NO ALTERNATIVE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 84, 18 March 1931, Page 5

NO ALTERNATIVE

REDUCTION IN WAGES' SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER WELLINGTON, March 17. The House of Representatives met at 7.20 p.m. Replying to questions submitted by Mr M. E. Barnard (L. Napier) the Hon. G. W. Forbes said that the legislation being prepared with reference to the earthquake, would contain pro visions relating to actions being taken by the banks and other creditors in the way of disposing of the assets of persons who hud suffered damage in the disaster. Provisions for advancing money to businessmen to enable them to recommence activities would also bo included. The Government was obtaining a report with regard to the steps it was advisable to take with respect to the clearing of the ruins. Mr W. P. Endeau (R., Purnell) was granted six days’ leave of absence on account of a bereavement in his family. Moving the second reading of the Finance Bill, Mr Forbes reviewed condition!: as he found them on his return from tx-e Old Country, and the announcement he made relating to the steps he considered necessary to meet the position. He said that New Zealand, in the past had been prepared to face the facts and make sacrifices when necessary. He had the utmost sympathy with the people who were faced with a reduction in wages and salaries, but there was no alternative if solid conditions were to bo maintained with!.-' (hi country. Ho anew there was resentment among those taking a narrow view of the position, but those taking a broader view* would, he felt sure, not entertain such feelings. If New Zealand were able to get through with no more sacrifices than the Bill contained, \t would bo very lucky. Reduced Cost of Living

The Government was endeavouring to balance the loss in wager by taking all possible steps to bring down the cost of living. A good many employers had followed the Government’s lead in the matter of a reduction in wages and had assured him that the benefits were being passed on to the people. Ho added that if there was any disposition not to pass the benefits on to the public, but simply to use them to put more money in the pockets of business men, the Industries and Commerce Department had been instructed to watch the position very closely. (Labour laughter). Dealing with references to breaches of contracts with workers, Mr Forbes said there could be no contract where a worker was not bound in any way. He was always in the position of being able to state that he would not work for award wages. There was a very material downward trend in the cost of living, Mr Forbes continued, and he felt confident that the downward trend would be maintained. He had estimated a four and a half million sterling deficit and that gap would have to bo bridged. He had investigated the possibilities of a sliding scale of reduction in salaries and had found that this would save only £OBB,OOO compared with £1,391,000 from a 10 per cent flat rate. Other scales gave similar results and at a time like this it waS no use considering them. Higher Income Tax

In addition to the cut those receiving over £3OO annually would be asked to pay additional income tax. He regretted having to propose a cut in salaries of members of Parliament, because with all the expenses they wore put to their salaries were very small. Mr H. E. Holland; Members will not waste time fighting for their own salaries. In reply to a question, Mr Forbes said that the Government had no power to reduce Judges’ salaries. Labour members: Can wo increase them? Mr Forbes: I haven’t gone into that. (Laughter). At the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s speech the debate was adjourned on the motion of the Hon. J. G. Coates, and the House rose at 5.40 p.m, till 2,30 p.ra to morrow.