PARLIAMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 256, 10 August 1934, Page 3

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

UEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. (Abridged from Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 9. The House of Representatives this afternoon discussed the report of the State Advances Department. Mr E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South) suggested that there should be, some co-operation between the Department and the Unemployment authorities with a view to maintaining Government-owned houses :n a good state of repair. Dealing with the annual report of the Defence Department, Mr Barnard criticised the purchase of trench mortars by the Department as they would be of no use in the defence of New Zealand. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe said that tlie object of the Department was to prepare a force to defend the country, not to prepare an overseas expeditionary force. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) moved the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment Bill. He said he regretted that his suggestion that the Bill should be referred to the LaBour Bills Committee had not been complied with. The Bill affected many thousands of men, women and children, and the Government could have given all those affected an opportunity of appearing before that committee and explaining their difficulties. It was a matter of the utmost importance to local -bodies, and there was a general complaint from unemployment committees of the somewhat contemptuous treatment accorded them by the Unemployment Board. He wondered if the Government realised the tremendous burden placed on, local bodies to administer tho No. 5 Scheme. It cost his council (Chiistchureh) £20,000. H was afraid that the Government and the Board did uot want to listen to suggestions sent forward by local bodies or unemployment committees. It was doubtful, too, if the Government appreciated tho misery and utter destitution of many workefc on No. 5 schemes. He thanked the members of the House for the attention they had given the Bill on its introduction, but, unfortunately, not many Government members had spoken. Referring to the speeches then made, he said ho was sure that very few people desired a. reduction of unemployment taxation if it meant greater hardship and privation to the unemployed. The. new sustenance rates were better than the old- rates, but they still meant destitution to those who had to accept them.

Appeal for Confidence. Mr Sullivan went on to say that the only proper, humane and decent thing to do when the Government or local body was not providing adequate work and wages in the way ol sustenance as they would receive on relief work. Even that was not an- adequate solution. He was satisfied that the country had a great deal to gain if it abolished ail relief works. It was clear that many local bodies were carrying on as money was received from the Unemployment Board and the Highways Board was not employing the number of men it would if the No. 5 and other schemes were abolished. Many thousands of men could be employed at standard rates, and the unemployment total would be so reduced that the remainder would be able to be paid the sustenance rates provided in the 1930 Act. Why would the Government and the Board not take the people into their confidence and co-operate with them instead of proceeding in the present Hitlerite way? If his Bill was not passed or a similar measure was not adopted, the present unutterable suffering must continue. . Mi- H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Cbrist- ! church East) said that two-thirds ol the work now being dono at relief rates would be done at standard rates if relief works were abolished. He thought that tho Government should give problems which were urgent greater consideration. The Minister's Reply. The Hon. J. A. Young, referring to the complaint that the. Bill had not been sent to the committee, said lithe affected people made representations to the Board they would receive every consideration. Many suggestions from well-meaning people were not at all practicable, If representations wore made to the Board he would see that they received sympathetic consideration. The ■ Board wanted to do the best it possibly could lor tne unemployed who were in an unlortunate position. •Mr A. M. Samuel (Ind., Thames), ■isked if Mr Young would endeavour to secure a pro rata rate for city and country towns. Mr Young said that would come up for review. Last year there weue 68,000 unemployed on whom £l,Wl>,uuu was spent an average of £1 3s 3d weekly. If £2 a week was paid it would involve £7,106,000, £2 5s "™i-ly f8,00U,000 £2 15s £9,771,000, £3 £10,659 - 000 and to give £3 a week would mean that the unemployment tax would have to be increased to 2s 7(1 in the £. To give effect to Mr Sullivan's proLiosals would mean that the tax would have to be more than doublGel • \ The Rev. Clyde Carr (Lab. Timaru), said he hoped the Bill would pass. He asked the Government to change its mind regarding the payment of sus- -- £»yi Jl .TIC e ■ The debate was interrupted when the House rose at 10.30 p.m. till 10.00 a.m. to-morrow.