Monthly Abstract of Statistics there • was £55,000,000 in the banks. When ; they wanted to balance the budget. . they should go to the people who hadj ■ the money. These were the people I ■ who should be taxed. A voice: What about the new Railway Board? •I Mr O’Brien: It’s coming on. Mr O’Brien, continuing, said that ‘ 1 assessable had been increasing • by £19.000,000 annually and the tax--1 able balance increasing by eleven milL lion pounds annually. The income tax., before 1921 was fully eight million ‘ pounds yearly, whereas to-day it wasi -1 only a little over three million pounds; ' in the aggregate, but even so the GovI eminent, when it wanted to balance ' the budget, decided to take the money! 1 from the working man. We had plenty ‘ of people with incomes and money in I the banks, but although they had all | ' that money, the mass of the people 1 were still poor. The Arbitration Court had to hear the applications for the 1 wages reduction of ten per cent., but ; • the procedure of the Court in so doing - amounted to no more than a farce, be- ‘ i cause they had all known that when I'the B U passed Parliament, the wages ■■ were already cut. Referring *o the !1 question of interest reduction, Mr 1 O'Brien remarked that when Mr; ' Lang’s Government found itself with-.' ’ out the money to pay interest and re- ■ pudiated. there came a howl from the I' r whole financial world. Mr Lang had 1 no doubt had money enough to meet \ J’the New South Wales bill for interest,!; 5 but he at the same time had the un- •• ■ employed and other poor pepole to pro-. vide for, and so he had decided to ’ allow the bondholders to wait for the ; > time being for their interest. One • would have thought Mr Lang was the : ■ first in the world to do that. That was ■ • not the case. The interest on 850 mil-', 1 lion pounds for three years had not . ’ been paid by Britain, but it had notp ‘ j been called repudiation, but negotia-1 tion. Britain charged six per cent.! interest, but she only paid three per ’ cent. j

n Continuing* his reference to the n question of intere t, Mr O’Brien said ’ that he had that evening read in the r ’i Greymouth Evening Star a sub-editorial ‘‘article in reference to the failure of t'itho New Zealand five million pounds ° loan on the London market. The leadn er-writer, or the editor, he said, was a doubtless an intelligent man, wi.th a knowledge of interest and borrowing, 1 and he probably knew quite well that while New Zealand was expected to n 1 pay 6| per cent, on the present loan, r - Britain in her interest payment on her r ! debt |tb the United States was getting 'f away with only three per cent. He r. probably knew also that if New Zea!t land had from the lenders of Britain

