CLASS LEGISLATION

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1932, Page 2

CLASS LEGISLATION

Wages and Pensions Slashed INTEREST AND RENT TENDERLY TRIMMED. The third reading of the Public Expenditure Adjustment Bill came before the House of Parliament on Friday afternoon. Because of the limited time allowed for each speaker, Labour members had to be content with, a few minutes each in order to sum up the passage of the Bill through the House. Even then only five members of the Opposition were able to speak. Mr J. 0 ’Brien, M.P., Member for Westland, took the opportunity in the few minutes allowed him, to put on record his summing-up of what he termed “the worst piece of class legislation ever put through the House. ’ ’ The curtain has now been rung down on the greatest tiagedy in New Zealand history, and the poorly-paid workers and pensioners must live as best they can until an opportunity is given them to turn a Government capable of enforcing such hardships out of office. However, this week those who forced this legislation through the House are bringing in a Bill, the purport of which is to extend the life of Parliament, thus disfranchising those opposed to their pernicious legislation. Mr O’Brien’s short speech is published herewith:— Sir,—The Bill that has been before the House for some time and is under consideration at the moment, is, in my estimation, going to impose more hardship upon the poorer sections of the community, and safeguard to a greater degree the interests of the wealthier people, particularly moneylenders, than any other measure that has been before the Parliament of this country.

PLEAS AND ARGUMENTS. Right throughout the passage of the Bill, in the House in the Committee stages, arguments were brought forward by Members on these benches, or Members on other benches that are not altogether loyal to the Government, pleading for sonic measure of protection for the lower-paid workers, pleading the case of the aged, the widow, the orphan and the returned soldier and his dependents; and while these pleas were being put forward, those members on the Government benches who were determined by all means or many means to force the measure through the House, sat silently with expressionless faces. 1 do not think that, at any time the case for the aged and the widows and orphans has been pleaded with greater earnestness than from the Labour benches this session.

PENSIONS INADEQUATE. Times without number. we have pointed out the inadequacy of the oldage and other pensions, and it is only two years or two and a half years ago that the Government then in office stated it would increase those pensions because they had been inadequate. The Minister of Internal Affairs this afternoon told us that the cut in the old-age pensions would be commensurate with the reduction in the cost of living, but he selected the period of time used for the purposes of his argument. If he took the period from the time when the United Government promised to increase the old-age pensions he would find there has been very little reduction in the cost of living as compared with the present. But any argument is better than none, and the honourable gentlemen and those with him on the Treasury benches are willing to pin their faith to any contention, no matter how futile, so long as they have an excuse for cutting the pensions of the aged and the widows. Times without number we have pointed out the impossibility of a widow with two young children living on 30/- a week, and although it has been proved to be absolutely insufficient, 'the Government has cut the amount down to 27/-.

PENSIONS TAKEN FROM MINERS’ WIDOWS.

The ruthless cutting out of the miners’ widows’ pensions has been dealt with. The matter was debated very considerably. Had members on the Government benches any idea of the situation of those widows 1 am sure the clause would have been withdrawn immediately. An exceptionally strong plea was made on behalf of the returi - ed soldiers and soldiers’ dependents in order to protect their pensions. It was pointed out that a definite promise had been made and a definite contract entered into with the soldiers, but the Government took no notice.

WOODEN IMAGES. It seems to me that the members of the Government were absolutely woolen. No explanations justifying the cuts were made by them, that the only way out of our difficulties was to make the aged widows and soldiers’ dependents carry the burden. Again, when a plea was made for the lower paid workers it fell on deaf ears. Alternative proposals were submitted from this side, hut the Government refused to listen to one of them for a single moment. I say definitely that in such cases there should have been no reductions while there were incomes of £5OO and over that could be taxed.

