SALARY CUT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2448, 1 July 1922, Page 3

SALARY CUT.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

PREMIER TO MAKE STATE- ... MENT.

Wellington, June 29. T 5 Several members of the House of proved anxious to‘day to learn the intentions of the Government in respect- to future salary cuts under the Public Ex- - penditui-e Adjustment Act. Notice was given of several questions on the subject-.'; . *Mr Stathain wished to know if ~vt he Government'would' give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole question before any fur- * ther cuts were made.

Mr Seddon asked if, in view of •••-Abe high cost of living, the Government would refrain from making any further cuts. - . . Mr Smith (Taranaki) was anxious to know if teachers would be excluded from future cuts.' Mr Horn asked whether, considering; the report of the Arbitration Court on the cost of living, the Prime Minister would see that no further reduction took place in the salary of married men in the Public Service. _ Mr Eddie (Bruce) placed a question on the Order Paper with reference to the prospective cut. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr . Wilford, asked the Prime Minister, without notice, whether he had ap-. plied under Section 7 of the Public > Expenditure Adjustment Act, to the Judge of the Arbitration Court for a* report regarding the cost of living, and whether he had received a report, and if so, would he lay the report on the table so the members might have a chance of discussing it before any cut was made. > The Prime Minister said he had applied to the Judge for a report, but what he had received so far was not in a form in which it could be laid before the House. It would probably come before the House in (hie course. “But" I may tell bon. members that I am going to abide by the law. I am going to state the intentions of the Government clearly to the House and ask for an expression of opinion. I am going to set the financial position before the House, "arid it will then be for membei’S to say what they will do.” j SALARIES “CUT” MUST COME. « NINE MILLION DROP IN REVENUE. MR MASSEY’S STATEMENT. ( Wellington,- June 30. Mr Massey gave some impressive _ figures, showing how the national liabilities have grown. Heavy taxation, he said, was one of the causes of unemployment. As large taxpayers would otherwise have spent this money in labour. This was one of t{ie reasonsvfor his anxiety to reduce taxation, though he was sorry : , to say this prospect was .not yet in sight. He did not know what would be the position three months hence, but he hoped it would be such as would enable a -substantial reduction to be'made in taxation. Mr Masey produced a Treasury lriemorandum showing that the .expenditure for the last financial year was £16,641,000 in excess of that • for the. year 1913-14. There was not only the increase in expenditure, but there was a drop in national income of something like 60 per cent, on our main products. Everything, had been against us, but we were getting through. The outlook was ever so much brighter, but unfortunately the improvement had not reached the Treasury. Mr Massey then indicated the details of the. decreases in revenue for the year ended 31st May, 1922, totalling £6,604,848. On top of this he was officially informed tha,t a drop of not less than two millions was expected in this year’s income tax payable towards the end of the financial year. This was an awk- , ward situation to face, showing the necessity for extreme caution. He has had a suggestion made 4o suspend the sinking fund, but this would be such a serious breach of faith with borrowers that he was against it except as a last resort. Then it was suggested that we should use .the accumulated surpluses in payment of public service salaries. He thought this an even worse suggestion. There were 50,000 people in the employ of the State. ♦ Referring to other suggestions for economy the Premier said it had been proposed to reduce the number of public servants, but not many people Would stand that. Supposing .there was a ten per cent, reduction. It meant turning 10,000 •people out in the depth of winter, and he would not do that. Mr' Mitchell: Is the lower-paid-employee getting more than he is entitled to? V . Mr. Massey: No. I can’t leave the lowbr-paid man out of the cut as . there are not enough of the others. Mr Wilford :' Compromise at £320. Mr Massey: That, won’t do either as we cannot get the results we ■ want. . . i • , Finally, the Premier said he had not "yet been able to come to a conclusion as to the amount of the further cut, as only that afternoon the report had arrived from the Presi- ' dent of the Arbitration Court. Mr Mitchell: You propose to make the second cut? Mr Massey: So far as I am able to judge there will be a second cut, but if I-see that the decrease in the cost of living will not allow me “without being unfair to make the cut such as was made in January, then it will not be made to that extent. Mr Mitchell: Yon Till base it on

the reduction in the cost of living? Mr Massey: I cannot, do better than what I have said. If the drop in the cost of living will. not. allow of the full cut I am not going to ask the House., to agree to the full cut.

During the subsequent debate, Mr Statham strongly denied the suggestion of the Official Labourites that they only were the friends of tlie public servants, pointing out that the whole opposition voted against a reduction in low salaries. Mr Wilford stated that his party had previously voted against' any reduction of the wages of low paid employees, and the Premier’s woeful financial statement, though warranting grave care in finance, did not prove the necessity for singling out any particular section for slaughtei'. Mr Holland reduced his amendment to a protest against any fur-, ther reduction in salaries. The division was reached at 10 o’clock, the amendment being rejected by 38 votes to 19. The Imprest Supply Bill, involving £3,313,000 was then taken in all stages.