PARLIAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21621, 16 April 1932, Page 14

PARLIAMENT

YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (Peb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 15. The Legislative Council met at 10.30 *.m. ARBITRATION BILL. On the motion of Sir James Parr, the Council decided to insist on its _ amendments to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, and Sir Francis Bell, Sir Thomas Sidcy, and Sir James Parr were appointed managers to confer with the House. UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT BILL. The Council went into committee on the Unemployment Amendment Bill. Sir Francis Bell suggested that a clause should be included, making peaceful picketing on relief jobs illegal. He said endeavours were being made to keep young men from going into the country. Sir James Parr said he doubted if the Bill was a proper place to insert such E revision. In view of recent happenings, e thought, it would be necessary for the Government to pasa, emergency legislation. He would confer with the Government on the point. Several members urged that a clause should be inserted to provide that those witji' savings in the bank should not be debarred from securing employment. Sir James Parr said that there was nothing in the Act to prevent this. It was a matter of administration. The Bill was reported from committee without amendments. On the third reading, Mr L. M. Isitt expressed regret at the scene's which had taken place in Auckland, and said it was deplorable that the leaders of the country were being subjected to such irritation. He believed that the newspapers should close their columns to propaganda against the Government. Replying on the third reading, Sir James Parr made reference to the Auckland demonstration, and said that if he were in authority in Auckland or Wellington he would prohibit processions through the main streets. If unemployed desired a march they should do so in the back streets, where no one could see them.

The third reading was agreed to. and the Bill was passed. The Council adjourned at 12.15 p.m. until the ringing of the hells. The Council resumed at 5.5 p.m.

On behalf of the managers of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill Sir James Parr reported that an agreement had been reached with the managers from, the House. He explained that it had been made clearer that in the case of women workers applications for fixing the minimum wage should be made by the unions of workers instead of by the individual women workers. The Council had also sought to make the provisions regarding piece work clearer, but had yielded to the objections raised by the House. The report was agreed to and the Council rose at 5.30 p.m. until Tuesday. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WELLINGTON, April 15. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.tn. SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE. The Minister of Health (Mr J. A. Young), replying to Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Eden j_, 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. PAYMENT OF APRIL SALARIES. Mr J. Bitchener (Waitaki) asked what was the actual position in regard to the payment of April salaries in the civilservice. Mr J. G. Coates, replying on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes), said the salary adjustments trader the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill would operate from April 1, 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 last month that in respect to the first half of this month’s salary abstracts were to’ be prepared at the then current rates of pay, and that adjustments arising out of reductions as decided upon would oe made in abstracts for the second'half of April. Arrangements were in hand for this procedure to apply so as to avoid as far as possible any delays in the payment or hardship occasioned by the delayed adjustment. NATIONAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENT BILL.

Urgency was accorded the < second readfoe of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill. The debate was resumed by Mr F. Jones (Dunedin South), who criticised the wages and pensions reductions. He contended that if there had to be reductions in salaries there should be no exemptions. 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 was sitting on the Arbitration Court which had cut tne wages of workers. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) urged the Government to consider the alternative economy proposals put forward by Mr J. A. Hargest and others. He described the comments of the Economy Commission on 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 the year in Wellington, as had been the case in the last two years, it was practically impossible for other than the Wellington members to carry on. The allowance for travelling did not nearly meet the amount members had to expend, and services_received at Bellamy’s could be obtained elsewhere at a smaller cost. The commission had failed to recognise that the cost of maintaining and cleaning Parliament buildings throughout the year was debited to Bellamy’s account. That was why Bellamy’s showed an apparent loss. Mr Bodkin declared that any but the rich would be driven out of parliamentary life by sheer economic necessity if their honoraria were reduced in the manner proposed. He knew of one member who would not be able to carry on were it not for the fact that members of his family kept his home going. Mr D. W. Coleman (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. Mr A.✓ Harris (Waitemata) described the Government’s policy as ‘‘wrong and wholly unsound,” and he intimated that he would vote against wages and pensions reductions when the Bill was in committ6Mr J. M'Combs (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 due to the maladministration of-the Government. It was unfortunate that the Government had set an example in lawlessness. Parliament had enacted legislation providing for sustenance where work could not be found, but the Governmetn was openly flouting the law The lawlessness in Auckland must be deplored, but the Government’s lawlessnes must be deplored even more. Mr W. A. Yeitch (Wanganui) said that while he did not agree with those who advocated the doubling of Government expenditure to meet the present situation, he considered it a mistake for the Government to devote all its efforts to the cutting down of expenditure and making a balanced Budget the paramount consideration. It should devote more time to constructive proposals. The House adjourned'at 1 p.m. AFTERNOON SESSION The debate on the second reading of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill was continued in the afternoon. Mr W. Nash (Hutt) 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 i 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 o: interest and in rents.

Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said the Government was taking the wrong course in the Bill before 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 the out-of-date gold basis for international exchange. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs) said he regarded the Government as primarily representing the moneylenders. Some help had been given _to the farmers, but no aid was forthcoming for the traders, who were a vital section of the community. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston) said he did not agree with the proposal that public servants should submit to a further salary cut. He considered the Government should be receiving money from the oil companies. Mr A. M. Samuel (Thames): They could get enough from the oil companies to prevent the pensions cuts. Mr M'Keen (Wellington South) 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 the banks had reinvested the pioney, but he questioned whether they bad invested it in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. Mr A. E. Jull (Waipawa) said there was a plethora of boards in New Zealand to-day, and he 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 the work at present done by hoards. Mr H. G. Dickie (Patea) said if any alternative to pensions reductions could be found he would gladly support it. He suggested a further tax on amusements as an alternative. Mr Samuel said there were certain features of the Bill, including the civil service cuts arid 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. Replying to the debate, tjie Prime Mininter (Mr 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 be possible hi make the payments which members had criticised. If there were a crash in the national finances there would be no opportunity to pay pensions or civil servants salaries at all. , .. ■ The Bill was read a second time by 4fi votes to 25. and the House rose at 5.50 p.m till 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.