PENSION CUTS

Southland Times, Issue 22187, 1 December 1933, Page 8

PENSION CUTS

RESTORATION URGED GOVERNMENT’S ACTION CONDEMNED “PLEDGES NOT KEPT” (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, November 30. Condemnation of the Government’s action in reducing pensions was expressed by Labour members in the House to-day, after Mr W. E. Parry unexpectedly moved that the time had arrived when the House should indicate to the Government that pension cuts should be restored. Mr Parry said that the cuts in pensions had created a greater impression on the people than any other action of the Government. During the election campaign the Prime Minister had stated that there was no likelihood of a reduction of pensions, but that pledge had not been kept. Mr Forbes: We hoped there would be no reduction. Mr Parry said he had followed the Prime Minister’s remarks very closely and they had conveyed the impression that there would be no pension reductions. In view of widespread dissension with the Government’s action, the time had arrived when the cuts should be restored. In Australia the refusal of the Federal Government to restore the pensions cuts had almost precipitated a political crisis and the Commonwealth Government had wisely restored 2/6 of the cut to bring the old age pension up to 17/6 per week. The fact that the pensions question had brought about a serious political situation in Australia was sufficient reason why the New Zealand Government should seriously consider the restoration of the pensions reductions in the Dominion. It might be said by the Government that owing to the fall in the cost of living since the cuts had been made, pensioners were better off now than they had been prior to the reductions, but no member of the House would be prepared to state that pensioners in his district were to-day in a better position. Many of them were suffering acutely and were it not for the relief given to them by hospital and charitable aid boards, their plight would be serious indeed. The Prime Minister seemed to be very optimistic about the future and the rise in the price of wool was being taken as a sign of returning prosperity. Thus it was most opportune that pensioners should be reinstated to at least their former position. A strong plea for restoration of the cuts was made by Mr D. McDougall. He said the Government had made a mistake in cutting down the pensions of old people. Mr McDougall said he had been present at the wool sale at Auckland and had observed the look of “hope and glory’’ in the faces of farmers. If the cuts were restored there would be a look of hope and glory on the face of old pensioners. There was nothing worse than to see old persons in want. It would be a sorry thing for New Zealand if it could not afford to restore the cuts and bring Christmas cheer to the old folk of the Dominion. Motion Rejected.

Mr H. G. R. Mason said that pensions did not increase production costs, but they increased consumption. Mr F. Langstone said it was desirable that there should be circulation of goods by medium of money. There had been a reduction of £87,201 in pensions payments, but the country could afford a vote of £lOO,OOO for the Singapore base.

Mr A. M. Samuel said the House had to recognize there was a class of society which could not fend for itself and Parliament had the responsibility as far as that class was concerned. The cuts had been uncharitable, unwarranted and unsound economically. The motion was for the restoration of 1/9 weekly which had been taken from the pittance of old age people. Mr R. Semple said it had been stated that there was no money, but £1,000,000 had been given in subsidies to building schemes of rich concerns. Mr J. A. Lee said that aged people could live longer if they had that sense of security which had come from a decent income.

Mr H. Holland said the time was not opportune for restoration of the cuts, but the Prime Minister had stated that an increase in pensions would be one of the first matters considered when conditions improved. It had to be remembered that pensioners had benefited through the 20 per cent, reduction in rents. The old age pensioner was better off to-day than he was 10 years ago. Mr Fraser said the statement that pensioners were better off to-day than before the cut would not convince those receiving pensions. Many of them had been compelled to go into old people’s homes. The statement that rent reductions had more than met the reductions was a smug way of meeting the situation. The Government’s deflationary policy had done widespread harm and it was time it was replaced by a programme of reflation. There was no expression of opinion from the Government benches and Labour forced a division which resulted in the motion being rejected by 38 votes to 25.