UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20024, 4 September 1930, Page 19

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

FURTHER CONSIDERATION. WOMEN NOT TO BE INCLUDED. (paeaa association temokam.J WELLINGTON, September 3. In the House of Representatives thi3 evening consideration of the Unemployment Bill was resumed in Committee. Mr W. J. Jordan (Lab., Manukau) moved an amendment to the unemployment levy clause, providing that women should be included in tho scheme. He said statistics showed that sixty per cent, of tho women employed in New Zealand were actually breadwinners. There was a movement on the part of women's organisations throughout the country in favour of including women wage-earners because they experienced the same anxiety concerning the labour market as men did.

Tho Chairman of Committees ruled the amendment out of order because it involved taxation.

Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) then moved an amendment to the effect that women workers should be empowered at their option to register under the same conditions as those applying to male workers. This amendment was ruled out of order on tho samo ground. Mr J. S. Fletcher (Ind., Grey Lynn) moved that the word "malo" should be struck out wherever it appeared in the clause.

Mr Bodkin, in ruling the amendment out of order, pointed out that such a change would immediately involve female workers in the scheme, and would therefore involve taxation. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) urged the Government itself to make provision in the Bill for women workers. Bate of Contributions. Mr W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) moved an amendment providing that the annual rate of contributions should bo on the basis of 25s for all incomes under £3OO, with an additional Is for every £IOO of income over £3OO. For instance, an income between £I9OO and £2OOO would be called on to contribute £8 18s. Mr Bodkin ruled the amendment out of order on tho ground that it involved taxation.

Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central), rising to a point of order, contended that it did not involve extra taxation, but only involved a variation in the method of taxation.

Mr Bodkin pointed out that taxation on one section of the community, for instance, would be increased from 30s to £8 18s.

On the motion of Mr Fraser, the Speaker's ruling was sought, and Mr Bodkin's decision was upheld.

Mr Frascr asked the Minister whether he would provide that women couid be included in the Hcheme by Order-in-Council. Mi" Smith said the Government had given very careful consideration to the proposal to include women in the scheme, but it considered the unemployment problem among male workers was so serious that it was desirable at the present time to concentrate its efforts in that direction. Other aspects could be considered later. The Bill would provide the basis of a scheme, and the experience gained between now and the next sessicm of Parliament would place members in a better position to judge whether women should bo include). The next amendment" to bo ru*d out of order was that of Mr K E. Holland, who moved that the annua] contribution should be one penny in the pound on incomes up to £2OO, the basis of the levy to bo increased by one fourhundredth (l-400th) of a penny for each additional £1 over £2OO. Mr Bodkin pointed out that this also involved taxation. The clause was then passed. Exemptions. The Minister's amendment to the exemption clause providing that any pensioner under the Act of 1926, instead of merely an old age pensioner, should be exempted from contributing was adopted.

The Minister submitted a further amendment to the exemption clause giving Natives the option of deciding whether they should come under the scheme or not.

Mr Fraser said he considered it preferable that those included should be clearjy defined as Natives working as or for Europeans. Mr Barnard suggested that the Minister's amendment would leave it open for wealthy Maoris to contribute nothing. The ' Minister's amendment was adopted.

Mr Jordan moved an amendment extending exemption from contributions to apply to all persons who during the year prior to the due date for payment of the levy had not received any income, wages, or salary. Mr Smith said the Board would be able to deal with such cases.

The amendment was rejected on a division by 41 votes to 31. Progress was reported, and the House rose at 10.30 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.