GOVERNMENT WARNED

Grey River Argus, 30 April 1932, Page 4

GOVERNMENT WARNED

EFFECT OF CUTS . * Matters Made Worse (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.; WELLINGTON, April 29. # Labour’s final word of warning to the Government on the effect of the wages and pensions cuts was voiced in the House to-day, when Mr Holland, speaking on the third reading of the Adjustment Bill, said the measure would only irritate our economic ills. He recalled that fifty divisions had taken place in the House, and in some of those divisions Members had voted against the pledge that they had given at the election. Mr Holland said he was afraid the Bill was going to prove an irritant to the economic ills from which the Dominion was suffering. The most important parts, dealing with the reduction of wages and pensions, had been driven through with the aid of the closure. There was an inequality of sacrifice in the wage reductions in the Public Service, and the people concerned would give full consideration to the division lists. Mr Holland detailed the voting on the different clauses, stating that, in some cases, the divisions had been very close. If members had voted in the House in the same way as they had spoken on the hustings, there would have been no reduction of pensions. However, those Members who had somersaulted would have to answer to their constituents. In spite of the wage reductions, the reductions in the pensions were the worst feature of the Bill. Mr Holland referred to the pensions cuts and the reduction of the war pensions. The undertakings given to the soldiers were being completely dishonoured. He could not reconcile the action of the Prime Minister, in view of his Anzac Day speech, with his action in the House. Mr Forbes: “Where is the anomaly?” Mr Holland said the Prime Minister had insisted that the country owed a great deal to the soldiers. The Minister of Public Works had marched with the ex-service men on Anzac Day, and the next day he was cutting down their economic pensions. “Talk about speaking with two i tongues,” Mr Holland exclaimed. “If ' the right hon. gentlemen can justify their action in connection with all the cuts, it is for them to endeavour to do so.” The Government had been wholly responsible for the delay which had occurred, and the Bill was one of the most hopeless jumbles that had ever been presented to the New Zealand Parliament or any other Parliament. The Government in its replies to the members on the cross benches and the Opposition benches indicated that it considered that banks were more powerful than the Government itself, and should not be interfered with. By an amendment the Government had taken power by Order-in-Council to render void the whole of the principles of the interest and rent reductions. A member: “Will they do it?” Mr Holland: “I believe they would do anything at all!” The Prime Minister: “I deny it entirely. I deny it now.” Mr Holland said that, as there was a difference in the Cabinet about the reduction in interest and rent, he suggested that possibly the legislation in the Bill would be abrogated by Order-in-Council. An assurance had been given by the Prime Minister that weekly tenancies would be protected, but the Minister of Finance had stated | last night that they would not be af- ; fee ted. ‘ Mr Forbes: “In some cases.” Mr Holland urged that definite provision should be made to bring down all rents by means of a Fair Rents Bill. THE •INDIAN SIGN.” Mr Holland complained that pensions and salary reductions had already been made despite tho fact that the legislation had not been passed. How did the Prime Minister know the Bill was going to pass the lative Council? The Prime Minister: “We tain of it.” Labour members: “Oh! Oh!” * Mr Semple: the Indian sign on them!” 1 Mr Holland said the civil servants and pensioners would be entitled to sue the Government for what they had lost. Mr Hamilton said the cost of . had fallen, and real j had been maintained, despite the wML I cuts and pensions reductions. The question was debated threwgh j the afternoon. Mr Forbes, replying, said that anyone who failed to answer the call of ’ national necessity was neither a New Zealander nor a man. The third reading was carried by 45 votes to 28. I