QUESTIONABLE TACTICS. One of the most extraordinary things happened while we were in committee on the Bill. That was the way that those on the 'Government benches, some of whom I know had promised to vote against the pensions cut, saw to it that the Government had a majority to cut the pensions. While we were in committee certain honourable members were challenged for asking other honourable members to vote for the cuts —even following them to the door of the lobby. The honourable member for Wairau was one who was challenged by this House for asking the

Member for the Southern Maori District to come over and vote for the cutting of the pensions. However, that incident passed, but on the very next division the honourable member for Talmerston North came into the ‘Noes’ lobby and afterwards admitted discussing with two honourable members who were in that lobby, and who had been voting consistently in the Noes lobby, induced—

Mr Speaker: That matter was mentioned this afternoon by another honourable member. I hope the honourable gentleman is not suggesting improper conduct on the part of anybody.

Mr O’Brien: No, I am not suggesting that—l am merely describing something that took place.

Mr J. A. Nash: Were the doors lock cd?

Mr O’Brien: The doors were not locked. The honourable member for Palmerston North distinctly called the honourable member for Wellington Suburbs and the honourable member for Eden on one side, and subsequently the three honourable gentlemen, who had been voting consistently with the “Noes,” went over and voted in the “Ayes” lobby. I am merely describing what took place. I am not attributing motives.

NO ARBITRATOR WANTED. Immediately thereafter, I moved to report progress in order that we might take Mr Speaker’s ruling on the matter- But the Government sent out its whips and saw to it that we should not have an opportunity of taking the ruling of Mr Speaker. That is how the pensions cuts were forced through in the committee stages of the Bill. I have stated exactly what happened. Mr J. A. Nash: What was the point at issue? What was the division tak-

en on? Mr O’Brien: The division was on the proposal that the amount which an oldage pensioner should receive by way of earnings or income should be reduced from £52 to £39 a year. Has the honourable member for Palmerston North anything further to say now? Mr J. A. Nash: Why not tell the whole story? Mr O’Brien: That is the whole story.

TO THEIR CONSCIENCE LEAVE THEM. On behalf of the widows and orphans who have had their pensions cut, I would like to thank those honourable members who, although pledged to support the Government, voted consistently against the Government in the matter of the cuts; and to those honourable members who had pledged themselves on the platform to vote against the pensions cuts and who subsequently voted in support of them, I leave to their own consciences.

PENSIONS AND WAGES SLASHED. While in the committee stage pensions and wages were slashed, and the lower-paid workers were refused the protection of the Arbitration Court. But when it came to the question of interest and rents, the matter was handled very tenderly and gently by the Government. The Government brought in scores of amendments, and every financial institution with a case to lay before the Government was listened to respectfully. But when the old age pensioners or the poorly paid workers put their cases before the Government they received no hearing.

INTEREST AND RENTS HANDLED TENDERLY. While in committee the honourable member for Bay of Islands moved to include “all other debts” as being subject to reductions in interest, which would mean that all classes would sacrifice equally. Was that amendment taken into account? No—it was immediately defeated. The only reason put forward was that if it were carried the financial institutions would, perhaps, call up their mortgages, if they were at call, ami that farmers and others would be ruined. In other words, the financial institutions would go on strike immediately — they would not allow rent or interest to be cut. But when it was suggested that a moratorium could be declared to prevent that kind of thing we had no serious thought given to it.

THE DIFFERENCE — WAGES, PENSIONS, RENT, INTEREST.

We find that in the case of rent and interest reductions, if there is no agreement between the tenant and landlord, the lender and the borrower, for a reduction, the matter can be settled by arbitration. That sort of thing can be done as far as capital is concerned. Was there any question of settlement by arbitration in the case of pensions, or in the case of the slashing of wages? No. When there is no agreement as to the rate of interest, the matter can be taken to arbitration, or to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the worker was given no chance of arbitration or of the Supreme Court. But the Governor-Gen-eral in Council may exempt from the operation of the bill any money-lender whom he may think fit. The whole of the provisions for rent and interest reductions are full of loopholes, which the money-lenders or the landlords can get through if they choose. For the worker there is no loophole at all. To me this is the worst piece of class legislation ever put through this House. I hope it is the last time that legislation of the kind will ever come before Parliament.