the same terms as America was extending |to Britain in this matter of interest, the result would to-day be to save New Zealand every year the sum of £480,040 upon our funded debt of £24,000,000. The editor of the “Star,” if he were as well informed as he should be on the subject as to justify his comment, would also be aware that France had made her bond holders pay no less ithan eight per cent, of her war debt. This she did by inflating her currency. He would also know that by the same process Austria had made her bond holders pay ninety five per cent, of the war. debt, and that GerI many had gone so far as to make her I bondholders pay no less than 99 per cent, of it. Let him compare that | with the contracting procedure in Bri--1 tain’s case. Her bondholders had on the contrary been made a great gift Iby the deflation of hbr currency. By 1 returning in 1925 to the gold standard Britain had rendered every fifteen shilling which her bond-holders lent to her worth sixty per cent. more, or 255. The interest which in 1925 would pur- | chase 15s worth now purchased 25worth. He would quote from the 1901 I Year Book to show how interest had been hoisted upon New Zealand’s debt. In 1896 this country boro wed ten millions at 34 per cent., and had also raised a loan about that time at three per cent., while a loan of £l9,Qpo had been raised as low as two and a-half | per cent. When he had quoted these ' facts in Parliament, a Reformer had interjected that the loans were issued as low as at £65 or £75. but the Year Book showed that in 1896 the market quotation was 103, in 1897 it was 102. and in 1898 if was 1011, thus showing , that these loans at low interest were at a premium. What it also showed was that there had been an increase in ■ the interest we had to pay of three or even three and a-half per cent. The point could be well illustrated by the | fact that whilst it formerly required one bullock to pay the interest on say £7OO or £BOO yearly, it now required two bullocks. The money-lender .today asked two and a-half sheep, two I and a-half lambs, two and aha’f pounds I of butter by way of interest where j they only asked one sheep, or one I lamb, or one ouud of butter at the time with which he had made his com- | parison. He stood for the principle , that the interest should be at such a i rate that the value of one bullock j would now equal the same in interest as it used to do. and likewise in the case of a sheep, a lamb, or a pound of butter. The joke of high finance had been going on all the time, but it had to come inevitably to an end. and the interest rate would have to come | down. It was indeed to keep interest i at the peak rates that this country was now asked not only to lower' wages and salaries but also to curtail and lower the standard of its social j sei vices all round. Sir Otto Niemeyer ' 1 had come to New Zealand and his influence was manifest. If they were to i go on satisfying such demands for in- j terest as were dictated to them, what kind of hospitals would they have in the long run? What reductions would' they not have to make in their pen- i sions and their social 'ervices? It’ would ultimately crush any country! (Applause.) The timber industry, said Mr O'Brien, had pfraejtieally shut, down, not because th? timber was nut needled, but because the rate of exchange ( between here and Australia was so high, only £B3 being obtained for every £lOO worth of timber sold. Tht- ? ether countries had been allowed to . dump timber and no steps bad been taken to help our industries. There ’were 10,000 unemployed in the days iwhen Sir Joseph Ward said h - would arrange the establishment of secontf--1 ary industries. The timber industry alone could have found work for four or five thousand of the unemployed. They wanted many more settlers on thei land. It was stated that if they > put one farmer on the land, work would be thereby found for five others j in the towns, if therefore, 2000 were put on the land, it would mean that | work would be* found for 10,000 in the town. The present Prime Minister had broken his promises in many Iwaysi. He, (the speaker), knew an • attaxsk upon pensions would yet be | brought about. Nothing, however, I would stop the speaker from bringing 1 in his Invalid Pensions Bill at the neisit session. It was good to have a i Hospital, which also provided charit- I able aid, but when a doctor’s certifijeate could be introduced a*, fo invalid- ' | ity, why was it not possible to has <?. I a pension given to the persons thus j j entitled to it?

“If the opportunity arises to get rid of the United Party, by means of a no-confidence motion from Mr Coates or the l Reform Party, tlv* whole Gf the Labour Party arc going to support it apd put Mr Fo.rbe s and his party out,” said Mr O’Brien. (Continuous applause.)

Mr O'Brien said he considered there | ; would be a dissolut ion of Parliament ( I during the coming session, anfl it could not oomd too soon fo r the Lablour Party, as they were tired, of the 'present position. If there were an early dissolution the Labour Party would go before the people with th** • ; same platform that they had stood on ’ for many years, and they would not shave it down in any way. When they attained powe r they would deal ‘ with the finances of the country in , such a way that Ifinancial interests , would not be a biTfllen to the people ‘of the country. (General applause.) ( 1 The Chairman then invited quc;*-‘ I tions. | Mr ’Cosgriff asked: Would Mr | O 'Brien be in favour of Starte Lotter- , |ies, as in Ireland, which were run for hospitals? ! Mr O’Brien replied that he was not !adverse to it- It would be better openly than having 174 per taken off it at the races; but he would not be .one t» allow hospitals to be dependent on State Lotteries. He wa? not in favour of encouraging gambling, but lif it could, not be controlled it could |be legalised in some certain way. The Chairman invited further questions, but none were forthcoming. Mr Fraser moved: “That this meeting places on record its thanks to and a.pprecia,tio n of the Labour Party * and to Mr O’Brien, their magnificent fight in opposing the wage? cuts, and 1 further that this meeting had full con- | ifidcnce in Mr O’Brien as Member for the district.” | Mr Fraseg sagd lhe felt quite sure i .that Mr O’Brien, along with the Labour Party r would acquit themselves in I the* future as creditably as in the ipast. | Mr Kent ,in seconding the motion, said that it was a fact that for seven I and a half cetaturies, wages had never i i w

come down, but had increased; and if they had come down, they had only done so temporarily. Any time they had come down it had brought down civilization (Applause). The motion was then put and carried without, one dissentient amid roar of “Ayes.” Mr O’Brien sincerely returned thanks for the motion of thanks and of appreciation of the fight of the Labour Party. He would promise w carry on in the same way an nc had done in the past. He thanked H»s Worship for presiding. A most successful meeting then concluded.