PARLIAMENT

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 89, 24 March 1931, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

THE WAGES REDUCTION

A LABOUR MOTION

COST OF LIVING PROBLEM

WELLINGTON, March 23. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m.. Mr 1). G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon), gave notice of intention to introduce the Workers' Annual Leave Bill. Mr W. L. Barnard (Labour. Napier 1 ), asked when (lie earthquake legislation would he ready and whether if- wuuiil be given precedence to current busi n ess.

Hon. G. \V. Forbes replied that the legislation would be ready by Thursday evening. He would bring it down them if possible. The measure at. present before (he House should have been dealt with bv then. Mr W. K. Parry (Labour. Auckland Central*): you're von optimistic.

Mr Barnard asked wluthei under the earthquake legislation power would be given for the regulation of rents by a tribunal. It was said that some landlords had already taken advantage of the shortage of habitable houses to charge higher rents than those prevailing' before the earthquake, This was likely to cause serious trouble. In one case the rent; had been increased from 25s to 30s a'week and in another from 32s lid to -lbs. It was not possible to obtain an average four-roomed cottage for less than 30s a week.

Mr Forbes said there was a provision in the Bill enabling the Government to meet any emergency that miglii arise, He had been informed in re gard to rents that a great many people st.ili were absent from Napier ami one would have thought that the ren In Is of houses would not lie rising bni would have been reduced. The powers conferred by the legislation would be very wide and if any exploitation wen 1 attempted, such cases would be dealt, with. Eailway Dismissals, Hon. J, 0. Coates, on behalf of the ex-servicemen of the House, asked tie l "Minister of Railways if it were tin; policy of the Government to dismiss returned soldiers from tl.e railway workshops. He said there was nneasiness among the returned soldiers that unfair discrimination against them w.ts eonteniplated. He added that his remarks applied to the Adtlington workshops. Hon, W. A. Veitch (Minister of Pailways) said that, wherever the retention of the service;-; of returned soldiers could he justified, they were being retained. No discrimination against returned soldiers was contemplated. The size of the staff depended on the volume of business and the available funds.

■ Mr R. Somple (Labour, Wellington East), asked whether in view of the proposed reduction in wages and salaries, the Government would take steps to reduce the interest payments of the .State Advances Department, in order to enable those who had loans from the Department to meet their obligations.

Mr Forbes replied that the average payment of principal and interest made under the Advances to Workers was 22s (id a week, which was far below the average paid for rented houses. However, if there were any cases of hardship they would be given consideration.

The Prime '.Minister moved foi urgency for the committal stages ol the Finance Hill and any proceeding: relative thereto. Labour members call ed for •, divi- ion and the motion was adopted by Hi voles to 22. Messrs Fletcher nr. I Biack, together with tin IVibonr m"t:,K'!<.. vo'ing against it, / Mr. Fraser's Motion. Mr. Fraser then moved as follows: '*' That, it be an instruct ion to the com mitt.ee of the whole on the Finance Bill .that it hath power to make provision in the Bill for ensuring that the cost of living, including food, clothing and rent, bo lowered simultaneously with and in proportion to the amount of the reduction in the salaries of public service employees, as specified in part .one of the Bill; and simultaneousi ly with, and in proportion to, the I amount of reduction of wages us ordered from time to time by the Arbitration Court under part, two of the Bill." Hon.. W. Downie Stewart (Reform, F'tnetUn West) raised a point of order and submitted that the motion could not be accepted on one of two grounds, either because power to make amendments was already possessed by the committee or because it. sought, to subvert the whole procedure which the Bill was designed to establish. Mr. Fraser contended that the motion complied with the terms of the Stan liti- Orders in relation to instructions, because its term:; were relevant, to the contents of the Hill, while on (he other hand there was no clause in the Bill to which it was possible in the ordinary manner to move an amendment to provide for the object embodied in die instruction. After other members had submitted their views, the Speaker ruled that Hie motion was in order because it, was not subversive to the principles of the Bill, and at the same time there was not. provisi )•! in the general instruction to the committee giving the power which the motion sought to confer upon it. Spending in support of his motion, Mr. Fraser said he intended it; to be helpful to the Government. If the Government was in earnest: in its repeated protestation that; the standard of living of the people should not be reduced, the motion should be acceptable, lie was not. as optimistic as the Prime Minister that the Bill would bring about, a reduction in the cost, of living proportionate to the reduction in wages, luil the motion, if approved

by the House, would give the Govern' inen't, machinery to endeavour to do what it said it intended to do. Unless such machinery were definitely includit in the I'.ill there was no guarantee that the cost of living would not, rise through prices soaring. Motion Seconded. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion, and remarked that the Prime Minister should welcome the suggestion made by Mr. Fraser. as it really solved the problem facing the Government by showing how a reduction in the cost, of living could lie brought, about. Every party was insistent that, there should be such a reduction and a very strong case could lie made out for a reduction in rents, which formed a very large proportion of the average family budget. Tte contended that, the cost, of liviv would not fall in proportion to the fall in wages unless it were brought about by legislation.

Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) urged that it was necessary to do something to protect con. sumers against the middlemen and others who might be disposed to keep j rices r.j to ;. n unnecessary and unreasonable extent. He argued that if the motion were not accepted by the House if would hi. tantamount to expressing i lie ciew Unit the cost of living need not fall in .-.) it.« of (he fact, that wages are <o ! r, reduced. Mr. Parry said that New Zealand's experience during the war period had shown the effect of the failure of the Ooverniiiem to force down the cost, ol living simultaneously with a reduction in wages. It had faen neon proved Ilia' there were people in our midst who had been prepared to lake advantage of the circa instances. lie could recall the harsh terms in which Mr. Massey had referred to such people find (lie legislation subsequently passed should be made a basis of action at the present time. It. was important that legislation should now be passed which would be more effective than that to which he had referred. Past Experience. Mr. C Carr (Labour, Titnaru) said that in the past the decrease in the cost of living had definitely lagged behind reduced wages, while in some eases lower wages had been accompanied by higher prices. He quoted figures, which he said showed that whereas the Civil Servant earning £295 a year would suffer to the extent of il-V Kid. as a result of a ten per cent, reduction, the business man with an income of £IOOO a year paid-' only £-'>S 17s (id in income tax. Instancing another case, he said that a married Civil .Servant at present in receipt of £IMO a year would lose £24, while a single man with tin income of C7OO paid only £22 5s lil in income tax.

Mr. .7. \V. Munro (Labour, Dunedin North) said that if the House passed Mr, Frascr's motion he was sufficiently optimistic to believe that when the Bill was in committee he could frame a clause which would meet. the purpose sot, out in tlio motion without imposing unduo hardship on auy .section of the community.

Mr. Barnard quoted instances of high routs charged in Napier, before the earthquake and drew attention to increases after the disaster, adding that such cases emphasised the need for houses and the adoption of Mr'. Frascr's motion. The workers would he hard hit if, simultaneously with decreased wages, there was no corresponding fall in fixed charges such as rates, interest and rent.

(Left sitting)