The Daily News TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1932. CUTTING EXPENDITURE.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 April 1932, Page 4

The Daily News TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1932. CUTTING EXPENDITURE.

During the extraordinarily long sitting of the House of Representatives which, ended on Friday night members apparently devoted more time to bickering than to anything that eould be called helpful discussion of the Government’s economy proposals. The long hours, lack of comfortable sleep and excitement engendered by the closeness of several divisions had the natural effect upon tempers, and it is not surprising that in the heat of the moment members were apt to make remarks which would not have occurred to them under normal conditions. Happily it is one of the traditions of Parliamentary life in this country that differences which may arise during a strenuous debate are soon forgotten, and though the Press Association’s report of Friday’s proceedings gave a good deal of space to the “incidents” which occurred there is no need to discuss them. It is more interesting to read the report as an indication of the feeling of those members who opposed the wages and pensions reductions proposed by the Government. It is evident, of course, that most of the members who spoke were very briefly reported, but it is to be presumed that if any of them had given clear reasons for his attitude or had put forward alternatives to the provisions of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill they would have been placed on record. Six or seven pledged supporters of the Coalition voted against various provisions of the measure relating to pensions, yet not one of them seems to have offered any greater justification for his vote than the bare statement that he had told his constituents he would not be a party to any curtailment of pensions payments. It is admitted, of course, that a member who has given, pre-election promises must honour them to the utmost extent of his ability, but at least his constituents are entitled to expect an intelligent reason for his action and not merely blind obedience to his promise in the face of possibly changed conditions. Before the election the Government made no promises in regard to -wages or pensions, the Prime Minister stating that these questions had not been considered by Cabinet, which hoped, however, that curtailment would not be necessary. Since that time Cabinet, with the help of outside opinion, has had to frame its finance policy, and has declared that in order to maintain something like equilibrium in the national accounts expenditure must be substantially reduced, and wages and pensions must bear their share of the sacrifice. In the light of this emphatic statement a mere vote against the Government’s policy surely is not enough from those who oppose portions of the scheme. The onus is upon them to. put forward some concrete idea in place of that which they seek to destroy; their country has the right to require them to offer alternative measures and to submit evidence as to whether these measures would equally serve to ensure the soundness of the national finances. The only available information indicates that the application of such a test as this to the Coalitionists who recorded their votes against the Government would find them wanting. It is obviously easier to justify the attitude of those members who regularly oppose the Government. The Labour Party certainly has propounded a policy, and though the majority of the electors in this democratic country has rejected Labour’s proposals, there is no reason why the party should not stick to its guns, however inadequate they appear to be. Revision of its views undoubtedly would enable it to serve the Dominion better than it is doing, and perhaps would further its own interests in the electorates, but that, of course, is a matter for the party’s own consideration. Up till the present, at any rate, the electors who have expressed their preference for a sound policy of economy rather than one of extravagant expenditure, compulsory borrowing and inflation of the currency have probably learned of nothing in the proceedings of the emergency session to induce them to think of revising their verdict. It is, indeed, more likely that they have been convinced they did the right thing. The report of the recent long sitting credits to a prominent member of the Labour Party, Mr. E. J. Howard, the statement that the party was in favour of “pensions being paid in full, irrespective of the country’s finances.” A more simple and frank declaration of the Opposition's policy would be impossible. If Mr. Howard and his colleagues occupied the Treasury benches they would simply go on spending as long as they could lay their hands on funds, and they would leave the future to take care of itself. That is just what the Labour Government was doing at. Home until Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Snowden realised that the policy meant bankruptcy, and it is very much like the recklessness that has placed Mr. Lang in his present difficulties. Now Zealand fortunately has a Government which is wise enough to be warned and to take the safe path. It is also the hard path, but it is better to make a sacrifice now

for the sake of the future than to rely on mere opportunism for the present and store up worse trouble to be met later.