CRITICS OF BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 16 April 1932, Page 9

CRITICS OF BILL

VIEWS OE COALITIONISTS

MEASURE READ SECOND TIME

*ATAX THE OIL COMPANIES” .CONSTRUCTIVE PLAN URGED DISTRIBUTION AT FAULT” The National Expenditure Bill was read a. second time by the House of Representatives yesterday and the House will meet again on Tuesday. The Bill was criticised by Labour and several Coalition members. Among suggested alternatives to salary and pensions reductions were taxes on oil companies and wages taxes. Mr. Veitch asserted that the Government should devote time to . constructive proposals instead of trying to balance the Budget. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Criticisms of the National Expenditure Bill were continued when the House of Representatives resumed the debate on the second reading this morning. Mr. F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) criticised the wages and pension 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 Supremo Court to accept a reduction, but they had refused, in spite of the fact that one of-the judges sitting in the Arbitration Court had cut the wages of workers. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Co., Central Otago) urged the Government to consider the alternative economv proposals put forward by Mr. J. Hargest (Co., Invercargill) and others, who recommended an increased wages tax. He described tho comments of the National Expenditure Commission on tho emoluments and privileges of members of Parliament as ‘ridiculous, misleading and typical of the “little” men. who comprised the commission. MEMBERS FEELING PINCH. Mr. •Rodkin stated 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 past two years, it was practically impossible for others than Wellington members to carry,on. The allowance for travelling ’ did not nearly meet the amount members had to expend, Mr. Bodkin said, and the services received at Bellamy’s could he 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 ox his family kept his home going. “COST OF LIVING RISEN.” Mr. D. W. Coleman (Lab., 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 price of certain foodstuffs had fallen. Mr. A. Harris (Co., Waitemata) described the Government’s policy as wrong and wholly unsound, and intimated that he would vote against the wages and pensions reductions when the Bill was in committee. Mr W. A. Veitch (Co., Wanganui) ga id that while he did not agree with those who advocatpd doubling the Government expenditure to meet the present situation he considered it a mistake for the Government to devote all its efforts to cutting down expenditure and making a balanced Budget the paramount consideration. It should devote more time to constructive proposals. Mr. Walter Nash (Lab., 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 half per cent, concession, whichhe understood the hanks,were to make m interest rates, as amounting to the same share of sacrifice as was bemg contributed. by other rates of interest and in fkancial anaemia.

Mr H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson) said the Government was taking--the wrong course in the Bill before the House. Imancial bleeding was not a cure for financial pernicious anaemia. There was more o what constituted real wealth m New Zealand to-day than ever before. The science of production had outstripped tl e science of distribution because distribution had been held in check by foolish adherence to the out-of-date go for international exchange. He regarded the Government as primarily representing the m , oue y' le Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) declared. Some help had been given the farmers, but no aid was for - coming for the traders, who were a vital section of the community. Mr. J. A. Nash (Co., Palmerston) said he did not agree with the proposal tiiat public servants should submit to a turther cut. He considered the Governmen should be receiving money frftni oil comMr. A. M. Samuel (Co., Thames): They could get enough from the oi companies to prevent pension cuts. Mr R. McKeen (Lab., 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 tio banks re-invested the money, but he questioned whether they invested it in the best interests of tho people of New Zealand. PLETHORA OF BOARDS.

Mr. A. E. Jull (Co., 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 boards. Mr. H. ,G. Dickie. (Co., Patea) said if any alternative to the pension reductions could be found he would gladly support it. He suggested a further tax on amusements as an alternative. There were certain features of the Bill, including the Civil Service cuts and pensions reductions, against which he would vote in committee, stated Mr. Samuel. He would vote for the second reading be'cause of the parts of the Bill of which he approved. Replying to the debate the Prime Minister (the" Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said he envied the position of those who were able to discuss the Bill in freedom from rosmonsibility..but ho had to point out

that unless the utmost economy and prudence were exercised it would not een be possible to make payments whJh members had criticised If there , nrash in the national finances E k »» opportunity to pay pensions or civil servants’ salaries at ’’The Bill was read a second time by M vote? to SS and th. Hous, rose at 5.50 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.