FINANCE ISSUE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 58, Issue 281, 8 September 1938, Page 3

FINANCE ISSUE

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT. OPPOSITION POINT OF VIEW. <Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 7. Clause ol oi' the Social Security Bill was productive of a discussion in the House of Representatives to-day which lasted for practically the whole of the afternoon. Referring to this clause, which deals with unemployment benefit, the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Ham. ilson) said it appeared that pensions were to be paid to men out of work. It means payment without services. He asked whether the system was to be the only means of dealing with unemployment, and also how did the Government intend to finance men who were taken from the ranks of the unemployed and placed on public works. Did it intend to carry on that work out of borrowed money? Would the Public Works Fund be used in future instead of the Employment Promotion Fund for paying unemployed men who were placed on public works ? Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nationalist, Central Otago) asked if there was to be discrimination between men and women under the present law. It was much more difficult for a woman to receive relief than a. man. Mr W. J. Poison (Nationalist, Stratford) : It is intended that the Commission should take over the whole ot the i employment Department ?

) \ No Dunplication. The Hon. W. Nash said that under , the Bill the Promotion 1 Act was repealed and there could be no . duplication. Unemployment benefits , would l)o paid under the Social Security f Bill, which set out clearly what the , qualifications to benefits would he. i Those who did not take reasonable [‘ steps to find work, or those who would not take work would lie disqualified. - A married woman would qualify if the , Commission was satisfied that her ImsI hand was unable to maintain her. Every benefit available to a man would be also available to a woaan. “The 1 point is that this is a Social Security 1 Bill, and the people of Tais country want this clause and every other clause to go through,” added Mr Nash. The Opposition, he said, was forced by , ' the pressure of public opinion not to say too much, but every now and then there came their only resort and there was opposition to the Bill. That was the usual procedure. Mr S. G. Smith (Nationalist, New Plymouth): We are not opposed to the •Bill, hut the financial aspects must be a nightmare to the Minister. Continuing, Mr Smith asked for a definition of “suitable’' work as stipulated in the clause under discussion. He said that scores of men had been squeezed off the unemployment register under the present Government because only the officials concerned had regarded the jobs available as suitable and the men had not taken the work. The people wanted the principles in the Bill but they did not want a measure pushed through that would break down under its own weight. There should be some provision for appeal against an employment officer making an honest mistake. . Issue Confused. Mr Bodkin reminded the Minister that the Bill was not the first to establish social benefits. He contended that it was really a measure consolidating the numerous types of pension that were in existence when the Minister took office. The' Minister completely confused the issue every time lie was requested to give details as to the cost of the scheme and where the money to I pay for it was to come from. It seemed I evident that the Minister hoped if his j party were successful at the next I election it would have an opportunity of amending the legislation after deluding the electors that the benefits could quite easily he afforded. Hie Hon. H. T. Armstrong said that | a who was capable of render- | ing service would lie provided with work I by the Government that could, not he 1 provided by private enterprise. Hus- • tenance might he necessary as a temporary provision between the time a man lost his job until lie was again put to work. Was the Opposition sug- . gesting that more sympathetic? con- I sideration was 'given to unemployed J under the previous Government than I under the present one? That argu- 1 ment could not be supported by facts. J* Mr Nash said there had not been ond real word against the clause, only a lot of propaganda. j Minister’s Responsibility. 1 Mr Hamilton said the Minister seem- I ed to think that the Opposition had C some difficulty over the Bill. There was not the sligiitest difficulty. The Opposition had not the slightest doubt where they stood. There were aspects I of the Bill that had been law for | many years and the Government could I not expect them to vote against aspects I that bad been in the law for years. 1 The Minister could have his Bill. It was bis responsibility and the Government’s', and the Opposition could accept no responsibility. There were J some parts of the Bill that were quite ■ good, extending benefits that bad been I law for years', but the financial re- I sponsibility of the Bill was the Minis- I ter’s own. Mr Nash reiterated that there bacl not yet. been an argument against the actual provisions of the Bill, which J were the best possible to see that those I who were entitled to benefits should C receive them. I The closure was applied to the clause 3 at 5 p.m. A division on the closure | was carried by If! votes to 19 and the j clause passed. I