UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 201, 26 August 1930, Page 3

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY.

SUBSTITUTE POSSIBLE.

PARLIAMENT TO DECIDE.

MR. FORBES' STRAIGHT TALK.

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.^

WELLINGTON", Monday.

The Unemployment Bill is to- be the first measure for consideration by the House of Representatives this week. It was a surprise to most members that the bill came back from the Select Committee with so few alterations, especially as it was evident that Labour favoured many important amendments. A majority of the committee, however, took the line that the problem had been considered in a more leisurely way than was possible for a Parliamentary committee by a representative group of experts, whose recommendations, substantially adopted by the Government, they proceeded to endorse. There have bepn warm discussions of the question in the House, and it is understood that Cabinet has been convinced as a result tbat the proposal for a flat levy of 30/ will work inequitably. Consequently some variation of that proposal has been under consideration by Cabinet. Wage-Stamp Proposal. A proposal from the Treasury was that the levy should be raised by a system of wage stamps, affixed by the employer at the expense of the workers, from whom the necessary deduction, could be made. This would result in a graduated scale, exactly in lice with the wage received. Objections have been made to this scheme from the administrative viewpoint, and it is improbable that this method can be adopted. However, there is a great probability of the 30/ levy being considerably varied when the bill reaches the committee stage in-the House. The Government is asking all parties to co-operate in evolving the best possible working solution of the unemployment problem, an attitude which would permit of important amendments being carried without involving a question of no-confidence. Alliance of Labour Threat. Some significant hints on the subject were dropped by the Prime Minister to a deputation from the Alliance of Labour, to whom he talked bluntly to-day as the result of their critical attitude. One speaker had declared that even if the bill became law they would ask their members not to assist in carrying it out. Mr. Forbes said that when the deputation talked about what it would do if the Unemployment Bill were passed in its present form his answer was that the bill had been put forward and it wa6 for Parliament to decide its final shape. He did not like to hear people say they would not have the bill because it did not suit them. "You will not get a bill if you act like that," he said, "but you will get a fair bill, that Parliament will give you."

Mr. Walsh, president of Seamen's -Union: Is -it fair to tax a man thirty shillings ? The Prime Minister: I cannot dictate to Parliament, Parliament represents the people and has the right to express its opinions and will, and to bring down a measure which it thinks proper to bring down. I want to see an Unemployment Bill, because I believe that despite what you say much good can be done. lam disappointed that after we have striven to put this bill before Parliament and ! asked it to give us the best measure, you should come along and say, "If we cannot get this and that we will not have it." Parliament represents all sections, and is not going to be brow-beaten. Mr. A. Cook, secretary of the New Zealand Workers'-Union: The workers will not be brow-beaten in what they will accept. The Prime Minister: The bill is prejudiced by such an attitude. "Better to Have None." Mr. Cook: Far better to have none than the bill in its present form. The Prime Minister replied that the bill provided that people in work could assist those who were out of work. Mr. Cook: In other, .words, a wagereducing bill. The Prime Minister repeated that it gave an opportunity to those in work to assist men who were not employed. As for the final shape the bill was likely to take, neither he nor any member of the deputation was able to predict, for it was for Parliament to decide, and Parliament would determine whether the levy would be on a flat rate or not. Labour members had stated this point more than anything else. The flat levy was recommended by the commission, which made a thorough investigation of the position, and it was put inti) the bill. The Government was to pay 50 per cent of the expenditure. Mr. Cook: They recommended other sources of revenue.

The Prime Minister: We decided that the Government should pay 50 per cent, because we considered it is the Government's function to levy taxation and not to> earmark any particular taxes that are raised. We considered it better to do that than to allow any outside body to tax the same sources of taxation that the Government has to go to.

He reminded the deputation that the commission which made the recommendation had a representation of 50 per cent of workers, and the Government gave effect to the principal recommendations of its report. If the amendments suggested by the deputation were necessary then the House would support them, and they would go into the bill. He was not able to say whether Parliament would maintain the flat levy.