The Second Cut

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6835, 16 April 1932, Page 7

The Second Cut

Dissentients in the Government PROTRACTED DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE LIKELY Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 15. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 this morning. The Hon. J. A. Young (Minister for Health), replying to Mr Stallworthy (Eden) said he could give an assurance that he had no knowledge of any proposal to sacrifice the school dental service as part of the economy plan. Mr John Bitchener (Nat., Waitaki) asked what was the actual position in regard to payment of the April salaries in the civil service. The Hon. J. G. Coates replying on behalf of the Prime Minister (M-r G. W. Forbes) said the salary adjustments under the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill would operate from Ist April, 1932. This principle was the same as that adopted last year. Pending a final decision as to the graduated scales of reductions, all Departments had been instructed lasi month that in respect of the first half of this month salary abstracts were to be prepared at the then current rates of pay amid adjustments arising out of reductions, as decided upon, would be made in the abstracts for the second half of April. Arrangements were in hand for this procedure to aonly so as to avoid as far as possible any delays in payment or hardship occasioned by delayed adjustment. Urgency was accorded the second reading of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. The debate was resumed by Mr Jones (Lab., Dunedin South), who criticised the wages and pensions reductions. He cointended that, if there had to be reductions in salaries, there should be no exemptions; and he said that last year the Prime Minister had appealed to the judges of the Supreme Court to accept a reduction, but they had refused, in spite of the fact that one of the judges, sitting on tho Arbitration Court had cut the wages of the workers.

Politicians'- Poor Pay Mr W, A. Bodkin (C.U., Central Otago) urged the Government to consider the alternative economy proposals put forward by Mr Hargest and others. He described the comments of the Economy Commission on the emoluments and privileges of members of Parliament as “ridiculous and misleading" and “typical of the little men who comprised the Commission."

Mr Bodkin went on to state that the remuneration of members of Parliament was small enough at any time, but when they were called upon to spend nine months of tho year in Wellington, as had been the case in the last two years, it was practically impossible for other than Wellington!, members to carry on. The allowance for travelling did not nearly meet the amount members had to expend; and the services received at Bellamy’s could be obtained elsewhere at smaller cost. The Commission had failed to recognise that the cost of maintaining and cleaning Parliament Buildings throughout the year were debited to Bellamy’s account. That was why Bellamy’s showed an apparent loss.

A Danger to Democratic Rule Mr Bodkin declared that ar but the rich W’ould be driven out of Parliamentary life by sheer economy necessity if their honoraria were reduced in the manner proposed. 110 knew of one member who would not be able to carry on were it not for the fact that members of his family kept the home going.

Mr J'. McCombs (Labour, Lyttelton) criticised the Government’s policy and referred to the Auckland disturbance. He said that while all regretted the fact that innocent traders were made to suffer injury it was entirely duo to the maladministration of the Government. It was unfortunate the Government had set the example in lawless ness. Parliament had enacted legisla tion providing for sustenance where work could not be found, but the Government wa s openly flouting this law The lawlessness in Auckland must be deplored but the Government’s lawlessness must be deplored even more.

Air Veitch (Nat., Wanganui), said that while lie did not agree with those who advocated doubling government expenditure to meet the present situation, he considered it a mistake for the Government to devote all it s efforts to the cutting down of expenditure amd making a balanced budget its paramount consideration. It should devote more time to constructive proposals.

Mr. Harris Opposes Wage and Pension Outs Mr D, W. Co lorn an (Lab., Gisborne) contended that the cost of living had not fallen as had been claimed by the Government. In fact, there had been an increase in the cost of the total necessities of life, though he admitted that the prices of certain foodstuffs had fallen.. Air A. Harris (C.R., Waitemata) described the Government’s policy as wrong and wholly unsound, anjl. intimated that he would vote against wages a.nd pensions reduction when the Bill was in committee. Air. W. Nash expressed the opinion that the Government’s economy measures, in reducing the spending capacity of the people, would lead to disaster. He did not regard the 4 per cent, concession which he understood the banks were to make in interest rates as amounting to the same share of sacrifice as was being contributed by other rates of interest and rents. Air. H. Atmorc said the Government was taking the wrong course in the bill bc-fore the House. Financial bleeding was not a cure for financial pernicious anaemia. There was more of what constituted real wealth in New Zealand to-day than ever before. The science of production had outstripped the science of distribution because distribution had been held in check by foolish adherence to an out-of-date gold basis for international exchange.

Air. H. G. R. Alason said he regarded the Government as primarily representing the money lenders. Some help had been given the farmers, but no aid was forthcoming for traders, who were a vital section of the community. Tax Petrol, Says Mr. J. A. Nash Air. J. A. Nash said he did not agree with the proposal that public servants should submit to a further salary cut. He considered that the Government should be receiving the money from the oil companies. Air. A. Al. Samuel: They could get enough from the oil companies to prevent pension cuts. Air. R. AlcKcen said there was no

need to go outside New Zealand to borrow money when there was £30,000,000 in frozen, credits in the banks. It was true that the banks ro-invested the money, but he questioned whether they invested it in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. Air. A. E. Jull said there was a plethora of boards in New Zealand to-day, and ho advocated reducing the number with the object of bringing down administration expenses. He thought committees of the House might be set up to do a lot of work at present done by boards. Air. H. G. Dickie said that if any alternative to pension reductions could be found he would gladly support it. He suggested a further tax on amusements as an alternative. Air. Samuel said there were certain features of the bill, including civil service cuts and pensions reductions, against which he would vote in committee. He would vote for the second reading because of parts of the bill of which he approved. In replying to the debate, Rt. Hon. G-. W. Forbes said he envied the position of those who were able to discuss the bill in freedom from responsibility, but he had to point out that unless the utmost economy and prudence were exercised, it would not even he possible to make the payments which members had criticised. If there were a crash in the national finances there would ho no opportunity to pay pensions or civil servants’ salaries at all. The bill was read a second lime by 4{i votes to 25 and the House rose at 5.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.