LABOUR’S PLANS

Taranaki Daily News, 17 March 1931, Page 9

LABOUR’S PLANS

PROPOSED

AMENDMENT IN PARLIAMENT

* ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS”

OBJECTION TO WAGES CUT

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

By Telegraph.—Press Association. . Wellington, Last Night. The Prime Minister moved in the House of Representatives to-day that urgency be accorded the Address-in-Reply debate, pointing out that he desired. to dispose of this item without undue delay. Members, he said, would have ample opportunity of referring to the Government’s proposals when the particular legislation dealing with them came before the House. The debate on the Address-in-Reply was resumed by Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central), who said the Prime Minister was making a serious mistake if he thought the Labour Party was going to let him reduce civil servants’ salaries without having anything to say. The Government had treated the matter with nothing less than contempt. It would be interesting to know what the members of the present Government party were going to say to their constituents when they met them. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) expressed no surprise at the silence of Reform members during the debate. He said they had the United Party doing the thankless part of the job and as soon as it was done they would put the United Party out. Reform members were no doubt hoping it would not be noticed that they were helping to reduce salaries again as they themselves had done formerly. Mr. Howard added that personally he did not believe there was any reason for the cut, and he thought that if it was agreed to a disservice would have been done to the country. Mr. J. O’Brien (Labour,. Westland), complained that the Government had not forced the cutting.'up of many large estates and had put practically no-one on the land. If there was no other way of meeting the financial position than by the reduction .of wages Labour might agree, but he contended that this- was not the case. He had been completely disillusioned and wanted to apologise to the people of New Zealand for the way he had supported the Government in the past. In future he would prefer to support Reform because that party did not make wild promises but told the country what it would do. Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Independent, Grey Lynn), referred to the Government’s pledges and to the increase in unemployment. He asked why the Government instead of attacking wages had not attacked the liquor traffic, which could be taxed another £500,000. The proposals' in the amendment before the House appeared more satisfactory than the Government’s proposals, and he would support the amendment.

ORGANISED MARKETING.

Mr: Walter-Nash (Labour, Hutt) said the Government should assist the farmers by means of organised ; marketing in preference .to reducing wages. He < -contended that reduced wages would, fail to improve the economic situation because they would result in decreased purchasing power. The money required should come from those people who • • were already in the- 1 position of being unable to spend all they received. He condemned references in the pulpit and in the Press to the abolition of party considerations and said he would oppose the Government’s suggestion to reduce wages whether he was a member of the Labour Party or not. If the Government brought down proposals which he believed, would create the greatest happiness for all the people he would support them. / The talk of eliminating party considerations was so much humbuo". Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) urged the Government to afford more sympathetic treatment to Grown mortgagors. He said many farmers were encountering difficulty in cai - ryin" on and were being helped over the period of depression by merchants and stock and station agents. They .would be greatly heartened if they jenew. they had the State at their backs. He suggested legislation should be introduced enabling the capitalisation of unpaid monies in respect of State ad- " vances for two years. Referring to the rebate for prompt payment Mr. Wilkinson said he regarded it rather as a penalty for nonpayment within a specified period, and he advocated remission of this penalty altogether at a time like the present. The°> farmers should also be given assistancein the supply of fertilisers, and he thought it would be sound business to "ive them credit for the whole supply 0 of manures for 12 or even 24 months. Nothing could be gained by putting good farmers off the land. CONTROL OF THE RAILWAYS. ■ Criticising the proposal to appoint a board to control the railways Mr. Wilkinson said that in such an event ParTiament would have 7 no redress,, ‘would have no. opportunity of reviewing the position and no opportunity of making changes in control if the board were appointed. There would have to be a contract and nothing could be done till the term of the appointments expiredThe board might be successful and it mmht not. .He believed it better for control to be left in the hands of the people through Parliament. Mr. Wilkinson, intimated that it was his desire to move an amendment drawin" attention to the existing wheat duties and expressing the opinion that thev 'should be either withdrawn or reduced. He regretted that as there was already an amendment before the House he could not move it on the present occasion, but he would take steps to have it submitted when the opporKyle CU.M, ton) defended the wheat duties i He said fbnf- if thev were removed the wheat £ra«r» “ the South Island "ould put out of business. He shewed the value of the industry to >ew Zealand, Adding that it afforded employment for a large number of men. y' . Mr. Kyle also advocated the placing of a dumping duty on maize, barley and chaff which, he asserted, were reaching the Dominion iii large quantities to the detriment of New Zealand growers. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) condemned the proposal to “break air honourable agreement with the workers” which, he contended, would be the effect of the wages cut. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland ’ Suburbs) complained of the increase in rents payable for railway workers’ dwellings, coupled with the reduction in wages. He. said it would almost amount to starving families. At nine o’clock a division was taken

on the amendment moved by Mr. McCombs, which was defeated by 45 votes to 22. In addition to the Labour members Messrs Fletcher and H. M. Rushworth (Country Party) voted for the amendment. The amendment was:— “We deem it our duty to represent to His Excellency . that in. the opinion of the House the proposals contained’ in His Excellency’s speech to reduce wages and salaries to meet the fall in revenue are inequitable, as such proposals cannot. be applied to other persons whose incomes are derived from businesses, professions and other sources; and the House is further of the opinion that in lieu thereof the additional revenue should bo raised by a direct graduated tax on individual incomes, irrespective of the source.”

Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) said the position of the farmers did not seem to matter to the Government, which appeared to be concerned merely with a reduction of wages and salaries. The'Prime Minister had referred to the setting up of a commission, but something more definite was wanted. He therefore moved the following amendment:—

“That in the opinion of the House definite action should be taken for the protection of farmers and others who, owing to the trade depression are unable to meet the obligations arising out of mortgages and other financial commitments; and further, that the House is of opinion (a) that a provisional moratorium

should be declared to prevent fore-

Closure pending an investigation “ of the circumstances in each case by a tribunal representative of the interests involved and presided over by a Supreme Court' Judge, such tribunal to have power with the consent of the Minister of Finance to adjust all claims under any financial agreement; (b. in order to increase production definite action i should be taken by the Government to ensure that ample supplies of fertilisers are available for all bona fide farm producers at low rates and easy conditions of payment.”

' Mr. Savage said it could not be taken very seriously that the farmer was likely to benefit substantially from the predicted fall in the cost of living. He had borrowed money and purchased machinery on the time-payment basis and made numerous other commitments that could not be relieved in this way. In addition to farmers there ■ were thousands of wage and salary earners who had made commitments and who were now faced, with difficulties. He emphasised that the amendment did not ask for an indefinite suspension of responsibilities. To sacrifice the farmer was no solution; the problem was still with the farm. To injure any mortgagor offered no solution.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. C. H. Chapman (Labour, Wellington North), who instanced cases in which mortgagors were experiencing difficulty in meeting payments. He stated that in one case 10 per cent, interest' had been asked for the renewal of a second mortgage. Mr. McCombs' concluded his speech at 12.15 a.m.

Mr. F. Waite briefly replied and was followed by Mr. E. J. Howard, who said there would be no more support from Labour for the United Government. The debate- was continued and the House was still sitting when the telegraph office closed at 2 a.m.